People
respond to “God Hates FAGS!?!”
Over the years, I have received much email from people
who read and reacted to this
article I published on my website.
Here are some of my favorites. You can respond in writing here.
Disagree:
Impressive, but No Way, Jose!
Disagree: Like Phelps, You're
"way off base!"
Disagree: You Self-Gratifying
Advocate of Bestial Fornication!!!!
Agree: I Never Chose to be
Gay; It's Part of Who I Am.
Disagree: Go Straight Now,
Or Else!!
Agree (?): A Conservative Christian's
Niece Goes Gay
Disagree (?): Too Blasphemous
for this Born-Again but-Shh!-I enjoyed it!
Agree (?): I "Nearly Completely"
Agree With Your Essay
Disagree: This
Minister Throws the Book At Me!
Disagree: Cute, but No Kudos
for "Biblica Exegesis"!
Agree (?): This Christian
Had A Good Chuckle
Agree (?): Sodom Done in By
Nukes, Evidence Suggests
Agree: A Freethinker Tugged
Tight by the Bible Belt
Agree: Canadian Klondyke Weighs
In
Agree: Former Presbyterian
Minister on Jesus's Divorce Views
Disagree: Angels' Rectums
A "Huge Hole" in Your Article
Disagree: Die, Retard!!
Agree (?): Understanding Biblical
Incest, Among Other Things
Disagree (?): Putting Lot's
Tragedy in Biblical Perspective
Agree (?): Yeah, But You Cross
the Line on Occasion
Agree: Literal Reading of Bible
"Defeats Purpose of Having Faith"
Disagree (?): "F***ing Sick"
of Hearing the Word "Fag"!
Agree: Oral Roberts Gave Me Knowledge
to Help Fellow Gays
Disagree: Praying For You Every
Night!
Agree: Some Folks Don't Get
Your "Clever Little Article"
Agree: Can't Retaliate,
But You're Doing It For Me!
Agree (?): A Non-Heterosexual
Hindu's Perspective
Agree: Gay and Pissed Off
in Belgium
Click
here to post YOUR response to "God Hates Fags!?!"
Impressed with your article, but
No Way, Jose!
Emailed by Xero,
June 10, 2002
Dear
Kevin,
Although
I am impressed that you took the time to at least look through the chapters in
the Bible concerning Lot's life circumstances in Genesis chapter
19, I have to disagree with your interpretation. God does not, nor will He
ever, reward (even those who follow him) with good if they have done evil. God
never "rewarded" Lot with children by his daughters; He made
good out of a bad situation. What good? Well, life. Human-beings were born. He
could have kept conception from happening but He didn't for the express reason
to show that no matter how bad a situation or circumstance is,
He is in charge. Science does not dictate God; God made science. He can keep
anything from happening that He wants. Yet, He allowed life to come from a
situation that ultimately would have meant their death, were they in their home
city of their faith.
I
think Lot's daughters were aware of what they were doing.
Though they acted faithlessly, they more than likely knew that God
was big enough to give them husbands somewhere down the road, providing their
father brought them up trusting God. They acted the same way that Abraham did
when he slept with his maidservant instead of believing what God told him and
his wife about them having their own child. As for Lot, He was wrong to want
to give up his daughters to the lustful men of Sodom. God would never
approve of that. He acted rashly as sometimes Christians can act; just like
anyone else. I firmly believe that there was a breakdown in the family relationship,
though, since the daughters believed that their own father would allow wicked
men to have their way with them. They more than likely (out of fear and
faithlessness towards God) thought they could do no better; as if all men were
that evil. Lot's weakness in trusting God to be in charge
obviously rubbed off on his daughters and they learned to not trust God from
their father in the midst of a compromising situation. Look at Samson; a
righteous man who, in a sticky situation, didn't trust God the way he knew was
right. Nobody is perfect but if we trust God, He can help us to make the right
decisions in life.
NO WHERE
in the Bible does God say that He hates homosexuals. He is
against and condemns the act of homosexuality since it is sin. If you take
God's name in vain, does He hate you or is that not considered bad enough
of a sin? Does God have different levels of sin? If so, show me. God
sees things differently than you and me. You can't kind of do something
wrong or kind of kill some one or even kind of lie. You do or you don't. In
fact, God even says that He has more respect for those who openly hate Him and
are unwavering about it than those who say they love and believe
God but go and do there own thing against what He says is
right.
By
your well thought out essay, I perceive that you either have a Bible or have
access to one. Whichever the case, search a little more and make sure
that you are sure about what you are writing and that you studied the subject
matter thoroughly. A lot of times a verse can be taken out of context if
either the verse(s) before have not been read or the passage is made to prove a
point that the reader is trying to make on his/her own. God interprets His word
only one way. I may have difficulty understanding His word at times but I have
to believe that He knows better. He has proven it time and again to
me as long as I let Him and don't get so stuck on my own
understanding (Proverbs 3:5,6).
I
would be interested to know your thoughts on these matters. If you would like,
you are more than welcome to e-mail me: xero@lllllllllll.com. I will not argue out of emotion
with you but I promise to be open to your comments and any questions you may
have.
Like Fred Phelps, Kevin,
you are “way off base!”
Emailed from M.Keith,
August 28, 2001
Dear
Kevin,
Hey man,Y'know, I just read your post about the does "God
hate fags???" thing ok, actually I read all your issues, and...man, I'm sorry Kevin but you are sadly, just as off-base about
your interpretation and subsequent views as the ol'
rev.
It reminds me of the Rush
Limbaugh republican v. democrat controversy. They are always contending, always
bickering about opinions, assuming that because they "believe" it
or purport it and back it up with "facts" and views of the people
that think they do, that makes it true.
Mr. Limbaugh is funny,
and no I haven't listened much, he'll make an assertion and make, perhaps
even a strong point. But always seems to shoot it in the foot because he goes
from noting the fallacy or lie and subsequent evidence to the contrary but
then takes it even further allying it with "it is true because we
said that might happen or, we told you so, or we said it first, we've
had hold of the truth, all of it forever and only our views are true, or more
true than yours". This is the very same for the other side(s).
