The Good Godless Gay

Youtube Version.

Jesus wandered in Nashville while challenging the religious folks there. Yet nobody recognized Him as the savior of the world but all took great offense at His teaching.

“If you believe you can rely on faith alone for despising the works of compassion towards your neighbor, I assure you that you won’t see the kingdom of God.”

Utterly indignant about this, an influential member of the Southern Baptist Confession rushed to Him.

“What are you talking about? We are not saved by works!!! And who is this neighbor?”

Jesus looked at him tenderly and smiled.

“A man was going down from Franklin to Spring Hills, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 
A presbyterian happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. He had no time to lose, for he had to give a talk at an important conference aiming at saving the true nature of marriage.  
So too, an Evangelical Lutheran, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. He had no time to lose, for he had to give a talk to expose false unbiblical teaching polluting the Church which had to remain doctrinally pure.

So too, a pentecostal business man, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. He had no time to lose, for he had to give a talk to hinder the progression of universal healthcare which was the first step towards a worldwide government which will itself eventually be led by the Antichrist.

 But a queer atheist, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.  He knew he was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, but at that very moment he managed to overcome his anger and just saw him as a fellow human in need of his help.

 The hated fagot went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on the most delicious and precious oil of Marijuana in the whole world. Then he put the man on his own car, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two thousand dollars and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

 “Which of these four do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

 The southern Baptist wept and gnashed his teeth before reluctantly answering:

“The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

 Image

P.S: If you want to quote this, you ought to refer to it as the inerrant gospel of Lotharson, written under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and delivered once and for all to all progressive saints.

 

 

26 thoughts on “The Good Godless Gay

  1. The southern Baptist wept and gnashed his teeth before reluctantly answering:

    Wept and gnashed his teeth before reluctantly answering?

    Can you show me a Southern Baptist who believes a gay atheist can’t be merciful or kind or do something just? Their problem – scripturally speaking – is with the acts.

    To use an extreme example – keep your entire story the same. Except make the gay atheist into a convicted child molester. The entire story could stay the same – but at no point were the man’s past acts justified.

    • Can you show me a Southern Baptist who believes a gay atheist can’t be merciful or kind or do something just? Their problem – scripturally speaking – is with the acts.

      Afaict, the gospels teach that mere thoughts can be morally evil, and thoughts corresponding to lust and anger can be just as bad as the acts of adultery and murder (the “just as bad” part could be debated, but that those thoughts are considered to be morally evil *per se*, even if they are not translated into action, seems to be obvious). I don´t see how you could interpret the NT to mean that homosexuality would be acceptable as long as it doesn´t involve homosexual *acts* (unless you say that the Bible is simply wrong on that matter of course).

      • I see some traces of earlier conversation with you in this post. :-p I don’t think you’re correct in homoerotic affections being necessarily evil: it is not being attracted to which is lust; lust is much more than that. Else virtually all healthy, young males would need virtual reality glasses which made people ugly, so as to avoid feeling attracted to anyone but their wives. And likewise for women.

      • Andy,

        Afaict, the gospels teach that mere thoughts can be morally evil,

        Yep. One problem: ‘acts’ are the only things condemned in the famous Leviticus lines. “Homosexuality” is never singled out in those, period.

        Now, from Christ, you could easily infer that, say… fantasizing about sodomy is a sin. But then fantasizing about adultery or premarital sex is also a sin.

        I don´t see how you could interpret the NT to mean that homosexuality would be acceptable as long as it doesn´t involve homosexual *acts* (unless you say that the Bible is simply wrong on that matter of course).

        Easily: because a state of same-sex attraction is simply not a sin. Period, end of story. It’s not condemned in Leviticus, nor is it condemned anywhere else. If you object, prove me wrong: show me where ‘being attracted to someone of the same sex’, period, is condemned.

        Michael,

        Despite the fact that the practices proscribes in the Bible are not the same as modern homosexual relationships, the Bible is simply wrong on the matter.

        A: No, I’m pretty sure sodomy is still involved in modern homosexual relationships. If all that was involved was a mutual love and hand-holding, there’d be nothing to condemn.

        B: The Bible isn’t the only source of condemnation on this matter, though it’s certainly there.

        C: You say it’s wrong? Wonderful. Show me why. You’re going to need to mount a defense of, say… anal sex. Go for it.

        labreuer,

        Is your response directed at me?

      • Easily: because a state of same-sex attraction is simply not a sin. Period, end of story. It’s not condemned in Leviticus, nor is it condemned anywhere else. If you object, prove me wrong: show me where ‘being attracted to someone of the same sex’, period, is condemned.

        So Matthew 5:28 doesn´t apply to gays?

