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.
Glenn
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
Love
Angel
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.
I think all these models can be abused (especially army and field full of sheep!) but family is one of the better ones.
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
newly promoted Pyx_e
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.
This may not be exactly what you meant to convey by the slash in "homophobes/fundies"; if so, take this as a caution to be more careful with your wording.
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!
Louise
The phrase that really gets on my tits these days is 'giving one's life to Jesus'. Where does that come from?
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
Pyx_e
Anyway, the one that I don't like is: "You are what you eat". This is often quoted as if it was a verse from the bible and is usually used in the context of encouraging people to read and listen to wholesome material. However, my understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that it is what comes out of our mouths (or pens) that is of more interest to God. I don't like the way Christians kid themselves into thinking that just listening to Christian music and reading Christian books will make them better people. Helpful maybe, but not a measure of our righteousness.
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.
Moo
Love
Angel
(This is why I started the equations thread)
Fiddleback: Moo has given the answer I would have given had I gotten to my computer a little sooner today. There are a lot of Christians in the US who consider themselves fundamentalists, meaning it in this original and basic way, who are not homophobes. My parents are among them. This use of the word is admittedly dying out in a lot of places since the word has been used as a pejorative term. But this morning I attended a church that would embrace the term "fundamentalist" if used as a neutral descriptive, and which also preaches and practices being welcoming to all people. They demonstrate neither hatred nor fear of gay people.
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.
Astro
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.
Astro
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.
TC...
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.
The basic problem with analogies ( to consider the original argument of the thread ) is that they are never perfect, but sometimes are used as if they are. 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?
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...
BarbaraG
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
Enjoy!
You'll need speakers and patience, but it's great fun
'What would Jesus have done?'
Absurd, banal and trite.
Codmo
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
p
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.
Louise
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?
I disagree. The wrod "phobia" means a fear. While some conservative Christians, among others, may fear homosexuals, many do not. I certainly have no fear of them. Even if the word "homophobia" is misused, as is usually the case these days, to mean hatred of homosexuals, I don't believe that your statement is true. Personally, I regard homosexuality in the same way as heterosexual promiscuity, alcoholism, habitual theft, or any other lifestyle that the Bible clearly condemns. These people do not need to have a load of religious garbage dumped on them; they need to see the love of Jesus in a way that will lead them to allow christ to change them.
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.
I think what we are talking about here is the diference between love and approval. Love is given or denied to a person; approval is given or denied to their actions. "Love the sinner" speaks of loving the person, while "hate the sinner" speaks of withholding approval for their sinful actions. understood this way the saying is not only appropriate, but also sound doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Most hideous phrase in Christendom?'What would Jesus have done?'
Absurd, banal and trite.
Codmo
The version I usually see is, "What would Jesus do?" It is often shortened to WWJD on jewelry, etc. Although it is certainly a valid, and valuable question to ask one's self, I think most people who wear the jewelry have never considered the question. I turned down a once who was wearing her keys around her neck on a WWJD strap.
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.
Yes, if this discussion continues, and I suspect it will, then it needs its own thread.
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...
Sieg
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:
I turned down a once who was wearing her keys around her neck on a WWJD strap.
Hmmm... that should have read, "I turned down a once..."
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:
Hmmm... that should have read, "I turned down a once..."
Does the Ship auto-censor messages? The euphemism would be "fallen woman".
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.
Louise
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.
Louise
It was originally published about a century ago and has been reissued many times.
Moo
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?
you can make any moral judgements you please, but you can not call naturally occuring behavior unnatural.
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.
If this cannot be discussed without hurting people, then something is wrong. At any rate, we can always jump into the thread on this topic in Hell. ("What do they have against us?")
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.
I probably should do some research on this before sticking my neck out, but I believe male-to-male intimate contact among animals is merely a pretense, in which the reproductive act is done only symbolically when a beta male acknowledges the authority of the alpha male.
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.
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.
Then why does Paul describe it as "unnatural" in Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)? Animals do a lot of things, but we were created in the image of God, not the animals.
and what does being made in the image of god have to do with it? you still can't call something unnatural that happens with great frequence 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.
My love says tackle the issue. My fear says either accept it and sacrifice the person or externalise and judge the person. It's a tough call.
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.
and saying there is is an insult to both alcoholics and homosexuals, though for different reasons.
quote:
We do people no favours if we use PC statements to paper the cracks.
Is THAT what they get up to?!?!Beg to differ - I think without exception, every gay man I know became aware of his homosexuality at around the age of eight or nine. As I'm a straight woman, I leave it to others to support this statement if they see the need!
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?
If you're talking about identifying with different gender roles, then that is surely a cultural thing rather than anything else? After all, it used to be men that wore the hose...
quote:
In male homosexuals at puberty a desire to be a man can be sexualised to a desire to possess a man sexually
Does it work the same way with little boys who want to be train drivers?
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
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.
If I have opened any wounds, please realise that I chose to open my own wounds too.
The background you describe (I mean the general one, not yours) is a common scenario but not always the case.
Oh and I do know of one extremely strange gay/gender case where the guy had a sex change and tis now living with his wife as a lebisan couple.. now I do find that strange, I must admit! I can't think it through at all. But my goodness, what they must have gone through!
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.
By the way, I do not use sin in the sense of a violation of a commandment, but as brokeness. I am not making a hierarchy of sin or saying that one is more important than the other. I struggle for a righteous, holy life and I am failing in some areas, but experience tells me that God can give key truths that can release us from areas where we only ever experienced defeat.
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!
