Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Homosexuality (Part 2)

Part 1: Corpus Christi and Ted Haggard

I am Not a Homosexual


I don't get it. Why a male would find another male attractive sexually or otherwise is simply beyond me. As a matter of fact, the whole concept of homosexuality did not even enter my consciousness until I moved to this country at the age of 14. Perhaps that was reflective of my sheltered upbringing or the conservative bent in Korean culture, but the idea floored me when I first heard of it. True to form, division by zero in mathematics still makes far more logical sense to this nerd than homosexuality.

When one of my best friends from college came out of the closet, I tried to research into how one becomes homosexual after the initial shock and bewilderment wore off, only to run into more confusion and bewilderment. Suffice to say I have no idea how some become homosexual while others like me find the whole idea beyond the realm of possibility.

If you are looking for insightful takes on homosexuality from here, you are not going to find any because I don't know any better than you. If you are looking for great ideas on how society in general and churches in particular should live with the homosexuals amongst us, you are out of luck.

I find the whole thing repulsive and abhorrent, which probably qualifies me as a full fledged homophobe. As a matter of fact, I am so straight that for the life of me, I cannot see why you women find men attractive. Raise your hand if you see an irony in the previous sentence.

Most importantly, I believe as a Bible believing Christian, homosexuality is a sin. The Bible to me is clear about it, and I really can't find much to disagree in this sermon on the topic of homosexuality.

But here's the thing. Please follow me on this.

Unlike other moral sins that the Bible speaks against, homosexuality is unique in that only "they" indulge in it. I do not ever have to worry about committing this particular sin because it has never been an issue in my life. Only "they" commit the despicable and disgusting acts of homosexuality, which makes it very easy for me to call it a sin.

It is hypocrisy proof. Jesus said, "Judge not, lest you be judged." "Take the log out of your own eye before you see the speck in your brother's eye," he admonished so sternly. Lord, I do not have a log to take out of my eye because I am heterosexual today, heterosexual tomorrow, and heterosexual forever.

May I have a standing ovation?

Add to the mix a teaching from the Bible that God set off an ancient nuclear bomb and incinerated every one of the inhabitants of an entire region because of their rampant homosexuality.

All of the planets have perfectly lined up, ladies and gentlemen. Armed with the combustible combination of divine condemnation and the debilitating social stigma, here come the Christian soldiers marching as to war to judge, condemn, and dehumanize "them" with reckless abandon.

I don't have to look in the mirror when it comes to homosexuality. It does not require self-examination and sacrifice on my part. That is why PMS is next on my culture war agenda, but I have been told that unlike homosexuality, safety in numbers is not on my side. Is that true?

All of the aforementioned religious, sociological, and personal factors make homosexuality a very intriguing choice as the sin to occupy center stage on the Christian moral agenda. Since most people are heterosexuals like me, unable to relate to the sin of homosexuality at least in theory, it is by far, the easiest sin to belittle, denounce and caricature made infinitely easier by the long standing social stigma in almost every culture.

Rumor has it that Dr. James Dobson plans to rename his organization to Focus on the Homos.


But David, just because you can't relate to a particular sin, that does not absolve your responsibility to speak out against it as a Christian. You have not murdered anyone, for example. So should murderers get a pass from you?

I am not talking about the merits of speaking out against homosexuality. I am talking about its prominent placement on the Christian moral agenda eclipsing all other evils. Homosexuality along with abortion (which I will write about) are certainly not the two most dominant topics in the Bible and America is plagued with a lot more moral problems than those two.

Speaking of the Bible, let me briefly touch on a few things which I hope to elaborate on in the future. Given conservative Christians' preoccupation with homosexuality, people unfamiliar with the Bible may think it is replete with homosexual bashing from cover to cover. The sermon which I linked above by my former pastor lists all of the six places in the Bible deemed anti-gay, four of which however are highly interpretive and debatable.

Of the 66 books in the Bible, 2-6 places depending on who you talk to are all we can muster about homosexuality. And enter the very inconvenient fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality, let alone condemning it.

Contrast that with just a quick search through the Bible with the word "poor" which yields 178 results. And they are just the ones which contain the word "poor" exclusive of my favorite verse: "He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing," but I can count with just one hand the number of sermons I have heard on caring for the poor in my 20 years in Evangelical Christian churches.