The truth is so
liberating because it stands irrespective of us. It matters not what
belief is ascribed unto it, it merely is. Like the sun in the sky. Yes, surely
there are different ways of looking at it but, really open your eyes and look,
feel its warmth. It rises and it sets, purely. The fact remains, the sun does
rise and it does set no matter how we feel about it and no matter what we
"believe".
It is like putting your
hand over a candle flame, if you hold, just hold it right over the flame long
enough bare handed you will be burned.
Does the flame have any
intentions to burn you, any moral grounds regarding it? No, it is what it is.
Now someone such as yourself will say, " well it
won't burn me if I have a glove on or I hold it high enough, or put it out, or
something which I haven't thought of offering. That is not the point.
Kevin, I have nothing to
prove and it certainly is not my intention to come at you with some kind of
contempt whatsoever but... man, you are errant in this.
First off, woefully
presumptuous- not a great thing if one is attempting to be even remotely
objective.
And
another thing: Being celestial beings, I assume angels don't have biological
organs that we humans have. The only way these Sodomites can get to
"know" these angels, homosexually, is by, well,
"sodomizing" them. But why would God create angels with rectums?
Surely no one shits in heaven.
Man, this is probably the
best example to show you of your own writing. Not about the ability or inability
to defecate but so much more so about inviolate, spiritual principals underlying
and surrounding the passage.
Kevin, you are very ardent in
countering things backed up with mere conjecture. There must first be an acknowledgement
of what is true. Certainly in your case an understanding of the nature of
God and the way He views holiness will help. How spiritual principles
apply and absolutes that may stand irrespective of our understanding of a
particular passage or even some system of belief. This will be found
and a much fuller picture seen in far more than the passages you have quoted.
Not to mention a cultural understanding and most importantly an acknowledgement
that there are certainly things we do not know.
Relative truth is like
relative sunrise. There needs to be an acknowledgement of the things aforementioned,
if not then we are free to just interpret everything anyway we want
so long as it fits into our tiny little paradigms, our own little constructs
not even remotely resembling reality or truth.
That
"reverend" is way off base, but Kevin, I am sorry to say that you are
too.
Take care, man.
You
Self-Gratifying Advocate of Bestial Fornication!!!!
Email sent by Jerimalibu, October 27, 2002
You are truly a moron, stuck in your
own sexual gratification at ANYONE else’s cost. I bet you don't care if
it's an animal, such as a pig OR ass like yourself,.. as long as you are gratified. YOU WILL MEET YOUR
MAKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I
never chose to be gay; it’s just part of who I am.
Emailed by Troy A, November 14, 2002
I know how you
feel. I hate it when someone says something like that, yet cannot back it
up. It makes me wonder if they believe what they do because it's their
true feelings and what they really think...or it it's just what was forced down
their throats so much they don't know anything else. I grew up in a
strict Christian household (not easy!)...and yes, I do have my beliefs, but I
am still the person God intended me to be. I never chose to be gay, it's just a part of who I am. I firmly believe I
wouldn't be this way if it wasn't what God had planned for me.
I actually had a bit of a "religious experience" 5 years
ago and could go on and on about this...but I'll spare you. lol It just amazes me
how total strangers can get so heated over somebody else's personal life!
And especially for them to say it's all for God... The New Testament is
all about helping one another and being kind to our neighbors, forgiving to
those who have wronged us, and for believing in Christ...it's amazing what
other meanings people will find even in THAT part of the Bible when their mind
is already set. Anyways, I could rant about this forever...lol, so I'll end it now. :)
Go
Straight Now…. Or Else!
Emailed by Vigilalbundy, December 8, 2002
The story of Sodom and Gomorra is not a pleasant one.
Drastic situations call for drastic actions. Here is the true message
of the story of Sodom and Gomorra: It's a strict warren
against homosexuality, it is referred to over
and over again in the Bible. The same punishment is on its way for all
homosexuals.
I do not intent to slander gay people by writing this Email. Homosexuality
is a sin just like any other sin, it can be repented of.
AIDS KILLS, HELL IS HOT, BETTER GO STRAIGHT BEFORE ITS
TOO LATE!!! Please, help your loved ones to go straight.....
A
conservative Christian’s niece goes gay—and he gets it!
Emailed by Ron, January 13, 2003
. . . I have to admit,
you're a decent sort of chap and I enjoyed bantering with you. Truth be told,
you have a great attitude! I wish you well. Gotta
tell you, a niece of mine had been married to a wretch of a man who molested
her two daughters and finally died from eating too much. When she found out
about the hanky-panky she had divorced him. He weighed five or six hundred
pounds. She showed up with a "friend" not long ago and for the life of
me I couldn't judge her; I couldn't have gone through what she went through.
And I see so much crap in my own life I would have gagged were I to say
anything about her. I truly wish her well, she deserves that! God is merciful
for we are ALL in deep doo-doo.
Too
Blasphemous for this Born-Again but—Shhh!—I enjoyed it!!
Emailed by D. May, January 14, 2005
Kevin,
Before
I read your article I re-read Genesis 19. I am a born again Christian and
I consider Jesus to be the most important thing in my life. As a father
of a teenage girl, I also have to admit that I found it interesting that Lot was so quick to offer
his daughters up for a 'city wide gang-bang'! In addition, I wondered how
Lot could get so drunk that
he did not know that he was being molested by his daughters let alone the fact
that he was able to obtain a 'woody' as you so eloquently stated.
I
am comforted by the fact that if Lot was blessed by God even though he acted
in that way, I guess that I may not me judged as harshly as I first
believed. Your article, while bordering on the blasphemous, was
very funny and I enjoyed it.
I “nearly completely”
agree with your entertaining, brilliant, very literally sound argument.
