The other day my two girls came back from Sunday School with a ruler each and the letters WWJD displayed on them. These letters apparently stand for "What would Jesus do" - it's what ever Christian should think before doing something.

If Jane has a charge of hypocrisy that she can level at the Christian Right in the US, it would be that they don't act by their own lights. So, faced with a lesbian couple with children, what would Jesus do? The evidence suggests he would probably go home to their place for dinner if they asked. Afterall he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors on a regular basis. Would he have a problem that they made a brief appearance in a children's cartoon? I doubt it.

What we know of Jesus was that he was tolerant and inquiring. I don't think you could accuse Rev Dobson or Secretary Spellings of either on the basis of this brouhaha.

The Google gang are out again I get 401,000 returns when I put in "Homosexual lifestyle" Timmy but that’s by the bi. :)
Also you mentioned that foolish assertion about the collapsed of society under the weight of all that sex and drugs. Can you mention a society in the worlds history that has survived?
GrahamY
Romans 1:26 –32 is the only clear reference to lesbians in the bible. If you read the passage you will see that the author of Romans believes they are worthy of death.

Just for the record I liked Jane Rankin-Reid’s article I’ve read recently about (techcentral) the uneasy truce between the left and right of the Rep party is coming unstruck. The Reps have a annual convention and the small “l” faction felt quite alienated at it.

Kenny, I was talking about Jesus, not Paul, the Author of Romans. And I was not suggesting that Jesus would have approved of homosexuality.

If you read the passage it should be clear that the death Paul is referring to is the death that he believes awaits all those who sin - that they will be denied eternal life. It is something that the "sinners" do to themselves, not something that Christians should do to them.

If you look at the life of Jesus it is clear that he hung out with a lot of people who would die in this sense. Why did he hang around with them? There is a maxim that one should "hate the sin and love the sinner" (you may be able to give me the source). The Buster case certainly should fall within that category for Christians. So I think Jane is right in her charge of hypocrisy.

In regard to Timkins question, why not say "homosexual orientation"? To say "homosexual lifestyle" is actually to use a nonsense term. After all, different homosexuals have different lifestyles. Plus it reduces the lived experiences of gays to something out of Home Beautiful.

In response to my question about his moral standard, DavidJS responds with: "A standard which respects innate characteristics such as race, sexuality, gender and so on. I also respect differences which are freely chosen such as religion or career choices - so long as they don't harm others."

Firstly, race is an innate characteristic but an inconsequential one since there is only one race - the human race - and we are ALL members of it. Secondly, sexuality is not an innate characteristic. It is a choice. Even homosexuals acknowledge that.

But David, you still haven't given me a universal standard. You have just told me what YOU think is right and wrong based on your perception of what causes harm. But on what basis should harming others be regarded as immoral? After all, we harm criminals by putting them in jail. Divorcing parents psychologically harm their children. Do the police not physically restrain criminals or even shoot them when they become a danger?

To prove you are not a moral relativist you must define a universal standard, and then show why EVERYONE should follow that standard. If you can't do this then you are indeed a moral relativist.

And if you are indeed a moral relativist theny ou have no right to complain about Dobson, Spellings or anyone else since you are being inconsistent ie. you want to force your relativist view on them, but if you're a true relativist then you have to acknowledge that their view is just as valid as yours.

AK

GrahamY and there's me thinking Christians believe that the bible is divinely inspired and infallible! DavidJS I agree with what your saying however Aslan is right in saying there is now universal moral code we all impose one on ourselves and there for one everyone else. What I think yourself and Graham are trying to say is that the moral code that a society makes it’s laws by should be quite loose with the main thrust being to protect members from harm from others. That’s not to say our laws should be amoral just quite open and leave it up to the individual to restrict their behavior even further if they wish to. The protect from harm is a big area of contention with some people believe sex to be harmful.

I think most religious people who want to restrict everyone else to their moral code must have little faith in their own ability not to fall into temptation, maybe that’s because deep down they don’t really believe it