The firmly established default Christian proclamation on the “question” of homosexuality is that being inclined toward it is no different than being inclined toward any other kind of sinful behavior.
“We’re all sinners,” runs the refrain. “We all struggle to overcome our sinful ways. Homosexuality is a sin. Just like all of us must strive to control our sinful behavior, so the homosexual must strive to overcome his or her sexual predilection. Even if a person is born gay or lesbian — even if homosexuality is genetic — a homosexual must still strive to overcome the ungodly behaviors toward which he or she is inclined, the same as we all must overcome our lower nature in order to realize our highest.”
That proposition is so logically flawed it should embarrass any Christian who hears it, much less says it. It completely ignores the crucial, absolute difference between homosexuality and the other sins people typically struggle against committing, which is that committing virtually every kind of sin except homosexuality objectively and tangibly hurts someone. If you lie, steal, cheat, rob, have an extramarital affair, be too greedy, be too selfish, waste your family’s money, and/or do any other kind of sin you can think of, someone, in no uncertain or abstract terms, gets hurt.
But you take the Bible out of the equation, and what grounds is there for determining that homosexuality is wrong? Whom does such love hurt? When two men are affectionately holding hands, who is getting hurt? When two women are snuggling together on their couch, who is getting hurt?
Virtually all other behaviors Christians typically consider sinful can be readily understood as objectively and clearly wrong without any reference to the Bible. But you take the Bible out of a Christian’s hands, and he has no arrow left to shoot at the gay man or lesbian. He’s without recourse, justification, argument. Without his Bible to quote from, he has virtually nothing upon which to base his claim that homosexuality is wrong.
A dim-witted child could see that homosexuality simply does not belong in the category of “sin.” It’s distinctly, absolutely, categorically different than sinning. It’s like placing a robot in a pen with a bunch of farm animals, and then claiming that what makes the robot a farm animal is that a book you believe in says that robots are farm animals. That’s cool for you. But it doesn’t change the objective, empirical fact that robots aren’t farm animals. You’ve made the mistake of claiming that a subjective truth of yours is equal to an objective truth of everyone else’s in the world. It’s not. A robot shouldn’t be classified as a farm animal, because it doesn’t meet the first, most important criterion of being a farm animal, which is being an animal. Similarly, homosexuality shouldn’t be classified as a sin, because it doesn’t meet the first, most important criterion of being a sin, which is manifestly causing harm.
I’m a Christian, and no two ways about it. But I can’t be a Christian so severely lacking in logical powers that I don’t notice the difference between homosexuality and the kinds of sin people pretty much do all the time. The latter hurts people; the former doesn’t. I can’t help that; and I’d certainly rather not shame myself by attempting to argue it.
Also, it’s high time Christians were honest about the fact that asserting that homosexuals should stop acting homosexual necessarily means asserting that they should spend their lives never knowing the loving intimacy with another that straight people enjoy and know to be the best and richest experience in life. Asking a homosexual to give up homosexual love isn’t at all like asking him to give up booze, or greed, or any other such negative thing. It’s asking him to give up love.
If I were gay, and I lived as most Christians would prescribe for me as ideal, I would live alone. I’d wake up every morning next to no one. I’d never hold hands with anyone. I’d never kiss or be kissed by anyone. I’d never cuddle up with anyone. I would not know the profound pleasure of every day growing older with anyone. For me, remaining as sinless as possible would mean never knowing love of the sort that all straight people, Christian or not, understand as pretty much the best thing life has to offer.
I hear a lot of Christians asserting that gays and lesbians should stop acting like gays and lesbians. But I never hear any of them saying the unavoidable follow-up to that — saying what that actually means — which is that gay and lesbian men and women should spend their lives never experiencing what people most commonly mean when they use the word “love.”
When, all along, the Bible repeatedly, emphatically, and explicitly tells us that God is love.
Something is seriously wrong somewhere in the mix between Christians and Christianity. (And it’s spelled Paul — whom I love, but about whom we really should be more clear. But that’s for another post.)
I want to be the very best Christian I can. And that means being as scrupulously honest as I can. And on the topic of homosexuality, that means admitting that being gay is not like any other sin, and that the Christian proscription of homosexuality is nothing less than a call for anyone who is gay to live their entire life never experiencing the physical expressions of love that all of we straight people happily accept as one of the very best things about being alive. Those two things are true, no matter how many logic-challenged pastors daring to call themselves compassionate Bible lovers claim they’re not.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 562 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
sin is not simple an act that harms someone but is an act against God or his will
“virtually every kind of sin except homosexuality objectively and tangibly hurts someone”
The Bible doesn’t condemn same-gender love or friendship, rather it condemns same-gender sex acts. Homosexuality in the general sense may arguably not objectively/tangibly hurt someone, but there is no question that homosexual sex acts are remarkably destructive to a society.
Take just one example of HIV-AIDS. The HIV transmission rate per sex act among American married couples engaging in vaginal intercourse is immeasurably low–it takes thousands of sex acts for a man to reach a 50% probability of contracting HIV from his wife (keep in mind that having sex ~2x per week yields ~100x per year, so reaching the 50% probability threshold would take an average American couple multiple decades). However, in the male-homosexual community, HIV is spread at a rapid rate, partly due to the fact that anal sex is a ~100x more efficient way of transmitting the disease, partly due to the tendency of homosexual males to have more sex acts (with more partners), and partly due to other factors (e.g. greater IV drug use, greater instance of other STDs facilitating easier infection, etc.). Homosexual males make up an extremely small portion of the population, yet account for the majority of HIV-AIDS cases. Were it not for the male homosexual community, HIV-AIDS could not have ever spread in the USA–it would simply not exist here. Homosexual sex acts are literally to blame for virtually all of the ~600,000 HIV-AIDS deaths which have occurred in the USA in the last few decades. The hurt caused by sinful homosexual sex acts is highly objective and tangible for anyone willing to take a look at the available data.
In addition to AIDS there are many other harms brought by homosexuality in general, and homosexual sex acts in particular, but I think that the general point has already been sufficiently demonstrated.
(An interesting side topic is how our society has taken such aggressive actions against the health threat of smoking, but no actions against homosexuality–despite the fact that homosexuality represents a far greater health threat.)
The good news is that human sexuality is flexible. Most lesbians have had more MALE sexual partners than the average heterosexual women. There are countless examples of individuals “changing teams”, hence the common term “hasbian”, “lesbian until graduation”, etc. There may or may not be a genetic tendency towards being gay, but it is an unquestionable scientific fact that sexual “orientation” can change over time. It has also been scientifically demonstrated that therapy designed to change sexual orientation can be significantly effective in doing so, at least in some individuals:
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/Psych130F2010/LabDocuments/Spitzer.pdf
There are some people who are addicted to drugs, alcohol, shoplifting, or whatever negative sinful behavior you want to pick. There are almost certainly genetic (or developmental) factors which make people more likely to engage in any given sinful behavior. The solution is not to “normalize” and justify the sin. The solution is to change one’s behavior–and the role of society should be to encourage and support this. Because of the influence of Christ, and of the Bible, many homosexuals have sought to change their sexuality to conform to God’s ideal, and have succeeded in doing so. No doubt, this is a difficult struggle for many. However, the fact that the struggle is difficult is only made worse by people who falsely claim that the struggle can’t be won, or who claim that the struggle isn’t worth making.
It’s hard for men to get AIDS from their wives. But really, really easy for women to get AIDS from their husbands. Is that because God hates women, and gays, for not being the Ubermensch of straight man? You sound ridiculous.
Also, maybe lesbians tend to have lots of sex with guys because it’s hard being gay, and they’re trying to figure out if they’re actually gay, and force themselves to be into guys. Because of people like you. And then it doesn’t work. Because they’re gay. That’s not “changing your orientation”. If you could just force yourself to be straight, everyone would do it, because it’s way, way easier to live as straight.
I’m gay, and I don’t agree with this article.
I believe being gay is not wrong, but acting on it is.
While I’ve struggled with that same idea that acting on homosexuality is one of the only sins in which one cannot see a tangible “hurt” on someone else, I’ve come to realize that that “hurt” happens more subtlely than most sins. God doesn’t just care if you hurt someone else for sin to be wrong–He cares about what happens to you too. He’s trying to sanctify his children, and I think that practicing homosexuality gets in the way of that.
I’m sure you guys have heard the Bible verses (including the NT ones!) regarding that. And I’m sure you’ve heard the argument of how homosexual behavior in Leviticus gets *death penalty.* Death penalty… that’s not the same punishment as wearing clothes made from two different kinds of fabrics or eating shellfish or other Levitical laws. It’s smack-dab in the same passage and category of punishment as incest, bestiality, etc.
The New Testament and Jesus don’t speak about bestiality… does that mean bestiality is ok now that the New Covenant has come?
Um, no, I don’t think so.
If you aren’t familiar with an NT passage regarding this, here’s one:
1 Cor. 6:9-10 (ESV, astrisks mine)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, **nor men who practice homosexuality**, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
But please, please, don’t forget verse 11 (asterisks mine):
***And such were some of you.*** But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Such were some of us. Those sins, those awful things. They WERE us. But such is justification. Such is redemption in Christ.
So I am celibate from same-sex relationships because of these continuing commands from God and His Word.
Sure, I still want a spouse and kids… i’ve always wanted that.
I don’t mean I won’t ever get married to a girl–I *have* to be physically attracted to her, of course, for both our sakes, but I’m just waiting on that to happen with someone. I’ll probably have these same-sex attractions for the rest of my life, but I don’t think I have to completely change my orientation (which I don’t think is possible of my own volition anyway) to finding girls attractive… I just have to be with one particular girl I find attractive.
If God has other plans for me than marriage with a girl, well, that’s ok. I’ll stay celibate my whole life. He *gave* His whole life for me and sacrificed so much more… isn’t dedicating my life in one way the least I could do for Him?
Sure, “I would live alone. I’d wake up every morning next to no one. I’d never hold hands with anyone. I’d never kiss or be kissed by anyone. I’d never cuddle up with anyone. I would not know the profound pleasure of every day growing older with anyone.” (although celibacy traditionally is practiced in a community in which people can support one another, so I probably wouldn’t live alone.)
But “people, Christian or not, understand [the above] as pretty much the best thing life has to offer”?
I disagree.
**NEWS FLASH*** people: marriage or having a significant other or a boyfriend/girlfriend is NOT the most meaningful human relationship that one can have.
Otherwise, why would God do away with marriage in Heaven?
Instead, I think the Bible speaks about how the most powerful human relationship is that of Christian community. Of the one body of Christ.
Please, please read Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting
http://www.amazon.com/Washed-Waiting-Reflections-Faithfulness-Homosexuality/dp/0310330033
He’s another gay, celibate Christian who has some illuminating thoughts.
David, you get to live your life exactly how you want to in order to experience life, love, intimacy and as Jesus said “abundant life”. It would appear as though many gay men and women don’t share your experiences at all but there certainly needs to be room for your perspective, I would imagine.
Goodness, where on earth did you find that filthy pack of lies you are quoting from? The term ‘homosexual’ does not appear ANYWHERE in the real Bible.
And you know it.
I don’t know whether you are a self-loathing homosexual or a badly written avatar of a conservative Christian, but I do have some advice for you: Throw away that abomination you are reading and go buy a real Bible.
Dirk for the win.
I’m sorry for you, in that you will never feel the love that I have shared with my partner. I am a christian (small c) and am comfortable with my life, my partner, and my after-life. As a christian, I follow JC’s teachings, and no where is he quoted as saying ‘gays are bad’.
One other point to ponder in this particular vein of thought is the fundatmental Christian teaching that one sins not only in deed but also by word and by THOUGHT. So, simply refraining from “acting” gay does not remedy the conundrum faced by the gay community. When presented with the question, “How does not ‘acting’ on one’s attractions absolve one of having those attractions in the first place?”, most fundamental Christians are struck mute.
I occasionally look at your blog and you seem like a nice, relatively rational person… but after all is said and done… for any one group to believe that they speak the “word of god” is dangerous. It gives them too much authority and power.
It means they don’t have to reflect on what they say; it means they don’t have to think; and it means they are “right” and are not swayed by logic, empathy or common sense. This is the primary reason I am an atheist… because of the abuse of power “believing” seems to instill in so many people.
I have found I can live a meaningful, loving, serene life…. by living a life filled with meaning, love and serenity. Rather than getting involved in the pettiness that seems pervasive in Christian communities.
Good luck
Robert
And good luck in your efforts not to seem almost astoundingly condescending.
Good point. Perhaps such as will take Robert condescendingly should not deserve being condescended to.
Yes, Robert, I agree with you. Christians are way too petty. This is one of the reasons why I no longer call myself a “Christian”. But I refuse to stop fighting the good battle because love never fails…I’m determined to make this world a better place for ALL humanity. I want to be on the side of those who help to open the “boxed minds”.
Wow. I am having a difficult time deciding which identity to post under, my identity that addresses spiritual issues, which is my “Balance Points” blog, or my identity which addresses humanity issues, which is The Symposium for Equality and Liberty for ALL Humanity (SELAH). I think I will post under “Balance Points” since I will be quoting a couple of my posts from that blog.
First I have to address the author and make a couple of points about his own spirituality. On one hand I want to congratulate him for taking this issue head on and confronting those who he undoubtedly knew would attack him from every angle they could drum up. These are the people who take their Bible quite literally and commonly use the Bible to (lovingly) beat people over their heads until people find themselves down in the dirt, knees bleeding and picking the stones out of their flesh wondering when and if they should rise back up, only to find, “no” they should not lest they be beaten back down all over again by an even larger crowd now gathered by calls sent out by “The Brotherhood”. But back to the spirituality of the author. There seems to be some gaps even in this Believer’s generosity for he still quietly calls homosexuality a “sin” when he says, “It completely ignores the crucial, absolute difference between *homosexuality and the other sins* people typically struggle against committing, which is that committing virtually every kind of sin except homosexuality objectively and tangibly hurts someone.” Am I missing something here, or do I understand this correctly that the author truly does believe that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin? If this is the case, then what the author is saying in this post is that he condones the “act of love”, but not the act of homosexuality, he still believes, in his heart, that homosexuality is, in fact, sinful, and he will not take a stand on dismissing it as something that can be accepted by God as a natural and harmless behavior a person is born with, that it is a behavior that still needs to be forgiven by God. This presents an oxymoron if the author is allowing the “act of love” during the homosexual act, but not allowing the homosexual act itself without asking for forgiveness for committing the homosexual act. I’m left confused.