Emailed by D.J. House, January 16, 2005
You indicate that you've seen much response to your theological essay entitled "God Hates Fags" and also, sadly, report that the Christians
have not agreed. Sad to hear. The Bible is one of the most impressive bodies of literature out there. An astonishing epic, and your analysis
was very, very respectful (especially when compared with how hateful Christians tend to be towards homosexuals). I've found that most passages
in the Bible which condemn homosexuality to be as equally guilty of fallacy as Genesis 19. And your wonderful analysis certainly opens the passage
up for discussion (though I don't know whether it exactly proves your thesis). Essentially, thank you for a good read after I googled around for a while.
And your argument is sometimes entertaining (and nothing more) but other times quite brilliant and very literally sound. I nearly completely agree with you.
Your essay belongs in a Bible as Literature class. I'll refer some friends to the link. Thanks again.
This Minister Throws the Book At Me!
Emailed by IMJ8JR, May 6, 2005
Excuse
me good sir, but in case you hadn't noticed, I provided no judgment. As for my
quoting Leviticus, you are the one who put an article on the web quoting
scripture from Genesis, the first book of the Torah, which both the Pharisees
and Sadducees accepted as the law handed down from Moses. It was only in their
divisiveness through creating over 2000 laws from the original 10 Commandments
handed down by God that created the need for God to clarify the laws he
intended. Who is the one twisting Scripture here?
Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." How am I twisting
what this says? I've heard of the original Jews accepting only the first
5 books (Torah) as the infallible word of God; I've head of people who would
say that we must throw out the Pauline Epistles as he was out serving his own
God & self and I've even heard plenty of people who say that God is dead
but I've never heard of anyone who just wanted to arbitrarily pick & choose
only the verses they thought were relevant as the Infallible Word of God.2nd
Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: (Teaching) Does this one make sense to you? 1st
Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate ( Having qualities or
characteristics more often associated with women than men. See Synonyms at female. Today's
explanation) nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
<---( This "Mankind" refers to those who
defile themselves with the same sex) Maybe this one will help.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause
God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." But in all honesty, we
must look at the verses prior to truly understand what context this was written
in.
21: Because that, when
they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God
into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their
own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves:
25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. and what does it say after
this?
28: And even as they did
not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate
mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
whisperers,
30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors
of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31: Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without NATURAL
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them
that do them.
Mathew 19:4-5 These verses directly
relate to Jesus speaking about a man being able to divorce his wife but the
context is also clear in that it refers to man leaving parents and joining with
a female for marriage!
4: And he answered and
said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made
them male and female,
5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Are you now going to
dispute the words of Jesus as well?
My friend, my job as a minister
of the Gospel is simply to spread the Gospel and try to bring correction and
understanding for those who seek it. Once you have provided the information in
its entirety and those same people choose not to believe you, the bible says
that you are to have nothing to do with them, Count them not as an enemy but
admonish them as a brother. I have tried to correct you without judging you, at
this end, the bible is also clear in that in 1st Corinthians 14:38 Paul says
that when you find someone who will not hear or learn the true words of God
" But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." I judge you not, ignorant is simply a lack of knowledge. If you do not
wish to know the truth, you will not, it's as simple as that.
Cute,
but no kudos for “Biblical Exegesis”!
Emailed by B. P. Levenson, June 5, 2005
I
read your "God Hates Fags" article. I have to agree with you
that GodHatesFags.com is a horribly vile site, and ditto the whole
organization. In Pittsburgh, where I live, they
showed up at Fred Rogers's funeral, waving "Mr. Rogers is in Hell!"
signs, because he'd given to some AIDS-related charity. Nice folks.
As a born-again Christian myself, I think they contribute heavily to the
negative view most Americans have of us evangelical types. I'm
embarrassed and disgusted to see or read their stuff.
I
should add, also, that while I subscribe to a pretty strict sexual morality, I
don't think there's anything per se sinful about homosexuality, though
like anything else it can become a sin if it comes between you and God.
I
realize the article was meant as humor, but even then, it's not very good
Biblical exegesis. Looking at the broader series of passages, Lot acts
more and more depraved the closer he gets to Sodom, and less depraved after he
gets far away from it. His conduct with the gang-rape incident wasn't
meant to show him as virtuous. I agree with you that his offering of his
daughters was the act of a moral idiot, but I think the Genesis-writer would
have agreed. The incest bit is also not meant to be approving; it's
a slam at the ethnic groups supposedly descended from his daughters.
My
belief is that the Bible is divinely inspired and that there's something valuable
to be learned even from what appear to be the most obnoxious passages, but of
course that's part and parcel of my Christian worldview. For the record,
you can be gay and Christian; many people are. If you ever want to find
out more, please drop me a line. For what it's worth, I was an atheist
for most of my life -- it took a supernatural experience for me to change my
mind.
I
wish you the best.
This
Christian had a good chuckle
Emailed by David, from the United Kingdom, June 17, 2005
First of all I enjoyed your article very much, I had a good chuckle. I am a Christian and for a long time I have had a lot of trouble with many positions
on morality taken in the Old Testament that are completely unacceptable today, especially when teaching young people. My point, like yours I suspect,
would be why pick on homosexuality and ignore the rest?
Sodom not done in by God but by Nukes, evidence suggests
Email sent by E. Saunders, July 3, 2005
Dear Kevin
God knows how I found your site but I did, and I've been reading some of the articles, nicely put and well written - I particularly liked the Betty Hill
article, having a following of all things paranormal.
Anyway, on to my reason for emailing - I read the article on Soddom and Gomorrah and thought you might like to know of the other works on the 'net
that offer alternative theories on S&G.
Apparently, the area your article describes is almost exact, there is, oh well, was, a city near the dead sea (lets not forgot S&G are two cities
however, although many people take them as one). There has been scientific study in the one area that reveals an extremely forceful, powerful, and
almost certainly nuclear device was detonated in Soddom. Virtified glass screaming skellies, you name it from a sci-fi movie or life fact of what the
aftermath of an atomic bomb looks like and Soddom covers it.
