One of the objections to Sarah Palin’s church was that they consider homosexual behavior to be a sin (sort of like most churches in the world) and that these folks can overcome this.
Good for her church! If someone is offended that a church would pray for people to turn from behavior that God was spectacularly clear in labeling as sinful, then they are don’t understand Christianity at all. The churches that should be embarrassed are the one who don’t pray for sinners to repent.
Lots of gays have changed – see this man’s blog, for example.
Comparing her church to Obama’s (before he threw it and the pastor under the bus) is comical. In fact, I hope people listen to every sermon her church every did. Maybe they’ll get some converts. Sounds like they have much, much better doctrine than Wright and, as far as I know, don’t ask God to damn America. Just sayin’.
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: church, GLBT, homosexual, obama, palin, Wright
Again, somebody tell me two things:
1. Theologically, especially within the prophetic tradition, what did Jeremiah Wright say that was wrong?
2. How is anything he said “un-American”?
Don’t get me wrong, I have serious theologically and sociological disagreements with the man, and I think what he said WAS insensative, poorly timed, and over the top in delievery HOWEVER< I don’t see “UnAmerican” or Racist. Someone explain this on too me.
“Lots of gays have changed…” [snicker]
No they haven’t. If they say they have “changed,” and by that I can only assume that you mean they are no longer gay, then they were never actually gay or they are bisexual.
The reason for the “change” is a desire on their part to be accepted.
@Mark:
“The reason for the “change” is a desire on their part to be accepted.”
Scientifically, you can say that with no more certainity, thhan people of the theological persusaion that a person can change out of it being a condition that is not theirs by default.
It is more than presumptious to attest to SOMEONE Elses actuality.
How is anything he said “un-American”?
Asking that God curse America. Sure, America is worthy of God’s condemnation. But what this overlooks, in my opinion, is that we are all worthy of condemnation. If I ever ask that America, or anybody else, gets what they deserve, I better ask the same thing for myself. I’m not ready to do that.
In my view Jeremiah Wright’s specific words (God damn America, etc) are questionable and distasteful, but what’s wrong is the root of his ideology. In particular, black liberation theology is unbiblical and doesnt fit into the framework of redemption and the “ministry of reconciliation” God has given us.
Black liberation theology (or more aptly termed ideology) is racist, thus his motivation for saying what he said stems from a racist perspective. It is more about political freedom than spiritual freedom of which the latter is the core message of Christ and the scriptures. BLT is decidedly leftist in ideology which may explain why it is embraced by Democrats of which the black church is a huge constituency. Thus, most black democrats and social leftists dont see a problem with Wrights words or his belief system. Its attractive to this group because it is a political creed dipped in religion. Jesus rejected all attempts to make him a political ruler or even to endorse any uprising against the unjust Roman rule.
Now If black liberation theology is acceptable as is, then we have to accept white supremacy teaching/beliefs because they emanate from the same ill conceived sentiment which is racial superiority.
Was Jeremiah Wright prophetic or operating in the prophetic tradition? There really is no such tradition according to scripture. The true prophet spoke only the words of the Lord as he was commanded. A false prophet spoke his own words. That was the distinction.
If indeed Jeremiah Wright’s so called prophetic tradition issues from black liberation theology, these are not the words of the Lord, but the words of man.
Thus, Wright is a false prophet and shouldnt be given credibility within the believing church.
Most of the preachers who defended him, did so based solely on racial points, not biblical points. That’s telling when we –as preachers of Christ– would defend a man’s words (who also claims to be a follower of Christ) without weighing those words against scripture not some broad, fairly undefinable “prophetic tradition”.
Mark, anytime you have to use the word assume, it invalidates your entire premise.
@DJ
Oh, *now* you want to talk science. Look, I don’t know how much scientific evidence you need. I don’t know how old you are, but as you get older you see this over and over. Kids around 8 to 10 years old that just seem to have – shall we say – non straight tendencies. No one is telling them to act that way. To them, it’s completely natural.
