Weekly Column
In August, fundamentalist preacher Dr. Michael Brown organized a regimen of red shirted Bible-thumpers to infiltrate Charlotte’s gay pride event. Hundreds of zealots confronted and harassed festival attendees with their arrogant slogan “God Has A Better Way.”
The hatred and religious bigotry was appalling, but not surprising. What truly bothers me, however, was the lack of mainstream Christians standing up and speaking out against such fanatical behavior. Virtually every time I write about the Religious Right I’m reminded by the faithful that “not all Christians are like that.”
Of course, this is true and some of the most dedicated activists I have worked with are people of faith. Last week, in fact, I teamed up with Resurrection Metropolitan Community Church to host a week of educational seminars designed to counter an “ex-gay” conference in Houston.
Still, the number of mainstream Christians fighting the hate campaigns of the Religious Right is disappointing. With thousands of churches, millions of members and a vested interest in fighting back against religious extremism, they have consistently underachieved and failed to reach their potential.
What would it look like if mainstream churches fought back against the Religious Right?
Picture two hundred of Dr. Brown’s “Red Shirts” smugly descending on innocent families at Charlotte Pride. Out of nowhere, five hundred mainstream, mostly heterosexual Christians appear and surround the theocratic thugs with blue shirts that read: God’s Better Way – Love & Acceptance.”
These despicable bullies would likely have no idea how to react in such a situation where Christians were calling them “unchristian.” Instead of the expected rush of self-righteous glory, I could see these folks slinking off, dazed and ashamed.
Of course, this is just a pipe dream. I’ve organized or attended dozens of protests over the past decade. Time and again, I’m disillusioned by the lack of support from liberal and mainstream Christian organizations. It seems they are either afraid to offend their most conservative members or they are mired in passivity that allows extremists to define their faith.
This lack of coherent opposition has led to a dire situation where Religious Right backed presidential candidates are vying to eliminate or reduce social safety nets, persecute immigrants, undermine working people, shred the middle class, turn the poor into destitute beggars, and roll back minority rights.
This reluctance to stand up and speak out has created a hazardous vacuum where only the shrill and unreasonable voices of fundamentalism are heard. Instead of the dialogue that many progressives of faith claim to desire, this perceived weakness creates a lopsided right wing monologue, which is having a deleterious effect on our nation and the world.
It is time to stand up, speak out, and give voice to our values. If not now, when? Are we going to wait until it is too late and we have lost our country?
Here are four recent examples of the Religious Right flexing its political muscle:
** Texas Gov. Rick Perry held a stadium prayer rally in Houston that preceded his announcing his candidacy for President of the United States. The event was hosted by the American Family Association, a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate group. Included among the speakers were many radical clerics from the theocratic New Apostolic Reformation. Also known as the Seven Mountains Movement, this group of extremists wants to turn America into a fundamentalist Christian nation. Their aim is to take over the following seven spheres of society that they refer to as mountains: Religion, Media, Government, Family, Education, Business, Arts & Entertainment.
** The American Family Association is organizing Pastor Policy briefings in presidential battlegrounds. In these events, candidates prostrate themselves at the feet of conservative pastors in Iowa and elsewhere, pledging to enact their agenda if elected.
** Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed is making a comeback with a new organization he founded, the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “Our goal is to build a file of 29 million conservative voters,” Reed told the New York Times. “We’ll e-mail them, we’ll call them, we’ll knock on their doors and, if necessary, we’ll drive them to the polls.”
** Extreme right wing organizations have been recruiting candidates in the GOP primaries to sign pledges that lock them into inflexible positions, even at the expense of the nation.
It is critical that people realize that these zealots have a radically different vision of this country than most Americans. If their power keeps increasing, they will be able to drastically reshape this country. There would be a tremendous loss of freedom, liberty and justice, while bigotry, intolerance and religious conformity would become the law of the land.
If the Religious Right can organize and mobilize to stand up for its beliefs in such a robust manner, why can’t the Religious Left? We desperately need to answer this question before Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin defile America – and permanently define Christianity.










Hey, Wayne… I agree with your point that we need greater numbers of mainstream Christians to counteract the religious right.
