Without touching on the stupidity of the AFA or this protest, I feel I must defend (from a theological standpoint, and as an atheist, by which I mean, defend its internal coherence) the idea that one can condemn a Christian for being a practicing homosexual. (While repeating that I do not myself see any problem with homosexuality, but I comprehend the claims of those who consider its practice as incompatible with Christian belief.)

Christians are, of course, all sinners. But they're supposed to hate sin, and try their best to not sin.

The problem, from that perspective, with a "practicing homosexual" is the same as one with a "practicing murderer" or "practicing thief"; he is quite evidently not trying to stop committing that sin, but is (in the case of the homosexual and sometimes the thief, though rarely the murderer) trying to say it's okay to commit it.

Otherwise, he would be celibate, or only break down and engage in homosexual activity at rare intervals (and repenting of it afterwards, as is required for forgiveness of any sin), just as a thief would have an honest living (if we assume one is available, which it is to most thieves in the modern, Western world), if he really believed theft was Wrong.

Jesus would not (from my reading of Scripture) suggest that someone must be free from sin, but that they must endeavour to not commit sins if they have any power to, and repent of them sincerely when they commit them ("Go,and sin no more"). This does not, in my experience, describe any "practicing homosexual". Rather such persons tend, quite naturally, to hold the belief that they are not sinning at all. (Whether they are right or not, as a matter of theology, is beyond my competence.)

So, no, I don't really see that that argument against the AFA holds, though the rest looks quite correct.

I see the point, but I doubt a similar objection would have been raised against a writer "living in sin" with a woman he hadn't married.

Sigivald: if you have no problem with homosexuality, then why do you waste ANY time defending a form of bigotry against a harmless activity that Jesus and the Ten Commandments never explicitly even mentioned? And why do you so easily accept the equation of "practicing homosexuals" with "practicing murderers?" Do you really consider those two groups similar in any meaningful way? Is this equation not a form of "false witness?"

Anti-gay bigotry is NOT central to Christian doctrine. It is based -- loosely -- on peripheral references in the Bible that some people have cherry-picked and chosen to interpret in a spirit contradictory to the words and spirit of Jesus himself.

-- "Aren't there also adulterous Christians, lying Christians, covetous Christians, and Christians who don't always strictly obey the Sabbath?" --

Not to mention "Christians" who judge others and who are anything but meek.

Raging Bee - Quit raging and take a chill pill. Only someone who tries very hard to see the worst in everything could possibly interpret Sigivald's post as "defending" anti-gay bigotry. He was trying to explain a point of view - a useful thing to do since it's more difficult to fight what you don't understand.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, and I'm contributing my understanding that all that theological discourse is nothing more than a thin disguise for the sort of mindless hatred that will tiwst (or ignore) even the holiest of words to its own purposes. It's the emotion that must be understood, not the rationalizations.

Jesus washed the feet of a prostitute. Therefore he is a pimp.

We shouldn't worry about what people like those at the AFA have to say. Just wind 'em up and let 'em chatter their fool heads off. I personally still hold out enough hope for the common sense of most Americans to believe that the more these Right-Wing nitwits sound off, the more obvious their idiocy becomes.

So Pat Robertson thinks "homosexual behavior" is a sin? Ahhhahahahahahahaha! This stern moral admonition, from a man who goes on national TV to recommend the assassination of a major political leader.

Robertson, the AFA, and the rest of those self-important blowholes couldn't be more obvious clowns unless they wore big red noses, ruffly collars, squirting carnations and floppy shoes.

Again, I still have faith that sanity will prevail.