Once upon a time the evangelical Christian’s typical response to homosexuality was that gay people are just messed up straight people who need to become better Christians so that God can stop them from being gay.
The complete failure of the “pray away the gay” movement, however, in conjunction with endless evidence that people are simply born gay, has succeeded in finally tossing that hoary argument onto the ash heap of history. But has that stopped evangelicals from arguing against homosexuality? Of course not. They just needed a new argument, is all.
And they found one. Today the Christian argument against gay people is typically … well, this, taken from an email recently sent me:
Would you support a serial adulterer who leaves his wife, but is just attracted to other women, because that’s who he is and how he was born? How about an alcoholic who just can’t help himself? Would you support him as he leaves his wife for alcohol? Would you support a glutton? A man of extreme pride? Why does homosexuality get a pass, and not any other sin?
A person with homosexual desires who resists temptation is exactly the same as a married man who resists temptation to carry on affairs with other women—which is to say, a human being battling the temptation to sin. The most compassionate thing that we could tell someone struggling with homosexuality (or any other sin for that matter) is to keep resisting temptation. Keep battling. Don’t give in. This is your badge as a Christian, that you fight temptation.
Now the argument is that a gay person struggling against the temptation to be who they really are is no different from anyone else struggling to resist a “sinful” temptation. Now, in other words, the refrain isn’t that gay people should stop being gay. Now it’s that they should stop acting gay.
Evangelicals are positively enamored of this new argument. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it ten thousand times. We all have. You whisper “gay” into the ear of a sleeping evangelical, and there’s an excellent chance that he or she will start murmuring in their sleep, “Just like any other sinful temptation. We’re all sinners. Must resist temptation.”
And putting your brain to sleep before you say that is the very best way to say it, too. Because it’s an argument that could only make sense to a brain-dead person. It’s just too lame for words.
But lemme try to find some words anyway.
Virtually all sins share a crucial, defining, common quality. Because that quality, which is present in every other imaginable sin, is utterly absent from being or acting gay, insisting upon putting homosexuality into the same category as every other sin—or in the category of sin at all—is like gluing wings on a pig, and insisting that the result belongs in the category of “bird.” It doesn’t. It can’t. It won’t. Ever.
Here is that Big Difference between homosexuality and all those other activities generally understood to be “sinful”: There is no sin I can commit that, by virtue of my having committed it, renders me incapable of loving or being loved. I can commit murder. I can steal. I can rob. I can rape. I can drink myself to death. I can do any terrible thing at all, and no one would ever claim that intrinsic to the condition that gave rise to my doing that terrible thing is that I am, by nature, unqualified for giving or receiving love.
No one tells the chronic drinker, glutton, adulterer, gambler, or any other kind of sinner that having committed their sin—that being the way they are—means they must stop experiencing love.
Yet living without love is exactly what anti-gay Christians insist upon for gay people.
When you tell a gay person to “resist” being gay, what you are really telling them—what you really mean—is for them to be celibate. It’s okay for them to be gay; they just can’t live out their gayness.
What you mean is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life absolutely devoid of the kind of the romantic, long-term, emotionally and physically intimate love that all people, Christians included, understand not only as their birthright, but as just about the greatest part of being human.
Be alone, you’re demanding. Live alone. Don’t hold anyone’s hand. Don’t snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don’t cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don’t have anyone at your table to chat with over coffee in the morning.
Don’t have or raise children.
Don’t get married. Live your whole life without knowing that joy, that sharing, that fulfillment.
Be alone. Live alone. Die alone.
The “sinful temptation” that Christians are forever urging LGBT people to resist is love.
Now isn’t that funny, given that love is the one thing that Jesus was most clear about wanting his followers to extend to others? It’s just so funny it makes you want to laugh till you cry.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 885 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 »
A lot has been talked about here, how it isn’t the Christians who condemn queers, but that it’s God’s law, and you cannot pick and choose. If you accept anything in the bible, you must accept all of it. While that statement is of course bogus from the get go (there are many approches to the bible taking it as a valuable, even holy book, but accepting that it is a historic document written in the end by human hands), I cannot believe that ANYONE on this blog has actually read the bible, thought about all of it, and is even capable of truly believeing EVERYTHING that is stated within.
Let me give you just a small sample of reasons:
The truly faithful are without sin according to 1 John 3:6, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:18. John even goes so far as to say that only doing good and never doing evil is the same as being of God (3 John 11), but according to 1 Kings 8:46, 2 Chronicles 6:36, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:23, and even 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10 no one is without sin. Does that mean that nobody is faithful and of God? Bleak view…
What exactly does Jesus command us? The rich young man asked him. According to Matthew they are Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. According to Mark they are Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. Huh, defraud not or love they neighbour? Make up your mind. Luke simplifies things: Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. There is no sixth command. So… defrauding is okay? We don’t have to love our neighbours? Or both? And anyway, what happened to the other commandments Moses brought from the mountain. Does Jesus think they aren’t important? Did he forget about them? He was a bloody Rabi. Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke get things confused?
How about simple dating. When did Solomon begin his reign? 1 Kings 6:1 clearly states that it was 476 years after the Israelites left Egypt. However if you add together the the time spent in the desert, the rule of the Judges, the rule of King Saul and the rule of King David (according to Acts 13:17-18, Acts 20-22, and 1 Chronicles 29:26-27) Solomon began his reign 570 years after the Israelites left Egypt. (And what’s with the 40 years in the desert anyway: From Cairo to Jerusalem it is 260 miles. That means that they travelled less than a 100 feet per day! FOR 40 YEARS! Okay, they didn’t go in a straight line, but still, if you take these things literally it is beyond silly.)
Let’s say, numbers aren’t the bible’s strength. Simple sequence should be straightforward enough. When did God create the stars? According to Genesis 1:16-19 He created them on the 4th day of creation, one day AFTER dividing earth and sea. According to Job 38:4-7 however, God claims that when laid the foundations of the earth the morning stars were ALREADY singing together. Huh? While they were still shrink-wrapped in their box, sitting next to the jars of water?
Oh, and here my favourite, about the question if thieves can go to heaven. As Jill already told us, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is pretty clear that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, drunkars, revilers, extortioners, the greedy, queers (who by the way have also been translated as simply “people who do violence to their nature” whatever that exactly means), and thieves all shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Now, I am not only queer, but for three years I was also quite an active thief. I did my time in a young offenders institution, and I paid for it in other ways, but Corinthians bars me from entering heaven. There’s no loophole condition set in that passage. It clearly states that those folks are damned.
Unless, of course, you take Luke 23:32-43 into account, the story of the Good Thief, who is the only person the bible tells us about who is personally promised entry into heaven by Jesus himself. And before I hear anyone say “penitence” or “contrition”, read the passage. The thief who legend knows as Dismas but who stays nameless in the bible doesn’t show any remorse. The only thing he does is admonish the other criminals that are crucified with Jesus to not mock Jesus but to admit that they ARE criminals while Jesus is without guilt. Hey, I was a thief. I am Queer. I don’t repent. But I’ll admit freely that Jesus did nothing to deserve being crucified, and that one should not mock him. Voilá. Where is my instant get out of Hell for free card? After all, if it works on thieves, it should work for all the other sins of Corinthians also, shouldn’t it?
On the question of forgiveness, Acts 13:39 promises us that those who believe are forgiven all their sins. Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29, and Luke 12:10 on the other hand all agree that while everything else is forgivable, blapheming against the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven and is eternally condemned. (There is a rather elaborate contextual reading of the passages leading to this contradiction that allow to interpret both statements in ways that are not exactly mutually exclusive, but only if you admit that the bible needs some carefull reading taking into account both linguistic and cultural details of the original authors.)
And this is really just the tiniest sample of contradictions. I haven’t even begun by naming the countless atrocities that we all agree are intolerable, but that the bible cleary excuses or even demands: The bible accepts slavery and often demands the killing of humans, like the famous unruly children, or the children who mocked a prophet, and even of the population of entire nations. For example God berates King Saul bitterly through the Prophet Samuel for not fulfilling his command to kill all Amalekites. Saul did kill all babies, women, children, and men, and poor lifestock, but he left alive the king and the good lifestock. For that God promises Saul trough Samuel that Saul’s kingdom will be torn from him. Do you really want to tell me that you agree with such deeds because it says so in the bible? That you do not pick and choose WHAT to believe from the Good Book?
Wow – thank you for sharing so many examples. Nice work. And so, so true – how can anyone possibly adhere to all of it? No one does. But they swear they do. Scary.
FreeFox, well I guess you win this argument nobody challanged you.
My personal favorite was the Get Out of Hell Free card.
Maybe some time you could wrtie about Biblical daughters and women and thier proper role in society.
My you have certainly done well for yourself (based on your Biblical knowledge) since juvie
He's pretty cool, Freefox is – and just for the record, SG, I'm glad you're here.
And yes, he won the argument.
I feel for where you are. I was there for a long time.
I hate that I'm getting older. Yet I do enjoy that I have found some wisdom and some amount of peace.
God's word is consistent, even if the synoptic Gospels are not identical. The moral law stays the same. Man's body is meant for life. Meant for life eternal and for life temporal. Life in the temporal means procreation, or sex for a better word. Sex means life, and that means between a man and a woman in marriage.
But no one is perfect, not in this body at least. Homosexual sex is wrong. It doesn't mean that God doesn't love you. It's not the end of the world. But it still isn't right. But it also doesn't end God's love for you. The balance between those two things is the struggle of being a son of God in this life.
Homosexuality is a terrible substitute for God. Yet on this earth, God's love comes to us in human form. Give him some time. Forgive whoever in the Church has hurt you. As a bit of advice, pray to the Blessed Mother for her help. Try a rosary a day for a week. If the rosary is new to you, it's a meditation on the Gospel prayed by you to God with Mary at your side.
I pray the rosary!
So so many smart people here, I am way out of my league…
Yes, Stevejevans, you are missing something. John very clearly states that being gay has to do with a whole lot more than the sex.
It is the sex that straight conservative Christians have a problem with, but by labeling it a sin, by saying, as another commenter did, that the gay person will "suffer a second death" because of said sin, insist that gay people will burn in hell, can never be close to God, are an abomination, choose to be gay (they don't) because they are depressed/schizophrenic/bipolar/weren't loved enough by one parent/were loved too much by the other parent, and absolutely do not deserve the right to marry – well, that tends to get in the way of the fact that being gay means that everything that has to do with romantic love is felt by them, it just happens to be for a person of the same sex.
A lesbian has no more interest in cuddling up on the couch to watch a romantic movie with a man than I do with a woman. I enjoy strolling through the park holding hands with the man I am dating, sharing a spontaneous kiss just because we like each other's company – and no one sees anything wrong with that. But if two men did that? Conservative Christians wouldn't be able to hide their disgust. And if you think those gay guys wouldn't feel the contempt . . . well, just ask one.
Romantic love is about a lot more than sex. A LOT more. But even a chaste Christian who plans to remain virginal til her wedding night goes into a dating relationship knowing that if it works, if the relationship flourishes, sex will be part of the picture eventually, once they've committed to each other in marriage. If marriage wasn't an option . . . well, then what?
It's all aspects of romantic love that are not allowed for gay teens in the Christian realm. And that is a tragedy.
John, I believe you have conflated love and sex in your article. A father can love a son without having sex with him. It seems that your whole argument is built on the premise that love and sex are the same, which is false. Am I missing something here?
@Margaret & @stevenjevans
John didn't equate sex with love. In fact, he didn’t once mention sex.
Celibacy goes beyond sexual activity (and if it didn't, then I've been celibate all day today, while I'm fairly sure more than a young Catholic priest or two hasn't); it implies living alone, just as John used it. So why do you only think about sex all the time and then expect people to live alone because you get disgusted by it?
Is this really all you think about when you think of marital relationships? Sex? It would seem so, since you seem to indicate that you would be totally fine with everything that John Shore actually mentioned. And if that’s correct, how could you oppose gay marriage other than for the purpose of regulating a person’s private sex life, which 1) seems like quite the authoritarian abuse of state power, and 2) doesn’t work because people could still have homosexual relations outside of marriage unless they further subscribed to a personal ethic that cannot be mandated by government under our constitution?
Do you really miss the nuance of the love John refers to?—what defines a healthy, happy father-son relationship is not normally that they should share their lives together, day-by-day, in undying commitment.
Without getting too deeply into this, and saying first that I loved your conversation with John and Kathy on WORD FM about Phelps…
I take issue with your premise that to live a celibate life is to live a life devoid of love. It's kind of a limited perspective to say that the only love one can experience is sexual in nature and that without romance/sex, life is a loveless void. Sad, really.
I'm a conservative evangelical Christian, my family are all devout Catholics, so we share pretty much the same sexual ethics. I think Catholics actually have a better understanding of this than the rest of us–the value and benefits of celibacy have long been part of their teaching. Whether straight and single, or homosexual, if we are Christians we are called to live lives of service to God, reserving sexuality for one situation only–marriage between a man and a woman. The Church has certainly failed in maintaining these sexual ethics on the hetero side of thing. In my opinion, the answer is not to say "Ah, everybody is failing, do whatever the heck you want, God doesn't care" but to reign in our own personal excesses, whatever they may be, before we start working on other people's issues.
I don't know about the rest of the Christian population. Personally, I do not want to *demand* that anybody live a certain way. I would like to see my fellow evangelicals spend as much time teaching and mentoring in the area of faithfulness in already existing marriages, and celibacy in heterosexual singles as they do on protesting homosexuals. But I do reserve the right to disagree with philosophies, standards, and behaviors based on my faith.
You are welcome to disagree with philosophies, standards, and behaviours based on your faith for yourself. But you have no cause, no reason, no justification whatsoever beyond your beliefs, to extend them into the public domain and attempt to impose them on others. That extension is where you cross the line.
I might agree with you, provided we agree on the definition of "impose".
By impose do you mean fighting for laws that impose something, or do you extend "impose" to expressing my beliefs in public?
If the latter, do you support the suppression of public speech that disagrees with your beliefs?
I believe that there is cause, justification, and reason for living out and expressing beliefs. We each have an equal right to do so, and an equal right to disagree with or even reject outright the beliefs of the other. But neither of us has the right to suppress the free expression of each other's beliefs in public forums either by law, indimidation, or manipulation.
impose: to establish as something to be obeyed or complied with; enforce
You are free to express yourself and to express your religious beliefs any way you want, but understand that comes with responsibility, too. If you mean to use your freedom to curtail another's then you are attempting to impose your beliefs (for that is all they are without any benefit of independent verification or evidence) on others. If so, then you have failed to use your freedom of expression responsibly.
When I talk about the public domain, I mean specifically those offices and policies and procedures empowered by the public. Office holders who lobby for a favoured religious belief or attempt to instill some official public status on a personally held belief are abusing the power of that public office. Any such action needs to be resoundingly criticized for that abuse. And we see this done all the time by politicians attempting to curry favour from the irresponsible.
Margaret I think you are missing the point about celibecy. It is a person's choice to remain celibate. But to tell gay and lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender that they HAVE to remain celibate in order to be in God's good graces is not right. For people who want to remain celibate, Catholic Priests and people who wish to be virgins when they marry, hey great more power to them. What is happening here is GLBT people, according to the doctrine many here believe in, they are forced to be celibate, whihc is kind of the point of this article.
Well said, SG, and right on point..
FreeFox,
Realistically, I think what most of them are saying is that if a person is a Christian than he or she should abstain from sex if it is of the premarital, extramarital, or homosexual variety.
I don't know that Christians are DEMANDING that homosexuals do or not do anything. Homosexuals are free to engage in whatever behavior they want to, so long as it is consensual and between adults. And I don't hear a loud call for the criminalization of homosexual behavior.
I think what homosexuals are looking for is not only tolerance from the Christian community, but acceptance. And not just acceptance of their person but also acceptance of their behavior.
But in order to do that, Christians must cherry pick their faith and the long-established church traditions, doctrines, and scriptures that define the religion of Christianity. It seems to me that [activist] homosexuals are demanding that Christianity conform to their viewpoint. If an establishment/organization/church/whatever cannot state its foundations or discriminate in its membership or define its borders, then how can it remain an "organization"?
And if Christianity is inherently false–and it appears that you believe this is so as do many other homosexuals–then why be concerned with it? Are Christians trying to criminalize your behavior? Are they trying to oppress your freedom to engage in homosexual acts, or cohabitat with someone of the same sex, or have a wedding ceremony with someone of the same sex, or talk about homosexuality in public?
I don’t know that Christians are DEMANDING that homosexuals do or not do anything.>>>
Of course Christians demand a particular standard of behavior – what a naive suggestion. Specifically, as we continue to keep gay and lesbian citizens from a legal standard of marriage through our votes against it, we demand they accept our religious standard of marriage. We deny them the legal rights and the social contractual benefits that come from "married" status. Spiritually speaking, Christians demand that gay and lesbians refrain from having sex or following up on romantic impulses behaviorally in order to be considered holy.
Christian tradition and scriptures and doctrines demand adherence to a strict moral code. But whether or not Christians themselves (as if by the very fact that they claim to be Christians gives them any authority over the behavioral standards of other human beings) demand anything is a non-issue. Why do you care what someone "demands"? Muslims demand all sorts of things. New Atheists have their own set of demands. Scientologists do as well. So what?
What you seem to be insinuating is that people may demand things so long as it conforms with your viewpoint. It's not okay for people to define marriage as what it has traditionally been in this country: a legal contract between a man and woman (because the state has a vested interest in the possible offspring that may result from such a union). And yet it is okay for a small group of people to DEMAND that their definition of marriage is the correct one and everyone must abide by it through the legal sanction and financial subsidization of a sexual relationship that could in no way, shape, or form produce biological children.
By this same standard, one could assume that the only reason society has not legally recognized incestuous relationships is because not enough people have been screaming loudly enough for their "equal rights." And by that same measure, why don't we also recognize polyamorous relationships? Or what about same-sex cohabitating folks who raise children together (like sisters or a mother and daughter) but do not have sex with one another? Why can't they also be recognized as a "marriage" and received the "equal rights" as heterosexual married folks?
@Natassia:
If the purpose of marriage is to join a man and woman for the purposes of procreation, does that mean that a man and a woman who already know they can't procreat shouldn't get married?
Christian tradition and scriptures and doctrines demand adherence to a strict moral code. But whether or not Christians themselves (as if by the very fact that they claim to be Christians gives them any authority over the behavioral standards of other human beings) demand anything is a non-issue.>>>
What in the world are you talking about? Christians vote for laws within this country based on their *strict moral code* (that's not as consistent as you infer, and often not even lived consistently ourselves.) As a result, of course they impose their morality on others who are non-religious, they just do it as citizens.
Why do you care what someone “demands”? >>>
Um, because you suggested that religious people *don't* demand certain things? I countered you and now you are asking me why I care about it? Please stay on topic.
Muslims demand all sorts of things. New Atheists have their own set of demands. Scientologists do as well. So what?>>>
Again, above, you are the one who suggested Christians don't demand behavior, not me. I countered you. Please stay on topic.
What you seem to be insinuating is that people may demand things so long as it conforms with your viewpoint.>>>
No dear, that's you. Or historically, it's been us as Christians who are like you are doing now, throwing a petulant hissy fit at the mere suggestion that the legal contract bestowing certain rights and societal contracts upon people who don't share our religious definition of "marriage"
It’s not okay for people to define marriage as what it has traditionally been in this country>>>
Of course it is. People demand laws change all the time. Have you heard of something called the Civil Rights movement?
. And yet it is okay for a small group of people to DEMAND that their definition of marriage is the correct one and everyone must abide by it through the legal sanction and financial subsidization of a sexual relationship that could in no way, shape, or form produce biological children.>>>
Look in a mirror. You're the one demanding that it stay the same. Same coin, different sides.
