Salvation Army says Gays should be put to death

[Czarcasm]

An interview with official Major Andrew Craibe, the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, can be seen partially(and heard in its entirety) here. One of the interviewers reads directly from the Salvation Army Guidebook:

RYAN: . . . that says, according to the Salvation Army, that [they] deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

CRAIBE: Well, that’s a part of our belief system.

RYAN (cutting in): So we should die.

CRAIBE: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

RYAN: Wow. So we should die.

Later on in the interview they talk about allegations that the group refused assistance to a person in need who wouldn’t agree to participate in an “ex-gay” program.

[mister nyx]

It's hard to understand how anyone working as a spokesperson for a Christian group wouldn't have some canned response to that -- I'm sure anyone speaking on behalf of, say, the Catholic Church would be able to cite some document in which the Church officially declares some "love the sinner, hate the sin" policy. The excerpts quoted in the article sure are pretty damning, given that he doesn't appear to have an answer.

Kind of peeved they didn't bother with a transcript of the whole thing, though.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

It's hard to understand how anyone working as a spokesperson for a Christian group wouldn't have some canned response to that -- I'm sure anyone speaking on behalf of, say, the Catholic Church would be able to cite some document in which the Church officially declares some "love the sinner, hate the sin" policy.

More context:

RYAN: It’s going into Romans again . . . I accept that you’re out there wanting to help people . . . I don’t accept that this sexuality that is part of my DNA is a choice. I also don’t accept the support of any religion in a financial sense, and this is what the gay community is up in arms about: that you’re proposing in your religious doctrine and the way that you train — this is part of your training of your soldiers — that because we’re gay, that — we must die. If you go to Romans, book 1, 18-32, it’s all there, mate. I mean, how can you stand by that? How is that Christian?

CRAIBE: Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine –

RYAN (interrupting): But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?

CRAIBE: — that’s our understanding of that. Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation –

RYAN: Or die. . .

CRAIBE: Well, yes.

It appears the official SA position is "hate the sin, kill the sinner".

[boytyperanma]

Bigoted organization is bigoted, news at 11!

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Bigoted organization is bigoted, news at 11!

Seems like it'll be news to some people here. Last time this was discussed there were plenty of Dopers defending them. (To be sure, some of those people were posting in defense of the group not because they were ignorant of their stance but because they were sympathetic to it.)

[Chimera]

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Good thing they stop reading there, eh? Because just after that...

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whenever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Of course, this is Pauline doctrine, as evidenced by Romans 2:16 where Paul says "...according to my gospel".

Not God's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. PAUL'S GOSPEL.

I have a small problem with that.

[cckerberos]

I don't want to sound like I'm defending the SA's homophobia, but this whole thing seems to be a bit sensationalistic to me.

The offensive passages in The Handbook of Doctrine were as follows:

Evil that arises from the wickedness of human beings can be
seen as a risk of our creation as free, personal beings, made in the
image of God (Genesis 3; Romans 1:18-32).

Sin is an intrusion into human life. It was not originally present in
human nature. Our slavery to sin originated in human disobedience
to God’s command (Genesis 2:17; 3:1-7; Romans 1:18-20).

Those don't seem to be particularly noteworthy tenants for Christians to hold. The problem was apparently in the cited Romans 1:18-32, which mentions homosexual sex as a symptom of sin.

But the sinners described as being worthy of death go a little bit beyond just engaging in homosexual acts:

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I'm not a Christian, so I could be wrong, but it also seems clear to me that the "death" involved here is spiritual death, i.e., going to hell.

I'm not saying it's okay that the SA is out saying "homosexual acts lead to you going to hell," but interpreting all this as "LGBT People Should Be Put to Death" seems dishonest to me.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Not God's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. PAUL'S GOSPEL.

I have a small problem with that.

Of course, Paul was always trying to take credit for John's work.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

I'm not saying it's okay that the SA is out saying "homosexual acts lead to you going to hell," but interpreting all this as "LGBT People Should Be Put to Death" seems dishonest to me.

If the interviewee had disagreed when explicitly asked if Salvation Army theology taught that people who have gay sex should be put to death, I'd agree. It could well be argued that it wasn't a fair question to ask, but the senior official with the Salvation Army gave a clear and damning answer nonetheless.