Most conservative Christian pastors seem a bit too paranoid about sounding "liberal."

But once again, I am a Bible believing Christian and regardless of whether God spoke against homosexuality just 2 or 178 times, once is enough for me. God said it, and that settles it.

But still, why is it that nothing galvanizes and sets off conservative Christians like homosexuality does when the Bible does not come close to sharing their preoccupation and near obsession. Shouldn't what God says in the Bible dictate our agenda?

Social stigma reigns supreme, and long relegated to the backdrop is biblical truth.

Coming up - Part 3: Amazing Grace.

Comment Policy

It's very simple. Talk to me, not to other commenters. Talk about this post, not what other commenters have to say.

I wholeheartedly welcome dissenters as well as supporters, and hope to engage you in productive dialog, but I am not hosting a free for all debate forum.


At April 12, 2007 10:30 AM, Blogger wagamama said...

I am not a homosexual either.

Thank you for this is a breath of fresh air. I agree with you--as Evangelical Christians we often focus on a few key issues (which isn't always BAD)...but it is bad if it is to the neglect of the issues that are central to Scripture--mainly the supremacy of Christ and the glory of Christ in the gospel. We want to create worshippers of the almighty God, not a country of straight, moral, spiritual corpses.

At April 12, 2007 11:44 AM, Anonymous Susanna said...

David, good post. I appreciate 1) your committment to standing on what God says about this issue; and 2) your very correct position that Christians have far too often condemned homosexuals instead of extending the love that Jesus would.

Having gay friends has made this a very complex and nuanced issue for me. I've struggled with the "whys" of the wrongness of it, when it so clearly seems a part of the individual's makeup that they can't change.

I've had to come to this conclusion: it's wrong because God says it is. It's wrong because it goes against his created order.

But it's no more and no less a part of the brokenness and sinfulness we all inherit as a result of being born into this sinful world. Some people struggle with alcoholism. Some with theft. Some with violence. Some with much "lesser" and more socially acceptable sins. We all take a share in this: and the gospel both redeems and transforms us when we accept it. No matter what our background is. What we struggle with varies, but the answer is the same: the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

That's the best I've got.

At April 12, 2007 11:50 AM, Blogger Brian Buriff said...

True to form, you articulate well on this issue. I'm inclined that many people spotlight the homosexual sin because it so clearly and conveniently shifts the spotlight off their own sin or faults and makes them feel higher or better spiritually.

It's the classic playground game of see-saw -- that if I can push someone else down, it raises me up higher. The problem is that when the person who's lower on the see-saw stops playing the game, the person that was raised higher comes crashing down too. Ouch!

At April 12, 2007 12:37 PM, Blogger David Cho said...


"a country of straight, moral, spiritual corpses."

That is so great. Well put. Thanks.


the gospel both redeems and transforms us when we accept it. No matter what our background is. What we struggle with varies, but the answer is the same: the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

Here's a standing ovation to you. Very well put.

At April 12, 2007 12:44 PM, Blogger David Cho said...


Your analogy of the game is see-saw is perfect.

Now honestly, does anyone take what conservative Evangelicals have to say about homosexuality any more? I think people have left the sea-saw game, and we are just talking to ourselves now.

At April 12, 2007 3:43 PM, Blogger Friar Tuck said...

Had an interview yesterday. What was I asked about? Homosexuality and abortion, where I stood on the issue, and how I would make my opinions known. I left the interview feeling like James Dobson Jr. needed to be their next pastor.

At April 13, 2007 11:57 AM, Blogger David Cho said...

Yeap, that abortion-homosexuality litmus test. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

At April 13, 2007 2:15 PM, Blogger L-girl said...

"Suffice to say I have no idea how some become homosexual while others like me find the whole idea beyond the realm of possibility."

Statements like this are beyond my comprehension. It boggles my mind that people wonder "how" someone "becomes" homosexual, while not wondering "how" one "becomes" heterosexual, or any of the gazillions of other things people can be. Why one person is turned on by something another is repulsed by? Why should that be a surprise or even a note of interest? Did the god you believe in create us all from the same mold?

The spectrum of human sexuality is a very broad one, reflective of the spectrum of humanity. There are not two kinds of people in the world, there are zillions. Likewise there are many kinds of sexuality.