People in this country can demand whatever rights they want and expect out of whichever belief system to which they ascribe. It seems like you feel like Christians are the only ones entitled to define historical definitions of things which is simply your privilege speaking.
You live in America. Welcome to a new world where we as Christians don't get the last word on the law anymore. If you want to be petulant about that, go right ahead but most reasonably-educated people who are also Christian are beginning to understand that the privilege we have enjoyed by those who have told us we are a "Christian nation" – therefore manipulating us into voting a particular way – is ending.
There it is again, that "biological children" thing.
And I ask you again, should we not have been allowed to marry? Not a single uterus between us, my spouse and me. So? There was no chance of offspring, no matter how much monogamous, traditional, married sex we had.
How is that OK, if gay relationships are not? And why on earth do you think it is OK to apply "God's original design" as the LEGAL standard for marriage? We honor all religions or the right to not have one at all in this country. My God doesn't mind at all if gay people marry. Why can't my God be the big winner and set the laws???
Incest is likely to have negative effects in posterity should offspring result.
As for the other things… sure, why not? What legal prerogative has the state to determine with whom I make a given contract? I mean, you define this as a contract between a man and a woman, but what right has the state to arrange whom it can be between so long as the parties are legally consenting to it? It would be outrageous to have certain contracts legally allowed only among persons of differing races or between a tall person and a short person or whatever.
I can't believe I didn't answer this:
"Muslims demand all sorts of things. New Atheists have their own set of demands. Scientologists do as well. So what?"
Because none of those groups enjoy the privilege of being the 'majority' of Americans. If you've any doubt about the mentality of Christians in America who believe they are entitled to demand just about anything we want to have (again, I am a Christian), then please watch the Norman, Oklahoma board where the idea of having a GLTB history month was proposed. The entitlement the majority of the room felt to retain their "judeo-christian community" was substantial.
Nastasha, be a Christian. Who cares. I would like to keep being one myself. But being Christian does not automatically mean to getting my way with every single American law, OK? Which is what many in our country simply demand.
OK, I can really be done with this thread. I hope so.
Very true, well said.
"I don’t know that Christians are DEMANDING that homosexuals do or not do anything. Homosexuals are free to engage in whatever behavior they want to, so long as it is consensual and between adults. And I don’t hear a loud call for the criminalization of homosexual behavior."
Oh right. So NOM, FOTF, FRC, the proponents of Prop 8 and all that money getting poured into propositions and referendums that have the effect of restricting my civil liberties are just a figment of my imagination?
You're not listening very carefully if you're not hearing it.
You are FREE to marry. No one is going to arrest you for going in front of your preacher and taking vows. No one is going to stop you from making contracts with that person and living with that person.
And Californians voted to be FREE not to subsidize your sexual relationship.
What you call a "civil liberty" is really a financial obligation that you are attempting to impose on the state.
You are FREE to marry.>>>
What? Where?
What you call a “civil liberty” is really a financial obligation that you are attempting to impose on the state.
Pot, meet kettle.
And Californians voted to be FREE not to subsidize your sexual relationship.>>>
Except of course, gay men and women who live together as "spiritually" married don't get to enjoy the tax benefits that you and your husband enjoy – right? As they pay for your neighborhood's sidewalk fixes and public schools so you don't have to as much.
Does anyone else notice that Christians like Natassia tend to run when "money" is put on the table for discussion?
I swear that bringing money to discussions – for some christians, not all – is like switching a light on and watching the night critters scatter. *Poof*. Gone.
Christians and our relationship with money is so immoral and inscestuous that we don't even know how to think about it anymore, let alone talk about it. You've got the good Reverand Longs with their BMWs and their prosperity gospels, absolutely manipulating the poor to offer their Social Security money. And this issue, to be so unwilling to look at what the lack of legal marriage does to a gay couple's financial status. To actually have them pay DOUBLE as legally-single people for the public schools the married straight people get to send their kids to – it's so shockingly hypocritical that I can't believe we've not been called on it before now and forced to speak to it.
And yes, I said "forced". There are things we need to be held accountable to. This is one of them. If you're so proud of your beliefs and so adamant on your ability to exercise your Free Speech to assert them? Then follow through and actually hold yourself accountable to the impact that others are bringing to your attention. Or at least have the courage and/or integrity to admit that you just don't care about it. I'd have much more respect for that than just crying victim and running away.
Since you adress that last post to me, I must assume you think that somehow it is in response to something I said. I fail to see how it answers anything I have written… and I admit, I have written a LOT in these comments… John Shore made the statement about Christians demanding that we live without love. You HAVE read the original blog post, right? While I agree that part of the queer-sex-is-sin doctine would cut us of from a certain part of love, the worst about it is that it demands we do not love or accept ourselves.
Do I want tolerance or acceptance from Christians? Well, frankly, I couldn't give a hoot if you tolerated or accepted me. Do I want, say, my co-workers, my boss, my teachers, my friends, my siblings, or my rents to accept me – and that includes not only that I have the desire to shag other carriers of the Y-chromosome, but also that every now and then I actually do that, hm, yeah. I do. Not meagre, grudgingly-given, painful tolerance, but full-blown, ture, acceptance without reservation.
Do I want you to cherry-pick the bible and tradition? As I said a million times before on here: Yeah. Cuz, you know, let me let you in on a little secret: You. Do. So. Any. Way.
I'm a man. You're a woman. St. Paul tells you to shut up when I speak, and that he doesn't suffer you to teach me. And yet, here you are. Cuz you are an intelligent, independent, modern woman of the 21st century. And I congratulate you to it. And now that you won YOUR war – or had others win it for you, maybe, I dunno what you did in the 1970s – please, go back to Paul, shut up, and let me win mine.
"Are they trying to oppress your freedom to engage in homosexual acts, or cohabitat with someone of the same sex, or have a wedding ceremony with someone of the same sex, or talk about homosexuality in public?"
I do not really have to answer that, do I? I only have SCARS to prove that they do, lady. But why don't you ask Billy Lucas? Why don't you ask Raymond Chase, Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh, and Asher Brown? Oops. You can't. Cuz they are dead.
You quoted him as saying that Christians demand that you live without love. You also expressed your agreement with him, which was evident in some other posts you made.
I may have agreed with him on something. Don't know. But you see, I know you faithful are a bit weak on the concept, but just because I agree with one thing someone says, does not mean I agree with everything they say. But be that as it may… how about the rest? How about the violence, the name-calling (that is forbidden in the very same verse most Christians quote to legitimize it, btw.), the kids who pissed on my street clothes during gym class, then filmed me as found my wet, reeking clothes and sent the video to all his friends in the school? How about the bloke who told me how disgusted he was that I didn't have the courage to let vet put me out of my misery when I realized I was a faggot? And yeah, how about the dead teenagers being heaped on your front step?
How about your cherry picking anti-queer passages but ignoring anti-women's-lib passages? How about those passages that condemn Jews? You alright with those, too?
Come on, let's hear it.
You're right.
They were cruel and failed to behave as Christ commanded of his followers.
There is nothing more to say about that except that my heart breaks for what you suffered at the hands of cruel children.
I was tormented in school as well, but for a different reason. I did not deserve that treatment–no one does–but I rose above it. It taught me to be kind to those who are different. And it also gave me the courage to stand up against bullies later in high school and college…even bully teachers.
There are verses that condemn particular Jews at a particular time. But the idea that those verses are blanket statements on Jews as a whole is silly. Jesus is a Jew. His disciples were all Jews. The apostle Paul had a Jewish mother.
P.S. I'm rabidly anti-feminist, so I don't ignore those "anti-women's lib passages."
"It taught me to be kind to those who are different."
Is it really only me, or did anyone else hear the Irony meter just go sproing?
Mushroom cloud on the horizon, actually….
Like a gong here, and doubly so with the standing-up-to bullies comment but supporting a discriminatory law.
This is the person who really freaks me out. Utterly unconscious, not aware of the dissonance and justifies both via a holy righteousness. It's like being blinded twice – can't see the inconsistency and excused from even looking for it because God tells her she doesn't have to.
Stunning.
I think you are redefining what "kind" means.
Very loudly, yes.
There is nothing more to say about that except that my heart breaks for what you suffered at the hands of cruel children.>>>
With all due respect, no one cares that your "heart is breaking". It means absolutely nothing to the people who are actually manning the call centers and at the homeless shelters where these kids go when there is nowhere else for them to go. They would tell you that your theology and insistence that it serves as the formation for how all gay children view themselves as well as how God sees them is in part, what is killing these kids.
In short, take some of your tough talk and apply it to yourself, please. Nobody cares that you feel badly about it. How about you get involved and solve the problems that you create by your posture on these issues.
How odd that it is only recently that there is this epidemic of gay children attempting to commit suicide.
What are the suicide statitsics for children 60 years ago, I wonder?
Again, I think you are equating cruel parenting with the belief that something is a sin. There are plenty of gay teenagers who are not homeless even though their parents believe that homosexuality is sinful. And there are plenty of heterosexual teenagers who are homeless even though their parents don't view their sexual orientation as sinful.
You are being incredibly rude, and there is no need to be. I was simply expressing my sorrow at someone's ill treatment (especially since I can empathize with being the target of bullying because of something I had no control over).
And yet you throw my sympathy in my face like it's worthless simply because it comes from the mouth of someone who doesn't think like you do.
Talk about close-minded.
I am sorry, Natassia, but he is not uncalled for rude. Actually, I am working my best to stay called for un-rude. I am one of those "children" that suffered under the mental, spiritual and physical violence of self-righteous peeps that – at least in part – claimed to be justified by the bible. And too often have I met well-situated middle-class Christians who had the luxury to talk theology while their very words lead to wounds on my body as well as my soul. I spent 2 years on the streets. Believe me, if you are a minor and homeless, you get to see a very different side of what the real effects of theology are. Yes, there was Christians who helped, even if they knew of me being queer. But not many. Your belief does more harm than good. I know.
I have made my peace with God. For me, this is not about theology any longer. Believe whatsoever you wish. But your actions – and words ARE also actions, as is the omission to act – do matter to me. Because they have effects on other people.
"How odd that it is only recently that there is this epidemic of gay children attempting to commit suicide."
It is odd, isn't it that the year of the big fight about Prop 8 and Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the year that sees 7 teenagers being driven into suicide because they are percieved to be queer by their peers.
Dipstick. Gay kids have been attempting (and succeeding) at killing themselves 3x the rate of straight kids for decades.
your ignorance is insulting.
Go look for those stats yourself if you're genuinely interested, data is readily available.
As for being rude? If treating you like an adult who is responsible for her actions and being honest about how others who are in the trenches with these kids view your "compassion"? So be it. Keep hiding yourself from it. But there are a lot of people out there who are dealing with these ravaged kids as a result of the theology that you are proudly defending, here. I am one of them. Your feelings are decidedly secondary and you will ultimately choose what you learn and what you don't.
Natassia, you don't know rude.
You have no idea how utterly insufferable you are being. You have no clue how hurtful so much of what you've said is, to so many people.
What happens when you have children and one of them realizes, along about puberty, that he or she is gay? Then what? What will you do? Will you counsel your child to go against his or her very nature? Ask them to never expect a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship? Preach to them what you are preaching here?
You really are quite removed from reality. And it is, truly, unnerving to read you holding *such* strong opinions about something you know so little about.
@FreeFox
7? A bit of a low-end estimate, doncha think?
"P.S. I’m rabidly anti-feminist, so I don’t ignore those “anti-women’s lib passages.”
"
Wait. You're rabidly anti-feminist, but you said elsewhere that you vote? Didn't that whole women's suffrage bit come about as a result of the feminist movement?
Not to be too terribly tangential here, but I think your next prayer session may want to include a request for some help evaluating a few areas of your own hypocrisy, of which you are so blissfully unaware.
Asking for acceptance of homosexuality is not in any manner the same thing as forcing you (or anyone else) to embrace it. It is asking for you to stop imposing your belief system on others—we are not trying to dictate to you who you can or cannot marry, or whether you should or shouldn’t marry at all, which is in sharp contrast to many Christian’s approach to this topic.
Arguing that gay marriage should be opposed because government funded because the state has a vested interest in possible children is silly. If that’s the reason the government should continue to deny homosexual marriage, then it should also deny marriage to infertile couples, couples over a certain age, and after a few years should take away tax benefits from hetero couples who’ve failed to reproduce. Or perhaps force them to divorce and try again? This argument is overused and pointlessly silly. Myself, I think the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all. No tax breaks or penalties for marriage, and no restrictions (beyond, of course, consenting adult) on who I can or can’t marry. Frankly, it is not the government’s job to care about that, it’s between me and whatever God I choose to follow or not follow. And America is supposed to have a government separate from church.
Nobody here is trying to end Christianity, just ease the overwhelming tendency of conservative Christians to try running everyone else’s lives. And if you honestly cannot see that tendency, I suggest you subscribe to a few newspapers, read them thoroughly, and let yourself actually think about what you’ve read, because you have got to be blinding yourself, either intentionally (in which case I don’t know why we’re even talking to you) or subconsciously.
FreeFox, people are murdered for all sorts of reasons in this world, and in this country in particular. Many times it is over greed and envy (armed robberies gone bad and the like). Other times it is over revenge. And sometimes it is to terrorize communities.
No one believes it is a sin to own an iPod and listen to it while walking down an impoverished street. And yet people are killed over it. Believing something is a sin or not realistically has very little bearing on the incidence of murder. Think about it. Murder is a sin too.
All sorts of philosophies and belief systems out there "make demands" of us. If you don't like the demands of a particular belief system, then don't adhere to it. This seems rather simple.
However, it sounds like you view the very existence of belief systems that demand strict adherence to a narrow definition of sexual morality as offensive and oppressive. The very idea that these concepts exist serve to oppress you…or at least that's what it seems like.
You're a man, and I'm a woman. We are not in a church. I am not in an authoritative position in this discussion. Therefore, St. Paul's particular words–I suppose you are referring to one of his epistles to the Corinthians–are not relevant to this discussion.
Context, FreeFox, context.
"….I am not in an authoritative position in this discussion…."
What are you in an authoritative position on, then?
I have authority over my own person and over my children and over my dog and over any thing that happens to have my name on it (like my car)…I would have said my cat, but I don't really have any authority over him–or at least he denies me any authority.
1 Timothy 2:11-14:
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Are you not teaching us what the meaning of Scripture is?
First of all, Paul was giving instruction on worship. What we are engaging in here is dialogue, not worship.
I am also not a teacher, nor are you my student. I am not here to instruct you but rather to engage in dialogue.
And as Paul said, HE did not PERMIT a woman to teach. This is based on what Paul had the authority over to permit or not permit anything. Paul only had authority over the church. He did not have authority over governmental institutions, for example. He did not have authority over public forums of debate and dialogue, nor did he claim to.
I can't help but think, though, that you WANT Paul's words to be applicable to a quasi-anonymous, public Internet forum.
Always so fascinating to see people of this mindset fly the context flag when things get awfully close to home, like the parents of kids who come out – all of the sudden, theology changes.
You're playing the semantics game rather fast and loose. You're not asking questions here, you're asserting authority and making declarative statements. That's teaching. Obey the Word of the Lord in this matter, show some consistency.
What I want is for you to realize that you are interpreting the words of the bible. That you are aware that it was always human beings who wrote them down. There is God's spirit in those words. God's spirit is in a lot of things. But they are not a list of commands by someone you are condemned to follow. And they do not lead to a better world when you do follow them blindly. They require thought and deliberation.
I am not playing the semantics game. Just because I make assertions, it doesn't mean I am grasping at authority.
Good grief.
It's no wonder that folks like you find the mere existence of a strict moral code to be oppressive. Just stating the aspects of that code are acts of oppression.
Perhaps you are lifting me to a pedestal that is much higher than where I am actually standing. I have no power over you or your thoughts. I am no acknowledged expert or Biblical authority. I have no control over you.
So it is you who grants me authority by the mere fact that I am making an assertion?
How odd. I feel like Alice in Wonderland or something.
FreeFox, actually, I'm just discussing the context of those statements…and the context of those statements don't make them logically applicable to the dialogue in this thread.
Paul wrote what he wrote. I'm not trying to determine his meaning (especially since it seems pretty straightforward.) I'm just trying to determine the applicable context.
And from the surrounding passages, it seems pretty obvious: I cannot be a spiritual leader of men.
It is not the existence of a strict moral code that bothers anyone. It is baseless assertion of its absolute and true relation to matters of eternal destination that's a problem.
But about that strict moral code that you, woman (who hopefully opposes financial instruments/accounts that accrue interest at anything greater than the inflation rate of their enumerated currency—as the Bible instructs us to stone usurers, speaking against this grave sin far more than it does on homosexuality, with Christ Jesus Himself even going on the record clearly against it, and there seems to be much more rational reason in such a prohibition) do believe you have sufficient authority to confidently assert as the religious teaching of the Church:
Matthew 11:29-30
"Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
1 Cor. 10
23-26
"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience….
29-30
The other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? (1 Cor. 10:23-25,)
Acts 15:28-29
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Interesting – you get to decide how much your licensing fees are on your car? I want to live in that state!
You establish macro-authority via your vote. When you vote a particular way as a citizen of the US (assumption), you vote authority in that impacts others outside of your immediate circle.
Except my neighbor has equally one vote and can easily nullify my vote. By the very fact that each adult has the ability to vote, none has authority over another.
Your choices, your consequences. Stop playing the "look over there" tactic. You have authority via your vote. Take responsibility for it.
But you are trying to put me in an authoritative position which implies that I have control over someone that someone does not have over me.
That's what AUTHORITY is. Although, it seems like you are trying to say that by the simple fact that I am autonomous and, along with my neighbors, have the collective ability to self-govern, then that means I have authority over my neighbors.
You're twisting things in convoluted circles.
You are incorrect in your conclusion as not all voters weild equally powerful votes. Take a closer look at the concept of voting power.
Ah. A Christian who understands the meaning of context. Great. I am happy that you see it that way. And you seriously do not think that the context, the historic, social context in which the statements that probably pertain to man-on-man sex is one that is not really applicable today? Or are you trying to say that it is only the context your interpretation wants to allow? We may not be in church, but, seriously, when Paul wrote this, they weren't really in church either. Cuz neither the church as the institution we know it today nor the sort of buildings we have it occupy today had even been invented. It was just a bunch of faithful gathering in caves to worship God and to, well, discuss the Word. Kinda like we are here gathered in a virtual cave, many of us all to ready to worship God (look around, there is enough non-atheist non-homosxuality-condemners here… and I do count myself amongst those who love and believe in God), and discussing the Word. And you are trying to teach me that my understanding of it is wrong.
I'll admit, it is a matter of interpretation. We could discuss it. Once you stopped claiming that there was only one way to read it.
As for the murder-for-an-iPod argument, lady, you aren't serious. People do not get murdered or driven into suicide because peeps claim that listening to iPods is sinful. We get slaughtered for being who we are.
I think you misunderstood my argument that believing something is a sin does not inherently lead to murder. People are murdered over non-sins all the time. People are murdered for who they are all the time too: being black, being white, being promiscuous, being rich, being pretty, you name it.
And yet you seem to be tying the murder of homosexuals to the belief that homosexuality is a sin. This is not a logical argument. For one thing, there is very little evidence for it.
I really don't want to get hung up on this Corinthians stuff…but okay.
You may be a Theist, but you don't sound like a Christian man. In fact, I don't know for a fact that you are a man at all. (Likewise, you don't know if I really am a woman.) I am not in an authoritative position over you in this discussion, nor am I trying to place myself in an authoritative position over you. In any case, this is not a church setting, building or no building.