But I do have more to say.
And what I have to say, I say to the Bible literalists. I figure the author can get back to me, if he wishes, and clear up any misunderstanding I may have surrounding his use of wording and sentence structure. Maybe I’m just not reading the way he writes correctly…
So, for all of you Bible literalists who have condemned this find author for taking the time and having the courage to address this issue of homosexuality and the right to love whomever a person loves, and cannot help who their heart loves…I have some back up material for you to read. I HAVE done my homework on the issue. I took the word “homosexual” to task and learned that the word never occurred in the original Hebrew or Greek scriptures. And no work like it. I scoured the Strong’s Concordance of the Bible and found no such word. Not even close. And here are my two posts for you to read: http://wp.me/p1bnpK-1N AND http://wp.me/p1bnpK-1V Go ahead, read them, I dare you. The word “homosexual” has been placed in the Bible by modern-day scholars and theologians to puff up what they want all of us to believe for religious and political reasons. And they have been quite successful at it I might add. Jesus never addressed homosexuality in the New Testament, and it’s the NT we are to live by now that the Old Testament has passed away. Yes, you read that right, the Old Testament has passed away. It is to be used as a GUIDE ONLY. “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” Hebrews 8:13 NIV -You see, we have two commandments now, “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus didn’t say some of Law hangs on these commandments, he said ALL of the Law hangs on these two commandments. In other words, the Law has been FULFILLED, just like he said on the cross, “It is FINISHED”. One of Webster’s definitions for “fulfilled” is “to put an end to”. That’s what Jesus’ dying on the cross did to the Old Testament Law. We now live BY Grace, not UNDER Law. We now live by a new law, a law of love. “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” 1 John 4:18 NIV
You pointed to a semantical mistake that I was happy to go and correct. Thanks for that.
I’m sorry, John, but I don’t see where you changed your sentence structure. I am leaning towards believing that you *do* believe that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, but that it only harms the two people involved? Unlike “the other sins” you mentioned? The other sins harm an abundance of people so therefore they must be much worse than homosexuality? Am I correct in understanding this?
No, Machelle, you not. If you’ve read John regularly, you know that he in no way thinks homosexuality is a sin. He is putting it in the perspective of those who do. Trying to get them to rethink their position. He’s writing to those who do believe it is a sin, and asking them to reconsider, based on the evidence he provides – in their language, because they immediately come back and quote “love the sinner, hate the sin” to him, every blasted time he writes about this.
He’s using their words to try to expand their understanding. I respect the hell out of him for trying. He fights the good fight, every day.
Thank you, Mindy, for clearing that up for me. Now I understand the writing style of the author. You have placed me on the fast track. I appreciate the help. I will be reading with a different point of view. This will allow me to comment more appropriately and realize that John truly is on the side of love, acceptance, equality and wishes to embrace, not just tolerate.
What I love–in the same way I love stepping in dog-shit in the park–is the way Christian idiots like Shannon manage to bend over and spray their stock-in-trade diarrhea all over this brilliant, lean piece of writing which asks only one thing: that the Christians it addresses THINK LOGICALLY for once. Naturally, incapable of thinking logically, twat Shannon purges out a mountain-sized fundie effluvia without once addressing Mr. Shore’s (diamond-cut in its simplicity) core premise. Yes, Shannon, by all means rattle off your fundie talking points. Yes, of course we’re all thrilled to hear them. Naturally we’ve never heard them before. No, of COURSE we don’t mind the complete lack of intelligence or logic therein.
I don’t know whether Mr. Shore deserves to be fast-tracked to beatification for continuously trying to edjumicate losers like Shannon, or whether the Rapture can’t come a moment too soon–since it will doubtless suck up this mean, dumb fundie trash with an effectiveness roughly on par with God vacuuming up the BP spill to the point that the waters are as pristine as they were in Eden.
Yeah, but tell us how you think.
Wow! Nobody does this stuff like you. You’re all the way in Canada, and I’m scared.
If I were Shannon, I’d freakin’ toss my computer.
(Who IS Shannon, by the way? You clearly meant this in response to something she wrote. Maybe I’ll cut and paste this where it belongs, after I’ve gone to find the comment of Shannon’s to which you’ve obviously intended this reply.
Whoa. There are 500 comments on this thing. Maybe not.
Oh, here she is: http://johnshore.com/2010/03/13/christians-when-it-comes-to-homosexuality-man-up/comment-page-4/#comment-55167
You READ all that?
Oh, she’s so appalling.
I don’t know if this is what Shannon did/is, but a pretty typical thing for ravers to do is take a set piece they have, and then go around to blogs everywhere and either simply cut-and-paste it into a comment field, or first write a little tailor-made-type intro for it, and then do the same. That’s often what’s happened when you see one long thing like this, with no breaks.
If I READ the thing beyond the first two or three lines, I’d probably know if this was a cut-n-paste fundy troll. But … then I’d have to shoot myself.
You did read it, John, when you did a whole piece on it, and broke it up into paragraphs for us.
Three things should be addressed here:
1. A living faith requires a continual revisiting of a living scripture. As others have pointed out, we don’t follow every last prohibition or proscription in Leviticus (or anywhere else in the Bible, for that matter), because our understanding of what is right and moral, like it or not, is viewed through the lens of our time. For anyone who calls this “moral relativism,” I would point out that the New and Old Testaments were also, themselves, a reply to, and refutation of, belief systems that had themselves lost their relevance. To fail to adapt is to similarly consign Christianity to the dustbin of history.
2. Will someone please point out to me the chapter and verse where it says to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”? Wait, no, you can’t. Mahatma Gandhi (who, when asked about Christian Civilization, is said to have replied, “I think it would be a wonderful idea”) was actually the one who said it. Thus, it has no scriptural basis.
3. Most importantly: If homosexuality were such a big deal, don’t you think that Jesus would have had something to say about it? It’s not as though it didn’t exist in his time; that he said nothing about it speaks volumes about its importance, or lack thereof. If Jesus had bigger fish to fry (or multiply), perhaps we should take a cue from that…
Wow, for an author to claim that this is “logical” thinking seriously disturbs me! This article is completely illogical and disappointing that such idiocy would be asserted as advice for Christians! This article enforces dangerous lies. The propostion that homosexuality is a sin to be overcome is in no way illogical, but rather, spot on with the teachings in the Bible. This proposition does not “completely ignore the crucial, absolute difference between homosexuality and the other sins!” The author has made a jump without bridging logic! Oh wait…This sin is categorically divided from the others because it “doesn’t hurt anyone!” This is laughable. Our morals are not based on relativism! Our morals are Biblically based in faith of the ONE TRUE GOD. Our morals are not subjective based on conviction. For example, read Romans 1, which is one example of the many Biblical teaching against homosexuality. Okay, for the nonbelievers (and what appears as, those who claim to be believers that disregard truth for truth), before your roll your eyes, remember, that darkness hates the light. As you read these words, as you read Romans 1, you will probably shudder, shrug off the conviction. Regardless of what Christians today hold acceptable: materialism, superficiality IS BESIDES THE POINT, a worthless debate at that. Talk about beating a dead horse! The real debate is this sick justification for homosexuality – sin is sin and it’s just love. Just some words of wisdom: You better check yourself, before you wreck yourself. The author claims he is a Christian, but he wants to “take the Bible out of the equation” and determine “what grounds is there for determining that homosexuality is wrong?” This is absolutely ludicrous..Who gets hurt? Really…How is this a justification? I hesitate to divulge this question for fear that I am feeding this lie, as if, there is any reason the question is valid in the first place! However, I’ll digress generally – at least one may recognize that this IS a sin. Therefore, if a Christian chooses to walk in sin, he or she will lead others to stumble. If you’re a Christian with homosexual tendencies or wrapped up in that lifestyle, read Mark 9:42-50. Also, if you’re a Christian you are giving Satan a foothold in your life. Regardless, as Christians we must strive for holiness and purity – Hey! I didn’t say it, God did. If you’re a Christian and you’re mulling over this ridiculous blog as being true, read the Bible and find out what God says. Don’t rely on man for reason. Finally, if you’re a homosexual and you do not know Christ as your Savior, read Romans 1. The recompense for this vice is death (not in the sense that we are all going to die as mortals, but spiritual death – separation from God, and even more sugar coated, hell. This isn’t a warning for homosexuals, but ALL people who do not know Christ as Lord. I didn’t say it, God did. I stand by these truths. And if this makes you uncomfortable, c’est la vie. This author has DIMITTEDLY (made up word) redefined sin as: first, “manifestly causing harm.” Then, drawing the conclusion from thin air, without evidentiary support that homosexuality “shoulldn’t be classified as sin. He claims to be a Christian, but outrightly disregards Biblical fact. HUGE FAIL and a sorry attempt to justify sexual immorality. This “Christian” blogger, even goes as far to discourage Christians from upholding Biblical standards down to this illogical train of thought. “it’s high time Christians were honest about the fact that asserting that homosexuals should stop acting homosexual necessarily means asserting that they should spend their lives never knowing the loving intimacy with another that straight people enjoy and know to be the best and richest experience in life. Asking a homosexual to give up homosexual love isn’t at all like asking him to give up booze, or greed, or any other such negative thing. It’s asking him to give up love.” This is a dangerous assertion for the Christian community, especially if people are such insensitive to what is holy and true. The family is ordained by God from the beginning in Genesis. And just in case, you Christians haven’t inferred this from scripture, look up what God says about the homosexual lifestyle. (Whether or not I am judgmental, is irrelevant. This is not the sin of topic. We are discussing homosexuality. This is a sad adversion people use during debate when they see their side is dwindling against the truth. Stay on topic!) The author sadly attempts to get sympathy from the reader because, “if he listened to the advice from the Christian community – NO the Bible, he would be all alone.” This is asserting that the Bible does not offer advice on celibacy. Sometimes, it is better for him or her not to marrry! This is without sound justification. You are not alone. God is with you. He will never leave you nor forsake you. Do right in the sight of God. This may be a self sacrifice, but homosexuals are NOT called to a life of sin! The author says, “remaining as sinless as possible would mean never knowing love of the sort that all straight people, Christian or not, understand as pretty much the best thing life has to offer.” Know the love of God before the love man (or in some cases, woman) has to offer! I almost puked, when I read “…which is that gay and lesbian men and women should spend their lives never experiencing what people most commonly mean when they use the word “love.”
. If I’m going to follow Biblical advice, I will uphold the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. I am thankful that truth prevailed at the polls regarding proposition 8. For those of you who think you are intellectual because you’re complicated or you’re more interested in the gray than black and white and you claim to be a Christian, the Bible upholds absolute truths. God is a not a God of confusion. Figure out what you believe and stand strong. Do not cause other men to stumble. You have the truth in you! You will be held accountable!
When, all along, the Bible repeatedly, emphatically, and explicitly tells us that God is love.” Like, Revelation 3:16, I can’t imagine God’s reaction to this distortation and pervsion of the truth. Finally, the author takes a low blow, “no matter how many logic-challenged pastors daring to call themselves compassionate Bible lovers claim they’re not.” This blogger provides absolutely NO biblical foundation and lacks biblical criteria. Do not base your level of morality on this wacko (I’m sorry, misled blogger). Spreading lies really makes me sad
Thank God you didn’t write it all in caps!
This guy says nothing new. He uses the Bible to put forth his own personal bias against homosexuals, just like many have done to justify their hatred of Jews, like Christians have been doing for thousands of years. He is one of many. This is a good example of the hermeneutic lassitude in the Bible. You can pretty much get anything out of it that you want to. This ranter is a ranter in a long line of ranters and a rather beige one, at that.
A woman is not permitted to teach, Shannon, but should learn in quietness and full submission. I didn’t say it, God did.
So, seeing as spreading lies really makes you sad, you can stop doing so at any time.
As you’ve noted, we do have the truth in us. Let us know if you’d like some.
I notice that there was no response from Shannon….hmmmm….interesting. Must have been too inconvenient a truth. Oh, no, wait….it means she would have had to look at herself and do something other than casting stones at everybody else. WOW! There’s a thought.
Shannon, I’m so sad for you. You’re missing out on so much of God’s love by trying to be God. Judging is his job, not yours. Yours is to love. Billy Graham said it better than I can: “It’s God’s job to judge, the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, and our job to love.”
You might want to check out http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/2010/06/romans-1-caution-to-those-who-have-used-romans-as-anti-gay-license/ You seem to keep directing us to Romans 1, but I’m going to direct you back to it and ask you to honestly look at it in context.
Dear Shannon,
Your rant is tired and old and so is your righteous indignation. Your theology is contributing to a framework of belief that causes gay children to either consider suicide, or actually do it. They are the most vulnerable population of teenage adult and all your care about is making sure they are unfit for marriage as well as never having a relationship with Jesus if they don’t somehow stop *being gay*.
Talk about accountability on the Last Day. The devastation you’ve caused is so extreme. I’d not with the justice you will experience from the Father on my worst enemy to how you’ve driven these kids to death with your anger as well as actually drive away gay men and women from experiencing the love of God through Jesus Christ. You’re responsible. God have mercy on you.
I think my eyes are bleeding now. WOW! Guess she hasn’t hear of paragraphs.
Alcoholism is genetic. It’s in the genes, but I doubt anyone says it’s “who they are.” And I’m sure that most of the human population would agree that Alcoholism is not “right.” But people are born with the Alcoholism gene all the time.
But God does not hate Alcohols. Nor does he hate homosexuals. In fact, he doesn’t hate any of us, but he still wants us to love Him and each other no matter what genes we are born with.
Let’s face it…the world is screwed up: people born blind, mental handicaps, women who can’t give birth, tendency towards anger, genetically inclined to gain weight, anorexia, etc etc etc. We all are effected by sin therefore we aren’t who we were intended to be…but the good news is, through God, we can learn to make the most of “who we are” by using His love to focus on important things: like HELPING THE NEEDY!
Helping the needy: Yay! Homosexuality is an unfortunate genetic aberration: Boo.
Alcoholism is an illness that destroys the body and the mind. It also doesn’t manifest itself until one has a drink. Sexual orientation is sexual hardwiring that, in and of itself, does nothing more than dictate which sex the individual is attracted to. And gay people are gay before they act on their sexual orientation. Remind me again what they have in common?
Michael…I don’t think anyone could have made that point better! Thanks.