All this blather about sin! As if humans did not invent the concept of sin, as if the concept does not vary from culture to culture and from era to era.

It's frightening to me that people can be so narrow minded. (I don't mean you, David. I mean this entire mode of thought.) It's frightening to me that humans pretend to know what god said and intended. The arrogance!

David, I appreciate your reaching for tolerance, but if you seek true tolerance and understanding of your fellow humans, you will not find it in scripture. You either accept people for who they are, and accept that not everyone lives by the same code as you, or you don't.

You and other readers raising their hands to say "I am not a homosexual"!! To me it's like opening a door and stumbling into the dark ages. Get me back into the modern world.

I mean no offense to you, and you know I am your friend. But man, get a grip. Why do you think about this so much? Why do you care about other people's sexuality so much? This is the question that drives we non-fundies crazy: WHO CARES??

At April 13, 2007 3:18 PM, Blogger L-girl said...

"Now honestly, does anyone take what conservative Evangelicals have to say about homosexuality any more? I think people have left the sea-saw game, and we are just talking to ourselves now."


Since this comment was from you, David, I hope it's ok to respond to it. If it's not, please don't hesitate to delete it.

I think this is very astute. This is what I was trying to say above, but naturally you are much more succinct than me.

You are talking to yourselves. Most people don't care. In much of the world, homosexuality has been accepted as a natural human variation, no more right or wrong than any other variation. A minority, certainly, but that alone does not make it wrong.

Fundamentalists of all religions have lost their audience and just look increasingly ridiculous. Or they would, if they weren't also so dangerous.

At April 13, 2007 3:38 PM, Blogger L-girl said...

OK, I'm back. :)

I love what you said about not looking in the mirror, but I'm not sure it's completely true. It's true for you, certainly. But many people who rail hardest against homosexuality do so because they do see themselves in the mirror. They have feelings of attraction for some people of the same gender, they hate themselves for it, and they lash out. That's been shown again and again and again.

It's the same with abortion. Abortion-rights proponents know that many of the most vociferous anti-abortion crowd have had abortions or paid for their wives' or daughters' (or girlfriends', even tho they are married) abortions.

It's often the face in the mirror that drives the agenda.

Don't forget to rent "Elmer Gantry".

At April 13, 2007 4:43 PM, Blogger David Cho said...

Oh yes. Just like Ted Haggard. Absolutely.

But the point about not having to look in the mirror is that it just makes it easy.

Contrast that with what Wilberforce advocated or MLK. People were forced to look in the mirror, and it was uncomfortable. Having to give up the slave trade and jeopardizing the whole economy was not a very comfortable idea.

James Dobson invokes Wilberforce a lot (but not MLK because he still has not enjoyed full acceptance in Evangelical circles). Words fail me.

At April 13, 2007 9:47 PM, Blogger J.OTIS MERSTER said...

Words fail me, David. I agree with you totally, I really like the see-saw analogy, and the looking-in-the-mirror part is some good meat to chew on.
That one issue divides the church. It divides friendships . . . among evangelical Christians who are afraid to show affection to their Christian friends for fear of how it will look. That hurts. Maybe we are just talking to each other. It's probably the case. I wouldn't listen to yet another Christian condemnation if I were homosexual. I don't listen to Christian condemnation on this or any other subject. I've stopped listening. I think the church is suffering from tunnel vision.

At April 14, 2007 8:47 AM, Blogger L-girl said...

"But the point about not having to look in the mirror is that it just makes it easy."

I'm sure you're right. It's probably something I can't fully understand, coming from such a different perspective as I do.

If it's true, as you say, that the Evangelical community does not fully accept the teachings of Martin Luther King, perhaps that holds a greater clue as to what the Evangelical agenda really is.

At April 14, 2007 9:21 AM, Blogger David Cho said...


After my friend came out of the closet, he needed a place to stay in Orange County because of his summer job. I was living alone in an apartment at the time, so with no hesitation, I offered him a place to stay with me. That raised eye brows.

I didn't give a rip about that. He is my friend. I know there is a verse about "disfellowshipping those in sin," but the application of it is something I am not so sure about. Jesus never waited for the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners before spending most of his time with them.

