Comments on: Larry King's Gay Christian Night: Jennifer Knapp, Clay Aiken, Ted Haggard & Pastor Bob

By: Monicarolevans

Monicarolevans — Sat, 08 May 2010 00:05:45 +0000

I have to agree with @Krrru. I watched the whole thing (it was a train wreck that I couldn’t get enough of). And Ted can SAY all he wants that he’s completely free of homosexuality, in that interview, he sounded like a completely different man that the one who made us want to throw up a little while ago. Maybe not gay, but definitely willing to avoid throwing any stones.

And as some one who is a believer, a lesbian, and has my own issues with the Church I believe that Christianity (Jesus/God) has room for all the gays. Jesus preached love and acceptance and non-judgement and Pastor Bob and his elk have moved a looog way from WWJD. They need to f-ing regroup.

That is all.

By: g

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:49:35 +0000

not on reddit, something worse. I’m on Digg.

By: ep 149 – Nick and Josh Conversate » The Nick & Josh Podcast

ep 149 – Nick and Josh Conversate » The Nick & Josh Podcast — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:05:15 +0000

[...] is the link to the Knapp on Larry King Interview, and Josh will be posting thoughts [...]

By: Julia

Julia — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:51:47 +0000

So embarrasing. Two mispellings in a post criticising someone else’s mispelling.
Autostraddle, I apologise.

By: Genevieve

Genevieve — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:25:41 +0000

Thanks for this, you said it better than i ever could.

By: Julia

Julia — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:50:19 +0000

Punctuation standards FTW!

Also, can someone pleas explain what exatcly is “expcetable” to God? Enquiring minds want to know…

By: Rachel

Rachel — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:21:41 +0000

are you on reddit? you are, aren’t you. good idea!

By: Krrru

Krrru — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:29:20 +0000

The whole program can be found on here if you’re interested- http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/04/8381/

And much as I hate to say it, Ted Haggard actually came across pretty well. That other pastor was a dick.

By: riese

riese — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:56:08 +0000

hi sherri i would just like to add that the bible, which is loaded with rules that are no longer necessary in the modern world (e.g., we’re reproducing our people just fine now and no longer need to fear men lying with other men, and we’re able to clean our shellfish properly and therefore don’t need to fear eating it), actually doesn’t say anything about lesbians. it’s just dudes. so if we’re really going to get literal (which is actually impossible as someone else pointed out, translated texts are never consistent especially when translated by people with distinct political agendas), then Jennifer Knapp is good to go anyhow, ’cause she’s a lady!

By: Brianna

Brianna — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:55:28 +0000

Okay Rachel, you will be the first I email if I ever start to feel like I’m reading the ‘homosexual agenda’ section of FreeRepublic instead of Autostraddle.

In the mean time, I’m going to go create a blog so that I can get comments from trolls and then delete them while cackling maniacally.

By: TSwizzle

TSwizzle — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:20:30 +0000

It’s a bit like blowing smoke up someone’s arse, except there’s less chance of God smiting you.

By: Jaymax

Jaymax — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:43:05 +0000

To me, the problem with people who try to use the Bible against homosexuality is when they selectively choose modern English translations of lines from ancient Hebrew or Greek texts with very little or no understanding of the intent, cultural context and languages in which they were originally written.

There are quite a few people who would be put to death if we were to take all the laws in the OT and apply them to modern times. And there would be quite a few people we would label as immoral monsters and criminals today, whose behaviour was perfectly acceptable two to three thousand years ago amongst the Israelites.

As far as I can see, homosexuals as we know them today, have nothing to do with the people and behaviour that was condemned in a handful of selected verses from both the OT and NT. Homosexual couples in loving committed relationships and families as we know them today are not even mentioned at all in the Bible.

From everything I’ve researched, the only mentions of any hint of same-gender sex acts (not homosexuality) are those involved with worship of fertility gods (idolatry) or an abusive act like male/male rape of strangers. Male rape was another common practice in those days- where a male would rape another male-(especially a stranger) to show dominance, contempt and humiliation. Ie treat a man like a woman. This had nothing to do with homosexuality or even lust-the men were more than likely heterosexual (think prisons, or prisoners of war). We know rape is about control and power, not “lust”.

We no longer have temples to Canaanite or Roman fertility gods where ritual sex acts (both heterosexual and homosexual) with sacred temple prostitutes were used to worship the gods to make the crops grow and the land prosperous. This was a very very common practice in both the time when the Israelites were in the land of Canaan, as well as later in the 1st century Roman empire.

Yet many people today, who appear to know nothing of the ancient Canaanite practices, or ancient Hebrew culture, or the religious practices common in the 1st century Rome and Corinth, seem to feel so certain that these cherry-picked verses must be referring to homosexuals or homosexuality in general.

Obviously, the culture was completely different to modern times when the texts in the OT were written. Men could have several wives and concubines and slavegirls. They could kidnap virgin girls from other tribes with the Lord’s approval. The Lord even asked for His percent of the human booty in the form of virgins and slaves. Men could get away with raping a virgin girl as long as they paid a price to the girls father and married her. They could get away with having sex with another man’s slavewoman as long as they gave a ram to the priest to be sacrificed in atonement. Women were chattel whose main value was as a receptacle for men’s seed. Women whose husbands had died had to marry their dead husband’s brother or closest relative to carry on his “seed”.

These practices are completely ignored by certain modern Christians when they use a verse or two out of context to condemn homosexuals and homosexuality.

Just how many modern homosexuals are sacred temple prostitutes practicing ritual sex acts in pagan fertility temples so that the local corn crops or wheat fields will be prosperous? If someone wants to say that gay people in a loving relationship are “fornicators” because they aren’t “married”- well fine.

At least that puts them on the same level as a heterosexual couple who isn’t married.

But then put it back in context of ancient Hebrew men having several wives, concubines and slavewoman, some of whom would have been kidnapped as young girls from a neighbouring tribe after all the men, women and male children were slaughtered. How does a modern, loving, committed, gay couple compare to that sort of behaviour?? Bevahiour which was perfectly acceptable in ancient times.