Buehner Joins the Phelps Gang


Pastor Dave Buehner of Generations Radio, who previously said that making friends with gay people is just like making friends with cannibals, appears to be joining hands with Fred Phelps’ gang of ghouls and barbarians, declaring on Generations Radio that God really does hate homosexuals:

Buehner: Kevin, if you tell your daughter, your beautiful daughter, ‘Hey, don’t put your hand on the hot stove.’ She can look at that and say, ‘My dad’s a tyrant, he won’t give me liberty to put my hand on the hot stove.’ The fact of the matter is if she puts her hand on the hot stove, bad things will happen. God’s law is like that. God’s law will tell us that if we do things that are bad, bad things will happen. If we put our hands on the stove, we’ll get burned. If we embrace homosexuality, we’ll destroy society, we’ll destroy lives, we’ll destroy families, we’ll destroy everything. It’s not just that God just hates homosexuals, there’s a reason why he hates it. It’s the same reason you would hate your daughter putting her hand on a hot stove.

To be fair, he’s actually right from a Biblical perspective. If the Bible is true, God clearly does hate gay people and wants them destroyed. And please spare me any strained readings of Leviticus that purport to show that it wasn’t really homosexuality being condemned. The men who wrote the Bible really did think that homosexuality was an abomination worthy of death. That’s one more reason to reject it.

Comments

  1. says

    But I’m sure that Revtard Boner hates teh GAY in an entirely different–and yet, still, wonderfully GODFUL–sortaway. So, just keep sending that money to him, so’s he can continue his mission.

  2. jamessweet says

    Argh, I heard the “hot stove” bullshit growing up. Maybe God is just the Worst Parent Ever.

  3. says

    If you work from the position that the only society that counts is a repressive, patriarchal, religiously ruled state, then yes I suppose all of these reforms work to destroy that society. The thing is, other people hold the opinion that there is more than one kind of society, and we can figure out which ones are better for humanity.

  4. busterggi says

    What’s wrong with making friends with cannibals? Many of the folks I grew up with and most of my relatives are RC.

  5. Vitreous Humour says

    @democommie

    I agree that Rev Buehner is a terrible person, but no need to call him (or anyone) a ‘tard’.

    As a queer person, I don’t want anyone using slurs against disabled people because they think it’s a way to ‘be an ally to gay people’ or whatever, especially considering that there are LGBT people with developmental disabilities.

  6. matty1 says

    While I agree that the authors of Leviticus probably did hate gays I’m wary of the attitude that the worst of the Bible is somehow the real meaning. All Christians pick and choose which bits to follow and given a choice between a Christian who ignores “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” and one who ignores “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” I know which I’d prefer to have around.

  7. Michael Heath says

    I learned the hot stove lesson the hard way; perhaps that’s illustrative on why I test so low on Altemeyer’s authoritarian test in his book on them.

  8. rbh3 says

    I’m not so sure that God actually hates homosexuals. Witness the 10th commandment:

    “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

    Nothing in that list forbids coveting your neighbor himself, and there’s ample opportunity to do so, given that it covers wives and animals.

    I leave aside the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 34 where my all-time favorite, the 10th, is

    Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

    And bear in mind that the Exodus 34 version is the last set that was given to Moses, inscribed on stone tablets by God himself, according to the first verse of Exodus 34, and specifically identified as the 10 commandments

    28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

    Given the first verse, the antecedent of “he” in “he wrote” has to be the Lord.

  9. hexidecima says

    sad little man to think someone would hate their child for doing something like burn themselves. But, hey, the bible says to hate, and *kill*, your family for much sillier reasons than that. There is no reason to think that all of the hate in the bible isn’t the “true” meaning, since we know that the authors were quite ignorant xenophobes. Christians pick and choose and that means all of them are lying, to themselves and others. It may be nicer to have to the less violent type around, but they still spread the same nonsense. As for what tthe bible says about homosexuals, I think Romans 1 covers it when it says that homosexuals, among others, *deserve” death. Nothing says hate like saying “Yay, someone should die!”