There is so much I want to say about this post, but I really think it can all be summed up quite succinctly: Thank you. You have stated it *perfectly*.
I’m really just waiting for you to start the conversation back up, Mel. I’ve answered every question you’ve asked of me. I feel no compulsion to speak to anything else that’s going on in these conversations, but I’m here, still interested in talking, just waiting.
I have found an article that I have read through, and I would like you to read it, and maybe comment on it? I realize that certain things from it you have already talked to me about, but some of it is new. Specifically, in the section “made that way?” the beginning talks about the studies which have been given as “proof” that homosexuality is genetic. The rest of that section talks about stuff you have already explained, so don’t feel the need to re-explain it. The section that I find to be most interesting, which I would like you to read is “equally valid?” It talks about some things that you have explained to me, but they are the opposite opinion. I find it interesting because it also addresses the actual Greek in which the Bible was written. If nothing else, please read that section because it is what I find to be the most valid (not really the word I’m looking for, but I can’t think of anything else). The rest of that article feel free to read, but like I said, that section is one that I would like you to comment on.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
Thanks again for your patience in explaining this to me
I’ll give this a shot.
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
I don’t claim that. I’ve never claimed this. What I’ve claimed is that it isn’t a choice.
Point: I hate olives to the point that I can’t eat them. I’m 5’5″. I can eat very spicy food. I score extremely high on academic tests.
These things are all things that I didn’t choose at all. They’re also things for which there is no known “gene”. They do seem to be somewhat heritable (my brother also identifies as queer), but they aren’t necessarily fully biological.
I don’t know why I’m gay, Mel. I cannot tell you what caused it. Biology, pre-natal environment, early childhood something-or-other, I have no idea. But there is one thing I can tell you without even the slightest doubt or hesitation. I did not choose to be gay.
I was raised a Southern Baptist. I agreed with everything they taught. I thought, as a pre-teen, that gay people were evil people who hated God. My town was virulently anti-gay. My entire family, too. I was home schooled, so I didn’t have a single place in my life that encouraged homosexuality, or even deigned to tolerate it.
Why would I have ever chosen to be gay, in that environment?
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.
This is, pardon my language, a bullshit argument. Being gay and being an alcoholic aren’t the same thing, and not being able to drink because you might hurt other people, physically or emotionally, is not the same thing as never being able to have any kind of fulfilling romantic or sexual relationship in your entire life because… something, something, something, Dark Side.
As to “Equally Valid”.
I already discussed the Leviticus verse. It’s not about idolatry, true. It’s about baby-making, expanding the nation of Israel in a specific historical context, and the reality that at the time, homosexual relations would have certainly required adultery.
They’re just wrong about the Greek in Timothy. They’re using circular logic; claiming that because modern translations say it means “homosexuals” that it actually does. Paul made the word up. No one else uses it anywhere in classical Greek language. Taken in context in Corinthians, it only makes coherent sense that he is referring to those who visit male prostitutes. There is absolutely no reason to say he meant “homosexuals” when, as I’ve said, there was no such concept at the time.
Sodom and Gomorrah was about rape and greed. I don’t see why this story has such sticking power re: homosexuality, when it’s so clearly messed up so much more in so many other ways.
My argument has never been “It must be okay because I can’t help it”. It’s “I do not find compelling evidence that this is remotely wrong when done with a spirit of Christlike love”.
I don’t really know how to address a whole article at once, so if there are specific parts of it that I didn’t address here that you’d like me to, feel free to quote them, but it was a lot to take in, and utilized a lot of straw-man arguments.
You say that they are just wrong about the Greek. So, just put yourself in my position, and maybe you can clear it up for me. There’s me, who hasn’t studied the Bible in its original Greek. Somebody says it is a word Paul made up, and somebody else says that the literal translation is “men who sleep with men.” How do I pick who is right?
With Sodom and Gomorrah, if it was simply about rape and greed why did Lot offer up his daughter? As if that was somehow better?
Those were the main parts of the article I wanted you to touch on, so I don’t have any other part of it to address now.
Don't you see what I'm saying about the circular logic, though? Their only proof is English translations. (Not that I've given you more, but at least I explicitly said you'd have to take me at my word unless you wanted things to get really technical.)
However since it's come back up, I'm gonna get technical.
"Arsenokoitai".
Arseno- man
Koitai- beds
The only place other than Timothy, in the entire world, that this word is used is in Corinthians, so let's look there for some context.
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…." 1 Corinthians 6:9, NKJV
Okay. But here's the thing: Why the distinction? What's the difference between a homosexual and a sodomite, and why did Paul use two different words?
Because the first word, "malakoi," means male prostitutes. The second is its companion. Those who sleep with prostitutes.
The Bible cannot mean now what it didn't mean then.
Arsenokoitai cannot mean "homosexuals," because the idea is more modern than hair dye or driving etiquette. Society couldn't even imagine that concept in the first and second century. It is a matter of fact, not belief, that homosexuality was totally unknown to people of this time outside of adultery, rape, and prostitution, because heterosexual marriage was too important for the sake of having children.
On the question of Lot: Lot did think it was better, but not because gay sex is inherently icky or something. It's because men were important, and women were not. Sure, it sucks. But far better to let girls get raped than men. The men are actually worth something, fully human, etc. It's messed up, but it's how gender relations worked a couple thousand years ago.
The issue with Lot is not only gender. It comes back to hospitality. It was better for Lot to have his daughters raped than to turn his guests over to be raped. In the worldview of the time, it shows Lots extreme commitment to hospitality. It also contrasts his hospitality with the lack of it being exhibited by the "Sodomites."
Further, if the issue is that the men at the door are homosexuals, why would it make any sense to satisfy them with Lot's daughters?
Mel, it is a bit dense, but if you will look at that chapter from Mark Jordan's book that I recommended, he goes through in painstaking detail what all the relevant Greek and Hebrew words are and how decisions have been made to interpret the meaning of those words by citing all of the most important evidence from the rest of the Bible and from other texts of the times.
@Jill
I don't think it was that they were homosexuals, and therefore giving a woman to satisfy them wouldn't make sense. I think it was that they were wanting to engage in homosexual behavior.
Mel, if they – this group of men in Sodom – wanted to engaged in homosexual behavior, they could have had sex with one another. What they wanted to do is show that they are powerful and make these visitors fearful of them by raping them. Rape – having sexual contact with someone who doesn’t want to have sex – is about power, it’s not about attraction.
Oh great. Now I have another book to add to my Amazon wish list. Thanks a lot, Jill!
Sorry, Diana! It’s somewhat expensive too because academic books tend to be, partly because the market is so small. Perhaps you could get it through interlibrary loan from your local library? It is pretty dense, but Mark Jordan is brilliant and very clear in his thinking.
Don’t forget to add Luke Timothy Johnson’s The Writings of the New Testament.
Thanks for getting technical, in this case I think it's needed. So, I guess now my question is; if it translates to man bed…then who's to say what that means? You say that that means one who sleeps with male prostitutes, whereas others say it means homosexual. If the word is made up, how can we decide what he was trying to say when he used it?
I guess I kind of see where you're coming from with regards to men being more important than women. To me, it seemed like since his daughters were virgins, they were important too. But, he gave them to the men b/c then it wouldn't be men with men. If the men only wanted to show that they had power over the visitors, then what would be accomplished by giving them the girls who already lived there? That shows nothing to the visitors.
Mel, I think you're missing a key point. The word, even if it doesn't mean what I think it does, cannot mean homosexual. Whatever it is, it's not that.
Like I said before:
At the time Paul was writing, there was no such thing as a committed, stable, loving, consensual, equal, monogamous gay relationship.
Therefore.
Paul could not have been writing about a committed, stable, loving, consensual, equal, monogamous gay relationship any more than he could have been writing about a rocket ship.
Period. Even if my interpretation is wrong, there is no way that it means "homosexual" that word didn't even exist in English until the last 200 years.
As to Lot: first, I question the relevance of this line of thought. The story of Lot is one specific story about a specific set of events. It certainly doesn't preclude my dating a woman.
But to respond. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power. Lot's daughters didn't have to consent in that society, he could consent for them. And he did. Therefore, his daughters weren't what they wanted. Because it wasn't about sex or gender, it was about power. Rape is about power now, rape was about power then.
okay, but even if it doesn't exactly translate to homosexual…it could still mean the same thing. That particular word wasn't around then, but there were homosexuals, so he could have just used a different word to describe them??
It's not just about the word. The word didn't exist because the concept didn't exist.
I'll say again: "Paul could not have been writing about a committed, stable, loving, consensual, equal, monogamous gay relationship any more than he could have been writing about a rocket ship."
When you say "there were homosexuals," you're technically correct. There were also diabetics. But that doesn't mean anyone knew, or that Paul could have written about them. The idea wasn't around.
Mel,
Like Kara, I too have done an in-depth study of the word “homosexual”. The word simply does not exist in the original scriptures. It was placed there by modern-day scholars and theologians to persuade people both religiously and politically. And it’s done a pretty good job! Here are my two in-depth articles explaining the use of the word and the actual definition in the Greek (because it’s only found in the New Testament so you have to use the Greek side of the Strong’s Concordance of the Bible to find the word): http://wp.me/p1bnpK-1N AND http://wp.me/p1bnpK-1V
Happy reading and discovering!
I was under the impression that the word "Malakoi" meant "soft" and that a variant of that word was used when Jesus was talking about John the Baptist:
"If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces." (Matthew 11:8) See also Luke 7:25.
The word translated here as "fine," is, to my understanding a variant of the word Malakoi.
Also, I didn't know that the word Arsenokoitai was made up by Paul–though I'm not sure I'm surprised by that. I was under the impression, though, that the Arsenokoitai were young men who traded sexual favors with wealthy people of either gender for money and security. I could be wrong about this, of course (I've only studied this issue a little bit.)
One of many places I've read about this, with a fairly comprehensive treatment of it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
Cool! Thanks Kara!
Hey Mel, it isn’t just “homosexuals” who claim the scientific basis for sexual orientation being hardwired. We let straight scientists work on this too.
It’s sad that so many fail to see that that’s a bunch of bull.
“Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. ‘The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an “abomination.” This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.’
“It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality.”
That last sentence reveals their preconceived notions all too clearly. “Mere” selfishness? Like, any homosexual behavior *must* be worse than just being selfish “with regard to poverty etc.”! Hmm… ever read any of the preachings of *Jesus Christ*? Right, homosexuality—which is clearly what was wrong about it, not that they wanted to GANGRAPE these guests—is necessarily on the same level as *sacrificing children in the fires to Molech*!! And guess what I deeply suspect was a part of the sacrifice ritual? Well, guess why is Lev. 18:21 is included in the midst of a list of sexually deviant practices.
I cannot allow myself to read every line of these comments, because I need to be working. So please forgive me if I missed something that renders my response problematic.
When two world views, which are each emotionally loaded and have hefty material consequences, come together, as they are in this thread, it is inevitable that there will be missteps and that people will make comments that members of the other side will experience as hurtful. It might help to remember we have all been on both sides of conversations like these. There are many reasons why we so often fail miserably to have these types of meaningful conversations, but one of them is our fear of how the other side will treat us.
I deeply admire Mel for having the courage to come to this forum and ask what I judge to be sincere questions with the goal of reaching understanding. I know that her current views are tied to a system that causes great material, social, and emotional hardship to a great many people. At the same time, what she is doing here, asking sincere questions, being honest about what she currently believes, and earnestly seeking understanding, is the only way we will move forward on this.
I will also say that some people use these ideologies to control the flow of power, but it is terribly important that we remember that many average people who also subscribe to these ideologies truly believe them and defend them because they want to be faithful to God and shape the world as closely to God’s will as they can. The rest of us may feel in the deepest part of our souls that these sincere folks have misunderstood God, but if we can honor our shared desire to be faithful, we can appreciate our common ground and the basic goodness of our intentions. It seems that Mel wants to be all of the things others of you wish (loving, accepting, just, etc.) but that she is torn because she wants to be faithful to God’s will and she cannot accept the interpretations you are sharing.
I think there are two reasons for why these interpretations are not enough. First, not all the arguments are good. As someone who does not believe that God condemns homosexuality, *I* didn’t find all of the arguments convincing. Second, there is a larger meta-issue of how we approach faith and scripture and when we do not share the same presuppositions, all of the deductive logic in the world will not bring us to a conclusion we all can share.
That said, let me add my two cents to the content of this discussion. Mel, I know you want to have a discussion with Kara, but I hope you will allow me to share a couple of ideas. In my much younger days, I understood God in very much the same way you do. I wish I could easily explain to you how I came to where I am today so that you could judge it for yourself, but it was a long and slow process and probably too complicated for me to even understand all aspects of it. Through many, many years of study here is where I have come on the issues at hand:
1. Because the Bible is so complicated and written over such a long period of time, it is not actually possible for any particular person to follow each bit of it literally. I have come to believe that saying one is reading the Bible “literally” is a power play that really means: “I read the Bible the right way and you read it the wrong way.” None of the people I know and love who claim to read the Bible literally put children to death for being disrespectful or avoid wearing clothing of mix fabrics or any of the other countless rules we have all accepted as being a part of a culture that does not in and of itself capture God.
2. I do not believe this leaves us with a situation where anything goes and we can all just pick and choose the bits we like. The Bible itself models the solution. Within the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), later parts serve as commentaries on earlier parts. This serves to adapt what is important in the faith tradition to a changing culture and to new and different material situations that the people of Israel find themselves in. The New Testament is a part of this tradition in that it was meant to be a commentary on the Hebrew Bible. In other words, it continues this tradition by framing the issues of the Hebrew Bible so as to clarify God’s will for a new context. In the non-Christian Jewish traditions this was also done through the practice of Midrash (rabbis commenting on comments on comments on scripture). We still do this today, but in a more ad hoc way, since our canon is closed. We are doing it here, really.
3. The issue, then, is *how* will we interpret scripture? When folks tell you that they are “reading the Bible literally” they are hiding all the issues that really go into their interpretation. Words cannot but be interpreted. The issue is not whether or not we are interpreting, but whether or not we are aware of the way we are interpreting and all of the values and assumptions that go into that interpreting.
