quote:

---

So - what flase analogies do we make?

---

The one that I dislike most is 'The bible is God's instruction book for life.'

Now let's be honest about this. Firstly the only bit of the bible which is remotely like an instruction book is Leviticus, which is the bit we Christians don't treat as binding instructions. Secondly if Ford Motors or Microsoft marketed an instruction book as complex and diverse and indirect as the bible they'd get laughed at.

Finally it is an analogy that leads people to expect the bible to be capable of easy and straightforward explanation and application, and to get depressed when they find it is not.

The bible is too rich and complex to be adequately described as an instruction book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
The one that I dislike most is 'The bible is God's instruction book for life.'
Secondly if Ford Motors or Microsoft marketed an instruction book as complex and diverse and indirect as the bible they'd get laughed at.

Finally it is an analogy that leads people to expect the bible to be capable of easy and straightforward explanation and application, and to get depressed when they find it is not.

The bible is too rich and complex to be adequately described as an instruction book.

---

Microsoft and Ford DON"T produce complicated instruction books????? Just because they're couched in terms that vaguely resemble contemporary English doesn't make them easy to understand.

Human beings are complex, paradoxical, and downright contradictory individuals - surely the bible as a in instruction manual makes perfect sense in those terms.

But you're right. It's not. It's a philosophy, and a guide, not a set of precise instructions.

Although love your computer as much as it loves you does kind of make sense

quote:

---

My favourite is The Church as Family. Guaranteed to upset single people at some point, or raise memories of abuse in others.

---

Hmm. What model of church doesn't; Army, Building, Body, Field? All can have negative connections. Holy Scripture does speak of the christian life being a family relationship with God - sonship and adoption, and Jesus himself is recorded using family language - asking who are his brothers and mother and sister, and making his mother, Johns mother.

God loves the sinner but hates the sin .

where does it say this ? how do we manage to seprate our doing from our being ? or to be more precise how does God?

the thing that really pisses me off about this is that homophobes/fundies use this as an excuse to be nasty to gays. neither loving the sinner or gauging their own sinfulness

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
the thing that really pisses me off about this is that homophobes/fundies use this as an excuse to be nasty to gays. neither loving the sinner or gauging their own sinfulness

---

As host I really must object to the linking of homophobes and fundamentalists in this way -- it amounts to overgeneralization and a blanket accusation. Not all fundamentalists are homophobes, and not all homophobes are fundamentalists.

quote:

---

God loves the sinner but hates the sin .

---

This is often just rendered as 'love the sinner but hate the sin' without bringing God into it.

This quote comes from St Augustine. It is not in the Bible. If I recall it is in one of his letters of advice to his sister and her convent of nuns as to how to behave to each other.

I have only ever heard this phrase being used in the context of anti-gay campaigning.

That was how I came to look it up because it was being used a lot in the section 28 campaign in Scotland and a friend asked me if it came from the Bible because his Christian wife kept quoting it to him

The problem with the statement (I don't think it's an analogy) is not the sentiment per se, but the way in which it was being used as a justification for doing things which from the opposite point of view seemed to be patently unloving.

It came across in that context as 'It's loving because WE say it's loving and if it hurts and harms YOU, and you tell us it's very unloving, then we simply don't want to hear about it.' That may not have been how it was intended - but that was how it sounded to me.

Anyway - when used in such a manner - it's right down there as one of my least favourite sayings. I'd even consign such use of it to Hell but that's a different thread!

sorry to not be clear. i would want to say that you are of course right ( not only because you are host )

but i cant, all the christian homophobes i have met are fundies ( i use the term fundies rather that fundemantalists because shipmates are fond of saying how they are in fundemantal agreemant with the bible but ..... ). i have to also say that all the homophobes i have met (whether christian or not use a fundie type approach to certain biblical passages) so i feel comfortable grouping these together.

especialy as i was pointing out the the type of person who mis-uses the saying i was refering to. therefore in the context of this thread and in refering to this little much abused saying i do not consider it a generalisation.

i agree that in the rules of fair play and outside the context of this thread it would be a generalisation.
however it would be, as others have seemingly agreed, one i am comfortable making.

maybe if any fundies or homophobes would like to start a thread in hell discussing this genralisation, grouping together or even this saying then i will join them their

yours feeling cautioned

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
I'm sorry Ruth W, but you are quite wrong. All fundamentalists _are_ homophobes, every man jack and woman jill of them. How could they not be?

---

Would you please tell me exactly what you mean by "fundamentalist"?

Originally it was applied to those who subscribe to the "fundamentals" of the faith as defined by the American Presbyterian Church early in the twentieth century.