The straightforward reading of that passage in Romans, incidentally, says that people who have gay sex deserve to die. (It's a passage I'm familiar with.) Certainly churches may and do interpret scripture with an understanding that the simplest reading is not necessarily correct. But at least according to this one official with the Salvation Army, that organization (which openly is a Christian denomination in its own right, not merely a charity) interprets those verses straightforwardly. Given that organization's generally awful record on LGBT issues, I can't say it's a huge surprise.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Of course, Paul was always trying to take credit for John's work.

And completely leaving George and Ringo out of the whole thing.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Chimera

And completely leaving George and Ringo out of the whole thing.

You saw what I did there.

[Little Nemo]

Hey, at least he's upfront about it. I really hate the groups that want to put people to death but weasel around on saying so. If you're going to kill people, man up and acknowledge it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

An interview with official Major Andrew Craibe, the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, can be seen partially(and heard in its entirety) here. One of the interviewers reads directly from the Salvation Army Guidebook:

Later on in the interview they talk about allegations that the group refused assistance to a person in need who wouldn’t agree to participate in an “ex-gay” program.

How . . . Victorian!

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Hey, at least he's upfront about it. I really hate the groups that want to put people to death but weasel around on saying so. If you're going to kill people, man up and acknowledge it.

I agree with cckerberos, though, that interpreting the Salvation Army spokesperson's statements as saying "gays should be put to death" is weaseling a bit in the other direction.

I condemn and reject any doctrine that holds that gays "deserve death" for being gay. But such doctrines are not necessarily the same thing as saying "the state ought to impose capital punishment for homosexuality", which is what the melodramatic phrase "gays should be put to death" implies.

There are plenty of conservative Christians who do literally, explicitly advocate instituting capital punishment for homosexuality in the civil legal code, which is appalling. But AFAIK the Salvation Army does not support any such policy, and this guy's remarks don't suggest to me that he or anybody else in the Salvation Army seriously thinks that they should.

So for everybody who charged into this thread thinking they were going to be outraged by Salvation Army protesters chanting "Fry the Queers" outside the state legislature, I recommend taking a deep breath, untwisting the panties, and dialing down the shock and horror. Not really anything to see here except unremarkably typical homophobes being homophobic in an unremarkably typical way.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

So for everybody who charged into this thread thinking they were going to be outraged by Salvation Army protesters chanting "Fry the Queers" outside the state legislature, I recommend taking a deep breath, untwisting the panties, and dialing down the shock and horror. Not really anything to see here except unremarkably typical homophobes being homophobic in an unremarkably typical way.

Okay, I'll start by acknowledging that I conflated these two in an earlier post and I never bothered to fix my error after I noticed it later. I should have been more careful and not made that error in the first place.

It's true that no one in this conversation said gay people should be put to death, and the passage in Romans does not say that. (You have to page back to Leviticus to find that one.) However, this person -- a senior official with the Salvation Army, according to the article -- when explicitly asked by the interviewer, indicated that they agreed with the passage in Romans that says those who have gay sex deserve death. And there's nothing really unclear about that.

Now, I agree that that is better than saying anyone who has had gay sex should be put to death. And in the Salvation Army's defense, they are not advocating for a public policy of executing those of us who have had gay sex, as indeed some minor Christian groups argue.

However, in my opinion, it's still pretty outrageous for them to say that anyone who has had gay sex deserves to die, even if they're not arguing that the government should step in and make it happen. My panties are not twisted in the slightest, and while I'm well aware that many, many people out there agree and that this attitude is, as you put it, "unremarkably typical", it's still something that people legitimately should be upset about. If I were wearing the most comfortable underwear in the world, I still wouldn't find their attitude acceptable.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

If I were wearing the most comfortable underwear in the world, I still wouldn't find their attitude acceptable.

Neither do I, as I noted in my previous post (the "condemn and reject" bit).

I'm just agreeing with cckerberos that the phrase "gays should be put to death" is an unfair, unjustified and arguably even dishonest exaggeration and hyperbolic misrepresentation of that unacceptable attitude.

Lorry knose, there are enough Christians (not to mention plenty of non-Christians) already who are literally and sincerely advocating that the state should judicially murder people for being gay. We don't need to make the situation seem even worse than it is by inaccurately tarring more mainstream groups with that brush.

[Gukumatz]

I approve of his forthrightness, even if his message is stone-age bigotry. It's refreshing in its' novelty.

[Gatopescado]

This is why I never give those bell-ringing assholes a cent!

