Most e-mails were anonymized by replacing the sender's name by ******, except in a few cases where people were speaking in an official function, such as representing a group or company.
From: *******@mail.com Subject: Response Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:32:10 -0500 (EST)Dear outspoken critic of the Religious Right,
First of all, I respect the fact that you've exercised your personal freedom to promote a web page that denotes your strong opposition to the Religious Right. I consider myself a supporter of the RR, so I found your commentary to be enlightening to a point where I finally had to discontinue reading and begin sharing some thoughts with you.
I've decided not to quote Bible in order to argue certain points you've attempted to make with certain verses. We both know we could take several Bible verses out of context in order to use the truth of God's word in attempt to make a point. Believers and non-believers alike have been doing this for years. As for my view on the Bible, I believe it's the one true Word of God, inspired by God, and it allows us, in our limited understanding, to better understand God the Father and the Son that He sent - not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (okay, one slight quote from John 3:17 for good measure). As a Christian, I can also use the Bible for daily instruction, counsel, and most importantly, to strengthen my walk with the Lord.
In the Bible we have an Old Testament (or covenant) and a New Testament. These are covenants that God has established with his people. To sum it up,the old covenant required that God's people uphold specific laws in order to please God, with dire consequences otherwise. The new covenant, however, does away with the old covenant by establishing Jesus's sacrifice for all sins, freedom from the law, and righteousness obtained not by our own efforts (which proved impossible under the first covenant). Under the new covenant, righteousness (and salvation) is obtained through faith in the blood of Jesus that was shed for our iniquity. Given that, salvation isn't obtained through works, but it's a gift given to us by God through His Son. Although we are no longer under the old covenant, it's important to have the old testament for instruction and to further our understanding of God, and ultimately to comprehend the importance of how He loved us so much that He gave His Son to establish a new and better covenant. I guess I'm mentioning this because I'd like to see more NT quotes on your website -- after all, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ that need's to be communicated to the world.
Having said that, I guess I'm not replying in order to argue with you. I have a feeling that wouldn't be the productive and loving thing to do. There are certain things that won't make sense to someone until he/she accepts God's plan for their life and turns their heart to the Lord. Concerning the Religious Right, for example, some views expressed by this group may seem contradictory and/or intolerant. What's important to understand is that these beliefs are based on principles that encompass a Christian's moral, ethical, and spiritual convictions - convictions that come from a heart that's been changed by God's love, and nothing less. Therefore, I think the conflict that you have with the RR is not a conflict solely of political differences, but a conflict based on differences of the heart. Therefore, no number of good arguments could ever change your or my views. Only a change of heart.
My only hope is that sharing my heart with you was not a waste of time. And regardless of what your perception of me or the Religious Right may be, I would ask that you consider that God is the one and only true righteous judge, but He's also a god of love and mercy, and He loves you as much as anyone.
Sincerely,
J.S.
From: ******@bellsouth.net Subject: Webpage Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:55:32 -0600
Highly inaccurate and very misleading. You twist scripture as bad as some of the individuals you attack in your home page. I am not going to even attempt to defend some of the individuals you name, this is useless, and some do not represent true Christianity. Of course this is natural for someone who does not hold the values in the bible to be of any value. The ten commandments are the foundation of our value system today, even if some push to remove them from every courthouse in America. Remove prayer in school, and look at what has happened since. Killings.
The "Religious Right" does have a agenda. Sometimes not a focused one at that. The other side has a agenda also. Sick and perverted as it is. We could debate this for hours. The battle lines are drawn between the two, and they will be at war until the end of time. To explain the judgment of God is not my mission. ]
I did not believe in a God. I thought it to be a big joke. My days in the Army were spent making fun of "Christians". The hypocrites that they were. Most of them made mistakes that I visibly saw. Jesus dying for me. That was just a fairy tale. I also hated homosexuals by the way. The Army had no place for them. Combat soldiers hated homosexuals, and I was one of the "boys".