Anyway the fact is you weren't happy with the thought of pursuing it, which if you'd talked to me would have indicated something anyway... if you see what I mean. Sorry, I'm tired! Don't feel like a prat. I'm sure you aren't one.
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.
I say - Amen to all of that. Thank you for saying it out loud, when I've been sitting here thinking it. I had a similar decision to take a few years ago, with a similar divine prompting. Life is much better now, but I'm still working on the roots of it all, and the implications of my decision on my friendships with those who've taken a different path.
I think the only thing I can say is that we all have to make our own decisions and choose our own valid paths.
You chose one which is valid and life-affirming for you. Others will find their own individual answers as to how to go forward - how to walk their paths.
You choose the beautiful and appropriate word 'brokeness'. I do not agree with you that homosexuality is a sin - but I agree with you that sin is brokeness.
I don't know about people who come from homes and families which have never been 'broken'. I can only speak from my own experience of having come from a family where alcohol abuse and violence caused so much damage.
When I went to university I met for the first time openly gay and lesbian people. As someone who had been abused myself, I identified at once with the way they were persecuted.
Because I was open to hearing the experiences of others, I quickly developed good friendships with people of different sexual orientations to my own. I found many non-judgemental and loving gay and lesbian friends (as well as all my straight ones) whose willingness to listen to and accept me was a great gift. And that let me see that there was no real difference between my friends and me, except that we fancied different people (or in the case of the blokes - fancied the same people!).
Now I can get very passionate and very strident about what see as prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Partly because I identify with my friends who I love. Partly because understanding what it's like to be victimised myself I won't tolerate that being done to others, and mostly because I know people of different sexual orientations close up and I don't see how my heterosexuality is one whit better or worse than their sexualities.
Most of my gay and bisexual friends come from much happier family backgrounds than me (and I had a parent configuration just like the one you mentioned). Yet they're not heterosexual and I am. I don't think family background is the key decider.
You see, I think it is possible to come from similar places and find different answers. You found your answer - for someone else it could be entirely different even though they might experience some similar things to you.
At the time I first encountered other sexualities I wasn't a Christian. So biblical views of same-sex relationships didn't influence me. In fact part of what kept me away from Christianity was that the form of Christianity I encountered in my hall of residence (there was quite a CU clique there) was SO judgemental.
If you're not one of us - if you don't believe what we say - you're an inferior person - was the way it came across. I got harangued by one very nasty evangelical Christian simply because I didn't believe in God - having come through the circumstances I had come through, i had totally lost my faith, but he thought haranguing me about why I didn't have all the answers he trotted out with total certainty was the way to go!
By comparison the gay and lesbian people I met tended to be more open and loving and accepting. People I could really open up to (and nobody came on to me - maybe my Lesbian pals just never fancied me! If they had I would just have said no - sorry - don't fancy you! Can we just be friends?)
It was several years later on in my life that I had a most extraordinary experience of feeling loved which worked out into my faith in God. I was so far estranged from Christianity because I saw it as a such a judgemental and harmful and useless faith that it took me a long time to work that through - and that came through the realisation that much of what I heard in churches testified to that same incredible love which I'd just experienced and that worship was what fed that love.
It is against that love that I test out interpretations of the Bible. I don't believe that Jesus loves my gay and lesbian and Bi mates any less than he loves me - whether they're having sex or not or whether I'm having sex or not. I don't think that's what it's about.
I know enough about pre-modern societies to know that the way they thought about sexuality was influenced by their beliefs about passive and active partners and about social and sexual hierarchy and then later by interpretations of the Bible which were heavily influenced by and soured by a hatred and fear of sexuality.
Therefore I would no more apply 1st century ideas of sexuality to my life or those of others than I would 1st century medicine. But the message of the primacy of love which I find in Jesus's summation of his priorities and in his teaching is something which I believe is eternal. This is something I experience and through my contact with it I try to bring it to others.
There, Stowaway, that's my different story. Make of it what you will.
God bless (and much respect to you),
Louise
Sexuality and its (relative) sinfulness seems to come up quite a lot on the boards. What mystifies me is why anyone cares. Presumably the sinfulness of (homo)sexuality is only of relevent interest to the (homo)sexual person? If one is not participating in, or thinking about participating in homosexual acts, why would one care about its sinfulness except to judge participants? (I am not excluding the possibility that there may be a very good reason I haven't thought of).
Am I being far too hard to observe that it seems like rank prurience (to me) to speculate on the sinfulness of the (espeically sexual) behaviour of others?
All the more so because I don't see threads devoted to the sinfulness of, oh, say blasphemy, or hating one's neighbour, or the witholding of charity.
Can anybody help me to see why this question is interesting enough to crop up so often?
HT
I think that, if/when you become aware that there IS sin (as part, maybe, of the process of becoming a Christian), few sins rival 'sexual' ones for leaving you feeling 'unclean', because you've engaged your whole self in the said act(s).
And I think that, along with many other prohibitions, the reason God prohibits is for our own good. God knows, and has always known, that sexual behaviour is an effective means of transmittinng disease. Whether this was syphilis in Mediaeval times or AIDS in recent times, God would rather we were not putting ourselves at risk by our behaviour. But I think the 'spiritual' harm resulting from being joined together with someone you weren't married to might be of even greater concern to Our Heavenly Father.
In terms of relative sinfullness I'm much more worried by things like the assumptions behind international trade that contribute to maintaining the abject poverty and economic slavery of a large proportion of the worlds population than what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.