I view man-on-man sex as "missing the mark." It deviates from God's original design which is what is best. Is strictly monogamous, discreet man-on-man sex better than promiscious, publicly-glorified man-on-man sex? From a societal viewpoint, yes. They are both sinful–they both "miss the mark", but one is limited in its scope and its negative affect on others.
Christ's words come to mind:
And it really seems to me that the gay activist community today is more concerned with what adults want than what is best for children in general. If you're interested, at my blog I have summarized (and quoted) most of the recent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Conference that covered much of this issue: What's best for children? (Although it dealt more from an assumed heterosexual viewpoint.)
I would say you are missing the mark. I do not contend that the bible can be read to call queer sex a sin, nor that the values of the people around 0 BC/AD were pretty firmly on the make-babies-in-small-tight-economic-units-called-family. But we just agreed on, the bible says a lot of things, up to kill your kids when they don't respect you. It is a matter of context, and of interpretation. The bible is not a clear cut catalogue of dos and don'ts for the 21st century. We can discuss the mores of sex, love, and marriage. But not by blind bible-thumping. But by actually talking about what it means for the people living today.
You miss the mark when you waste time writing blogs against same sex marriage while the same ideology – however well understood or misunderstood – that you preach leads to the abandonment, despair, suicide, and murder of kids. I am sorry, but that takes precedence. As long as homophobia is accompanied by the sort of violence and vehemence as it is today, that is simply the bigger problem. Especially a Christian, especially one who feels for those that are different and claims to stand up against bullies, should direct her energies elsewhere.
As long as you are standing on the side of the Westboro Baptist Church and the LDS in this fight, I will see you as my enemy. As an enemy of all that is good, and holy. Of what God would want.
And you are free to believe whatever you want, FreeFox.
I am not arguing that somehow you should see things my way or any particular way.
I just don't understand why people should see things YOUR way.
Abandonment, despair, suicide, and murder of kids take place in all sorts of environments–especially those in direct violation of Christianity (drug abuse, promiscuity, etc.). To blame it on Christianity is ludicrous.
And here you are telling me what I should and should not be doing…"making demands" on me. You are defining what is good and holy. You are determining what God would want. And now you have equated me with the WBC and the LDS?
Who is the one being narrow-minded and bigoted here?
I'm confused. I thought I was the one who is supposed to be phobic, close-minded, judgmental and oppressive.
This has been an interesting discussion. But it's gone off in a million different directions and I tend to lose interest when that happens.
Have a good day.
I grew up mostly in Germany. In that country we've had wild discussions about who was to blame for the first world war, the second world war, the holocaust, the killings alongs the Berlin Wall and the other atrocities commited in communist East Germany. And by and large all those who can legitimetly claim to stand on the side of civilization and humanitarianism agreed in the end that those who provide the words and thoughts that are then carried forth by overzealous jackboots are just as guilty.
We were also taught to never be tolerant towards the intolerant, to never accept those who show no acceptance. That those who preach exclusion, and hatred, and the dehumanization of groups of people, lose the protection of those civil rights they attack.
I've had enough fists and boots and gobs of snot in my face teach me personally and intimately the prudence of this point of view.
I do see myself as an enemy of those who violate others be from dug abuse, or unstable parent situations (my rents seperated, believe me, I am not tolerant towards rents who fuck around and leave their own kids to fend for themselves, no matter if those rents are queer or str8). But I do INCLUDE religious intolerance in that canon of evils. Christianity should be a bullwark against such abuse. Sometimes it is. Sadly, often, it is the force that drives the abuse. You chose to side yourself first with those who picket AIDS-treatment centres and carry God Hates Fags signs over siding with those who fight the bullies and violators. You find it more important to cling to obscure and mostly meaningless sexual morals in a few, disparate biblical verses instead of heeding the loudest calling of Christianity, that of love and acceptance – even of the whores, and the lepers – and fighting the bullies.
Yeah. I claim to know better than you what is good and holy.
Yeah. I am feel little tolerance towards you.
Whoops? Did I just invoke Godwin's law?
He's not blaming it on Christianity; he's blaming it on you. DR and John Shore and I and many others here are Christians, but you don't see us complaining. I for one don't feel at all that he's being anti-Christian or that he's spoken ill of my particular system of beliefs in any way. But guess who I DO definitely feel is anti-Christian here, who worships the spirit of antichrist?
Well put, Matthew. But you'll notice Natassia got bored when people started picking apart her arguments and took her leave, bidding us to have a nice day in her wake.
Funny that she lost interest when a group of intelligent people took her to task.
FreeFox, I would never debate you ever. You gotta give Natassia credit she hung in there longer against you than most people. You are one super smart dude.
"You are defining what is good and holy. You are determining what God would want. "
It's so fascinating to watch certain Christians come into this discussion, demand that we don't know what God would want, assert what God "really" wants and then when countered, make the above statement.
And then of course, flounce off in a dramatic huff when called on that and just effectively countered.
I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone, am I the only one?
No you're not the only one DR, but it can't be the Twilight Zone. That was a "wondrous world of imagination." There's not much imagination here on the part of some of these posters, and there's nothing wondrous about ignorance. I weep.
Nope, you are not the only one, DR. And Natassia seems far more concerned with being right than anything else.
And AB – so true. No imagination. And ignorance is acceptable in mind willing to learn. And recover from said ignorance. Willful ignorance in a closed mind is, indeed, worth weeping over.
If you're honestly concerned about what's best for children – and I sincerely doubt you are – then you will know that there is zero evidence that children raised within a gay marriage are harmed any more than children raised in a heterosexual marriage – an institution all of us subsidize but which only favours heterosexuals. What truly harms children is subitting them to your arbitrary beliefs that some are less equal than others based on your bigotry.
In the same way you try to hide behind god to support your bigotry, now you try to hide behind the welfare of children. If you were honestly concerned about what's true – and I sincerely doubt you are – then you would know that your anti-gay stance on marriage is not based on evidence of harm but the cause of much of it. But you don't care. At heart you are just another intellectual coward unable or unwilling to care about what's true if it interferes with your beliefs; instead you are fine with supporting the removal of rights of others that you enjoy if it allows your bigotry to remain in place. You simply do not care that it continues doing real harm to real people including children. And that makes you part of the problem.
Natassia, are you kidding me did you really write this,
"And yet you seem to be tying the murder of homosexuals to the belief that homosexuality is a sin. This is not a logical argument. For one thing, there is very little evidence for it."
You might want to take a peek at the crime statistics. Now there is finally a cataogry for hate crimes against GLBT people.
“I don’t know that Christians are DEMANDING that homosexuals do or not do anything. Homosexuals are free to engage in whatever behavior they want to, so long as it is consensual and between adults. And I don’t hear a loud call for the criminalization of homosexual behavior.”
No? You have heard, I trust, of Lawrence v Texas? The court case resulting from the arrest of 2 homosexual men engaged in an adult, consensual relationship, in their own apartment, who were dragged from their own bed by a police officer with drawn gun?
You missed the huge media circus with loud condemnation of the possibility of overturning Texas' law against sodomy from hundreds (if not thousands) of VERY vocal Christians? That's not demanding?
How about these specific cases, which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist cited as reasons to uphold the sodomy lawt?
* Williams v. Pryor, which upheld Alabama's prohibition on the sale of sex toys;
* Milner v. Apfel, which asserted that "legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality…rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms;"
* Holmes v. California Army National Guard, which upheld the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct;
* Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, which held that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage."
I want to repeat this one specifically: "legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality…rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms."
Really? REALLY? What ever happened to that whole separation of church and state bit? Yes, obviously Christians are being oppressed everywhere by our government's disregard of church tradition.
*sigh*
Ouch!
I'm sorry, was that too harsh?
Brute facts do tend to be harsh when one is used to making up one's own; it leaves so little … wiggle room.
Hee. I do tend to prefer specific facts over subjective reality. Comes of the whole scientific education, I suppose.
Also means I occasionally have to face up to things I'd rather weren't so, but guess that's just part of the deal.
'Jes' so. (Sorry… I couldn't help myself.)
I. huh. I do believe that may be the first time anybody's punned my name.
“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”
–Harry Truman
Excellent!
I don’t think so at all, jes – you just nailed it!
Here is a question for all those who have decided God's perspective on happy people. I have numerous gay friends that have been with the same person (even married during the brief time when they were allowed to) for over 20 years. Then I have numerous Christian and non-Christian heterosexual friends who have been married and divorced at least two times. Jesus said a sin is a sin…"he who has not sinned cast the first stone". When we stand before God, if he does harshly judge us for our iniquities, who will he judge more harshly, the happily ever after till death do us part homosexuals or the twice divorced Christian out there looking for number 3? Remember, judge not, lest ye be judged? Are we reading the same bible?
First of all, just because a Christian determines through the Scriptures that homosexuality is a sin, it is not the equivalent to casting a stone.
One can discern that a particular behavior is wrong, for example, but that is not equal to judgment nor is it equal to punishment.
The fact that a homosexual couple remains monogamous (even without that typical open-relationship disclaimer you often see between gay men) does not negate the sin of homosexual behavior.
Nor does the fact that a heterosexual couple who commits "adultery" through the practice of multiple divorces and remarriage negate the original design for the pairing of mankind by God: a man cleaving to a woman and through that pairing produces biological offspring who they raise together.
First of all, just because a Christian determines through the Scriptures that homosexuality is a sin, it is not the equivalent to casting a stone.>>>
Again, interesting as conceptual idea but are your grounded at all in the actual *reality* of this concept being implemented? With all due respect, do you read the newspapers or any kind of information readily available on the condemnation that gay kids specifically experience from their religious parents? The "casting a stone" occurs as these kids are regularly kicked out of their homes for being gay. It's so well-known and is such a huge problem that I'm slightly shocked more people aren't aware of it.
I have been ‘educating myself’ as you exhorted me to.
I have found an abundance of perspectives ‘other’ than your own – not religious in nature – as to the causes and effects of homosexuality and the associated teen suicide rates.
http://www.narth.com/menus/interviews.html
This organization is a scientific, professional, non-religious group who has a completely different opinion on this problem than you do. They have some very interesting perspectives that you may want to read into, backed up by scientific study.
They also have an abundance of positive testimonies from people they have helped.
Thanks for challenging me to look into this more.
I have to jump in here Jeanine. You should do a little research on this scientific, professional, non-reli…hahahahahahahaha. Wait, give me a minute. Bwahahahaha. Okay done.
Narth. Okay, one of their founders, George Rekers was just recently caught in an awesomely hilarious gay sex scandal. After which, they scrubbed any mention of him from their website. They're being sued by a researcher (Dr. Remafedi) for altering and falsely citing his work. They and their research (what research they didn't steal and twist to suit their lies) have been debunked by every medical and mental health organization in America.
Here's some more. Have fun and then try again: http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/11/4813/
Oh wow. Lauren just provided the specifics to these citations and why they are in question. Kismet!
Jeanine's research skills need a bit of … remedial work, methinks.
Just a hint, Jeanine, from someone who has made a fair bit of money from helping people do thesis papers: when one tries to research a particular point of view, first find out everything you can why that point of view is considered wrong, and then use the research that successfully defends against those points. In other words, assume your opinion is wrong first and then begin your research. Those who research only favourable citations get smacked down very quickly in the world of academia. It's amateurish.
This content is being legally challenged, Jeanine. Sorry. And I believe one of the founders was just recently caught in a sex scandal? But I'm glad you're digging into this content!
I did not spend much time at NARTH's website, since I'm actually supposed to be working right now. But a few quick thoughts follow.
Funny how this "scientific" organization seems to have missed the following studies:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has… "A group of Korean geneticists has altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice gravitated toward mice of the same sex. Those mice who retained the gene, called FucM, were attracted to male mice. (FucM is short for fucose mutarotase.)"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2… On "male-oriented" rams, among other things. "Austrian scientists reported this month that switching a single gene was enough to make female fruit flies rebuff males and attempt to mate with other females. Swedish researchers recently found the sexual center of gay men's brains lit up when they sniffed a pheromone-like chemical from men's sweat, but didn't respond to a chemical from women.
And last fall, Italian scientists offered a possible explanation for the persistence of gay genes — even though evolution tends to weed out traits that discourage reproduction. The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals, suggesting genes that influence homosexuality in men may increase fertility in females."
I'd like to also point out that ANY organization or person that tosses out "natural" in relation to sexuality has just expressed utter ignorance of the diversity of "natural" sexual behavior. There is a species of lizards that is entirely parthenogenetic (no males at all, only females, who perform copulatory behavior). Ducks and dolphins commit rape, and gang rape. Many apes have a form of prostitution in which status in the troupe, food, or other resources are traded for sex. Rats exhibit homosexual behavior in both male and female. Shall I continue, or shall we agree that "natural" is not a good basis on which to judge sexuality?
As to the non-religious nature of the organization, I had a bugger of a time trying to find a list of members and their educational credentials. Someone else appears to have had better luck at that, and posted some info about Mr. Rekker above.
And here's a direct quote from one of the articles that I did not have time nor patience to finish reading: "Fisting is the sexual practice of inserting a large object or one's fist into the anus of one's sexual partner, in some cases up to one's forearm."
Now, anybody who knows anything about kink will tell you that 1: fisting is NOT a homosexual-only practice, in fact most of the folk I know (and I will grant you that this is a small sample size) who fist are straight. 2: fisting is NOT specifically anal play, see number 1 there– most often it involves a vagina. 3: what is wrong with fisting anyway, if both parties enjoy it? Frag off, this is not a sickness. And 4: try this site on for size, just for kicks. It's a lovely discussion of how fisting is an acceptable and enjoyable activity for married Christian couples. http://www.sexinchrist.com/fist.html
And now, I'm off to work some more. Enjoy
Haha….I dare not click that link…I'm at work.
No pictures! but yeah, if they track your websites, best do that from home.
I've seen it on a m2m web site up to the shoulder. I can't imagine where that much arm goes, but I'm sure the receiver has gotten his innards rearranged and is wearing diapers during his every day life and has some explaining to do to his doctors!!!!! I've never done it myself and would never be the receiver in any case. I spose it can be pleasurable but, like a lot of pleasures, can be like a drug and harmful if done to excess.
Oh my!! How did we get into this discussion?!?!
Here is more information on the research. It looks like NARTH is being accused of repurposing some research incorrectly, the world the scientist used regarding their referencing his research is they "hijacked" it (I know you love to use quotations!)
http://www.citypages.com/2010-05-26/news/universi…
In all seriousness, if you're researching this particular topic to counter me? Go for it. Let us know anything else you discover and add it to the discussion.
Wow, I'm in all KINDS of trouble.
I knew before I got married that I could not have children. No parts. So my marriage, was that a sham? Where we failing, in your God's eyes, because we knew before we married that we'd never have biological children? How do you feel about my parenting children I did not gestate?
I mean, the whole divorce thing obviously makes me a big fat loser, but I wonder about the other stuff. I didn't lie about it – he knew, because he'd been there with me through the cancer. Should I have set him free, as it were, to marry someone who *could* bear him children?
I understand that you *think* you know all the rules, Natassia. But until you spend time with gay people, until you sit with them, face to face, and discuss what it's like to know that you can never have a real relationship without losing your family/church/community, you really, truly, haven't got a clue.
This is terribly cynical (shocker!), but sometimes I wonder how much tax revenue would be lost if gay and lesbian US citizens were allowed to marry? Now, they can't enjoy any of the tax breaks offered to those who are married legally. Gay men and women tend to be highly educated and do quite well professionally – their income is substantial. I wonder how much of this is to keep them paying taxes? This of course, is a conspiracy theory and tomorrow I'll parce out who the second shooter on the hill was. But for now….
Obviously the second shooter on the hill was the man who went on to become bin Laden's secret lover. That's right—-Phelps. (He disliked Kennedy because he was Catholic; he dislikes Catholics because of their anti-gay teachings; now he’s mad with envy over gays who are out of the closet, because he’s not able to take his relationship out of the closet because the closet is bin Laden's secret hiding place; and he hates America because she wants to kill his lover whom she can't find since he's in Phelp's closet. And it all makes perfect sense now. Sort of.)
Oh Matthew. It just takes a common enemy to see how awesome you are.
Bwwwahahaha! Matthew! I do believe coffee just came out my nose.
Thanks for that.
Not sort of! You may have discovered the innermost secrets of the Templars! (Or the Freemasons, I can’t remember which.)
DR, this is an excellent point. I’d have to dig them out, but I think that there is plenty of objective evidence that those in “married” stable households are more productive, healthier, and contribute greatly to their communities. Although there might be a reduction in tax revenue, there is undoubtedly an increase in consumption, home ownership (with real estate taxes paid) and a reduction in health spending and reliance on social services (less government spending). Net, I’d say it’s far better for society from that standpoint. If hetero couple households are “net” better, and studies show that gay couple households are just as likely to be healthy, productive, and stable as hetero households, then it logically follows that gay couple households would also be net contributors.
Dear Natasha,
Thank you for your wonderful post. I'm sure you are very pleased with yourself. You're a God-loving Christian, blah, blah, blah…..which means you love Jesus Christ, who by the way, never, EVER said anything about homosexuality…at all.
I'm certain you revel in your moral bigotry, intolerance and in your mind-numbing, sheep-like love of the Bible, the grand-daddy of all literature which was written to inspire hate and foolishness, and is perfect for followers like you. You hate yourself. Therefore you are incapable of love or tolerance.
Why do you hate yourself? Simple. Because people who like themselves don't put down others, specifically those who have done nothing except being born with a sexual preference you don't like. Well, congratulations. Take your hate with you. If I believed in Hell, I'm positive you would be there.
Nonconformer? I don't think so. I think you conform just fine by walking the line of the Christian dogma.
Depression has nothing to do with this conversation. Many, many of us straight folk suffer depression as well – for all kinds of reasons.
And if you don't think being told you are less than, that you are going to hell for who you are for your whole life won't cause some situational depression, you're sadly misinformed.
Now, if you want to discuss, turn the cap lock off and quit yelling.
Belated happy birthday. And thank you for your kindness. You're an amazing person. And I can't read through 800 posts to find a more appropriate comment to reply to.
Thanks, Lauren. People like you are truly an inspiration. I didn't know, until I brought home children who don't look like me, what it feels like to have the world judge you based on who is holding your hand. Vastly different kind of judging, I realize, but after so many people chose to insert themselves into our personal lives uninvited, one of them pointing out I should never have gone overseas to bring more of "them" to the US, I got a glimpse into what it feels like to be be judged and pigeonholed by people who know nothing at all about us.
I can't even fathom all the insidious negativity you and so many have had to deal with other the years. Explains why my gay and lesbian friends are some of the strongest, most centered and lovely people I know.
What is this even supposed to mean? Do try to use understandable grammar and realistic punctuation; screaming nonsense is hardly a convincing argument.
YOU DO REALIZE THAT DEPRESSION IS A BIG PERSONAL PROBLEM IN MANY GAY PEOPLE'S LIFE EVEN CAUSE THEY DO NOT FACE THE ROOT, OTHER CAUSES OF IT BUT TOO OFTEN RATHER TRY TO MASK IT WITH GAY SEX, DRUGS, MEDICATIONS, BOOZE, ACTIVITIES..
Or, perhaps, we just suffer from the never ending and nauseous opprobrium of PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOUTING AT US ALL THE TIME?
Every queer man or woman I know who has been suffering from depression, suffered from it while they tried to fight their queerness, and it invariable got better and disappeared once they accepted themselves. Seriously, folks, it is really only you who is making us sick. Not God. Not booze. Not sex.
Yes, I have known many many gay people, who when they were suppressing their gayness were dealing with depression and anxiety. Once they came out they are the happiest people you have ever met. A close friend of mine came out after being a fundamentalist Christian. He told me one day that sometimes he was so overwhelmed with how much he loves his life, his friends and his community that he just had to cry. Come out. I don't think Jesus cares.
