I read your book over the last few days, because I was curious after hearing all of the media hoopla. However, after reading it, I suspect that most of the media have missed the boat. The book is a superb testimony of not so much an indictment of Mr. Bush and his administration, but of a journey of faith. What it said was that the only one a Christian should put total trust in…is Jesus. This is not a negative look at men, just a reality. No man is infallible – and politicians can and will succumb to the seductive power they have been given and wind up using people to achieve their goals. I do not know Mr. Bush’s heart nor those that work with him. I hope they believe they are doing what is right but are faced with compromises, much like the Christian political movement which is filled with so many who do will do anything in order to achieve their goals. And once they begin to take the “easy” way, they become lost. Winning the agenda becomes more important than winning souls. If Christians would get their focus back to what I believe we are truly called to do – making disciples for Christ – there would be no need for the political movements many feel are necessary to “save” America. Let’s truly show people the love of Jesus, because there is nothing stronger on which we can rely

You note that someone, perhaps an old friends, asserted that “the approval of a liberal audience is not being set apart.” Ironically, that kind of statement displays the type of attitude that allows Republicans cynically to exploit Christians, as your book helps expose. Does this person give similar warnings to those who gain “the approval of a conservative audience”? I doubt it, despite the fact “conservative” and “Christian” are NOT synonomous terms. (Don’t these folks ever ponder the fact that many conservatives are not Christian and affirmatively reject Jesus as the Messiah?

You quoted from a person who made a comment: “We are not of this world, but set apart. The approval of a liberal audience is not being set apart.” I think this is not the right attitude for people to take. “Being set apart” seems to be saying “better than”. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve seen your interviews and thing you are basically a good man. I have great trouble understanding the Christian idea of those who don’t accept Jesus Christ as their Savior being condemned to an eternal Hell after their death. I understande this is taken from the New Testamernt, but isn’t it possible that what was written shouldn’t be taken literally? Or maybe with all the translations, something wasn’t translated correctly? How could Jesus or a loving God condemn all these people to Hell? I’m not an Evangelical Christian. I’ve been Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish in my life (always searching for the true religion). I belive in the Bible, but don’t think it should all be taken literally.

“The approval of a liberal audience”??Wow. Since your friend is so invested in her “liberal/conservative” jargon, I wonder why it didn’t concern Jesus to bother with such trivial categories? Can’t seem to find them anywhere in the gospels. So what gospel has she been reading?

That Christians should be given the opportunity to be aware about what happens on the inside of politics in the White House is a wonderful thing. Knowledge of what is really happening gives people a better basis for making election day choices that conform to their Christian values. It is always important to humbly consider the role one plays as voter, to honestly and fairly parse the actions, results, and the rhetoric, to make a good choice at the ballot box. I do not subscribe to the school that one party is on the side of the angels and the others the side of the infernals. Such views are horrible caricatures and are insulting to intelligent Christians. The sheep should not be led by partisans but by being presented with policies and histories that are in concert with the teachings of Jesus. Voters deliver political verdicts, and they need to exercise that with great care.

David, I don’t think that you have interpreted her quote correctly. I think that what she is saying is that you used to be used by the conservatives and have now recognized that was wrong. So now you are being used by liberals and cannot see what is happening. And I think that she hit the nail on the head, so to speak. You seem to be saying the “right” things about Christianity but more and more it seems like you are saying them only to push a political party or idea, this time being the left vs. your previous incarnation of pushing the right wing. Listen to your old friend – be not of this world.

If David Kuo is at all for real, then he has a propensity for being used. And as pious as he sounds toward his famous journey, he s at heart a political animal on the hunt. Telling a story of frustration that illuminates a sincere Christian involved in politics is awesome. Such a thing would be a guide to others and uplift the Savior, and let those who are insincere know that their actions are on the record. But this particular course David Kuo has taken involves not redemption but revenge. His feelings were hurt, so now what to do with it? He has told his story, sure enough, but then he s used it as a platform to rally those he believes are his constituency (Evangelical Christians), which is exactly what a politician would do, to exact the most damage possible against those whom he believes hurt him. And who has he enlisted to attack those who offended him? Only the people with the least regard toward his supposed constituency, the MSM, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, etc. At best David Kuo is being duped. At worst he s lying to himself and everyone else about his true motivation. Probably both.

