Coming soon to a billboard near you

[Sojourner]

I first noticed these signs a few weeks ago lining Indianapolis streets, and they've been causing quite the uproar in our city:

[img]http://www.takingdownwords.com/photos/uncategorized/wouldjesusdiscriminate_1.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www2.indystar.com/articles/6/245960-6216-127.html"]Now an Associated Press article notes that the signs, part of a national campaign, will be sprouting up elsewhere.[/url]

[quote]"Would Jesus discriminate?"

The question has been popping up on billboards, yard signs and in newspaper ads around conservative central Indiana lately in a new, Bible-based appeal for acceptance of gays and lesbians. It's a campaign organized by a predominantly gay and lesbian denomination _ Metropolitan Community Churches _ and a Jewish gay activist.

Organizers say the effort is the first in a planned series of campaigns across the country aimed at getting people to take a fresh look at the social justice passages in the Bible.

"Jesus taught us to love everyone, even our enemies and those who are different from us, not destroy and mistreat them," said one ad published in The Indianapolis Star.

"We want the dialogue to take place in every city that we operate, in some way," said Rev. Cindi Love, executive director of MCC, which has congregations in 240 cities.

Christians with conservative theological views believe gay relationships violate Scripture. They insist their outlook is based not on prejudice, but on the Bible and 2,000 years of Christian teaching.

Liberals see the primary values of the Bible as being love and inclusiveness, with long-term gay relationships left unaddressed.

While some are willing to start a dialogue, the discussion around Indianapolis hasn't always been friendly.

An independent Baptist congregation along a major thoroughfare posted the message "God Discriminated at Sodom" on its sign board. A Christian conservative group, the American Family Association of Indiana, distributed radio ads saying, "Not only did Jesus discriminate; he is going to discriminate again."[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Would Jesus discriminate? No, Jesus wouldn't. Jesus is an equal opportunity Savior and tells all to repent and turn to God, including homosexual activists.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Raphael

[Fides_et_Ratio]

There's already signs in my area put out by a local Methodist church that says "God loves ugly people, and so do we!" -- Now, I understand they are trying to reach out to people... but something like that would not encourage me to go to Church. I do not want to be considered ugly...

... so, just what I need, more crazy signs to roll my eyes at as I'm driving down the road.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

It's almost as silly as the "GUNS SAVE LIVES" billboards in Indiana (or is it Illinois?)

[Sojourner]

Probably here. That sounds like us. Particularly in Southern Indiana.

[MissScripture]

And people don't understand that you CAN love someone and NOT approve of everything they do!

[missionseeker]

We have billboards that say. Go to church...

(in red caps) OR THE DEVIL WILL GET YOU!

[DAF]

Jesus discriminates like the rest of us:
[b]dis·crim·i·nate[/b] [i]To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.[/i]

Source: Dictionary.com

The man isn't blind you know.
I think it's very childish of these people to be peddling a political ideology under some guise of faith.
I also think it's very improper of them to ask a loaded quesiton that amounts to "why do you believe that Jesus hates gays?" Perhaps if the KNEW what we believed... *sigh*

Edited July 14, 2006 by DAF

[indescribable]

hm... i live in Southern Indiana. While we still have our share of Confederate belted, NRA card carrying members, it isn't very visible unless you seek it out. I believe in an amount of gun-control, and that isn't very well received, but I'm not the only one.

but i do think the billboards bring up a good point to people would believe the church's position on homosexuality is complete damnation, not only from our Lord, but from his followers on earth

[Lounge Daddy]

It's election year and the liberals are out en masse this time, esp. the past few years... looking at the ultimate 2008

One big things they are after (dare I say “covet”?) is the so-called Christian vote.
This is why you will see the left politicize traditional Judeo-Christian morality and moralize social-liberal political policies.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='indescribable' post='1024333' date='Jul 14 2006, 01:00 PM']
hm... i live in Southern Indiana. While we still have our share of Confederate belted, NRA card carrying members, it isn't very visible unless you seek it out. I believe in an amount of gun-control, and that isn't very well received, but I'm not the only one.

but i do think the billboards bring up a good point to people would believe the church's position on homosexuality is complete damnation, not only from our Lord, but from his followers on earth
[/quote]
Actually, I did a story on hate crimes statewide a year or so ago, and the town with the most in the state was Bloomington.

