Over the past week or so, we’ve had more than our normal collection of fundamentalist, anti-gay commenters, who seem to think that they have something to add to the discussion. They quote their same six Bible verses, say the same words every Fundamentalist before them has said, and then, if they choose to stick around and argue, they become chew toys for our normal commenters. I’m fine with all of this. It’s part of having an open commenting system and stating your opinion on the internet. If you hold positions with holes big enough to drive several Mack trucks through, you open yourself up for that.
But I always notice that one of the primary reasons our Fundamentalist visitors become broken records so quickly is that their belief system, i.e., that homosexuality is a sin (in whatever meaningless words they use to say so), is one of the quickest dead-end arguments around, as the commenters revert to the aforementioned clobber passages again and again, while different pro-equality commenters use one of several different strategies to take them to that quick dead-end. Those of us who are believers tend to try to explain that, when you look at said passages from a more educated point of view, taking into context culture, original languages, science and reality, that it’s hard to actually make the case that the Bible condemns loving same-sex relationships. Those of us who are atheists don’t tend to get into all of that, simply leading the commenters quickly to the dead-end of their arguments from authority, saying “prove that the authority in your book exists, and furthermore that your interpretation of that authority exists, and we’ll talk.”
Those who fight against the existence of LGBT people tend to have very little exposure to actual gay people. If they do, it’s often through their church, which might be affiliated with an “ex-gay” business, and as such, their exposure is to people who are broken (not that we all aren’t), and who have been swindled by “ex-gay” leaders into blaming their own poor choices or circumstances on their sexuality, rather than actually taking responsibility for their own lives. Rarely, if ever, do you hear a fundamentalist Christian testifying on gay people as we are. Rarely do you hear them railing against the lesbian couple who lives next door, who has been together for 30 years, or the gay guys down the street, together, for 15 years, raising children, driving Suburbans. These Fundamentalists do not understand or are unwilling to acknowledge that these LGBT people exist, and not only that, but that we’re common.
I understand why it’s important for their handlers (clergy, anti-gay Religious Right leaders, etc.) to shield them from the reality of the fabric of LGBT existence. I often quote the statistic that when someone knows a gay person, they tend to vote 3 to 1 in our favor when the opportunity comes up. If what Religious Right leaders said about gay people held even a shred of truth, you wouldn’t expect this to be the case. One of the favorite clobber passages of Christian Fundamentalists is, of course, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which says:
9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Because these verses are often poorly translated to include the word “homosexual,” our Fundamentalist chew toys feel that this verse is “proof” that gays can change our sexual orientation. (Again: Poor translation. Argument from authority, prove it, prove it, prove it.) What often goes overlooked, though, is that one of the gaping holes in the Fundamentalist argument is contained in this very passage, staring them in the face. Let’s pretend for a second that “homosexual” was a decent translation for the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi. (As with all games of “make-believe,” it’s important that only those with a firm grasp on reality play. Sorry, Fundamentalists.) Remember what I was saying about how knowing a gay person makes a person much more likely to support us? Tell me which other sins in that vice list above work the same way. Do you support thieves more by understanding thieves? Are you more likely to support an alcoholic’s drunkenness by getting to know them better? Do you tend to feel better about extortionists once you bond with the couple down the street that, you know, happens to be a little bit Mafia?
But yet, people tend to like LGBT people a lot more when they know us personally. When the nice couple with three kids, or the couple with no kids but who throw fantastic dinner parties for the neighbors (because come on, some stereotypes are true) moves in, people become more likely to love and support us.
That implies that there is something seriously off with the Fundamentalist interpretation of that passage, now doesn’t it?
No, the reason it’s important for Religious Right leaders and ex-gay entrepreneurs to shield their minions followers from the reality of LGBT people is because to be honest with them, to encourage them to actually know us, brings them into a head-on collision with another passage in their Bible, and it’s a fairly popular, well-known passage. Matthew 7:17-20:
17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
This passage, of course, bears the heavier weight of having been spoken by Jesus, after whom Christianity was named. It’s a very, very simple parable. Good people, good relationships, and good practices bear good fruit. Bad people, bad relationships, and bad practices, bear bad fruit. Indeed, Jesus here is engaging in one of his famous smackdowns of fundamentalist religious leaders, using the concept of the law of nature, that every tree bears fruit of its own kind, to illustrate the idea that religious leaders who leave a wake of pain and misery are, you know, probably not good. The stories and interactions shared by Fundamentalist Christians and ex-gay entrepreneurs, about gay people, tend to follow a similar outline:
1. I hated myself.
2. I “entered the homosexual lifestyle,” and became addicted to drugs/tried to kill myself/acquired HIV, etc.
3. I was rescued from “the homosexual lifestyle” by Jesus.
4. All of this was the fault of “the homosexual lifestyle.” Now if you’ll just sign here, and recruit five more people to be ex-gays, you’re done, and you’ll make residual income on everybody they recruit too!*
Standing as the negation to this narrative are millions of happy, well-adjusted gay people, who make things better for society, many of whom are in beautiful, quite normal marriages, some raising children, etc. They are bearing good fruit, just like good heterosexual relationships bear good fruit. Likewise, there are straight people and relationships which bear extremely bad fruit. Those which are abusive (whether physically or emotionally), those in which the husband treats his wife like property, those which are full of deceit and malice, etc. But we would never think to condemn heterosexuals as a whole for the worst examples of heterosexual relationships, because that would be insane. But yet our Fundamentalist chew toys don’t see the intellectual incoherence of doing that very thing as regards LGBT people.