I don’t think David Kuo is being duped. I think he is a very intelligent, articulate individual with a sincere love of Jesus and a desire to help the poor, among others. Jesus would have been proud of him, and ashamed of those who use hateful and hurtful words directed at him and “liberals.”

I think David is not being Duped, I think he is giving us Christians that do not fall into the “Political Christian Right” our religion back. Where Compasion, Love and Peace rule the day and not a Political idiolog…

I am a mother of a hate crime victim and am a Christian. When I tried to cradle my 16 yr old son’s bloody and broken body after the assault, I was told that one of the attackers was quoting a verse from Leviticus as he kicked my son’s unconcious body. This was witnessed by many other students that day. As a child of the south who grew up during the 50′s and 60′s and in a southern baptist church, I clearly remember the bible being used to justify segregation and to ban biracial marriages. That there were organizations then that inserted themselves in the political process to subvert the pursuit of equality to others who them deemed different and less than. From that time to the present I have never understood how some will choose certain biblical verses to harm others yet ignore other verses that directly pertain to themselves, such a wearing clothes of more than one fabric, menustrating women leaving their homes, eating of pork and shellfish, prohibiting of illegitimate children entering a church. All of those are in Leviticus and other books.Mr. Kuo, your words will help many people, more than you can possibly know. God was guiding your hand in this project and placed you in all of your previous positions to come to this time so you could bring truth where there have been so many lies and misplaced trust that has cost and destroyed lives of innocent children and adults. I am confident that Jesus is guiding you in that you are the anwser to a long standing prayer of mine. I now work with other families to provide support for families newly impacted by bias motivated violence. In many of these crimes, there can also be found the direct influence of the fear mongering conducted by religious organizations. Unless these groups and individuals can prove that they follow everyone of these laws within the bible, they have no right to insert their pick and choose religion into the polictical process that impacts all others. The initiative implemented by Bush with allowing tax dollars to fund their work is the same as our own personal monies going to support some of the very groups and individuals responsible for the harm that came to our child. For anyone who states they promote family values and then conducts a war upon the families they don’t approve of is hypocritical at the very least. Thank you for your hard work on this book and hopefully many will take your sincere and Christ guided suggestions and apply them.

Ms. Wagner, If Mr. Kuo had simply told his story, then I would agree with you that people could be turned towards Christ. Unfortunately, he is not doing that. He is, instead, creating conflict opposite of Christ’s direction, simply, as another commenter put it, to obtain revenge.

Carolyn Wagner ~ far be it from me to imply you are stating a heartrending story about bad Bible quoters that isn t true, but if you have a news link that you can include where this notorious event took place I would greatly appreciate it. I find it disingenuous when the hate-Evangelical crowd refers to Old Testament passages as though the New Testament was never written. If you have a problem with the Bible, you can always move to Canada where they ve outlawed it as hate-speech. Shake your fist at God (it s His book).It s always an effective tool to point to criminals and imply they represent those with whom you disagree. I encourage you to entertain the thought that some who consider the Bible true would never harm another person.

I encourage you to entertain the thought that some who consider the Bible true would never harm another person. Dennis Castle | 10.23.06 – 1:20 pm | # Some, yes. Like David Kuo. And they’re usually denounced by conservative evangelicals.

Enjoyed seeing you on c span at the bookstore. I applaud the courage it took for you to write the truth, doubtless knowing of the slings and arrows that would come. It is such a relief to find like-minded Christians in the world. At times the loud right-wingers with all thier our-way-or-no-way dogma are overwhelming. Your life is pretty busy so perhaps you have not spent much time perusing the beliefnet discussions, so let me just tell you that the “spoilers” are here and just let thier sarcasm and disrespect slide off your back. This handful of people jump from one discussion to another just looking for someone to attack and they often shut down discussion with their off-putting remarks. I wish everyone would just ignore this bunch and not let them dominate and ruin the dialogues. I was partcularly amused to hear from you that Colbert is a Sunday-school teacher! That’s enough to make you want to be a kid again. Good luck on your next venture.