Unofficially we theorized it was because the clash between the liberal university (IU) and the Confederate NRA card-carrying members is more pronounced there than elsewhere in the state.

Just a little trivia.

[DAF]

I resent the implication that all NRA card-carriers are Confederate enthusiasts.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='DAF' post='1024454' date='Jul 14 2006, 02:30 PM']
I resent the implication that all NRA card-carriers are Confederate enthusiasts.
[/quote]
You're in the NRA, eh?

[Lahecil]

I'm considering (once I'm old enough of course) taking out a billboard that says "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" and directions to a nearby ice cream parlor...because anyone who understands it surely deserves an ice cream.

But seriously...aren't billboards enough of an eyesore without them telling everyone what Jesus did and did not do?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1024170' date='Jul 14 2006, 06:44 AM']
I first noticed these signs a few weeks ago lining Indianapolis streets, and they've been causing quite the uproar in our city:

[img]http://www.takingdownwords.com/photos/uncategorized/wouldjesusdiscriminate_1.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www2.indystar.com/articles/6/245960-6216-127.html"]Now an Associated Press article notes that the signs, part of a national campaign, will be sprouting up elsewhere.[/url]
[/quote]
These signs are ridiculous and disgusting.

[quote]The question has been popping up on billboards, yard signs and in newspaper ads around conservative central Indiana lately in a new, Bible-based appeal for acceptance of gays and lesbians. [/quote]
It's ironic these people claim their pro-homosexual campaign is "Bible-based" because every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is clearly condemned as a serious sin.

[quote]Liberals see the primary values of the Bible as being love and inclusiveness, with long-term gay relationships left unaddressed.[/quote]
Liberals obviously don't even bother to read the Bible.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[quote]Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.[/quote]
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17)

(Not to mention the story of Sodom and Gommorrah in Genesis)


[quote name='Raphael' post='1024180' date='Jul 14 2006, 06:53 AM']
It's almost as silly as the "GUNS SAVE LIVES" billboards in Indiana (or is it Illinois?)
[/quote]
Not to repeat the whole gun-control debate here, but the NRA has a point that guns can be used in defense and protect lives.

To imply that Jesus or the Bible supports homosexuality is an out-and-out lie, though.

[MonkeyTape]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1024571' date='Jul 14 2006, 02:45 PM']
You're in the NRA, eh?
[/quote]
I am a life member of the NRA, I wasn't aware that the Church had condemned lawful ownership of firearms.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1024724' date='Jul 14 2006, 03:05 PM']
These signs are ridiculous and disgusting.


It's ironic these people claim their pro-homosexual campaign is "Bible-based" because every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is clearly condemned as a serious sin.
Liberals obviously don't even bother to read the Bible.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17)

(Not to mention the story of Sodom and Gommorrah in Genesis)
Not to repeat the whole gun-control debate here, but the NRA has a point that guns can be used in defense and protect lives.

To imply that Jesus or the Bible supports homosexuality is an out-and-out lie, though.
[/quote]


Here I go again getting myself in trouble. . .[b]Jesus[/b] never said homosexuality is a sin. In fact, there are lots of things he didn't say that Christians wholeheartedly believe in and attribute to Him. We are always trying to put words in His mouth (liberals included!!!). I cannot prove that Jesus would have condoned homosexuality. But neither can I prove that he condemned it. What I do know with certainty, however, is that the Gospel is chock-full of language about love. You can't miss it! That is its theme. As much as it might pain us to admit it, Jesus was in many ways a "radical." The guy was tenacious. He was constantly pushing the envelope on who was to be loved. He was always defying the expectations of the religious leaders of his time, and now, he is defying yours. Christ's love was boundless. The core of his message to us was this: to open our hearts and minds to God and our neighbor. (Whoever that neighbor might be!) To love the Lord with all our heart, our mind, our soul, and our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. It just doesn't seem like you folks love gays and lesbians. I know you will claim you do (love the sinner not the sin, yadda, yadda, yadda), but I don't buy it. It's really hard to love someone when you judge them so harshly.