So I thought you might like to research this side of the story, other than the 'slipping into the sea' theory which doesn't explain the skeletons,
houses, implements and so forth that abound in that area (although most are turned to dust, or 'salt' as it states would happen in the Bible).
Apparently, it is the most radioactive area on the earth, with radiation levels far more than those in Hiroshima or any man-made bomb ever tested or
used.
Thought you'd like to know :) Kindest regards.
A Freethinker Tugged Tight by the Bible Belt
Emailed by J. Kee, August 25, 2005
Mr.
Cassell,
I
live in Tennessee. I was not aware
until this morning of a cult calling themselves
"God hates Fags". Apparently, they are here protesting at the
funerals of soldiers. As I found your website trying to find out more
about these, um, people. I am sure
that you know their agenda. I haven't even gone to their website yet
because I'm not sure that I can even stomach it. But, I want to tell you
how very much I enjoyed your essay.
Living
in the Bible belt isn't easy for someone who is opened minded and
agnostic. So, regardless of how I feel about religion (I personally think
it's the most dangerous thing that man has come up with) I was still delighted
with your interpretation. Thank you for making my day.
Sincerely and respectfully.
Canadian Klondyke
Weighs In
Emailed by Lindsay, August 25, 2005
I'm
one of those gals who sees humor in almost everything!
I was chuckling as I read your piece on "God Hates heteros".
As a "Dyke" in a small town in Canada, it was
a refreshing read! The only "current events" news broadcast
I can watch from the US is "The Daily Show"
or PBS (even though PBS is fighting the corporate moral capitalist news
mongers). There is a car in my hometown that has a bumper sticker which reads:
Defend the Sanctity of Marriage...I have one on mine that says "Defend the
Sanctity of Divorce"....thank you for putting your website up and I look
forward to reading more
Cheers,
Lindsay
(Canadian Klondyke)
Former
Presbyterian Minister on Jesus's Divorce Views
I enjoy your writings and admire the work, effort, and detail that go into
your articles. As a former Presbyterian Minister I particularly liked the
"God Hates Fagots" piece, and you were right on target in the details.
Apparently, religious people have blind spots bigger than we can understand.
For example, Jesus never said a word against homosexuality, but he called
divorce a sin and any who remarried (except in cases of adultery) were living
in sin. Most church, however, are chockful of divorced people who love to
hear the preachers damning gay people. Puzzle me that one.
Again, thank you for your work. I would like to quote you in any way that
you agree on my gay website, Apollo Network
Ron P.
http://www.apollonetwork.com/
Angels' Rectums: A "Huge Hole"
in Your Article
Emailed by Rich, April 27, 2006
I hope you read what I have to say in response to your article concerning
God hating Fags and Genesis 19.
Your article mentions the fact that angels don't' need rectums in defense
of
the idea that it wasn't a sin of sodomy that caused God to destroy the city.
However, you failed to read the entire text which starts with chapter 18.
The KJV did not separate chapters by content but by convenience and complete
paragraph structures are not divided by chapters. A huge hole in your
article is assuming that the word Angel in Genesis 18-20 is a spirit type
being. A word from six thousand years ago being translated by workers for
King James to justify his divorce and murders of his wives is not an
accurate way to get the full intent and meaning of a historical document.
The word that King James and others translate as 'angel' is the Hebrew word
'malak'. It simply means "messenger", or one who spreads the commands
and
wishes of a King. Now, this could be a spirit type floating being but it
also could be something totally different. To make my point valid even
further, your article fails to mention the fact that these three men ate
with Abraham and the other two that went to Sodom ate with Lot.
I think your zeal to condemn the thought of God hating someone or an act
that is called sin clouded your vision concerning the facts. Your reasons
for posting what you did about Genesis 19 are your business, but let's say
it's because you wish to justify a personal lifestyle. If this is the case
let me assure you that sodomy is high on the list of things God hates, but
it is not the only item that God hates!
1 Corinthians chapter 6
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but
ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God.
This tells us that if one is outside a personal relationship with Christ
and
not living with Christ then they are condemned. It doesn't matter if they
are sodomites or even someone who covets or gets drunk on a habitual
lifestyle. I'm not talking about one who is tempted occasionally into a sin;
this is covered by the book 1 John. I'm talking about the person who knows
something is wrong and then tries to justify their sins with twisting of
facts and words. They try to refute the facts and end up thumbing their
noses at what God states and they basically start a new religion contrary
to
that which is truth.
As I stated, the church's biggest sin is pointing the finger at others and
forgetting verse 11 "and such WERE some of you, but you are washed and
sanctified and justified by Christ"
Therefore, God is concerned about the TOTAL package and not just one group.
I believe that sodomy is bad for both and individual and a society, but so
is gluttony, being drunk and covertness which the scriptures teach that none
who practice such things will enter into His kingdom. But what about those
who are overweight and constantly fight to loose it or those who don't
habitually practice a sin but fall into it? Well, the Lord knows their
desire and attitude towards the sin. Paul stated that he was at WAR with
doing what's expected and right and doing sin. The small book named First
John clears it up completely. God knows who wishes to keep His commandments
and live a life that pleases Him and those who thumb there noses at Him.
I hope I did not offend you, this was not my intent. Hermeneutics sometimes
is difficult for those who are not students of the Bible so I thought I
would pass some of my knowledge of the facts along to you.
Sincerely
Rich
Die, Retard!!
emailed by T.Y., April 8, 2006
it was the biggest bullshit ever
i hate you so much that it cannot be expressed in words but in physical form
your piece of shit "essay" basically said that god hates heterosexuals
i was amazed people like you are still alive i expect you to be assassinated
within the next year
the [sic] tried to make out that all this shit is factual but its just some
retard's opinon
Understanding Biblical Incest, Among
Other Things
Emailed by Steven T., April 7, 2006
I read your essay with interest and pleasure. I'm dutch and only learned
of
the alleged 'god hates fags' movement only yesterday, through a documentary
on a brave girl from 'lubbeck' who pleaded for sexual education on schools,
and god a lot of trouble with the christian community.