Allan Cresswell listed those fundamentals on the Mark of the Beast: WWW thread:

The 1910 General Assembly of the American Presbyterian Church drew up a list of 5 fundamentals. These were: the miracles of Christ, his virgin birth, his sacrifice on the cross constituting atonement for humankind's sin, his bodily resurrection, the Bible as the directly inspired Word of God. These were expanded in twelve booklets published between 1910 and 1915.

I'm sure this is not what you mean by "fundamentalist", but I'm not sure what you do mean.

Love
Angel

Sounds impossible until you have children, then there are times when you could murder the brats for what you are doing, but at the same love them so much that you would die for them.

So I think if it is used correctly it is a lovely phrase.

quote:

---

'giving one's life to Jesus'.

---

Yes, it's interesting that this seems to get on the tits of most evangelicals I know - so why do "missions" that try to include evangelicals use this phrase?

I suppose it appeals to those who like a knid of "touchy feely" relgion, but anyone who takes the Bible seriously should know that it is not in the Bible.

quote:

---

Sounds impossible until you have children, then there are times when you could murder the brats for what you are doing, but at the same love them so much that you would die for them.

---

Agree completely! LOL

However, if the [insert relevant figure]is not your kid I imagine people will find the adage difficult all over again.

quote:

---

Hate the sin but love the sinner

---

The problem with this phrase is that it is impossible. The person and the acts they commit are fundamentally intertwined ( no pun intended ). I would rather the attide of love the person, while acknowledging them to be a sinner - like us. But I can't get theat as catchy.

I have children, and that is the feeling I have - I love them to bits, even for the features that make me angry. I might wish that they were different, but then, they are my children, resembling me rather too much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
all the christian homophobes i have met are fundies

---

I can think of at least one Christian homophobe I've come across who was definitely not a fundamentalist - by either of the two definitions of that word that have been described here. So, they do exist.

BTW Pyx_e - would you say that opposition to homosexuality is ipso facto homophobia, or is there something else needed. What I mean is - if someone sincerely believes homosexual activity to be contrary to God's will, but nevertheless behaves with tolerance and respect towards homsoexuals, are they still homophobic?

I would argue not.... I associate homophobia with closed-mindedness, and agression and revulsion towards homosexuals.... but one can disagree with it but not behave that way...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve:

My favorite hate analogy is Prayer is Like a telephone ( and the song with that title ). Does this mean that sometimes I won't be able to get throught? Or that I might have to leaave a message? Or that there are blackspots, where it doesn't work?

---

I was sent something along those lines. I was going to put it into the Church Mag, but that's defunct at the moment, so I've put it here for anyone who wants to see.

If God Had An Answering Machine

'What would Jesus have done?'

Absurd, banal and trite.

in one sense it is those who are "good" but still opposed that are the most difficult to deal with claiming both the moral high ground whilst some false-sympathy for those who being enslaved. at least with fundies and homophobes i can agree to disagree and just let it go.

i have children but i was thinking more about my mum there were times i loved and hated her at the same time, it is a silly saying all in all

quote:

---

BTW Pyx_e - would you say that opposition to homosexuality is ipso facto homophobia, or is there something else needed. What I mean is - if someone sincerely believes homosexual activity to be contrary to God's will, but nevertheless behaves with tolerance and respect towards homsoexuals, are they still homophobic?

---

I'm not sure about analogies being true or false, I think about them as good or bad, more or less accurate - but I do like analogies.

So let's think about this statement analogically.

If I sincerely believe that black or Asian people shouldn't be allowed to have sex, but treat Asian or Black people with tolerance and respect, am I a racist?

More to the point AM I or CAN I be treating them with tolerance and respect when I say it's not OK for them to have sex lives but it's OK for me?

How good an analogy is that? Can anyone think of a better one?

But perhaps this really deserves a thread to itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
I'm sorry Ruth W, but you are quite wrong. All fundamentalists _are_ homophobes, every man jack and woman jill of them. How could they not be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve:
The problem with this phrase is that it is impossible. The person and the acts they commit are fundamentally intertwined ( no pun intended ). I would rather the attide of love the person, while acknowledging them to be a sinner - like us. But I can't get theat as catchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Most hideous phrase in Christendom?

'What would Jesus have done?'

Absurd, banal and trite.

Codmo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

If I sincerely believe that black or Asian people shouldn't be allowed to , but treat Asian or Black people with tolerance and respect, am I a racist?

More to the point AM I or CAN I be treating them with tolerance and respect when I say it's not OK for them to lives but it's OK for me?

How good an analogy is that? Can anyone think of a better one?

But perhaps this really deserves a thread to itself.

---

It's a terrible analogy, accepted only because it's been trotted out so often by the gay-rights crowd. Blacks and Asians were BORN that way, as a matter of genetics. Homosexuals, for whatever reason they were tempted to homosexuality, chose to act on unnatural desires. (If you don't like the term "unnatural", then read Romans 1.) The two situations are not at all morally equivalent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Most hideous phrase in Christendom?

