|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who's changed their mind about homosexuality and God?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'll start. I hope this doesn't come across as patronising towards gay and lesbian posters here (I can imagine an "Oh so you noticed" reaction and in a way that would be fair - I'm hoping for some slack in making this confession.)
I was always someone who took a strict "biblical view" since I'd been brought up with that, and couldn't imagine faith without it. However, I never really liked the fact that I needed to take such a negative view of gay and lesbian people, and was always desperately apologetic about it.
Several things came together to change my mind.
Firstly, I became more and more aware of the oppression of gay and lesbian people, and the terrible suffering some experienced as a consequence of trying to reconcile their faith with their sexuality.
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems. He had been on the point of returning the child to the institution when the child became violent towards his elderly mother. A social worker talked him out of this, and his elderly mother agreed to support his decision. He commented that he couldn't have done it without the support and understanding of his congregation, and in particular that they had placed no additional pressure on him because of his sexuality. It disturbed me greatly that I would have supported the congregation had they taken a negative view of this very moving and deeply christian man. There are many other such stories, of course, but this one stuck.
Thirdly I became more and more aware that the "strict biblical view" I had grown up with wasn't even internally consistent, and wasn't externally consistent with the things I saw or studied.
I attended a church led by a gay vicar* and found the people were christians, still had their faith, and no-one had any horns and I didn't explode.
I remain uncertain about what the bible means and how it should be interpreted - but that in many ways is the point.
Anyway, I'm interested in how many have had similar changes of heart, and thought this was a distinctive enough aspect to the dead horse to have its own thread.
(* The vicar there was a bastard, by the way, but that's irrelevant.)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
+Tom Southwark has changed his mind.
Apparently.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I attended a church led by a gay vicar* and found the people were christians, still had their faith, and no-one had any horns and I didn't explode. ...
(* The vicar there was a bastard, by the way, but that's irrelevant.)
This was the bit that leapt out at me.
I certainly would not want to assume that all gays were like this Vicar but it does seem odd that you are specifically giving one of the reasons for your change as the opposite - i.e. that you met gay Christians who didn't have horns.
If bad examples prove nothing (which they don't) then why should positive examples mean anything either?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, I've changed my views.
But then, I'm gay, so people are all too ready to accuse me of believing something just because it 'suits me'. I have to repress the urge to belt them with something heavy, because they're ignoring around 17 years where my beliefs *didn't* suit my homosexuality, but there's no pleasing some people.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I attended a church led by a gay vicar* and found the people were christians, still had their faith, and no-one had any horns and I didn't explode. ...
(* The vicar there was a bastard, by the way, but that's irrelevant.)
This was the bit that leapt out at me.
I certainly would not want to assume that all gays were like this Vicar but it does seem odd that you are specifically giving one of the reasons for your change as the opposite - i.e. that you met gay Christians who didn't have horns.
If bad examples prove nothing (which they don't) then why should positive examples mean anything either?
Haven't you misread the passage your quoting? It says no-one in the congregation had horns. It doesn't say the congregation were all gay.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No, that's not the angle Johnny S is playing. He's making a logical point that if the fact that there are bastard gay people doesn't prove gay people are all bad, then the fact that there are good gay people shouldn't prove the fact that some gay people are good.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well what he said was "you met gay Christians who didn't have horns".
Whereas what mdijon actually said in the passage quoted was "I met Christians pastored by a gay man, and the Christians didn't have horns". Nothing about the Christians without horns being gay.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Straight Christians can be as horny as gay ones.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.
(Of course that is making the assumption that all vicars are Christians which may just reflect my prejudices.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.
What conceivable other aspect, occurrence, or circumstance should make us see people in a good light except their behaviour?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.
What conceivable other aspect, occurrence, or circumstance should make us see people in a good light except their behaviour?
Presumably their whiter-than-white holiness, which apparently isn't necessarily reflected in their behaviour.
Jesus got terribly cranky in the temple, remember...
Seriously, though, it seems that Johnny has completely missed the fact that gays and lesbians are sometimes presented as uniformly black-hearted, moustache-twirling pedophiles. If that's the image of gays and lesbians you've been presented with, then discovering them behaving in ordinary ways, including doing good, IS noteworthy.
Johnny seems to presume we all knew that gays and lesbians were an ordinary mix of good and bad in the first place, which is rather contrary to the point of the thread.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's making a logical point that if the fact that there are bastard gay people doesn't prove gay people are all bad, then the fact that there are good gay people shouldn't prove the fact that some gay people are good.