People interpret in communities. Even communities that claim to be reading the Bible literally interpret the Bible differently from one another. Until you become aware of all of the assumptions that go into your community’s interpretation, you will not have your own faith, but instead one you have accepted by word of mouth. One reason why I switched the community with whom I interpret these texts is that my current one is more internally consistent. I share Kara’s love ethic. I look at the way Jesus loved people, and I ask whether acts and ways of being come closer to that model or further. On the other hand, my old community, who would have condemned homosexuality, did so by interpreting scripture rather randomly. This inconsistency seems wrong to me. For example, if we are going to follow the part of the Levitical holiness code that condemns homosexuality, then we need to follow all of the other bits and pieces of it. I do not know anyone who does. For example, a central concern of the time was the spilling of male seed. This was seen as a grave sin. Any act that could not result in procreation was an act of spilling the male seed. This is why male-male sex was seen as wrong. Equally wrong are masturbation, oral sex, and sex with ones wife when she’s on her period. (You will notice now why female-female sex is not a concern in Leviticus). I have yet to see anyone deny marriage or dignity to heterosexual couples who commit any of these other acts equally forbidden in the same section of the Bible.
I fear that I have rambled a bit. There is just so much to say. Mel, thank you for asking sincere questions and seeking understanding. I hope we will all get better at this.
Thank-you Jill. I am looking for a conversation with Kara, but if other people want to chime in in the same respect that she does, I'm perfectly fine with that. I've said before, but I'm asking these questions to see how people view homosexuality from a *Christian* stand point. The only reason I asked others to stay out of it, was because they weren't answering my questions. They were simply resorting to name-calling. They'll say that that kind of thinking is making it about my feelings, but the truth is, I just don't see the point in talking with them about it anymore because they aren't helpful. Thank-you for understanding that I am asking sincere questions, and I am trying my hardest not to come off as judgmental in any way. I appreciate your comment, and I will read through it again to make sure I got everything, and I will think about it. Just a quick comment on what you said regarding masturbation, oral sex, and sex with one's wife while she's on her period. You say that if I follow the part of the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong, I must follow the rest as well. I don't want to get a whole conversation started on what I'm about to say, but I just wanted to let you know in answer to your question. I have already stated on another page that I don't agree with masturbation…for me. The same goes with the rest of the things in that list.
Mel, would you say that you don't agree with that list of sexual acts for the same reasons of the time (i.e., that it is spilling of the male seed) or do you have different reasons?
It might be a good idea to look at the whole "Holiness Code" (Leviticus 17-26) and see how you feel about the other items that are forbidden in the same manner.
Finally, I would recommend looking at Mark Jordan's book, The Ethics of Sex, particularly chapter 2 on "Scriptural Authorities." Much of my argument above comes from him. For a broader perspective that doesn't focus on the issue of sex, I highly recommend Luke Timothy Johnson's The Writings of the New Testament: an Introduction. Looking at texts like theirs will make you a "fly on the wall" to the types of conversations had within my interpretative community.
Thank you, Jill. This is wonderful!
Hmm. I used to be conservative on this issue, and I changed my mind, but, at the same time I cannot *hate* the people who have the attitudes I used to have – not only because I remember where I come from, but I rememeber my former church and how the people there were really good people — their beliefs about certain "sins" weren't born from wanting to be evil ogres, but because they wanted to follow the Bible, to "believe right." In short, the discrimination was born out of a genuine desire to "do the right thing," sadly enough. I know it was with me.
Encountering some differing opinions on what Paul really meant helped me to change my mind – and also, encounting gay people online who were willing to *talk and share* rather than launch into tirades about how religion sucks. On a nerd community, I encountered someone being rude about homosexuality and a bisexual woman's response to it – she spoke about the looks she and her girlfriend would get from people and how the girlfriend was deathly afraid of holding hands in public for fear of them getting beaten to death by some violent bigot. I read that and it just *hurt* me that this woman and her girlfriend couldn't feel safe doing something as simple as holding hands.
Is homosexuality a sin? If I speak honestly, my answer is "I do not know." — I figure it's between a person and God and since it doesn't apply to me, I don't worry about it regarding other people anymore. The best thing I can do is respect and love people, whomever they are. The problem for me is… that back when I had more "conservative-style" attitudes, I said some things that I know some people haven't forgiven me for. In coming to them to tell them I know I was wrong, I've pretty much gotten "We're glad you've realized homophobia was wrong, but what you said makes you suck forever and we still wish you'd drop dead." (Not quoted, just the attitude).
I think for Christians who still hold to conservative attitudes – *I* know, at least, that you're just trying to "believe right" and do what you feel is the right thing… and people calling you the scum of the earth are likely just entrenching you, but think about this, if you are an American. Don't some of your beliefs "as an American" trump some of your religious beliefs? Think about it. In America, everyone enjoys a lot of freedom – including the "freedom to sin." Jesus had some not-happy things to say about divorce, but we allow divorce for a variety of reasons (not just adultery). We know that "lust in the heart" is wrong, but we allow strip clubs to operate. We may believe in the "one true way," but we allow people of other religions to practice and those of no religion to stay home from church and not pray. To grant freedoms to those we dissagree with – and to protect the freedoms of those we dissagree with ultimately serves to protect our own freedom.
So, why not let people who have a lifestyle you don't agree with have their freedom and peace? It's the American way.
i know i came way WAY late to the party and probably no one’s even reading this anymore (then again, i am); i just wanted to say this was a very nice arguement and one that often gets overlooked. thank you for making it. (and in such a noninflammitory manner)
And again, it becomes all about Mel. You getting attacked. Your feelings hurt. Whether or not you hurt feelings.
This isn’t about you or your feelings. This is about your ACTIONS and how the ACTION of voting against gay marriage discriminates. But you know that. I think DR hit the nail on the head on the other post in pointing out that by acknowledging your Bible might be misinterpreting God’s message here, the entire book on which you seem to base your belief system and all thought processes gets called into question.
You don’t have to look at it that way – you have to understand that interpretation can be fallible. Seems that there are many Bible scholars here willing to show you that. I hope you are learning.
@Kara
Due to John shutting down the comments on the other page, I didn’t get to say what I wanted to…so I’ll just say it here. Mindy, and DR were very upset that I said “I forgive you”. I just want to point out that I totally know what you meant….about not taking back *what* you said necessarily, but *how* you said it. I wasn’t saying I forgive you for having an opinion that differs from my own. You said sorry for the *way* you said something, so I said that I forgave you. I don’t see why everybody was so worked up over it, but I just wanted to clarify. Also, Mindy said that I “dare to ‘forgive’ you” and yet I have not asked for forgiveness in what I’ve said. Would you mind informing her that that isn’t true? Not only have you said that I haven’t hurt your feelings, but I *have* time and time again, asked for your forgiveness if what I said *had* hurt you. On the other post, everybody was mad that I was making this about *my feelings* and yet I wasn’t trying to learn anything but just condemn others. Again, this isn’t true as I clearly am trying to learn by asking you all these questions. As for making this about my feelings…I’m not *making* it about my feelings, but when people are rude, yes, they are at fault when they hurt my feelings. Anyways, I was really getting attacked on that last page, so I just wanted to clarify to you what my take on all of it was.
The word "abomination" used in the OT means, essentially, "taboo for this societal group". It is also used regarding the Egyptians, in that it was an abomination for them to eat with Shepherds.
It would be sort of like not keeping your shoes on when you go into the home of somebody in Japan, or talking about politics at dinner in America. You just don't do it, and anybody who does do it is offensive (at varying levels).
One will note, the Jews continued to know about things like Child sacrifice…Ahab sacrificed his oldest son to Molech during a seige at one point. When we try to paint these clear "us vs them" definitions with these words, we run into trouble, because they aren't used that way.
Much like how the word "Satan", which means accuser, is at points used regarding Angels that God sends to give a message to somebody. It's a title, not a name, but it has been retranslated to fit modern theology.
In certain third world countries, it is still the practice of tribes to rape visitors to demonstrate their power over them, so that they know that they are not better than them, being from somewhere else. This is what the group in Sodom was attempting to do to the visiting angels, which would fall squarely under inhospitality. Sociologically, we still see this behavior in prisons here in America today. The people doing it are not attracted to the same gender, they are exerting power and authority. They are also denying the image of Christ in one another.
Isn't it fascinating how the culturally-specific meaning of a word can make so much difference?
Two things occurred to me while reading this. First, when I read your comment about the definition of abomination, I was reminded of a topic that comes up in Chinese adoption. One of the pieces of paperwork we receive from the Chinese government upon completion of an adoption is call the "Abandonment Certificate." Some adoptive parents are upset by this, as they don't want to have to use the word "abandoned" when talking to their children about their beginnings. Yet it is there, in black and white, in the legal paperwork that belongs to said child.
We've discussed it from the perspective that using the word, and doing so in a nonjudgmental manner, takes the negative power out of it. But the real key is that the Chinese characters used, the ones that translate to "abandon," actually mean "left to be found." What a huge difference that makes. In our culture, when you abandon something, you give it up without thought, leave it to the winds of fate, essentially, throw it away. There, babies who cannot be raised by their birthparents are most often wrapped up and placed somewhere, under cover of darkness, to be found at morning's light. On the steps of a police station, at a busy market, at the gates of park, on the street-corner of a busy intersection. And often, from the small amount of research that has been able to be accumulated, the family member leaving the baby will remain nearby, in hiding, to be sure the infant is picked up. Not at all like the stories we hear on the news of babies in dumpsters.
I realize that is completely off-topic, but my point is that cultural context can be everything.
And that led me to my second thought, which is simply that putting all one's faith in a book, particularly a book that has been translated and re-translated and is the subject of many lifetimes of scholarly study in order to be understood, is a poor substitute for learning to trust one's own heart to know what is truly right in this lifetime. All the Christians here speak of the Holy Spirit speaking to them, helping them understand and make sense of situations. For me, that is intuition, "trusting your gut," whatever. But it is like an internal voice, and I trust it. Most of you seem to trust it. Why are others so afraid to trust it? Why are others, when faced with evidence that what they thought was true is not, so afraid to let go of what they think is the "right" translation, when the reality is that good people are being harmed by it? Do they ever learn to trust that voice inside?
Exactly, Mindy! Why should we listen to the voice? Because God gave it to us to use. Not doing so is ignoring one of the best gifts he's ever given us.
We're at risk of John locking this thread for comments as well, at this point, but…here goes.
I’m not going to speak about whether you were called names, you called others names, whose feelings are hurt, etc. I wasn’t involved in the exchanges. But I’ve been reading all of these exchanges, and I’ve got to weigh in with some questions and comments.
Mel, what are you still trying to understand? Where do you think the "somwhere" this conversation was starting to go? Kara, Mindy, and others have tried to answer questions and explain all the myriad reasons why you can't be right. Kara particularly has shown monumental patience and grace in trying to accomodate your stated desire for dialogue and dogged avoidance of taking things too personally. They have, I believe overwhelmingly, demonstrated that there are so many flaws in your thinking that your belief on this topic has to crumble from the failure of the belief’s foundation to support it.
If you believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin—sin being a conscious choice by individuals to disregard what God wants us to do—and that the Bible’s proscriptions on this topic are inerrant and infallible, then that would explain your belief. But…It rests on some assumptions.
What if: (1) your understanding and interpretation of these Biblical passages is incorrect? There has been a tremendous amount of scholarship on these passages of scripture in the last few years that have undermined the original interpretation of their meaning (do the research if you haven’t already). For that matter, if you believe that the Bible tells you that homosexuality is a sin, doesn’t the Bible also command you to kill these people as abominations? I’m very confident you don’t believe that should be the case. Why then are you ignoring one seeming commandment for another? On what basis are you taking one part as the word of God and not the other? Why is your interpretation correct and that of other’s incorrect and a condoning of sin? Where do you get that authority?
(2) the overwhelming and indisputable evidence is that homosexuality is not a choice, but a basic fact of life just as your own sexual orientation is. I'm quite thoroughly heterosexual, but I fully accept and validate that others are not. Homosexuals can no more be blue-eyed if they wanted to if they were brown-eyed (without using contact lenses!). They were born and will always be this way. If so, there is no voluntary choice to sin against God…God has made them that way. If God made them that way—and you haveto acknowledge the strong possibility if not the reality—then isn’t it the greater sin to say that God shouldn’t have made them that way? To say that a person should be blue-eyed rather than brown-eyed, because the Bible tells you so? If you’re still not sure about that, consider: why would you take the chance of making that graver mistake if you are wrong?
In light of this, your stubborn, yes even obstinate refusal to acknowledge otherwise smacks of something other than being steadfast in your faith. Anyone who sticks to an obstinate belief that is not supported by the evidence and refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong is going to be considered to have bigoted beliefs. Whether you are truly a bigot…well, that is only for you and God to judge what is in your heart. But it sure seems that way from where I'm sitting.
Help us out. Where is there a flaw in our argument? How can we be so wrong in our belief? Why could we be so wrong in considering your views as bigoted in light of all this?
Kara, you are an extremely bright and articulate person. Any country is lucky to have such a citizen as you. But if your path is blocked and you grow too frustrated weary, please come to Canada.
I am pleased to point out that the lead pilot of the Snowbirds – Canada's elite aerobatic military team (431 Squadron) – is LCol Maryse Carmichael, who has worked her way up through the ranks to become its commanding officer. Your chosen path will not be blocked by your gender or sexual preference here. Not only do we have men and women serving side by side in combat roles in all three branches of the military but a great deal of shit hitting the fan if a soldier's sexual preference is used against him or her. The same is the law on Civy Street.
That's why <a>Michael Rowe, mentioned several times by John, is well known north of the 49th. His has been an important voice from his side of the sexual gender dividing line and has truly helped a nation come to terms with dismantling many of those barriers that have for so long be codified in law against this identifiable group and prying open opportunities that have remained closed to the GLBT crowd. From openly gay military officers to elected politicians at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels, from openly gay teachers to gay clergy, from gay business leaders to gay union activists, Canada has indeed rallied around equality of citizenship and all that entails and being gay is about as important as being a Leaf's fan… a little strange perhaps, but nothing out of the ordinary. For example, as I rode through the park this morning, I passed a middle-aged couple of men walking a dog and holding hands. One looked Irish and the other Iranian. And it makes me proud to live in such a open, accepting, and mature society where individuals can live a full and honest life.
You just have to learn the rules to hockey.
Did I mention the Toronto Gay Pride event? This year more than 2 million came to it. Being gay isn't a sin: it's a good reason to celebrate!
I've thought about moving to Canada. I keep hoping things will get better here, though.
It’s funny that you say that, Tildeb. I’m pretty sure I was eight years old the first time someone asked me if I was from Canada.