Wow, all-caps all-the-time, huh? You sound like someone who speaks with the passion of personal experience.
Really, what is your point with that? What are you trying to suggest? What exactly is that "root cause" of depression among LGBT people that they try to "mask with gay sex"?
So depressed people have sex to "mask" their feelings? And here I thought those who do do it BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE TO HAVE SEX. Apparently no: Gays–who are necessarily "depressed"–have sex for dark, dubious and unhealthy reasons, unlike all other people. What a fully transparent load.
Furthermore, your not-so-subtle suggestion that gay people are special purveyors of addiction and emotional problems could not be more bigoted and nonsensical. If gay people have have special distress or pain, and in their lives, maybe you'd like to consider that BEING A WIDELY DISPARAGED , OPPRESSED, AND CIVICALLY MARGINALIZED MINORITY just might have something to do with that.
if you have a shred of sincere interest in the actual emotional well-being of actual gay people, maybe you should consider avoiding YOUR "temptation" to anonymously bash them on internet forums, and instead actually befriend, support, and stand in solidarity with those LGBT people in your life.
Another mark against nonconformer's theory of hiding depression with promiscuity is that depression often decreases sex drive.
You are right on, Jim
Of course love is about more than just feelings. And yes, we do have a certain amount of control over who we fall in love with. We do not, however, have control over who we are attracted to – we can choose to pursue a relationship or not, but that initial attraction is usually out of our hands.
Think about it, though, Natassia. I assume, based on your comment, that you are straight. Can you imagine looking at *any* woman and imagining a relationship with her? Not sex, but a romantic relationship. The intimacy that comes along with falling in love. If all of a sudden, for one reason or another, men were off limits completely, could you will yourself to fall in love with a woman? No? So then you just accept that men are off-limits, and will yourself to a single, celibate life – forever? You'd be OK with that?
Of course you wouldn't. Very few of us would. For a gay person, one who really is NOT attracted to the opposite sex at all, that is what life is like in conservative church. So your answer is that instead of giving themselves permission to date, to seek a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship, they should just ask God for – what? The strength the remain celibate and alone? To "change" them?
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck – I really want to know.
We may have no control over our attractions, but we do not have to be controlled by those attractions.
You asked if I can imagine looking at *any* woman and imagining a relationship with her? I have before. Does that make me bisexual? No. It means that sexual attraction is fluid and it is often shallow. A physical response towards something, or even just a curiosity about it, doesn't mean that is who I am. It doesn't define me.
I have, amusingly, thought about what it would be like to have a "romantic relationship" with a female, and it occurred to me that it would be a farce–a weak imitation of the real thing. I observed that a woman would not be complementary to my personality, nor would it work out well with my desire to have a healthy family. I sought that which I am not: masculine.
But these "what if you were the last two people on the face of the planet?" kind of questions are pointless. You seem to be implying that I can't be a healthy, normal human being without having sex. In fact, you seem to be saying that it would be unnatural to be celibate.
How odd.
With God all things are possible–even celibacy. And plenty of people have done it and continue to do it. They don't wither and die. They don't melt into puddles of misery.
I don't claim to have an answer to the problem of homosexuality (and yes, I think it is a problem, just as is anxiety.) I think GOD has the answer. And what that answer is happens to be between each individual person and God. I just know that with God all things are possible. To believe otherwise is to believe that God is not almighty.
Are you really trying to define love? Trying to claim THIS is love and THAT isn't? Come on. Love is a big word. It has zillions of meanings. Centuries and centuries and centuries peeps have written about love. You can fill books with what love means. At the lowest level love means intense affection. Everything beyond that depends on the culture, the context, the circumstances, the person who uses the word.
But reading all this made me think. Maybe it ISN'T really about who you fall in love with and who you get your loving from. I mean… fuck… how to say this…
"Loving’s pretty easy. It’s letting someone love you that's hard."
- Rita Mae Brown (Riding Shotgun, 1997)
The worst thing about being queer and told that you are an abomination isn't that you aren't allowed to be loved by others. That IS bad enough. But the worst is that your aren't allowed to love yourself!
There is another thing that many think is supposed to go with love, and that is that is supposed to be unconditional. BUT when you're queer, it NEVER is unconditional. Yeah, God loves you, BUT he wants you to be different. Your rents love you, BUT they want you to be different. If your lover loves you, it really is a perversion. If you love a woman (or a man, for a dyke), you know that some part of your love is a lie, if only a lie of omission. As a queer bloke, even if you like a child, your own, or your baby borther, or your nephew, even then you know that those who know always have this little, held back fear in mind: He's a perv, so, who knows if his affection for the kiddo is all that innocent.
When you're queer, you can never be innocent. You can never be accepted. Not the real you. You can never really let go, let yourself fall into the arms of love. You always have to be on the look-out, against yourself, against those around you. A part of you has to fight love all the time. It is SO FUCKING EXHAUSTING. After a while you get so tired you ust want it to stop, even when it means you have to stop breathing to get there.
So, all you good "Christians" who think that picking that one prohibition from the Good Book of Zillion Prohibitions, there really is only three options for queers: Say "screw you all" to you bigots and ignore you and shag whosoever you want and feel good about it, or give up and die, or FIGHT till you are gone and we have won. And when that day is there, and there is queer boys happily snogging on all the school grounds in the world, and you have can't go through a town without having to retch all the time for seeing all those hand-holding dykes and happy faggots, just remember, we didn't bring that fight to you. You brought it to us. And I hope you choke on it.
Freefox, that sucks. The not getting unconditional love thing. That is the one thing that, as a straight person, I can relate to. I grew up feeling that I would only be loved if I met certain standards. Otherwise, sorry, not deserving. And it affected my entire life.
You deserve better. SOOO much better. And so we soldier on, I suppose, yes?
And though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven – that which we are, we are: One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will… to strive… to seek… to find… and NOT TO YIELD!
What's not to love about Tennyson?
May I re-post your words, FreeFox?
Sure thing, mate. Feel free. (Though I am curious. Will you tell me where you are reposting them?)
My livejournal, for my friends who don't read this blog.
Oh, and Jes, when you do, feel free to fix my many typos.
Love has already been defined. I don’t need to redefine it.
Does that sound like something you just fall into or fall out of?
I think C.S. Lewis summed it up best over 50 years ago:
Further on he comments on the concept of ‘falling in love’:
Just because the we English-speakers use the word “love” to mean anything from an intense like for a particular flavor of ice cream to a friendly affection between teammates to an unconditional love between a mother and child, that doesn’t mean all languages are so vague. For example, Greek has four words: eros, storge, philia, and agape.
Agape is an act of will, and it is the highest form of love. It is what we should all strive for, even with our enemies. And it has nothing to do with whether or not someone loves you in return.
It must be a painful thing to feel inclined towards something you have been taught all your life is wrong. The guilt over the uncontrollable desires of your heart and body must be mind-numbing. I would not wish to be in those shoes. It is a heavy cross to bear.
And I was really feeling sympathetic to your cause, FreeFox, until you concluded with this:
You end on a note of “sexual free-for-all is the answer” and a proverbial middle finger for anyone who thinks otherwise. That’s not love. That’s lust.
P.S. Only God can declare someone an abomination, and I don’t believe He creates abominations. People make abominations out of themselves.
I may be misinterpreting FreeFox's words, but I think what he said was more to mean that queers feel backed into such a corner that we can see no middle ground with most Christians. It has become an all-or-nothing situation, not because every queer out there is striving for the position of most promiscuous in the pack, but because Christian belief has denied us the option of being just other folk with similar desires. Christian belief sets queers up as monsters and abominations, and what can we do about it? Suffer in silence, roll over and die, or accept the label and excel at it. We didn't pick the label. We were given it. But if we're going to get condemned as abominations no matter what we do, why should we NOT do the best we can to live up to the label?
Really, what do you think a monster is going to do when backed into a corner? Let the hunter run it through, or fight back with every bit of the strength the hunter feared, which inspired the hunt in the first place?
Nicely put, jes.
I can think of all kinds of abominations – and being gay simply has nothing to do with any of them.
Kinda, Jes. It wasn't really a moral argument. It was just a description of what I feel is being witbut by a lame, not just be Christian homophobes, but by a large part of society (though no doubt a LOT less than in the years, decades and centuries before my lifetime. I know that for a queer I got it easy.) John SHore made the point that Christians demand that we live without love. That has sparked this big debate on here if celibacy is the same as life without love, if love is lust, if there is love without sex, the role of romantic love, etc. pp. And I just thought, well, for me it isn't so much that I am denied the right to love and be loved, though yeah, that is a small part of it. But right now I have no lover, I am celibate (unless you count Mr. Hand, a sin itself, I know), and I have love in my life. I am raising a child together with someone (not my child, not my wife, no sex or pretensions of romance, but still, there you are), I have friends that I love, I have a job that I love, I love God, and I love my life. I have love, even when I am not practicing sinful sex.
But what I didn't have until I decided – after a long, hard, painful and pretty harshly sacrificial journey – that I wouldn't accept their judgement… not rebel against it, mind you, but simply do not accept that they have the right or the power to define the truth for me, what I didn't have until then, was the peace of being able to love myself, and by doing so, accpeting the love others brought towards me. Nobody can be loved who doesn't love himself.
And to me that is a far worse sin – to not love yourself the way God created you, to reject the person He made you – that is truly unforgivable. And you are condamned to hell for it. I don't know anything about the next life, but going through THIS life while hating yourself IS hell. And I can understand every queer kid who decided that it is better to kill yourself, even though I want to shout to all of them to hold on, to hold on every minute longer, and to find the exit from that dark, hellish tunnel the Christians and others have cast us into.
I am a bit ashamed for the cussing at the end of that last post, even though I do not take anything back. It is just, talking about all this brings back bad memories. Very bad, very painful memories. And the anger that accompanies them.
Damn, I am too tired: "It was just a description of what I feel is being witbut by a lame, not just be Christian homophobes, but by a large part of society" was meant to be: "It was just a description of what I feel is being withheld from me, not just by Christian homophobes, but by a large part of society."
In what sense do you mean that one form of love is higher than any other? (And yet you claim you're not doing any ecclesiastical teaching…. hah!)
By the way, what you gave is no definition of love (as a noun). That's a bunch of adjectives describing it. It doesn't really say what love actually is (while neither does it in any way preclude homosexual manifestation of it).
Love is an act of will. To say that you just "fall in love" and have "no control" over who you fall in love with, makes love a meaningless and spontaneous emotional reaction. Of course, that way you don't have to feel guilty when you "fall out of love" with that very same person.
You have no control over your feelings.
Well, most Christians believe love is about far more than feelings.
And the way I view Christianity is like any other predisposition someone may have towards sinful behavior like an addictive personality, or narcissism, or an anxiety disorder, you name it. It's a thorn in the flesh–a cross one must bear.
Having an anxiety problem is in itself not a sin. The problem is what that anxiety may lead me to do: wrath, cruelty, impatience, compulsivity, etc.
And I don't believe that the state of being homosexual is necessarily a sin, but it is what that state of being homosexual might lead the person to do.
Turning to God helps to curb the panic and symptoms and intensity so that not only can I function, but I can actually thrive despite my pesky little thorn. And just as with me and my anxiety, I think God's grace is sufficient for a homosexual.
"And the way I view Christianity is like any other predisposition someone may have towards sinful behavior like an addictive personality, or narcissism, or an anxiety disorder, you name it. It’s a thorn in the flesh–a cross one must bear."
I realize from the rest of your post that you did not mean this the way it reads, but I was amused by it anyway. Christianity is itself a predisposition towards sinful behavior, and a thorn in your flesh…
lol, yes, I saw that after I posted it.
I figured people were bright enough to see it for what it was: a typo.
Natassia writes Love is an act of will.
I call bullshit.
Love is an intense physiological response of the limbic system that can be triggered in ways that are not self-directing. I have independently verifiable evidence for that claim.
What do you have for yours?
The sticking point is this: the Bible is explicitly and unambiguously anti-gay. It couldn't be more anti-gay if it carried around a big sign that said "being gay is despicable in the eyes of God and is a perversion of nature"… wait. No, hang on. That's exactly what it says.
Those who are Christians self-identify as being members of that faith. They make a choice to align themselves with a group whose belief system is allegedly based on the same Bible that clearly hates Gay people.
Why would anyone choose to associate themselves with a clearly anti-gay, unloving belief system? Either a) they're not really thinking about the implications of the label they choose for themselves or 2) they don't care. This is one reason I had to stop identifying myself as a Christian. If I do, I'm making a conscious choice to identify with a religion that behaves in a hateful fashion a lot of the time.
Or 3) They're redefining the word "Christian" to mean whatever they think is nice and good, regardless of what the basic texts of the faith say or of what the two thousand years of doctrinal history would say. This is exactly the same thing as my claiming the label "vegetarian" but continuing to eat steak, claiming that "vegetarian, "to me," includes steak. Or claiming to be "Catholic" but reserving the right to disagree with the Pope if I want.
BTW, the prevailing attitude towards homosexuality in Jesus' day was exactly that expressed by the Bible in other places. Homos were to be killed if caught. Jesus, who had no problem speaking out against the prevailing culture on other issues, never brought this up. Ever.
So either he 1) didn't care, or B) …actually I can't think of another reason he wouldn't mention this.
I would agree with you, if there wasn't so much research that shows how very unclear the Bible *actually* is on the topic of homosexuality. There is a good chance that what was meant in the original languages was about the sin of "spilling the seed," i.e. wasting perfectly good sperm when we humans needed to procreate as much as possible simply for survival, male prostitution, and men taking boys (who were fairly commonly enslaved as prostitutes). The concept of the homosexuality (the idea of same-sex attraction and relationships, not the acts) was not yet recognized in Biblical times, so no one seems to be able to offer a reasonable explanation as to how it could have been considered an abomination.
Or 3) He did care, and probably said something to the effect of "love them anyway" but this sort of blasphemy was conveniently left-out of the historical text.
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)
"Or claiming to be 'Catholic' but reserving the right to disagree with the Pope if I want.”
Funny… I thought the only Catholic who agrees entirely with the Pope at present is Benedict XVI.
I was not aware that any personal disagreement with him—not just professing a belief in contradiction to those rare papal ex cathedra pronouncements—was incompatible with being in communion with Rome.
I know of nothing in the Bible to indicate whether Jesus was gay, pro or con. Except for a reference to Peter's mother in law we wouldn't know that he was a married man.
Aye. I dunno about research, Mindy, didn't study that. But in the common translations that are around when I read the bible itself, that is exactly the vibe I go away with. Fags are gross and need to be killed. But to repeat it for the umpteenth time, the bible also tells women to shup up and never contradict a man. So far none of the Christian men in discussion have taken offence at the fact that you (Mindy) contradict them and ARE A WOMAN. Why not? Cuz they'd be laughed out of here if they really wanted to sell the point that God doesn't like outspoken women. (Even though the bible clearly says so.) Cuz that fight was largely won 40 years ago.
The bible says a lot of things. NONE of you live according to it all. The bible is the silliest, tiniest towel behind which to hide your intolerance. Using the bible as an argument just means that you don't have any other.
All of the research that supports the Bible being "gay-friendly" or at least "Gay-neutral" is recent and unsupported by any amount of historical precedent. For 2000 years the Bible was unarguably anti-gay. Now, suddenly, when it's no longer convenient, we find reasons to say, "Hey, wait, the Bible actually said THIS all along!"
This is disingenuous. The book says what it says. In the original languages, too. I've checked. The Bible is explicitly anti-gay. And Jesus didn't care enough about homosexuals being murdered in his home region to say anything about it. These things are obvious but they're rather unpleasant if one wishes to continue being called a Christian AND has a conscience. Hence problems like what Mr. Shore is addressing in his original post.
However, and this is my point, most modern Christians aren't anti-gay. Nor are they a lot of other things mandated by their holy scriptures. I believe that it's nostalgia for the vocabulary of the religion that keeps people calling themselves Christian these days in a lot of cases. Not actual commitment to 2000 year old doctrines.
And, yes, the Pope can never, ever be wrong according to Catholic doctrine. Papal Infallibility ain't no joke. If Benny says condoms are bad and you disagree, then you're disagreeing with God Almighty, according to the doctrine. Bad Catholic. Into the confessional you go.
Unless, like some of my Catholic pals, you feel no need to go to confession, in which case you're protestant anyway so just switch to Episcopal and be done with it, I say.
Many Catholics are Catholic out of nostalgia for the vocabulary and the ceremony, not the actual belief system. Just like the other Christian religions.
My point is this: if you're a Christian you are self-identifying as a member of a deeply anti-gay bigoted institution. There is no way around this without being a bit disingenuous, as I mentioned. Arguments like Mr. Shore mentions in his post are evidence of this problem.
(What I'd love to see is for this population to just come out and admit they're humanists and leave the dangerous mythology behind once and for all. However, that's not the point of this blog so I shant be rude and pursue that issue further.)
Sorry, I missed something.
@Mindy – Homosexuality was a recognized and widely accepted practice in Greek and Egyptian civilization for a long, long time before Jesus is said to have walked the earth. That's why the Paul letters bring it up.
In fact, the Law of Moses, which was the only "bible" Jesus' culture had, explicitly condemns homosexuality multiple times. There's no confusion about this. There is only the need some very good people have to continue treating a sometimes very bad book as if it were perfect. It's OK to admit the Bible was wrong about a great many things. In fact, it's more honest.
"Look, it's just the Bible. It's not Gospel." – Dara O'Brien
@Justin – I know that. But not the concept of monogamous gay relationships, and there was not a word for it. It was . . . recreational, shall we say? And the Paul letters talk about male prostitutes and I've read in several places that the translation was likely about men lying with boys – as in, the boy-prostitutes – being wrong.
FWIW, I totally agree with you your take on the Bible. Lots of very scary stuff in there –
Can I ask by what defintion we are determining what sin is? Because if we use the 10 commandments then there is a real flaw in all of this logic. The commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy affects no one but the person who chooses to follow this commandment, but if we break the law (10 commandments) then we are sinning.
So, I think we need to clearly define SIN. Sin is anything that seperates us from God. And sex outside of a marriage seperates us from God. (This includes heterosexual relationships). So, does a right winged fundamentalist want you to live forever without love no! But sex and love are not interchangable. I am straight and I am single, I am a virgin. Has it been hard at times to keep my purity, yes. But just because I want it doen't mean that I should have it. So, all of this to say only God can decide who goes to heaven or hell, but I think there are clear passages of Scripture that say homosexuality is a sin and I believe that all sin (if not covered by the blood of Jesus Christ) will seperate us from God and seperation from God is Hell. So, make your own choice as to your orientation but don't let someone else tell you what is truth (not even me)search it out for yourself!
"Sex outside of marriage separates us from God."
So *you* say. You cannot make a blanket statement like that as if it is true for everyone. That may be true for a conservative Christian. It may be true for individuals the world over, but it is not necessarily true for everyone.
I am not married. I am divorced, and am dating a very nice person. We may, at some point, become intimate. But we will likely never marry. I have kids, I have a fine life of my very own, and I'm not sure I want to do that again. That in no way distances me from God.
As for your "clear passages," they are not at all clear. They have been translated many times over, but when they were written, the knowledge construct and the word "homosexual" did not even exist. The reality is that those "clear passages" are about as clear as mud, yet they have come to be accepted as, well, gospel. But there is a very good chance they are not. There are many explanations of this, of the Greek translation, etc., throughout the comments to posts about homosexuality here on John's blog. Research it – read from other than Christian sources. You might be surprised at what you learn.