I disagree with your use of the word "logical", but I think that's the point he's making.
However, my point wasn't so much that the other gay vicar was obviously a good guy, but that my influence in the situation would have been decidedly negative - in that it may have resulted in him being unable to cope with what he was going through, and had adverse consequences for his charge of care and possibly his mother.
It was hardly meant to be a stereotyping example - even then I didn't think that all gay people were the same and that one could make meaningful inferences about what gay people were like from a few contacts.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny seems to presume we all knew that gays and lesbians were an ordinary mix of good and bad in the first place, which is rather contrary to the point of the thread.
But (ISTM) that is the point of the OP.
I've had reason to meet and get to know some convicted paedophiles. Some of them have been really nasty and some of them have been lovely people I count as friends. (All of them were broken people.) However, whether they were nice or nasty would never enter my thinking regarding the morality of paedophilia.
[and just for the record NO I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. It is just an analogy.]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Yeah, right. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But (ISTM) that is the point of the OP.
I really wanted to share experiences with others who had changed their minds and see how common the reasons were. Your version of my point really isn't correct, and focuses really rather narrowly on a single sentence of the OP out of context. I didn't have a single point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
I used to be one of those people who were brought up to believe what ‘good’ books say (Banner of Truth was one ‘sound’ publisher) and to accept the views of authority figures who were deemed to be ‘reliable’. The Bible was ‘the best book to read’, contained no contradictions and was completely reliable in all things. Thus, I did not like or approve of gay sexuality, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, working class and upper class people and, to a lesser extent, black people, because this is what I was taught was contained in these ‘reliable’ books and in the teaching of these ‘reliable’ people.
(Incidentally, I have had cause recently to make contact with one or two of my peers of 60 years ago and they haven’t budged much from this line so far as I can tell.)
Things began to change (and it was at first a fairly slow process) when I ‘happened’ to rub shoulders with people who were different to my peers / parents / church leaders. The Bible began not to be such a cut and dried book, a Roman Catholic priest actually preached ‘my’ gospel, pentecostals seemed to be having the good time that my church failed to provide for me, National Service took me to Africa. The Methodist Church issued their early sexuality report which was debated in our church where the minister brought together a mixed group of people which included gay Christians and I was tasked with recording the discussions.
So, it seems to me that it has been the fact that I met and interacted with gay people that began to change my mind, exposed me to alternative points of view. And that this was supported by a much wider reading than I had been exposed to before. Study of the Bible confirmed in me that it contains no teaching against gay sexuality.
Recently I’ve added a couple more prejudices to my list, but that’s another matter. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
I've a good friend who was brought up in a very evangelical church that truly believed the correct response to finding out someone was gay was to disown them/banish them from church and community, for their own good until they repented.
He has since been challenged by finding out that his own son is gay, and another close member of the family is transgender.
Strangely, his views on banishment have changed quite radically, and he's now realising that gay people aren't actually monsters out to destroy other people and our faith at all.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I remain uncertain about what the bible means and how it should be interpreted - but that in many ways is the point.
I think that probably describes me too. I was never a fire'n'brimstone type, and was good friends with a (celibate, extremely closeted) gay man in my church for years. So much so that most people in that church tried to marry us off!
I think the difference for me these days, is that I've stopped struggling. It isn't for me to tell people if they are 'living right' or not. If God wants to do that to anyone, I'm sure He'll find a way.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If bad examples prove nothing (which they don't) then why should positive examples mean anything either?
Because when a sweeping claim is made such as homophobes like to make, a single counterexample suffices to topple it.
And because positive examples are something that most of us never saw when everyone was forced into the closet.
[ 04. June 2010, 17:12: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's making a logical point that... the fact that there are good gay people shouldn't prove the fact that some gay people are good.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
When someone you know well appears to be good, it requires a very abstract argument to tell you that you're mistaken, he's really not good. Most people aren't that adept with abstractions.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually I was being facetious.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Perhaps 'changed my mind' is a bit strong because my initial position was not very well thought through, but I was certainly brought up (as a teenager) to believe that being gay was "against God's plan" or "fallen behaviour", but to "love the sinner and hate the sin".
Then I started thinking for myself, examining how hermeneutics work, and trying to determine a reasonably self-consistent theology that actually holds up to the stresses and strains of everyday life*. I came very quickly to realise that it's not as cut-and-dried as a quick proof text from Paul would have you believe.