        A: No, I’m pretty sure sodomy is still involved in modern homosexual relationships. If all that was involved was a mutual love and hand-holding, there’d be nothing to condemn.

        Originally, sodomy implied anal sex and not all gay men like anal sex.

        C: You say it’s wrong? Wonderful. Show me why. You’re going to need to mount a defense of, say… anal sex. Go for it.

        Why single out gays here? 30-40% of straight men and women do anal sex as well – are you asking them for a “defense for anal sex” as well? Also, a guy giving his gay lover a blowjob is A-OK then?

      • So Matthew 5:28 doesn´t apply to gays?

        Matthew 5:28 – “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

        My claim: “If you object, prove me wrong: show me where ‘being attracted to someone of the same sex’, period, is condemned.”

        Attraction != ‘Looking at them lustfully’.

        Originally, sodomy implied anal sex and not all gay men like anal sex.

        It implies more than anal sex. Either way, it was the sodomy that was condemned biblically, particularly in Leviticus – not ‘homosexuality’. I take it you concede this much.

        Why single out gays here? 30-40% of straight men and women do anal sex as well – are you asking them for a “defense for anal sex” as well? Also, a guy giving his gay lover a blowjob is A-OK then?

        I actually am asking them for a defense of anal sex as well, yep. I don’t expect you to read my blog – it is a minor thing – but I’ve gone into this many a time, and in fact it’s one of my principal criticisms of the modern social conservative side of the culture war. ‘Sodomy’ issues are not just ‘homosexual’ issues. Not by a longshot. Sodomy also covers oral, by the by.

        So no, no one is singling out gays here, at least insofar as sodomy is concerned.

      • Attraction != ‘Looking at them lustfully’.

        So you think that being gay is totally fine as long as you live in celibacy and never look at anyone with lust?
        That´s cool, although it makes about as much sense to me as an atheist telling a Christian “being religious is totally ok, as long as you never pray to a God or think about having a relationship with a God”.

        I actually am asking them for a defense of anal sex as well, yep. I don’t expect you to read my blog – it is a minor thing – but I’ve gone into this many a time, and in fact it’s one of my principal criticisms of the modern social conservative side of the culture war. ‘Sodomy’ issues are not just ‘homosexual’ issues. Not by a longshot. Sodomy also covers oral, by the by.

        1. If your understanding of “sodomy” includes oral sex, I guess you mean “sodomy” as in “any non-procreative sexual activity”. If you believe that this is morally wrong, why do you think that people that disagree with you on that have the burden of proof to show that “sodomy” is morally acceptable instead of you having the burden of proof to show that “sodomy” is indeed morally wrong?
        2. What makes you believe that you are entitled to ask two consenting adults to defend what they do or don´t do with their private parts, as long as they don´t force you to watch or participate?

      • So you think that being gay is totally fine as long as you live in celibacy and never look at anyone with lust?
        That´s cool, although it makes about as much sense to me as an atheist telling a Christian “being religious is totally ok, as long as you never pray to a God or think about having a relationship with a God”.

        Let’s be realistic here.

        1) ‘Never look at anyone with lust’? You shouldn’t, whether straight or gay. But people sin – they make mistakes. I recognize that, and I try to hold gays to the same standards as I hold straights to. I screw up constantly myself.

        2) ‘Live in celibacy’ is not required. Gays can get married to people of the opposite sex. Or perhaps – one day, since I hardly think it exists now – some therapy will avail itself which allows them to be attracted to the opposite sex. Either way, this is a reality for many heterosexuals* as well.

        3) Simple attraction to people of the same sex? *Loving* someone of the same sex? Not a problem.

        I don’t think your atheist comparison is at all comparable. Doubly so since the atheist can, at best, speak from subjective and personal whims. That’s not what the Christian is dealing with, even in merely their own view, in the other case.

        (* If such binary views are your thing.)

        1. If your understanding of “sodomy” includes oral sex, I guess you mean “sodomy” as in “any non-procreative sexual activity”. If you believe that this is morally wrong, why do you think that people that disagree with you on that have the burden of proof to show that “sodomy” is morally acceptable instead of you having the burden of proof to show that “sodomy” is indeed morally wrong?

        Whoever makes a claim, has a burden of proof. Nor would I define it as ‘any non-procreative sexual activity’ since that implies that if an act of sex fails to result in a pregnancy it must have been wrong to do.

        So, if someone claims that sodomy is morally acceptable, they have a burden. If I claim that sodomy is morally unacceptable, I have a burden. Where, in this conversation, did I say otherwise?

        2. What makes you believe that you are entitled to ask two consenting adults to defend what they do or don´t do with their private parts, as long as they don´t force you to watch or participate?