As they get older, your observations are verified, they announce they are gay or lesbian. Live long enough and we all see this happen.
Doing a scientific study on this is like studying why three year olds fall off bicycles. It just isn’t necessary.
Irrefutible fact: Gays have been around just as long as straights.
gcmwatch, are you saying that it doesn’t mean what’s implied?
And, no it does not invalidate my premise at all. It solidifies it. By being vague, as Neil has done here. I must state that I’m using assumptions in my reply to make sure my point is understood.
I wouldn’t want anyone to have to assume that I read the vague remark the same way they did.
If I may add my thoughts on the homosexuality issue, the main point is, God says, don’t perform homosexual acts. We can debate all we want about if people are “born” gay, or if being “gay” is a choice or not. Even if people are born with homosexual tendencies (I personally don’t believe they are), God says don’t perform homosexual acts. So the cause or whatever is irrelevant from a theological standpoint (but may be more important from a counseling standpoint). As I always say, I am heterosexual, but that doesn’t give me an excuse to act upon any heterosexual desire I have.
Some people think that just because people have homosexual desires and may not make a choice in the active sense (to have these desires), that being gay is okay. Sometimes Christians take the bait and act as if this is true (that having homosexual desires is not a choice), that it somehow invalidates the point that homosexuality is a sin. But it doesn’t. We all have sinful desires, otherwise we wouldn’t sin. But that doesn’t excuse it.
DJ
“It is more than presumptious to attest to SOMEONE Elses actuality.”
LOL – you are being more than presumptuous just making that statement.
@ Mark:
I talk SCIENCE all the time, especially when its with people who do not sahre my faith, how is it you see my faith and or “spirituality” (which you know little about) as mutually exclusive from science, I don’t know Anyway you wrote:
“Irrefutible fact: Gays have been around just as long as straights.”
Irrelevent to the point, bi-polar people have been around as long as non-bi polar people, the question was can you prove that being “gay” is a condition that cannot be changed by the person through choice motiveated on nonething else tha the perosns desire to change for not wanting that condition?
Chance
Are you saying that if God pronounced sex with a person of the opposite sex a sin, that you could live your entire life without it? Most certainly could not.
Irrefutible fact: Gays have been around just as long as straights.
Let me make a few corrections and additions to your irrefutable fact.
Irrefutable fact #1 Homosexual sin has been around just about as long as heterosexual sin.
Irrefutable fact #2 Sin has been around longer than anyone. And unless a man repents and is born again of the water and of the spirit, his sin will cause him to inherit the lake of fire, eternally.
Irrefutable fact #3 Longevity does not equal righteousness.
@DJ:
Right back at you, DJ. Could you change your ways and become gay and live the gay lifestyle motivated on nothing else than your desire to change?
I know I couldn’t. And you couldn’t either. And if you tried and told others you were successful, you’d be living a lie.
“Kids around 8 to 10 years old that just seem to have – shall we say – non straight tendencies. No one is telling them to act that way. To them, it’s completely natural.”
That’s your definition of scientific evidence?
Astonishing.
@GCM WATCH:
“Now If black liberation theology is acceptable as is, then we have to accept white supremacy teaching/beliefs because they emanate from the same ill conceived sentiment which is racial superiority.”
Your logic is a bit flawed there. Actually they do not “compliment” each other. One stems from being oppressed, which was an actuality, nor does “BLT” teach Black supremacy nor inferiority, it addresses the actuality that was faced (and in some cases is still faced) by an oppressed group, very different.
Sure I think that type of theology does go too far to show parallels, and it isn’t my theology of choice, but I do not see any essential doctrines of the Orthodoxy of our faith being ignored or violated, I DO see that in White Supremacist theology.