However, your article failed to mention that there was one very outspoken mainstream Christian, Kathy Baldock, who stood up to Michael Brown in Charlotte. She has several reports here:
http://tinyurl.com/3ef7mff
http://tinyurl.com/3ulqsrc
http://tinyurl.com/3lprkbg
Your point still stands, in that there should be an army of Kathys out there, but given your focus on Charlotte in the beginning of the article, it’s unfair to exclude her, since she’s the model of what you’d want to see out there.
Definitely great that Kathy Baldock has spoken out, but moderate Christians need to speak out as well. If Dominionists ever take control in this country, the will come after the moderates since moderates aren’t the Dominionists’ kind of Christian.
Sorry. Meant to say, “they will come for the moderates…”
Getting anyone like main st Ctians to care about other people’s causes enough to take action is a hard press. A formidable start in the politico front would be to appeal to Lady Gaga to mobilize/electrify the liberal youth vote. 2012 certainly will b a make or break year.
Christopher:
Kathy Baldock did a wonderful job. We need to clone her and get 100,000 more mainstream Christians to challenge the primitive ideas of monsters like Michael Brown.
To quote Michael Brown directly (on last Wens. show on ‘Line of Fire’) we are ‘evil’, ‘darkness’, & ‘of Satan’s Kingdom’. He continually says that he ‘loves’ gays but only if we somehow become ‘un-gay’. Which is kinda like saying you’d love xtians if only they’d become non-xtians. Ridiculous. He also maintains that he did not harass anyone at Charlotte Pride, that it was the independent street preachers who did the shouting and ‘repent or burn’ slogans. He doesn’t seem to realize that just by being there he was harassing the crowds. He calls his hate ‘love’.
“To quote Michael Brown directly (on last Wens. show on ‘Line of Fire’) we are ‘evil’, ‘darkness’, & ‘of Satan’s Kingdom’. He continually says that he ‘loves’ gays but only if we somehow become ‘un-gay’.”
This is further evidence that the late Laurence Peter was correct when he observed: “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.”
Satanists, or somebody, should probably stand up and insist on repeating the no establishment of religion clause of the Constitution until all of those Jesus freaks get it through their blessed skulls.
Dr. Michael Brown clearly demonstrates Christian Reconstructionist tendencies, which he denies. I heard him lead people in a prayer to be willing to die to stop gay rights after a passionate sermon calling for spiritual warfare against gays and lesbians. He called people to actualize spiritual warfare through politics, protests and even inferred violence might be justified. This occurred at the 2008 Exodus Conference at Concordia University in Irvine, California. Interestingly, Exodus International pulled the closing segments of his sermon off the CDs for his presentation a few days later, but I have a copy of the original CD that I passed on to Exgay Watch. He is a dangerous man.
I completely agree, Wayne. Those of us who are Christian or Catholic need to speak out against the voices of bigotry in our community. To not speak out gives people the unintended message that we agree with this when we don’t. The only way to fight this hatred is for those who believe to speak out forcefully against it.
Tell me where to get the blue T shirt and where to go if I can get there I’ll go u r sooo right
This is the equivalent of what I like to call the “Christian Taliban.” We only see and hear extreme Islamists who do not represent the majority and as a result their extreme positions are now taken as centrist. The same is beginning to become true for Christians. Only the loudest and extreme are out there, so their views are becoming understood as the majority viewpoint. Only one way to counter it …
Could there possibly be a silver lining here? As it is, the right wing fanatics are the predominant face of Christianity in America. For people who are somewhat agnostic, irreligious, and/or searching, could this help to turn them off to Christianity altogether? In my view, that would seem to be a more desirable outcome than becoming a moderate Christian.
While I think that disgust with the behavior of believers is the wrong reason to conclude that gods do not exist, I think it can motivate people to take a much closer look at religion. That’s really what drove me to take the final step from agnostic to confirmed atheist.
The good news is that the percentage of non-believers continues to climb in the US.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111885128
I agree with you completely. I know it takes courage for some of these people to be vocal about their support but they need to do it. Of course, I know there are people who post on this site who don’t think Christian liberals and moderates have any responsibility to be vocal in their support of our rights.
The problem, as I see it, is not simply that Christianity in its extreme form is anti-gay. It is that Christianity, in all but its more liberal forms, is anti-anything-non-(insert-local-brand)-Christian. If they aren’t condemning one for being gay, then they are condemning one for not subscribing to whatever their version of “truth” is. Ultimately, IMHO, it is that missionary thread that runs through the majority of US sects (except, again, for the most liberal denominations) that renders Christians too judgmental to be reliable allies.