Alan
As a result of promiscuous sexual behaviour, AIDS is an enormous cause of death in precisely those poorer countries you are concerned about. Across Africa in particular, and increasingly across Asia, there are hundreds of thousand of orphans due to that disease. Whilst capitalism (particularly multinational pharmaceutical companies) can be blamed for not dealing at all adequately with this crisis, and even exacerbating it, it ultimately spreads due to sexual behaviour that is 'sinful'. I would therefore suggest it is still a very important thing for Christians to talk about sexual sin.
Like Louise, I have quite a lot of gay and lesbian friends, some of whom are active members of my Quaker meeting. I can't say that they're any different to anyone else in the rest of their lives.
Like Hooker's Trick and others, I confess to being baffled by how much time people give to this issue. I would have thought, Alaric, that all sin has a strong spiritual dimension. Anything which divides us from each other also divides us from God: so international trade is as spiritual as sexual sin in its implications.
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
As a result of promiscuous sexual behaviour, AIDS is an enormous cause of death in precisely those poorer countries you are concerned about.
And, it should go without saying but I want to be clear, there is a big difference between such situations where circumstances (to an extent) force people into less than perfect sexual activity and the situations most of us face in the developed world. (Although the desperate search for meaning and love of some people in deprived urban areas comes close). Whether economically well off people in the developed world freely choose to practice homosexual acts inthe privacy of their own homes is a totally different situation.
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, it should go without saying but I want to be clear, there is a big difference between such situations where circumstances (to an extent) force people into less than perfect sexual activity and the situations most of us face in the developed world. (Although the desperate search for meaning and love of some people in deprived urban areas comes close). Whether economically well off people in the developed world freely choose to practice homosexual acts inthe privacy of their own homes is a totally different situation.
That sounds to me very much like one rule for the rich and one for the poor, Alan. This is why many priests in Africa are much more conservative about sexual morals than the generality of western clergy.
Surely we must ask ourselves whether we, as christians, can, in conscience, preach two different messages to the developed and the developing world.
We, rightly, condemn Pres. Bush's approach on the Kyoto accord, but are we not replicating that attitude in the area of sexual morals?
What I was trying to say, obviously not that clearly, is that since a lot of "sexual immorality" in developing nations is a result of greater injustices due to factors including international trade we shouldn't be so hard on the sexual immorality until the greater injustice has been dealt with.
And then I added that the differences in circumstances between developed & developing countries is such that the moral rules suitable to one may not automatically apply to the other.
Any clearer?
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I was trying to say, obviously not that clearly, is that since a lot of "sexual immorality" in developing nations is a result of greater injustices due to factors including international trade we shouldn't be so hard on the sexual immorality until the greater injustice has been dealt with.
I can see the arguement in this and agree that we should look to our own treatment of the developing world before condemning them for "immorality". Although how we do this after a history of colonialism which has left them, understandably, wary of "western" influences and interference is a very difficult dilemma.
quote:
And then I added that the differences in circumstances between developed & developing countries is such that the moral rules suitable to one may not automatically apply to the other.
This, however, I firmly disagree with. One Church, one faith, one Lord and one set of teaching. If we accept that there can be a different moral code between the developed world and the developing nations then we tacitly accept that the developing nations are different (read: lesser, more immature, etc.) people. This is the same thought process which led to apartheid. We must not even start to think this way.
Alan
My example of the prostitute in my last post could equally apply in inner city areas in the developed world. And our need to repent and deal with the internal economics of our own countries to deal with this inequality is also something we need to look at.
All of which takes hard work, and may be all but impossible. And I'm as bad as most people in actually doing anything other than spout fine sounding ideas.
Alan
Essentially we are coming from the same place Alan. The difference between our approach to the developed and developing nations should be one of emphasis and not of the underlying teaching. Meanwhile we must do all we can to bring the developing world to the level of prosperity that most of us enjoy in the developed world.
Going back to the previous question, though, we can see why the church in the developing world has a hang-up with sex but it is much harder to see why it has been such a problem for the western church over the past century or two (or 20).
you decided NOT to be a homosexual. i submit that if you were capable of making a choice in the matter than you prove my point. every homosexual that i have known has said that they had NO choice in the matter at all, that they KNEW they were homosexual at a very early age.
quote:
you decided NOT to be a homosexual. i submit that if you were capable of making a choice in the matter than you prove my point. every homosexual that i have known has said that they had NO choice in the matter at all, that they KNEW they were homosexual at a very early age
That sounds unfair to those people who are not sure of their sexual orienation. What about bi-sexual people? I suspect that there are degrees of sexual orientation from 100% hetro at one end and 100% homo at the other, with most people spread somewhere along the line.
Astro
An older, never-married woman went to a revival meeting. The guest preacher was very tough on sinners, and she called out "Amen!" and "Preach it, brother!" many times as he condemned sexual sins, drunkenness, gambling, and immodest clothing. Then he began to talk about the evils of chewing tobacco.
"Ah, now he's stopped preaching and started meddling," she muttered to her neighbor, and left.
Like it, Nancy!quote:
This, however, I firmly disagree with. One Church, one faith, one Lord and one set of teaching.
So what do we say to the extra wives in polygamous societies, for example?
I'm sorry but I CANNOT see the world in such black and white terms. Yes, I agree, there is far too much emphasis on sexual issues BUT mightn't that be that a lot of us have woken up in the last decade to love and tolerance?
I've been celibate for about 5 or 6 years now - can't remember! - but isn't that sinful if you're married??
