Jars of Clay in Toronto, 2007. Photo by imuttoo via Flickr (http://bit.ly/1nNJJsv)

Jars of Clay in Toronto, 2007. Photo by imuttoo via Flickr (http://bit.ly/1nNJJsv) Photo by imuttoo via Flickr


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Update: Haseltine posted an update on his remarks to his blog.

In a series of tweets over the last few days, Jars of Clay lead singer Dan Haseltine joined a growing number of Americans in supporting gay marriage. One of Contemporary Christian Music’s most popular bands, Jars of Clay has won Grammys, Dove Awards, and sold millions of records. “The treatment of people as less than human based on the color of skin is crazy… Or gender, or sexual orientation for that matter,” Haseltine tweeted on Tuesday. “I just don’t see a negative effect to allowing gay marriage. No societal breakdown, no war on traditional marriage. ?? Anyone?”

While a musician with political opinions is nothing terribly new, Haseltine’s tweets have generated a great deal of conversation in the last few days. Charisma News has reported “The Shattering of Jars of Clay,” and conservative blogger and professor Denny Burk posted some of Haseltine’s remarks over at his website. “We are heartbroken that he is shaking his fist in Jesus’ face. When did Dan depart from truth?” Amy Spreeman asked at Stand Up for the Truth.

Although he hasn’t responded to critics directly, Haseltine argued via Twitter that “It is a form of dismissal when we assume we know a person once we identify their ‘sin.’ We withhold love for fear it would enable.” He suggested that, although the Scriptures may be without error, humankind’s interpretation of the Scriptures is never without error and that should lead Christians to err on the side of love rather than judgement.

In a 2012 interview with Christianity Today, Haseltine was asked about the band being categorized as Christian.

Jars began as a band for what we call “the middle space.” We did not want to be a Christian band. We did not want to be a mainstream band. We wanted to live in the tension of both worlds. We were comfortable with the tension of that middle space.

We loved the conversations and debates it would stir. We felt like we were right where we needed to be. We fought and elbowed our way to keep ourselves in that tension. We’ve written songs for R-rated movies and for church music albums. We’ve played for Billy Graham festivals and for modern rock radio station festivals.

It may come as no surprise, then, that a band created for “the middle space” should find themselves in “the messy middle” on the issue of gay marriage.

Categories: Beliefs

Beliefs:

Tags: , ,

Laura Turner

Laura Turner

Laura Turner is a writer and editor living in San Francisco. In addition to being a regular contributor to Christianity Today’s “Her.meneutics” blog, she has also written for publications such as Books & Culture and The Bold Italic. She is interested in the intersection of church and culture.

109 Comments

  1. I saw this on Twitter this week and participated in some of the dialogue. It’s discouraging. I like Dan and his music, but I want him to lift up the gospel and look to Jesus, not say things like “marriage” is just a place-holder word that could mean anything or that the following Jesus has nothing to do with our morality.

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that homosexuals should be treated as less than human. How is holding to an actual definition of marriage dehumanizing to anyone? The craziness comes from those who use words without meaning.

    • “I don’t think anyone is arguing that homosexuals should be treated as less than human. ”

      Untrue. That is exactly what various people calling themselves Christians are arguing. They argue that gays should be discriminated against under the color of law, be denied basic human dignity and denied the ability to form legally sane family connections. Many of them even actively supporting efforts to imprison or execute them for being gay.

      If one is holding to a definition of marriage strictly as a method of denying gays civil liberties, then it is dehumanizing. The idea that excluding them from such things attacks the basis of marriage is ridiculous.

      • It’s not dehumanizing. At some point we need standards and we need to define things, otherwise it gets sloppy. Like how now some are saying marriage should be able to be temporary.
        Please, define marriage. I bet in the process you will “discriminate”
        against someone.
        It’s not a right. It’s an institution ALLOWED by government. Two or more people can be married to whomever without the government. It won’t be recognized but it’s still a marriage.
        And most Christians don’t care. You only notice the extemist. We just like to not worry about losing jobs or businesses because we follow morality clearly outlined in the Bible. God defined marriage for us; its monogamous, heterosexual and lasts a lifetime.

        • That is a bullcrap answer because you don’t have a rational or secular reason for keeping to a given definition which bans it. Generalized talking of standards does not address why they should be the way they are.

          Marriage is a right DEFINED by government. That has been well established for some time. Your ignorance on the subject is duly noted. Religions have their own way of defining marriage, but our laws do not have to take any of them seriously on their face.

          Most Christians don’t care but they let the extremists do all the talking on their behalf. Their silence on the subject is as good as assent. If those good Christian folk don’t want extremists to speak for them, they have to pony up and say that “these people don’t represent me, I believe …”. Instead there is defensive nonsense.

          As for just wanting to follow the Bible and its morality, that is also a load of crap. You want to do more than that, you want to force your views on those subjects on everyone else under the color of law. If you kept to your own behavior, nobody would care. God defined marriage FOR YOU. It doesn’t mean God defines marriage for the rest of us. Religious freedom means not having to care what your faith says on any given subject by force of law.

        • CarrotCakeMan

          Ana C. claimed about legal marriage, “It’s not a right.” Wrong, Ana C. Marriage has been defined as a Constitutionally protected civil right by the United States Supreme Court 15 times since 1888. Please note the last example is of the marriage of two American women.

          Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888)
          Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
          Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)
          Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)
          Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)
          Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971)
          Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974)
          Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)
          Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977)
          Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)
          Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)
          Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)
          M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996)
          Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)
          United States v Windsor 570 U.S. (2013)

      • Part of the problem with that, Larry, is that some people who are not Christians are called themselves Christians. I can’t defend them, but I do defend the simple morality of marriage. For someone to say it’s dehumanizing to unable to legally call a relationship marriage when it isn’t–that’s absurd. Homosexuals can live as married couples now, I believe. In most states, they just can’t call themselves married. What’s the problem?

        Answer me this: if a woman wants to marry her sister, is she denied basic human rights to be forbidden to marry a woman or to be forbidden to marry a sibling?

        • You ask “if a woman wants to marry her sister”… Do you think that’s a ridiculous question? If you believe in the bible, and we all came from Adam and Eve, how do you think there are billions of us now? If God didn’t create anybody else, then their children must have married each each other. Or maybe Eve married Cain to produce more kids. You think?

        • Its telling you have to make an analogy to incest rather than discuss the topic at hand. There are rational and secular reasons for banning incest (“2 headed babies” comes to mind). Same goes for buggery, polygamy (which would have been your next questions). There is none for banning gay marriage. In all the instances where people had to support such bans using rational and secular arguments, they came up empty.

          You want to define people as Christians your way to avoid embarrasing association. But it doesn’t work that way. You were dead wrong that people don’t actively want to treat gays as less than human.

        • Why do we single gays out for legislative answers? If the Bible is to be the morality of this country, please tell me why divorced people are allowed to remarry? Jesus (who said nothing about gays) spoke vehemently about divorce. Yet we allow these people to commit adultery (Jesus’ own words) without penalty while gays cannot marry. How do you possibly justify this dichotomy without calling it discrimination?

          • Jeff, there are biblical grounds for divorce, and a case can be made for remarriage. While Jesus didn’t mention ‘gays’ he did affirm that marriage is between an man and a woman, and sense the whole Bible is the word of Christ, he did in fact mention gays in both testaments.
            Now, it is true that some make a bigger deal about homosexual sin and ignore others, but it doesn’t mean homosexual behavior is not sinful.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Sorry, Clark, but Jesus took positive action–which speaks louder than words–in favor of same gender couples. Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Read Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. In the original Greek, the word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner. I’m sure you would prefer we ignore what the Bible says Jesus did, Clark, and instead fall for the usual fake Bible passages. For example, the epithet “homosexual” only came into existence in 1870.

        • CarrotCakeMan

          Sorry, Phil W, you have indeed tried to dehumanize the over 750,000 loving, committed same gender legally married American couples by comparing us to incest.

          Something tells me that if YOU were denied your Constitutionally protected right to marry the person you love, and others tried to dehumanize you by comparing your relationship to something that unsavory, you’d be unhappy.

      • For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

        24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

        26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

        28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

        • So God turned the Romans gay and violent as divine punishment for idolatry. Idolatry being the sin deserving of punishment in the passage.

          The problem you guys face when trying to take a Bible dump is you either don’t bother to read the entire passage, as you have done or miss the fact that consensual adult homosexual relations are not depicted in it.

          • Larry, that is just false. It is clearly labeled that way. Just because you choose to misinterpret doesn’t make you right.

          • @CLARK,
            You tell Larry to he ‘chooses to misinterpret’. Nonsense.
            Where is the misinterpretation?
            God says we should kill gays in Leviticus 20:13.

            Then again, Maybe Jesus was gay:

            Did Jesus stumble into a tryst between Peter and Jesus’ lover?

            It is written as if He did.
            “Then the disciple whom Jesus LOVED said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water” (John 21:7)

            “And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.” (Mark 14:51-52)
            It is right there in plain view.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            It’s sad to see anti-gays cling desperately to the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. What about all the real Christian denominations that are marrying same gender couples NOW in the 18 US States that honor their Freedom Of Religion?

          • @Clark

            I read the passage as it was written, in its entire context. You were just inattentive and too caught up in validating your own bigotry to bother doing the same.

            Bigots tend to ignore passages 21:23 which explains idolatry as the vile sin incurring God’s wrath. The rest of the passage describing the nature of God’s punishment.

            The only misinterpretation came from what you thought it was about. You were either not reading it correctly, in its entirety or skipping over important parts.

      • Where do you come up with this?

        Where in ANY part of the world, free or communist, did you read that Christians are calling for the imprisonment or execution of gay individuals seeking marriage?

        This is a reckless blanket statement you made which is by far the most preposterous thing I’ve seen regarding what Christians are doing.

        AGAIN. Marriage is ordained by God. An undertaking that is sworn before God. Officiated by someone ordained by GOD. This is biblical. God defined marriage between a man and a woman. Dedicates countless scripture showing former kings wooing their would be queens (Songs of Solomon) showing man being thankful for God’s gift of the woman (Genesis, Adam), showing that man leaving the natural use of a woman for another man and likewise women leaving their natural order for other women being an abomination before God (Romans 1).

        Christians are seeking to maintain the natural order of marriage as defined by God’s standards.

        How and where did that call for the death or imprisonment of a class of people in a free society? This society is fast becoming an anthiestic/marxist one because every Godly principle has been attacked. Our country used to be a Christian country. We used to pray in school. Could still say the pledge of allegiance in its entirety.

        If you have an argument against the matter, fine. But making up reasons to argue…especially something like this….just shows how desperate you are to make us the bad guys.

        Don’t worry, this time is yours…it is also BIBLICAL that the world would return to a GODLESS state…doing all manner of things God finds disgusting and wrong.

        Christians fighting against the sign of the times….will slowly come to realize what age we’re living in…the matter will be resolved once and for all when Christ returns.