Thank you to bj for obviously phrasing what was on my heart more adequately than I could. I do believe that David’s heart is sincere. I do believe that we all walk an imperfect life with the only the belief in Jesus to redeem us from those imperfections. I do not see being apart “better than others” I see it as a command of scripture, a result of trying to live as Christ would want us to, something I struggle with on a daily basis. I do believe that we as Christians are called to try to be “like Christ”. He was not judgmental or pious as I know some see “conservative” Christians. But he also was rejected. I believe we have that same calling. I do fear that David is being used by those with another agenda (From what I know about Bill Maher, he openly blasphemes what I believe) Perhaps David. as he put it, is using them as well. My hope is that in this media frenzy and it is a huge audience people will come to know the saving grace of Jesus. I want David to know that I pray for his continued healing.

Yet another thread derailed by baseless accusations, unsubstantiated opinion, conspiracy theories, and other obfuscations. First David Kuo was part of the “Axis of Evil.” Now he’s just a passive, aloof, know-nothing with no agency or ability to comprehend the events unfolding before him.Even the most casual skim of Kuo’s “Sabbath thoughts” commentary reveals his careful self-awareness and reflection–but why bother with the thoughtful Kuo when the StrawMan Kuo is so much easier to bat around.And, once again, Jesus is curiously missing from this latest wave of elitist condemnation.

Tenoch ~ now you are just being mean. I never called him evil, passive or aloof. I am more than aware that he is careful, smart and I know that he presents himself as an extremely godly man, filled with the spirit and with a disarming gentleness. Everyone else is placing him right beneath the Trinity so I was hoping I didn’t need to go down that road in order to voice my concerns. Having acknowledged that he comes across in interviews and in his writings as positively as one could wish, am I allowed now to have someone acknowledge my points? Is David Kuo NOT using political means to take vengeance on those he felt slighted him? Is he NOT rallying Evangelicals to allow people opposed to their best interest into positions of power? Not sure how you want me to invite Jesus into my “elitist condemnation”, unless it is to simply acknowledge that I am wrong and you are right. But that might make you out to be using God to manipulate others. I’ve seen fellow Christians doing it for years and it is obvious and not pretty. I’ll let you be the “most holy” one in this thread and not fall for it. My concerns are still sincere, though.

We are not to be of this world but set apart. The approval of a liberal audience is not being set apart. If that’s the case, dummy, why have y’all taken over the GOP? And Jayzus was a liberal, if you things actually read his teachings…

Oh yeah, I’m “not saved.” You know why, non-thinking sheeple? I WAS NEVER LOST!!

dear dennis– Like the man said — there you go again! After asking for posts like yours to be ignored, I just have to respond. You calling someone else “mean” must be taken as self-sarcasm, since tearing down people through sarcasm, crafted innuendo and wordy obfuscation is YOUR forte. See, other people know big words too. But more to the point, like my wise cousin would say — what is the bug up your butt? You sound miserable, so how about doing some serious sit-down time with your pastor or a therapist or on a discussion that actually might help you come to some resolution. Just constantly striking out at others doesn’t solve anything.You are clearly intelligent, so why not use that to your advantage and not just to cut everyone else down!

And Jayzus was a liberal, if you things actually read his teachings… Giving all of our money and resources to the government in hopes that what isn t squandered in corruption and bureaucracy might further the Will of God isn t especially a Christian teaching. Corporate faith is Old Testament, personal faith (along with personal responsibility, accountability and charity) is New Testament.

I don’t want MY tax dollars going to y’all but I don’t have a choice. How is that christian? You’re stealing from me.

Holmgren ~ Thank you for your encouragement to sit down with my pastor or a therapist. Please note that I am not just striking out , I asked (what I feel) are legitimate questions with pertinent, relevant ramifications. Instead of assessing my writing style, please address my points and show me where I am mistaken. O huh doesn t cut it.

You’ll never get an answer from a fundie bible-banger. Ask them anything to do with their behaivor and they’ll always blank out into the hypocritical ether.