[...] Mainstream Christians Stand Up to the Religious Right. Read more [...]
Hi Wayne – Thanks for your prophetic words. We at Believe Out Loud are working to make them a reality.
We mainstream Christians are here and we are growing a movement that is working to do exactly what you suggest…Believe Out Loud (www.BelieveOutLoud.com) was explicitly formed to be an inclusive Christian voice to counter the religious right. We are an active partnership between LGBT advocacy groups of all the largest mainline denominations. In fact, just last week we released a joint press release decrying the proposed anti-LGBT NC constitutional amendment (http://www.intersectionsinternational.org/files/pressreleases/Press_Release_091611_-_NC_Amendment.pdf). We have more than 23,500 followers on Facebook and grow by approximately 1,700 people a week.
We anticipate many battles in the coming election season and are working to ensure that an inclusive Christian voice is on the frontlines.
Many thanks for your work on this issue.
I was there and yes–I STOOD and some of it was in the way Brown saw and will NEVER forget. I stood as a barrier to the street preachers. My one stance was VERY powerful and YES, I am hoping to inspire others to follow.
I have recently made a strategic and defined shift in my writing to TARGET the middle and challenge them to do exactly this. But, in a language and with Jesus modeling that they understand. This recent post is taking me a long time because it is such an intentional shift. This is the direction I plan to take for the next year—talking and inspiring the middle to not be passive and silent. It is the Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals etc that I am going to talk to.
So I am in the mix–I am no one wonderful, but I do know, that it can take one person of passion to help make a movement.
I am after “me” often years ago in a “can we just talk about this” stance that invites without shaming.
Kathy, Brown has said that he & his group merely handed out bottles of water and that gays sought out him & his group to discuss their ‘struggles’ etc etc. and that the lone street preachers were the only ones with the ‘Repent or Burn’ message. Hmm, sounds pretty self-serving to me. What is the truth of the matter?
Shouldn’t the homosexual community stand up to Dan Savage for his bullying/defamation/libel?
When have those things allegedly happened, Nate?
Or are you being butthurt about Rick Santorum?
Natwe– shouldn’t the Christian community stand up to the homobigots for their bullying/defamation/libel of gay people?
Nate when someone attacks me first my responding in kind isn’t bullying, its self defense.
Dan Savage has offered to take that one site down if Santorum would recant but he has refused to own up to his hatred and fear.
Nate shows the usual reaction of bullies when someone fights back “they’re picking on me”.
Yeah, Santorum was just an innocent choirboy who never said nothin’ about nobody.
Pathetic Nate.
[...] week’s column, “Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right,” caused quite a stir. E-mail [...]
[...] I am only one of Wayne’s targets. In his most recent attack, “Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right” (September 19, 2011), he reviles the hundreds of Christians with whom I attended the recent gay [...]
Was my comment removed? Why? Isn’t that wrong? Shouldn’t all people get to speak their mind here; why is there secrecy upon secrecy?
Why do you have to “black out” the voices of those who disagree with you? What are you trying to hide? Why not surrender to the Truth, rather than try to distort it (like you did in your article) or scrub it away (like you did with my post)?
It went something like this:
If the Truth is True, why do you contort it? Dr. Brown was obviously speaking of sacrificing *their own lives* (if necessary) for the cause of righteousness (not bringing death to anyone).
Don’t you see what you’re doing? You’re hurting your own SELF when you ‘suppress the Truth in’ your ‘unrighteousness’ (Romans 1:18), like this!
Why not just submit to the Truth, instead? To live in the Truth and know God is much better than living the lie — that is the only reason we are wanting to tell you the Truth!!! Because we love you — and many of us have been there, in your shoes!
Give your lives to Truth; not lies, and live in the Light with God — nothing compares to the “fulness of joy” in His Presence: another motivation ought to be that wrath comes on whoever does “not know Him” (2 Th 1:8), because of constantly following their self-serving desires that “lead them” constantly “away” (James 1:13) [from God] (so that it makes it impossible for them to know God, since they are always AWAY from God).
We are not to live “for ourselves (our desires) any longer, but for Him Who died for us” & “as unto Christ”: IF WE DO NOT,
sorry for the typo
We are not to live “for ourselves (our desires) any longer, but for Him Who died for us” & “as unto Christ”: if we do not, we will not know Him and will be subject to the wrath of God (2 Th 1:8).