Apparently, for no reason I can determine, when I was learning to talk, I picked up a very Canadian “ou” sound. That is, when I say “about,” it seems that I don’t use the American “ow” sound, but the Canadian “oo”.
I visited Canada with my family last spring, and they didn’t stop making jokes about my “homeland” the entire time we were there.
I love Canada. But I think I’m too attached to my jacked up America to give up on it, at least at the moment. I’ll hang around and keep trying to effect change here.
The warmth and kindness of your comment really means a lot to me, though, and it’s always great for this Bible-Belter to hear words of support and encouragement.
No! We need you here in America! Where are you going to get so much deep-fried food, Kara? Will Canada have state fairs where you can get a deep-fried Twinkie? Who is their version of Jersey Shore? Can you really LIVE without any of that? Really think about this decision.
[Picketing with a sign] If Kara goes North, we go South! If Kara goes North, we go South!
Well, I don't know of many people who pronounce about as aboot, but then I barely understand Newfoundlanders a'tall, bi.
I went to a performance on Saturday night at very small restaurant/bar that could only seat about 30 people. At our table for four was someone from small-town New Brunswick, big city Ontario, far north Manitoba, and big city British Columbia. The performer was a solo artist and proudly lesbian (and who told much her life story through song sad and funny, fast and slow, in many different styles). She had just finished her tour from coast to coast to coast (yes, Canada has three ocean coasts) performed in people's living rooms and had an upcoming gig at the National Performing Art Centre in Ottawa. The table next to us had young crossdressers (there was a drag show in the basement) of both french and english speakers, an older couple at the corner table holding hands and tapping their feet with the livelier songs, a centre table with a group of asians, blacks, whites, and first nations singing along and having a great time, and I thought to myself: this is Canada in a nutshell. Everybody is different, but everybody can come together and just be and that's not just okay but ideal. And if we can do it here, then we have to be doing something right. And that's why Canada isn't just a place. It's an idea that works.
Wouldn't it be great if the idea could be exported rather than people having to come here?
Tildeb,
A friend of mine recently converted to Canadianism. Her reasons are many and compelling.
Where did Canada go right, and where did US go wrong?
Ha! I love the the idea of 'converting' to Canadianism! I often suggest that Americans can always join confederation, but few seem to think this is the least bit funny. Oh well.
Like many Canadians, my family lives on both sides of the border and has for more than a handful of generations and it is really interesting to see how the common root branches into different views.
What we call 'regulated' on the north side of the Great Lakes, is called 'socialism' on the south. What we think of as 'multiculturalism' is deemed to be a 'foreign takeover', and so on.
And there is a very big difference about the public role of religion. Although certain religious leaders try to make calls for action about this and that, most Canadians politely listen, smile, say thanks, and go about their business. In Ontario, for example, a political leader with a sizable lead in the polls managed to get trounced on voting day for suggesting more equitable public funding for religious schools. Three catholic Prime Ministers in a row basically told a very vocal cardinal who insisted that their mortal souls were in peril if they allowed abortion to be a publicly funded aspect of healthcare to mind to the business of his own soul and let public servants adhere to the law of the land and do their sworn duty without being threatened.
Canadian voters, very similar to their American cousins in so many opinions and beliefs, do not trust mixing politics with religion and will punish the politician who tries.
The reason why there seems to be such a difference in public policies between our countries is deeply historical. Suffice it is to say, the founding pillars of this country are three: First Nations, French, and English each with different languages and dialects, religions, and significant cultural traditions. The result of this mixing has been to find ways to get along, to create a political system that recognizes that differences may define us but do not separate us. Our constitution is not aimed at life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness, but the much more practical peace, order, and good government. It makes a huge difference in legislation.
We have learned through hard history that we are stronger together with all our differences front and centre than apart as little enclaves of homogeneity. To a large extent, what defines us is that this strength through diversity means that we are not American! That may sound peculiar and even negative, but it is still very meaningful in that we don't have to be afraid of the Other but can rely on each other for our common good in spite of sometimes very large differences in particulars. And no where is this success more apparent than in our brilliant military history – not just for punching way above our weight class in war but in having effect in peace keeping.
For example, few events are more moving or defining of what it means to be Canadian than when a soldier is killed on foreign soil and brought back, where their remains arrive by plane and is met with full military honours at CFB Trenton by high ranking public and military officials no matter the rank of the soldier. Each soldier matters, you see, and publicly so. The body is then taken by small motorcade along with attending family to Toronto by hearse, about a two hour journey. Even on Canada's busiest highway, drivers pull over and turn on their lights to show respect. But what is truly remarkable is to see tens of thousands of Canadians of all ages and ethnicity put aside their activities and gather on overpasses ahead of the motorcade where national flags of all sizes are brought and held and draped in silent tribute. These waiting groups are joined by various local police and fire crews – sometimes classrooms of school children – with the cruisers and trucks flashing their lights in silence and they wait patiently for the convoy to pass beneath them, and this is repeated a hundred times by other such groups all along the two hour freeway journey. This is a spontaneous show of public support and recognition for the family's loss because in Canada, such a loss is personal. It's a shared loss, a shared sacrifice, and a reminder to all that those who make up our military is just another branch of the same family of which all us belong regardless of our smaller differences and particular ethnicities and various religions.
So when issues like gay marriage stir the public pot, it's just another difference and we know there is nothing to fear. And therein, Susan, lies what I think is the most important consideration: I think far too many Americans are insecure with and somewhat distrustful not only of neighbours who are different but those who try to build a larger sense of community in spite of these differences.
Tildeb,
That…makes complete sense.
Seeking, sharing and appreciating commonalities – sounds simple. It is, unfortunately, a mentality that is foreign, pun intended. Tolerance, greater good – often "mandated" which of course serves only to separate us more, breeds more distrust.
There are many wonderful things about our country. But, we could learn a lot from Canada.
I love the Big C, but it's just so damn cold!
Thanks. I will be sharing your insight on my FB.
America has sacrificed liberty at the altar of Freedom.
We sacrifice our independence to our own Independence.
We perverted the vice of pride into a virtue.
Enslaved to its sin, we ultimately decrease the options available to us, and thus our ultimate liberty.
We have forgotten that the truth sets us free when we submit our free will to Truth.
We have forgotten that being bound in Love makes us free as a bird.
Rather, in the name of exercising God-given rights, we actively enslave ourselves in idolatry.
We are burdened by debts.
Independent thought is hardly encouraged and promoted.
In support of our illusions we remain in (often willful, often proud) ignorance. And where there is intelligence, it is analytical, preferring details (as interpreted through our personal feelings) to the big picture.
We are a nation of overgrown children, divided up into cliques.
We do not have much empathy as the illusion of self-reliance (i.e. independence) discourages it. We do however have much loyalty to those like ourselves, as we find it self-affirming.
Group loyalties and individual ignorance leave us easily manipulated by others skillfully acting in their own best interests, though the basis of these interests is questionable at best. But to question them is none of our business.
Yet for most of us, acting in—or even defining—our best interests we're not always particularly good at when doing so completely independently. Hence, for example, the high levels of obesity throughout much of the country. But don't stick your nose in anyone else's business; it's a God-given right to eat fried Twinkies daily.
It's all about us individually, which produces a lot of noisy interference to the program of advancing us all together.
Oh MT, what you write is so, so true. I have nothing to add in response. It's too much for me to delve into mentally right now. I am spent.
Thank you for your thoughts. I mean this sincerely, it's just something I can't reflect upon at the moment. But, I will.
Discriminating against gay people is mean, Mel. Getting involved in their legal rights and affairs IS getting in someone else's business. Desiring to ask questions about someone's sexuality with the objective, whether spoken or not, of trying to convince them of their "wrongness" is not an approach from any place of understanding or respect.
People have called you names here based on your conversation with others. It shows up as public discourse.
Saying things like "I hope you feel good now…" is a technique I used in grade school.
If you have had a truly merciful, love-drenched encounter with God through Christ Jesus, ask Him to show you the mirror. And I mean that in the gentlest way possible.
I dropped out of even reading yesterday's commentary once you started after Kara. It's just hard to stomach that crap.
Actually, I'm asking questions to see where she's coming from. I've never met a Christian who is also a homosexual, so I feel like she can shed some light on the topic for me with regards to the Bible. But thanks for trying to tell me what I'm doing.
Again:
If you have had a truly merciful, love-drenched encounter with God through Christ Jesus, ask Him to show you the mirror. And I mean that in the gentlest way possible.
That’s what I’m saying, Mel. I’m not trying to tell you what you’re doing. I am not your Holy Spirit. As a sister in Christ, I’m saying consider how you are coming off to people here on this public forum. And perhaps pause long enough to consider why.
You said yourself you wanted to talk to Kara about her homosexuality with the belief that it’s wrong. If you want only to have a private conversation with someone you’ve discovered is both Christian and homosexual, use her e-mail.
And by the way, Mel, I am a born-again, Bible-believing, spirit-filled, tongue-talking, wholly healed receiver of God’s grace through Jesus Christ, to put it in terms you might understand (even while others might pigeon-hole.) I’ve also been blessed with a very good brain. If you can’t hear this from me, you aren’t listening:
It is not your job, nor mine, to convict people of sin, nor point it out, nor focus on it. That is what the Holy Spirit is for. And He’s really good at it. He’s got it covered.
Part of my underlying belief is that arguing issues like this, in this way is actually, in itself counter-productive to the cause of Christ. I don’t see him engaging this kind of discourse anywhere in scripture. And ultimately, as I said before, it isn’t an effective way to communicate about anything one hopes will persuade another.
Flies and honey. All that. Tildeb has a beautiful brain, but I’d like to see his/her heart too. But (s)he is not my sister/brother, so I don’t EXPECT, though I might hope, to gain an ear there.
I have two gay siblings and in all my life have never presented myself as an authority on their sexuality any more than I would the sexual activity or bent of my other eight siblings. It’s not my job. My lesbian sister is my absolute closest sister so we have definitely talked about her love life, but never in the context of me trying to convince her of something.
The cool thing is that here, in this venue, you can have discussions with people who have very different perspectives and experiences from yours. So cool!
Love it! Thank you, John Shore for the opp.
At every church I’ve ever attended, no matter what the issue, whoever talks loudest is the opinion people assume represents the core belief of the group. Tht’s part of why this gathering is so dear to me personally.
Now I’m rambling and I’ve gotta go for the night– Hopefully John won’t shut us down….
This is a child we're dealing with here. She's had little education, little exposure to the world, to Christians who are gay and liberalism beyond that which has been fed to her as bad. She'll take this as being condescending and that's fine, but it's a good reminder to me to remember who we are dealing with.
When I was 18, I was the most insecure, self-righteous Christian twit on the planet. I just never learned, but I find it really interesting that Mel is coming back and continuing these conversations. Sometimes we learn what we had absolutely had no intention of learning!
I don't find that condescending actually. It's true that I have had little education on this topic other than the one side of the fence. I haven't really heard the other side. That's what I'm trying to do by speaking to Kara about it.
I know you were saying this about you, but just in case it was also about me, I would like you to know that I'm not insecure. And I am definitely not self-righteous. I can be a horrible person. I've never claimed otherwise. Everybody makes mistakes, and I am definitely not exempt from them.
Just to throw it out there, I don’t feel like she’s trying to convert me back to straightness. I think she’d love it, and praise Jesus if it happened, but I don’t think that’s her intent with this conversation. Maybe I’m naive.
You are correct Kara. I'm just trying to come to an understanding about what these passages in the Bible really mean. I'm trying to hear the other interpretations of them, so that I can make an informed decision about how to interpret them. Also, just because you said it and it sparked my interest…you say that I'm not trying to convert you *back* to straightness….were you straight before you were gay?
Haha, I realized that I should have put that whole sentence in quotes about a half-second after I posted. That's basically quote from what someone else has said to me. (Regarding what God requires of me for me to be spiritually okay.)
I was never straight. That should have read "back to being straight," quotes and all.
I'm okay with that, Kara. You've been very patient with everyone. I don't really see that as her intent (conversion to straightness) but I do think conviction of sin is one of her objectives. Which is ironic given the post we're all chatting under.
That's my rock-bottom point. It's as useless for a Christian to try to point out others' faults as it is for thinkers like tildeb to expect people with a powerful and personal faith experience to check it at the door (though I don't mean that legislatively, athough arguably that's just not even humanly possible, since we all bring our whole self with us every where.)
I think tiledeb expects that in discourse like Mel thinks its her job to point out homosexuality as wrong. And that is the kind of communication I see as pretty counter-productive, no matter what the issue.
PS. I'm here to witness conversations like the above
Did I say I need to leave? Now I really need to get off here.
Just let me say,I started reading this blog because I found here like-minded believers, something I haven't always discovered in a congregation. (But also might not be possible in a congregation… finding them, I mean.)
At any rate, I've noticed my own growing ire with people in The Church who are my brothers and sisters whom I purportedly love. I do mean to love people, no matter what.
If I've been unloving here- to anyone- I'll hear that and examine myself.
But really, I'm honored to be part of this little webernet community at all.
Beth, you seem to keep misunderstanding my position, and more importantly grasping the crux of my criticism and the reasons that back them up.
It is counter-productive to have a powerful and highly personal faith experience – a transcendental, transformative experience – and then assume that this experience reveals what's true out there beyond the boundaries of the personal. When the experience is appreciated for what it brings to the individual who has had it, then all is fine. It's not a matter of what's true; it's a matter of what's meaningful. It is personally meaningful and highly relevant and touches every part of one's life. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Nor am I suggesting that one park this personal affect at the door. The experience is what it is and it changes one (hopefully for the better). That's great. I have no issue with this.
But when one takes that experience beyond it's personally meaningful boundaries and begins to insist that it represents what's true out there (in the public domain), then we have real and unnecessary problems and conflicts.
Mel's beliefs are a terrific example of thinking herself fully justified of applying her beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality out there in a vote against gay marriage. It doesn't matter that Mel honestly believes it is sinful for her and it's no one's business why she thinks homosexuality is a sin for her but it sure as hell matters a great deal to others when she applies her beliefs to justify the intention of her voting. She should not do that. It is morally wrong and ethically untenable no matter how 'right' she thinks it is because it is her (and many other people's) religious belief. And it is wrong not because it is based on her religious belief but because it does not in any way, shape, or fashion justify reducing another's civil rights or political freedoms or respect for the equality of human dignity on such a basis.