Now, I am fully convinced that being straight or gay doesn't matter a jot. The reason for this is that I don't think anything written in the epistles actually addresses the contemporary context of long-term, stable, mutually respecting relationships between people of the same sex. Paul in particular is much more likely to have been addressing the hedonistic aspects of the culture of the time, and the use of prostitutes in pagan temple ritual than anything else. Therefore the general principles of love, honour, and acceptance are the most important guidance.
So I guess my realisation is a little different from other posters in that I had more of an intellectual conversion that a relational one. Hopefully that's still valid though. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
* I'm still working on that last part, by the way.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I was being facetious.
And brilliantly ironic. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Which (speaking of knowing people well enough) I should have realized immediately.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I was being facetious.
Yeah, I realised that. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Which was why I didn't respond.
I think you are ignoring a fundamental issue that is all to do with why people change their minds about things like this though.
People who live really good lives (and that we respect for other reasons too) inevitably shape our opinions. So if X behaves in a way I think is wrong but I respect him this may well cause me to rethink that issue. But not always. And that is my point. There are a lot of good people that I admire greatly but I'm not blind to their weaknesses and not convinced by their self-rationalisations over some issues.
So what makes the difference? That's my question.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
When someone you know well appears to be good, it requires a very abstract argument to tell you that you're mistaken, he's really not good. Most people aren't that adept with abstractions.
I never made any reference to that abstraction. I was merely referring to something that all of us do all the time - concede that no one is perfect and that even good people have flaws.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Secondly, I heard a particular story about a gay vicar who had adopted a child with severe behavioural problems.
That bit also seemed to suggest that a gay Christian was being seen in a good light because of his behaviour.
(Of course that is making the assumption that all vicars are Christians which may just reflect my prejudices.)
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Discipleship is part of true Christianity.
Besides, being gay is also a matter of behavior. If being good isn't the mark of being a Christian, I fail to see why being straight has to be one.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
For my part, I've gone from being fairly indifferent to the idea (meh, gay folk don't seem so bad) to being more or less convicted, partly because of the sheer harm anti-gay teachings do to people (Hell isn't only a place in the afterlife,) because of the sheer slimness of biblical words on the subject (not to mention the fact that they're made in a completely different sexual culture than we have today,)
The way that some churches seem to take the subject so seriously as to seem idolatrous (where the idol is old fashioned Roman straight patriarchal "family values" culture ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) ) doesn't help matters. I've had more negative experiences with conservatives than liberals. Again, something with this many briers and nettles can't be the truth, as much as I love some of these people (and I do, and I do not deny that these churches do feed people in a meaningful way.) I've seen stuff in liberal churches that rubbed me the wrong way, but it never seemed to scar and cripple people for life (or at least decades) with the same intensity or frequency. That may seem harsh to some people, and perhaps a bit stereotyped (and it is) but it's my experience of the church. Liberals may be less effective in some ways, but they also don't have the same propensity to harm the little ones (in a more general sense of the word.)
In an odd way, my increasing respect for the bible and the tradition have come somewhat later (though admittedly not by much,) which puts me in kind of an opposite place. I'm pretty convinced that gays are acceptable, and now learning how that fits into the tradition as I've begun to appropriate it.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny S:
[qb] ...Besides, being gay is also a matter of behavior. If being good isn't the mark of being a Christian, I fail to see why being straight has to be one.
Totally agree with second sentence. Not sure about the first one...one can be gay (deeply attracted to own gender, unable to be sexually interested in the opposite gender etc) and not act on it, therefore there is no 'behavior'. What then? Are we not gay, in that case?
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I agree amber.
I don't see being gay as a matter of behaviour at all.
I am heterosexual - it is my sexuality, not my behaviour.
I have always been dumbfounded by the anti-gay mood in some churches, as three of my close family are gay - so it has never been an issue for me.
My own Church is very welcoming and inclusive, whatever your sexual orientation and has been ever since I began attending (1978)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So what makes the difference? That's my question.
All the other stuff in the OP that you didn't focus on.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
"Gay? Whatever, Dude" discusses some of the recent polling on attitudes to gays/lesbians. Apparently, for the first time, more than 50% of Americans now perceive that gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable, and, more interestingly, for the first time as well, more men than women make that statement.