Not that easy, not that easy... Let's err on the side of love; because I don't recall any call to judge others anywhere. Perhaps letting THEM worry about it, as someone said earlier, is the best way?
on another tack i sometimes wonder if god were a "sin bean counter" how what people do ( or dont do ) with their gentails stacks up against ......... well wasting hundreds of pounds on computer equipment, ISP membership, phone bills and then theres all the time just sat here trying to find something funny to say ( and failing), when really ishould be well clothing the cold, visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry,
P
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
So what do we say to the extra wives in polygamous societies, for example?
But are we not being hypocritical if we support the prosecution of an American for bigamy (polygamy in the recent case) but say that it is all right for an African since it is part of his culture. Yes, we must support the extra wives and ensure that they are not rejected by society, but we can't have two codes since to do so would be to tacitly agree with J.S. Spong that the Africans are somehow more "primitive" than the West (read: of less worth)
[fixed code]
[ 29 June 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I have a question and I'm hoping someone can help me out.Presumably the sinfulness of (homo)sexuality is only of relevent interest to the (homo)sexual person? If one is not participating in, or thinking about participating in homosexual acts, why would one care about its sinfulness except to judge participants?
The issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is quite relevant to me, even though I am quite heterosexual. I'm not so concerned with what consenting adults do in private, unless they choose to discuss their spiritual life with me, but I am VERY concerned with those who militantly set out to alter the culture so that their sinful lifestyle will be readily accepted. The only way for them to do that is to desensitze the culture to sin in general, which in turn weakens the culture as a whole.
In Christian circles, there is also the issue of biblical authority. If Christians as a whole approve of something which the Bible so clearly denounces, then where do we stop rejecting biblical standards, and what truth do we have to stand upon?
Yes, we must support the extra wives and ensure that they are not rejected by society, but we can't have two codes...
So how do we support them then???
No, you can't make it black and white whatever you do.
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:
The issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is quite relevant to me, even though I am quite heterosexual.
How is your orientation relevant?
I'm not so concerned with what consenting adults do in private, unless they choose to discuss their spiritual life with me, but I am VERY concerned with those who militantly set out to alter the culture so that their sinful lifestyle will be readily accepted.
To refer here to a lifestyle is both dismissive and insulting. It is my life. To refer to it as a lifestyle implies one choses to be homosexual. Rather than being on a par with heterosexuality, it instead drops it to the level of other lifestyle choices such as vegetarianism, smoking, or (and this will be expanded on later) Christianity.
And damn right but we demand acceptance. We demand to be treated equally. We shouldn't be at risk of losing our jobs because our preferred partner is of the same gender. We shouldn't be barred from military service if that is our choice of career. We shouldn't be prevented from making medical decisions should our partners be unable to make those decisions themselves. We shouldn't be barred from seeing our partners as they are dying, because only heterosexual spouses and biological relatives are admitted. We shoulnd't have to risk being tied to a fence and beaten and abused and left to die in the cold, dark night--just because we aren't straight.
The only way for them to do that is to desensitze the culture to sin in general, which in turn weakens the culture as a whole.
I just double checked. You're from the US also. So you should also be aware that the US is Constitutionally a secular nation. And in actuality, although Christians are still the majority, there are an awful lot of folks here these days who aren't Christian. And whose views on sin are very different from yours. And yet here you are imposing your personal religious values on the culture as a whole. In fact, you are imposing your very own lifestyle (ie Christianity) on the rest of the culture.
And, btw, how about some evidence for these two assertions please? You're making claims--back them up.
In Christian circles, there is also the issue of biblical authority. If Christians as a whole approve of something which the Bible so clearly denounces, then where do we stop rejecting biblical standards, and what truth do we have to stand upon?
5 verses, I believe it is. Only 5. Less if we discard Leviticus--which we do for the rest of modern Christian life. And the remainder are contained in Paul's letters to particular groups about particular situations they were dealing with. And bear in mind, we no longer accept Paul's views on slavery. Nor, for the most part, do most Christians accept his views on the role of women in the church or family life.
I'd planned on staying out of this particular discussion. But when I see this kind of crap posted, I can't help but respond.
This is exactly the mindset that cries "No special rights" whenever an attempt is made to require equal treatment for all... gay or straight. If being spit on, beaten up, fired, etc are special rights too, I'll gladly share them with you.
Sieg
Just a reminder that discussions of homosexuality have previously led to much dissension and pain on the Ship -- please continue to handle with care.
Maybe, just maybe, by getting society desensitized to what is dubiously and questionably a sin, we can concentrate on the log in our collective eyes. Like those who seek to make peace - for they shall be called the children of God, like those who mourn, for they shall be comforted, those who are poor in spirit...
There is far more about poverty in the gospels than about sexuality. There is more about preaching God's love for all his children, than there is about sexuality.
Which is more important - loving all God's children, or condemning them on dubious grounds, because we can't face up to our own iniquities.
Love
Angel
quote:
...and at the risk of sounding sexist,Gill's and Nicole's responses have made this heterosexual insanely jealous of Siegfried(!)
Hugs to you too...
quote:
Brothers I can find. But can anyone else find proof that we are supposed to see the church as 'family' - from the Bible, I mean, not the ironic,
the church is never described as a family in the sense of mother father 2.3 children ect but it is described as a household (eph 2:19) which was the bunch of people who lived in the same house a kind of extended family (mother, father, cousin uncle slave servant children ect). In some translations the word family is used instead of household because it is closer to our experience. Still I think Family is a naff word to use about the church.
In the area of sexuality the reason it is made into a big deal is that when it comes to leadership in a church on one side it would seem to be inconsistant for them to have a leader who was in their view living a life of sin (like being openingly adulterous) whilst on the other side of the debate there is no problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Still I think Family is a naff word to use about the church.