Then at the age of 24 my wife died of cancer. I really hated God then, if there were such a thing or person. Three years I had the time of my life. Just sort of let it all hang loose. Had a immoral relationship with a young woman, and did not care what people thought. Who were they to judge me? Hypocrite Christians.
I could not let go of my pain inside though. The lose of my wife, and her death haunted me. She had prayed for a "miracle", and God did not grant it. My soul was empty, and my life lost.
I started going to church. Every body wanted me to go forward and "give your life to Jesus". No way. I am a good man, served during the war, and was good to my family. Why do I need to do anything at all? So I didn't. For nearly 2 months I just attended.
One Sunday I woke up late. I had a hangover from a "fun time" the night before. Decided to go to church, and was late. Made it through the service, and the preacher gave a alter call. The Lord spoke to me. Quietly. I finally stepped out and went to the front and my heart and life were changed. Forever. My destiny changed that day. The relationship I had ended, she did not want to date a "Christian". I was devastated, but gave it over to God.
A few months later I met a young woman. She was a "christian", and we are now married. The grief over my first wife is gone. Her "miracle" happened. I gave my heart to Jesus. That is a miracle. Though not a alcoholic, I gave it up all together.
I wish I were perfect. That Christ changed my life is a fact, but I am still a human being. In the Army I became addicted to many things. I still struggle with some of those today. My flesh still craves things that are not holy. You know what the difference is? I feel conviction for sin. You may never know what Jesus did for you on the cross. In fact you may believe it is a fairy tale. All I can account for is what He did for me. To tell you my life changed, though it is not perfect I do strive to be more like Christ. I do not hate homosexuals anymore. I feel deep sympathy for them, and I know they are precious to the Lord. He did not just die for me, he died for all. Forgive Christians for being self-righteous at times.
I really do not request a reply. It is not my intent to anger or upset you. I simply thought you should hear my testimony. How my life changed. How one day I hope yours changes. Sincerely, (name removed)
From: Joel xxxxxxxx <xxxxxxx@snet.net> Subject: Quotes Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:06:28 -0500
Dear Concerned Critic of the American Religious Right,
I have some more quotes for you to consider for your website (to which I was referred by a friend):
"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love."
The Apostle Paul - Romans 12:9-10 (NIV).
Your website said, "'Love the sinner, but hate the sin' as a general principle cannot be found anywhere in the bible." I thought you would be interested in the passage above and those below:
"To fear the Lord is to hate evil." Proverbs 8:13 (NIV).
"Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."
Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:44, NIV).
Jesus does not tell us to love their ideas or deeds but to love them. Even the most basic understanding of Jesus reveals that he built his moral legacy on his hatred of the hypocrisy of many of the political and religious leaders of his day. Still, he loved the hypocrites.
"Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones." Psalm 97:10 (NIV).
"Love one another." Jesus. John 13:34 (NIV).
"Hate evil, love good." Amos 5:15 (NIV).
"I hate and abhor falsehood but I love your law." Psalm 119:163 (NIV).
"For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his own sin." King David. Psalm 36:2 (NIV).
"…He who hates bribes will live." Proverbs 15:27 (NIV).
Note: The principle of loving the sinner and hating the sin is derived directly from the way a Christian believes he or she is treated by God. He loves us and hates our sins. This idea permeates the Bible.
"You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13 (NIV). A simple knowledge of the original language for the Ten Commandments reveals that the word "kill" is a mistranslation when applied to the sixth commandment. The Hebrew word means "murder." The word used in many of the other quotes you listed with the English word "kill" actually used different Hebrew words. The English translators were far too simplistic. The passages you listed illustrate well that the Hebrew Bible recognizes that not all killing rests on the same moral level. Your selections made the case for legitimizing the death penalty. Reasonable Christians differ respectfully on this point.
"We don't want people who keep one eye on the life in the hereafter. We need free men who feel and know that God is within themselves." Adolf Hitler. Quoted by Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks (London, 1939). Pages 57-58.