        Until then, I pray that everyone reading this comment will come to know the one true LIVING God, Jesus. Repent of their sin and make Him Lord over your life.

        Definition of sin: is a state of separation from God. The nature of being apart from the divinity of God and grace. It is like a garment you wear which causes you to act out or say things against the truth and knowledge of God.

        Repenting simply means you take off this garment. You choose to accept God’s truth and honor His word. You acknowledge the sacrifice of Jesus which bestowed a new and incorruptible garment to humanity.

        When you “put on the mantle” of Christ or when you “take up your cross” this means you identify with the truth. You seek the kingdom of God above the kingdom of man. You die to yourself and live for Him.

        After this, sin no longer has control of you…this includes the symptom of homosexuality. You are finally free from the mark of sin and its characteristics. You are a new creation, fully endowed with the grace the Holy Spirit of God gives you.

        This is the Christian faith. This is what we’re seeking to maintain.

        Point out, in anything I’ve said, where it calls for the imprisonment and or death of homosexuals.

        • Kimmiheartsu, maybe you should pay attention to the news once in a while. It is not a reckless statement, it is a statement of fact.

          Your denial of such things is either ignorant or dishonest. Especially since they have been topics on this website.

          In Uganda, Nigeria and Russia and several other places, American Evangelicals are working with government officials to do exactly what I am talking about. Imprisoning and executing people for being gay.

          http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/1/retrogressive-antigaylawinugandahastiestotheus.html

          http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/un-says-nigerias-jail-all-gays-bill-breaks-international-law010713

          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130814-russia-anti-gay-propaganda-law-world-olympics-africa-gay-rights/

          In every western nation we see such laws, we also see the efforts of people calling themselves Christians who lobby for such efforts in the name of their faith.

          These are the same people who seek legalized discrimination against gays in business as they tried to pass bills in AZ and other states not more than 2 months ago. (Are you living in a cave?).

          Those people who claim Christ does not want gays to be married are the same that say that gays should be ostracized and discriminated against under the color of law. There is nothing to respect in that. It is obvious it is only guided by religious inspired bigotry. There is no rational nor secular motive behind it. Therefore no reason why our laws have to take such rationale seriously, ever.

          Our country has never been, nor ever will be a “Christian Nation”. When people use the term they are anti-democratic fools who are claiming that Christians should be granted privileges over every other American. The unspoken way Christian Nation is used is to say, “The US is a Christian Nation, we own the government. All other religious believers can go —- themselves” That is what you were saying but not honest enough to articulate it so plainly.

          Religious freedom means our laws NEVER have to follow the dictates of your faith. You are simply moaning about having to adhere to the principles this nation was founded upon. That the laws have to treat people who have beliefs besides your own the same as they treat you. Your belief in Christ is not as important as the liberties of everyone else. This is not something anyone who respects civil liberties and democracy should respect.

    • Robert Wagenaar

      Perhaps Dan was just arguing for the legality of gay marriage, given the current US Constitution’s equal rights for all emphasis. (After all, even some of those against gay marriage being legal have agreed the Constitution needs to be amended to outlaw it. Maybe those who want the Constitution to be amended will also want it to prohibit those of one kind of faith from marrying those of another faith (the unequally yoked clause). Or maybe they’ll also want to ban marriage by those who didn’t have an immoral or deserting spouse, or one who died.) That is, maybe Dan doesn’t agree it’s right, or a marriage as defined by the Bible, but still feels it should be a freedom in a country that emphasizes freedom by consenting adults, as long as others aren’t hurt by that choice, wrong as it may be.
      Evangelicals need to realize gay or both genders oriented people can’t change their orientation, just like most of the leaders of Exodus Ministries finally realized after trying so long to change such. 0 success rate.
      Another place where evangelicals need to re-think something is in regard to most of the evangelical leaders saying we must support Israel no matter what it does to Palestinians and Syrians. They need to read Galatians 3:15 and realize land promise was ultimately for the Messiah, not the Israelite people. I have a book about this I’m trying to get published.

    • What did everyone expect him to say? No? This conveniently redefines parenting as well. When the state is involved, they can now deny any child the basic human rights to be endowed with a “Female mother” for nurturing, compassion, and care in the child’s most indelible years of their lives by placing the child with a pair of “Heterosexual men”
      Think about it.
      America is imploding from withing and ignorance, along with depravity prevails.

      Children’s rights.

      • That is about the stupidest argument anti-gay people use!

        Lumpy, in all cases where gay couples are raising children, those children do not have two parents of different genders taking care of them. You are so stupid and hateful you would deny children 2 parents in favor of 1 or none because the couple happens to be gay.

        You act as if gay couples raising children are some hypothetical situation. They aren’t. They have families. You just want to deny those families the right to live in an sane manner.

        Even more dishonest is ignoring the fact that gay couples have been legally allowed to raise children for just over a generation. If you had a legitimate point to make, you would have been able to point out how those children are somehow “damaged” or ill adjusted. Guess what all studies concerning them have proven? That two parents of ANY gender raise children more effectively than 1 or no parents. That children of gay parents are statistically as normal as everyone else. [CarrotCakeMan linked to them above, not that you bothered to read them]

        Face it, you don’t give a flying crap about children at all. Just excuses to treat gay families like crap. Mendacity and bigotry going hand in hand.

      • CarrotCakeMan

        Sorry, Lumpy, but your routine anti-gay claim about same gender parents has long since been debunked. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Agency has on its website details of studies of same gender parents and their children going back nearly 30 years. They recommend same gender couples be utilized MORE in adoptions because they proved same gender parents are just as good at raising children as mixed-sex parents. Look it up for yourselves and learn the FACTS about same gender parents.