She doesn't have to change her belief (I would hope with maturation she would do so willingly) to satisfy me. But she does have to be confronted when she thinks herself justified for extending her belief into the public domain and intentionally harm another. Simply put, her religious belief doesn't belong in Kara's life. It's rude, ignorant, and colossally arrogant to think herself justified by god to do so.
Great stuff, tildeb. And I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your position or the crux of it. I wholeheartedly agree with the absolute ludicrous nature- that it is morally wrong and ethically untenable- to try to convince someone else that something they do is wrong. It is, among other things, a waste of time for everyone.
It is, in fact, non-Christian, counter to His teachings and example, contrary to Scripture and, simply put, not our job. It is this very practice which sometimes enrages me as a fellow Christian. So that is what I'm trying to point out to Mel above, as a fellow believer.
To you, clearly a thinker, I say this: I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to expect anyone NOT to utilize whatever morality they possess-no matter how misguided, no matter from whence it stems- when it comes to voting. That's just silly. You vote based on what you believe to be right, if you vote. I mean, literally, you do. We all do.
So, when we are conversing in a forum like this one, my principle point is that the discussion gets further when it starts at a position of a desire to understand. Not a position poised to bludgeon with resounding intellect, or religious condemnation. In this discussion, for me, you and Mel represent the extremes of the spectrum.
Also, having a powerful and personal faith experience is not the same as being part of a religion that shapes one's beliefs. One is based on an incredible encounter with God in a way that forever erases the possibility He doesn't exist (for me) and the other is simply being part of a system, which may be more the experience Mel has had. I don't know and I don't pretend to, but I do think it's important to make the distinction. They are distinctly different things.
And both very real.
I agree completely with you:
"Simply put, her religious belief doesn’t belong in Kara’s life. It’s rude, ignorant, and colossally arrogant to think herself justified by god to do so."
And I seriously think she does not get this…
yet.
That's one of the things I love about this blog. I actually think she might, after a while, get it. She certainly has had lots of people confront her and her sense of justification, myself included.
Btw, it's not that I haven't been impressed with your big beautiful brain, I absolutely have. And you think that just happened by accident and your glorious effort? Okay. But you should be careful how you use that thing. I'm just sayin'
Mindy you don't need to be so sarcastic. Once again, I'm not saying this is about my feelings. I can have conversations with people to hear what they have to say on a topic, and then to tell them how I feel about it as well. However, there is never any reason for people to get mean. Just like there wasn't a reason for whoever it was to call you a hypocrite and lose it on you, but I didn't go and say "oh Mindy, now you're making this whole conversation about your feelings". I'm not saying that this whole conversation is about my feelings, but when people hurt them, I think they should know. You just don't care for some reason. You *say* that it is wrong to hurt people with your words, and yet you knowingly do it all the time. I'm not saying that simply by having a different opinion than me, you are hurting my feelings. It's the *way* you say things. But for some reason it makes people feel good to get immature about everything, and get involved in things that are none of there business, and call people names. So congrats Mindy, you have accomplished all of the above…I hope you feel good now.
Mel, you're almost 10 times as hypocritical as Mindy ever was (to the extent of my knowledge). (I’d reckon that makes you at least twice as hypocritical as myself.)
"You *say* that it is wrong to hurt people with your words, and yet you knowingly do it all the time," implies: "You are being a hypocrite."
"However, there is never any reason for people to get mean," though you are far meaner in actively disrespecting the rights and dignity of others than it is to call one as they are.
And are you just not listening or are you really so dense as to still say that?
In doing so, you effectively deny the divinity and perfect example of Christ!
I wonder how you're going to answer for all these things when you stand—no; when you fall on your knees and prostrate—before the throne of Glory.
Will you say—in a round-about way because you aren't bold enough to say these things directly—Lord, You "get immature about everything, and get involved in things that are none of [Your] business"?
Also, you said, "Mindy you don’t need to be so sarcastic," when she wasn't even being sarcastic but speaking the truth! Then, you go on to be truly sarcastic yourself! But if someone else says, "Mel, you don't need to be so bigoted," then they're name-calling!
It's interesting, reading 1st and 2nd Kings, how much time is spent over the issue of male cult prostitutes, and whether the king has allowed or disallowed them.
The laws brought forth in the Torah weren't just about survival (cleanliness during menses, not eating pork or shellfish) but were also about setting themselves apart from the religious practices of the other nations (not allowing the men to engage in sexual intercourse with cult prostitutes serving another religion, especially when their seed was meant to be impregnating Israeli women, not wearing clothing of specific mixed fibers from that area with a local significance)…The idea was for them to take on a culture that was set apart from all of the local cultures, and to not mix with them, so that they would not be pulled away from God.
I think that (at least in my case) the way that we grow up and are taught in Sunday School, from the time of Abraham we're already thinking of the tribes of Jacob as "Jews", who believe in one God and actively take on all of His prescribed practices, but in fact that's mostly not true. They were polytheists who in practice were nomadic, and took on the practices and beliefs of much of the surrounding culture. It took exile to Babylon for them to truly begin to take on the character and manner of the Law, because it became so inherent to who they were since they were no longer in the land.
Additionally, the manifesto given to Abraham by God, and repeated to Moses, was that God was going to bless this people so that they could be a blessing to others, but instead we see a history of war and struggles for power (especially under Solomon, who became an arms dealer) and which led to practices in Jesus' day like not setting foot into a Gentile's house, or speaking to them more than was necessary, for fear of uncleanliness.
Though I suspect that Jesus would say that cleanliness, much like the Sabbath, was for man, not the other way around.
When we look at what is identified in the New Testament as Paul condemning homosexuality is actually much closer, and much more likely, to Paul condemning prostitution, temple cult prostitution, and pedastry…all of which were common, and by intent are anti-thetical to the practice of one who says that they are following Christ, who love others as themselves, and who see others as being made in the image of Christ. In the first century church document the didichae, we see that they specifically did not support prostitution or abortion, but there is no mention of homosexuality. They simply wouldn't put up with fornication.
The modern twist to this is, of course, only defining marriage in terms of "a man and a woman", but as has been mentioned repeatedly, at the time the bible was written, it was the sort of society where only men who were married to women had any power or voice, where women and children were property who could be disposed of as a man desired, and where remaining single was a sign that God had cursed you.
By attempting to read our culture into the bible and apply what we see there directly, rather than looking at the Spirit of what is happening and allowing it to enter us into progression and change, we do violence to the text, ourselves, and our community.
wow Todd. What a rich wonderful and nuanced post. thanks for sharing. You made me rethink a few things I thought I knew. Please share more often!
Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)
This one involves talking about the role of Old Testament law for those of us who live after Christ. It involves looking at why that verse was in there. It involves looking at cultural context. (As do the verses in the OT that condone slavery, allow polygamy, prohibit wearing fabric blends, and prohibit sex during a woman’s period.)
Israel was small, and Israel was chosen. God needed Israel to grow. Therefore, any time a guy was having sex and not at least potentially making a baby, that was bad. (Hence the proscription against Coitus Interruptus.) Note that the OT makes no mention of lesbianism.
Also, in OT days, because they needed babies, everyone got married to someone of the opposite sex, period. Love wasn’t an issue, wanting to wasn’t an issue. Therefore, homosexuality would have required adultery.
Romans 1:26-27
I don’t want to get super-technical here, so I’m going to have to ask you to take me somewhat on faith, but I have read extensively about this passage, talked with many people who understand the context and culture at the time of Paul’s writing better than I do, and examined the Greek myself.
There is a very strong argument to be made that Paul is referring to straight men and women who are engaging in gay sex as part of pagan idol worship. The two-word phrase that is translated “unnatural” can also mean “unusual”. There’s no value judgment attached to the word in Greek, in fact, Paul uses the same phrase later in Romans to describe an action of God.
So my understanding is this: The Romans were acting against their natures due to blind lust and worshiping idols (sins). One way they were expressing these sinful things was through gay sex (unusual, at the time.) However, if you know the history of Rome, there was conception of an equal, monogamous, loving, consensual gay relationship between equals. At the time, where there was gay sex, there was power imbalance, pure lust, and usually adultery.
It makes no sense to say that Paul was writing against something that no one was doing at the time. Paul speaks against, and I am also against, lust-based, idol-worshiping gay sex practiced by straight people. But Paul doesn’t speak to the relationship I want: loving, permanent, monogamous, consensual, and God-honoring (that is, with another Christian woman).
1 Timothy 1:10
This is just a simple error of translation. If your Bible says “homosexual,” then it’s been manipulated by a political agenda, because there absolutely was no such concept at the time Paul wrote. There was no concept of a “homosexual,” and there was no Greek word for such a concept.
The word is this verse “Αρσενοκοιταις”. Paul made this word up. But he uses it elsewhere, and from the context, the most reasonable understanding of this word is that it’s someone who makes use of a male prostitute. There is absolutely no reason to translate this word as “homosexual”. None.
I didn’t just decide that the parts of the Bible that I didn’t like weren’t relevant. I’ve looked at these verses. I firmly believe that the Bible does not condemn our modern notion of homosexuality. It speaks against men wasting sperm that was “needed” for procreation. It speaks against idol worship and having sex that goes against your nature. It speaks against exploiting prostitutes. I agree with all of these things.
That’s my take. You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you can at least see that I’ve thought long and hard about these questions, and that I care very much about what the Bible has to say on this topic.
I realize that you didn't just decide that parts of the Bible you didn't like weren't relevant. I hope I didn't insinuate that. Actually, I thought just the opposite. I've never actually met, or talked to a gay Christian, so I figured that you would actually be able to explain to me your interpretation of these verses as opposed to non-Christian homosexuals just saying that the Bible is a piece of crap, and God is a homophobe. I can definitely tell that you have researched these verses. Thank-you so much for having the patience to explain it all to me. I have another question, and I hope you don't mind, but I will probably come up with more that I just didn't think of while writing this post. Every time the Bible refers to a God-honoring marriage, He speaks of a man and a woman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also seems that you believe homosexuality actually isn't addressed at all in the Bible. So, my question is, if there wasn't anything wrong with it, then why wouldn't God sometimes talk about a homosexual God-honoring relationship, and then sometimes talk about a heterosexual God-honoring relationship? Why is it that He only refers to the one? Also, since God is all-knowing, He definitely knew that homosexuality was going to be a "heated topic" among Christians in the future. Why wouldn't He have clarified that a homosexual relationship is okay? He could have stopped so much hurt, and discrimination had He only said so. But He didn't. To me, that means something. Not even once, does God refer to a God-honoring homosexual relationship. So, why is that?
I guess I feel like it would sort of be like God addressing hair dye, driving etiquette, or alternative rock.
That is to say, it's really an issue of time and culture.
There was still no concept of homosexuality when the very last book of the Bible was written. Why would God address it specifically?
When it comes to modern things, I analyze them like this: Is it just? Is it merciful? Does it bring me closer to, or farther from God? Is it compatible with me loving my neighbor as myself?
So I guess I think God only talked about heterosexual committed, monogamous relationships because that's all that the readers of the time would have had any idea of. It would have been bizarre to randomly start talking about a God-honoring lesbian couple in Corinthians if there weren't any at the time.
I would like to continue this conversation…I feel like it was starting to go somewhere. But given your last post about the distinction between hurt feelings and just being hurt, I feel like I am hurting you by discussing this. I am sorry that what I believe hurts you. It breaks my heart actually. I really am trying to live my life according to the way God wants me to. Even if I get to Heaven, and find out that I was wrong, I don't think that my simply trying to understand to the best of my ability should be offensive. Like I said, I'm sorry that it is. I guess that's what I have a hard time communicating to Mindy, and John. That's why I feel like I'm not part of the problem, which they accuse me of. Because, if I get to Heaven, and I was wrong about all this…I was just simply wrong. I don't think I'm doing anything that God would judge me for. I'm not telling people who is or isn't going to Heaven. I'm not screaming at people, I'm trying my hardest not to be judgmental. So my belief in itself, is not part of the problem. It means a lot to me that you said in another post that I am not a hateful person, or a bigot. I feel like Mindy used that word, and the instant she realized how hurtful it was to me she decided to use it again, and again. Then other people saw how affected I was by it, and they started using it. So the fact that *they* are saying I'm a bigot, and yet you, who actually is a homosexual, is saying that I'm not means a great deal to me. Thanks again for taking the time to explain all of this to me, but as I said, if I'm hurting you, I think we should stop.
…Mel. I don't know how many ways I can say this.
This conversation is not hurting me. Nothing you've said has hurt my feelings. And your saying or not saying things here, on John's blog, does not make one inch of a difference in the hurt I was talking about on the other post.
It's systematic. It's nothing that your actions or inaction can control. It's about what you believe. It's about the system that says that you're good and I'm bad because you're straight and I'm gay. It's about the power, Mel. It's not about you and me. It's about people like you and people like me.
I do not want to stop this conversation under any circumstances. Please believe me and take me at my word.
I believe the beliefs you believe cause hurt. That doesn't mean that you personally have hurt me. Do you see the difference between me being hurt by you and me being hurt by certain beliefs that affect my life?
I have such tremendous faith in your intentions. I don't believe for even a second that you mean anyone any ill will. So if I get frustrated, I'm sorry, but I really, really do want to continue this conversation, if only so you can see where I'm coming from more fully. If I thought you were saying the things you do out of bigotry, I wouldn't be talking to you. It would be a waste of my time, because you wouldn't care what I believe or have to say. But that's not the case.
I'd love to answer any more questions you have, if you're willing to ask them. (But it will have to be tomorrow, because I really do have class in the morning, and I have to get more sleep than I have been.)
I think I kind of get it. Between this post, and the one you left on the other blog….sort of. If I have any other questions, I will ask you. But as of now, I don't.
Mel, I don't believe I ever actually called you a bigot. I said that this particular belief of yours is part of a bigger picture of bigotry. That perpetuating the belief even in the face of evidence after piece of evidence to the contrary is bigoted – point out to you, in strong terms, that regardless of your intent, the end result is still discrimination.
I do believe that you are not intentionally being a bigot. I believe that your position comes from a place of both innocence and ignorance – and before you slam me for calling you ignorant, I am not. You may be ignorant – about this one topic, homosexuality, because you have not learned about it from any real, valid source. As in, an actual gay person. But you are, hopefully, learning now, talking to Kara, listening to Kara and taking under consideration what she has to say about who she is and how she is hurt by the belief system in which you participate.