The documentary also touched the subject of homesexuality and I was, in the
same way as you, surprised by the 'priests' (he was I believe protestant,
and therefore no priest but 'pastor', but I don't know the English term I'm
afraid) argument that 'homesexuality is a sin, because it is written so in
the bible.' Although I was raised atheist, and have very little bible
knowledge, I did read genisis once and developed a line of thinking similar
to yours. In essence it is that genisis chapter nine is far from clear on
the matter of homosexuality. I don't believe I can follow your ironical
anti-straight reading to the end, but in general I agree with you that there
are more interpretations possible.
Especially the connextion to the chapter before seems also to be relevant.
It seems as though perhaps a kernal message of the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorra is that God will relate with his creation, he discussed the
destruction with Abraham, and has acted in concordance with his request to
not harm the innocent. God 'listens' to mans requests. God himself was not
planning to save the innocent, God did not 'knew' this compassion, but his
creation - abraham - mentioned it, 'created' it, and made it part of his
divine will. Altouhg it is a side-line in the story it does place lot in a
new perspective, since he is also the innocent example needed to address
this point of interaction between the divine and the created.
However to be innocent Lot has to do differ from the others in Sodom and
Gomorra and here the remarkable biblical acceptance of incest comes into
play. In general the people in Sodom and Gomorra do sin, but if this sin is
truly 'homosexualiity' is unclear, God does not mention it, and it could
also well be that simply the uncontrolled sexual desire in the first place
is this sin. They want to 'take', 'know' people who are not part of the
community - the angels - and even refuse the dearest of the community - the
virgin daugethers of Lot - in favour of this sinfull desire. The will attack
'guests'. Perhaps this is their greatest sin. And when later Lot commits
incest with his daughters he does not sin, because he simply acts in favour
of the now destroyed community. He and his daughters are all that is left
of
them, and the group, the 'we' is perhaps of vital importance for God, if I
put it in religious terms. Or, perhaps it was of vital importance for the
people who live in tribes, and wrote the dead-sea scrolls, because the for
them disrespect to strangers could perhaps lead to large and destructive
conflicts, if one would take a sociological perspective.
If we would even place this chapter of genisis in a classic perspective we
could even remark that 'homosexuality' was not so big a thing for the
classics if we see how blatently 'gay' a thinker like socrates was. The use
of pleasure was not the issue that was at stake, but more the uncontrolled
use, the use that would disrupt bloodlines or communities. Marriage
therefore was an important institution since it secured bloodlines, and the
conjugal bonding was not needed for gays since this would in no way effect
bloodlines. (I merely thought of this since the turning in to a sand pillar
is a 'quote' from a classic saga of Orpheus. Somehow this story landed up
in
Genesis 19 at a certain point, how and why I don't know.)
A final thing that came to mind when reading your essay is a anecdote I hear
once in a lecture somewhere on sex in paradise. It appears that somewhere
in
the middel-ages there even was a papal 'consilli' (don't know the proper
english term) on paradisal sex. The conclusion of that 'get together' was
that Adam and Eve simply didn't have the time to 'do it'. The spiritual
leaders of that period concluded that Adam and Eve where only in the Garden
of Eden for eight hours before Eva started 'messing' things up. However were
they to have sex in paradise the community concluded that this would
'simply' happen. There would be no lust, Adam would with desire or lust
raise his 'rod' and Eva would merely receive him. The whole problem with
lust only came after the downfall. God in this not so much hates straights
or fags, but plain lust. It is lust that must be controlled.
Well, I hope I haven't made to horrible typo-errors or plain mistakes in
my
english. The things I've written down are just some thoughts on the strange
topic of the fanatisicsm with which certain Christian groups approach
homosexuality. I can't understand how people can become so bothered with it.
I can only understand it from the perspective of the common enemy, like the
'jew' for our born-again Christians. Perhaps it is so nice to hate together
that the subject to the hate is irrelevant to the hating itself. Just as
making a fire with no matches is of no real importance for boy-scoutes (they
will not starve if their little sticks won't burn), the 'doing it together'
however is.
I hope you enjoy this comment and thanks for the essay.
Putting Lot's Tragedy in Biblical
Perspective
Emailed by Mark, G. March 2, 2006
Hey Kevin. I was writing a message tonight (I am a Christian missionary in
Mexico) and while I was searching for a photo from the "God hates fags"
folks, I came across your essay about Gen. 19. The reason I was looking for
the photo is to show a worst case example of a church’s failure to follow
the Apostles Paul's advise when he gave the mandate in 1 Thessalonians 5:14
"And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid,
help the weak, be patient with everyone.15 Make sure that nobody pays back
wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.”[NIV].
On behalf of Jesus I would like to apologize for those guys. You can pick
your friend, but you can't pick you family. I am not about to judge the heart
of anyone associated with that movement (that’s Jesus’ job), but their actions
and motives seem pretty far from the heart of Christ (and it would surprise
me If they had actually ever met him).
Anyhow, as I read your essay a couple of things occurred to me, and if you
have a couple of minutes I liked to share them with you. First, I would not
get hung up on whether the angels had rectums or not - in the Bible, when
Angels appeared to humans they always assumed the form of a man. We don't
have a description of their exact physiology, but they appeared to be beautiful,
majestic, and awe inspiring. Definitely someone who might be perceived as
desirable and approachable. Next, your right about how Lot offering his daughters
was a truly vile act. It came from a man who had a history of not trusting
in God. The Bible says Lot loved God, but he was weak like all of us are.