At April 14, 2007 9:39 AM, Blogger David Cho said...


MLK still does not enjoy acceptance because of his womanization, and some still believe he was a card carrying Communist.

Geez, during the McCarthy era, did the Communists really carry a card? Where did the expression come from? As his womanizing does not justify discarding his teachings.

As to looking in the mirror, perhaps this analogy works better. If you are from a rich family, wondering about where the next meal is coming from is not something you can relate to.

That makes it easy to see the poor as lazy and deserving of poverty.

The same goes with not being able to relate to homosexuality. Not having had homosexual feelings makes it easy for me to go with all out condemnation.

Yes, there are people with from the rags to riches stories, and they don't give a rip about the poor. Their thinking is - since I did it, why can't you? They are probably more in line with the "repressed" gays you describe, and you are right.

And likewise, many from well-to-do backgrounds rise above themselves and have become huge advocates for the poor.

We are both right. Peace :)

At April 14, 2007 11:22 AM, Blogger L-girl said...

David, peace, indeed.

I'm sorry that I came across so harshly in my earlier comments, especially my first one. The Christian perspective is lost on me, and the whole thing just sets me off. (As you can see!)

"MLK still does not enjoy acceptance because of his womanization, and some still believe he was a card carrying Communist."

Ah-ha. The old Communist myth, started by J Edgar Hoover. I'd bet most of the people who think that couldn't even (correctly) explain what a Communist is or believes.

What MLK did was refuse to deny his friends who were Communists and refuse to not be a pastor to anyone who needed him, no matter what. One of the people who tainted King by association was both communist and homosexual. King was counseled over and over to distance himself from him for political expediency. But he was a pastor, not a politician, and he would deny no one. He paid a very high price.

Womanizing, well, the man was a human, not a god, not a saint. It was wrong, but as you say, it has nothing to do with his teachings. Who among us...

(PS, "womanizing" is much too strong a word for what King did, anyway. He had extramarital sex, for sure, but he was not like JFK.)

"Geez, during the McCarthy era, did the Communists really carry a card? Where did the expression come from?"

You said it yourself: McCarthy. I believe he invented the idea.

Again, I'm sorry for my earlier explosion.

At April 14, 2007 11:23 AM, Blogger L-girl said...

Oh by the way, the man I'm talking about above is Bayard Rustin.

At April 14, 2007 4:40 PM, Blogger David Cho said...

Thanks, Laura.

And very informative. Strom Thurman railing against as "draft-dodger, and homosexual"?

Wait something is not adding up. Wasn't Thurman against gays in the military? So he should be happy that Rustin refused to draft.

At April 14, 2007 6:24 PM, Blogger L-girl said...

Wasn't Thurman against gays in the military?

Heh. In those days there was no talk of gays in the military. Rustin was a true pioneer in being out. The gay liberation movement was fledgling at best. There was no openly gay presence in society.

In the 2nd Taylor Branch book (the trilogy I'm always babbling about), the parts about King and Rustin are fascinating. I gained even more admiration for King from how he handled the "problem" of Rustin.

At April 14, 2007 10:53 PM, Blogger danny wright said...

Great post David.

You have given me some insight about this I haven’t considered before. Thank you for being brave enough to broach the subject.

“Rumor has it that Dr. James Dobson plans to rename his organization to Focus on the Homos.”

As an evangelical however that supports James Dobson, may I speak in his defense?. I read all of the comments, and perhaps I missed it somewhere, but I can't find anyone suggesting prayer for this wayward man, something I believe with all my heart that he does for those that disagree with him. And I’ve heard him admonish his listeners to pray for homosexuals. I see no ministries-labors of love-for those being judged here as being so judgmental-to help us see the light, the error of our ways. Jesus commands Christians to “love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."(Jn 13:34)

“Contrast that with just a quick search through the Bible with the word "poor" which yields 178 results.”

I go to a very conservative evangelical church, and have gone to many others as a visitor. I haven’t been a Christian for as long as you have, but honestly I can’t relate with this paragraph. Not saying you haven’t experienced it but I can’t relate with it. You would think, given the center stage it has taken with Massachusetts instituting homosexual marriage, that I would have heard something about it in church. Not that it hasn’t come up outside my church and at gatherings, but it has never been a main focus. I do remember my pastor mentioning one time that there might be people in our midst that struggle with this particular sin. On the other hand, since I go to a poorer church, I actually do hear about the poor often.