'What would Jesus have done?'

Absurd, banal and trite.

Codmo

---

I actually first heard that phrase sometime after "The Spirit of Christmas" circulated around the net (Spirit of Christmas, for those who don't know, was a crudely animated bit that circulated on the 'net around 1996, and was the precursor to South Park), and thought WWJD was an attempt to claim for Christianity the line "What would Brian Boitano do?", uttered while Jesus and Santa Claus are fighting. But maybe I have the cart before the horse here.
In any case, a friend of mine and I used to change WWJD to WWMD--What would Martha (Stewart) do. The answer generally being either a) kick the butler and fire a servant or b) Put a nice bow on it. Funny how one or the other always fit the situation at hand...

quote:

---

Originally posted by brodavid:
I turned down a once who was wearing her keys around her neck on a WWJD strap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brodavid:
Hmmm... that should have read, "I turned down a once..."

---

quote:

---

Homosexuals, for whatever reason they were tempted to homosexuality, chose to act on unnatural desires.

---

I disagree profoundly with your view Brodavid and I consider your talk of a 'gay rights crowd' to be dismissive and pejorative towards people like me who do not hold your views on this issue.

However because this issue has caused so much trouble and grief and offense on the Ship before, I do not wish to start what would clearly be a storm thread.

I apologise to the hosts for having thoughtlessly led to this matter being re-opened.

In extreme cases (such as Fred Phelps) I think this can be true, but it certainly was not my intention to generalise this to everyone with these views.

My intention was to use an analogy to try to explore at what point views which can be experienced by those on the receiving end of them as being hurtful and prejudiced, actually do cross over that line and do count as discrimination or prejudice.

This was following on from the discussion about the use of the word homophobic.

Sorry if anyone took offense from that.

I think this is an important issue but I don't see a good way of taking it forward.

It was originally published about a century ago and has been reissued many times.

quote:

---

Homosexuals, for whatever
reason they were tempted to homosexuality, chose to act on
unnatural desires. (If you don't like the term "unnatural", then read
Romans 1.)

---

um, how can you call something unnatural that exists in many species of animal in nature, as homosexual behavior does?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I disagree profoundly with your view Brodavid and I consider your talk of a 'gay rights crowd' to be dismissive and pejorative towards people like me who do not hold your views on this issue.

However because this issue has caused so much trouble and grief and offense on the Ship before, I do not wish to start what would clearly be a storm thread.

I apologise to the hosts for having thoughtlessly led to this matter being re-opened.

Louise

---

I did not mean to be dismissive or pejorative towards anyone simply for disagreeing with me. I used the phrase "gay rights crowd" to refer to those who militantly demand that homosexuality be accepted as normal and healthy, and condemn me for daring to state that the Bible teaches otherwise. You, and others like you, who disagree with me but are willing to discuss the matter intelligently, were not who I had in mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
um, how can you call something unnatural that exists in many species of animal in nature, as homosexual behavior does?

you can make any moral judgements you please, but you can not call naturally occuring behavior unnatural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
brodavid, yeah, you should have done some research. check this out, just as a sample.

as i said, you can draw whatever moral conclusions you want, but homosexual behavior is completely natural,in that it occurs with great frequency in nature.

---

Ok, my take.

There is some work on the psychology of homosexuality that is being ignored here.

here's the argument.

A failure of gender identification in childhood can lead to a sense of gender uncertainty.

In male homosexuals at puberty a desire to be a man can be sexualised to a desire to possess a man sexually. A homosexual experience expresses that desire and, as with all sexual experience, the sexual appetite is moulded to resond to the same circumstances.

We do people no favours if we use PC statements to paper the cracks. Homosexual sexuality is not hetero but towards same sex. It is a disfunction (i.e. sin). We should regard it just like other addictions. (hetero-sexual sex addiction, Porn addiction, drug, drink, food abuse, uncontrollable anger, gambling, SOF Board addiction e.t.c.)

Such will not enter the kingdom of heaven, not because they are not allowed, but because the kingdom of heaven is release from such things.

i have known alcoholics, both recovering and not.

i have known homosexuals.

i have known recovering alcoholic homosexuals for that matter.

and there is NO comparison.

quote:

---

We do people no favours if we use PC statements to paper the cracks.

---

quote:

---

A failure of gender identification in childhood can lead to a sense of gender uncertainty.

---

? This is more certain to lead to transgenderism isn't? I don't know any gay people who have problems with their gender. Many, of course, can dance and many like Barbara Striesand or opera, but there must be some straight men who can dance?

quote:

---

In male homosexuals at puberty a desire to be a man can be sexualised to a desire to possess a man sexually

---

quote:

---

It is a disfunction (i.e. sin). We should regard it just like other addictions. (hetero-sexual sex addiction, Porn addiction, drug, drink, food abuse, uncontrollable anger, gambling, SOF Board addiction e.t.c.)