Hitler was nothing more than a shameless opportunist when it came to religion. It is irresponsible and historically inaccurate to portray him in any other light. Countless Christian pastors of conscience (like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others) stood up to Hitler because he was such an affront to true Christian faith. They paid for their courage with their lives.
Hitler was fond of referring to "his garden" and "God's garden." "His garden" was well tended and yielded fruit. "God's garden" was left untouched and full of weeds. Hitler used this logically flawed analogy (Hitler conveniently forgot about Yosemite, the gorgeous Alps, etc.) to yield people OFF of any sort of Christian faith that took GOD seriously. This fits with the quote above that revealed Hitler's disdain for faith that actually believed in the hereafter.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. " Thomas Jefferson.
"Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." Benjamin Franklin
"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country." - Samuel Adams
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." -Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Ludlow, 1824.
"We cannot expect national morality to prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington, Farewell Address
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."-George Washington.
Yes, Hitler would have HATED George Washinton's belief in Heaven with a capital 'H.'.
"Education is useless without the Bible." Noah Webster
"Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." Daniel Webster, 1820.
Thank you for considering the input above. Take care and treasure your freedom to express your views.
Let me add that I admire your apparent hatred for "lies." Your zeal and hatred for falsehood is of biblical proportion. You did not make your case well, however, against those you accused as liars. But keep working at it since no side of the spectrum (politically or religiously) is free of frequent lapses into mis-statement and distortion. It comes with human nature, unless of course you are a liberal Democrat or on the religious left. Their leaders NEVER lie do they?
Respectfully sent by: Joel M. *******
My commentsto make this easier to read, I put Joel's text in blue and my responses in black.
Hate the sin but love the sinner?Joel's bible passages certainly refute my claim that "hate sin, but love the sinner as a general principle cannot be found anywhere in the bible". So should Christians live according to that principle? I do not believe so, and here's why.To fear the Lord is to hate evil. Proverbs 8:13 (NIV). Observe that this is technically an if-then statement. If a condition is met, then the outcome will be as described. So the question is: are Christians supposed to fear God? I find the proverb to be an insightful analysis of what is wrong with religious fundamentalists. Instead of loving God, they fear God. And the result is just as the proverb describes: hatred. It may only be hatred of evil, but the problem is that hatred, even "with good cause", usually corrupts the purity of one's motivation, and thus leads to evil. You just can't hate evil in the abstract. Sooner or later, you end up hating the people who are manifesting the (perceived or real) evil. People who hate fascism also hate Hitler. People who hate communism also hate Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, and all the other communists. People who hate Christian conservativism usually hate the Pope and Pat Robertson. Similarly, Christians who hate homosexuality usually hate homosexual people. Jesus seemed to have a firm understanding of this limitation of human nature, as evidenced by the fact that he himself never instructs his followers to hate evil. Joel correctly observes that Jesus does not tell us to love their ideas or deeds (..) but Jesus does not tell us the contrary, either. He is simply silent on the issue of whether or not we should attempt to love our enemies while hating their deeds, because he understands fully well that this dangerous balancing act is beyond the capability of most people. It might be true that he built his moral legacy on his hatred of the hypocrisy of many of the political and religious leaders of his day, but that does not mean that he wanted us to try to do the same. That Jesus walked on water is not a commandment for us to try to do likewise. The apostle Paul is a splendid example of someone who tried to "walk on water" anyway. Paul speaks with such passion against his enemies that there can be little doubt that he did not love them as Jesus had instructed. He hated both sin and the sinner, and it is therefore not surprising that he would expand Jesus' doctrine of "love the sinner, period" to "love the sinner, hate the sin". In doing so, he laid the foundation for two millenia of Christian crimes against humanity, such as witch hunts, the "holy" inquisition and the brutal murdering of millions of "heathens" and "heretics". Jesus never intended these attrocities, but they were committed in his name regardless. Christians may dismiss this bloody history as human imperfection, but in reality, the seed of evil is right there, in the bible, contained in that impossible commandment to love the sinner but hate the sin. I therefore concede the point that this principle can be found in the bible. However, I stand firm in my belief that this principle, although it does not directly contradict the teachings of Jesus, almost universally inspires feelings and behavior that do. Therefore, Christian leaders would be well advised to not emphasize this principle. Joel also wrote a lengthy response to my claim that the bible does not condem pre-marital sex, which comes next. |
In your website (I presume it is yours), you claimed it was a "blatant lie" that pre-marital sex is against Christian values. Your wrote: "The christian bible condemns adultery, but not sex between two people who are both unmarried."
