Faas' column brave, reflects values of Christian society

I still fail to see how anything of this — as “loving” as it is — has anything to do with making something legal or illegal.

Thanks Ryan! I really needed a good laugh you wonderfully talented, moronic, shortsighted wordsmith. Now quit trying to dictate policy and get back to doing whatever you English majors do.

Religion is a disorder, a disease of the mind. The world would be a better place if all the religious nuts — christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, all of them — just went away. But alas, the world is too fascinated with celebrities, gossip, and war to give a moment of rational analysis of archaic beliefs like detesting homosexuality or carrying out jihad.

If you believe in an invisible man that has strict moral laws for a blob of carbon by-product on a speck of metals floating around a boring star in an average galaxy in an average galaxy group at the outer edge of faint strand in the endless cosmic web, well, you’ve been duped by people that want power. Now go to church, and pretend your prayers will bring an end to the “disorder” of homosexuality.

wow. this is hilarious.

I fail to follow Ryan’s logic. Who made YOU, or any of us for that matter, the final judge of other people? If you are such a devout believer, you should be able to realize that GOD judges our actions in the end, not our “holier” neighbor. You should use that judgmental energy to LOVE others instead of condemning them.

In response to the last comment:

I believe that the usual “Christian” logic is to assert that the Bible — and they never stop to question the people who chose what got included in the bible 1700 years ago — is the ultimate truth, the final word from above. When asked why the Bible, and not the Koran, Torah, or any other “holy” book should be trusted more than human reason^1, they will go on about how their god is the “best” god because he’s the only one who displayed that particular love for humanity that let got himself crucified (interesting how they fall to arguing for an end) and will occasionally point to the fact that events predicted in the early parts of the Bible are fulfilled in the later parts. I call that plot continuity, but what do I know?

1. Not that human reason is particularly good, but it’s the best we’ve got. Reason brought us civil rights and modern medicine. Religion brought us crusades, inquisitions, sex cutting (“circumcision”), George W. Bush, and suicide bombers. Pick your poison.

Whether or not gay people should live chaste, they need to be accepted as they are, as people who are romantically and sexually attracted to members of the same sex and who sometimes defy gender norms.

I do not read this in either Faas’s article, or this one. In fact, Faas states that gay people don’t see the glory in heterosexual sex, as if they can be made to see it.

Apparently the only thing you anti-gay evangelicals are actually united on is that they want to be able to stamp gay people out of existence.

And for the record, no I do not think gay people should live chaste. Furthermore, no one can. Furthermore, encouraging anyone to means they will begin to hide their sexual activity and engage in high-risk anonymous sex, which is unhealthy. That is one reason why it is so important for LGBT people to be able to be open about their sex lives.

‘In a society that is increasingly tolerant of every idea and behavior except that which is explicitly Christian’

Its letters like this and people like you who make me reject Christianity. Don’t blame society, blame your false sense of superiority.

As a Christian myself, I constantly get fed up with the current mainstream Christianity. People display nothing but hypocrisy, judgment, and speak above others in a sense of Superiority. On that note, I am sorry you feel the way you do I can’t come up with a snarky name… and nor do I blame you. Jesus was in the world but not of the world. Grace is not being displayed by Ryan, but instead he is only pushing people further away from the Truth. He should instead befriend a person of another sexuality and learn to appreciate their differences and talk about it.

Blah and Ken. question for you both (which does not pertain to the subject). Why should there be any moral law if no faith/religion exists?

Onlooker, your question to “Blah” and “Ken” smacks of the sense of superiority you speak against. It implies that morality can only be derived by religion. I would suspect most nonreligious people would still agree it is immoral to kill or steal. This judgement can be reached without having it handed down by “God.”

Joe. I Completely agree that there can still be a Universal Law of Morals. More in a sense of humanity. A non-religious person lacks obligation to any morality system (Not saying that in a negative manner)… So my apologies there. For me personally, I see it a bit differently.