Well said, Mindy.
yes, quite well said, Mindy.
Hey, John – is there a prize for a comment that is double-Susan-ed?? I mean, c'mon.
Both Susans. Makes me blush.
Yes, the comment is good and deserves two Susans. A worthy attainment.
Who defines "the truth"?
Come now, is it really that unreasonable to believe in an absolute morality? As it is, being a Christian is to believe in an absolute truth and the ability to discern between right and wrong.
Therefore, a Christian (at least one who honestly believes that the Gospel is true) is going to believe that what is true is always true, regardless of who we're talking about. That's why Christians make "blanket statements," as you call them. If they believe it to be true that sin separates Man from God, then they also believe that sin will separate you from God.
It's not bigotry or even close-mindedness. It's simply the Christians' belief about truth.
Said the Christian who believes her version of Christianity is absolute truth. As a Christian who just read a bit of your blog, I can assure you that I am as devout a believer in Jesus Christ as you are, and we have radically differing conclusions about what Jesus said and who Jesus is. What do we do now?
If I may and repeat what I told to Jill earlier (and which none of you devout Christians has yet deigned to react to – cuz you can't): DR is a bloke. I'm a bloke. Hell, John Shore is a bloke. YOU are a chick. St Paul says you gotta shut up and if you try to lecture us, you're sinning. If you really believed all the rules, you'd never talk back to a bloke.
But you do. So, you claim those rules of the Good Book that you want to uphold but ignore those that you don't want to.
THAT MAKES YOU A BIGOT!
Actually, DR is a chick. So can they talk to each other? Or, because we are in the presence of all you blokes, must we be very, very quiet?
Lol. Oh, DR, I beg yer pardon. My bad.
@Jill: No idea. I'm not a Christian, am I? Just a theist who loves God more than God apprently loves him. I was never good with rules.
Perhaps they're just holding the "women in their place" argument for a different day? It's still preached. I have been told in all seriousness by a preacher (and I went in after the sermon and asked for clarification, so I know I didn't misunderstand what he was telling the congregation) that women don't need to have an education as our husbands should be taking care of us. All we women-folks need to do is stay home and raise the kids and cook supper for our dear hubbies.
That belief is still out there, and often in the same areas of fiercely held anti-gay sentiment.
(Incidentally, guess who never went back to a Baptist church? That one Sunday was enough to guarantee that neither my sister nor I wanted anything to do with that church–we were "church hopping" at the time, looking for one we felt comfortable in.)
Natassia writes Come now, is it really that unreasonable to believe in an absolute morality? As it is, being a Christian is to believe in an absolute truth and the ability to discern between right and wrong.
Note how you switch between arguing that you have a belief about morality (which you say you are allowed to hold), to the ability to discern right and wrong (forgetting that this discernment is also a matter of belief)!
What if your belief is incorrect, Natassia?
How can you know if your belief is incorrect?
If you cannot know if it is incorrect, then you cannot know if it is correct.
And that is why your beliefs about morality – absolute morality in particular – are not open to challenge, and that meets the definition of closed-mindedness. Your willingness to act on these closed-mined beliefs and extend them into the word makes you a bigot.
Well, justmyOpinion, it's doubtful that your "purity" has anything whatsoever to do with the used/unused state of your genitals. If by chance you are female, your notion of "purity" actually dovetails quite nicely with that of the Islamic extremists who punish women who lose their "purity" in rather horrible ways.
In Christian terms, purity is more closely related to the state of your mind, heart, and soul. Interestingly, Jesus has something to say about both these states — and also about the notion of purity.
In Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus tells us that our very thoughts are also deeds. He says, specifically, that when we feel anger, we are guilty of murder, and when we feel lust, we are guilty of adultery.
We don't know if Jesus felt lust, but we do know that he felt anger — most obviously when he drove the money changers from the temple. But we see it in him other times, as well. So if Jesus, who was the son of God, could do the equivalent of murder in his heart, then what hope is there for the rest of us? Clearly, "purity" is not what it's all about.
Well, there IS hope, but it does not lie in doomed attempts at "purity." It lies in our relationship with the Lord, and that does not depend on "perfect behavior;" rather, it depends on our acceptance of God's love. That's all: just let him love you, and love him back. Then take that love, that acceptance, and share it freely and non-judgmentally with others. Do that, and you've got the two Great Commandments covered: you are loving God with everything you've got, and you're loving your neighbor as yourself.
The body is inseparable from the spirit except in death…that's why sins committed against the flesh can scar the soul.
Sexual immorality is one of those unclean things that makes us unclean from the inside out. It starts in the mind, manifests in the actions of the body, and ends in an injury to the soul.
While what you say is true, it is not up to you to define which activities are immoral for another.
Natassia, you claim that the spirit and body are inseparable. Presumably, you use spirit and soul as synonyms. Because spirit and body are inseparable during life, that must explain why there is no evidence for this spirit/soul while the body is alive (a very convenient way to hide, don't you think?) and is gone after death so it cannot be found then. Another coincidence, no doubt, to keep the claim immune from verification.
You have admitted that your assumption about absolute morality is a belief you have chosen, which mean sexual actions you consider immoral are based on the same belief you have chosen. You make a thinking mistake to assume that the belief you have chosen about what is true equates with what is true (because the probability is .5 at best with no other considerations based on evidence). Your pronouncement that a sexual action is immoral, that it starts in the mind, that it manifests in the body, that it injuries the soul, is a factual chain of claims that cannot be independently verified on anything other than your belief. Attributing your belief to accurately reflect god's Truth is dishonest when you know these beliefs you have chosen may or may not be true.
Surely you can appreciate why your belief alone is not enough justification to extend its conclusions into the lives of others. Granted, such an extension is arrogant, closed-minded, and can be shown as a social conglomerate to be highly prejudicial towards others. All this is speaks poorly of your honest caring and compassion towards others you are willing to marginalize on the basis of your belief. But when you use god to be the proxy agent of your belief, you add intellectual dishonesty to your arsenal.
The good news, however, is that it is easy to disprove the charge of having a closed mind by changing it. I have tried to facilitate this change with what I think are better reasons than the ones you now hold that keep it closed. It's a small step, really, to understand why your beliefs (the ones you have admittedly chosen, don't forget) do not belong in directing the lives of others any more than the contrasting belief of others should be directing yours.
One more thing…to those who have been blatantly rejected by their parents, peers, or churches for being gay…or worse have committed suicide or been killed, I’m profoundly sorry and know that Jesus is weeping for them. Shame on the church for not doing more to help those kids! My prayers are with them.
If you are truly sorry for the devastation and suffering caused by those who act on these scriptures and wish to do something about it to bring about meaningful change then drop your support for the root of this bigotry: the scriptures condemning gays are morally wrong and should be rejected and condemned loudly by christians everywhere. They have no sanctity in the modern world or modern theology.
I am only responsible for my own personal actions/attitudes/beliefs. Choosing to no longer engage in the fight against the gay community, and encouraging other Christians to do the same is, in effect, the same as choosing not to support that part of the doctrine, is it not? I cannot control what others do nor can I change what has been done in the past, but I am accountable to God for my own heart, which, in this case, has been changed on the side of compassion. Count that, tildeb, as a win in your favor.
It's not my favour you need to win, Deb; through exorcising your faith it should be the heart of your lord. Silence and toleration of doctrinal and traditional bigotry I doubt are shining examples of the kind of moral courage that is often required to implement god's unbiased love for others. It seems to me – an atheist – that speaking out against those comfortable in their scriptural bigotry is good first step.
"Exorcising"? Talk about a Freudian slip! I meant "exErcising". Good grief. My apologies.
I meant in favor of the cause as a whole…not "yours" personally…
Dear Deb,
Please stop talking *at* gay people or praying *for* them. Talk *to* them. Tell that teenager who posted below that you're sorry. Ask him how your theology has impacted him. Stop distancing yourself from this group of people by talking about them. Do what Jesus did – connect with them and listen. Have the courage to really listen to the impact your theology is having on kids. There is one here, JimmyO. Talk to him.
Excellent advice, DR. Deb? Think about it. Talk to JimmyO. Talk to Kara here, or some of the other gay and lesbian participants who consider themselves Christian – or did, at one point.
Involve yourself in real, heartfelt discussions with them, and listen as well as you speak.
What is frustrating is they causerhe damage and then I am the Christian who is actually there dealin with their mess. They get to keep their hands clean as they pray for them. Ugh,
True. And all I can say, friend, is thank God for people like you.
I'm not doing as much as I could or should and sound like a martyr without wanting to. It just seems like these people really think that just saying "Gosh so sorry how awful I will pray" is even helping. It makes it worse. Just once, I wish the Debs of Christianity or the ManimalXs would put themselves close to a gay kid who show them the scars of his near suicide. Who sees the panic in his eyes when he hears the name "Jesus". Who flinches at the idea of entertaining a loving God exists.
But they won't. They wont ever get too close, they will tell themselves that having a few gay friends at a social level is enough. That their concern and horror is enough. That their "sorry" is enough. It's a start, but it's not even close to enough.
I don't recall saying that I was praying for or talking at anyone, except for Christians…and that was for them/us to stop the attacks on gays. Oh, except for the part where I said I am praying for those who have been persecuted to the point of being suicidal. Sorry…forgive me for praying for their healing!
You can be sarcastic in order to evade the point I am making, Deb. I'm sure suggesting that you actually ask a gay kid what this theology has done to Jim would be a pretty terrifying thing to do. But you decided to get in the fame, here. So play it all the way through. There are gay people here who I bet, would tell you directly if you asked them. Crust you try to evade that experience says more about the real courage behind your convictions than anything you pray for.
Ugh, iPhone. Crust=that.
Not evading, just not on your time table apparently DR. Your anger toward those who are attempting to take steps in your direction is only furthering the divide I'm afraid. My only point (that I'm obviously failing miserably at making) is that I have prayed for clarity on this issue, and my heart has been changed. I now feel a great deal of compassion for these souls who have been so hurt by so many, whereas before there was indifference. I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, DR, but it's where I'm at today and I think I'm heading in the right direction.
Would you prefer I stop praying for the victims to be healed and the church to stop the bigotry? Would you prefer that I stop praying for my own heart to continue to change? I believe that prayer changes things and has the power to heal, as is evidenced by the changes in my heart that was hardened in many areas, MANY healed relationships, physical healing and provision, the list goes on. Prayer may not seem like enough for you, but it means a lot to me and to many who are hurting around the world so I will continue. If God, at some point, puts in my heart a desire to do more, then I will heed the call. But verbally attacking someone who has come a long way toward tolerance because they're not doing enough is not the way to help those who have suffered my friend.
And most of all as I jump all over you for not doing enough? Thank you for doing what you are doing. This sounds trite to say, but we are all growing at very small bits at a time as much as we can. That you would step out and say somerhing to Christians is so important. Thank you for that, it does help.
Of course I posted my last "rebuttal" before I saw this…sorry for being defensive…I'm feeling a little beaten-up here today!
I understand, deb. I was where you are, I am the last one who should be beating you up. I was a jerk to rush in and demand more, people move at their own pace. I'm in such despair about the results here that it's almost like a Hail Mary that gets thrown at the last minute. As a result, I do push "faster faster" and for me, playing the bad cop is often a shock that Christians have experienced that some later thank me for – but some don't and being online one has to be even more careful with it. So I appreciate your candor. I need to pull up a little, I feel a little desperate to help this community and at times, feel like the ends justify the means. Probably not entirely.
I know I'm just one in a long line of posts, but I have a problem with saying that sin is not sin if it causes no one harm…that's quite simply the human standard, not God's standard. We have to remember that God is the author of life. He makes the rules and His ways are higher and holy. We can rationalize all we want to and justify every action and lifestyle we want to and feel as good as we want to feel about it, but if it doesn't live up to God's holy standards, then it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks or says about it, it only matters what He says about it.
I mean, when sin entered the world through Adam and Eve – how did they really harm anyone? All they did was eat a piece of fruit that they weren't supposed to because some snake said that it would make them wiser and they believed him. Eating a piece of fruit didn't hurt anyone. Oh, wait a minute, I guess it hurt them because God said that if they ate that fruit, they would surely die. He wasn't being mean, He was just telling them what would happen because He loved them. So who was hurt? They were – their relationship with God was broken, they had to leave paradise and they had it a lot harder in the world. It wasn't a picnic for them anymore.
So while we are all born sinners, we have to work harder to live a holy, Godly life. That's why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us. But just because we all are sinners, doesn't mean we can just slack off on the sins that come more naturally or are so hard to get through…some of us will never get through them easily or enough, but we are to take "every thought captive" and live our lives in righteousness.
The argument that you think these stupid Christians who are asking people to be unloved or not able to give love (forget the sex part which I think that equation with love is assinine, but just forget about that) is just untrue. I'm not asking that of anyone. I'm simply stating what I have read in the Bible, what I understand God's holiness to mean and what that should mean for people living their daily lives.
But the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor, Lori, and not fact. Man evolved, which is a fact. For you to claim that god is the author of life and that this is a fact, meaning man was created by god, is hardly sound reasoning. It is simply a matter of faith that is maintained in spite of contrary evidence.
What 'god' says about homosexuality is by self-reported revelation, transcribed and interpreted and re-written and interpreted again to become the scriptures we have today. There is a very good argument that scripture actually says nothing about homosexuality being a 'sin' because the word itself is a modern invention. So your argument that god's standard that homosexuality is a sin is at best questionable on several fronts.
What we do know, without doubt, is that gay teens kill themselves at four times the rate of other teens and that one of the majors reasons is because gay teens are told by word and deed that there is something wrong with homosexuality. Your attitude and explanation does no good altering this degrading and appalling lie, but your interpretation of scripture seems to me to be the single most important factor in maintaining that lie. And the reason why I claim that is because without scripture, there is no reason to consider homosexuality in a negative light whatsoever. None. Zero.
John Shore didn't equate sex with love; that's something you did. He's pointing out how what you really want them not to have when you want them not to have marital relations is not so much sex, but love. So, for the record, you are absolutely fine with allowing them everything Shore actually mentions? Then why are you challenging what he wrote?
Thanks for pointing this out, Matthew. The whole point is that haters tend to think the sex is the only thing gay people think about. That they don't want the hand-holding, snuggling, soul-searing conversations you can only have with that one person who knows you best. Lori just did exactly the same thing.
And "we have to remember that God is the author of life" is, as tildeb said, nothing remotely close to a rational statement. It is a statement of faith, which is fine and good, but should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with human opinion of another's private sexuality.
Hi, I am a Christian teenager and have been reading several articles on this blog along with the comments with avid interest. I am really quite grateful to have stumbled upon this blog at this time when so much effort is being put into trying to understand this mammoth issue of *shock, horror!!* being gay. For the record, I am gay and have experienced much pain and angst in trying to reconcile my sexuality, something that is very much beyond my control, and my faith, something to which I have a deep unerring attachment. Deep down I still wish I was straight, not so much because I have a moral problem with being gay, but because it would be so much easier. I feel that I have a strong relationship with God and I also have a very deep desire to maintain it. At the same time, I do very much want to experience the love, laughter, peace, joy, contentment, safety, excitement, passion, anger, agony and angst that comes with being in a relationship. I accept that the bible is pretty clear with how this particular relationship between two males is regarded, however, if in the event I do decide to pursue a relationship, then I will accept the consequences, if there are any, and face God. I do not know whether God will regard my decision (and yes it is a "choice" – but only because, as John so eloquently worded it – I do not want to reject love) as a sin but I do know that when I am called upon to account for the decisions I've made in my life, God will understand why I made them, and will look upon me only with the boundless love that emanates from his grace.
I do not know the bible well enough to comment, but it seems to me since so much conflict exists within Christianity over this particular issue, as opposed to say, murder, then surely this raises the question that maybe, perhaps, possibly, in some small way, that this issue is not a black or white, right or wrong, left or right, kind of issue, but one that is multi-faceted, unsettled, contentious, etc.
In regards to several comments made by ManimalX and Jill, I reiterate what I said before, I did NOT choose to be gay, and please ask yourself, who in their right mind would choose it?? If it WAS a choice then it would have to be listed as apsychiatric/mental/spiritual/physical disorder because a person would have to plain nuts to choose to bring upon themselves the unrelenting hatred of some, the snide comments and looks from others, and far worse, the "you're a sinful person who God will never love but I won't judge you" people who smile at you sincerely as they twist the knife just a little deeper. I have a very close friend who I very much love and who is a good person, however every time she says "I'm not ok with you being gay, but I don't judge you" I have to say, it hurts… a LOT. Jill, I am grateful that you have chosen to be more compassionate to gay people than many Christians would be, but I do ask that you be more considerate and compassionate of your lesbian friend. Just because she said she'd consider dating men, this does not automatically mean she is not a lesbian. I can say I'd consider dating women (though I won't), but it doesn't make me straight. I am attracted to men, always have been, always will be. I don't know why I am this way. I don't know whether God made me this way or whether my soul has been corrupted. But what I do know is that I am gay, I crave the love of another human (just so happens, a man rather than a woman), I am Christian, and I crave the love and compassion of God. If that means I'm going to hell… then so be it.
Today I was reading about the several teens who've taken their own lives because of their sexuality. I must confess this has been something I've been tempted towards in my own life, but thankfully my attempts failed and I have come to appreciate the gift of life that God has given me. Perhaps my sexuality is my "thorn" and I can certainly appreciate the benefit of having one… I just wish it wasn't so damn painful!!
Thanks so much to everyone here. Regardless of everyone's views, I feel very optimistic, given that this discussion is taking place at all. I also apologise for my self-absorbed ramblings. I did not realise how pent up this issue was!
JimmyD, stay true to yourself. And thank you, so much, for posting and sharing – that is not self-absorbed at all. Who knows who you help by posting in a public way? Helping others in your shoes know that they are not alone is no small act of compassion and kindness.
Sending you hugs and hope for strength, peace and love –
Thank you. It truly means a lot to hear you say that.
What Mindy wrote.
Oh man, this makes me cry. I'm so glad you found this blog. And please, please, please know you are SO much more than your sexuality. And your sexuality is so precious to God. You are precious to God exactly as you are, you are *profoundly* OK and this experience of suffering you may have to endure as a Christian who is gay will deepen your sensitivity toward the vulnerable in our culture who has no voice. But please know you have millions of people who support you, who know what you know which is you are loved as you are. Whatever mystery of what is right or wrong is for you and God to solve AS He adores you. These things are so hidden from us at times. But the logic of a loving God actually making this a *choice* is stupid. There is no logic. This was not a choice for you, no one would choose this.
Jimmy, I believe your sexuality is the gift of God. Your choice is to act on it responsibly. Irresponsible action is sinful, but responsible action is God pleasing. The same is true of our other gifts. And what is responsible for us depends on how God has called us to be in this world. I believe he will be our God and we shall be his people. The Bible taken as a whole backs this up. Do not be confused that being gay is sinful, since this would make your creator a sinner, he is the author of your being. This modern idea is a blasphemy that did not exist in Biblical times. There is no rulebook for what is right for each individual soul, but God gives you a heart, which is another gift.
Hugs & Kudos, mate! Illegitimi non carborundum!
Hi Jimmy!
I'm a bit late to the party as I have no at home internet and I finally got a job (yay!) so I'm not able to get to the library as much to respond to blog posts and such.
A couple of things I wanted to bring up that might be of use to you:
1) Claiming the Promise: An Ecumenical Welcoming Bible Study on Homosexuality, Editor: Mary Jo Osterman–If you can find a church that is giving this particular class, I highly recommend it. It goes through some of the "clobber passages" and shows how they're not as cut-and-dried anti-homosexuality as they are currently being interpreted. Even if you can't find a church in your area that is giving this class, you might be able to get a hold of the copy of the study guide by going to this website: http://www.rmnetwork.org/learn-more/resources/stu…. Also, you've probably had the opportunity to read what Kara has written on this subject on this website–she can probably recommend some resources too.