Oh, before I scoot along, in the immortal words of Hank Williams on his death-bed to Minnie Pearl, “That’s just it Minnie, there ain’t no God.” BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! too-da-loo

Hah! I think Jesus is nowhere in this thing, despite that Mr. Kuo talks ad nauseum about J-walking with Him, for twenty years. It s all about politics, power and money and that is all it s about. The story is really clear to me. It seems Mr. Kuo jumped in bed with the political right and got drunk on being near power. They used him and, according even to him, he was pleased to do their bidding. But I guess after figuring out that whoredom had basically taken away his best days, he bitterly abandoned the political right and has now jumped in bed with the political left. And now they too are using him, conveniently publishing his book at such a wonderful time, a time he ‘didn’t even want.’ But, oh well, may as well ride the thing while the riding is good. Throw in a little self-righteous indignation about how the poor are being overlooked (which is always true), throw around a few indignant backhand slaps for Jesus about His ‘self-appointed PR folks’, toss in some talk about how Bush’s people secretly despise the religious right (which I think is true), and then, just for spicing, add some humble thoughtfulness about Hippy Jesus loving liberals, gays and God knows what else, and now the left is all over the poor guy– with Andrew Sullivan himself being among the first to get behind him. And just as before, Mr. Kuo is pleased to be used. He even admits he is being used. This time, he knows it outright and actually thinks he is getting some kind of benefit in return! Mr. Kuo, the humble Krishtian, sets such a fine example for us, what with so much usage taking place here. Jesus is undoubtedly very proud. Praise Him! Hallelujah! We gotta speak in tongues on this one – Bashukkah Shokata! I am not sure what Mr. Kuo is getting out of this latest cycle of bed hopping, though I suppose he is making some cold cash selling his book. I know one thing: all of this prostitution is making me nauseous.

Thanks for being honest and real. I agree with others who desire strongly to be identified as followers of Jesus rather than with the “Christians” portrayed in the media. There are many, many people out here who love Jesus and believe what the Bible says about him yet don’t fall into the ideology and doctrines of the so-called “Christian right.” By the way, I don’t think political, ideological liberals are necessarily happy with what you are writing either. They have an image of Christians that you are undermining.

All you bible-banging fundies who voted for Chimpy have blood on your hands and you rubber-stamped torture. You’re disgusting pigs.

And I forgive you your opinion that Bush-supporters are disgusting pigs. I have had the same feelings come over me about Liberals and Progressives who kill children in numbers too big to count. I have tyhought similar feelings of those “on the Left” who champion a perverted idea of familiy and morality. Yup, there are enough disgusting pigs to go around, but it seems far more “on the Left.” It’s Jesus time again.

Dennis Castle wrote: “I encourage you to entertain the thought that some who consider the Bible true would never harm another person.” But Dennis, you aren’t one of those people, now are you? The Amish perhaps are, and while you said they were “so awesome” you proceeded to say “I ve never won an argument with a pacifist.” Well that’s good to know, that the pacifists always won their arguments with you. You seem fearful and combative, Dennis. Maybe you will one day stop arguing.Comnsider that it takes more courage to put down the sword than to take it up.

Skip ~ if you have a point, please, in the name of all that is holy, MAKE IT. Non-sequiturs aren’t as clever as you think they are. I’ve asked a couple clear questions whose answers reveal the heart of this concern. Will anyone on this thread get off the mat from genuflecting toward David Kuo and answer them?

Dennis, In your posts about David you repeatedly said he is motivated by revenge, which may be what might have motivated YOU, but I don’t think was David’s motivation. You expressed skepticism that Carolyn Wagner’s account of the story of the hate crime perpetrated against her son was truthful, and asked for a link. But you evidently had not troubled to check out her homepagehttp://www.fuah.org/aboutfuah.html which she included, where you would have found this link quoting the Boston Globe story of June 20, 1999: http://www.youthguard.org/gabi/wagner.htm So you are suspicious of everyone’s motives, it seems. You appear to equate doing the right thing with doing whatever conforms to the GOP’s (stated or actual) political agenda. And you seem to think that conscience must always be sacrificed to this political agenda, as if it was handed down by God on Mount Sinai. A consequentialist ethic can argued for, and indeed in many instances it is pretty persuasive. But I don’t think that is where David Kuo is coming from!So criticizing David for blowing the whistle on the GOP because the ’cause’ as a whole might fare better if he had just shut up is basically barking up the wrong tree. That is the price of building a political party on a base of believing Christians: every so often one of them will fake you out by actually acting like a Christian should. Not very often…just once in a while.