  10. says

    Vitreous humor:

    I do not, fwiw, call developmentally deficient people, “retarded”. Nor do I label most folks in the most egregiously insulting terms that I can come up with. For assholes like Boner, I cut myself enormous slack.

    I am aware of the power of the word. You’re entitled to refer to people in any way that you choose. I will do the same.

  11. says

    The fact of the matter is if she puts her hand on the hot stove, bad things will happen. God’s law is like that. God’s law will tell us that if we do things that are bad, bad things will happen.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, just world bias in action.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go punch Dave Buehner in the nose so that he realizes that being stupid and hateful is bad.

    Wait, he won’t realize that? He’ll just complain that my punching him actually shows that he’s right and good, because the followers of Jesus will be persecuted?

    Oh, FFS.

  12. says

    In the version of the Ten Cmmandments I know it says ” thou shall not covet your neighbor’s …male servant or female servent…or his ox, ass, etc.”
    I never thought that ass meant donkey in this text. I always imagined men back their staring at their neighbors’ asses with lust in their heart.
    It also mentions male and female servant. I always thought thtat that had sexual connotations.
    I think my interpretation is more fun.

  13. says

    If we embrace homosexuality, we’ll destroy society, we’ll destroy lives, we’ll destroy families, we’ll destroy everything.

    There it is, ladies and gentlemen … Love as the ultimate nuclear bomb.

    please spare me any strained readings of Leviticus that purport to show that it wasn’t really homosexuality being condemned.

    But, by Xian rules of Biblical interpretation, Leviticus did not condemn lesbianism … so his worry about daughters playing in the hot stove league is unbiblical!

  14. Vitreous Humour says

    @Democommie

    The fact that you apparently believe simply being born with Down Syndrome or something is just as egregiously awful as willful malfeasance such as likening homosexuality to cannibalism shows that you are indeed prejudiced. By continuing to insult people with the word ‘retard’ you contribute to the dehumanization of innocent people.

    Your reluctance to call anyone with a developmental disability a retard to their face does not vindicate you in any way. It only demonstrates that you know using ‘retard’ as an insult is wrong, but that you do it nevertheless.

    Example: chortling over misogynistic jokes in a room containing only men still promotes sexism.

  15. plutosdad says

    For the analogy to be accurate he would have to actually hate his daughter, not just hate her putting her hand on the stove. The same thing would be: “You can put your hand on the stove, but if you do, I will hate you for the rest of your life”

  16. says

    To be fair, he’s actually right from a Biblical perspective. If the Bible is true, God clearly does hate gay people and wants them destroyed.

    “Clearly?” Please. Jesus doesn’t even mention homosexuality, and neither do the Ten Commandments. One of the reasons I laugh at the gay-haters is their total inability to present anything remotely resembling a clear and consistent Bible-based case against homosexuality.

  17. says

    “The fact that you apparently believe simply being born with Down Syndrome or something is just as egregiously awful as willful malfeasance such as likening homosexuality to cannibalism shows that you are indeed prejudiced. By continuing to insult people with the word ‘retard’ you contribute to the dehumanization of innocent people.”

    Wow. WTF are you even talking about? I actually don’t recall saying anything about anyone with Downs or any other congenital condition being awful. Do clutch your pearls if that’s what you want to do.

  18. says

    Uh, democommie, Down’s Syndrome is a form of mental retardation. I believe he/she is saying that you’re insulting such people by calling others “tard” as an insult, whether you call actual people with mental disabilities that or not.

    Which, considering my visceral reaction whenever I hear a man called “woman” as an insult, I can’t help but sympathize with.

  19. vmanis1 says

    I really can’t agree with Ed that `The men who wrote the Bible really did think that homosexuality was an abomination worthy of death.’. I’m not saying this to defend the Bible, which does indeed approve of some pretty horrible things. For example, in 2 Kings we are told that a group of children taunted the prophet Elisha for his baldness, so Elisha cursed them in the name of God. Then two female bears came and tore up 42 of the children. That story has absolutely no redeeming social value.

