Aspies For Freedom

We don't seem to have a proper thread for this and I'd hate to put further posts where people who aren't looking will be forced to see them.  The closest thread is Gay and Aspie, but even there a theological discussion is inappropriate.

My position is that
1.  The Bible, Old and New Testament, does criticize any sexual activity outside of a marriage

however

2.  God wrote the Bible

3.  God gets to punish, we do not

4.  The Bible also warns that hating your brother is a way to forfeit eternal life.  As my younger brother as unsaved it seems perfectly natural that brother can refer to any unsaved person as well

5.  Another verse condemns turning your back on your minor children, even homosexual kids, i.e., kicking them out

6.  We Christians who have experienced sexual misconduct seem to be the first in line to defend anybody's human rights unconditionally.

Number one nonwithstanding, I think it would be a mistake to equate acknowledging the presumed opinion of God with hatred of homosexuals.

I grew up with Pakistanis.  I know many Americans seem to equate Islam with the hating of Americans, but a sweeping generalization is imappropriate there, too.  The worst I can say about the boys I knew, they and my brother ganged up on me.

What exactly is the problem?  That a book we presume to have been written millennia ago on behalf of God has language that is critical of sexual behavior of a persecuted population.  

It is not something Christians born in the twentieth century were responsible for.  Granted, most haven't figured out that vengenance belongs to God.

I don't probably understand God's rationale for His position.  I am not in full agreement but I do not have to be.  My obligations are to report Christianity accurately and live the best life I can.

I sincerely hope that I do not cause any suffering caused by the beam in the eye.
Although I am required to state my religion honestly, it does not require much of me against adult consensual relationships, merely to say what the Christian God does not like.

I wish people would save sex for lifetime relationships, but I honestly don't think it evil if two people have sex for lust only.  I do however think it is dishonorable and inhuman.

If Christianity was "my idea", I wouldn't care if two of the same gender got married.  We know that isn't true because there is an overpopulation problem and a war problem.  If I was God we wouldn't have a population problem: the trouble makers would be dead, including a good many troublemakers in the USA, as I suspect many of our leaders "cause trouble" in other places.

But any religion is about surrender, Christianity too.  It is not like domination like it is in politics.  You acknowledge you are practically nothing when compared to God.  Which makes the fact that the Son should save you amazing.  I wish the Repubies figured that one out.

Yes, Max, it turns my stomach thinking of the blatant money trail from the White House to God's house.  I work on the following Web site to register for Faith Based and Community Initiatives conferences: http://www.dtiassociates.com/fbci/.  When Bushie says God told him to invade Iraq, I think, oh rats, the Ayatollah is back, and he's a Republican.

If I vote in the Republican primary in 2008 it is to make sure Cheney does not get on the ticket in November.  

So I am fairly confident that I am not one the men I hated once, the Christian persecuters/haters, think RUSH Witch Hunt

"They say there are those who threaten us, our immigrants and infidels, they say there is strangeness is dangerous, in our theaters and bookstore shelves, those who know what's best for us, must rise and save us from ourselves, quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand, ignorance and prejudice, and they walk hand in hand"

RUSH, Witch Hunt, Moving Pictures

"You know the man you hate, you look more like him every day....."
Jane's Addiction, Idiots Rule, Nothing's Shocking

I do not wish to create a hateful God, nor do I believe that after Jesus saves, God has nothing to be angry at.  Does anybody want to believe in a hateful Christian God?  The so-called Christians?  You?

Yes, when you accept a religion, you go as far as you are required to, like a dish of ice cream, but you don't add hate on top of it like a syrup.

Where I work, feelings never matter.  When I worked in Census in 1998 I had a branch manager with hurt feelings (I was confused over being offered a grade 7 position requiring an undergraduate degree versus the grade 9 level commensurate with my Master's, she's black, working on her Master's, I'm white).  I was happy when six months passed, so was she.

Never mind that GS-13s make a lot of money.  As a professed Christian she might have remembered to be thankful to God for what she was given.

Do you trust that I, at least, am trying to do everything in my power to do Christianity right?

In 1990, after the love bombing thing, it hit me at work (telemarketing), it really ain't fair to ask a non-heterosexual to live life celibate if you're eager to relate to the alternate gender.

I must very strongly caution you Max, I know Mrs. Y. very well, she was not recruiting for the Christian army.  Suffice it to say when Mrs. Y. condemns all hatred, even in Jesus' name, believe it, Max.  We Christians having experienced some of the worst things will defend and protect other people, non-heteros included, and we won't ask any questions.

Even if she can be guilty of using an unfair advantage to recruit, she is not hostile whatsoever, and although some faux Christians may love bomb to hate bomb, she is not one of them.

Now, upon some reflection, the bumper sticker means you may take it or leave it.  It implies if one accepts it, that matter is closed in his or her mind.  

Granted, it also includes they take a harsh stand on certain sexual behavior.  

Max, in practice, a good many of the lot of Christians make the mistake of hating somebody for doing something, or even, feeling something.  Bad call to hate a person.  Jesus came to save people, not hate them.  So many people haters running around giving people lovers a bad name.