Let me do some homework for you that should have been done before you used a phrase like "blatant lie."
In Deuteronomy 22 we see that a woman's virginity at the time of marriage (chastity) is a high concern, and it is more than a private concern. There is grave concern over the 'name' or reputation of the woman. Accusations against her should not be frivolous. But if her virginity cannot be proven, she was subject to punishment. Why? Because she had done "a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house." (Deut. 22:21. NIV). The NASB calls it "playing the harlot in her father's house." It is called "evil" and it must be "purged." Her sin was both that of fornication and presenting the pretense of purity (dishonesty).
Christians believe that the reactions in Deuteronomy are overly harsh for our time and that the principles of repentance and forgiveness enable us to transcend their old forms of punishment. The New Testament represents the further revelation of God's providence, plan, and will, rendering such harsh forms obsolete. Yet the reality of and seriousness of the sin remains. Our forgiveness reminds us of how amazing God's grace is. Once forgiven, it is our duty to "go and sin no more." (John 8:11).
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 deals with the notion of consent. If a woman is raped where she cannot scream for help, she is innocent. If she fails to scream when a man has sex with her in town, however, she is culpable. Without consent it is rape and the Bible declares the woman as innocent. With consent, however, the "unbetrothed virgin" is held to be sinful. In verses 23-24, the presence of consent in no way diminishes the wrong done. Extra-marital unchastity is called "evil" and the punishment is again harsh.
Lack of consent is not the only factor determining immorality in sex. Two people can consent to something that is wrong. Lying is immoral regardless of consent. Lying to oneself and consensual drug abuse are examples. Jack Kevorkian can get consent from someone to kill them, but I still regard his participation and the nature of it as harmful and immoral. Many of his consenting partners in death had a health problem that was not terminal. In this age of condom proliferation, rampant illegitimacy and moral nihilism, I believe there is more to morality than mere consent. What if two consent to commit adultery and the cheated partner never finds out? What if even the cheated party actually consents? If consent determines morality, then we are, in many cases, laws unto ourselves. Does this represent your ethical orientation?
The Bible holds pre-marital chastity up as a holy ideal. The seriousness of pre-marital sex is again seen in Leviticus 21:7-15. Prostitution is seen as "defiling" and "disgraceful." Leviticus 19:29 says, "Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness." Why is prostitution seen as wicked? I contend it is not just because money might be exchanged but because the notion of sexual fidelity is not just confined to married people. Nor is it only for women. We must all rise to God's standard of fidelity.
The attitude in Israel regarding premarital sexual activity is seen in Joseph's response when he learned his beloved Mary was pregnant. He could have done more but he decided to put her away privately. He would not consider marriage until an angel appeared to him affirming her purity (Matthew 1:18-20). Also, the response of the Jews to Jesus' claims and accusations in John 8:31-41 indicates that they held fornication in disdain; "we are not born of fornication." In both cases, "legitimacy" was in question and it is clear that it was a high concern in Israel.
The bottom line teaching in the Bible on marriage and sex is summed up in the phrase, "one flesh." (Genesis 2:24). Jesus affirmed this principle of oneness in his teaching (Matthew 19:5). Paul asked the rhetorical question; "Shall I then take the members of Christ [our bodies] and unite them with a prostitute? Never!" (1 Cor. 6:12-16). Then he quoted Genesis 2:24 to apply the principle of sexual oneness to an extra-marital situation to stress its wrongness. Paul knew that "oneness" between unmarried persons (sexually) is a biblical contradiction in terms.