    But on homosexuality, the issue is different. There is no evidence that the authors of the Bible[*] had any concept of homosexuality as a type of sexuality, or even as a kind of behavior. For them it was all caught up in issues of temple prostitution, or the behavior of the Canaanites, or other issues. You can never be sure all those levitical laws mean what they say. For example, all the stuff about mixing two kinds of fabric, etc., was really all about ritual separation of Israelites from the heathen people around them.[**]

    The Bible was collected together in its current form around 2500 years ago from scraps and snippets that were much older. Our understanding of human nature and the world around us has of course evolved over that time. Modern readers must pick and choose carefully which parts they would admire and which parts they pretend never existed. That’s not `careful reinterpretation’, it’s just accepting that people thousands of years ago didn’t see the world as we do.

    [*] A fundamentalist would say the Bible was written by God, but a more liberal believing individual might say that it was inspired by God but written by humans (with consequent errors), and an atheist would deny any divine nature to it at all. None of those is `reinterpretation’, but rather looking at what might have been meant and deciding whether it has any normative or explanatory value for people of our age.

    [**] The notion that everything foreigners do is horrid has lived on into the cliche on the part of older Britons that every kind of food not handed down from Anglo-Saxon days is `foreign muck’ , and from there into the running joke on Star Trek about alien food being nauseating (gagh and slug liver being examples from the Klingons and Ferengi respectively).

  20. Vitreous Humour says

    My point is that using ‘retard’ as an insult oppresses people with developmental disabilities in the same way that straight people calling people ‘f*ggots’ as an insult oppresses gay people, even if the target of the insult was straight.

    And yes, as Gretchen said, Down Syndrome is a form of intellectual disability. That was where I was going with it.

    Seriously, it’s not that freaking to difficult to insult unpleasant people with words that aren’t slurs.

  21. jnorris says

    Poor Buehner and Phelps, they’re going to Hell you know. They know that homosexuals are an abomination onto their Lord yet they do nothing to rid God’s good Earth of the abomination. My guess is they know many homosexuals have guns too. And they’re cowards.

  22. Stacy says

    @vmanis1

    I really can’t agree with Ed that `The men who wrote the Bible really did think that homosexuality was an abomination worthy of death.’

    Leviticus 18:21 (NIV)
    “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
    Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
    “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Those verses are pretty clear.

  23. Stacy says

    Don’t know if Buehner is a Calvanist or not, but Phelps is. Phelps and his clan believe that God has already decided who’s going to hell and who isn’t. God decided that before we were born. There’s nothing anybody can do to change their destiny. All their “God Hates Fags” theater isn’t meant to warn people away from behavior that will damn them. It’s them rubbing our noses in the fact that we’re damned and hated by God and they’re not. It’s a whole ‘nother order of magnitude of morally repellent. It’s sheer sadism.

  24. vmanis1 says

    Stacy, you have profoundly misunderstood my point on two levels.

    a. I very much doubt that `lying with a man as with a woman’ has anything to do with homosexuality, which in our modern conception has something to do with one’s inborn sexuality, or even in the haters’ terms, `living the gay lifestyle’. The authors of Leviticus focused on the sexual act, and may in fact have been talking about ritual temple prostitution or something else. I’m not at all proficient in Biblical Hebrew, so I can’t tell you what the words mean in the original, but you can’t take a translation and use it to prove original intent. In fact, it’s likely that we may never be able to recover the original intent of much of the Holiness Code in Leviticus. For an attempt (perhaps not entirely convincing) to recover the original intent of these words and phrases in the OT and NT, you might look at John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, published by Yale University Press around 1980.

    In any case, the quoted verses aren’t very clear. Is the abomination the penetration of the bottom man’s vagina [sic]? How exactly does a man have sex with another man as with a woman? What about French kissing? Frottage? Please, O Levitical Ones, some clarity! I also very much doubt that lesbians find Lev 18:21 and 20:13 very frightening. In fact, as I recall, there are no negative remarks about lesbians anywhere in the OT, though Paul is rather hostile to lesbian sex in Romans.[*]

    For positive OT passages about homosexuality, you might check out David’s lament after the death of Jonathan: ` How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.’ On female homosexuality, try the Book of Ruth (which also contradicts the religious separatist propaganda found in Ezra and Nehemiah, by claiming that David was part Moabite, which would ordinarily have been considered a Bad Thing).