Now, I am not a leftist or a democrat, I am admittedly Black, and my theology is no where near BLT, however; two things:
I don’t think Wright was saying: “Thus saith the Lord” however exegetically he had a point:
Here is what Wright said:
““We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
Well, though I disagree with his delivery and the “State terrorism” part regarding Palestinians (I think the Palestinians bring a lot of unnecessary drama on themselves, but that’s another topic), looking at the statement in a biblical context, all he really was saying was (from the KJV):
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6.7 KJV) Jesus did say in Matthew 26.52: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
The fact is that American foreign policy has done A LOT of dirt, and people like Osama Bin Laden, who are just murderous maniacs, are able to use that dirt the US has done to motivate some simpletons into doing the unthinkable. Wright wasn’t being hateful per se, just waaayyy unsympathetic and very insensitive to those who lost loved ones. Basically, WRONG TIME TO SAY: “I Told ya so…” or “Karma”, etc.
But again, in what “I” Call the Prophetic tradition, when the words of a Prophet (in that’s case Jesus) are true, they are true, even when paraphrased, even when its about my own country.
If he says: “God Damn America”, that is strong, but to me he is merely saying: “America needs to deal with its own sin, or America will face the consequences as anyone else would”.
I don’t see how that is un-American, I can see how to some it is “UN- Comfortable”…
@Mark:
“Right back at you, DJ. Could you change your ways and become gay and live the gay lifestyle motivated on nothing else than your desire to change?”
I don’t know, however, I am actually a DJ (of House Music no less), and I see people that go back and forth every week, who am I to say that either choice is permemnat, cannot be changed or should not be changed IF the PERSON is the one wanting the change? Who am I to judge the sincerity of either?
gcmwatch
Can you provide any real proof for the second sentence in fact #2? Nope. It’s a story that you choose to believe. It gives you comfort and provides some guidance. I’ll not try to argue that. But that it’s a fact that must be accepted? No.
Can’t argue with the other two. Although I don’t know the point of fact #3.
@DJ
Don’t be stupid, please.
You said, “That’s your definition of scientific evidence? Astonishing.”
I started the reply with:
“…I don’t know how much scientific evidence you need.”
and ended it with:
“Doing a scientific study on this is like studying why three year olds fall off bicycles. It just isn’t necessary.”
Please respond with a little bit more thought.
@DJ
You said, “…and I see people that go back and forth every week,…”
Well then they aren’t gay or lesbian! These are not the people to which we are talking about.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what it is to be gay. If a person is gay, they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex – only.
They are NOT sexually attracted to people of the other sex. To them, even the thought is repulsive.
Mark, you are the one who fronted the “irrefutable fact”, which by the way is about as true as a little mermaid on the moon. It had no substantiation whatsoever, it was just some words you typed into a little box on this blog. So much for irrefutable facts.
If yours is irrefutable simply by stating it, then so are mine.
Next point?
DJ, who exactly do you think Wright was telling God to damn? I mean when you say God damn America, are you asking God to curse a lot of innocent people?
For instance:
Honorable black men and women who fought in the war?
Himself seeing he is a native of this country and enjoys its rights and priveleges?
People who spoke out against the war like Bishop Charles Harrison Mason?
People in America who were even born then?
His own children and family?
I agree that in principle he was right. The question is by his own words does he judge himself?
I wouldnt think that if God were actually to do what Wright wants, that he would spare him or his family just because he happened to say it.
My “big picture” point is whether a belief is based on real or perceived injustices, it is not a basis for hate. And that is a prominent –and common– element in blt and white supremacy.
btw, Im black, male and a volunteer war vet.
@Mark:
You wrote:
“Don’t be stupid, please.”
You said, “That’s your definition of scientific evidence? Astonishing.”
Actually I didn’t say that.
gcmwatch
Look, I shouldn’t have to do this, but you’ve taken this to rediculous levels. You argue like a 5 year old.
In a very short searching session, I can find written documentation of homosexuality as early as the 16th century B.C. I’m sure if searched harder, I could find it earlier still.
You know it’s true. You knew it when you read what I “typed into a little box on this blog.” Do the search yourself. Entering “History of Homosexuality” in Google will return this link, among others:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/44940.htm
So, please! Spare me the lecture on being irrefutable simply by saying it.