I think you assume that when I talk about bigotry I am assigning a malicious intent to you – and I am not. But bigotry borne of ignorance is just as damaging as bigotry born of maliciousness. What has been frustrating here for me is that instead of listening to what so many people have said to you, you've continued with a circular argument and turned away from the real discussion to a discussion about your own feelings and intentions. If your intentions are innocent and you just haven't known any better – which is, I think, what most of us here believe – then we continue to hope that your position can change when you DO learn better, maybe, ultimately, from Kara. When you become willing to really hear what she has to say.
I believe with all my heart that you do not mean to be malicious. But the end result of your belief system – gays suffering discrimination because of it – is no different than if you did.
“because of bigoted homophobes like you.”
“then you can [..] suffer the consequences of your bigotry -because I’m here to tell you, Mel, that that is exactly what it is”
“and I am calling it out for what it is – bigotry.”
“Personally, if I have to pick something to hate, it’s bigotry, and those who practice it. Where homosexuality is concerned, Mel, “hating the sin, not the sinner” is as hypocritical as it gets.”
“This person admits to not knowing any gay people. When I called it out as bigotry…”
“your misguided belief that homosexuality is “sinful” is actually bigotry hiding behind Bible verses.”
“People who continue to insist that homosexuality is a choice and therefore a sin even when they do not knowingly know a single gay person – I have to call that out as bigotry”
“only to hear otherwise intelligent people justify their bigotry based on the Bible”
When you say thing like *your* bigotry or *their* bigotry, that is the same thing as calling me a bigot. That first quote from you that I put here is my personal favorite, since you claim to have never called me a bigot.
Ya, you don’t like to use that word to intentionally hurt me at all (eye roll).
Nope, didn't call you a bigot. Called you a homophobe.
Do you see what you just did, Mel? Turned it into a conversation about me hurting your feelings. It is a shame that your feelings are hurt, yes. No one likes that. I pointed out the bigotry in what you've said and what your actions accomplish, yes. I pointed out that what you say and do results in bigotry, so if you want to internalize the message as "Mel, you are a bigot," well, that's on you.
My intent is NOT to hurt you. I don't know you, and therefore can't care enough about you to want to to hurt you – sorry, but that's just a fact of life. What I want to do is make you uncomfortable in this one belief. I want to challenge you to reconsider, to rethink it, to look at it from a different perspective and be willing to open your heart and mind to the fact that maybe, just maybe, on this one thing, you are wrong.
So far, you've remained resolute in your refusal to do so, even as I and others kept poking and prodding and hoping. I then made the decision to stop, because I felt as though I wasn't getting through to you, regardless of how I framed it. Nice didn't work, blunt didn't work.
Since it appears that you remain willing to learn from Kara, I remain hopeful and since she is incredible enough to engage in this conversation with you, I will leave it up to her, supporting her efforts all the way. She is a rock star, Mel. I hope you realize someday the gift she is giving you.
@Mel – here's the way I make the distinction with my daughter. I would never call her names. I would never call her a brat, for instance.
But there are times when she acts like one. She's a young teenager, and she can get mouthy. So I will tell her that she is ACTING like a brat. And since I know that she is NOT a brat, her acting like one is hard for me to tolerate.
I call her on her behavior, not on the essence of who she is.
That is what I have done with you, calling you out on your behavior – your comments and voting plans – not on who you are. And because you seem like a generally nice person, it is hard to tolerate that kind of behavior – because it is inconsistent with who you are overall.
And you seem to be trying to do the same thing with Kara – call her out on any homosexual behavior in which she has ever engaged, while not calling her out on who she is.
Except when you finally HEAR what everyone has been saying to you, you'll understand that in the case of being gay, that separation is not possible – leaving your position completely indefensible. Which is probably why, when I point out the bigotry in your behavior, you feel as though I've called you names.
@Mindy at 11:00 am
Brilliant comment, Mindy!
I hope the message gets through.
and for what it's worth, I get your last point addressing why God didn't just say that homosexuality was okay. That it would have been weird for people back then to read about something that basically didn't exist yet.
Not just bizarre, I doubt there would actually be any adequate and appropriate way to describe it in the language of the day.
About only describing "committed, monogamous relationships”, I’d suggest we might want to take another look at the Old Testament!
True that, Matthew.
Okay, so here's my question. You are a Christian, correct? I'm pretty sure that in the other blog, you stated such. So, do you believe the Bible to be true? All of the Bible? Is our difference in opinion based on different interpretations of the Bible, or is it based on you not believing all of the Bible to be true? I just wanted to ask this first, so that I knew where to try and take the conversation from there.
I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus. I believe all of the Bible to be profitable. I believe that it's all there for a reason, and that I can learn something from all of it. It's very possible that I have a more poetic/symbolic interpretation of some events, like the creation story, than you do. (That is, I don't believe we're talking about literal 24 hour days, but metaphorical periods of time.) But I don't discount any scripture because I don't like it, or because it's hard, if that's what you mean. I don't "get around" the homosexuality issue by just deeming the traditional verses used against it irrelevant.
I believe that the only proper way to read the Bible is to try to read it with an understanding of when it was written and to whom it was written. For example, the verses regarding women covering their heads when praying. I see these as largely cultural, and therefore, look to the underlying moral point Paul was trying to get at, not the specifics of how he said it.
That's my philosophy of Biblical interpretation.
Okay, that is good to know. So, my actual question with regards to homosexuality and the Bible is; if homosexuality wasn't sinful, then why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Again, I'm trying to ask honest questions and say what is on my mind. I can't do so without saying that I believe homosexuality is a sin, so please don't take this personally. And please don't be offended. I will try my absolute hardest to only use kind words, and to treat this like the delicate topic that it is.
Please don't worry about offending me. You really, really, really aren't going to.
The guys in Sodom and Gomorrah were trying to gang-rape visitors to their town. I don't know of anyone who thinks that's okay. But the angels looking like men or looking like women isn't the issue, IMO. And elsewhere in the Bible (Ezekiel), the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is described as their pride and their greed and their unwillingness to feed the poor.
Okay, so that is your opinion on Sodom and Gomorrah. I have other verses in the Bible referring to homosexuality that I would like you to talk about.
Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)
22 “ ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
1 Timothy 1:10
sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching
To me, these make it pretty clear. I'm sure you have a different interpretation, but I'm curious as to what that is.
MEL Okay, so that is your opinion on Sodom and Gomorrah. I have other verses in the Bible referring to homosexuality that I would like you to talk about.
FRANK The first thing is … define that word "homosexuality". The word has only existed for the past 100 years as a clinical diagnostic technical term. and it has only had the current clinical meaning since around 1980 largely do to the work of dr hooker. It would seem strange to use a word that appears in a medical reference book technically and insert the word into the bible. that would be like translating the biblical command to "be joyful always" as "never be clinically depressed". Isn´t it safest to use words the way they are currently defined by the general population rather than insist on ones own definition? The idea of "homosexual" being a category of human beings never would have occured to anyone in biblical times. Nor would have electricity or alot of other stuff. not a big deal that. Unless for some reason someone needs to make it into a big deal.
now for the passages.
BIBLE Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)
22 “ ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
FRANK yes it is detestable, or rather the idea of that sexual scenario would disgust gay men. I would never want to be treated as a woman sexually. I am a man. and a homosexual man. That would feel like a rape or violation to me. So this does not look to me like anything that would appeal to me as a homosexual or homosexuals in general. You can easily check that out independently. Alot of the dating and sex ads for gays say something like "I am not effeminate and dont want to be with anyone who is". This is a huge deal for some reason for most gay men. so….. how is this about homosexuality if homosexuals have that reaction to what the bible passage describes? Yeah I know there is the assumption that in a gay relationship a heterosexual relationship is mimicked and one of the two assumes the female role. This is simply ignorance and misinformation ok?
BIBLE Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
FRANK Ok. This is easier…
1) if "they" and "the men" means "homosexuals" in any one place in this chapter , then it means homosexual everywhere in the chapter.
2) if that is true, then the characteristics described of the "they" would fit most homosexuals you meet, be a medical diagnostic for example, for the typical homo you would meet right? So is it typical that homosexuals, as an expected rule… "abandon their relations with [their] women" and then become sex addicts addicted to other men? There is a possessive sense in the greek here that says clearly abandoned THEIR women. and then also all the things described from vs 28 till the end at vs 32 would also be expected to be found as diagnostic characteristics of all homosexuals right? inability to love, inability to be honest? fornicators? etc etc. I would be afraid to be around anyone like that right?
3) finally what about romans 2:1? Romans chapter 1 seems to be entirely entended as the setup for romans 2:1 How can that be so if the "they " in chapter one is only and I mean only about "homosexuals"? This reading does not make sense. So there must be another understanding that fits with the overall point paul is making right? besides, sex acts are never mentioned in romans 1 until (i think) verse 30 where the word "fornicators" is used.
BIBLE 1 Timothy 1:10
sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching
FRANK The word for "practicing homosexuals" is never translated that way in any older translation. That means something. It means that the underlying greek word does not mean homosexual. The use of the word homosexual here is revisionism and modernism. It is not a conservative translation of the greek. Besides what exactly is a "practicing homosexual"? it is clear to you maybe, but if that expression is not clear to me, and I am a homosexual, then that suggests that something is wrong. Maybe asking the question "What is a "practicing heterosexual"?" might help make this clear to you?
MEL To me, these make it pretty clear. I’m sure you have a different interpretation, but I’m curious as to what that is.
FRANK ok. now I hope your curiosity is satified. There is such a thing as sexual sin. sexual sin is the same for you and me. prison sex as rape is between two men for example but is not homosexual sex. it is rape. rape is not sex in the ordinary sense. it is an act of violence.
@Frank
Not that you aren't totally welcome in this conversation, but I was directing those questions at Kara, and I wanted to hear what *she* had to say about them.
The word homosexual is in the Bible, so I'm not sure what your point is. Changing be joyful always to never be clinically depressed is *changing* what it says. I'm not changing what the Bible says, that is a quote right out of the Bible. The definition of homosexuality would be men who have relations with other men, or women who have relations with other women. Or those who intend to do so.
That is a huge stretch saying that the Bible means not to treat a man like a woman sexually. It says that as a man sleeps with a woman, a man should not sleep with another man.
You don't have to say that "they" and "the man" *means* homosexuals. It says a man that lusts for another man. It says that a man abandoned the natural way of things, which is to be with a woman, and started to be with men. That in no way means that every time the word "they" is used, it is referring to homosexuals.
A "practicing homosexual" would be somebody that doesn't just think about homosexual behavior, but acts upon it. The same way that a "practicing heterosexual", which for some reason you think proves a point, is one who doesn't just think about heterosexual behavior, but acts upon it.
The last example you used would be classified as homosexual rape, so again, I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove.
Mel – This is sort of what I was afraid of. All the threads on homosexuality get really heated, and people subscribe to the comments, so it's really, really not easy to do a one-on one conversation here. For the purpose of not getting too deeply threaded, I'm going to give my answers your questions in a new, not-a-reply comment.
@Frank
MEL Not that you aren’t totally welcome in this conversation, but I was directing those questions at Kara, and I wanted to hear what *she* had to say about them.
The word homosexual is in the Bible, so I’m not sure what your point is. Changing be joyful always to never be clinically depressed is *changing* what it says. I’m not changing what the Bible says, that is a quote right out of the Bible. The definition of homosexuality would be men who have relations with other men, or women who have relations with other women. Or those who intend to do so.
FRANK As you probably know, the new testament was written in greek and the old testament largely in hebrew. In the greek there is no word for homosexual. and you wont find that word in any english translation that is more than about 20 years old either. Using that word homosexual to translate the original greek is a very very modern change and innovation.
the two greek words that are usually translated "homosexual" are "arsenokoitia" and "malakoi". Kara is missing info here. it seems clear that "arsenokoitia " is a direct reference to the a greek translation of the old testament called the septuagint referencing leviticus 18. That would probably strengthen kara´s case for the word as being about temple ritual sex among heterosexuals. or not. The other greek word is "malakoi" which means usually weak or morally weak. It takes some real twisting to insist that this means "homosexual". I don´t think that is what a greek reader in the 1st century would have thought when they read that word in a sin list.
That is a huge stretch saying that the Bible means not to treat a man like a woman sexually. It says that as a man sleeps with a woman, a man should not sleep with another man.
FRANK In that case it could have just said "a man should not have sex with another man". But the text says more than that. My point is not to argue Mel. My point is this: If homosexuals read this passage and go "yuck!" then how is this about homosexual sex? Chances are good by the way that it was heterosexuals with wives and children who were doing what was described in leviticus 18.
MEL You don’t have to say that “they” and “the man” *means* homosexuals. It says a man that lusts for another man. It says that a man abandoned the natural way of things, which is to be with a woman, and started to be with men. That in no way means that every time the word “they” is used, it is referring to homosexuals.
FRANK I am saying that the "they" in romans 1 refers to the same group everywhere in romans 1. I am not saying that "they"=homosexual. That would be silly wouldn´t it? I am saying that if romans 1 is about "homosexuality" in one part, that in one part "they"=homosexuals, then in that case "they" must be about homosexuality in the entire chapter.
MEL A “practicing homosexual” would be somebody that doesn’t just think about homosexual behavior, but acts upon it. The same way that a “practicing heterosexual”, which for some reason you think proves a point, is one who doesn’t just think about heterosexual behavior, but acts upon it.
FRANK "acts upon it". Can i assume you mean sex? Your "practicing heterosexuality" with your wife can be reduced alone to the sex act? If not, what all do you include in "acts upon it"? Is homosexuality only and strictly about same gender sex acts for you? In that case we have a communication problem, because that is not how medical professionals would use that word "homosexuality". We dont get to make up our own definitions for words do we? that would be chaos.
MEL The last example you used would be classified as homosexual rape, so again, I’m not really sure what you’re trying to prove.
FRANK so rape needs to be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual rape? do we need to classify all other physical violence as heterosexual or homosexual? homosexual murder? heterosexual physical abuse? heterosexual child molestation? homosexual rape? Does that make sense to you? Is there some purpose to that Mel?
I’m not going to comment on anything else you said in this comment, because it is not productive and it is causing a fight. That was not my intent as Kara and I came here to have an actual discussion about this. I just want to say that “acts upon it” does not only mean sex. It means acts upon it. As in…takes it out of the brain and actually *does* something. Shows their feelings….acts upon it…I really don’t know how else to say it. Also, just an FYI I wouldn’t be sleeping with my “wife” because I’m a girl.
mel you are assuming that the sodom and gommorah story somehow is about homosexuality. why? I am homosexual and I cannot place myself in that group wanting to commit rape. you I hope could not place yourself in some news story about a bunch of guys gang raping a female.
then the next question would be why many make the sodom and gomorrah story about homosexuality. That is the more interesting question. ezekial , which is the divinely inspired commentary on the sodom and gomorrah story is ignored why?