Okay so now I finally understand the meaning of the word "naff"!
And you're dead right, too. When we were drafting our church's mission statement some years ago, I fought long and hard for the word "community" instead of "family" to describe the parish.
As for the bible, we consider it a history of the Jewish people, at least the old testament. Bible thumpers seldom mention the fact that there are many "books" that were left out of the bible. By comparing the old testament of the jewish religion, with the catholic, and both with the protestant, one finds differences. We consider it an insult to the Divine to credit It as "His Word". If It is that bad off in clarifying what It wants done, we are better off without It!
Fundamentalists to us are people who having lost their way in the secular world, needing something to lean upon, cast their lot with something that can only be described as insane. The "wonders" spoken of in the bible are myths and metaphors designed to make a point. Most Christians miss the point.
That is: There is only one God. Everything else is speculation and even that can be considered speculation as well.
Sieg
A while back, you posted the following:
"Homosexual sexuality is not hetero but towards same sex. It is a
disfunction (i.e. sin). We should regard it just like other addictions."
In spite of the unsupported and probably unsupportable premises, the tolal illogic and the labyrinthine circularity of your argument, I'll hypothetically accept your conslusion. Assuming that homosexual love is "just like other addictions", it is absolutely none of of our business (aside from prayer) as Christians, unless the addict seeks help!
I think the most un-Christian thing to do is to cast pejoratives at him or her.
Additionally, I'm shocked beyond words that anyone would equate disfunction with sin.
Greta
Indeed! To use Stowaway's argument, such self-righteous meddlesomeness serves no useful purpose; ergo it is disfunctional (i.e. a sin), and its practitioners are addicts.
Greta
However, one thing that disturbs me is that some people think that disagreeing with a person or with what they do is judgemental, condemning, or unloving and that other peoples lives are there business and no-one elses. Whilst I accept that ones motivation for correcting or expressing disapproval can sometimes be wrong and driven by self-righteousness I also whole-heartedly defend the right for a person to disagree, especially when that person has been offended and seeks to be reconciled with the one who offended him.
If I am convinced that something is a sin (and I am not refering to any one sin in particular) and if I believe that the sin is damaging a person and keeping them apart from God, as it can to anyone - especially those in denial, then the loving thing to do is to discourage the sinful behaviour.
An often quoted passage of scripture is where Jesus says, with regard to an adulterous woman, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It is well-worth emphasisng that Jesus forgave the woman and protected her from the condemnation and judgement of others, but we often overlook the fact that he also said afterwards "Sin no more". This was not just a token of consolation to those self-righteous witnesses, it was a positive assertion in recogntion of the fact that what she did was sinful and needed to be avoided for her own good. Jesus may not have argued at great length over theoligical issues but that is not to say that he was indifferent. He loved people too much to be indifferent.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. It might be an annoying phrase but it still remains an accurate description of what God always does.
Is your own life so sinless, and is there so little obviously destructive sin, (like racism, violence, failure to love one's neighbor as oneself) abounding that is essential to deal with matters on which there is no consensus as to sinfulness among even orthodox Christians?
Even if the really destructive sins are eliminated, wouldn't sheer clarity and quantity of Scripture, dictate priority to a crusade for Sabbath observance for example? WHY is there this obsession among most fundamentalist Christians with something which seems, from a Gospel standpoint, to be so minor?
It even seems to be a litums test. You can be consumed by hatred, greed, vanity, envy, self-righteousness, ad nauseum, but as long as you do not love someone of the same sex, you are numbered with the redeemed.
Greta
Greta
quote:
How is it that I now see fundamentalists blithly engaging in all these activities, and the pulpits in these churches are completely silent as to these "sins"?
Because Christians do everything 20 years later than the rest of society, and fundamentalist Christians need about 40 years to catch up.
Abo 
However, their "party line" often perplexes and troubles me. Many fundamentalists share my concerns, and feel forced to quietly ignore these teachings.
Greta
Let's come to them in loving tolerance
rather than in hellish judgement.
Astro
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Stowaway:A while back, you posted the following:
"Homosexual sexuality is not hetero but towards same sex. It is a
disfunction (i.e. sin). We should regard it just like other addictions."In spite of the unsupported and probably unsupportable premises, the tolal illogic and the labyrinthine circularity of your argument, I'll hypothetically accept your conslusion. Assuming that homosexual love is "just like other addictions", it is absolutely none of of our business (aside from prayer) as Christians, unless the addict seeks help!
I think the most un-Christian thing to do is to cast pejoratives at him or her.Additionally, I'm shocked beyond words that anyone would equate disfunction with sin.
Greta
Greta,
Where did I say that we should intefere?
When did I cast perjoratives?
If you read my story you would be clear that I am living in the most fragile of glass houses on this and almost every other subject.
If you do a study on sin you will find that it is not simply a deliberate volitional crossing of a deliberate line. It includes such nebulous concepts as missing a target. Sanctification is a process of growing akin in modern terms to the changes achieved by therapy.
Please do not turn me into your image of an angry moralist and then attack that. I am not that. Read all of my posts on this subject and reply to what I do say and not to what you think I am really saying.
First, my thanks to Louise and Gill who were able to understand what I was saying (and what my true attitude is, I hope). Louise, I have had a similar experience of acceptance amongst gay people to the one you describe.