        “[S]tudies on children dating back 25 years conclude that children raised by gay and lesbian non-adoptive parents fare as well as those reared by heterosexual parents (Breways, Ponjaert, Van Hall, & Golombok, 1997; Chan, Raboy & Patterson, 1998; Golombok, Perry, Burston, Murray, Mooney-Sommer, Stevens, & Golding, 2003; Wainwright, Russell & Patterson, 2004).”

        http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2008_09_expand_resources.php

        The New England Journal of Medicine urges government to establish marriage equality for health reasons:

        “Same-sex marriage strengthens access to health insurance for the 220,000 children who are being raised by same-sex parents in the United States. Employers who offer health insurance to dependent children often require that minors be related to the employee by birth, legal marriage, or legal adoption, so children with LGBT parents are left with diminished protections in states that deny legal marriages and adoptions to same-sex couples. As a result, children with same-sex parents are less likely than children with married opposite-sex parents to have private health insurance. These disparities diminish when LGBT families live in states with marriage equality or laws supporting adoptions for same-sex parents.”

        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254

        “Where differences were identified between the gay father adoptive families and the heterosexual parent adoptive families, these reflected more positive functioning in the gay father families.”

        Source: Adoptive Gay Father Families: Parent–Child Relationships and Children’s Psychological Adjustment. Child Development Volume 85, Issue 2, pages 456–468, March/April 2014

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12155/full

      • CarrotCakeMan

        Here’s more evidence of how wrong you are, Lumpy:

        “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.”

        http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339

        “The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, “If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay”. 11
        Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of “significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals”.”

        http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm

        “The objective of this study was to document the psychological adjustment of adolescents who were conceived through donor insemination by lesbian mothers who enrolled before these offspring were born in the largest, longest running, prospective, longitudinal study of same-sex–parented families.

        CONCLUSIONS Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.”

        http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1

      • Godzilla 83: 31
        “And the great monster rose from the depths of Tokyo Bay and the denizens fled underground. To the shelters which they hid in a decade before when the Americans had unleashed their firey wrath upon the city”

        Big “kaiju eiga” fan :)

      • You should be getting your answer together for when God asks you why you compared Him and His word to x-men transformers and godzilla. You are going to look stupid and feel so very sad and miserable, especially when you realize the wrongs you have done to yourself and countless others. Where there is life there is hope. It is not too late yet, but you should probably hurry. The world getting like Sodom and Gomorra is one of the flags to watch for.

        • So you think god cares more about his personal vanity than the hearts of people and how they treat one another. If that is the case, you can keep him. Such a God is unworthy of worship

          • Larry, nothing was said about God’s vanity. He is God he has no vanity. But God is a jealous God, and with Him it is a perfect holy jealousy. You’re grasping at straws to defend the indefensible.

          • Again, you are not paying attention to what was being written. Doris was worrying about our eternal soul after a joke was made at the expense of “Bible Dumpers” with empty citations. God’s vanity was what Doris was worried about. That God has no sense of humor and is going to condemn people to perdition for cracking wise.

            Your God seems to encourage people to make declarations of fealty to him out of self-interested fear. That is what hell is for. That is why Christians make such a big deal about it.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            I’m so sorry for you, Clark, but your irrational and hateful deity is no one’s problem but yours.

  2. I’m disappointed to hear these remarks from a band that performs such songs as “I’ll Fly Away”, at least we are clear as to where they stand. Seek the Lord in repentance & get the baptism of the Holy Ghost before performing any further.

    • Unless some repentance happens, I think he is in trouble. Makes me wonder if he has read his bible. If he has, he certainly did not understand it.

      • “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7

        • well, now that he is an enemy of the Lord perhaps he should suffer the fate Jesus recommends?

          “bring to me those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their King, and EXECUTE THEM in front of me.” – Jesus (Luke 19:27)

          With ideas like that, what could go wrong?

  3. Homosexuality was created by man; remember how it is referred to as sexual “preference”, indicating it is a choice. It is NOT how God created people to live and for gays to think that the laws should be redefined so they don’t feel discriminated against is ridiculous. If you want to live in sin, totally up to you. What is dehumanizing is putting LGBT people in jail or to death. Loving someone does not require you to condone their behavior. I’m sorry but the politically correct way to live so that no one feels slighted is total crap! Life is not fair and EVERYONE gets treated badly at one time or another! Not everyone is living so that you don’t feel offended…..anyone that says different is a liar. You cannot and will not be able to please everyone. A group that is forcing their way into the law by threatening people/humiliating them for disagreeing with their way of life is stupid. As a Christian, there is a call to treat gay people with love and respect WITHOUT agreeing/praising their life choices.

    • Kelly, with all do respect, it’s been determined homosexuality is an orientation, not a “preference”. In other words, it’s hardwired in to some extent. Those who “choose” would be bi-sexuals, who are attracted to both genders. Furthermore, homosexuality wasn’t created by man. All you have to do is look at all the research of animals, in their natural environment, engaged in same-sex pairings to determine that there is a biological determination (or if you insist that a deity created everything, then the deity itself would have created the creatures and given them their orientations, as animals don’t make moral choices). Humans are just one of a multitude of animals on this planet, that exhibit this biological orientation.