Dennis, Ask your question in a concise manner without the put-downs and wordy detours, and if I know the answer I will tell you. Otherwise, there are much more fun things to do than play in this swamp.

Skip ~ thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. The links you provided regarding Carolyn Wagner were helpful. The story appears on two gay websites but I was unsuccessful locating it in the Boston Globe, even using the specific date and author. Your response to my question regarding David Kuo was to throw it back at me (something like I know you are, but what am I? popularized by elementary school boys everywhere). I understand you believe that what David Kuo is doing is the right thing , well, I m trying to address that question myself and, for the reasons I and others have clearly stated, am so far quite unconvinced. You are correct, if David Kuo really is doing the right thing then he is pursuing the correct means, the consequence to the ends (unrestricted abortion, surrender in the War on Terror, etc) be damned. But these ends have value to me and many like me, and if David Kuo is not doing the right thing then his means is for a secret end, a hidden agenda, the cause of those diametrically opposed to that of Evangelical Christians. I question his motive and believe it is for revenge, your response has been O huh and it takes one to know one . Do you have anything better?

Dennis– Okay, you’re unconvinced about David’s motives. We’ll just have to leave it at that I guess. David seems like a sincere guy to me, not a partisan schemer. You can read his book, read thousands of words on his blog here at beliefnet, watch his interviews –and if you’re unconvinced, well then, you’re unconvinced. You’re worried about David having secret ends, a hidden agenda. Frankly it sounds a bit paranoid to me, but who knows?You know, maybe there was a shooter on the grassy knoll.

Well, when I watch thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LANaUYuPfxA&mode=related&search=I see a man who easily insults millions of people. He claims he wrote his book because he thought he needed to point out that Bush is not Jesus. Let us be honest. To whom must Kuo point this out? He is backhanding Evangelical Christians, of course, and doing it without honor. His approach is simply no way to reach people who one thinks are committing error. It only inflames and causes hurt, though it also pleases liberals to no end (while selling books). Dennis is correct to doubt Kuo’s motives. There is good reason for it. There is certainly not the love of Jesus here.

To Dennis Castle, I will provide you with locations of the notorious events and you can research the media info as these were covered extensively. Cortez, CO, victim FC Martinez, local paper Cortez Journal. There is info on our website as well as it took three of us moms to come to help this mother, Judy Shepard, Gabi Clayton and myself. Our website, http://www.fuah.org My child’s assault was in Fayetteville, AR, name William and was covered by many local papers, Boston Globe, AandE, pbs and others. I never said all Christians are willing to take up a sword but a few do and those who pick and choose bible verses to harm others should take ownership for the harm others do upon the words they hear that justify such acts of violence. Unless all who profess how God says homosexuality is against God’s law yet refuses to also follow all the other laws given in those books, you are acting as hypocrites. If you are not willing to read, hear and see the harm that has been done by some with how they misuse the bible, then you are not willing to accept responsibility for how you use the bible. Faith is a personal matter and it is not for any Christian to judge another nor to use their beliefs to forge laws that impacts others that do not hold the same beliefs. As a Christian I believe this becomes a slippery slope as what happens when another religion decides they should have their values made into laws of the land? In our nation we have the freedom to worship as we choose or to not worship but we should do as Christ said, render unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is his. Mixing politics and religion can only lead to disaster for everyone in the end. Everytime I and other families have tried to get civil rights legislation passed and everytime we encounter religious fanatics using the bible to justify the denial of equal civil rights to citizens they don’t approve of. That is wrong. You do not have the right to push your beliefs upon my family nor to use your pick and choose faith to harm other families. That is an anti-family and anti-Christian attitude and behavior. Carolyn Wagner

Carolyn Wagner ~ please note you simply restated your earlier point and addressed none of my concerns.