---

Certainly you may personally wish to regard homosexuality just like any other addiction, but I would strongly protest that we should do so.

I know of course that some of Christians can only live with me as a Lesbian when they consider and treat me as someone with a mental/psychological disturbance or illness. I have learned to trust my perception and experience more then theirs and so please don't tell me what I should think. Or are lesbians not included in "we"?

BTW, I also strongly object that my love and commitment to my partner is compared with "... sex addiction, Porn addiction, drug, drink, food abuse, uncontrollable anger, gambling ..."

Abo

I gave a wide spectrum of addictive sin for comparison. I did not give alcoholism alone. Of course they are not identical. I never said they were. If you believe that homosexuality is not a sin, you will see no comparison of course. My point was that it is a complex addictive (i.e. re-enforcing ) type sin and not simply volitional rebellion.

There is a point of comparison. If only one.

How can saying this be an insult to an alcoholic?

Oh, and I have known a lot of different people too.

Gill,

Interesting point about the age and I think that you may be right that it develops earlier. If I remember rightly, there are supposed to be two phases of gender development that may affect the sense of gender identity.

Sloppy of me to say puberty, but I really just wanted to raise the subject to see if others had more information. The response is a universal, swift denial, but it remains the truth that there are qualified therapists who are also christians who counsel down the lines I described. So is it as intellectualy bankrupt as you all claim?

SteveWal

I am afraid that our gender identity is a bit more complex than male or female. You also seem to be mocking me, implying that I must hold a stereotypical view of male and female. You seem to think you know me so well, Steve, on so little evidence. I would rather we tried to get a little further forward with this issue.

Arietty, you too seem to mock me when it is very well understood by psychologists that almost anything can be sexualised. Is this not a point that we need to address.

Abo, you said

quote:

---

Certainly you may personally wish to regard homosexuality just like any other addiction, but I would strongly protest that we should do so.

---

In actual fact I would very much like to regard homosexuality and heterosexuality as two equal possibilities that develop naturally and have no moral significance. But I have an openess to the idea that there may be evidence that what the Bible says about this is true. There seems to be a stereotypical assumption that I am being judgemental, but I am not.

I was actually appealing to those who see homosexuality as sin (as I do), to see it as a sin complex rather than an act of rebellion.

You shared your pain Abo. Let me share mine. I was brought up in an extremely abusive family (physical, sexual and emotional abuse and torture). Because my father was the abuser and because of the abuse, I grew up with a poor self image and the idea that I was not a real man. The model for homosexuality I have read speaks of a distant father and a loving mother. I had half of that. The distant/cold father. As a young man I attached myself to older males drinking emotionally from their manliness (not sexual, I was too young.)

As I grew older, I began to be approached by the homosexual friends of my older sisters. They clearly saw in me some sort of potential. It was strange, and flattering and seemed to offer me the reflected masculinity that I craved.

Something held me back. Partly the same self-rejection that kept me away from girls and, I believe, a moment of clarity from God. A warning against choosing that path.

My disfunction also expressed intself in pornography addiction. Deliverance only came from that when I realised that this was an attempt to externalise my pain by experiencing guilt and that the whole was sexualised.

I have more experiences on this line but that's enough.

All of the male homosexuals I have discussed this with (only four) had the distant/absent/dead father. They all had the saintly mother. They all had an early homosexual experience. But this is not a statistically significant sample. Enough to not throw out a working hypothesis though.

You who think I am being judgmental answer me this. What would you have said to me when I asked you for advice on that vital decision. Would your answer have served me, or would it have helped me to make the worst decision of my life?

And what are you going to say to all those brave christians out there who are walking this path with God? And what do you say to those who say that they have experienced salvation through this path? Will you deny their experience? You are going to have to, you know. Because they talk like me.

The background you describe (I mean the general one, not yours) is a common scenario but not always the case.

The problem with sharing personal experience is that it can be used as a method to shut people up, but often it is the only argument we can use to avoid the impression of being disinterested and judgmental.

Please be clear that I am not doing this. I really do want some answers here and I think it can be done sensitively.

It's a tricky issue. I certainly know women who have chosen lesbianism as a 'safe' option - men tend to be less so... Not as safe!

You said...

quote:

---

Something held me back. Partly the same self-rejection that kept me away from girls and, I believe, a moment of clarity from God. A warning against choosing that path.
.........
You who think I am being judgmental answer me this. What would you have said to me when I asked you for advice on that vital decision. Would your answer have served me, or would it have helped me to make the worst decision of my life?

And what are you going to say to all those brave christians out there who are walking this path with God? And what do you say to those who say that they have experienced salvation through this path? Will you deny their experience? You are going to have to, you know. Because they talk like me.

---