“why is it that nothing galvanizes and sets off conservative Christians like homosexuality does when the Bible does not come close to sharing their preoccupation”

I would disagree with you on this to an extent. Perhaps it does galvanize conservative Christians but consider what is happening in the political arena. You also brought up the debate over the question of when does life begin, (Abortion) a debate that I wish did galvanize all Christians. Both are battles that are going on in the land, and so we should talk about them and oppose them both vehemently. Let me say that I respect those that disagree with me and are fighting to the contrary. They have a different belief system, and are fighting to implement their system, but they are no more neutral than I am on the matter.

Also I disagree about the idea of preoccupation unless you’re talking about that guy from Tulsa with his band of hateful fanatics. Yes I judge him as hateful, and I have acquaintances that live homosexual lifestyles (acquaintance because they don’t like me that much because of my belief in the Bible) that are quite civil and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them to fight off the likes of him. The only thing that the Christian has in common with him is they both call homosexual behavior sin. And as far as Dobson and others like him, I would say that it’s the media that puts him front and center. To make my point, I don’t hear about all the networks and papers outraged that Rose O’Donnell compares Christians with the Taliban, though I find that an outrageous statement.

To conclude, Like you I didn’t wake up one day and decide to call homosexual behavior sin. I can be blamed for one thing however and that is that I do believe that there is a God, and that he revealed himself through the Holy Scriptures. No one ask me what I thought about what should and shouldn’t be a sin. If someone had, I don’t think I would have even considered homosexual behavior, because I would have been to busy disqualifying the multitude of sins with which I do struggle. Furthermore, I believe that God is good and can and will forgive all regardless what we’ve done.

Again David, great post! Thx for allowing me to speak.

At April 14, 2007 11:53 PM, Blogger David Cho said...


Thank you very much for stopping by and leaving a very thoughtful note. Have you met before online some place else? Your name sounds familiar, but I cannot remember where.

You raised some good points, and I will try to respond.

James Dobson - Yeah, I think that was a cheap shot at James Dobson. It was also an attempt at humor. In my next post in the series, I plan on spelling out more what my objections are about his approach to this whole thing.

It's good to hear that about your church. I read a study some place that churches spend 97% of their budgets on themselves. That means money on church operations (buildings, equipment, etc) and salaries.

My take is based not really on sermon and Bible study topics, but Christians' political activism. Abortion and homosexuality are indeed the Big Two, and as you can see, people above, many of whom are Christians are in agreement.

Many are simply fed up. And we can't just keep blaming the media, which is always an easy target. We share some culpability in how we present ourselves to the world.

As to the notion of preoccupation, just as an example, check out the Traditional Values Coalition website. What do you see? Right now prominently displayed is the alarm bell about "Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen Bill on Fast Track In House of Representatives. Visit the website and look around.

The Traditional Values Coalition is not a fringe organization by any means. Where I used to go to church, next to the church bulletins were stacks and stacks of fliers from them.

Again, thanks for coming by.

At April 15, 2007 6:52 PM, Blogger The Gig said...

I agree with you. People refuse to see this in the Bible as a sin; they would rather twist the Bible to their own advantage.

So are you saying there is no homosexuality in Korea? I wonder how it became so prominent here in the US. I hate it that our country has this going on.

At April 15, 2007 7:01 PM, Blogger David Cho said...

I wouldn't say that, Gig. But I think the society is so conservative that nobody ever brought it up.

At April 16, 2007 10:31 AM, Blogger J.OTIS MERSTER said...

I think the passage about not assosciating with those in sin makes it very clear that Paul is speaking only of ongoing sexual sin in the life of one who calls himself a brother.
I apply that in the way I believe it should be applied, but if there is any doubt, I'd rather err on the side of love.

At April 16, 2007 4:13 PM, Blogger San Nakji said...

I will only think good thoughts... only good thoughts... la la la la

At April 18, 2007 6:24 PM, Anonymous Charles said...

Managed to stumble accross your blog somehow. You have interesting things to say.