I put my neck on the line at a church
I attended in Manchester when I challenged the elders about a campaign to stop the building of a gay centre. I was disgusted by their attitude and left shortly afterwards (for a variety of reasons). I have to this day openly practising gay christian friends. I have experienced God bringing sexual wholeness to me, but I recognise that he did it in his own time when I was ready to hear it.
nicolemrw,
About alcoholism. I guess that in saying that alcoholism is a disease you are thinking of three aspects.
If that is the case (and please tell me if it is) then I do not disagree. I just believe that God is involved in the healing and that he is able to bring truth to the individual that helps them to transform. I use the word "sin" in the wide sense used by the bible and not in a moralistic sense. If we are slaves to something should I call it sin? Maybe I need to modify my language to avoid misunderstanding, or maybe we need to recover the full spectrum of the concept of sin.
As far as homosexuality is concerned you certainly do not seem to think that my experience is valid, or that of others I could mention. I assume that you feel that you feel that you are strenuously defending the victims in this debate. In doing so, you attack.
I have no problem with people choosing (or not choosing, because they had no choice if you will) to be gay. I only wish to serve those who have genuine doubts and guilt about sexuality and to point to the fact that there is help in God which does not have to be the standard answers of our society.
If I thought there were no answers I would keep silent and take the PC line. If there is no power of God for sexual wholeness the PC line would be the only christian one to take.
I set my mind on servanthood. Not control and not anger.
Sieg
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
[qb]The issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is quite relevant to me, even though I am quite heterosexual.How is your orientation relevant?
I'm not so concerned with what consenting adults do in private, unless they choose to discuss their spiritual life with me, but I am VERY concerned with those who militantly set out to alter the culture so that their sinful lifestyle will be readily accepted.
To refer here to a lifestyle is both dismissive and insulting. It is my life. To refer to it as a lifestyle implies one choses to be homosexual. Rather than being on a par with heterosexuality, it instead drops it to the level of other lifestyle choices such as vegetarianism, smoking, or (and this will be expanded on later) Christianity.
And damn right but we demand acceptance. We demand to be treated equally. We shouldn't be at risk of losing our jobs because our preferred partner is of the same gender. We shouldn't be barred from military service if that is our choice of career. We shouldn't be prevented from making medical decisions should our partners be unable to make those decisions themselves. We shouldn't be barred from seeing our partners as they are dying, because only heterosexual spouses and biological relatives are admitted. We shoulnd't have to risk being tied to a fence and beaten and abused and left to die in the cold, dark night--just because we aren't straight.
The only way for them to do that is to desensitze the culture to sin in general, which in turn weakens the culture as a whole.I just double checked. You're from the US also. So you should also be aware that the US is Constitutionally a secular nation. And in actuality, although Christians are still the majority, there are an awful lot of folks here these days who aren't Christian. And whose views on sin are very different from yours. And yet here you are imposing your personal religious values on the culture as a whole. In fact, you are imposing your very own lifestyle (ie Christianity) on the rest of the culture.
And, btw, how about some evidence for these two assertions please? You're making claims--back them up.In Christian circles, there is also the issue of biblical authority. If Christians as a whole approve of something which the Bible so clearly denounces, then where do we stop rejecting biblical standards, and what truth do we have to stand upon?
5 verses, I believe it is. Only 5. Less if we discard Leviticus--which we do for the rest of modern Christian life. And the remainder are contained in Paul's letters to particular groups about particular situations they were dealing with. And bear in mind, we no longer accept Paul's views on slavery. Nor, for the most part, do most Christians accept his views on the role of women in the church or family life.
I'd planned on staying out of this particular discussion. But when I see this kind of crap posted, I can't help but respond.
This is exactly the mindset that cries "No special rights" whenever an attempt is made to require equal treatment for all... gay or straight. If being spit on, beaten up, fired, etc are special rights too, I'll gladly share them with you.Sieg[/QB]
[Sigh] I was afraid this would happen.
I mentioned my orientation because the post to which I was responding implied that the question of whether homosexuality was wrong applied only to homosexuals.
As far as the term "lifestyle' implying that homosexuals choose their homosexuality, I firmly believe that they do. Don't give me that old "gay gene' garbage. For one thing, the researcher who published that was a gay-rights activist, and no one has ever been able to reproduce his research. (I'll look that up if you insist.) For another, even if their is some physical reason that some people have homosexual inclinations, the presence of those desires does not justify acting upon them. Apply the same logic to a non-sexual situation: I have always struggled with a bad temper, therefore I am a naturally violent person. I did not choose to be violent; it's just the way I am. Therefore, if I fly off the handle and pound someone, I am just expressing the way God made me. If the logic is valid and the conclusion is wrong, then one or more premises must be faulty. In this case, the faulty premise is that we cannot help but act on our impulses, no matter what Scripture says about the moral implications.
As for America being established as a purely secular nation, consider the following:
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.
If you want more quotes that show that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were interested in religious freedom rather than secularism, there are some at www.thekingsnetwork.com/heritage
At any rate, I would never dream of trying to "impose" my morality on others. For one thing, it's impossible. For another, it's immoral to try to force another to believe in a certain way. At most, I try to persuade.
I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights. If they are spit on, assaulted, fired for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, or otherwised deprived of their lawful rights, then those responsible should be prosecuted. Personally, I do accept you as a fellow human being, created in God's image, worth the dying for (as demonstrated by Christ on the cross), and deserving of love and respect. Just don't insist that that acceptance of you as a person requires approval of actions which the Bible clearly condemns.