A couple more points:

1. JESUS
I agree with Socrates in principle (although I wouldn't go so far as to use the word, "lie") that there is no direct evidence that Jesus supported the idea of homosexuality. However, I think one must take note of the intentionality of love imbued in the Gospels and Jesus' remarkable tendency towards radical inclusiveness.

2. THE OLD TESTAMENT
--I acknowledge that the Old Testament authors were demonstrably less than fond of homosexuality. However, with the coming of Christ things changed. To ward off an objection I know will come, of all the Gospel writers only Matthew (who, remember, was addressing a community of Jews and newbie Christians who were still very much committed to following the Law) stresses the Law. He tells us that Jesus said, ". . .one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (5:18). This makes sense. He was emphasizing continuity between the Old and New Covenants to his audience, because that's what they wanted to hear. Mark and John, however, in many ways [i]stress[/i] their new faith's radical departure from Jewish law. Paul does too, for that matter.

--Also, in regards to the Old Testament, it always seems silly to me to quote Leviticus. I mean this in all charity, Socrates; as I've told you on another thread, I value your wisdom. But seriously, if you are going to quote Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, you had better be consistent and follow all of the rules that Leviticus sets down. Meaning, you had better not trim your beard, sow two different kinds of seed in the same field, or do any number of the other things that oft-quoted Old Testament book proscribes.

3. PAUL
I agree that Paul appears to condemn homosexuality. However, we have to look closer at CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. At the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinithians, he was no doubt aware of the widespread sinfulness and decadence found among the Romans. Many of the Romans (especially the wealthy) were indeed forincators, idolators, and adulterers, among other things. There was also a big problem at the time with wealthy men shaving, emmasculating, and having sexual relations with their male slaves or prostitutes. (Many Jewish and secular authors living at the time of Paul have confirmed this as has Protestant Theologian, Victor Paul Furnish, in his book entitled, [i]The Moral Teachings of Paul[/i].)

Our New American Bible translates 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 as follows: [i]Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [/i] The actual words Paul uses are "malakoi" (which refers to weak and soft individuals, i.e., the "boy prostitues") and "arsenokoitai" (which refers to men who actively perform the primary male-on-male sex act, which I'm not sure I can really spell out in this forum). My point? Paul was condemning abusive, unequal, unhealthy sex ACTS between powerful men (pedophiles) and powerless boys. That is a far cry from condemning healthy, mature, equal, loving RELATIONSHIPS between two adult men.


Phew! I'm spent. But I'm ready for ya. What thinkest thee of all of the above?

[indescribable]

oh, sorry i didn't mean to imply that NRA members are also Confederate flag wearing people. in my high school, a majority of the self-proclaimed "hicks" wear confederate shirts, gun shirts, and big brass belts with both confederate flags and guns on a daily basis. its not to say that a majority or even half of the NRA supports such promotion of confederate pride, it was simply the impression i have from my high school.

i'm sorry if i've offended.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1024830' date='Jul 14 2006, 09:13 PM']
Here I go again getting myself in trouble. . .[b]Jesus[/b] never said homosexuality is a sin. In fact, there are lots of things he didn't say that Christians wholeheartedly believe in and attribute to Him. We are always trying to put words in His mouth (liberals included!!!). I cannot prove that Jesus would have condoned homosexuality. But neither can I prove that he condemned it. What I do know with certainty, however, is that the Gospel is chock-full of language about love. You can't miss it! That is its theme. As much as it might pain us to admit it, Jesus was in many ways a "radical." The guy was tenacious. He was constantly pushing the envelope on who was to be loved. He was always defying the expectations of the religious leaders of his time, and now, he is defying yours. Christ's love was boundless. The core of his message to us was this: to open our hearts and minds to God and our neighbor. (Whoever that neighbor might be!) To love the Lord with all our heart, our mind, our soul, and our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. It just doesn't seem like you folks love gays and lesbians. I know you will claim you do (love the sinner not the sin, yadda, yadda, yadda), but I don't buy it. It's really hard to love someone when you judge them so harshly.