2) On a more general level, I can highly recommend both The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells About God by Darin Hufford and The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott. Neither of these books deals specifically with the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. The Misunderstood God compares the teachings of some Christians about God against the teaching that God is Love (1 John 4:8) and the definition of love Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 13. The Inescapable Love of God is an argument against the notion of eternal punishment that is based both on scripture and on logic. But I recommend them because they will support your overall view that when you are "called upon to account for the decisions I’ve made in my life, God will understand why I made them, and will look upon me only with the boundless love that emanates from his grace."
Peace be with you, Jimmy.
Thank you so much for this. It's so wonderful to hear a Christian acting in a Christ-like manner for once!
Okay, deep breath everyone. I am a conservative (gasp!) Christian who has recently had an "epiphany" of sorts around this entire conflict. I was never actively involved in fighting gay marriage or anything like that, but honestly, my previous feelings on the subject were mostly based on fear and ignorance and quite frankly, judgement.
First, I am straight and happily married with kids. I believe pretty strongly that God designed a man and womans body to fit together physically, which speaks to His ORIGINAL design for sex. I won't apologize for my opinion on that account, but what I will apologize for, is how many of my Christian brothers and sisters, and myself at times, have treated the whole argument and people who are gay. We are not God, we do not understand His ways, nor do we get to decide who is "in" and who is not. Clearly there are people in the world who ARE GAY. Period. The why or how is completely irrelevant to the conversation because we will most likely never understand it. It just IS. God LOVES each of us equally, regardless of our orientation and it is not my place, nor the church's place, to judge or condemn or tell someone they need to change something that is of zero consequence to the rest of us when done in an adult, consentual, committed relationship. So, Christians, get on with feeding the hungry and caring for the orphans and following the Great Commandment to "Love God and Love Others" and STOP fighting this battle! Let people have their rights and their lifestyle and get on with more important things. Let's take the plank out of our own eyes and let God judge each of us in His time…his job, not ours!
Now, that said, if my pastor teaches our congregation what the bible actually says about homosexuality in church, please do not call the police and have him/her arrested for hate speech! Allow us the same freedom that you are fighting for yourselves and respect our doctrine. If my pastor is inciting violence or hatred against gays, that's one thing. But in the several conservative/fundamental/evangelical churches I have visited or attended over the years, I have never once heard a pastor tell the congregation to go and fight the gay movement or hate gay people. On the contrary, they have offered words of healing and acceptance and love to anyone, gay or straight. Obviously there are churches and organizations out there who are radical and taint the image of the majority (yes, I do believe that a growing majority of Christian churches are tolerant and accepting of gays), but for those who are simply holding to their tradition and doctrine and belief of marriage being between a man and a woman, let them be. Don't go there. Find another church that does allow Gay marriage. The other's are not being haters, they just hold to beliefs that are different than yours and that should be okay in this country. Again, as long as they are not inciting violence against you, why is it a problem? Just like we Christians should just get back to feeding the poor and caring for orphans, maybe the gay activists should focus on helping the poor souls who are gay in Muslim countries. Talk about oppression!
How about we just love each other and agree to disagree…is that so difficult? In the words of the Prophet Paul McCartney, "Let It Be…"
So you want people to respect your tradition and doctrine, Deb? No. I will not. I refuse to respect bigotry in the same way I refuse to respect slavery. And you cross the line to ask people to just that when these ideas hide behind religious beliefs and scripture.
I will not respect those who pretend there is a dividing line between respecting the tradition and doctrine of slavery but excuse themselves because they refuse to own slaves, who sit down and have dinner with slaves, who profess love for slaves, who have nothing against slaves, who think slaves are wonderful people, all the while finding slavery to be just peachy because some religious belief endorses it. Slavery is wrong.
In the same way, I will not respect those who pretend there is a diving line between respecting the tradition and doctrine of gay bigotry but excuse themselves because they don't personally discriminate, who sit down and have dinner with gays, who profess love for gays, who have nothing against gays, who think gays are wonderful people, all the while finding gay bigotry to be just peachy because some religious belief endorses it to be a sin and abomination. Gay bigotry is wrong.
Hmmmm….I don't recall saying that Gay bigotry is peachy…obviously you read through tainted lenses tildeb. The main point of my post was to encourage Christians to leave it alone, and you missed that completely…
But, Deb, the problem now requires more than “leave it alone.” I understand what you are saying. But that doesn’t change the fact that any theology that labels being gay “a sin” when, for gay Christian teenagers figuring out that who they are leaves them facing untenable choices in the eyes of their church.
If there was not the loud faction of Christian out there reinforcing their supposed internal “flaw” in the eyes of their lord – and either trying to “fix” them or require them to fight their “sinful urges” by remaining celibate for the rest of their lives, “leaving it alone” might be sufficient, kind of like most mainstream Catholics simply ignoring the papal proclamations that don’t make sense, like birth control, etc.
But the vitriol against gays that comes from the ultra-conservative Christians truly must be countered by Christians speaking out, forcefully, against the theology that hurts so many. Don’t just leave it alone. Understand how wrong it is, and say so.
I cannot improve on Edmund Burke's famous quote that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In today's world, that should be 'people'. Leaving the issue alone is tantamount to tacitly supporting its continuation. What is needed is for resounding condemnation not from the outskirts of the faith but from its very bones: the good people who fill the seats and pews and mosques and temples. Silence never furthered necessary change.
I hear what you are saying, but for you and tildeb to completely disregard the positive steps a formerly somewhat "homophobic" Christian has made in the direction of tolerance and acceptance, angrily demanding more and more and more, is not the way toward healthy dialogue and understanding on either side. Not everyone is going to beat the drum and take up the fight for this cause. But we have come a long way in the country already in a relatively short period of time, and while it may seem slow it is sure. Those who hang onto the doctrine of bigotry (toward any group) will eventually die-out (literally and figuratively) and the paradigm will shift for good, as it has with slavery and many other evils across history. But don't spew venom at those who are at least making heart-felt changes in their own attitudes simply because they are not joining the next local Gay Parade! For those who aren't there yet, pray for them. Isn't that what Jesus taught? Pray for those who persecute you! Pray for understanding and common ground and that we would all live at peace with each other, regardless of beliefs.
Deb, I'm not completely disregarding it, and neither did I "spew venom."
I'm glad that you have grown and change – what I am trying to point out is that those who continue to spew the real venom can only be stopped by other Christians. They won't listen to agnostics like me or atheists like tildeb, because they can easily write off our views as simply being non-Christian.
The fact that a dialogue like this is even taking place is a huge step in the right direction. The fact that Christians like DR are out there working with kids directly is incredibly important.
I guess I just hope that Christians who have gained a greater understanding in this area will step out of their comfort zones and share what they've learned with those Christians who haven't yet.
And eventually, hopefully, Christianity will be able to embrace the fact that the Biblical passages they cling to are not only possibly translated incorrectly, they were also written for another time. And they will figure out that sexuality should simply not be an issue the church needs to address.
The obvious problem with your post is that romantic love is not the only kind of love. Further the Gospels are clear that not everyone will have romantic love in their life. It speaks of eunuchs and never mentions Christ as married or having a romance, not even in passing.
I am celibate. I have both opposite and same sex attractions. I am not alone and I am not unloved. No one is asking I be either one. Rather than having the specific love of a lover I have, and admittedly need to increase in, a generalized love and service to God and community.
I can understand thinking everyone should have access to romantic love, I don't agree but I understand, but the post itself is inherently misleading to make a hostile point probably against people you don't understand at all.
@ Thomas R:
Phenomenal post!
Lots of folks seem to forget that BIBLICALLY "sex" and/or marriage do NOT define a human being. In fact, Paul seems to indicate that "singleness" (or "celibacy") has certain benefits over "marriage" (or being properly "sexually active.") Certainly, Jesus Himself was not sexually active (sorry to all of the fans of Dan Brown's fiction and similarly ridiculous theories regarding the sexual activities of Jesus).
Thanks. Although in fairness from the Protestant or Jewish tradition I can see how it would be awkward. Protestantism, in general although there are exceptions, took a reaction against Catholic ideas on celibacy and considered them anti-family to some extent. So I think many Protestants end up being stuck with "homosexuality does not really exist" or "we have to ask of homosexuals something we would never ask of any heterosexuals ever." Judaism is interestingly different, or has the possibility to be, in that I know of at least one Orthodox Jewish woman who says that as the Tanakh says nothing on lesbianism lesbianism is licit, but male homosexuality is not. And although I might have been skeptical at first, I think she really meant it. I think she even said she might support lesbian marriage, but is uncomfortable with general same-sex marriage because there is no way to make it exclude gay male couples.
I'm not Protestant or Jewish though so I admit I don't think about this too much and I don't even think in that way very often. From Catholic and Orthodox tradition celibates are often our leaders. In Eastern Orthodoxy priests marry, but bishops and patriarchs are monastic so far as I know. I just know for me the popular culture idea that romantic love is everything is something I think I was always a bit skeptical of, and have now pretty much abandoned for my own life.
What we, as Catholics, I think do wrong is basically agree that gays having to be celibate is "woe the pain, woe the loneliness, woe the disorderness of it all" and then almost add "but do it or else." And I think that doesn't exactly encourage one. Even before I ever had or was aware of having same-sex attractions I felt like what it all meant was gays are maybe called to a different kind of life. One that can be quite rewarding and holy. I worry sometimes it might sound like "if you make great enough sacrifices you can be equal to the crazy homeless guy we'd also never let be a priest."
Thomas, it is only that ALL people should have the option of pursuing romantic love. That's all. Whether an individual chooses to or not is entirely up to said individual. I don't know anything about you or why you made your choice, but if you've never been involved in a full romantic relationship, with either sex, don't knock it. I really don't believe John was being hostile to a life of celibacy – IF it is chosen by an individual with no pressure, either way, from others.
The Jewish tradition has always considered a person who voluntarily chooses celibacy to be somewhat disordered at the very minimum. Voluntary celibacy is not exactly considered wrong or immoral, but it is strongly discouraged. Although I'm a secular person, I agree with this viewpoint. Someone who chooses celibacy is missing out on an important part of life.
Of course, one can love one's friends and families, etc. , but in no way is this like romantic love. It's apples and oranges. And part of romantic love is physical affection and sexual satisfaction.
Jewish tradition didn't have queers in mind, though. The focus is more on being fruitful and multiplying…
Excellent post and interesting discussion.
What I ruminate the most is basically the last sentence of the author's post:
"The “sinful temptation” that Christians are forever urging LGBT people to resist is love.
Being, of course, the one thing Jesus was most clear about wanting his followers to extend to others".
The whole idea of Christ is about love. Very, very few Christians even know what this concept is even about and substantiated when they continue to quote scripture to defend their homo hating ways. Then the hate is deflected upwards by saying my hate towards and my ill treatment of teh gays is not my issue, or my fault or I am not responsible for my judgmental ways, for ti is what God commands me to do. Please. Get your heads out of your bums and stop deflecting and own your own hate and bigotry. Own it. Own up to your responsibility and the consequences of your hateful and judgmental ways. Own up to the fact that the Bible is a bizarre book, with many interpretations, and many contradictions that Christians and others pick and choose and take out of context all the time. For those of you here who support your bigotry with the bible and can assure you 100% that there is a bible verse in there that I can find that will condemn you to your own hell. Mixed fibers in you clothing lately? Shellfish? to name a couple. Get the stones out as you will be my first target, you sinner you…..lol. The whole debate is just insane. Some people are straight, some are gay, some are bi, some are intersexed, some are asexual. We are all human and come in a variety pack as god had intended.
Although I wouldn't normally put it in the particular as I understand it I can love any gay man I wish. I suppose as a Christian/Catholic I'm even supposed to love gays.
The prohibition is on sex and on having romantic unions that exclude the other sex. As I mention below love is not merely sexual. As far as I understand it sexual/romantic love is not the greatest love in Christian terms. Living and dying for your fellow person is more the great love. If I had the skills to do it I could devote my life to helping gays with AIDS or helping gay refugees from Iran or whatever. Just as I could helping alcoholics or former prostitutes or whatever. Insulting analogy? Well yeah maybe, but one of the people I really admired as a kid is an abstaining alcoholic so maybe not.
Thomas, I would die for my children in a heartbeat. I have family and friends for whom I would lay down my life. But none of those relationships = romantic love, with or without sex. Complete acceptance and trust and the knowing of your very soul by another is an enormous gift, not to be taken lightly. The unconditional love I feel for my daughters and receive from them is the light of my very life – and if someone asked to trade it for a "perfect" romantic union, I'd not hesitate to say no. But the two, honestly, cannot be compared.
Holy Cow – it must be in the air, I rambled about the same thing on my Friday post…
Great post John, this just made you even more likeable in my book (as if it mattered… who are we kidding, it matters!)
I keep seeing people claiming that homosexuality is "not a choice." I can't say I understand that statement, though, for a variety of reasons. Here is the most prominent one, in my mind:
If homosexuality is "not a choice," then why is there a rapidly growing number of ex-gays? And not just "ex-gays," but ex-gays who have moved on to flourish and live very joyful and fulfilling lives, be it as heterosexuals or as celibates. (In fact, there are several studies that show the majority of men who identified as homosexual at or before the age of 18 identify as non-homosexual at later ages).
I anticipate the response will come in the form of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy*." The claim will be: "Well, if they were able to stop being homosexual, then they weren't REALLY homosexual to begin with."
Now, that is a perfectly fine response IF there is some way, other than self-identification and observation of behavior, to determine homosexuality. For example, if one could produce the mythical "gay gene," then a genetic test one could prove that those people who were able to stop being homosexuals were never TRULY gay because they lacked the gene. A parallel example: If a person claimed that they were an Asian woman, when in reality they were a Caucasian man who only dresses and acts like an Asian woman, a genetic test would be able to determine the person's true nature.
The problem is that there is as of yet absolutely no good or conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is genetic or somehow "hard wired." Can a person repeat and reinforce an action/mindset often enough to THINK that they no longer have a choice but to act/think a certain way? Absolutely. That is evidenced by thousands of clinical studies and simple observation of human behavior. Is that true in the case of homosexuality? Well, studies seem to indicate that it is at least PART of the puzzle.
Another big part, as far as the latest studies of which I am aware, has to do with primary and secondary effects of genetic traits. For example: there is no "fighter pilot" gene, but there are genes that, if found in proper combination, are likely to result in a person being a fighter pilot. What are the characteristics of a fighter pilot? They have to be fairly short and compact. They have to have very fine hand-eye coordination. They have to have very good balance. They have to be resistant to motion-sickness. They have to have the proper circulation and physical build to withstand high gravitational forces. Etc. Having those unchangeable, natural traits doesn't mean the person HAS to be a fighter pilot, it just means that it is much more probable that they will become a fighter pilot. "Fighter pilotness" is the secondary effect of a lot of other primary factors.
This is where science runs in to a lot of politics and political correctness. Even though it would be a great advancement of genetic research, it isn't seen as very "PC" to ask the question "what are the characteristics of a homosexual male or female?" When people do this, they get accused of "stereotyping" or "promoting intolerance." I know personally of one study that was shut down (aka "not funded") for this very reason, even though the people wanting to conduct the study were in no way operating out of any kind of religious motivation (none of them were Christians, anyway).
So anyhow, I've run myself right out of time and can't close this up with a good conclusion. So I will just state that I am supremely curious as to the arguments of my "opposition" here. What evidence is there that sexuality "isn't a choice?"
*The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
That's why I always thought the it's-not-our-choice defence was the stupidest thing queers could ever say. By just saying it you are implicitly admitting that there was anything to defend yourself for. What if it is a choice? Why NOT make it? Why NOT be queer? Why not snog and shag folks with same set of X/Y chromosomes as yourself? Why defend it at all?
@ FreeFox:
You are in the UK somewhere, aren't you? When you use the word "queer," is it the same as an American using the term "homosexual," or does it share the same negative connotations as it does here in the States? In other words, "queer" is usually used and understood here in the States (at least among people I know) as a pejorative.
If you mean it simply as "homosexual," then consider me educate, carry on as you were, and forget I even chimed in
But, if you are using it as a pejorative, then even though you are agreeing with me to an extent, I must officially state that I don't support the use of such language.
Given the language barrier, though, even between "English" speakers, I figured I'd ask before jumping to conclusions
@ManimalX, re: Queer
Depends on who is talking, really: Homophobes use "queer" as a, whatchacallit, pejorative. A lot of queers I know, including me, use it as a, hm, non-de-guerre? Battlecry? Proud self-description? I prefer it to "gay", because, well, gay means colourful, happy, jolly. Makes me think of butterflies. Not a word I'd use to describe myself or the "lifestyle" (as conservatives call it). Queer is, well, strange, unusual, or out of alignment. It is NOT straight. (Maybe it's cuz my other language is German, and in German the word "quer" means "across", "at right angle", "diagonally" or "transverse".)
So, believe me, I wasn't trying to slag queers. But I'm not saying they are all happy either. By dint of being queer they do not conform and are not straight. (And I don't give a **** if they aren't by choice or by biological, social, or psychological compulsion)
(Oh, and where I grew up, peeps who call queers homosexual usually do so with that special form of painstaking tolerance, with this liny hesitation before uttering the word, as if every time they do it takes some extra courage, that it has become utterly tainted for me. Call me a faggot any day, and I'll grin and bow my head. Call me a homosexual, and, well, I cringe. Bugt I know, that's just me.)
Awesome! Thanks for the language lesson
I hate, hate, HATE the "P.C" (politically correct) crap forced down our throats here in the U.S.
For example, a black friend of mine and I met at Starbucks the other day, and exchanged a variation our usual greeting: "What's up, my honky?!" "What's up, my negro?!" accompanied by a handshake and a hug…. we got some SERIOUSLY dirty looks… oh well
I know what you mean. My Turkish buddy Orcun used to call me "Infidel", as in "Oi, infidel dog, what's up?" To which I would answer "Nothing much, Saracene scum. How are you?" And he'd go something like "Ah, you know, killing Christian babies and stuff. Hard work." We just wished we'd have a Jewish friend we could accuse of poisoning wells.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! love it!
"But, if you are using it as a pejorative, then even though you are agreeing with me to an extent, I must officially state that I don’t support the use of such language."
I'm confused. This is something that those who are focused on "PC language" would also support. Perhaps you should pick a lane (didn't someone famous recently say that?)
Well. Here's an interesting thought, DR.
It *appears* that Mr. MX has indicated by the above that INTENT has a lot to do with whether it is OK to use a particular word, or not.
Hmmmm. Which would be the same justification, I presume, that he would use to for his "reviling" language (as he insinuated in his Starbucks anecdote) – even though it apparently offended those around him it was still not wrong, because his "intent" was above the PC fray – he and his friend knew they were not speaking with ill intent, so the rest of it be damned.
FWIW, I agree with him. I do agree that we carry PC language too far and that intent truly does matter. I also believe without question that words matter an awfully lot, so, for instance, if he and his friend spoke in a "lovingly reviling manner" in front of impressionable children, say, THAT might be a problem.
Which is why, for example, him lying about his wife's fashion choice to make her feel confident and lovely (the intent obviously to be kind and loving to someone he cares about) is NOT a sin, even if the Bible says "lying is a sin."
Because it's not all black and white, context and intent do matter, the world IS one giant gray area, and MX, you just contradicted your cool self.
Something about ManimalX really rubs you the wrong way, huh?