The simple point is this: If you believe in the Bible, then you have to be willing to embrace the spirit of the text, and the words and stories of Jesus are kind of a trump card. If you analyze them in light of reality, in light of what we understand about people, then you have to deal with Matthew 7 as regards gay people. Because just as in the straight world, the best of gay relationships indeed bear much good fruit, bringing happiness, emotional fulfillment, stable family structures, and community support (and a million other things) to those in the relationships and the people around them.
And bad trees cannot bear good fruit.
Thus concludes your latest installment of “Bible Lessons with an Atheist.”
*Oh, you know one ex-gay business or another will discover network marketing before too long.








It HAS been an interesting week of interaction. Here I am a straight Christian who had more problems with my fellow believers than any other posters. I did not even engage them on the verses, it was all about behavior and grace for me. Some victories, some frustration, lots of angry and pain-filled people on BOTH sides.
And, I got to meet you!
I actually call myself a fundamentalist because I do believe in what Jesus actually said and try to do it. Not all of us are as nasty as the experience you suffered over the last few days.
Nice commentary, and I look forward to reading more new friend. Kathy
I’ve noticed that most literalists ( or,as I call them, “fundamnetalists) I’ve argued do sound like a broken record. It is always the same “talking points” and no matter what counter points you come up with in the way of an argument, it is usually like talking to a brick wall. I think they need to be this way because they are unused to hearing any arguments but those of their co-religionists and on some level do not want to hear other arguments lest they find sense in them and question their own beliefs. There are times that I find engaging them in debate is just one big exercise in futility.
You make an excellent point, Kathy. I think a better term for these folks would be the term a gay-friendly priest friend of mine uses: “literalist”. You can take everything Jesus said seriously and apply it in your own life, but then you have these people who believe every word of the Bible and believe it LITERALLY. So, I think “literalist” is a far more accurate term. I imagine you must find them just as frustrating as I do.
I think that what I find so sad is that they cling to the vengeful God of the Old Testament rather than the merciful teaches of the man they believe to be the Son of God. I have argued about the Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant (there is some thought that the word used to describe his servant–pais (“boy” in Greek)–a very strong indications that they were actually lovers. Did Jesus get all bent out of shape and harsh on them, calling them “sinners” and “abominations”? No, He did NOT. His ONLY comment was to his disciples: “I have never seen such faith, no verily, not even in Israel”. Then he healed the servant. So far as I am aware, He always came down on the side of mercy and kindness. However the literalists like to focus on a verse in Leviticus while ignoring all the other things that are also called “abmonations”. When I point that out, the literalists say that he did away with the Old Law, then point to a couple of verses in the Epistles of Paul. If I were Christian, I would put much more faith in the words and actions of Christ than the words of a man who had serious issues with women and who, IMO, self-hating closet case.
The literalists give me such a headache with their circular arguments and endless repetitions of a few Bible verses. so these days, I engage with them as little as possible.
I think a better term for these folks would be the term a gay-friendly priest friend of mine uses: “literalist”.
Not really. There’s a lot in the Bible they don’t take literally. For example, they don’t take the command Jesus gave the rich man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor literally. (Or at least it doesn’t apply to them.) And my experiences with their positions on U.S. foreign policy suggest to me that they don’t take “blessed are the peacemakers” or “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” literally. And then there’s that pesky “love your enemies.” Of course, they try to wiggle out of that one by coming up with weird definitions of love, but that just trashes any serious claims that they take 1 Corinthians 13 (which clearly and plainly describes exactly what love is supposed to look like) literally.
No, “literalist” is an equally poor description of these people. They’re only “literal” about the parts that allegedly tell them where they can and can’t put their reproductive organs.
The “either – or” argument of “either I have to be an atheist or a fundamentalist” is invalid. Atheism is not ‘the’ choice over our personal freedom to worship a Creator. There are two million liberal Christians in these United States who have not abandoned a loving God just because the mainstream group of zealot freaks says we must. I personally admire those who hang on to their faith in the face of the vast majority. That’s strength! That takes balls and baby, I’m a low-hanger! Nueces de fierro! I knew in my heart all my life that Jesus is real and that he loves me, and raised in the Southern Baptist South I was told I had NO RIGHT to believe it. Well, Tah Dah… here I am today, a Gay Christian. THAT’S what overcoming means. This is The Stand, not giving away our freedom by becoming atheist. Atheist? By all means–knock yourself out. Go for it. For the rest of us, I’m here to declare my faith STANDS no matter WHAT they say. They can’t cherry pick two sentences while ignoring a thousand and convince me I’m wrong.
Very well said Merrell.
At Truth Wins Out, our goal is to create a society where people can be true to themselves and have freedom of speech, religion and conscience. Meanwhile, our opponents want to create an intolerant, “my way or the highway” approach to life.
When people respect each other’s rights, they can hold a variety of spiritual beliefs – or none at all. While I am not religious, some of the most dedicated people I have worked with on securing LGBT equality have been people of faith.
Thank for your comment.
It’s interesting from across the Atlantic to see how concepts of righteousness in the USA are tied in with respectable suburban values. Seems like even the atheists are into it.
It’s kind of refreshing that JC, if he existed, preferred to hang around with the social no-hopers.
btw, right-wing Christians, the only comments JC made about the family were anti.
Merrell said “This is The Stand, not giving away our freedom by becoming atheist.”.
That’s nonsense. If anything atheists are freer than theists because we’re not beholden to the bronze age bigotries laid out in the bible.