Blah and Ken- to ignore all of the beautiful results of the existence of religion, for people who believe in it and those who do not alike, is to claim absolute ignorance of the history of the earth. Also, to claim that religion exists without a substantial amount of reason is absurd. We do not operate out of fear, or exist out of blind faith. We instead revere God so much that we heed his commandment to love others the way that we love ourselves. We hold ourselves to the highest standard that there is: God’s law. Out of love and compassion we hold others to this standar as well. We believe what is true for us is true for all so that they may, too, expereince the fullness of Christ’s love. We challenge ourselves, we challenge others, and we expect to be challenged in return.

In response to Justin, living a chaste life is very possible and although it is not expected of all people, it is a beautiful and bold sacrifice that enriches the lives of those who choose to take it upon themselves.

To reflect the image of Christ, we, ultimately, must allow people to choose, with their own free will, to live the life that we ALL are called to live, whether you believe it or not. However,to make a choice you must be presented with all of the facts and most importantly you must be presented with the truth.

To ask Dan Faas and Ryan Delaney to withold what they believe as truth is asking them to disobey what Christ has commissioned us all to do: preach the gospel so that all may know the Lord. Love is hard and it’s a challenge for everyone. Pleae don’t dismiss the sincere love of these two men as anything less than what it is: true.

Morality is merely the set of principles on which we (attempt to) agree.

Morality is merely the set of principles on which we (attempt to) agree.

Onlooker. I fail to see how a religious person is more bound to their moral code than a nonreligious person. Please explain.

‘to ignore all of the beautiful results of the existence of religion, for people who believe in it and those who do not alike, is to claim absolute ignorance of the history of the earth’

The Crusades, the Holocaust, The Israel-Palestine conflict, September 11th: All religiously motivated…where’s the beauty?

Joe maybe Onlooker believes that morals are exclusive to religion perhaps? It is an extremely asinine idea but no one ever said religion and logic go hand in hand.

Holocaust – how about too many jewish people were moving(ed) into an already depressed Germany taking precious supplies (i.e., land, jobs)

Israel-Palestine – One country lost land to another country. Or taken or handed. Either way, eliminate Israel and the problems go away. Either way if they don’t piss off Hitler, we don’t have this problem.

9/11 – A bunch of people don’t like they way we live, the way we bomb thier countries or put people into power in thier countries and have to come back 20 years later and take them out. Or how about supporting a country from Russian invasion, then as soon as the conflict was over, turning your back on them when they need you the most.

Wow… and Joe, I did not want to present the idea that morals are exclusive to religion. The question I threw out there was how the idea of Moral Law had stemmed. My conclusion, based on religious doctrine, is all long-standing religious systems set up a similar moral code (ie: Don’t kill, steal).. In reality, Moral’s are utilitarian, really. Basic socialization requires rules. You know what, let me go back on my first comment and say that my logic was off center.

If Mother Theresa and Stalin end up in the same place after they’re six feet under, who was the idiot?

Personally I’d rather be the hedonist with the nearly justified Jehovah complex and people marching in front of giant portraits of me, but that’s just me…

To “I have a snarky name,” I don’t even know quite where to begin with how flawed this post is. First of all, none of the aspects of these tragedies which you point out are at all beautiful which was the claim made in an earlier post. At the very least they are justifications people have made to commit atrocities towards others. Beauty emerges in situations where communities come together to benefit all, not in an effort to defeat others. Beauty is found in recognizing that to truly prosper as a society we must notice our similarities instead of persecuting others for being different or “taking supplies” and “pissing off Hitler”. Your perspective is tragically disappointing. You have no concept of beauty or the benefits that religion can offer. Ultimately, it is ignorant to argue that the above tragedies are anything but examples of a select few who have perverted the true intentions of their faith.

… And the true intention of the Christian is the subjugation of homosexuals? Why don’t you religious types spend more time creating this wonderful religious beauty of which you speak and less time pushing your “truth” on others?