If someone feels something but doesn't do it, I think that's a good thing, I mean, even if I could have sex (in my case, a woman) but did not, and did not listen to feelings.

The less mature variety of Christians cause quite a few problems.  It takes a certain maturity to love and defend other people without conditions.

The less mature Christians would also think that even one episode damns you.  It does not.  It is what you feel about it and how you relate to Jesus about it.  

It is important to report a religion accurately.  And yes, I realize there is the
1. business as usual, way it usually works way Christianity works
2. the way Jesus wants Christianity to work
3. and there is a disconnect going on here

Hyke, I think when you read about rape you're citing the Old Testament.  We don't live in the Old Testament any more.  

I think the criminals on the cross next to Jesus made the point clear: break the civil law at your own peril.  Later on the apostle Paul said that even the cruelest of the Caesars (Nero, Caligua) had the mission to punish violations of civil law.

Old Testament was another time and place when one country on earth was run as a theocracy.  The New Testament applies to the lives of individual Christians in secular, civil society.

And to anticipate your problems with the New Testament, the idea is every Christian should be a slave in Christ for everyone.  A lot of chauvanists forget that they need to be humble slaves too, just like the white Southerners of long ago forgot the same thing.

Try reading between the lines, Hyke, on the women in church issue.  A long time ago, it made waves for a woman to talk in church.  Now it makes waves if she is silent.

Paul's point is not to make waves that get in the way of saving souls.  If that means skip the Pound of Beef on a Bun around a vegetarian Christian, then do it, even if you sacrifice a little, cuz you love the other Christian.

You might want to revisit the attitude that sex is only for procreation.  Times have changed.  In fact, a good many of us Protestants are of the opinion, at a wedding, yes, by all means, you two go, and do what ever.

I respect everyone's opinion, Hyke, but whose opinion prevails?  Not mortal humans' opinions, presuming the existence of a Prime Mover, First Cause, a god, or God.  

I also hasten to add that if ever meet a bunch of religious people who force you to challenge what you ever thought of "those people" or "the god they follow", it is not some fantasy they dream up on the weekends.

Nobody is without issue with God.  I think so, anyway.  Why would anyone dream up a God like that?  

God tends to let us question what might be going on in His head.

Case in point, I've asked every question about why so many of us can't get attention from you-know-whom.  Mr. Cab Driver from Lenny Kravitz or Which Way to America by Living Colour comes to mind.  

Today's musing: in the Old Testament it was written that women who never had kids would be blessed during a time of widespread famine, pestilence, war, or all of the above because they had nothing to lose.

Paul used a similar argument to encourage Christians to be single: the Romans are coming to take us away, a ha, a ha, can't mourn over what you never had.

If we're this close to the end times, I could imagine we who had nothing to lose all along being the only ones left functional after some disaster of Biblical (especially Revelations) proportions (Mt. Everest sized meteors hitting the Earth, tsunamis oversloshing the ocean basins).

Just a rant.  Web design does let me think and feel.

And don't anyone say h.o.m.o. again, please, it is an ugly word.

be proper and professional and respectful.  Say homosexual until someone like Max can suggest a more favorable term (I mean, there was a long euphemistic list for African Americans, is it African American or people of color now?  It was black lower case once, Black upper case once, and I'm glad they got rid of Colored.)

That H word is pejorative (used as insult, kind of like virgin when thrown at Aspergians).   I heard a Sunday school teacher say it when I was in grad school.  I am not sure what I said and I hope I said something.  Definitely the way he said it was malicious if nothing else.

Oh well, welcome to Huntington West Virginia.

Max, it is a hateful word.  I heard it.  At least when used by a Sunday school teacher.  I do find it offensive if I don't know it is used with respect.

If I seemed harsh I apologize.  But I think it is a hateful word and should not be used.

Max can you suggest a better word?

Yes, Hyke, I do apologize, for thinking your word usage was malicious. I didn't know the word homo had any neutral use in any language on earth.  What is your first language?

Is simply using gay or gays an acceptable term, Max?

1.  Perception linking gays with AIDS and vice versia.  In the USA, early on, many victims were gay. There were also Haitians, hemophiliacs (before blood was screened for HIV), and intravenous drug users (shared needles).  However that is no longer the case.  Non-Caucasian ethnic groups are getting it harder now, especially women and children.  

2.  The Religious Right never much liked gays anyway.  I count myself out.  They hate too much.

I'm glad God changed His mind in the NT.  I am a Gentile.  If I was living over there in 1,000 BCE, I'd be annihilated (the rare Gentile like Rahab did surrender and be spared, and become the ancestor of King David)

Actually living in the far north in Europe the Gentiles would have had little to fear.

But I am glad God decided to open up the rescue plan to the whole world.  He certainly didn't need to try not to kill innocent people in the war with Satan.  We can imagine a war fought without regard to innocent life.  Kind of like the Nazis except they didn't care who they killed.  

At least God has a way out in mind, some people don't like it but others think it is an attempt at rescue.