Ya think, FreeFox? Yeah, it goes back to before this post. There are three or four regular posters who, if I knew t them in real life, probably wouldn't speak to me. And actually, that's OK. At my age, I am finally realizing that I don't have to be liked by everyone, and if someone doesn't like me for sticking to my guns, well, there ya go. I am fairly certain that the rubbing goes both ways or that I am so easily dismissed as a non-believer that I don't matter to them AND probably just prove their superiority in their own minds.
Some days I can summon patience and peck away at my keyboard in a methodical effort to try to help someone understand. Others, I am just so sick of the sanctimonious preaching of the MXs and the Vernes and the refusal to see or take responsibility for the damage done by such belief systems of the Jills and the Mel/Jennys that I just can't play nice anymore. And then we get the random, drive-by vitriole of someone like wduk, and I can't even *pretend* to play nice anymore.
I have seen too many gay people hurt by this attitude, and we can play word games and banter back and forth, but the bottom line is these people are purveyors of hate and bigotry and absolutely, resolutely refuse to see it.
OK, really, now I'm gettin' out here. Really.
"Oh, and where I grew up, peeps who call queers homosexual usually do so with that special form of painstaking tolerance, with this liny hesitation before uttering the word, as if every time they do it takes some extra courage…"
So very, very true.
Also, "queer" is a much broader term, including not only homo men, but homo women, bisexuals, transgender, and transsexuals.
As for being used as a pejorative, well, since any word which means someone is any of the above is used by haters as a pejorative, including the good ol' "pc" homosexual, it doesn't really matter which word you choose so much as how you use it, I think.
@FreeFox:
Language usage aside, you raise a good question: why NOT "snog and shag" whomever we want to?
Well, the answer is this: if you DON'T believe in a God or that He/She/It left instructions on how humans are to operate, then snog and shag away! Dip your willy into whatever wet hole you please! There is honestly no reason NOT to!
If, however, you DO believe in a God, and you DO believe that He/She/It wants humans to operate in a certain manner, then you'd better keep your willy in your britches except under the specific revealed conditions!
Right. Because only people who believe in God have morals.
Logic/knowledge of humans: fail.
Uh, I feel on thin ice here, challenging Master Shore, and on the whole I am of course on your side of the argument, but where did ManimalX say that all morals have to come from a God? For someone of his/her argumentative position, I though that was a surprisingly calm and non-judgmental post. Don't believe in God, snog who you want. Believe in God and His immutable message, and things get more complicated. I still think he/she has a funny way of reading the Word, but it was sort of logical. Wasn't it?
So (and, Egad! I know this is a much broader question), where do morals come from? Sciocultural constructs only get you so far… especially in our modern era of globalization, philosophy, and religion.
If there is no sufficient outside force directing morality (such as Yahweh and the Bible or Allah and the Koran, etc.), then morality is a purely subjective and easily dismissed thing. As it is, most modern understandings of "morality" do nothing but ape from Christianity anyway.
In my previous post, I am referring to ultimate moral authority. If there is none, then there is no ultimately valid reason not to act however an individual sees fit, other than to avoid punishment by relative laws of the land….
Umm, make that "sociocultural"
OMG, you really did claim that all morals come from God. Gee, and there I go and put my neck out for you. Well, to that question I can give your own answer back.
If you DO believe that the Bible is God's Own Word, faithfully penned by peeps with a secure hotline to Heaven, yeah, you might believe that morals actually come from high up.
But if you consider the possibility that it might just be a bunch of homilies collected through the centuries by uneducated desert dwellers and translated so often that noboy knows what they actually meant originally… you could come to the conclusion that all morals are actually inventions of humans. Which is why there is many, many religions and cultures, and yet ALL of them have morals. Different one, to be sure, but no society on the glob and throughout history didn't claim a set and wasn't fiercly protective of their everlasting value.
Maybe it's just that humans as self-organizing beings, tend to come up with sets of rules that make living with each other easier than having to huddle in caves clutching your few possessions and fearing getting slugged with a bone suddenly because everybody's free to do whatsoever they please. But if that's true, then the rules are a) as fallible as humans themselves, and b) change with the circumstances.
As I said, I am utterly certain that there is a God. And I do think that the Bible does a fair (if hard to decipher) job of describing Him. But i rather think it was humans doing the descibing. Many, many humans. From many, many cultures. And what they experienced as God and as God's Will was invariably coloured by the context of their cultures.
The fly in the ointment here, ManimalX, is that human morality precedes religious belief.
In other words, you bring with you the morality necessary to 'interpret' the will and aims and nature of god that supposedly reveals god's morality, and that's why you can so easily dismiss certain bits of scripture that you know are morally absurd while using other bits to promote your morality as if it were god's. Isn't that convenient.
Why anyone thinks that god has anything meaningful to offer us about justifying any answers to moral questions is not only rather bizarre, it's downright dangerous. The same thinking when put into action kills people under the banner of obeying god. And I don't think that is a good thing. In fact, such bizarre thinking is immoral.
Wow, MX. Wow.
Morals come from . . . our minds? Wanting to not hurt our fellow human beings? Wanting to feel good about making someone else happy? Wanting to live in peace and harmony during our short time here on earth?
You are unbelievable.
But cool, you know, because you rail against being all PC and stuff.
"Morals come from . . . our minds?"
An often used argument that generally fails when examined logically. Since I know your mind is already made up and you don't care about having a civil debate with me, I won't waste anyone's time going into detail.
"Morals come from . . . Wanting to not hurt our fellow human beings?"
Soooo… morals come from… a desire to act in a way that can't be defined or achieved without morals? Want informed by the morals that want is supposed to create?
"Morals come from . . .Wanting to feel good about making someone else happy?"
Soooo… morals come from… emotions defined and informed by the morals they are supposed to create?
"Morals come from . . . Wanting to live in peace and harmony during our short time here on earth?"
Soooo… morals come from… a desire for a state of being that can't be defined or achieved without morals?
Are you seeing the problem here? All of your arguments are simply, "morals come from things that can't exist without morals."
"You are unbelievable."
Probably. But at least I can proved a logical definition of "morals." I know you love getting all indignant on my sorry ass, but could you at least have a valid argument before you unleash your righteous fury on me?
"But cool, you know, because you rail against being all PC and stuff."
Yeah, I prefer Macs.
So the only reason we decide to not to hurt each other, do right, etc. is because of God. Right?
You're saying that we make human decisions to be kind, etc. – even those who are absolutely certain that God does not exist – because God exists.
And this is more "rational" than my argument, how again?
I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you, MX. I am not an atheist. But I'm not getting how that argument is logical and rational. It is based on faith. You have faith in God, as do I. Mine is simply not the God of the Bible, and I'm not at all convinced that Jesus was supernatural. That being said, perhaps it *is* God, in all the various forms humanity believes him/her/it to take, that instilled a moral code in our DNA.
I say perhaps. Or, perhaps it is something that has developed and refined over the millenia as part of our evolutionary survival instinct. How best not to wind up destroying the entire human race soon rather than later requires that we BE NICE TO EACH OTHER.
I can see that either of those could be true. Either way, I know far too many people who absolutely do not buy into the existence of God who are kind, compassionate, good people. They don't pray, they don't base their moral code on any book of rules – they just do the right thing. And for you to say they do that because God exists anyway – well, that's your prerogative. But logical and rational, it ain't.
"Dip your willy into whatever wet hole you please!'
I was rather taken with this fetching, loving description of sex myself. From a Christian!
It's fascinating as people talk, they reveal so much of who they are. Sometimes you just need to let them keep talking.
Fascinating, isn't it? And cute how he tried to "match" FreeFox's dialect, as it were.
Your point is quite valid, however. Kinda like when I first posted here, people thought I was nice. Bwhahahaaaaaa!
Match my dialect? I'd never call a Dick Willy! That's almost as bad as calling it Peter. But at least he has firmly established his non-queer ignorance cred. Bums need lubricant because on the (w)hole they aren't wet on their own. (My contribution in the interest of "clarity and understanding over agreement".)
But always a pleasure to meet outspoken people who aren't nice, Mindy. Hope to read more from you in time.
It appears as though he was "establishing rapport" with you in order to make a personal connection and make sure you know he loves you as he asserts that you more than likely have no moral authority if you have no religion.
It's like a warm bath of kindness with a plugged in toaster thrown in at the end! Enjoy!
Hey, I said he tried, not that he succeeded.
He also thinks that his ability to play slur games with an African American friend makes him really cool and removes any possible racism he may have ever committed in his life. No, he didn't say, that – but that is a standard response from folks like MX. He likes to consider himself quite above the rest of us – THAT, if nothing else, comes through loud and clear in his comments.
When I read that kind of thing from ManimalX (that is so frequent), and then watch him try to educate others on morality? This verse comes to mind:
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."
I wasn’t trying to provide a “fetching, loving description of sex.”
Oh I think we all figured that out, dear. Stay classy.
DR, do you even READ anything I write? Or do you just take the words on your screen and jumble them together until you find some way of making them mean something completely different from what they meant?
I wasn't trying to provide a "fetching, loving description of sex." Go back and read my actual words until you get it. I know you are an intelligent person when you want to be.
Your habit of resorting to personal insult when you lack anything else to say is usually quaintly amusing, but this time it was just…. stupid.
And Mindy, I was trying to "match his dialect?" Huh? Did we all wake up in Bizarro world when I wasn't looking? I wasn't aware "willy" was the sole property of the UK. Someone should tell my American mom, dad, and grandparents that they were completely wrong to refer to penises as "willies."
Tell me, what would you rather I call male genitals? Peters? Dicks? Pee-pees? Tallywhackers? Sneaky snakes? Man-sized manicottis? Or do you guys demand that I use only the clinical term of penis? Would that put your fragile sensibilities at ease? I mean, I wouldn't want to sound British, Irish, Scottish, or European! God forbid!
LOL! I literally just *snorked*!
Anyway, thanks for derailing the conversation I was trying to have with FreeFox with your asinine (though ultimately amusing!) personal attacks!
@FreeFox I enjoyed the small bit of back and forth we had. It is always refreshing dealing with people who are free of hypocrisy and completely honest and open about who they are. You remind me of the buddy I mentioned earlier (I forget the pseudonym I made up for him) who bets me that I will become gay before he becomes Christian. (Wait, I can say "buddy" without trying to "match your dialect," right? I mean, "buddy" is sufficiently white cracker American sounding, right? Wouldn't want to accidentally offend the word police again!)
Gah, MX, why did you have to compare it with manicotti? Now I'll have that in mind every time I, you know. Peeps don't react too happy when you great their privates with half-suppressed snortles…
Manicotti was a last minute substitution made in honor of "Grumpy Old Men.' I was going to use something else a little more… colorful, but then I would have probably had to repent for being graphic, DR and Mindy would have used it to get on my case even more, and you might have ended up with an image in your mind that would have actually caused full snortles.
It might not be all that bad, though. I hear half-suppressed snortles are quite the rage in some circles.
MX, if you notice, I put the word match in quotation marks for a reason. FreeFox was using slang, so you jumped into slang. That's all. Keep your panties out of that twist – it's not becoming.
I get the feeling you aren't particularly fond of women who disagree with you.
Funny, that.
Well, that is exactly my question – which I posed directly above your Scotsman entry. For one, I most sincerely believe in God. Apparently who I think He is is very different from who you think He is, and the arguments about who is right in that regard are millennia old and nobody has been able to resolve them, so while interesting – and I'm always there for a good theological debate – they are clearly moot. But secondly, yeah, the bible can be read to forbid queer sex. It also forbids working on saturdays, eating clam chowder or cheeseburgers, masturbating, and wearing stretch jeans (they mix synthetic and natural fibres, and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics is forbidden). While I too think that wearing stretch jeans is a crime against the natural order, clearly nobody is going to start a crusade against it. The only peeps who really follow their holy words are Chasidic Jews and the Taliban (who I do not want to compare beyond that, btw, most Chasidic Jews are wacky but otherwise nice, many Taliban are murderous bastards), in other words: Seriously wacky Nutcases. Civilized people usually edit the word of God with common sense.
"Civilized people usually edit the word of God with common sense."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is IT in a tidy little nutshell.
Yes, but common sense is oh so uncommon.
I don't believe that a whole city was destroyed because someone worked on a Saturday or because someone ate clam chowder or because someone wore stretch jeans. However, because the people of Sodom and Gommorah were perverse (and the only actions of the people of the city that we see in Scripture, were that the men wanted to sleep with the angels who appeared in the form of men) the city(ies) were destroyed. So, nice argument to cause a laugh or two, but really c'mon!
More to the point, how are we even to define "choice"? Nothing we can do or say is absolutely independent of externalities. Yet at the same time, there is no expenditure of energy that we absolutely had to undertake (even if we must die otherwise—death is nevertheless a theoretically possible choice).
For example, every rational soul believes that the destruction its world (the world as it knows it—that of which it has constructed mental models by which to reason) would be evil. To secure this world, it seeks out others who live in it (people with a like worldview, ultimately because there really is an objective reality all people live in and experience), and works together with them in the struggle against those forces that would destroy it (be they natural or human). So it is that we construct civilization, and so it is that we fall in love. And in these two things, all of a sudden the individual soul isn't very important—and in its rationality, it recognizes as much. So it wishes not only the security of the world for its own sake, but the betterment of the world for the sake of its children, its brothers and sisters, its lovers and friends. It becomes in some small way like a single cell of a multi-cellular organism; through feedback—communication—symbioses and, with the modeling power of the rational mind, empathy are established. And so a second universal moral is born, one that perhaps not every rational soul, but certainly every empathetic one, around the globe, knows—love.
So who cares what it means for such a thing to be a choice and whether then it is, or isn't, or something in between, or varies case by case? It's not so complicated really, and such complication is really meaningless. To reason and to love are two universal moral imperatives. And they discover truth and true love, respectively. And these two of the essence of divinity.
"If homosexuality is “not a choice,” then why is there a rapidly growing number of ex-gays? And not just “ex-gays,” but ex-gays who have moved on to flourish and live very joyful and fulfilling lives, be it as heterosexuals or as celibates. (In fact, there are several studies that show the majority of men who identified as homosexual at or before the age of 18 identify as non-homosexual at later ages)."
References? Ex-Gay Watch and Beyond Ex Gay both point to the opposite. And be careful of the word "choice". We choose behavior. It is extremely rare to be able to choose attraction.
All of the folks that I know of who went the Ex-gay route say that the same-sex attraction never goes away. Ex-gay ministries are typically being more careful about the "change" that they promise. Two prominent Ex-gay ministries have backed off completely (Courage Trust in the UK and New Direction in Canada).
You're going to have to do better than make the assertion.
@ManimalX, re:the growing number of ex-gays. Actually, I've not seen this study. I have heard of this happening. I actually know of at someone at my church who married, had children, and then left the marriage, lived with another man, left the man, got married again. I think he is probably transgender/bisexual/questioning. I don't believe he is ex-gay or ex-straight or ex-anything. He is who he is.
I think most, if not all, gays within Christian communities, are scared, embarrassed, and confused. These is not the best emotional state for a person to be in when making life decisions.
Also, the old, it's-a-lifestyle-choice argument seems to falling away. And I think we have to admit it is falling away because of some compelling evidence to the contrary. So we Christians have moved from "it's a choice" to "the jury's still out on that one" and "the evidence is inconclusive."
If we're honest, we would admit this is a fancy way of saying "we don't know if it is a choice or a genetic characteristic." However once we go here, we have to alter our response. But, sadly, we have not. And by sticking to our guns (so to speak) we are effectively erring on the side of cruelty instead grace.
Please excuse me for pressing my point, Ric, but I still and fervently think that the question of choice takes serious antecedence behind the question of WTF does it matter. The whole topic only becomes an issue when you affix some preference to either outcome. But WHY DO THAT? Do I question if your like, dislike or indifference to liquorish (or to stay biblical, cheeseburgers) is biological or social, if you have a choice in liking them or if you can or cannot resist eating them? No, of course not. Cuz it isn't my bloody business. (And with cheeseburgers at least you CAN make the vegan point that holding cattle is unpleasant for the cattle and unhealthy for the global ecology!)
FreeFox, you are absolutely right – it should not matter to anyone, for any reason, who is gettin' busy with whom, as long as both parties are consenting adults. The problem is that sexual mores are a stupidly huge issue here in the US. And while your argument may well be the most valid of all, it simply won't fly in this culture, because that bespeaks of a society gone sex-crazy mad!!!!!!!!!
As if we weren't a completely sex-obsessed-but-pretending-to-be-against-it-in-all-but-traditional-married-unions culture already . . .
Firefox – I agree with you completely.
The problem is one of power. Religion+Power is the ultimate narcotic. These mega-church, conservative Christians aren't happy worshiping God – they want to control our lives. In my book, this includes LDS and many other cult-like organization that – with missionary zeal -have decided they have clear understanding of what's right, what's wrong and they're going to do whatever it takes to enforce it wherever they can. They won't be happy until we're all miserable and they've trampled every ounce of God out of all of us. They are like Nazi's with Bibles.
Also: I love your statement about PC language and the word "Gay". I've always thought it's use in this context was more than a little ironic. I think some of this is easier, culturally, for males because we grow-up using terms of endearment with each other such as "Hey, douche-bag!" or "Yo, nut-less wonder!". At least that was my experience growing-up in middle-America as a middle-class white boy. If you weren't called something insulting then your friends didn't care about you. And that sort of humor acknowledged life's crappiness while keeping us from feeling too sorry for ourselves.
And I shouldn't just point to the mega-church types – the mentatlity pervades throughout churches large and small. As Mindy points out, it's fear-based and that's a universal state.
@FreeFox re:choice, I agree with your pressed point. It should not matter.
My point to ManimalX was the Christian response to "well, I don't know, maybe the dna thing might be true" should definitely be, by our own beliefs, grace. It is contradictory otherwise.
Of course, I believe our response should be, as you put it, WTF does it matter? in any case. But getting that point across is more than just a little tough.
Uh, I got a question to, well, all of you, really. Why do peeps obsess so much about the queer thing? I mean, yeah, there is the religious argument for those who believe in the bible, but the bible forbids a lot of things. Eating shellfish for example. Where are the Christians picketing Lobster Restaurants? Or masturbation. When was the last time upright College Jocks taunted someone to death because he masturbated? Adultery used to get folks stoned to death. When it now happens in Islamic Countries we all point our fingers at them and keen over the barbarism.
What is it about blokes snogging blokes and chicks snogging chicks that gets everybody's knickers in a twist?
Queers like to call all homophobes self-loathing closet homosxuals, and in a couple of cases it seems to be a good call. But still, that only removed the problem for one step, doesn't it? Why do they loathe themselves so much that they have to hide and throw stones at others?
There icky-factor? Peeps think of queers they think of anal sex and of poop and are grossed out. But where is the big Christian Coalition Against Str8 Anal Sex?
I mean, seriously, all you good pro- and anti-gay folks, any ideas or theories? What gives?
More than likely people who are gay themselves are the loudest. And Christians need a very tight cage with which to live within in order to not have to deal with the world and live within our privilege. So a lot of us just take exactly what our pastors say about being gay and what the Bible has to say about it verbatim and then we look for information that supports is so we don't have to change. Because for a lot of Christians, our theology is what we wrap around ourselves to keep us safe, to validate our being, and to understand a world that in many cases, was scary and volatile from our childhoods. So it becomes our security blanket and anyone "outside" of it threatens to thin it or even remove it if they prove our theology is wrong.
@DR. Thanks for the answer. It's been really on my mind. And in all the hubbub about same-sex-marriage and what did God say when to whom, nobody seems to have a clear idea why this is so important to those who "dip their willies in wet holes" (i.e. heterosexuals.)