    b. More importantly, most reasonably progressive Jews and Christians I know consider the cited verses to be crap, totally non-binding in our modern day world. In fact (as Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out in his Rewrite segment tonight) there is nobody who lives by all verses of the Bible. My examples include: a student who studies for an exam on a Saturday breaks the Sabbath; clean-shaven men break the injunction not to round the corners of his beard; men who have sex with their wives while they are menstruating also violate a direct commandment. I have known orthodox Jews who would attend synagogue on Saturday mornings, and then go out for a nice brunch of bacon and eggs. (`Yes, I know it’s not kosher, but our rule is we can only have pork at a restaurant, never at home’).

    None of this is a reinterpretation. It’s saying that it’s impossible to live our lives as some people thought we should 2500 years ago. I would disagree with O’Donnell in saying the entire Bible is hateful, though as I’ve said in my original comment, it contains hateful passages. It also contains wonderful stories, like those of David and Jonathan, or Ruth and Naomi; good (if limited) ethical insights; frequent adjurations to treat the powerless well (though none of the writers of the Bible seemed to understand the wrongness of slavery), beautiful erotic writing (the Song of Songs), and agonized meditations (the Book of Job, in which God’s own morality comes off poorly).

    A Jew or Christian or Muslim who reads the Bible of necessity must accept some parts and reject others. An atheist is free to reject it all. But nobody with any understanding can accept it all.

    [*] Using Romans to criticize LGBT people is particularly funny. A careful reading of it makes clear that Paul thought that everyone was a horrible sinner, and could only be saved by accepting Jesus as the Christ. Romans 1 is about how horrible the Romans were, and Romans 2 about how horrible the Jews were. Then he goes on to argue that only through Christ can salvation come. Romans 1:24-28, ripped out of context, appears to condemn both gay men and lesbians. But nearby, Paul condemns the Romans as idolators, arrogant, and `Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:’. Now let’s ban all those behaviors too!

  25. matty1 says

    The Bible is simply too contradictory to have a real,/i> meaning, anyone wanting to construct a code of behaviour from it is going to have to pick and choose. So at the risk of repeating myself why are those who pick the nasty bits somehow more authentic that those who pick the nicer bits?

  26. Stacy says

    The authors of Leviticus focused on the sexual act

    And they considered that sexual act worthy of death.

    Who cares whether they thought of sexual orientation the same way modern people do? Those verses exist. They prohibit gay sex. Fundamentalists and conservative Jews and Christians use them to bolster and justify their own homophobia. More liberal Jews and Christians ignore them or rationalize them away.

    Nobody is arguing that all the authors of all the books of the Bible agree on this or any other subject. They obviously didn’t. If you prefer, Ed, for super-duper precision, should have said “Some of the men who wrote the Bible really did think….”

    As for the rest of your post: I like some of the books of the Bible too. Ecclesiastes, which is essentially secular. The Song of Songs. I share your fondness for Ruth. I like the KJV version of Luke’s birth story; I think it’s sweet and lyrical.

    And yes, believers have to pick and choose. Only fundies try to pretend they don’t.

  27. says

    Gosh, here we go again.

    Someone doesn’t like the slur, “tard”, so they dredge up a lot of false equivalencies and accuse the user of insulting others with its use.

    Your complaints are noted. I don’t pick the words that you use, don’t pick mine. You don’t want to read them, ignore them, put them in a kill file. I really don’t give a fuck what you do about it.

    “@19 democommie: ‘clutch your pearls’? Really? Ugh. Sexism as well…”

    Um, Joe K., I hate to break this to you, but there are a number of people who use that term (or a version of it) here, including the blog’s author. I think that Mr. Brayton does not consider himself (nor do most people who read this blog) a sexist.

  28. thalwen says

    Um..who the hell hates their daughter because she burned her hand? That’s got to rank among the worst parenting advice ever – if you kid does something stupid (and they will because they’re kids) then hate them?
    Then again, I shouldn’t expect logic or sanity from a guy that thinks gay people destroy society and random people’s families.

Leave a Reply