Unless all who profess how God says homosexuality is against God’s law yet refuses to also follow all the other laws given in those books, you are acting as hypocrites.This is not exactly true, Carolyn. It is problematic in two areas: 1. It is entirely possible for homosexuality to be an abomination to God in addition to all the other laws, and we may simply sin against some of the laws and not others, agreeing that they are all against God and asking for strength to repent. That is essentially where we ought to be. 2. In reading the scriptures we see that, unlike many Old Testament laws, the condemnation of homosexuality exists in the Old Testament and it is also brought forward into the New Testament. Moreover, Jewish history in the Old Testament and first century Christian history in the New Testament, also bear this out. Homosexuality was roundly scorned by the people of God in all ages. Some may mention John Boswell s book here. It would be a mistake. Boswell was a homosexual himself, dying of AIDS as his book was published. The scholarship of his works dealing with homosexuality is widely held suspect. In fact, while pro-homosexuals applauded Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, impartial readers savaged it. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v46/ai_15779206People are going to say and hear only what they wish to hear, and I personally am not interested in changing their minds. But for those who wish to be honest and evaluate a common sense reading of the scriptures on this issue, the truth that the scriptures condemn homosexuality in all ages will be inescapable. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ['abusers of themselves with mankind']… will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) Note – The Greek word arsenokoite is commonly translated into homosexual for a reason: Paul crafted the word out of two words: arseno , which means male , and koite means coitus. The context leaves us little room to doubt that the scriptures here are condemning single sex (male) coitus. We see this clearly because when we view the verses condemning homosexuality in the Greek Old Testament that Paul used, we see those verses using the same words: “meta ARSENOS ou koimethese KOITEN gyniakos” (Lev 18:22) Which in English saysDo not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22) “hos an koimethe meta ARSENOS KOITEN gynaikos” (Lev 20:13) Which in English saysIf a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Lev 20:13) Using these two words from the Old Testament, the apostle declared, once again, in the New Testament, that those who engage in homosexual behavior will not see heaven. Homosexuality is an abomination to the God of the scriptures. It always has been, always will be. Only the most tortured rendering will eliminate the obvious meaning of these texts. But, I should make the point that I do not know the fate of your son. Your son’s situation is not even important here because he is in God’s hands and there is just no better place to be than there. I do not know his fate or that of anyone. I know one thing: if your son cast himself on Jesus, sins and all, and then repented of evil, then he is in heaven. If he failed to do this, then he is condemned. Only he and God know the truth. And that is truly the case with us all.

So, lesbianism must be OK, right?

Dovid asks: “So, lesbianism must be OK, right?” We ought to keep in mind that Hebrew culture was patriarchical concerning law. Laws often referred to the male when in many cases females were also included in the meaning. This was because there were no existentialists when the law was given. There was therefore no need for strict litigation as we have today (which means the law today, instead of being simple, is so large we literally cannot read it). People then understood that when the scriptures declared it an abomination for a man to lie with another man, a principle against same sex behavior was established. It is contrary to history to make from this text a claim that the ancient Hebrews believed God approved lesbianism. They certainly did not. Once again, many of us will continue to claim what we want to believe on this issue. I am not interested in changing such people. I am interested only in the person who is willing to honestly face the text and its historical backdrop to see the meaning that was given to the people. That meaning continued from the Old Testament right into the New Testament wherein we find an explicit scorn of lesbianism: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. IN THE SAME WAY, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” Romans l:24-26. I have read very tortured expositions that aim to get around the clear meaning inherent in the text and in history. But the honest reader will refuse to accept that the God of the Holy Scriptures has ever accepted homosexuality. And He continues to despise it to this day, right along with adultery, lying, cheating and murder. I don t say these things because I think I am beyond them. But for God s grace, I am every bit as sinful as the worst homosexual. I say these things for one reason only: they are true.

No, the Hebrews did not think God approved of lesbianism. However, Jewish tradition says it is merely not modest, but not an abomination. I just wondered how people who like to quote Leviticus about homosexuality being wrong would respond to another aspect that was not addressed. The original text does not automatically consider “a man” to mean “a man or a woman”.