I am not saying that any other part of the Bible is ignored. In Sodom and Gomorrah, the men surrounded the building where the angels disguised as men were staying. They said that they wanted them to come out so they could have sex with them. That is why some people interpret this part of the Bible as having to do with homosexuality.
It’s true that the sort of sex that would be forced upon the angels was of the man-on-man variety. But note—and this is very telling—nowhere, though the Bible speaks of their extreme wickedness in multiple places, though Lot begs them not to violate these men who had come under the protection of his roof, nowhere is any indication given that the homosexual nature of the act attempted (if it’s even appropriate to call it “sexual”) was of any significance to the grave evil in Sodom and Gomorrah.
ok mel. lets assume that the hebrew word "know" in this context means sex, which is not entirely clear, but can maybe be inferred because of the fact that Lot offered up his daughters. Know could simply mean know. In that case, it would be about the townspeople wanting to interrogate strangers to see if they were spies. note that the crowd was not just men. it was men women and children who wanted to "know" the angels.
ok now, assuming that this was about attempted rape… do the many stories in the old testament that are about men raping women say anything at all about hetersexuality. as in "this is a story about heterosexuality. it describes something about heterosexuality or tells us something about heterosexuality or God´s attitude towards heterosexuality?
So you see.. in any understanding, this passage that you have been taught is a story depicting homosexuality has other more plausible understandings.
I would suggest that it is the ones who taught you that this is about homosexuality that have departed from the traditional understanding of this passage.
Adding to what Kara and Frank have already said, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, it was lack of hospitality.
The men of the town were not interested in having consensual sex with the strangers. They wanted to rape the strangers–and likely for the same reason that other forms of rape take place–not sexual desire but the desire to show dominance over the victim. This was considered particularly egregious back in the day because being hospitable to the stranger was such an important part of the Middle Eastern code of ethics. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is intended to be contrasted with the story in the previous chapter about Abraham’s response to the same strangers. This is why Lot is considered to be “the good guy” in the story–even though offering up one’s own daughters to be raped instead of the strangers is hardly heroic–but at least Lot stood up to the evil of raping the strangers.
This is a generic comment. Just sayin'.
is it possible that…if god is love…then any true expression of love is the closest thing that human beings can get to achieving godliness?
Yes. It is absolutely possible. In fact, Kenny, you've nailed it on the head. (See 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13, among other places.) Thanks for making this point.
I notice how many comments on here are deeply critical of religion/the bible, despite Shore's interesting conversion story to….Christianity? Do they not take that into account when debating homosexuality? That they're slagging off the religion of the blogger that they otherwise agree with?
And it's "evangelicals" who are daft or thoughtless. Right. Absolutely.
On a semi-random note, I found this article earlier concerning homosexuals bigoted against bisexuals. It's not the first time I've seen this phenomenon, but it's worth exploring. Are is this gonna get swept under the rug? http://open.salon.com/blog/max_the_communist/2010…
I get really tired of NARTH. Why?
If you wanted to really be HONEST with your stuff, you would ALWAYS cite a link to the ORIGINAL studly you claim is proof for your claims, and you would further cite the exact page number from that original study so people can see if what you say is true in context.
but you NEVER do that do you? Your cites always refer to someone who is commenting and interpreting the original study. usually it is some bloviating post on your site. so I guess I am really saying that you are very very dishonest.
this post is a typical example. You level the accusation that john Shore is a biggot in this post. Where? How so? Am I going to find that the salon article you post is about this specific post by John Shore. Of course not. So where exactly is this article of john 's bigotted against bisexuals? It isn't is it? You just want to win an argument. Hit and run style. You do not want to engage specifics. ever.
“Virtually all other behaviors Christians typically considered sinful can be readily understood as objectively and clearly wrong without any reference to the Bible. But you take the Bible out of a Christian’s hands, and he has no arrow left to shoot at the gay man or lesbian. He’s without recourse, justification, argument. Without his Bible to quote from, he has virtually nothing upon which to base his claim that homosexuality is wrong.”
This is quite simply one of the best if not the best logical conclusions to homosexuality from a Christian point of view. Brilliant and true.
I wrote about homosexuality as well, not as eloquently as you did, but the opposing comments are nothing but Bible verses. http://joechianakas.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/new-same-sex-law-is-positive-change-facebook-fans-indication-of-popularity/
Here is a sample of one comment left on my post:
“The Bible locates the origin of homosexual behavior in man’s sinful heart (cf. Mark 7:21-23). Although there are factors that affect our actions, like the patterns we learn as children or physical problems, our sinful responses to life come from our fallen nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Ps. 51:5; Shorter Catechism Q. 16-19).
Paul lists homosexuality as one of the expressions of man’s sinful rebellion against his creator. Remember, however, that Paul includes homosexuals in a list of types of sinners. They are not singled out or highlighted; they are simply mentioned along with others. There are sins that Paul mentions which Christians too easily excuse, like greed or slander, while reacting strongly to sins like adultery or homosexuality. All sin, though, demonstrates rebellion against God (Rom. 3:9-19).
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul uses four words to describe people who commit various sexual sins. First he uses a general word for those who sin sexually (pornoi). Next he speaks more specifically of those who break the marriage covenant (moichoi). Then he uses two words to describe those who engage in homosexual activity. The first word, translated in the NIV as “male prostitutes,” comes from a root that means “soft,” and hence refers to those who are effeminate (malakoi). The other word graphically refers to “those who lie in bed with a man as with a woman” (arsenokoitai).
All of these sins are violations of the seventh commandment (cf. Larger Catechism Q. 139). Paul is not putting homosexual activity in a special, more heinous category of sin, but showing that it is one of the ways in which people try to live apart from the rule of God.
What does God think of sin? Paul says that it excludes people from the kingdom of God, for they are renouncing the rule of God. Those who continue in these sins will be separated from God and his kingdom forever. Homosexuality is included because it is a rejection of God’s created rule for our sexuality (Gen. 2:18-25), saying that man knows better than his creator how he is to live. Paul links homosexuality and idolatry in Romans 1 because the homosexual becomes his own god and lawgiver.
Therefore, Christians must confess, with Scripture, that homosexuality is rebellion against God and a violation of God’s law, rooted in the sinfulness of the human heart. Yet this is not bad news. This is actually good news, because it points to true hope.
What Was the Hope That Paul Described?
The good news is that the guilt, penalty, and power of sin are eternally altered by God’s saving work. People can be changed from their homosexually expressed rebellion by the power of God (Rom. 1:16-17). The picture that Paul paints is not one where someone exchanges one kind of sinful behavior for another. If there is only an end to homosexual behavior without conversion, an ex-gay will still go to hell. The change needed comes by being made alive to God by his power (Eph. 2:1-10; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; John 3:1-8).
God’s power truly changes lives. Since his power enables people to overcome all sorts of sins, it enables them to overcome homosexuality as much as any other sin. In verse 11, Paul says that “some of you were” committing these various sins. These sins had characterized their lives at one time, but then a dramatic transformation took place. People whose lives were formerly dominated by sin were washed off, consecrated or set apart for God, and declared righteous in his sight, by being united to Christ through faith as the Holy Spirit applied the fruit of Christ’s redemption to them.
The hope of true change is available to every repentant sinner, for the person who is effectually called by God does indeed become a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). To be justified, as some of those formerly homosexual brethren were, is to be accepted as righteous in God’s sight for the sake of Christ’s work (not our own merit), received by faith (Gal. 2:16), and so to be no longer subject to condemnation for our sin (Rom. 8:1-4).
What Is the Church to Do?
Here, however, is the challenge that the church always faces. Do we truly receive as fellow saints those who come out of overtly sinful lifestyles? Isn’t it too uncomfortable to know that the person sitting next to you in worship was formerly a __________—a sinner like yourself! We want to treat people struggling with homosexuality differently, but Paul assumes that every believer is equally a saint through the work of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). There is no place for fear or withdrawal because some sins have a special status in our eyes.
Those leaving a homosexually oriented life need the people of God to be willing to encourage, befriend, and patiently love them, because this sin encompasses so many powerful emotional, spiritual, and physical issues in their lives. No sin that has gripped our lives is ever easy to handle.
Too often the church has gained a reputation for only responding in fear and judgment toward homosexuality, rather than with love and grace. The church should be the one place where sinners struggling to turn from homosexuality by the power of God should be welcomed. Is that true of our Orthodox Presbyterian churches? Are we willing to pray for those fighting homosexual desires and treat them as brothers or sisters in Christ if they show repentance for their sin? Are we ready to do for them what we should always do for one another: pray, love, encourage, not abandon each other when there is failure, but call one another to obedience to God’s holy law? Perhaps because we are so reluctant to encourage the brother who has a problem with anger, we are even more loathe to stand with a brother fighting homosexual lust.
Some believers at Corinth took the risk, however, and pointed the male prostitutes and homosexual offenders to Jesus Christ. Are we willing to do the same? The Corinthian believers saw more than homosexual behavior; they saw needy sinners. Homosexuality is ultimately caused by fallen hearts, but that means sin’s reign in a person’s life can be ended through the gospel of God’s mighty work in Jesus Christ (Titus 3:3-7). Only the Christian church can bring people out of the closet and into the light, truly offering hope to the homosexual community. Do we believe that?
The author is the pastor of Covenant OPC in Barre, Vt. Reprinted from New Horizons, November 2000″
I know that was a lot, but how do you argue against such a person who cannot see outside of the Bible?
You don't.
That's what I was thinking.
Yes you jmust. You must simply trust that the Holy Gospel is powerful enough to overcome this big ole blind spot in fundy christians.
Why is this so very important? It is an act of compassion to others who suffer from religion. it turns out that conservative christians suffer from the very gun that they point at homosexuals. no one can have a good conscience with the thinking they have.
Full Disclosure : I am a gay Lutheran christian.
and here is exactly how you let the Holy Gospel treat and heal this dis-ease of bad doctrine without even talking about homosexuality at all:
The title of the lecture is : The Gospel for those broken by the church by a doctor rod rosembladt
http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/nrp-freeb…
note that this guy is doing exactly what our cool host john Shore is serving up here…….
Thanks for the link, Frank. I've downloaded the MP3 & and the document, and will look into them further.
you are so welcome dear sister in christ. I follow your posts here. you are brief (pray for me. it is a quality I covet) and always so very loving towards all. especially those who disagree with you.
now Those TWO qualities in tandem, self restraint and love is what God truly calls righteousness here on earth! You are a righteous and virtuous woman diana.
And to my joy, I see that you are also clinging like me to that Righteousness that is not at all about what we can do or not do. It is that heavenly Righteousness that is alone trust in Jesus. this righteousness is meaningless and useless here on earth except to God and a troubled conscience.
That earthly righteousness that is love that God demands of all, christian and pagan identically, will perish with the earth along with all who think they can find their life there. The just live by faith. Alone. and then here on earth we practice the art of dying to ourselves in favor of bettering the creaturely lives of others by simply doing love to them.
we can die to our old self knowing that our new self is safely hidden in the wounds of christ.
Thank you, Frank. I am deeply touched by your words about me.
And, I will pray that God will grant you the gift of brevity (though I don't necessarily consider you long-winded, and God probably has reasons for any long-windedness you do possess!)
bless you. keep praying for the brevity thang for me. I want to serve others. many would not have the patience to read me either in form or substance.
so I need to make things about others just like you always do so lovingly dear sister. I hope dr rosembladts lecture will be a great joy to you. let me know!
like this post.
By nature, I believe human beings can be compassionate but religion makes us hurtful. You do not need to be Christian to be kind to someone, but when you look at the groups who tried to justify slavery and the ill treatment of homosexual, destroyed so much cultural history, ect. its the religious groups.
I am a Christian, but without denomination because I can't stand how many churches interpret the Bible. Where in the Bible does it explicitly say fornication is homosexual behavior….NO WHERE. It can instead be interpreted as promiscuity, rape, adultery ect.
Some denominations are less rigid than others on this subject. Moreover, even among the more rigid denominations there are some voices of reason.
I've never heard that fornication referred to homosexual behavior. I believe that there are other terms in the bible that have been taken to refer to homosexuality. It turns out, however, that even these terms are often misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc.
A really good resource for finding out more about what current biblical scholarship says about the biblical references to homosexuality is Claiming the Promise by Mary Jo Osterman. This is a study book for a class given through Reconciling Ministries Network. I'm going to give all the information I have on how to contact them since I just tried their link and it's not working:
Reconciling Ministries Network
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 773-736-5526
Fax: 773-736-5475
http://www.rmnetwork.org/ctp.php
John,
This is a thoughtful post but it does leave out even more serious problems that come from condemning homosexuality. Many people who are not heterosexual convince themselves that they are straight and date or marry members of the opposite sex. They do this because of the stigma of homosexuality. This is not fair to the said member of the opposite sex, who is deprived from having a loving with someone who shares his/her sexual orientation. I have dated someone who didn't share my sexual orientation. I appreciated that he was confused and why he was confused, but in the end I suggested that he not date anymore women, and thankfully he took that advice to heart. (He knew he was attracted to men and self-identified as bisexual at the time.) After the breakup he confessed he came near to proposing. It was because I stopped fighting with him because at that point I knew we weren't going to last forever, so why bother to fight? He thought that meant things had somehow magically gotten perfect.
The other danger is that closeted gay people often do act out and don't practice safer sex (I know, there is no truly safe sex, but it is safer if you take precautions.) A staff member at my seminary continued to donate blood to the Red Cross even after men who had sex with other men were advised not to. His AIDS infection finally came to light when he tried to donate one year and was disallowed from giving blood due to anemia. He went to the doctor and discovered the anemia was caused by AIDS. The blood bank was at the seminary and he had continued to donate to try and keep up the charade that he was not gay. Of course by then people just kind of assumed he was gay anyway and didn't care (It was a seminary in a pretty liberal place, though the denomination still condemned "self-avowed, practicing" homosexuals.) I hope the blood he donated before his diagnosis got tested and thrown out, but I'm not sure what the practice was at the time.
← Older Comments
{ 2 trackbacks }