I’m so tired of this half of Christianity wasting our precious publicity taking up what is such a small issue (from a Biblical standpoint) — if it’s one at all, and I think that it’s not, but that’s not my point — when we should be talking about much more important things. Do you know how many people you drive away from the church, from the Bible, because of this? Do you know how many won’t even give God the time of day because they’re so tired of seeing gays repressed and the church do nothing?

Sure, yes, there are a few verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. But there are plenty of other things that are condemned by the Bible that you’d hardly bat an eye at.

The entire sermon on the mount (Matthew ch. 5-7) — the first recorded words of our lord and saviour — is widely ignored by Christians. Humour me, please.

Jesus said that anyone who so much as called another a fool would be in danger of “hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). I know I fall way short on this one, although I’ve gotten better.

Jesus said that any that divorce for any reason except for fornication is guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:31). If we follow even just the spirit of Jesus’ teaching, we must speak out against all of the women’s rights activists who tell women to leave their husbands when they beat them. We should be calling our legislatures to ask for a repeal of domestic violence legislation. But we’re not.

Jesus commanded his followers not to swear oaths (Matthew 5:34), yet many people regularly swear oaths before our courts. Did you criticise the last president when he swore his oath of office on the Bible which clearly forbade it?

Jesus commanded his followers to “resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39), yet if you were attacked, would you let yourself be beat, robbed, raped, or killed? (Jesus, of course, showed with his death how serious this commandment is to us.) Do you think Jesus, the person who told us to turn the other cheek, to “give our coats also” to those who would rob us, would want us to support a government that not only guards and defends its territory fiercely (the US is, after all, the only state on Earth ever to use nuclear weapons on another), but is proactive in attacking others before they even have a chance? I think not! Yet you dare trifle and whine about how Jesus wants homosexuals to repent?

Many Christians like to pray openly or in public — some would even like to have organised prayers in our schools. Yet Jesus commanded his followers to pray quietly (Matthew 6:6-7). Why not editoralise against them?

Jesus commanded his followers to spend no time worrying about their food, clothing, and shelter, yet many Christians not only spend exorbient amounts of money on clothing, but discard it when it hasn’t even worn out yet in the name of “fashion”! I call that a crime against nature, yet how many groups are dedicated to reforming consumers? How many of you will preach against such evils?

I could go on and on — the sermon on the mount is a wellspring of Jesus’ instruction — but I think that I’ve made my point: Christians choose to pick on such a small issue (homosexuality) while ignoring many other important (and overlooked) commandments because of their self-righteous determinism.

Wow… and Joe, I did not want to present the idea that morals are exclusive to religion. You know what, let me go back on my first comment and say that my logic was off center.

Okay, I’ll play along. Let’s look at your first post. You said and I quote “…question for you both (which does not pertain to the subject). Why should there be any moral law if no faith/religion exists?” This question does seem to imply that morality is exclusive to religion. Still, perhaps it was just poorly worded. So let’s move on to your next post:“I Completely agree that there can still be a Universal Law of Morals. More in a sense of humanity.” So we can have morals without religion. Great! End of discussion!

Oh but wait, you really put your foot in your mouth after that didn’t you? “A non-religious person lacks obligation to any morality system (Not saying that in a negative manner)… So my apologies there. For me personally, I see it a bit differently.” So morals don’t matter unless you have religion? Well that is a bit contradictory isn’t it? I mean if you don’t have religion it must be okay to steal, cheat and murder. There is no obligation after all. Or is there? Fact is morality always has a place in society regardless of religion. Without it societies tend to break down resulting in general chaos. Yeah, no obligation indeed.

Wow…Well spoken.

Specifically in most Religion’s, you can get rewarded in the afterlife for presenting a life of high morality. Giving reason for doing humanitarian deeds and/or doing the work of whoever you praise. That’s where I referred to the idea of lacking an obligation to a morality system (religious morality system). Regardless, morality has always had its place in society… I agree with you.