      Now, regarding marriage…

      Luckily, we live in a country that is ruled by law with a separation of religion and state written into the Constitution. Some religions support same-sex marriage, some don’t. Both are entitled to their beliefs, with their opinions protected by secular law. What these religions are not entitled to do is force their rhetoric into law. Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting, non-related adults. The contract grants rights, responsibilities and protections to the couple. Sometimes the marriage involves a religious ceremony, other times it doesn’t. However, whether you marry in a church or not, you must get the civil contract in order to have the legal benefits of marriage.

      To deny same-sex couples the right to participate in the institution of marriage (ie. the legal, civil contract) simply because of a religious belief violates the Constitution’s separation of church and state. Now, religious groups are entitled to commit to a definition of religious marriage, and refuse to marry those who don’t meet that definition within their sacred spaces. They do not, however, have the right to force their beliefs on others. Or deny them of equality and fair treatment.

      As far as groups that are “threatening people/humiliating them”, please review the history of some of the current religions. I can think of one that is riddled with followers threatening others, humiliating them, killing them, etc. even up to the modern day.

      Same-sex marriage has been around for ten or more years now within our country in the state of Massachusetts. In that ten year period, the state was not destroyed by flood, famine, weather, fire, etc. Nor did any of the other terrible things that members of ultra-conservative religious factions predict occur. What did happen was an decrease in the divorce rate in the State.

      • Edward Borges-Silva

        Determined by whom? Any scientific evidence for a biological imperative regarding homosexuality is ambiguous at best. Even Darwiism is against it. Darwin himself defined ‘survival of the fittest’ as the ability to produce offspring furthering the survival of the species. By materialistic logic, the primary purpose of sex is procreation, physical and emotional pleasure from the act can only be regarded as secondary. And I doubt that evolutionists would even argue that after ‘millions’ of years of non-procreative sex, two males or two females would produce offspring…it’s against nature, even by evolutionary standards.

        • Edward, your ignorance of the subject is obvious as is your lack of desire to know anything else on it beyond what your religion and prejudices inform you. Even more idiotic is referring to Darwin when discussing evolution or any kind of modern scientific thought. This is akin to discussing the Wright Brothers when the subject is the nature of powered flight.

          Materialist naturalism is a fancy way of saying evidence based objective rational discussion. Using the term “Materialist logic”, in such a fashion means you prefer voodoo and superstition over sane discussion.

          The only person redefining and insulting marriage is yourself. You are reducing it to nothing more than procreation. That is a hideous understatement as to the nature of marriage. Even stupider is the idea that everyone will naturally become gay if they are allowed to marry (which is where you were going with the silly “evolutionist argument”). The fact that you use evolutionist in the pejorative denotes a complete lack of honesty concerning the nature of science and your understanding of it. Evolution is science, its current alternatives are folklore.

          • Edward Borges-Silva

            Larry, for once I’m not even going to try to reason with you, I will put my ‘ignorance’ up against yours’ any day of the week. And since you are so fond of personal invective, for once I’m going to indulge in a bit of it; Buzz off.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Sorry, anti-gays, the fact is science has proven sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable. Several US federal and several US State High Courts have examined that evidence and ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is similarly unconstitutional as discrimination based on race because BOTH are IMMUTABLE characteristics.

            We even know why anti-gays are whining that “Any scientific evidence for a biological imperative regarding homosexuality is ambiguous at best.” Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is cognitive dissonance, an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.

            A quick search on Scholar.google.com on the phrase Physiological Basis of Homosexuality turns up over 26,000 articles, the vast majority supporting the biological basis of same sex attraction, and NONE of which provide any PROOF for the routine anti-gay LIE that “it’s a choice.”

            http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=physiological+cause+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C21&as_sdtp=

          • @Edward Borges-Silva

            You weren’t trying to reason in the first place. You were spouting off in a half baked way both denigrating science and claiming it supports you.

            When people use terms like “materialist” or “evolutionist” in such a context, it is a sign they don’t believe in the efficacy of scientific knowledge. Its a tip off that one is not to be taken seriously when referring to such things. Same goes with direct citations to Darwin when discussing the current evolutionary theory.

        • Simply not true. There are hundreds of studies that show a link between biology and orientation. Everything from twin studies to birth order to epigenetics shows a link.

          • Pft… Gay love to say this but they NEVER support it with any documented proof from a medical journal or university study accepted by scientific professionals as authentically valid.
            Lies lies lies that’s all you people peddle and the children who are blinded by your lies are the ones who are lost and confused

          • Plenty out there but religiously inspired bigots aren’t going to bother to read them. (Whats the matter? Dont know how the interwebs work?)

            They do that a lot. Ignore information contrary to their beliefs and claim it does not exist. An enforced willful ignorance.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Sorry, Shafawn, you’re dead wrong. Here are just 3 of tens of thousands of respected websites (and a citation from Fox News for the doubters) that document this:

            http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
            http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
            http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html

          • CarrotCakeMan

            More:

            http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
            http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
            http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

          • CarrotCakeMan

            More, again:

            http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/science/sci-gaybrain17
            http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/bbc_birthorder.htm
            http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Please pay special attention to the last one, from the American Psychological Association:

            http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers=gay.html
            http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
            http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6209976
            http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

      • Well, no that’s not true. It has NOT “been determined” that homosexuality is “hardwired.”

        I know that the gay activists (not accusing Christopher of this), constantly preach that line in order to justify their sins, but SCIENCE does not confirm the “hardwired” or born-that-way claim at all.