@DJ
My apologies, sir. You are correct. You did not say that.
So – gcmwatch, this is for you:
Don’t be stupid, please.
You said, “That’s your definition of scientific evidence? Astonishing.”
I started the reply with:
“…I don’t know how much scientific evidence you need.”
and ended it with:
“Doing a scientific study on this is like studying why three year olds fall off bicycles. It just isn’t necessary.”
Please respond with a little bit more thought. Although I can see now how this might be difficult based on recent replies.
@GC
You wrote:
“btw, Im black, male and a volunteer war vet.”
Really? Well so since we’re playing show and tell, I’m Black, Male and a Veteran of the First Persian Gulf war 9and a few other things we can go with out naming). I have Three Honorable discharges, as I served on Active Duty in the United States Marine Corps (VMGR 352, Raiders, El Toro, MCAS, 3rd MAW), the reserve of the Marine Corps (VMGR 234 Bears, Glenview NAS, 4th MAW) and the reserves of the US Air Force (126th ARW). For that Matter Dr. Wright served not only a Marine but as a corpsman in the United States Navy.
So, it appears we three have earned the right to criticize the US government and / or the country we served for, as we protected that right?
You wrote:
“I mean when you say God damn America, are you asking God to curse a lot of innocent people”
I don’t think that Dr. Wright was speaking for God to “damn” (literally) every man, woman and child in this nations (as by mutual implication, that would include HIM). I think he was speaking towards a system, that sees no wrong in the actions that it does.
As for you analysis in the equivalence of White Supremacist theology as practiced by the KKK, and BLT as practiced in Black churches since the inception of the AME Church you wrote:
“My “big picture” point is whether a belief is based on real or perceived injustices, it is not a basis for hate. And that is a prominent –and common– element in blt and white supremacy.”
Hate? I’m sorry, I have seen the KKK and Word Church of the Creator types say they HATE Black People, can you show me where Dr. Wright or his church states they “HATE” white people? Could you show me where HATING White people or anyone else is part of BLT or specifically DR. Wright or Trinity UCC?
@Mark:
You wrote:
“I think you have a misunderstanding of what it is to be gay. If a person is gay, they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex – only. ”
O.K., then you write:
“They are NOT sexually attracted to people of the other sex. To them, even the thought is repulsive.”
But what if one day it is repulsive, has been for years, then one day, out of no where, they decide that they never really liked men/women and change? How can you say that it is not possible? How are you sure?
DJ, cool. Props to a fellow serviceman. Highest respect. I deloyed with the 24th Inf Div to the persian gulf Aug 90- Feb 91. I mentioned that as moreso as a point of solidarity to your remark, rather than division.
But lets not be coy now. (1) there is no sentence I know of where Wright says verbatim “I hate white people”. But does a racist have to say “I hate ________ ” for it not to be just as real? I mean I could honestly hate you right now and never say it aloud to another soul. That argument might fall right at the edges of strawman…(2) Wright’s rage against the machine is a bit hypocritical even if 100% true. Bite the hand that feeds you? (3) By simple deduction process we know that Wright aimed his verbal bullets at the George Bush administration (better known as white men).
But what if one day it is repulsive, has been for years, then one day, out of no where, they decide that they never really liked men/women and change? How can you say that it is not possible? How are you sure?
You mean like I did on April 12, 1990? Formerly 100% sexually and emotionally attracted to men with 0% sexual or emotional attraction to women. Didnt even want to prior the above date. But thanks to the SUPERnatural power of God to REORIENT and REGENERATE the human mind, sexual feelings and more, I am 100% sexually and emotionally attracted to my wife of 16 years and the biological father of 4 children with the same woman.
That (marriage and children) in an of itself is no proof of salvation, it is simply a fruit of salvation and submission to God’s plan for one’s life.
Mark, must have been living on some deserted island. I personally know plenty of people like me. Everyday people who are just glad to be changed by Christ and no longer enslaved to their sexual passions.