Obviously the angels did not agree with him, and neither needed nor desired
his “intervention”. The had no fear of the crowd - they originally were going
to hang out in the town square for the evening - and so they "dragged
Lot inside" shutting him up, closed the door, and remedied the problem
in an angelic fashion - they blinded the crowd. The rest of Lot's story is
truly a tragedy, and the Bible doesn't try to color it differently. The thing
I find amazing about it, is that God allowed this story to be recorded at
all. No other religious work ever come close to showing the failures or reveling
the ugly side of “religious” people like the Bible does.
In all other religious works, everything is always clean and sanitized -
no failures, no screw-up. That's why I believe the Bible is true. Gen. 19
is neither about homosexuals nor about Lot, it is about God patiently showing
grace to a world that doesn't deserve it; but also reveling that ultimately
his patience does have a termination point. Sodom was just one of many cities
that rejected God and were judged after his patience ran out - no better no
worse then the rest. In fact Jesus in [in Matt 11:20-23] compared a city called
Capernaum to Sodom, and said; that because the people there met him face to
face, heard his word, saw and attested to his miracles, and then after all
of that, sided with the religious hypocrites over him - and rejected his offer
of salvation; he said they will face harsher judgment then the folks in Sodom.
God is righteous - if he wasn't, if he was fickle or sensual or impure, than
he would not be a God worth worshiping. That's the problem with the "gods"
of history - they were not much more than exalted people, capricious and sensual,
or raging psychopathic tyrants. They held no power to offer hope, no power
to heal, no power to really restore people, because they had no foundation
for the people to place their trust or confidence in. God is righteous, but
he is also merciful and above all loving. I honestly believe that every person
has a desire deep inside to be loved, purely and truly, regardless of who
they are or what they have done. Sometimes we find fleeting glimpses of this
love in the arms of our lovers, or in the embrace of our kids or our parents,
but it never completely satisfies our deepest longings. God, as revealed through
Jesus Christ, is only being capable of knowing you completely and loving you
unconditionally. However, because he is righteous, he can’t tolerate intimacy
with anything unrighteous (anything short of perfection). The good news though,
is that because he is absolutely righteous, he can transfer his righteousness
to you. Jesus was nailed to a cross because he said he was God and he said
he was going to pay for the sins of mankind by dying for the world – that’s
why they killed him (they did not crucify good teachers or prophets back then
– if they didn’t like them or agree with them, they just ignored them or beat
them up). Because Jesus is God (or a liar or a lunatic you have to decide
that – but those are the only other choices) he can make you righteous because
he already took every unrighteous act or thought you ever had upon himself
( to me it was mind blowing to think some who never met me would die for me).
When he suffered and died he opened up the only way for you to have a restored
intimate relationship with God.
You must decide however, if you believe he is who he said is. If he accomplished
what he said he did. And if your willing to accept his offer of restoration.
Jesus is cool like that. He never force himself on anyone. He is never rude
or demanding. He just lays out the truth, and let us make the decision. All
he requires is that our decision is legitimate and sincere. I guess that is
the only way he can judge for sure whether we really love him, or whether
we just want to avoid hell. The entire Bible is a revelation of how God desires
(not needs) intimacy with his children. To have intimacy he had to allow choice.
To allow choice he had to accept rejection, but with the confidant expectation
of restoration. To have restoration, he had to die. In dying he offers you
the only path back to him that is not based on you attaining moral perfection
in your own devices (like all other religions). To have restoration, one must
stop trying to be a god onto himself, and accept the fact that he is broken,
flawed and in need of salvation from a being outside himself. I affectingly
know this being as Jesus.
I gave my heart to him 15 years ago when I was on the edge of life about
to step into eternity, and I have never regretted that decision for an instant.
He saved my life physically and spiritually, and I owe him everything. So,
I guess what I am trying to say, is just because there are a bunch idiots
in this world shouting obscenities, please don't think they have anything
to do with Jesus Christ. My best friend wanted me to tell you that. Take care.
In Christ Mark
PS this is the verse about Sodom en regards to Capernaum…
Matt 11:20* Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his
miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.21* “Woe to you,
Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you
had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. 22* But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre
and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.
23* And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will
go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been
performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
24* But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of
judgment than for you.” 25* At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise
and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Yeah, but You Cross the Line on Occasion
Emailed by Jason P, December 25, 2005
I actually caught the email address of the "god hates fags"
website from a programme I was watching tonight.
Crazy...
It still amazes me how wrong we all get it sometimes. I do think that homosexuality
is a sin, however, I have many gay
friends whom I love dearly. Isn't that what Jesus said? Love one another as
you love yourself...
I think if we stopped hating, we'd be able to love a little easier.
I then stumbled onto your essay...Crazy too..funny...but I feel that you crossed
the line on occassion.
I don't think you got it quite right, but as I can see, many have given reasons
why. God gave us free will, and we tend to chose incorrectly more often than
not, but I hope that all of this will come to a good light for you.
Literal Interpretation of Bible "Defeats
Purpose of Having Faith"
Emailed by Ben G, December 21, 2005
Hello Kevin –
I really loved your article. Just wanted to share a few thoughts.
Anne Lamott, who is becoming one of my favorite authors once said, "You
can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns
out that God hates all the same people you do."
I was raised Catholic, and like most Catholics, I'm now a devote atheist.
:)
The Bible is difficult to rationalize (period) simply because it's a really
weird book. According to the book of Deuteronomy, a woman who has been raped
and fails to "cry out" should be taken to the town square and stoned
to death. (Deuteronomy 22:24) Christians have no problem overlooking these
kinds of laws, (and trust me, there's lots of them) but consensual sex between
two people of the same gender? Oh, that's right out!
It seems our sense of morality today is much kinder and more compassionate
then what went on back in those days. I don't understand what's going on in
the minds of some of these people. What was that thing Jesus said about throwing
the first stone? I think if you're going to chuck a rock into the private
lives of thousands of law-abiding citizens, you better not try to justify
it with religion that forces rapists to marry their victims. (Deuteronomy
22:29) Taking the Bible literally line by line is foolish and defeats the
purpose of having faith. God is not served by one human being using the bible
to harass, persecute, or judge another. I think that's what your article did
a very good job of illustrating.