The New Testament often uses a term (porneia) which can be translated as "fornication" or "sexual immorality." This term is used by Jesus in Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, and Paul alongside the word for adultery (moiceia) thus indicating that it refers to sexual activity other than that of adultery. At the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), the issue involved the degree to which Gentiles had to submit to the law of Moses in order to become disciples of Jesus. It was decided that they should not make it difficult for Gentiles to turn to God. Circumcision would not be demanded but "porneia" would remain prohibited. Fornication is condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; and in Hebrews 13:4. The principle is well stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:7. "For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." We are called to control our bodies (1 Thes. 4:4). These passages teach clearly against pre-marital sexual activity and they reveal that adultery is not the only form of sexual sin in the Bible. This is elementary for any honest reader of the Bible.
Pre-marital sex tends to makes the family less needed, less valued, and less possible. Marriage is less valued now than a generation ago. It is less trusted and more feared. People are now more likely to carry tremendous sexual scars around and to be emotionally jaded. Fewer people are choosing to marry. We can no longer assume basic levels of morality in the people we meet. There are fewer shared values. There are more broken and bitter hearts now than before. More genuine frustration tears at the heart of sincere singles who need to assume basic moral standards or orientations among those they might wish to marry. Anyone who denies the pain of that confusion is heartless and insensitive to singles and their struggles. The sexual revolution has offered a legacy of terrible pain and disarray.
Humans have never lived in a world where everyone followed God's high ideal for His gift of sex. Yet when His ideals were held higher, a tremendously higher proportion of people did live by it thus making the world much more stable, secure, and (in my view) free! The past has always been deeply evil in different ways. Would that we could overcome past evils (racism, etc) WITHOUT willfully jumping into new areas of immorality (sexual chaos and family breakdown). Our task is not to decide when things were better or worse but to simply do our best to hold God's standards higher in the here and now. History teaches us that whole civilizations (national, ethnic or religious people-groups) come apart at the seams when sexual ethics and family norms go awry. The religious right holds high concerns that are rooted in this historical and cultural fact.
What you called "a blatant lie" is simply decent Christian people believing what their Bible says. They are freely voicing their concern over what they view as destructive sexual chaos (sexual ethics that leave the ideals of marriage and family in the dust).
So, disagree honorably if you will. That is your right. But you need to make a better case for your accusations.
Sincerely,
Joel *
From: ******@aol.com Subject: religious right Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:12:14 ESTwhy do you want to pick on people who take care of their families, pay their debts, want lower taxes so that everyone can keep the money they earn, promote privacy and don't want people to die of aids?