Dan1el- You need a new foil hat.
Daniel…who are YOU to say if I know god or not? Do you knowme? Did God himself tell you whether I know him or not? If not, who DID tell you? And if no one told you, then are you not telling us…
Well I cant even say, but it sounds like blasphemy, at the least. And an awful lot like what this Jesus you claim to love so much speficalky told you you must NOT do.
Ben,
In all seriousness, do you believe the Word of God?Do you live by it? That is the first question I would ask.
Ben,
The Word of God — yes, even the New Testament — is clear:
1 John 2:15, 16
“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”
“For all that is in the world — the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life — is not from the Father; but is from the world.”
Whoever practices any of those things…
a) lust of the flesh
b) lust of the eyes, and
c) pride of life
…is disqualified from having the Love of the Father in them — because those things are NOT from the Father.
Romans 1:27 clearly defines homosexuality as a “lust of the flesh”; 1 Tim 1:10 says that it is “contrary to sound doctrine” (“homosexuality”, meaning: as defined by the Law — since, in context, 1 Tim 1:10 is specifically talking about the sins of the people of Israel, against which the Law of Moses spoke).
Obviously, then, since homosexuality is a] not of God b] a lust of the flesh, therefore, it is c] the love of the world; which means d] whoever practices homosexuality loves the world, and does not have the love of the Father in themselves.
The problem comes when John 14:21 says that only those who obey the Word have the love of the Father, and only those who have the Love of the Father will know Jesus — because Jesus doesn’t reveal Himself to anyone else!
Therefore, whoever practices the lusts of the flesh (homosexuality), loves the world, and doesn’t have the Love of the Father — and whoever doesn’t have the Love of the Father will not know Jesus, since Jesus only reveals Himself to those who have the love of the Father.
I am not showing you this to condemn you; I am showing you this in order to also hold out the hope of truly coming to know God — and know the joy of knowing God.
Dan1el–nothing in the Bible is clearly stated. It’s books of a primative desert culture translated by various groups with various agendas. And you are condeming people, and I think Jesus said not to judge. And you’re really judgy.
Becky,
Hey, I read your points, but I have to disagree:
1. The New Testament did not come out of a primitive desert culture; much of it was addressed to Roman men and women — therefore, it has a Roman cultural context.
2. Jesus told people that they sinned, too; was that “condemning”? No; we know He came to “save the world”.
However, telling people that they’d sinned evoked different responses. The Samaritan woman at the well (of John 4) did not deny that she had sinned, but received the Truth humbly, and went and told others about Jesus who had “told her all things that ever she did”. When Jesus “told her all her sins”, was He condemning, or was He saving?
However, the self-righteous were offended and accused Jesus of having a demon (John 8:48) when He suggested that they were in sin (John 8:31-34).
There are two responses evoked by the Truth — rejection of it, or acceptance of it: those who accept the Truth, and live by it, are saved from the wrath of God; those who reject Truth cannot be saved, but are still under the wrath of God (John 3:19).
I do not want to judge; I want others to know God, and be saved from the wrath of God — but, how can you be saved from something you don’t even think you need to be saved from? If we accepted the Truth, the Truth would set us free — free from sin.
Jesus changed my heart when I asked Him to, and if He can do it for me, He can do it for anyone. I am not good, nor have I ever been good — GOD is good, and I just want others to come to know Him: I am not looking to “condemn” anyone.
Dan1el – We’ve seen postings like yours before – many, many, MANY times. Condemnation in the name of ‘not condemning’. Judging in the name of ‘not judging’. Watching the Gospel of John 3:16 become the gospel of every verse BUT John 3:16.
Wringing your hands and saying ‘but I just want to bring the Truth’ doesn’t fool anyone here. The ‘Truth’ you claim to bring is nothing but toxic to people who have already been abused too many times by it – do you really think that your posts is somehow a revelation? That weighing down the ‘love of God’ with so many conditions, caveats and ‘gotchas’ is somehow a new thing to the people reading this blog – many of whom have spent YEARS hearing this drivel pounded into our ears?
Nope. Again, it’s telling that John 3:16 – the central ‘hope’ verse in Christian ministry – isn’t found anywhere in anything you posted.