[elucidator]

If only Saul of Tarsus had taken that left turn at Albuquerque and not the road to Damascus, he would not have become Paul, the total pain in the ass. Ah, well, I can still shop at Goodwill. Tonier clientele, anyway.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

... condemn and reject any doctrine that holds that gays "deserve death" for being gay. But such doctrines are not necessarily the same thing as saying "the state ought to impose capital punishment for homosexuality", which is what the melodramatic phrase "gays should be put to death" implies...

Good for the SA! They don't want "the state" to execute homosexuals. Perhaps decriminalizing the murder of gays would be a good idea from their POV. Or how about a good neighborhood stoning in a back alley? Or maybe they are grateful for AIDS, which kills large numbers of gays, but straight deaths from it are like a form of collateral damage.

I would have liked another followup question. If "God" says gays "deserve to die", is it a sin for a Christian to kill one?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

An interview with official Major Andrew Craibe, the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, can be seen partially(and heard in its entirety) here. One of the interviewers reads directly from the Salvation Army Guidebook:

Later on in the interview they talk about allegations that the group refused assistance to a person in need who wouldn’t agree to participate in an “ex-gay” program.

I have no reason to ask this, except that recent events here have Made me generally skeptical about anyone claiming anything...

...is there some reference to the Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory that predates, say, this month?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I have no reason to ask this, except that recent events here have Made me generally skeptical about anyone claiming anything...

...is there some reference to the Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory that predates, say, this month?

Can't find a date on it, but this Salvation Army web page confirms the name and title. Though their spelling lacks the final e in the last name.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I have no reason to ask this, except that recent events here have Made me generally skeptical about anyone claiming anything...

...is there some reference to the Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory that predates, say, this month?

I Googled his name and there are several references to both his position in the Salvation Army and to his recent interview.

[Boyo Jim]

FYI, here is another Australian Salvation Army page, from the main organization, not just the territorial division, that lists Craib as the main contact for media questions related to the Salvations Army's position on human sexuality.

Any media person in all of Australia is supposed to talk to him first with their sex related questions.

[Boyo Jim]

Officer in SA for 28 years, some kind of PR officer or another in SA for 14 years, appointed to his current position in January of this year.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Officer in SA for 28 years, some kind of PR officer or another in SA for 14 years, appointed to his current position in January of this year.

Thanks. A hoax would be insane, I know, but now I am paranoid.

[Otara]

Public post debating the issue:

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/theo...l?s=1077788709

Official response to another similar foot in mouth in another state here:

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/...18/3527409.htm

Which suggests they are working towards changing their position.

Belonging to organisations where you support many of their beliefs but strongly disagree with some must be tough work.

Otara

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Otara

Public post debating the issue:

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/theo...l?s=1077788709

Official response to another similar foot in mouth in another state here:

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/...18/3527409.htm

Which suggests they are working towards changing their position.

Belonging to organisations where you support many of their beliefs but strongly disagree with some must be tough work.

Otara

The first link is not a debate at all, it'a an opinion article and is at best tangentially related to the comments by Major Craib. The second link apparently addresses some earlier posted SA policy regarding homosexuality, which may or may not be what Craib was defending with his comments. The article doesn't quote what exactly the SA is now "distancing itself" from.

[Otara]

The point of the first link was to show there is internal debate on this issue, its an opinion piece on a Salvo site. I wouldnt call it particularly tangentia.

The second was to show they've had ongoing problems recently with members speaking publically, and causing a media reaction. Gay marriage is coming up for a conscience vote here, so theres probably a lot of concern they're going to cause as much damage to themselves as they did when they campaigned against homsexuality being legalised in NZ. I hope it does.


Otara

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Of course, this is Pauline doctrine, as evidenced by Romans 2:16 where Paul says "...according to my gospel".

Not God's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. PAUL'S GOSPEL.

I have a small problem with that.

So do I.

In fact, I have some relatives who call themselves Christians, but I call them Paulists. They pretty much align themselves with the Apostle Paul, and follow his ways, but always seem to forget the actual teachings of Christ. They hate gays, think women should know their place, etc. They always seem to back themselves up with quotes from Paul.

Christ though? They don't seem as keen on His words...

I think folks like them should branch off and form a new religion, and leave Christianity to those who actually follow Christ.

[Boyo Jim]

The first story is undated, does not reference whatsoever the Craib comments at all, and expresses an opinion that many prejudiced people use cherry-picked biblical references to back up their own prejudices. It references homosexuality as well as other issues such as slavery and even diet. There is no suggestion that anyone is debating the contents of this paper, internally or externally.