Hey GC
“I won’t hold it against you that you were in the A.in’t R.Eady to be M.arines Y.et
Seriously, I respect your service and honor our brotherhood.
You wrote:
“through that.But lets not be coy now. (1) there is no sentence I know of where Wright says verbatim “I hate white people”. But does a racist have to say “I hate ________ ” for it not to be just as real?”
I agree, but I have to ask where he infered or even implied that he hated White people, his church hated white people or even that he was o.k. with hating White people? There are members of his church who are White, and the UCC denomination is predomiately White. He loved Bill Clinton (even though I can’t stand the man, but that’s a hole nother story), so how do you extrapolate that he hates white people OR that BLT teaches hatred of White People?
You wrote:
“I mean I could honestly hate you right now and never say it aloud to another soul.”
I can take evidence aside from the man “saying” he it if you could produce me other evidence, you say: “By simple deduction process we know that Wright aimed his verbal bullets at the George Bush administration (better known as white men).”
How are the Bush administration the totality of “White People”? That’s like saying Flava Flav is “Black People”?
Me and a friend (her son is a marine) was talking @ breakfast on yesterday and I was telling her that the Marines are the toughest service to enter and Army the second. So like I said you get madd props on that. Your friendly fire jab is received in good spirits. I went Army because thats my family tradition. But the Marine dress blues?? Cant touch that!
Anyway, I will have to dredge you up some hard evidence to put this strand of disagreement to rest. Although Im not sure what it will prove. You wanted to know 1. Theologically what did JW say that was wrong.
2. Was his GDA comment racist.
I guess when you look at it answers either way could be viewed, even with evidence, as subjective based on one’s worldview.
Me and a friend (her son is a marine) was talking @ breakfast on yesterday and I was telling her that the Marines are the toughest service to enter and Army the second. So like I said you get madd props on that. Your friendly fire jab is received in good spirits. I went Army because thats my family tradition. But the Marine dress blues?? Cant touch that!
Anyway, I will have to dredge you up some hard evidence to put this strand of disagreement to rest. Although Im not sure what it will prove. You wanted to know 1. Theologically what did JW say that was wrong.
2. Was his GDA comment racist.
I guess when you look at it answers either way could be viewed, even with evidence, as subjective based on one’s worldview.
@GC:
“Anyway, I will have to dredge you up some hard evidence to put this strand of disagreement to rest.”
Please dredge away, like I said, Me and Dr. Wright have some serious disagreements theological, I am familiar with his, and don’t find it anathema to the Essential Christian principles of the Orthodoxy of our faith, even though I find him personally to be an arrogant prick, so it pains me that you all always put me in the precarious position of defending someone I personally don’t like very much.
Im not sure who the “you all” is the that sentence, but my contention is that blt and white supremacy are two peas in the ideological pod. Both have hate at the roots of its beliefs system. Thus, if we are to accept JW’s condemnation of America based on his blt beliefs we also have to accept the white supremacists rants against the system for the same reason.
If Im correct, you disagreed wtih that and wanted explicit proof that Jeremiah Wright personally hated white people. Again that might be a borderline strawman with a red herring in his pocket which will invariably lead to more poorly dressed strawmen.
But dredge we will but only to point out the racial hatred underpinning blt of which JW is an avid apologist.
My best advice, DJ is that if you dont want to defend someone’s beliefs, then just dont do it.
Have any alcoholics ever changed?
People can change. They may still have temptations, but they can change. A lot.
GC:
If your contention is that BLT and White Supremacist theology are the same because the hatred, oppression and slavery of Blacks by Whites, as well as the expression that Blacks are not human by Whites is the base predicate, that would be historically factually true.
If your contention is that BLT preaches the hatred of White People in a similar fashion as White Supremacist theology teaches the hatred of Black people, that would be categorically false.
You are presenting them as two sides of the same coin, which is an equivalence that completely disagree with. Martin Luther King also practiced Black Liberation Theology, are you going to say Dr. King hated White People as well?
