Mar 31 2008 gay liberation theology

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Today on the radio I heard about "Black Liberation Theology." The logic goes like this: Jesus was a rabble-rouser. He kept telling people that they should not listen to the rabbinical power players, but rather listen to God. This upset the power players so much they executed him for what we would today call political crimes.

But through his life and death, He gave us liberty not just over the tyranny of death, but also over the tyranny of Old Testament laws and oppressive Roman rule. We reach heaven not through punishing people, but by liberating them. From The Good Samaritan to The Sermon on the Mount, God's message is clear: we are to love God with all our heart, soul, body and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. That what Dr. Martin Luther King, Bishop Desmond Tutu and even Jeremiah Wright are trying to tell us, and not a bad foundation.

Now as a gay dad, I'm just trying to be the best husband, father and Christian that I can. That seems to disturb a lot of people. But what Liberation Theology shows us is God wants us to love and accept people no matter how much they disturb us. Whether the gays will or won't go to heaven is unclear, but whether the oppressors or the oppressed will go to heaven is crystal clear.

Putting your veto on AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, was an easy thing for you to do, but if there is any truth to Liberation Theology, it was not the right thing to do. After all, I may be a rabble-rouser myself, but I am still your neighbor.

Yours,

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• steps
• Jesus
• Christ
• holy
• land
• preach
• talk
• speech
• riot
• China

[jtw90210]

@AlexzandrSpringvale I wish you would read your bible. The sins of Sodom were well chronicled, but they did not include homosexuality. In the bible we learn that the sodomites were simply inhospitable to God and their neighbors. READ Ezekiel 16.49-50, Luke 17.26-29.

So failing to treat your neighbors as you treat yourself is the great commandment, and blocking my marriage from legal recgonition because you think yours is better, that is the reason Sodom was destroyed.

[Spocktavian]

FUCK THE WHITE MAN!!!!! THIS IS THE BLACK MANS TIME NOW!!!! YOU WILL NOT HOLD US BACK!!!!!!!!! YOU WILL NOT ENSLAVE US!!!!!!

[bimboblacky]

were considered "unclean" by the Hebrews, and precisely B-cause their Torah SAID so! So when Saint Peter had that vision of those "weird" animals on that sheet, he was clearly trying 2 B obedient 2 GOD. Of course, the Lord told him this: "DO NOT call what GOD has cleansed common or unclean!" This eventually let Peter (and all of the Church) know that *Gentiles* (also formerly considered unclean) were now WELCOME in the Body of Christ. People who practiced Gentile WAYS (2 a point) were, 2!!!

[bimboblacky]

Okay, let's get away from the David/Jonathan and Ruth/Naomi thing 4 just a sec. How about the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 10 and Peter's vision? The Hebrew adjective describing male same-sex relations (toevah) is EXACTLY the same one describing consumption of shellfish, pork, and I B-lieve mixing of crops and fabrics. There is a FAR WORSE adjective that describes rape and certain forms of incest (zima). This translation pretty much carried over in-2 the Greek. Pork, shellfish, etc. (cont.)

[signab43]

Ha indeed.

Fortunately Jesus teaches us how to sort this out: throw out the old laws and follow His prime directive.

"...if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Romans 13:9

In all your name calling, you have forgotten that it is not your place to tear apart my marriage or Ruth & Naomi's. It is to love and support us, not "prove" that the Bible somehow condemns us.

You might be surprised on the last day.

[MrFinklestein]

Ha? You've proven nothing with this argument. Why would God be against Adoption or same-sex parenting? It doesn't mean the two have to be lovers of any sort, and Ruth does not allude to that.

And "if" you use Ruth 1:17? What "if" I used ANY Bible scripture to fit my own beliefs?

Your point alone proves your ignorance. You've given nothing to advocate same sex relations in any shape or form. I'll not be responding to this post again based on your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible. Bye.

[signab43]

sorry, this thread needs an intervention too. Ruth and Naomi is a nice example of two women having descendants, or in particular a barren woman having a descendant. And what a descendant:

"And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David." Ruth 4:17

God indeed recognizes and blesses adoption, same-sex parenting, and if you use Ruth 1:17 for wedding vows, gay marriage.

Ha!

[signab43]

You said it yourself, Jesus said nothing about same-sex relationships. If he was opposed to them, he had plenty of opportunity to say so.

He did teach us to ignore a lot of Laws of the time, "there is no male nor female, Jew or gentile, but one Christ Jesus" and "there is but one law, to love your neighbor as yourself."

If you understand that Jesus was for love, we all win; if you think two women getting married is going to undo the work of Jesus then you are indeed hopeless.

[MrFinklestein]

But it doesn't say that Jesus was for Homosexual relations. In the Law same sex relations were condemned and Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but rather to uphold it. So by upholding this Law one has to assume he couldn't have been for same sex relations because, if he had been, His work would mean nothing and we would be without hope.

[signab43]

Hi, just caught this thread. You seem to be trying to find ways to "thread the needle" to make it look like the bible condemns homosexuals. It's sad to see. Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, whatever - the truth is if you can pick and choose, why not choose love?

Jesus supported affirming relationships, and Opponents of Equality do not. That is the truth, in less than 500 chars.