It is tangential to the extent that it may well have been posted long before Craib made the comments in the OP.

[dougie_monty]

Before you get good and sore at Paul (as distinguished from the Salvation Army spokesman), take a look at that same letter to the Romans--Chapter 12, Verses 17-21, and note who is supposed to exact revenge and who isn't .

[Otara]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

The first story is undated, does not reference whatsoever the Craib comments at all, and expresses an opinion that many prejudiced people use cherry-picked biblical references to back up their own prejudices. It references homosexuality as well as other issues such as slavery and even diet. There is no suggestion that anyone is debating the contents of this paper, internally or externally.

It is tangential to the extent that it may well have been posted long before Craib made the comments in the OP.

Well if you dont find it useful, fair enough.

Otara

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

If "God" says gays "deserve to die", is it a sin for a Christian to kill one?

Yeah, according to Jesus. Relevant texts: Matthew 5:21 and 5:39.

[dougie_monty]

Yeah, and it seems the Sixth Commandment says the same thing.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

So do I.

In fact, I have some relatives who call themselves Christians, but I call them Paulists. They pretty much align themselves with the Apostle Paul, and follow his ways, but always seem to forget the actual teachings of Christ. They hate gays, think women should know their place, etc. They always seem to back themselves up with quotes from Paul.

Christ though? They don't seem as keen on His words...

I think folks like them should branch off and form a new religion, and leave Christianity to those who actually follow Christ.

Paul of Tarsus merely elaborated on the teachings of Christ (and those of his writings which are preserved in the Bible are divinely inspired it should be noted along with the gospels). In fact he fully freed Christians from the legalism of the Law (if one were to read Galatians).

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Hey, at least he's upfront about it. I really hate the groups that want to put people to death but weasel around on saying so. If you're going to kill people, man up and acknowledge it.

I have to agree with this. If you want to hate and or kill someone, then have enough balls to be open about it.

[dougie_monty]

I have my own beef with the Salvation Army. When my brother and sister and I were kids, and we had been going to their Sunday school for a while, our Dad was real sick and couldn't work. The SA promised us some food and stuff for Christmas, which was approaching (1959). They did not follow through with the promise. This is not as severe as the issue presented in the OP of this thread but it still bothers me.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Not really anything to see here except unremarkably typical homophobes being homophobic in an unremarkably typical way.

And that's not sufficient cause for outrage? Rights movements wouldn't get very far, saying "Oh that's just the usual stuff."

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Gatopescado

This is why I never give those bell-ringing assholes a cent!

Yeah! What are they going to do--beat us to death with their stupid little red buckets?! Bring it on, I say!

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by tapu

And that's not sufficient cause for outrage? Rights movements wouldn't get very far, saying "Oh that's just the usual stuff."

"They're saying people like us deserve to die!"
"Nothing much to see here, this is just normal and ordinary."

It's true, but it's also a typical way to try to derail discussions of things like this which are, and ought to be, outrageous.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Paul of Tarsus merely elaborated on the teachings of Christ (and those of his writings which are preserved in the Bible are divinely inspired it should be noted along with the gospels). In fact he fully freed Christians from the legalism of the Law (if one were to read Galatians).

Ah yes, the first in long line of "divinely inspired" preachers "elaborating on" the teachings of Christ. May God save us from them all.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Paul of Tarsus merely elaborated on the teachings of Christ (and those of his writings which are preserved in the Bible are divinely inspired it should be noted along with the gospels). In fact he fully freed Christians from the legalism of the Law (if one were to read Galatians).

Ya, impersonating my cousin is not actually doing a lot for me.

In my humble opinion, Paul was a politician who simply made Christianity more tolerable for the Roman ruling classes. He re-interpreted the gospel, and certainly brought his anti-women point of view to the fore.

Divinely inspired? Right.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

The straightforward reading of that passage in Romans, incidentally, says that people who have gay sex deserve to die. (It's a passage I'm familiar with.) Certainly churches may and do interpret scripture with an understanding that the simplest reading is not necessarily correct.

Sorry, but that's not consistent with my simple reading of it.

My take:

The tribe in the adjoining territory is urban and has lost touch with G-d. So G-d punished them by making them gay - how humiliating!¹ The tribe in the adjoining territory also suffers from a long litany of sins, ending with the following:

..they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy

Emphasis added.