        The activists preach that homosexuality must be “biological”, because of some animals being observed in same-sex pairings. But that claim is a falsehood too. Here’s the real deal, from Jeffery Kluger’s classic “The Gay Side of Nature” (Time Magazine, April 18, 1999)

        “In species that lack sophisticated language–which is to say all species but ours–sex serves many nonsexual purposes, including establishing alliances and appeasing enemies, all things animals must do with members of both sexes. ‘Sexuality helps animals maneuver around each other before making real contact,’ says Martin Daly, an evolutionary psychologist at McMaster University in Ontario. ‘Putting all that into a homosexual category seems simplistic.’

        “Even if some animals do engage in homosexual activity purely for pleasure, their behavior still serves as an incomplete model–and an incomplete explanation–for human behavior. ‘In our society homosexuality means a principal or exclusive orientation,’ says psychology professor Frans de Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. ‘Among animals it’s just nonreproductive sexual behavior.’

        So the Zoo Crew Revue does NOT endorse the gay activist shpiel. Even the phrase “sexual orientation” itself is now under debate, with some scientists suggesting “a fixed orientation” and other scientists suggesting “a fluid orientation.” Both partial and full sexual orientation change have now been scientifically documented.

        So times have changed, Christopher. It’s time to abandon the falsehoods of the gay activists.

      • In those 10 years of same sex marriage, guess what has also not happened (but its opponents predicted)?: There has been no lobby for polygamy, incest or buggery as their “slippery slope” arguments suggested. Nor has there been any harm caused to the society which they can claim resulted from it.

        In the 25+ years of gay parents raising children have produced a generation normal statistically well-adjusted young adults.

        Its telling these people have to talk about the subject in the theoretical “what if” rather than see the actual results it has already produced in 10 years. If they had a legitimate point to make, they would have had evidence from the preceeding decade to back it up. But they don’t.

        • CarrotCakeMan

          The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Agency has on its website details of studies of same gender parents and their children going back nearly 30 years. They recommend same gender couples be utilized MORE in adoptions because they proved same gender parents are just as good at raising children as mixed-sex parents. Look it up for yourselves and learn the FACTS about same gender parents.

          “[S]tudies on children dating back 25 years conclude that children raised by gay and lesbian non-adoptive parents fare as well as those reared by heterosexual parents (Breways, Ponjaert, Van Hall, & Golombok, 1997; Chan, Raboy & Patterson, 1998; Golombok, Perry, Burston, Murray, Mooney-Sommer, Stevens, & Golding, 2003; Wainwright, Russell & Patterson, 2004).”

          http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2008_09_expand_resources.php

          The New England Journal of Medicine urges government to establish marriage equality for health reasons:

          “Same-sex marriage strengthens access to health insurance for the 220,000 children who are being raised by same-sex parents in the United States. Employers who offer health insurance to dependent children often require that minors be related to the employee by birth, legal marriage, or legal adoption, so children with LGBT parents are left with diminished protections in states that deny legal marriages and adoptions to same-sex couples. As a result, children with same-sex parents are less likely than children with married opposite-sex parents to have private health insurance. These disparities diminish when LGBT families live in states with marriage equality or laws supporting adoptions for same-sex parents.”

          http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254

          “Where differences were identified between the gay father adoptive families and the heterosexual parent adoptive families, these reflected more positive functioning in the gay father families.”

          Source: Adoptive Gay Father Families: Parent–Child Relationships and Children’s Psychological Adjustment. Child Development Volume 85, Issue 2, pages 456–468, March/April 2014

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12155/full

          “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.”

          http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339

          “The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, “If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay”. 11
          Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of “significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals”.”

          http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm

          “The objective of this study was to document the psychological adjustment of adolescents who were conceived through donor insemination by lesbian mothers who enrolled before these offspring were born in the largest, longest running, prospective, longitudinal study of same-sex–parented families.

          CONCLUSIONS Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.”

          http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1

  4. That’s a real shame. I liked listening to one or two of their songs.

    But, there’s a lot of dark swirly Kool-Aid being passed around these days, and Dan Haseltine has apparently drank a couple gallons. And now he’s offering it to other Christians so they can get pizened as well. Thanks, but no thanks.

    So, regretfully, it’s simply bye-bye for Jars of Clay. The CCM (contemporary Christian music) railroad has a well-earned reputation for plenty of derailments. Jars of Clay is simply the latest to fly off the tracks and crash.

    • CarrotCakeMan

      It’s so sad to see anti-gays post vicious attacks toward anyone who won’t help them attack LGBT Americans. You do know that makes 59% of Americans your imagined enemies, don’t you?

      “[A] record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling. Support for same-sex marriage has changed more rapidly than almost any social issue in the past decade. In a Post-ABC poll in March 2004, 38 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, while 59 percent said it should not, the same percentage now in favor of allowing gays to marry. Nearly eight in 10 say that gays can parent as well as straight people, up from just below six in 10 in a 1996 Newsweek survey. Sixty-one percent support allowing gays to adopt a child, up from 49 percent in 2006 and 29 percent in a 1992 poll by Time magazine and CNN. More than twice as many people consider being gay as “just the way they are,” rather than something they chose.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

      • Doc Anthony is not required to agree with Haseltine and I read no “vicious attacks” at all. He is saying he won’t purchase anything further from them and I’m on board with that. You see, simply because we disagree with his view on same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we’re stoning anyone or hating anyone. We’re against gay marriage and that’s our right as believers in Scripture, we’re allowed to do that. That doesn’t make us mean, evil or devious people. We’re free to buy what we wish, when we wish, and support any group we wish. It’s simple.

        • “You see, simply because we disagree with his view on same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we’re stoning anyone or hating anyone.”

          Except when people like yourself sought to legalize discrimination against gays in business settings, in workplaces and residences. The fact that the only justification for such things is alleged scriptural interpretation makes it even less credible.