Dan1el,
Just as religious hucksters haul in truckloads of money by making unsubstantiated claims, Reebok was hauling it in with claims that their EasyTone shoes would provide “better legs and a better butt.”
But unlike religion, which enjoys special rights granted by our government, Reebok will be paying $25 million to settle charges that it lacked adequate evidence for making such specific claims.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/consumer/Reebok.html
“David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Burear of Consumer Protection, said the challenge to Reebok should remind advertisers that “marketing campaigns, no matter how funny or sexy,” need to be backed up by evidence if they make specific claims.”
After thousands of years, hasn’t religion had more than enough time to discover some compelling evidence to support their marketing claims? But religion continues to be uniquely privileged to peddle their frothy brew of fear, superstition, and fraud that commonly takes people’s money while often ruining their lives. The damage to people from Reebok’s claims are nonexistent compared to the horrors perpetrated by unfettered religion.
It’s way past time that outfits such as Exodus, who expect protection under a religious umbrella, are prosecuted for consumer fraud.
Dan1el – You are aware that the Bible was not faxed to mankind over night by God and that it took a few thousand years to complete the Old Testament with an additional 400 years to write the New Testament, right? During that time, things were edited, translated, re-translated, mis-translated, and re-interpreted for the changing times. By the time the Council of Nicene convened, all the original apostles were dead and could not contribute to the “final” version of the Bible. So when you speak of the “Truth” and the “Word” whose “Word” and “Truth” are you referring to? There were other Gospels in addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (one was even written by Mary Magdalen). Why does the “Truth” and the “Word” only exist in these four Gospels but not in the others? Who decided that? I don’t recall God having any say in the editing process of the Bible.
Furthermore, Biblical scholars have for centuries debated the authenticity of several letters written by Paul. Many scholars have found that many of the letters ascribed to Paul, particularly the ones supposedly condemning homosexuality, were written decades and centuries after his death. Was there another Resurrection in Christianity that occurred but not recorded? Or did early Christians mistakenly attribute letters to him that were not? In which case, how can those be part of God’s “Truth” or “Word” then?
Speaking of the Bible, to which Bible do you refer to when you quote it? There have once again been thousands of editions and translations of the Bible since the Council. For instance, why does the Catholic Bible have the Book of Judith in it and Protestant Bibles do not? So, whose Bible is correct here? Did God come down to Martin Luther and John Calvin personally and tell them to remove the Book of Judith? Who decided what got put into the Bible and what didn’t? Was it God or was it Man?
Ozymandias71,
Do you even care that you are misleading others with your suppressing of the Truth?
EVERY verse is needed for correct context; you cannot cross boundaries that are clearly defined by the Scriptures you purportedly obey/live by.
God sent Jesus to save people FROM sin (Matt 1:21), and THAT is how Jesus “saves the world” from the wrath of God — since the wrath of God only comes upon sinners who sin! He was never mad with Jesus during His life and ministry (except maybe at the Cross, when all our sins were on Him), since He always did what the Father willed (John 8:29)! The Father gave His Son as ransom, to save us from our sins, and homosexuality (and the witness is singular throughout Scripture) is and always has been a sin. I mean, it isn’t the greatest sin (the worst sin of all was pride and self-justifying self-righteousness of the Pharisees); but, that doesn’t matter — it still needs to be repented of before you can be saved!
Only those who become condemned by the Law (or simply KNOW for themselves that they are doing wrong), and run to Jesus for salvation will ever receive salvation “FROM SIN” (Matt 1:21). It is a wonderful thing to be condemned by the Law, in order to be saved by Jesus — no one who has ever been saved has not first been condemned!
It is amazing that we are all criminals, and yet God loved us — however, only those who recognize that they ARE criminals, and seek to please God, will know that love for all eternity or in the present.
Dan1el, by the way, your comment you thought was removed (see #28 above) is probably the one here (#20): http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2011/08/18555/. You are confused and mistaken about lots of things, so I’m not surprised.
Richard,
If you’re not Christian, I suppose you don’t have to take the response; if you say you are, then you would consider it.
Richard,
Hey, anyone can make a mistake — thanks for showing me mine!
Nick K.,
So, you’re not arguing that the exegesis is wrong, but that the texts are invalid?