|
My reply to that person was as follows: >why do you want to pick on people who take care of their families, The short answer is: I don't! In fact, it sickens me when people who take care of their families are being picked on by religious extremists, just because they are not traditional families. > pay their debts, want lower taxes so that everyone can keep the > money they earn, I'm all for lower taxes - for the average American! But conservatives only give tax breaks for the rich, and that's what I don't like. Why not lower the sales tax, one of the most regressive (i.e. the richer you are, the less it hits you) taxes? I would be all for that. The only thing I don't like is lowering taxes that disproportionally affect the rich. I *do* think that Americans need a tax break. I just don't think that Bill Gates and Michael Eisner need one. >promote privacy We seem to agree on everything. I support privacy - which is why I think the government has no business regulating what people can do in their bedrooms, and whom they can and can't love. >and don't want people to die of aids? We really are in perfect agreement. I don't want people to die of AIDS, which is why I'm opposed to inefficient "abstinence only" education. Let's face it: gay men still represent a large number of HIV infections. No matter what your opinion on homosexuality is, you must recognize that you don't reach young gay men with a message of "wait until marriage" - because for them that means never! The only effect "abstinence until marriage" education has on young gay men is that they completely tune out during sex education, because it does not address them and their needs. They will then go on and have unprotected sex and very likely contract HIV, Hepatitis C and a host of other STDs. I don't want that to happen. That's why I support comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sex education means that you tell young people "the best option is not to do it until you've met the right person, but if you have to do it, use this and that." In Europe, comprehensive sex education is the norm, and the results speak for themselves. Maybe you will think about these arguments for a few minutes, and not just reject them out of hand. If you have good counter-arguments, I will certainly take them seriously. I received a lengthy reaction to this e-mail, but I can't call it a response. |
From: ******@aol.com Subject: Re: religious right, reply Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 06:02:47 ESTDavid, I am going to reply to your letter in stages. The point I want to bring up in this letter is the issue of privacy. I find that the liberal left is continually inviting the government into their homes. I personally believe that we should take care of ourselves and of our own families. We should feed ourselves, we should school and educate ourselves, we should take care of ourselves in old age, we should take care of our own medical needs, we should take care of disciplining our own children, we should take care of helping out those within our families that are out of work and prepare ourselves for such situations. Over and over again though, the liberal left wants the government to do this. This is not the governments job! It's also destroying privacy because the government now wants information on every detail of our lives and on every detail of our children's lives. It says in Titus 5:8 in the Bible, "But if any one does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Many Christians though do not follow this verse. To the church's shame, nation wide medicare in Canada was brought in by a Baptist minister, Tommy Douglas, and now I as a conscientious responsible Canadian have to pay for my medical services through charitable donations because its illegal to pay a doctor any more! I guess David I can't really point any fingers at the liberal left because the church is continually going to the government for all their personal needs. I am amazed though that the liberal left seems to hold nothing sacred. If one really loves their spouse and children, should they not support them and lay down their lives for them instead of handing them over to someone else? Shouldn't those precious love relationships be off limits to the prying eyes of social workers and social scientists who want to make sure no part of the family unit is untouched? Shouldn't parents be considered equal in authority to church and to state. I think the government should just concern itself with law and justice and not with social issues for those are the issues of the family. Take care, (name removed)
From: xxxxxxx@aol.com Subject: Absolutely horrible Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:06:54 EDT
You win the award for the most incompentent site on the web. It is shear comedy that you wish to hear comments about factual errors???
Listen up. Your entire site is based on lies and not little lies--grotesque ones. Truly, you must believe a whole lot of nonsense to fall for your basic position: drenched in bigotry and hostility while demanding equality for homosexuality. No disrespect to homosexuals but it seems that one must be a gay activist to believe the kind of lies you cite as the truth. You have nothing but contempt for the truth.
I am no Christian--I am Jewish. It is appropriate that you hate me because it is the Jewish Bible that denies your "truth" and makes it stand so clearly as fraud. Jews are the "Religious Right" and there is little in Christianity you hate (except for distortions about what Jesus said and stood for) that is not derived from Judaism.
But it is dangerous to read the Bible from some Greek translator. I encourage you to read the Bible as it is written and not some mistranslation. Go out and buy a Bible. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that "Thou Shalt not Kill" is in no portion of the Bible and the translation is "Murder" no "kill." Your "Contradiction of the Month" is no contradiction at all, since Exodus 32 v. 14 says that "And the Lord repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people... and NUmbers 23, v. 19 says: "God is not a man, that he should lie." Repent is a Hebrew idiom and God obviously does not have the real feelings and emotions of men. Merely, God recognizes men's emotions so that where men make a change in purpose, God responds in kind.
The site against Dr. Laura is classic anti-semitism and disgusting. It is hate-speech pure and simple.
If you would like me to tear your site down piece by piece, e-mail me back and I will work it into my schedule before April 20.
You are a religious fanatic. But instead of an honest religion, you adhere to the house of slash and burn.
(name removed)