          If you are to be believed, I guess you also support imprisoning people who have different religious faiths than you or atheists. That adulterers and idolators should be discriminated against under the law. All of that is following your scripture as well. None of it means I have to respect it or give it the color of law.

        • CarrotCakeMan

          Bob wrote, “I read no “vicious attacks” at all. [...]simply because we disagree with his view on same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we’re stoning anyone or hating anyone.”

          Didn’t you read what Doc wrote, Bob? “[...] dark swirly Kool-Aid being passed around these days, and Dan Haseltine has apparently drank a couple gallons.”

          Bob, okay, you agree with Doc, but that’s a vicious personal attack, all right. Oh, but you say you don’t see his Kool-Aid comment? Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is cognitive dissonance, an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans. Gotcha, Bob.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            You called Larry a name, Clark, is that one of those special rights anti-gays demand? Is that why it’s wrong for Larry to call Doris out on her shameful, immoral Hate Speech, but it’s OK for you to call Larry a fool?

        • It’s not about “hate” at all. It’s about not supporting in same-sex marriage, period. We have the right to believe Scripture supports opposite-sex marriage only and it’s ok. We also have the right not to support, or purchase products from, this group any more.

          • No it isn’t. Its about trying to denigrate and discriminate against gays in public, under the law and with social sanction.

            You don’t hate gays, you just think they should be ostracized by society and denied civil liberties for no rational or secular reason.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            This much is correct, Bob: “We have the right to believe Scripture supports opposite-sex marriage only and it’s ok.”

            But anti-gays didn’t stop there, despite their routine dishonest claim they “only disagree.” What about the many anti-gay Hate Votes anti-gays cooked up–and then committed criminal acts to THROW, Bob? The federal judge who revoked the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote had in his possession an email written by Catholic bishops to Mormon leaders in which they both agreed to violate California campaign finance laws to throw the H8te Vote by making secret, illegal cash and in-kind contributions to the H8te Vote. The email serves as proof positive they knew they were breaking the law; the email itself is an act of criminal collusion. Here is documentation about that email:

            latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/documents-show-close-links-between-prop-8-campaign-and-mormon-catholic-churches.html#comments

      • CarrotCakeMan

        Sorry Doris, your anti-gay Hate Speech is condemned by more denominations every year. These denominations will marry same gender couples in 18 US States and the District of Columbia:

        Affirming Pentecostal Church International
        Alliance of Christian Churches
        Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
        The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
        Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
        Community of Christ
        Conservative Judaism
        Ecumenical Catholic Church
        Ecumenical Catholic Communion
        The Episcopal Church
        Evangelical Anglican Church In America
        Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
        Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
        Inclusive Orthodox Church
        Metropolitan Community Church
        Old Catholic Church
        Progressive Christian Alliance
        Reconciling Pentecostals International
        Reconstructionist Judaism
        Reform Judaism
        Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
        Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
        Unitarian Universalist Church
        United Church of Christ
        Unity Church

  5. Where in the Old Testament or the New Testament does God have ANYTHING good to say about homosexuality? According to the Word of God .. IT IS A SIN!

    All sin can be forgiven but no sin can be forgiven if it is not repented of first.

    Or do you think you are above the Word of God?
    John 1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    You just proved you do NOT comprehend the Word of God because you are now contrary to it by supporting gay marriage.

    I will never again listen to anymore Jars of Clay. I’m afraid for you and disappointed in you and now must turn my back. I will stand with God

    • CarrotCakeMan

      That would be Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Shafawn. Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. In the original Greek, the word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner.

      Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1870. Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now. About 400 years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the King kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1 Corinthians 6:9. The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague. Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text, “homosexual(s).” Either way you cut it, this text does not describe loving, committed same gender couples. This campaign gave those who were looking for a reason to justify their own homophobia a license to openly express their bigotry.

      • Edward Borges-Silva

        “Modern Scholars” have proved precisely nothing; they have merely posited a an alternative interpretation of the text, probably colored by their own preferences. If the Greek word you cite in the case of the Roman centurion and his servant is flexible and nuanced as many argue, it does not follow that the biblical writer intended to give it the meaning you infer, indeed it would be most unusual given historical Jewish thought on the subject . Additionally, under no context or construction does the bible ever sanction sexual relationships outside of marriage, and marriage is never construed in any other context than between a man and a woman.

        • I’m still waiting for Carrot to tell us whose same-gender partner Jairus’ 12-year-old daughter was, since she was called “pais” by Jesus.

          And sure, we can throw out the “homosexual” term and simply use the literal translation of “arsenokoitai” which is “man-bedders,” but I don’t think that will help Carrot’s case any.

          These guys cling to poor old Boswell like the drowning cling to raft slowly coming apart piece by piece.

          • So given the response, it is safe to say I am correct here. The bible does not refer to homosexual relations in the modern sense (adult, consensual, with some not deemed as property)

          • It makes no such distinctions. It simply prohibits men lying together in a sexual manner. “Koite” (bed) is a euphemism for sex, consensual or otherwise.

          • You are right, any distinctions between rape and consensual relations at all are virtually absent from the bible. That is except in the context of harm to property of a male figure (husband, father, owner).

            There are big differences between such things in a modern, same society. Not so in the Bible.

          • That isn’t true either. “Koite” doesn’t distinguish, just like our word “sex” does not distinguish. Niether did the Hebrew “shakab” which was translated as “koite.” But Hebrew used a number of different words to describe sex in different contexts, such as “pathath” (seduce) and “chazaq” (force).