So the change in attitude is among more than a minor sample of the population (although the term used in the question "gay or "homosexual" does affect the numbers, as discussed elsewhere on the Ship)
The article suggests three hypotheses for the change:
1. contact: if you know a GLBT person, or even see more such persons openly talked about/portrayed, you are more likely to be accepting;
2. egalitarianism: diversity has become more acceptable in general, and that includes diversity in sexuality;
3. The Ted Haggard/George Rekers antiMidas touch: as the more violently homophobic are exposed as being secretly gay or bi themselves, the message they offer becomes less acceptable. (more detail and links in the article)
The last longer paragraph offers an interesting sidelight!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So what makes the difference? That's my question.
All the other stuff in the OP that you didn't focus on.
I get that. And that's why I'm still following this thread.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Then why ask the question if you get the answer already?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Then why ask the question if you get the answer already?
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Because I want to hear other people's stories.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
JS, I'm not trying to be confusing, but I'm also finding your line confusing.
I posted my experience of changing my mind on an issue and wanted to hear others' experiences. You focused on a single line and questioned the logic of it.
We had a bit of discussion on that, which narrowed down to the exchange above - and when I pointed out that the single line wasn't the sum total of my reasoning (i.e. there was the rest of the OP for starters) you respond that you got that.
Which left me a bit perplexed as to why you went down a line of a narrow exchange focusing on it. And now you say it was because you want to hear people's stories?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I tend to view most threads like a discussion. You have started us off with your experiences and I'm also interested in those of others. I picked up on one part of your experience and asked questions about it - which seems a fairly normal thing to do.
That doesn't mean that this particular issue is the only part of the process that I'm only interested in though.
I was assuming a sort of purgatorial type discussion but maybe you were after an All Saints 'we just share our experiences' type thread?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Purgatorial slants are fine by me, but that makes it even less clear why you'd ask a question to which you already know the answer, and justify doing so by saying you were interested in people's stories.
That's where I'm confused.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Over time, I've certainly changed my position.
I grew up with the assumption that being gay (actually we called it "being a poof") was soooo wrong. It was a position that was only strengthened by becoming a Christian.
But gradually I changed my position. First of all, I started to realise that the Bible wasn't actually that definitive on the matter. It actually said very little and what it did say wasn't 100% clear. Then I started to question the way that I understood the Bible. Its "authority" changed. I realised that you could still have it as a holy book without falling into the trap of literalism. I found that it was possible to say "even if Paul WAS condemning all homosexual acts, I don't actually have to accept that as God's opinion on the matter."
Then I spent an evening talking to a gay couple, who were both Christians. It was a sobering and yet liberating experience. They didn't have all the answers. In fact, they didn't have many answers at all. Yet they were Christians, genuinely seeking to follow Christ as I was. I found that I could not condemn them. Now I could never go back to being "anti-gay" and I increasingly find Christian anti-gay attitudes offensive and hopelessly outdated.
If I am wrong and God really does hate fags, then - to be brutally honest - I'd rather not be anywhere near such a God.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Over time, I've certainly changed my position.
I grew up with the assumption that being gay (actually we called it "being a poof") was soooo wrong. It was a position that was only strengthened by becoming a Christian.
But gradually I changed my position. First of all, I started to realise that the Bible wasn't actually that definitive on the matter. It actually said very little and what it did say wasn't 100% clear. Then I started to question the way that I understood the Bible. Its "authority" changed. I realised that you could still have it as a holy book without falling into the trap of literalism. I found that it was possible to say "even if Paul WAS condemning all homosexual acts, I don't actually have to accept that as God's opinion on the matter."
I agree with all of your post that I have quoted. But I haven't changed my belief that homosexual acts are wrong. Perhaps because I have never had such a conversation as you describe with a RL gay Christian. Perhaps if I had such a conversation it still wouldn't change my mind. I don't know. What I do know, is that though the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are not 100% clear (what could be?) they are as clear as the writer(s) could make them considering that there wasn't a word for homosexuals, nor a group of people in those cultures that specifically thought of themselves as homosexuals (as far as we can tell from the evidence).
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If I am wrong and God really does hate fags, then - to be brutally honest - I'd rather not be anywhere near such a God.
So would I. Fortunately, we have a God that loves fags, the same as everyone else, despite their, and our, sin.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
IOW, you would like to be sure that their sin registers higher on the scale of badness than anyone else's, because that particular sin is one that you won't commit.
But Josephine said it much better than I.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are ignoring a fundamental issue that is all to do with why people change their minds about things like this though.