How many times must the Bible speak clearly inorder to establish that something is immoral? The reason that Paul addressed homosexuality more than Jesus is that Jesus spoke to a Jewish audience, who all knew perfectly well that homosexuality was a stoning offense under the Mosaic Law. (Another reason to be glad we are under grace.) Therefore, homosexuality was a settled issue for them. Paul, on the other hand wrote mostly to Gentiles, for homosexuality was an open question that needed to be addressed. As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery.
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:
At any rate, I would never dream of trying to "impose" my morality on others. For one thing, it's impossible. For another, it's immoral to try to force another to believe in a certain way.
I don't understand how you can say that you would never dream of imposing your morality on others, and then turn around and proclaim that the Bible (and therefore God) clearly eschews homosexuality (and therefore homosexuals.)
"I'm not a bigot, I LOVE Egyptians. I would NEVER judge them. But the Bible clearly shows that they are evil and should be destroyed."
It's disingenuous. It's making the Bible do the dirty-work of your own bigotry.
You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery."
Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity.
Greta
----
quote:
Apply the same logic to a non-sexual situation: I have always struggled with a bad temper, therefore I am a naturally violent person. I did not choose to be violent; it's just the way I am.
And homosexual people did not choose to be homosexual.
quote:
Therefore, if I fly off the handle and pound someone, I am just expressing the way God made me.
Are you confusing orientation and practice? Of course people do not choose their orientation, but they can choose whether to follow that orientation or not.
The question under debate is whether they should.
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I don't understand how you can say that you would never dream of imposing your morality on others, and then turn around and proclaim that the Bible (and therefore God) clearly eschews homosexuality (and therefore homosexuals.)"I'm not a bigot, I LOVE Egyptians. I would NEVER judge them. But the Bible clearly shows that they are evil and should be destroyed."
It's disingenuous. It's making the Bible do the dirty-work of your own bigotry.
impose: a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies
Again, I never would dream of imposing (as defined above) my values on others. I attempt to persuade, and I appeal to the authority of Scripture in my efforts to persuade. Unless you are implying that it is inappropriate to refer to the Bible on a Christian web site...
As for bigotry, I deny that it is bigotry to evaluate a person's morality based on their actions. (Note that I said "morality' rather than "value" or "worth".) After all, how else do you evaluate someone's character, except by observing what they do? Bigotry is evaluating someone's worth or value according to one's own preconceived ideas, refusing to consider their character or actions.
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
BoDavid,You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery."
Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity.
Greta
----
Regretably, no, it didn't. In fact, you point out one reason why we must be careful about being dogmatic, even when we appeal to Scripture. The Bible can be, and has been, interpretted in light of preconceived ideas (bigotry, see my exchange with Reason) instead of allowing it to say what its writers, and the God who inspired them, intended. That is why I am willing to discuss this topic, rather than simply dismiss the whole bunch of you as hopeless liberals. There is the chance that I have misinterpretted Scripture on this topic. I don't think so, but it is possible. If you (meaning anyone on the Ship) believe that this is the case, you are welcome to point out to me my misinterpretations, or ask me to for my take on passages you think relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
Are you confusing orientation and practice? Of course people do not choose their orientation, but they can choose whether to follow that orientation or not.The question under debate is whether they should.
You and I seem to be getting our definitions tangled. I use the word "homosexual" to mean someone who engages in sex with people of the same gender, while you seem to use the word to refer to people who have homosexual urges, whether or not they follow them. Rather than get side-tracked, I will accept your definition and clarify my position. Having the temptation to do something is not morally wrong; after Jesus himself "was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." The Bible clearly teaches (as I understand it) that homosexual acts are sinful.
I'm confused about the actual Biblical prohibition. Does the Big Book say that homosexuality is sinful, or that sodomy is sinful? I know I could go look it up but maybe someone knows?
This conversation often gets sidetracked onto "homosexual acts". Is it a "homosexual act" to fall in love with another person of one's own gender? Or are we really just talking about the real-deal, up the you-know-where dirty deed?
HT
Prior to pubication of the R.S.V. in 1946, no English translation of the Bible contained the word 'homosexual'. Parenthetically, this may be one of the reasons fundamentalists were outraged at the R.S.V., and it may be instructive to note that they (and some other Christians) have even to this day debated the "accuracy" of various translations (yet another debate that's clear as mud). Ironically, the version that even today is considered to be closest to the original is the one authorized by a king who is widely believed by historians to have been homosexual.
The word 'homosexual' did not exist in Hebrew, Greek, Latin. Syrian, or Aramaic and did to appear in English until the late 19th century.
Greta
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
BoDavid,
You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery."
Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity.
Greta
----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BroDavid,
In your last post you stated:
"In fact, you point out one reason why we must be careful about being dogmatic, even when we appeal to Scripture. The Bible can be, and has been, interpretted in light of preconceived ideas (bigotry, see my exchange with Reason) instead of allowing it to say what its writers, and the God who inspired them, intended."
Amen and amen. That's all I want. I would commend to you, me, and all of us the following portion of Scripture:
"Judge not that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye measured it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:
There is the chance that I have misinterpretted Scripture on this topic. I don't think so, but it is possible. If you (meaning anyone on the Ship) believe that this is the case, you are welcome to point out to me my misinterpretations, or ask me to for my take on passages you think relevant.[/QB]
i'm going to recomend a book, brodavid, because yes, i think you have misinterpreted, and because the correct interpretation is a bit beyond me.
what the bible really says about homosexuality by daniel a helminiak
please check it out.
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Ooh. Lascivious wonderings.I'm confused about the actual Biblical prohibition. Does the Big Book say that homosexuality is sinful, or that sodomy is sinful? I know I could go look it up but maybe someone knows?