[Subtext: some of those sins seem uncomfortably familiar, no?]

Chapter 2:
So strive to be good, but don't be a judgmental prick.
-----
Now let's give the long quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

2.1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath , when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9

Emphasis added. Again. A plain reading indicates that homosexual orientation is God's punishment, not a sin per se, because sins involve choice. The sins are being "...filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy."

The only thing in that list that's possibly kinky is, "Inventing ways of doing evil". And that's a matter of interpretation. I guess there's also "Depravity". Does anybody know the Greek for that?


¹Is that homophobic? Sure it is. I'm just saying I don't see the Fags Must Die interpretation.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

A plain reading indicates that homosexual orientation is God's punishment

Indeed! And it's a sign that the LORD has abandoned us to hellfire. Hallelujah!

. . . maybe you thought this was, like, news. But it's emphatically not a new thing to a whole hell of a lot of us whom the LORD has decided to mark by driving us to sinful urges as a mark of His abandonment of us due to our sins against Him.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Indeed! And it's a sign that the LORD has abandoned us to hellfire. Hallelujah!

. . . maybe you thought this was, like, news. But it's emphatically not a new thing to a whole hell of a lot of us whom the LORD has decided to mark by driving us to sinful urges as a mark of His abandonment of us due to our sins against Him.

1. "A sign" is an interpretation not supported by Romans. That's an extrapolation.

2. Ryan, quoted in the OP, claims that Romans states that gays deserve death. In post 9, mister nyx agreed. I maintain that a plain reading of the text does not support that interpretation.

3a. The passage is homophobic, which surprises nobody. Frankly though, the particular passage and the Bible in general is a lot less homophobic than fundamentalists make out.

3b. Although I trust that greater effort can bend the text in more humane ways. Again though, I'm saying that you don't have to do that to reject the contention that it calls for the death of gays. If anything, Paul calls for the death of those without mercy, fidelity or love, though actually I think it's part of dissing his neighbors while simultaneously saying you are our neighbor.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Good thing they stop reading there, eh? Because just after that...

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whenever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Of course, this is Pauline doctrine, as evidenced by Romans 2:16 where Paul says "...according to my gospel".

Not God's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. PAUL'S GOSPEL.

I have a small problem with that.

I'm confused, maybe because in Spanish we never refer to it as "Jesus' gospel" or "God's gospel". They're the gospels of whomever is telling them... Marks' gospel, Luke's gospel... and yes, Paul's gospel. It's shorthand for "the way Soandso understands/explains it".

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I agree with cckerberos, though, that interpreting the Salvation Army spokesperson's statements as saying "gays should be put to death" is weaseling a bit in the other direction.

I condemn and reject any doctrine that holds that gays "deserve death" for being gay. But such doctrines are not necessarily the same thing as saying "the state ought to impose capital punishment for homosexuality", which is what the melodramatic phrase "gays should be put to death" implies.

Really?

What do you think it actually means then?

There are plenty of conservative Christians who do literally, explicitly advocate instituting capital punishment for homosexuality in the civil legal code, which is appalling. But AFAIK the Salvation Army does not support any such policy, and this guy's remarks don't suggest to me that he or anybody else in the Salvation Army seriously thinks that they should.

Yet it appears that's just what they do support.

So for everybody who charged into this thread thinking they were going to be outraged by Salvation Army protesters chanting "Fry the Queers" outside the state legislature, I recommend taking a deep breath, untwisting the panties, and dialing down the shock and horror. Not really anything to see here except unremarkably typical homophobes being homophobic in an unremarkably typical way.

No.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Really?

What do you think it actually means then?



Yet it appears that's just what they do support.



No.

Calm down, man. The Salvation Army spokesperson said that anyone who's had gay sex deserves death. As Kimstu rightly said, untwist your panties, because it's totally ridiculous to get upset about that. "Dial back the shock and horror" because while that may sound shocking and horrible to some, Kimstu is pretty sure that's just because their panties are in a bunch.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Calm down, man. The Salvation Army spokesperson said that anyone who's had gay sex deserves death. As Kimstu rightly said, untwist your panties, because it's totally ridiculous to get upset about that. "Dial back the shock and horror" because while that may sound shocking and horrible to some, Kimstu is pretty sure that's just because their panties are in a bunch.

Oh, sorry. I'm so hysterical sometimes.