My best adivce to you GC, is if you’re going to call a man a racist because he disagrees with US policy and say that man HATES a whole race of people, have some eveidence of such a charge. A wise man once said:
Psalm 101:5 “Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy…”
Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism? That’s way over the top, Neil. As a person who constantly complains about strawman tactics, why on earth would you throw this up?
Are you really comparing an addiction to alcohol to one’s sexuality? I thought this type of conduct was not allowed on your site.
Alcoholism: a chronic disorder characterized by dependence on alcohol, repeated excessive use of alcoholic beverages, the development of withdrawal symptoms on reducing or ceasing intake, morbidity that may include cirrhosis of the liver, and decreased ability to function socially and vocationally.
Homosexuality: Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Oh, wait. It IS your site so you can argue the way you see fit while disallowing others to do the same. It’s the golden rule – he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Pathetic
Mark, I don’t see how that was over the top or a straw man argument.
Do you disagree that some people sometimes engage in sexual behaviors that they shouldn’t? Is it ok to keep doing so just because it is hard for them to stop?
I was merely noting that people may have strong temptations to do something yet they can overcome them. What is so objectionable about that? Do you hate alcoholics?
P.S. Are you denying that homosexual behavior has significant medical risks?
@ Mark:
Neil has Gold? Can a brotha get a few dollars?
Seriously, I Kid,. I Kid!
I think Mark has me confused with another Neil
DJ, per these comments by James Cone architect of black liberation theology and other apologists, black liberation theology has an element of institutionalized hate of whites encased within. And by extension, JW’s unbridled acceptance and promotion of this beliefs yokes him to the same belief. It has little variance from the same racial hate drivel spouted by the white supremists. I leave you to deconstruct them at your leisure.
/quote/ Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
(Quoted in William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube.)
/quote/ In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors … Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [James Cone].
Quote from Obama
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality. ”
James Cone:
“The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’. . . “
@GC:
Facinating. I see you qouted Cone somewhat out of context, especially the last quote : “…All white men are responsible for white oppression…”
In context he went on to explain: “…But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism…Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty.”
Now socioligical I think he makes a valid point, but in my opinion the point is overstated, so I cannot agree with it in its entirety.
I see how this type of theology is dated and formed out of sociological realities not spiritual ones and can turn into something completey opposite of the Gospel of the Kingdom if allowed to become the focus of a ministry.
Though I believe Dr. Wright is not racist or a Black “Supremacist”, I can see how someone could come to that conlcusion now.
All I see in this theology is an admission of Black inferiority and Powerless…and BLACK ADAM don’t do “either”…so this theology would be woefully inadeuqate for my spiritual disposition and at odds with my sociological worldview.
In either case, I feel this theology is an example of the hate that hate made, and a sad commentary on the history of this country.
In either case, I don’t feel Dr. Wright’s comments were “anti-american”, I believe America needs to self examine, to not do that would be UN patriotic in my opinion. BUT I can see how White People particulalry might feel uncomfortable or fearful of Wright’s parent theology (BLT), its hard to find out that there are people who may hate you for your skin color, especially when that isn’t the position you are normally in.
However, you have informed me on this theological tradition, I find it both fasicanting and tragically sad.
It is fortuante that this is not the dominant theology amongst African American churches.
Shalom and Laila Tov
DJBA
If it’s racist to demand that God damn America because of racism, is it equally wrong to demand that God damn America because some states have legalized homosexual marriage?
I’m not sure who you are referring to, but let’s just say that their is a rather sizable difference in asking God to damn America versus noting that perhaps he is judging us. And the folks I recall speculating on God’s wrath were roundly criticized, as Wright should be.
If God wanted to damn us He has a laundry list of reasons, btw, starting with the destruction of over 3,000 innocent human beings each day in what used to be a metaphor for safety and comfort: The womb.
@Neil:
I think what Lormarie is refering to is the theology of people like Rod Parsley and particularly John Hagee…or even some who suggested that 9/11 was because of “gays” and such…