Paul’s writings weren’t the only ones that showed God’s condemnation of homosexuality (along with a host of other sins we humans have done): Jesus came to uphold the Law of Moses, and even raise the bar higher than the Law of Moses demanded — the demand for holiness never abated. 1 John says “all sin is transgression of the Law”, and “Christ came to destroy [sin]“.
Also, it says to “abstain from even the appearance of evil” — if you loved Christ, you wouldn’t do anything that even appeared evil; homosexuality has more than an appearance of evil.
Dan1el: If you would apply the same criteria of evidence of proof to the Holey Babble that you do to the Koran or the Book of Mormon, you would see how & why your proof-texting selective quotes of your favorite 2000 year old book are so meaningless to most educated people here. It is a hodge-podge of writings with a socio-political AGENDA (surprise, surprise), and to imagine that it should be read as more than that is absurd. Its contradictions and unprovable assertions are legion, just like the demons Jesus purportedly cast into a herd of pigs. You make yourself look like a fool with your unexamined “beliefs”. Why don’t you still believe in Santa Claus, Dan1el?
Daniel…nice try, but you didn’t answer a single one of my questions, you just gave me more of your bibliolatric gobbledygook, explaining that this really means that and blahblahblah.
Answer the questions, honey. Simple one word answers will do.
Oh, I certainly love the ‘appearance of evil’ line. Of course, ‘appearance of evil’ is completely subjective – even from a ‘scriptural’ view, depending on how literal verses are to be taken. Eating shellfish? Condemned in the Bible and thus ‘the appearance of evil.’ Women in positions of authority? Condemned in the Bible and thus ‘the appearance of evil.’ Oh, but wait! American Christianity no longer teaches those ideas, so suddenly these verses must ‘be taken in context’. Similar dissembling and pretzel-logic is employed whenever any scriptural mandate strikes too close to home.
However, it’s beyond easy for someone who isn’t Gay or Lesbian to strike a literalist tone concerning mandates concerning homosexuality – it doesn’t affect them.
For anyone who has endured the hell of ‘ex-gay ministry’, the very idea that someone could come around spouting the same literalist garbage that caused so much pain, confusion and condemnation is the very ‘appearance of evil’. For anyone driven from their homes, their jobs, or even their country because people came around spouting the same literalist garbage is the ‘appearance of evil’. Naturally, the people taking the literalist view don’t see themselves as hateful, or bigoted, or hypocrites – because to do so calls into question the entire validity of their ‘message’.
If an ‘Ambassador for Christ’ is seen as being hateful, bigoted or a hypocrite it’s simply because their message is invalid – as seen by the very people they are called to ‘minister’ to. If the ‘message’ is failing to convey the ‘Love of Christ’ then the ENTIRE POINT of Christ’s sacrifice fails – and people will turn away from that ‘Ambassador’ because they simply cannot see the Love of Christ in them.
Jesus has some very stern warnings for those who would distort his message in His name – perhaps the harshest warnings found in the New Testament. People pushing some version of the ‘Truth’ that turns people away should take heed to those warnings.
Paul,
Why such vitriolic poison in your words, dear friend?
Why the baseless assumptions that I’ve never questioned my beliefs [actually, I have -- I spent most of my young life without knowing Jesus Christ; I was even so evil that I was expelled from high school]?
My comments so far were 1] for Wayne, and 2]towards people who claimed to be Christian, yet homosexual; not for the entire GLBT community: if it does not apply to you, then, it wasn’t meant for you, and I have no discussion/argument with you.
Ben,
If you are not a believer, sorry — I thought you were; that is why I shared the Scriptures with you: I thought I would just share what the Bible said with another person who said they were Christian.
If you are someone who does not claim to be Christian, nor desiring to adhere to the tenets of the faith, I would not expect you to respect the ordinances of the Living God; if you do claim to live by the Scriptures, what problem is there with what has been shared, specifically?
Thanks for the opportunity to share, you guys.
Dan1el-does this mean you’re going away?
Ozymandias71,
Some commands were meant to keep the Israelite children separate (do not eat shellfish, etc.,) ; others were universal prohibitions (homosexuality was clearly defined as an abomination for all humanity — Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed for it).
It is not of hatred that I speak — neither was it out of hatred when Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well (in John 4); it is out of concern that He spoke, and it was out of concern and love that I am speaking: if you received His Word, you would receive the Words of those He sent (the Apostles, for instance).