Thanks again for your brilliant work!
"F****ing Sick" of Hearing
the Word "Fag"!!
Emailed by Anonymous, December 8, 2005
I just wanted to let you know that homosexuality, bi-sexuality, etc. is NOT
a choice. You are born that way. I am not buying your essay of what will it
take for guys who are straight to go gay. Trust me! I'm bi, and I didn't choose
to be that way. It was the way God made me. I do like your articles of God
not hating homosexuals. Also, the word "fag" is very hurtful. The
only "fags" in this world are the activist group "God Hates
Fags" and other people like that. Those "fags" are the ones
that fuel God's wrath. I just would like to say that last statement I just
wrote because I'm f****ng sick and tired of their gospel of hate! They accuse
that what they say upon homosexuals and I just like to reverse it to those
devil worshipers. So, God doesn't hate fags; he doesn't hate anyone! He only
doesn't like homophobic crackheads!
Oral Roberts Gave Me The Knowledge to
Help Fellow Gay People
Emailed by David Stack, December 8, 2005
I enjoyed your article on Sodom. It angers me that the term "sodomy"
has come to mean anal sex in our society when it has absolutely no basis in
the Holy Scriptures. Out of 49 references to Sodom and Gomorrah, only twice
(Gen. 19 and Jude 7) does it mention homosexual activity. Or do they? Not
at all if you take an honest exegetical and contextual study. Before we do,
take a look at what Ezekiel said about the sin of Sodom: "Now this was
the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed
and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" (Ez. 16:49) .
Based on this "sodomy" should refer to arrogance, gluttony and greed!
Evangelical seminaries consider Philo Judeaus' commen-taries (Philo, 20
B.C.-A.D. 50) as laughable for his outrageous interpretations. And yet, it
was Philo who began the trend of theological gay bashing. He was the first
of early scholars to identify homosexuality with the sin of Sodom. The homophobia
in our society gladly borrowed the term 'sodomy,' invented by the homophobic
church. The Bible has no such term in the
original text of Hebrew and Greek.
Taking a look at the Hebrew language concerning "the men of the city"
in Sodom that surrounded Lot's house (Gen. 19:4), you will see that the Hebrew
word used for men, "enoshe," does not indicate male gender as does
the word, "zechar". Genesis 17:27 uses both of these words when
it says, "...every male (zechar) among the men (enoshe)... was circumcised."
If "enosh" indicated gender, wouldn't it be redundant to say this?
Rather, the people (enoshe) surrounded Lot's house. If gender was implied,
"zechar" would have been used.
The context clearly shows that when the writer of Genesis used the word "know,"
that the people of the city wanted to do something sexually immoral to these
visitors. In fact, the people said, "Get out of our way... We'll treat
you worse than them ( vs.9 NIV)." They planned to do harm by gang raping
the visitors. I challenge anyone to show me a valid reason from the Holy Scriptures
that backs up our modern connotation of the term "sodomy".
Now about me. I did not choose to be gay either. I was born as a missionary
kid in Kenya, East Africa. I graduated with honors from Oral Roberts University.
The most difficult thing for me to do was to accept myself as a gay man when
I was taught all my life that being gay is "unnatural", among other
things. I am now proud to represent my community as the current Mr. Ft. Lauderdale,
and Mr. Red Hot USA.
David Stack
PS. I would be glad to have my
e-mail posted. I have thought about doing something with my knowledge and
am not opposed to writing a book someday, but there are several books on the
subject as well. I have never heard such a comical commentary as yours! I
thought it was great to hear your thoughts on the Sodom and Lot account from
someone who simply took it for what it said and not what from someone's dogmatic
interpretation. It's dstack1014 at hotmail dot com.
Praying
for You Every Night!
Emailed by Luigi, November
18, 2005
I agree that people who walk around
with vulgar, unloving signs that curse gay people are wrong, but you are so
far off in everything else. Seriously, if you had any idea the effects that
your opinion is having on society, and others like you, you would break down
in tears. All Christians don't judge. That's just an opinion held by ignorant
people like yourself (who by the way are judging us). If you did the slightest
amount of research on the topic, you would see the frailty of your stance.
This also attests to the fact that you are a horrible journalist. I suggest
you think about the consequences of your actions before you make yourself
sound stupid by totally misinterpretting the Bible in front of an internet
full of people. I pray for people like you every night. Thanks for understanding.
Some Folks Just Don't Get Your "Clever
Little Article"
Emailed by Andrew, from Austrailia,
November 15, 2005
I just read your essay on the “God Hates FAGS??!!??” site after looking at
the hideous “God Hates Fags” site for the first time.
I am glad that I read your article second because it is a brilliant and contemptuous
example of bible parody which I believe Christians thoroughly deserve. I sent
the lovely folk at “God Hates Fags” some questions (see below), which I am
not honestly expecting any rational answers to, under the guise of a concerned
and God fearing individual.
I note with interest that the reverend (response: IMJ*JR, May 6, 2005) simply
didn’t understand your article. He automatically and predictably takes the
moral high ground and begins to assume that he knows what God knows.
Regardless of whether or not one believes in God biblical “scripture” is
just mankind’s notes of case examples of supposed contact with God/Jesus by
a non-deity. I find it quite amusing that these sorts of people like to put
themselves in the same ranks as God.
The Ten Commandments are the only script that anyone could possibly confirm
to be the actual word of God but even then Christian loonies find it necessary
to say God made a mistake and had to “clarify” the commandments later on.
Does God make mistakes? How convenient for the hate-mongers.
Your clever little article is nice but like an Andy Warhol or one of Mozart’s
playfully naughty pieces – some people just don’t get it and they will always
fail the see the forest for the trees.