        A) I don’t ask them to defend anything. I make a claim, I give my arguments. If they wish to dispute my arguments – and particularly, if they argue that what they do or don’t do is moral or immoral – they make claims, and take the task of ‘defense’ upon themselves.

        B) The arguments apply to myself as well as to others, in principle. Time to turn your previous question around: why are you singling out gays, when I certainly don’t?

        C) Your question is either outdated or incomplete. The fact is, in this modern day, the demand is public acceptance and sanctifying of ‘what two people do with their private parts’. They may not want me to watch or participate. Many* do, however, want me to approve. In fact, they think it should be a punishable offense to fail to approve.

        (* ‘Gays’ != ‘LGBT groups’. There are celibate gays and bisexuals, Christian gays and bisexuals who think sodomy is wrong, non-celibate non-Christians who may not be on board with these various laws, etc. But there is a substantial push for the punishment and demonization of anyone who disapproves of gay marriage, and certainly who disapproves of sodomy.)

      • B) The arguments apply to myself as well as to others, in principle. Time to turn your previous question around: why are you singling out gays, when I certainly don’t?

        Whoops, this was mistaken, I misread. So, withdrawn.

  2. I feel like giving another.

    Jesus went to the deep and stereotypical south.

    And early in the morning he went to the church, and the people got off their tractors to come to him, and he sat down and taught them.

    And the men brought to him a man found committing an act of sodomy in the park.

    They said unto him, master, this man was caught in sodomy, the very act.

    Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned. But what sayest thou?

    This they said, testing him, to see if he was legitimate. But Jesus stooped down and, with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    So when they continued asking him he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at this man.

    And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    And which they heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last. And Jesus was left alone and the gay man was there.

    When Jesus had lifted himself up and saw none but the man, he said to him, man, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned you?

    He said, no man Lord. And Jesus said to him, neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more.

    And at the last part the gay man’s face turned red and he yelled, ‘You’re no better than THEY are!’ and he stormed off.

    • While I don’t agree with you that homosexuality is sinful , I agree that casual sex (especially in a park!) completely goes against God’s frame for sexuality which is love, regardless of the sexual orientation .
      So yes, Jesus would have told the man “Go and sin no more”, and there are many people who prefer keep sinning and get angry on that.
      I expose the way French pseudo-socialists use homosexuality as a noble cause in order to mask their utter failure to fight unemployement.

      As for the meaningfulness of the example, homosexuals are hugely despised and even hated by many conservative Christians and I have seen that with my very eyes. Atheists form the most distrusted minority in the Bible Belt.

      I want to be just. If I expose the misdeeds and atrocities of the New Atheists, I also ought to defend kind and harmless atheists who are victim of religious bigotry due their unbelief.

      Like racism in France, the culture war is a vicious circle of hatred and contempt which ought to be broken.

      „Blessed are the peacemakers…“ Jesus taught us.

      • lothar,

        While I don’t agree with you that homosexuality is sinful ,

        I don’t either. Same-sex attraction isn’t condemned, in and of itself, anywhere in the bible. I could agree with the natural law proponents that it is still a flaw, something to be overcome. But ‘homosexuality’ – being homosexual – wouldn’t get you stoned in Leviticus. Sodomy sure would, whether or not you were ‘homosexual’.

        I also agree that same-sex love, properly qualified (as hetero love needs to be properly qualified), isn’t a sin. But the sodomy, etc? That’s pretty explicitly out in ‘sin’ territory. And the issues there go beyond the biblical.

        Let me add a few caveats here:

        A) I think some people ‘against homosexuality’ are, in fact, jackasses. They do condemn ‘homosexuals’, not the acts. I think they are fewer in number than typically presented. But the key is, biblically, they do not have a leg to stand on – and I think even they wouldn’t fall into the category you put them in in your OP.

        B) I have no problem with your being just on this matter. I just thought you misrepresented, if unintentionally, how people actually approach this topic. Keep in mind that one part of the ‘culture war’ is making it look as if everyone who opposes gay marriage is the worst kind of angry hillbilly WBC member. The very idea of there being someone who condemns sodomy, but who doesn’t harbor some irrational animus against gays, is a threatening thought in the culture war. It’s rather like a conservative who doesn’t hate the poor and is anti-war. A nice thought, you’d think. But it’s the last thought many on the liberal side of the culture war want anyone to have come election time, even if it’s true.

  3. The gay atheist, unfortunately, is arrested by the local cracker sheriff, having found in his possession large amounts of cash, and marijuana. He is sentenced to 20 years to life, as a drug trafficker.

    • Consequently, God becomes so angry on the War on Drug that he causes violent earthquakes which open the doors of all prison cells where people are stuck due to minor drug offenses.

      The timing and precision are so incredible that many atheists come to faith in God and conclude he is a lover of the Holy Weed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s