This question was too good HT. You made me do your dirty work for you. Or some of it anyway.
My NKJV Interlinear NT says of the two words in 1 Cor 6:9
quote:
malakos
Adjective meaning soft...Here it is used substantively to mean effeminate ones, the passive partners in homosexual intercourse.arsenokoites (not as self explanitary as it looks - stowaway)
Only used here and in 1 Tim 1:10
From the adjective arsen - male and koite - bed, coitus thus meaning a male homosexual. Specifically it refers to the male homosexual partner who takes the active role
So yes, from that it appears to be the act that is focussed on. Both the giving and receiving.
Two more things to say.
Someone referred to the New Testament as teaching in keeping with 1st Century morals, but this is not true. The greeks would have had no problems with male homosexuality (though female homosexuality was unacceptable, which might be why it wasn't mentioned).
Also comparisons were made with womens status and slavery. These don't stand up. Paul really does discuss slavery and sets up the foundations for it's elimination (another thread anyone?) and he makes some radical statements about women's status. There is another thread that discussed womens ministry that casts serious doubt on Paul as misogynist.
The message of Jesus and Paul actually did modify the sexual options of their day. They introduced as a fully whole sexual identity, another category - celibacy. But they did not go on to uphold homosexuality.
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway:
They introduced as a fully whole sexual identity, another category - celibacy.
A mistake, in my opinion.
The words of Matthew 19.4-6 raise the marriage of a man and a woman to the level of being "joined by God." The following teaching about being a eunuch is not so clear, at least to me.
But, Stowaway, I am impressed by your scholarship. I also agree with your point. Thanks.
A very relevant Scripture. It is not our place to judge one another, and I hope no one has interpretted my remaks in this (or any other) thread as expressing my judgement. Instead, I have tried to express my understanding of God's judgement, as revealed in Scripture.
Nicole:
Thanks. I'll try to find it, but I suspect I'll disagree with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But, Stowaway, I am impressed by your scholarship. I also agree with your point. Thanks.
I just opened the book.
Portmanteau words (words made up of more than one word) do not mean the sum of the two words of which they are made. An example is the Greek word for "to have compassion" used in the NT. It consists of the words "to give" and "bowels". Literally, "to give one's bowels". Hence, the KGV "bowels of compassion"; but it doesn't mean, as they used to say, that the ancient Greeks thought that the seat of compassion is in the intestines!
Similarly with phrases like "rent boy", which doesn't mean a young male offspring who collects rents!
It is likely, therefore, that arsenokoites refers to something more specific. Some have suggested that it refers to the clients of rent boys (who could be the malakoi's refered to in the same verse.)
The fact that Paul used a word that isn't seen anywhere else in Greek literature - when there are plenty of other terms to use - also could indicate that he is using a locally specific word. Even possibly a slang word. Again, this would more than likely be a specific rather a general usage.
Just a few thoughts. We all of course know that using prostitutes is sinful.
I have the attitude that all of us are sinful and need to ask forgiveness more-or-less constantly. I recall how impressed I was as a young child that I could witness 400+ adults--nicely dressed, mainly professional people, the pillars of society--get on their knees and confess to being "poor miserable sinners" who "justly deserved [God's] temporal and eternal punishment." These adults included my own parents and my second grade teacher (whom I greatly admired and respected).
Well, if these really nice-seeming people were so sinful that they had to confess it weekly--and there are only really 10 sins (Ten Commandments--ten sins)--then they must be doing the same sinful things over and over. But somehow, God will forgive them and love them anyway, because that's how people are and that's how God is.
So I just don't get why sexual sins are so much emphasized over other sins. To my mind, theft in all its hideous forms, and various ways of killing one another (violent words and violent acts) are much more damaging on both an individual and societal level.
quote:Agreed. I think the obsession with sex is sometimes a subconscious habit people get into when they don't want to think about their own sin. Or, possibly, when they adopt puritanism and start believing that all sin is carnal or sensory. I think if we paid as much attention to pride as we do to sex, alot of our us-them thinking would disappear. How easy it is to look at your neighbour, and think yourself superior.
So I just don't get why sexual sins are so much emphasized over other sins. To my mind, theft in all its hideous forms, and various ways of killing one another (violent words and violent acts) are much more damaging on both an individual and societal level.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Well, condemning homsexuality may not have been the norm in the hellenic world, but it was certainly what one would expect from a Pharisaic Jew, such as Paul. Talking about 'the first century view' is misleading.
Originally posted by Stowaway:
Someone referred to the New Testament as teaching in keeping with 1st Century morals, but this is not true. The greeks would have had no problems with male homosexuality (though female homosexuality was unacceptable, which might be why it wasn't mentioned).
quote:I'm sure those are all actual reasons in many cases. But there is another reason why people might feel called to endlessly get mixed up in these arguments: that they have personally experienced the freedom of release from sinful patterns of behaviour and would like to share that freedom with others...
TheMightyTonewheel:
Agreed. I think the obsession with sex is sometimes a subconscious habit people get into when they don't want to think about their own sin. Or, possibly, when they adopt puritanism and start believing that all sin is carnal or sensory. I think if we paid as much attention to pride as we do to sex, alot of our us-them thinking would disappear. How easy it is to look at your neighbour, and think yourself superior.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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
quote:I've yet to meet any fundies who weren't homophobes. Of course, they often begin sentences with "I'm not a homophobe but...", just as racists often start them with "I'm not a racist but...", but that doesn't prove much if they immediately follow it with a blatantly homophobic / racist statement.
posted by RuthW
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.