I feel you've got a valid point here so to some degree I'm playing devil's advocate, but pointing out weaknesses in argument is good to flesh out thoughts, so here goes:

The culture currently has a bigger problem with moving toward embracing LGBT issues than with moving toward embracing exploitation, so it makes sense that moral critiques of society focus on LGBT issues. In other words, the church isn't emphasizing LGBT issues because they're more important to the church than other issues, but rather because LGBT issues are the ones that society most needs to hear about right now. If the Widow Exploitation Association of America had the same prominence in cultural discourse that LGBT groups do, I believe (hope?) that the church would stand up against it as much as against the various LGBT groups. (Admittedly we may just be turning a blind eye to poverty issues; perhaps we've already decided to exploit people overseas and just be quiet about it--instead of the fictional Widow Exploitation Association of America, we have the very real World Trade Organization. This is a strong point, but it's not bulletproof. The debate about exploitation in capitalism is a messy one--do we start with Wal-Mart for buying goods at low prices, or the consumer for wanting low prices, or the international market system, etc. And in any case the critique of the church becomes one of semi-willful ignorance and not one of hypocrisy.)

The second critique is that a lot of the image the church has is put upon it by the media; gay-bashing gets a lot more press than social justice iniatives. The media definitely have a different image of the church's emphasis than I do, though that may be because the churches I go to tend to be more intellectual and part of the "moderate" wing of evangelicalism. InterVarsity had a big missions conference last winter where the most prominent issues were social justice issues but got very little press; Rick Warren (admittedly not the most conservative confessional evangelical out there) barely got media coverage for the whole PEACE plan thing; the Evangelical Climate Initiative got more press for being controversial among evangelicals than for what it said; and certainly the Salvation Army makes news more often for its opposition to gay unions than for the many wonderful things salvationists are doing in America's inner cities.

At April 18, 2007 7:59 PM, Blogger David Cho said...

Charles, thanks for stopping by and leaving a thoughtful note.

Let me respond to a couple of your points. I am not entirely understanding your first critique which seems to contract itself.

because LGBT issues are the ones that society most needs to hear about right now.

Who decides that? The media? In the latter part of the paragraph, you took the words right out of my mouth when you said, "The debate about exploitation in capitalism is a messy one."

My point exactly. It is a messy one whereas to most people, the homosexuality debate is black and white, which makes it so easy. But issues involving the abuses inflicted by corporate America is indeed a messy one. Too many of us are in bed with corporations with questionable ethics. I myself am a beneficiary of corporate America. But anything you say automatically attracts knee-jerk accusations of being unAmerican and anti-capitalist. And anti-Christian. How that huge leap in logic came about is beyond me.

Just to give you a preview, I will be writing about William Wilberforce and compare his moral crusade with what goes on today. It was not so black and white when he worked so tirelessly against slavery, and he made most people uneasy about their own morals. That is far from being the case with today's anti-gay crusade.

Your second critique is valid, but you are right Rick Warren and Intervarsity are not in general considered conservative. I am speaking for the most part the conservative wing of Evangelicalism because that is the background I come from. They are my people.

At April 19, 2007 8:17 PM, Blogger Brotha Buck said...

David, what a powerful post. Nothing to say after all that, we are on the same track.

At April 23, 2007 3:28 AM, Blogger blind-horse said...

Blessings, David.

Interrestng and courageous post. Good exchanges in comments. Awaiting the third part. We have travelled similar paths.

At April 29, 2007 12:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.

But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.

It's just incredible, isn't it?

Fundamentalists change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other!

At April 29, 2007 12:23 AM, Anonymous Rationality said...

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

At April 29, 2007 12:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

At April 29, 2007 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

At April 29, 2007 12:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

At April 29, 2007 2:00 AM, Blogger David Cho said...

Anon, I agree with you on this. Selectivity was going to be another topic for me, but you are right.

At April 29, 2007 8:08 AM, Blogger Granny said...

I was going to mention the cherry picking done by folks who already believe something is repugnant and then search for isolated scripture to prove their point.

No need. Anonymous did it for me.

At October 18, 2007 9:00 PM, Anonymous Jesus Christ said...

David, it's people like you with attitudes like yours that are increasingly responsible for the suicides of teenagers who are grappling with realizations that they are attracted to the same sex.

Your writing here is extremely smug and may there be a special place in hell reserved for you.


Post a Comment

<< Home