A couple more points:

1. JESUS
I agree with Socrates in principle (although I wouldn't go so far as to use the word, "lie") that there is no direct evidence that Jesus supported the idea of homosexuality. However, I think one must take note of the intentionality of love imbued in the Gospels and Jesus' remarkable tendency towards radical inclusiveness.

2. THE OLD TESTAMENT
--I acknowledge that the Old Testament authors were demonstrably less than fond of homosexuality. However, with the coming of Christ things changed. To ward off an objection I know will come, of all the Gospel writers only Matthew (who, remember, was addressing a community of Jews and newbie Christians who were still very much committed to following the Law) stresses the Law. He tells us that Jesus said, ". . .one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (5:18). This makes sense. He was emphasizing continuity between the Old and New Covenants to his audience, because that's what they wanted to hear. Mark and John, however, in many ways [i]stress[/i] their new faith's radical departure from Jewish law. Paul does too, for that matter.

--Also, in regards to the Old Testament, it always seems silly to me to quote Leviticus. I mean this in all charity, Socrates; as I've told you on another thread, I value your wisdom. But seriously, if you are going to quote Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, you had better be consistent and follow all of the rules that Leviticus sets down. Meaning, you had better not trim your beard, sow two different kinds of seed in the same field, or do any number of the other things that oft-quoted Old Testament book proscribes.

3. PAUL
I agree that Paul appears to condemn homosexuality. However, we have to look closer at CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. At the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinithians, he was no doubt aware of the widespread sinfulness and decadence found among the Romans. Many of the Romans (especially the wealthy) were indeed forincators, idolators, and adulterers, among other things. There was also a big problem at the time with wealthy men shaving, emmasculating, and having sexual relations with their male slaves or prostitutes. (Many Jewish and secular authors living at the time of Paul have confirmed this as has Protestant Theologian, Victor Paul Furnish, in his book entitled, [i]The Moral Teachings of Paul[/i].)

Our New American Bible translates 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 as follows: [i]Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [/i] The actual words Paul uses are "malakoi" (which refers to weak and soft individuals, i.e., the "boy prostitues") and "arsenokoitai" (which refers to men who actively perform the primary male-on-male sex act, which I'm not sure I can really spell out in this forum). My point? Paul was condemning abusive, unequal, unhealthy sex ACTS between powerful men (pedophiles) and powerless boys. That is a far cry from condemning healthy, mature, equal, loving RELATIONSHIPS between two adult men.
Phew! I'm spent. But I'm ready for ya. What thinkest thee of all of the above?
[/quote]

It's quite simple to me really.

1. Fornication is clearly a sin
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. Therefore, any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication.

It's not that difficult of concept, it is something that has been condemed by all Christians until recent history, even though various forms of fornication were prevalent in society.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1024950' date='Jul 15 2006, 05:43 AM']
It's quite simple to me really.

1. Fornication is clearly a sin
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. Therefore, any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication.

It's not that difficult of concept, it is something that has been condemed by all Christians until recent history, even though various forms of fornication were prevalent in society.
[/quote]

I agree with all of your logic, peach. (What is that name all about anyway? I like it. . .I think.)

1. Fornication is clearly a sin. [i]YES![/i]
2. Fornication would include sexual acts between any unmarried persons. [i]YES![/i]
3. Marriage is between a man and a woman. [i]Yes, this is currently the case.[/i]
4. Any sexual act not between a married couple is fornication. [i]YES![/i]

Just like your logic, my solution is quite simple:

Allow gays and lesbians (who are equal to heterosexuals in EVERY way, are human beings with God-given and inalienable rights, and are NOT sinners just by virtue of who they are) to share in the Sacrament of Marriage with the rest of us. Problem solved!

As things are now, we are in essence forcing gays and lesbians to sin by denying them the Sacrament. . .

Peace,
Like a Child