People who live really good lives (and that we respect for other reasons too) inevitably shape our opinions. So if X behaves in a way I think is wrong but I respect him this may well cause me to rethink that issue. But not always. And that is my point. There are a lot of good people that I admire greatly but I'm not blind to their weaknesses and not convinced by their self-rationalisations over some issues.
So what makes the difference? That's my question.
Hmm. Well, I don't think I changed mind because of any good person. Unless perhaps I was convinced of my own goodness...
As much as for any reason, I changed my mind because the alternative view simply did not work. And I don't mean that in the sense of it was inconvenient. Being a gay, self-condemning Christian isn't a recipe for repentance and healing, it's a recipe for depression, anguish a life half-lived and in many cases suicide.
I cannot being to describe how much more alive I am as an openly gay Christian who believes God loves me as I am - with all my other faults, yes, but not because I'm attracted to my own gender.
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
I actually believe that it was God who told me to change my position on these things, when I wasn't quite ready to. But I don't expect anyone to be convinced by that particularly. I'm asking you to look at the fruit.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What I do know, is that though the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are not 100% clear (what could be?) they are as clear as the writer(s) could make them considering that there wasn't a word for homosexuals, nor a group of people in those cultures that specifically thought of themselves as homosexuals (as far as we can tell from the evidence).
I couldn't have put the bit after "considering" any more forcefully if I'd tried. It does seem to work against the "100% clear" very effectively.
I think the aspect of my discussions with gay Christians that particularly convinced me was talking with those Christians who had desperately tried to not be gay. They had repeatedly renounced their "lifestyle", broken up with partners, gone through tearful repentences, and yet couldn't conform to a heterosexual pattern of behaviour, and so slipped back, full of self-loathing and guilt.
However God wanted these people to live, I was pretty sure that wasn't it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What I do know, is that though the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are not 100% clear (what could be?) they are as clear as the writer(s) could make them considering that there wasn't a word for homosexuals, nor a group of people in those cultures that specifically thought of themselves as homosexuals (as far as we can tell from the evidence).
Given those caveats why should I think they're about what we today call "homosexuality" at all?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
You've set up a false dichotomy there.
My varied experience of human nature is that I would never underestimate the power of self-justification and rationalisation of any behaviour.
Some Christians seem to operate on the assumption that if it feels good it must be wrong, others that it must be right. I reject both options.
But speaking personally, I'm very glad that Jesus chose the path that led to misery and death.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
IOW, you would like to be sure that their sin registers higher on the scale of badness than anyone else's, because that particular sin is one that you won't commit.
But Josephine said it much better than I.
If that was addressed to me then no, you're wrong.
I am sure that is true for some people, though I've never met them or noticed them on the Ship. But for me, homosexuality in itself is no worse a sin than any other. The only reason it is such a big deal, as opposed to gossip (per Josephine's post you linked to) is that there are no pro-gossip activists, no gossip-pride marches, no Gossip Christians as a defined group and no Churches set up with a pro-gossip ministry. If two homosexuals (or even more) want to do their thing in the privacy of their own homes then Josephine's right, it's none of my business and I have nothing to say about it. It's only when people bring the conversation into a discussion of Christianity and what is or is not a sin that I feel it is important enough to talk about and get right.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?
No one ever said following Jesus would be sunshine and roses. In fact I think He said exactly the opposite. "Take up your cross and follow me", He said. Everyone has their cross to take up when they follow Jesus, some crosses are lighter than other people's, some a lot heavier.
If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
You've set up a false dichotomy there.
My varied experience of human nature is that I would never underestimate the power of self-justification and rationalisation of any behaviour.
Some Christians seem to operate on the assumption that if it feels good it must be wrong, others that it must be right. I reject both options.
But speaking personally, I'm very glad that Jesus chose the path that led to misery and death.
That last sentence is so remarkably stupid and obtuse that I want to slap you.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?
No one ever said following Jesus would be sunshine and roses. In fact I think He said exactly the opposite. "Take up your cross and follow me", He said. Everyone has their cross to take up when they follow Jesus, some crosses are lighter than other people's, some a lot heavier.
If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?
And this is only marginally better.
If we're going to start quoting Jesus, then maybe we ought to have a look at the part where he talked about having life, and having it to the full.
I actually find it shocking that the last two posts have taken what I said about depression and suicide and tried to equate it with Christly suffering.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Hawk: quote:
If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?
It's statements like this that make me wonder how it took me over 50 years to reject Christianity.
(note: must go away and change that signature.)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