Can't Retaliate Myself, But You're
Doing It For Me!
Emailed by Jeanne, September 25, 2005
Hey, Kevin. I came across your article after visiting godhatesfags.com. That
site is the most absolutely unnecessary site ever. People get upset about
the
guy who had the amputee website, but Fred's site has to be the most immature,
unnecessary, inept, simple-minded, moronic website I have ever been to. And
it's got poor navigation. I often wonder if Fred himself is gay and is afraid
to admit it.
Anyway, I just wanted to commend you on doing something that I don't have
the
patience for. I feel your article was very clever and much needed. The entire
Bible is one huge interpretation and some people choose to interpret it in
a way
that works for them. There's nothing wrong with that, but they should keep
it
to themselves. However, when they don't keep it to themselves and violate
other
peoples' rights to feel confident in what they were born into, it can be
terribly aggravating. It makes me want to retaliate. Unfortunately, I can't
do
that. But I give serious props to those who can and do it oh-so-fashionably!
Thanks again for the article, Kevin!
A Non-Heterosexual Hindu's Perspective
Emailed by Mr. Banerjee, September 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Cassell,
I read your article which questioned the fact that the
Christian god hated straights. I am a Hindu, not a
Christian, and I am a non-heterosexual, so I believe
that I may have somewhat of an unbiased opinion. While
you bring up some good points, I disagree with your
overall premise, that the Christian god hates
straights. Indeed, Lot was punished, and indeed,
incest did occur, but I think this was independent of
Lot's sexual orientation. It was Lot's WIFE who
disobeyed the orders of her god, not Lot, and SHE was
punished because of her actions - being turned into
the pillar of salt. Also, Lot was raped by his
daughters. When the descendants of Lot's daughters . .
. Ammonites and whoever else . . . were destined to be
destroyed . . . they were just as much Lot's
daughters' children as Lot's. I think that the
Christian god protests sin more than straights.
Lot was a virtuous man, which is why his god offered
him the chance of escape, but, unfortunately, his
family didn't have as many positive qualities as he
did. I do, however, support your endeavors to speak
out against hateful, right-wing fundamentalist groups
like the Westboro Fundamentalist Baptist Church.
I do think that in one aspect that you are right,
though. Certain churches will even agree with me. When
Leviticus was written ("Thou shalt not lie with man as
thou dost woman"), the authors were concerned with
cleanliness and hygeine. At that time, there was no
readily available way to be clean, anal sex was indeed
dirty. Now that it is possible to have anal sex in a
clean way, I don't think the laws of Leviticus apply .
. . however, we must take into account the good
intentions of those who wrote the book.
Sincerely,
R. Banerjee
Gay and Pissed Off in Belgium
Emailed by Andy, September 23, 2005
I've read your essay with quite some pleasure.
I'm homosexual living in Belgium – apologies if my English isn't flawless
– and I've started visiting godhatesfags after reading a long article about
Matt.
I got very intrested in homofobia, intrested by the fact that for many homophobics
it's so incredibly intense.
There's lots of people doing stuff that I don't like, living lives that I
wouldn't want to live.
But hey, I'm living my live. As long as they let me do it my way, I couldn't
care for a second about what the are doing. Live and let live?
Yet these homophobics can devote quiet some time to something they hate.
They start organisations, websites, marches,… Can you imagine an arachnafobic
going through so much trouble to occupy him self with spiders when there's
no need whatsoever to do so?
Only Xenofobics do so.
Something I noticed, and which you clearly have noticed too, is that many
anti-gayers take their refuge to the Bible to porve their right. Usually,
interpretting the Bible in a very different way than I was taught to.
I hate when they come bragging about a God. Not that I would like them not
to believe in God. Everyone can believe what he or she wants as far as I'm
concerned and I'm no atheist either.
But they use the argument in a very strange way. They reffer to the Bible
to convince us how sinfull they are, almost as if they don't really think
so themselves It's not we who are saying this, it's God. And now be nice and
obedient. I think that's hypocrit's-Stuff. If you have a problem with homosexuals,
why then don't you try to tell what it is that you have trouble with for yourselves?
I would honestly respect that. No, instead they're just hiding behind translations
of 3000 or 4000 Armenic or hebrew verses crammed with imagenery language that
plainly incomprihensible to any present reader. Very narrow-minded.
Why doens't any of these guys tell you that our Savior Jezus Christ, blessed
be his name, was a rebelious soul that fought against the wise men of scripture
of his days. He fought them, told them they were wrong, because they were
unable to understand the soul of the scipture. They executed litteraly as
was written down, without taking in account that the text was written for
another time and place. What side do you think the Messiah would be on nowadays?
Suddenly a narrow-minded conservative do-it-by-the-book man?
Why doenst' any of these guys try to paint a full picture.
I understand that some phrases in teh Bible imply homosexuality to be a sin.
Well, if so, is it the only one? That he who is free of sin casts the first
stone!
I don't know the exact english translation, but I know that Jezus Christ
asked a man why he focused so ardently on a minor sin of his fellow-man and
completly lacked to see his own.
We are humans, before anything. We're sons and daughters, brothers and sisters,
buddies and girlfriends, fans and sometimes even idols, voters and tax-payers,
the friendly guy that helped you carry your load, the mangy man that sat stone-faced
in the subway, we are those that help get the party exploding, we're the silent
wallflowers you hope will not show up. We sit in schools, public services,
subways, armchairs, parks, stores, why even churches! We breath, we drink,
we sweat, we piss, we shit, we snort, we faint, we eat, we sneeze, we burp,
we walk on two legs. By all means, we are humans as much as anyone else.
And as long as we love are beloved-ones, give our love, care and thoughts
to those that love us, I can't see how we would walk outside the light of
God.
That or my God is a better God than theirs!
Last
updated: May 13, 2006
Click
here to post YOUR response to "God Hates Fags!?!"