          • CarrotCakeMan

            What anti-gays are going to have to learn to accept is that they are free to prefer their fake Bible passages and their fake misinterpretations of the ancient Greek. No one much cares what your Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas believes, anti-gays, it’s your shameful attempts to subvert the United States Constitution that has most Americans condemning and working to defeat your anti-gay agenda.

          • That’s not true either

            Pathath is a verb to break or crumble.
            Chazaq is an adjective for strong
            http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6626.htm
            http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2389.htm

            Find a new Hebrew teacher Shawnie.

          • “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force (chazaq) her, and lie (shakab) with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.” Deut. 22:25. It is used in the same sense in the book of Samuel to describe Amnon’s rape of Tamar.

            “If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17. Not sure where you could have gotten “crumble.” The Hebrew lexicon defines pathah as 1. to make spacious and 2. to entice, persuade, deceive.

  6. Someday when I leave this planet, I want to be remembered NOT for my political views but for who came to know Christ through my example. The world does NOT need my political commentary, they need the Bible.

    “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” – 1 Cor 2:1-2

  7. CarrotCakeMan

    Ever notice when the talk is about Christianity and LGBT Americans, some people just start screaming some nonsense that “those LGBT Americans (and that isn’t what they call us!) are trying to destroy Christianity!” That’s stupid to say that. Sure, there are some really rotten people that say they are Christians and that tell shameful lies about LGBT Americans, but what about all the welcoming and affirming Christians–The REAL Christians?

  8. After reading most of the blog comments I recognize again how we – me included – tend to speak in order to convince another. How gentler it would be if we listened more and spoke less. Jesus didn’t come to argue but rather to invite people to relate.

  9. Since when is saying gay marriage is wrong judging? I guess this Jars of Clay guy hasn’t mastered the art of judging the sin and not the sinner.

  10. I was curious if you ever considered changing the structure of your blog?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of
    content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two pictures.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  11. That is very attention-grabbing, You are an excessively
    skilled blogger. I have joined your feed aand stay up for seeking more of your wonderful post.
    Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks

  12. There is no middle space with God. You are His or you are not. No fence riders allowed – not even the money grabbing politicians will be able to talk themselves out of the horror that is coming to them. I hope you all realize that once your soul is created, there is never a time when it is not. Where will your soul be when it leaves your body. Something to think about.

  13. So what makes you think you are HIS? Some self serving declarations of faith? A holier than thou attitude towards others borne of pride? Because you listen to a pastor without thinking or reflection?

    Or maybe because you think Gods word coincides with views of the people you despise.

  14. CarrotCakeMan

    Sorry, Doris, trying to blame your deity on your vicious personal attacks and sweeping hate speech doesn’t fool anyone. It’s precisely your sort of hate speech that is causing the collapse in religious participation in America.

    “Forty-four percent of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in “the church or organized religion” today, just below the low points Gallup has found in recent years, including 45% in 2002 and 46% in 2007. This follows a long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in religion since the 1970s.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155690/confidence-organized-religion-low-point.aspx

  15. Shawnie, I posted links on the translated words which gives where in the Bible they are used, including context.

    Obviously your source is incorrect or you were using it wrong. The only thing in agreement was the word meaning” to lie with”. If you had bothered with the link I posted, you would not have asked me the question. Again time for you to get a new Hebrew teacher, or learn to respond to supporting links with ones of your own.

  16. OK, I see the problem. I mistakenly typed pathath instead of pathah in my first post. My bad. But if you were informed about the subject you would have realized that.

    As for chazaq, you only referenced a small part of the definition.

    Force: chazaq (khaw-zak’)
    to fasten upon; hence, to seize, be strong (figuratively, courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify), obstinate; to bind, restrain, conquer.
    http://biblehub.com/lexicon/deuteronomy/22-25.htm

    Like I said, Hebrew uses a variety of words to qualify “shakab” so as to make it indicate either coercion or consensuality. And your point in arguing about this non-issue is what? To claim that the bible never distinguishes between force and consent??? Why would you possibly want to make such a silly claim?

    I’ll admit I did not run your references to begin with, mainly out of lack of interest. I usually know a good bit about things upon which I bother to comment and I can see that you generally do not. It’s been rather difficult to take you seriously since you made that gaffe about human rights having nothing to do with political science. That one still gives me the chuckles.

  17. The Deuteronomy passage is more concerned with the woman being engaged to another than her forcible rape, hence the qualification of that detail in the law. Rape in the Bible is a crime against a man’s property, not against the woman.

    I am making the point that anyone trying to apply Biblical, especially Old Testament ideas of sexual relationships to a modern setting is being dishonest, hypocritical and ridiculous. All you are doing is looking for self-serving excuses and seeking social sanction for your pre-existing prejudices.

    Your Hebrew is still off. There is no fundamental difference between pathath and pathah since there is no “TH” sound in Hebrew.
    http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Transliteration2/transliteration2.html

    Pathath and Patah come out as the same word
    http://biblehub.net/searchstrongs.php?q=pathath
    http://biblehub.net/searchstrongs.php?q=pathah

    Stop pretending you know anything about the language.

  18. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6601.htm. 1. To be spacious or wide open, 2. to allure, deceive, entice. Why so stubborn?

    Perhaps you’ve forgotten that your original assertion was that the language of the bible makes no distinction between rape and consensual sex. We have already seen that this is false. If you want to move the goalposts and claim a different point be my guest…but I fail to see how unsuccessfully arguing over the meaning of “pathah” in any way advances your position that the Bible is unconcerned about a woman’s own personal bodily integrity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.