Dovid said: No, the Hebrews did not think God approved of lesbianism. However, Jewish tradition says it is merely not modest, but not an abomination.This is not completely true. The issue does not concern how Jews began to wrestle with the Law nearly 1500 years after the Tanakh. It instead concerns how God saw the practices of Egypt and Canaan (Lev. 18:1-2), practices that included many sorts of sexual sin. We need to be mindful of the historical context of the Leviticus verses. God had taken His people into strange lands, and He quite clearly wanted them not to adopt the culture of the inhabitants of those lands. It will not take the most intuitive person to understand that merely because not every sinful practice of the Canaanites was listed in Leviticus, it didn t mean ancient Jewish women thought themselves free to have merely immodest sex. Ancient Hebrew culture did not seem able to imagine women enjoying sexual relations in a way that did not objectify them. The culture was strongly patriarchical. When it came to law and human expression, the culture dealt largely with men. Women were simply expected to follow their husbands, fathers, and the male leadership of their villages. Nearly a millennia and a half later, long after Canaan s practices had passed out of direct relevance to the Jews, long after the Jews had become Hellenized and therefore exposed to lesbianism to a greater extent than ever, indeed long after Christ, and even after the destruction of the Jewish temple, rabbis struggled and debated how lesbianism would affect a woman s eligibility to marry priests. The sinfulness of lesbianism was not up for debate. All agreed it was sinful. The debate was over just how sinful it was, showing that a relatively easy hand on lesbianism was not a defined part of Jewish tradition even then. When we consider that women under Jewish law were not treated in the same way as men, that the law was defined and executed from a male s perspective, we see that this aspect you are mentioning here is irrelevant. Men, not women, were the leaders of Jewish society. Women were not even co-leaders. They were subject to their men. Since the scriptures curse homosexuality for men, it automatically cursed it for everyone else. I am not interested in arguing over the issue. In fact, I see here it is entirely unnecessary. If you think the ancient Jews did not think God approved of lesbianism, but that they thought lesbianism was merely immodest , you still don t offer much of a defense for the acceptability of lesbianism.

Thank you, David, for making yourself vulnerable. It is in this vulnerability that one is shown to be strong. How vulnerable Jesus was on the cross, how weak, how miserable. But if he didn’t go there, where would we be? His vulnerability came out of great faith that God would NOT FORGET HIM and out of that faith he found the strength to humble himself and die. I am impressed with your humility. It is in short order in our political realm and in teh hearts of some of the comments left here. Why does anyone feel a need to defend Jesus? He is Risen! Defend yourselves, if you can.

To Dennis C. I addressed your skeptism however I cannot addressed your inability to accept the truth about what is being done to others by some touting they are doing God’s work or protecting family values or whatever tag lines are used. I gave you names and locations, you must now do your homework if you want to find the truth of what you say you doubted. The bottom line is when one forces their own religious beliefs upon others via the political arena, they are turning our nation into a theocracy and we will no longer be a democracy with true freedom of religion.

Carolyn Wagner ~ As mentioned earlier in this thread, though not directly addressed to you, I searched through the archives of the Boston Globe and found no mention of the assault you have shared to validate your indignation. Although 2 gay websites go into detail about the event, when I use the date and author referenced on those web pages nothing comes up. When I “google” the various details (date, location, activity, author) of the event as described on the gay websites, only 2 those websites mention it. No other news service describes your story. Because cruel people hurt others, that does not take away everyones ability (but yours and those who agree with you) to participate in what kind of society we wish to live in. You believe that all who participate in various sexual behaviors should have rights on the same level as those based on race. Others believe that behavior is different than species, one is what you do the other is who you are. Special rights proscribed to those who participate in a particular behavior strikes many of us as unfair. It is fine that you disagree with that position, I wouldn’t want it any other way. That is what makes America great. What you are attempting to say is that those of us who disagree with you are responsible for others who are cruel to people. I am against making America a theocracy, I am also against making America ruled by PC-minded authoritarians who would use manipulative arguments based on spurious claims of victimhood. If you have a valid point, just make it. Even if your story is true, it does not make your views any more (or less) accurate.