I ask, because a lot of the homophobia I have faced appears to be really deep seated. I don't know how familiar you are with its real face, but I have been both shocked and fascinated with the deep, profound, core-shaking bitterness and viciousness with which peeps react to my kind. That is why I keep bringing up such whimsical points like the biblical clam chowder proscription. If it were JUST God's word they are driven by, they should with the same firceness threaten to dip lobster eaters into boiling water. But of course they don't. It would be silly to actually get worked up about whether or not God minds what you put in your mouth. Only fruitcakes like Taliban and Chassidic Jews worry about such nonsense, right? And they are easily reconizable as fruitcakes by the silly headgear they each wear.
So, why does it drive Christian Love-thy-Brother-Worshippers bonkers when I put "willie" in my mouth. When the protein supplement I take isn't shrimp but semen.
A former Mormon friend of mine suggested it might have something to do with gender roles. (That was in the context of same-sex-marriage.) That they feel so threatened by a challenge to the customary male/female gender rules and regulations. It would accound why nerds are the group of youths second to queers to get the brunt of Jock hostility.
Maybe as you say, it has something to do with clinging to the safety blanket of simple-minded faith and with feeling threatened that somebody might take that away from them. Maybe it is a threat to both their faith and their comfortable gender ride.
Still, I find it hard to explain the torrent of radioactive excrement that seems to boil up in some peeps when they get confronted with faggotry.
Before I had the opportunity to know people who was openly gay (that is, up until I was 15), gays seemed, well, queer to me. I don't think the notion of lesbians ever made me uncomfortable, but male homosexuality did.
Gay was foreign to me—I just couldn't get it—and in the picture painted of it before me, it was confounding of what I had come to think I knew of males and females, masculinity and femininity.
It was unknown, and humans are inclined naturally to fear the unknown, or at least be uncomfortable with it. And so I was, until I had the opportunity to get to know it better. And I could picture that aversion manifesting as hate, the active counterpart to fear, which is an antithetical attitude to what I should perhaps have been better taught as a Christian: love.
I don't think I could ever actually do something extremely cruel to LGBT folk, and even to think such a thought is wicked, but there was a time when indeed I could have at least pictured it at least in my mind, because I simply could not relate to queers as human beings any more than I might the Taliban—not that the Taliban isn't pure evil or that gays are inherently wicked in any way, but the point is that the reason I don't grieve too heavily for them—even for their woman and children who get killed incidental to killing the evil men themselves—is just that I don't feel connected to them. I realize now that such is simply my own failing, but it is so easy when you are immature to assume that something inherent in who those people are is actually the reason for your lack of compassion towards them.
As for the Bible, if assumed sufficient and inerrant in whatever interpretation most easily conforms one's own disposition, it makes it all too easy to tuck yourself in to an endless variety of security blankets that no one ever makes you grow out of.
Congrats on your feature! Very cool. I have to say: I really enjoy your blogs; they're very thought-provoking. Very provocative, in general. I have wrestled with this myself, and I understand your position. I've thought to myself many times… that telling someone to resist homosexuality and be celibate really does come off as though they're being told to live a life devoid of romantic love.
I can't call myself a Christian and make excuses, though, because this subject is hard to digest; God's Word is clear: homosexuality is a sin. It is not up for debate; it is not "gray area;" it is not subjective. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of people who participate in lifestyles of specific types of sin who will not inherit the kingdom of God: "Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetuous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." Again, I don't believe this is talking about people who struggle with homosexual feelings but choose to live for Jesus and deny those feelings. I believe this verse applies to people who deliberately choose to carve God's opinion about homosexuality OUT so that they can live how they want to.
The one verse that comes to mind, is James 3:16, which says: "For where there is jealous and selfish ambition, there is disorder and every evil thing." I really believe that God did not make people gay; it is a choice. I have a very close girl friend who is a lesbian, and every now and then, she mentions thinking about dating men. She's not bi; she doesn't describe herself as bi, but as a lesbian. Yet, she says things that clearly show she CHOOSES to be with women because she's repulsed by men. My point is this: She is rationalizing what God calls "sin," because she wants to. Homosexuality is out of God's order for mankind, and God says it is "evil."
Back to the original point that it seems as though a gay person is being told to live a life devoid of romantic love. I relate this to my days of smoking pot after I divorced. I liked it; it calmed me, and took me away from the stresses of life. There's really nothing black-and-white in the Bible against pot, but the verses most people throw out are those verses with the Greek word "pharmakeia," from which we get our word "pharmacy." Personally, I still believe that pot is not really included in that. I prayed about whether it was okay or not for a couple of weeks, and the answer God gave me was "Be filled with My Spirit," and also, "Be zealous and repent." This may not be everyone's case, but for me, pot had taken God's place in my life as my #1 Comforter. God wanted His rightful place back. Likewise, in the case of a gay person, if they decided to follow Jesus 100% (and that means no dissecting God's Word to make it more palatable), then they'd have a choice to make: do I trust God to fill me with the love and affection I crave and make me whole again, so that I can love someone of the opposite sex as He intended? Or do I trust God to give me the peace, comfort, and strength I'll need to lead a celibate life?
I don't think there is a "one-size-fits-all" explanation for homosexuality. I DO believe that it is a sinful desire that is carried out. And I whole-heartedly believe God's Word. Romans 1:18 says that the "wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." People who choose to believe contrary to God's Word are suppressing the truth because they simply don't like it.
Ruh roh Raggy! Let the Jill bashing begin
(P.S. Jill, just in case my comment seems weird, I only mean that you broke the Cardinal Rule of the Kingdom of Shore: thou shalt not calleth homosexuality sin, and thou shalt not useth the Bible to doeth so.)
Hope you brought your body armor and fire extinguishers!
I respect his right to disbelieve it is a sin. That's his prerogative. I don't agree, and he (like many others) won't agree with me. That's alright… someone said it best (maybe it was you): "clarity and understanding over agreement." I'm not looking for people to agree with me. I just wanted to give my perspective…
Oh for God's sake, keep your victimization in check. It's really pathetic for a grown man, you lead with it so often that I'm getting embarrassed. Stop rallying your "You're in for it now" bullshit, I'm embarrassed for you. This is a conversation for adults who are ardently countering peoples' positions. That anger is on the table on both sides is fine. Please stop derailing the conversation with this kind of thing.
Sigh. I'm not trying to change anyone's perspective…this is just what I believe to be the truth…just the same as others believe their way to be the truth. Like I said, one of my closest girl friends is a lesbian, and we never even talk about my views on it. The one or two times I've said something has been to gently say that the Bible calls it sin, and I wouldn't be a Christian if I disagreed with God's Word. But, I love her, and I told her so…I'm no better than she is, and I don't judge her. My areas of sin are different, and I'm not saved because I'm "better," but because I've chosen to follow Jesus. I hope nobody takes major offense to my post. Everyone, please take me with a grain of salt! Sometimes, I come off as tactless, and I don't mean to! I'm sorry in advance if I hurt anyone's feelings!
Oh, trust me, Jill, the skins here are thicker than that. But hurt people? You're darned right you have. If you really said that to your lesbian friend – wow. Yeah, you hurt her.
Jill,
With all due respect, *your* feelings are not important to this topic. Nor are mine, frankly. Can we all stop talking about our feelings on such an important issue that is actually causing gay kids to kill themselves?
The only feelings that I care about – that we all should care about – are the feelings that your particular mindset (which represents the historical Christian mindset) is impacting to the point of suicide. Kids who are gay in Christian homes get booted *out* of their homes on a regular mindset because of this "love the sinner, hate the sin" concept. Because it can't be lived out. They just get hated. And then they are either homeless or living with people who decidedly, do not have their best interests at heart.
I'm sure you're a lovely person. And a long time ago, I held these same exact beliefs. And you need to take a hard, honest look at what your particular mindset is doing to the gay population. You need to take a look at that through the filter of gay people themselves, you need to do some reading and have some conversation with people who are gay, who are working with gay kids and have no personal investment in you because your friends who are gay are going to feel too uncomfortable to tell you the truth.
You need to really understand how your mindset is contributing in many ways, to the death of kids who are killing themselves (which I'm sure is horrifying to you, it is to most wonderful people who love Jesus and just don't realize it). You also need to understand how it's contributing to so many gay and lesbian women turning away from the love and redemption of Christ, a relationship they deserve to enjoy.
You need to really learn, and then weigh all of that out compared to remaining right and safe within this particular belief system. One that has held our – my – church hostage for a number of years, and now a lot of us, and we're in the millions, Jill – are fighting against and now taking back.
(And one more thing Jill, I offer that to you as someone who has been exactly where you are. I don't want to dismiss your feelings, nor your intent. I know you're just sharing and being honest which needs to happen!
But please understand where a lot of us are coming from here, that might explain some of the heat. We've dealt with a lot of the gay community that's been absolutely ravaged by this mindset. I've dealt with dozens of gay kids who've been kicked out of their Christian homes, and that was just a very small sliver of time in a fairly small city. So the anger I feel is more of a fear and a grief for this population, and a bit of a despair as to why christians are so fixated on making sure we all still believe that being gay is a sin when kids are dying. So know that is where a lot of this passion is rooted within. And it's not just an unfortunate set of incidents, nor is it isolated. There is a pattern of this kind of thing in our country that is substantial.
So as you offer what you believe just to connect with others and to share your perspective? (and again I'm glad you do). You also sign your name to the *impact* that I've just outlined though it goes without saying that most reasonable christians would not have that intent.
(Though in the latest "All faggots must die" comment left on a very prolific blog, I have to qualify that by saying "most" instead of "all".)
Hi, DR! Thank you for sharing and writing to me! I can certainly understand your position. I DO think it's awful that parents of gay children would kick them out of their homes. I don't think that is the answer. I do believe it is a sin, but that's not how sin is dealt with. I think that as children get older, they make their own decisions, and the only real, loving thing a parent of a gay teen can do is pray for them. Kicking them out is not the answer. I don't know what it's like to have be a parent to a gay teen, and I don't know how I would respond. It's got to be a difficult adjustment for a parent. My gay friend's parents are the sweetest people in the world, and her mom is a Christian, and is always very loving and prayerful for Angie. Personally, I think her mom is doing the exact right thing. What else can you do, but love your child and pray for them? Angie and I have great conversations about love, relationships, and life in general. She's a beautiful person. I don't judge her worse than others because I, myself, was formerly one of those mentioned in the 1 Corinthians chapter that I outlined. With all due respect, I must say that I do slightly take offense to your assertion that I am damaging gay people with my attitude/mindset toward homosexuality. it is possible to have beliefs and not wield them hurtfully. My friend loves me and calls me to talk about her problems and stuff. She calls me to get together and hang out when she's in town. She comes over for dinner. We go to the park with my kids, so they can play and we can talk. I don't think she would do those things if I was awful to her, pressing her at every turn to "give her desires to Jesus." I really do care about her, and she knows that. How could I judge her, when I was once under the same wrath as a sinner in different ways? I do pray for her, because that is really the only thing I can do, aside from show her genuine love and take an interest in her. I can't do the Holy Spirit's work and convict her of what the Bible says to be sin. She doesn't believe in the God of the Holy Bible, and has made it clear that she doesn't believe God has a problem with people being gay. It's BECAUSE she doesn't believe in the God of the Bible that I have nothing to argue with. We have different beliefs; it's simple.
I knew my position would come under fire as being hateful and intolerant, and that's okay. I didn't write the Bible; I just believe everything it says, no matter how unpopular/unpalatable it is.
Sigh.
That sigh of yours sounded suspiciously like the one you used on Mel/Jenny. Hmm.
Jill With all due respect, I'm not surprised that you ended that entire thing with how others see you instead of
offering a practical solution for what you are going to do about re people in your tent who use your beliefs about gay people to do exactly what you find so horrifying.
Talk is cheap in this instance. No one cares what any of us as Christians have to say. If you really think it is shameful and horrible, then get involved and prevent it. Or you could just focus on making sure everyone knows that you believe gay people are evil. I really don't care either way at this point, but your hooch says a lot more about your true measure of concern.
Your "hooch"? LOL touchscreen. I meant "choice".
Toooo funny (about "hooch")!
LMAO!
"I knew my position would come under fire as being hateful and intolerant, and that’s okay. I didn’t write the Bible; I just believe everything it says, no matter how unpopular/unpalatable it is."
I find myself trying not to choke whenever someone actually claims with apparent sincerity to believe and/or take literally every word the Bible says. Do you truly? Do you refuse to eat cheeseburgers and cut your hair? Do you honestly support the selling of children into slavery if you can't arrange a marriage for them? Do you go in public with your face uncovered? Unless you can honestly say that you follow every single rule put forth in the book, you have no ground to stand on while accusing others of cutting out the unpalatable portions.
I know that I lack the words or emotional lever to change your stance; I've tried before with other people. The best I can hope for is that you will think about this. The reason that I no longer attend church is that I can't stomach the company of people like you. I cannot see myself willingly joining a community in which I cannot actually be accepted for who and what I am. You mouth tolerance, but I don't want to be tolerated like some unimportant annoyance.
I don't know you personally. From what you say, you sound sincere, but until you shake yourself out of the mental trap you seem to be lodge in, you will not be helping God reach queers. You will only be adding to their alienation.
Dear jes,
As a Christian, you need to know how sorry I am for this. I take responsibility as a Christian who doesn't believe this way, yet hasn't done enough to shut it down so you'd not feel alienated. So gay kids don't kill themselves as a result of this theology, so they don't get kicked out of their homes or bullied/threatened at school as a result of this being part of the message.
We should be the *first* ones to be telling gay kids that "It gets better", that there is hope and love for the taking right now because we claim that we have this relationship with a loving God who loves unconditionally. But instead, we've developed this theology that gets communicated in a massive way and then we blame you for not getting onboard with it. And then people like me just want to point my finger at the "bad" christians and think that's enough.
I'm sorry. These people are in my tent and they are my responsibility, not yours. I'm sorry I've not done more to be louder than they are. I've been afraid and lazy and probably a number of different things that contribute to this. I won't be anymore.
Ah, DR, I don't blame you–you and several other folks on this site are doing a lot to restore my opinion of humanity, actually. And there were a lot of things leading to my leaving church… the attitude towards sexuality and sex in general was only part of it. Such things that are not in the range of this post's topic, like the wonderful lectures on how women didn't need an education because their husband should take care of them.
Which doesn't mean I don't believe there's a God. There's a lovely button that I have somewhere, which says "I like God just fine, it's his fan club I can't take."
@ Jill:
You wrote, "it is possible to have beliefs and not wield them hurtfully."
That is well stated and brilliant. Unfortunately, some people just can NOT wrap their minds around such a simple truth, and can't STAND it when others don't do things their way.
You and I share very similar opinions on this issue, and we also both have healthy, flourishing relationships with gay folks. That is what has made me literally laugh out loud several times this past week at many of the absurd "you are personally responsible for killing gay teens!" accusations. That kind of outraged accusation is certainly valid in some cases. But, as I wrote before, when the accusation is repeatedly leveled at people to whom it doesn't apply, it loses its meaning and relevance.
Unfortunately, the way many around here are foolishly wielding the "you kill gay teens" sword may in fact help contribute to the very thing they hate. By "crying wolf" when there is no wolf, they are very likely to chase away people who would otherwise be sympathetic to their essentially valid message.
Christians who think homosexuality is sinful are able to have healthy, loving, compassionate relationships with gay people. Homosexuals who think homosexuality is not a sin are able to have healthy, loving, compassionate relationships with people who disagree.
The naysayers can rail against that all they want, but their fiercest arguments cannot change reality.
Question: do you sit there and go on and on about the variety of "wet holes" you dip your willies into while you're bonding with the gays and their significant others? Do you have dinner with actual gay couples? Do you pray with them? Do you ask them to pray for you?
We both know all three of those answers.
Question: do you sit there and go on and on about the variety of "wet holes" you dip your willies into while you're bonding with the gays and their significant others? Do you have dinner with actual gay couples? Do you pray with them? Do you ask them to pray for you?
We both know all four of those answers.
DR: "Question: do you sit there and go on and on about the variety of “wet holes” you dip your willies into while you’re bonding with the gays and their significant others? Do you have dinner with actual gay couples? Do you pray with them? Do you ask them to pray for you?
We both know all four of those answers."
1) Sometimes, but not in the way you are trying to imply.
2) Yes, often.
3) If I feel led to and if they want me to.
4) Most of them aren't Christians, so why would I ask them to pray for me?
Since you already knew my answers, can you tell me if I got them right?
Dear Manimal,
I think you are full of sh!t and the closest thing you get to a gay man or woman is watching episodes of Will & Grace. And it looks like freefox (or whatever the moniker) figured that out all on his own.
But you are a Mac guy, so I'm going to give you some credit for that.
With love and affection for my favorite luddite on the blog,
DR
Dear DR,
If my claims about my gay friends are false and therefore make me full of shit, then your claims about working with gay teens and being in the "suicidal gay teen" trenches are also false and you are equally full of shit… with two exceptions:
1) I actually believe your claims based off of nothing other than your anonymous word,
and
2) I am probably full of more shit than you, because I probably weigh about 3x or 4x more than you do.
I also have a 3 and a 4, if you care to listen
3) I not only believe your claims about working with gay kids/teens, I also acknowledge that it might break your heart more than mine because even though I have functional, healthy relationships with people who identify as homosexual, I don't know any gay folks who have killed themselves. That's got to be a huge burden to you, and one which I don't share with you in every aspect.
I obviously don't recant my claims, but I do admit to seeing through some of your more hostile statements, and to being made more sensitive to the issue of gay teen suicide by your passionate pleas.
4) I don't mind if you type out "s-h-i-t" instead of "s-h-!-t."
Hell, you could even call feces "willy" and I wouldn't give a willy
Plus, you are a Mac gal, so I'm going to give you credit for that.
Manimal, here’s the real point. I dot care I you believe me or not, I just don’t. Your theology on homosexuality is hurting a lot of people, I’ve seen it firsthand and there is evidence presented directly to you- by Fay men and women here- that confirm it. So all of this talk about your “gay friends” is just to make you look like you care about gay people. It’s a “look over there” tactic that a lot of fundamentalist Christians use as they are facing the impact of their theology and feel really defensive about it.
So have gay friends or don’t, I don’t care. Believe whatyou want about me. I don’t care. All I care about it is preventing more kids from dying, more gay men and women feeling like they don’t have access to Jesus as a result of your theology and subsequent choices in letting them know they just don’t quite measure up if they love someone you don’t approve of them loving.
You don’t corner the market on what God thinks about this . Your side is causing grave harm. You can keep talking about it or you can go do somerhing about it, you can educate yourself or not. In a phrase, out your money where your mouth is. True compassion is determined by behavior. Not intent.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord." Then people want to ask why gays are killing themselves or getting killed!
So you are suggesting that it is the fault of a gay child who is 12 and kills himself as a result of his father who is a pastor kicking him out of he house for being a "faggot". Right then.
Dear conservative Christians,
Wake up. I am sick to death for cleaning up YOUR MESS. Take some responsibility for your own ignorance and that of your fellow brothers and sisters like this one, at minimum. The entire world is watching you as you either remain silent in the face of this commenter. When you do nothing except say "Gosh it is so horrible that these kids are being hurt, sin just shouldn't be dealt with in this manner!" and then you do NOTHING? Your actions speak so much louder than your words.
Jesus said, some will call me "Lord, Lord! But I will say I never knew you.". You are so focused on that population being other people, but I wonder- have you ever considered that He is actually referring to you?
What DR said. I stopped myself from responding directly to this vague lifeform calling itself wduk and presenting itself as Christian, because John's blog deserves better than the venom I'd have spewed.
And since I'm not a Christian anyway, it would no doubt simply dismiss me as an unsaved heathen not worthy of consideration.
But I echo DR here – CHRISTIANS????? This is the hateful drek that YOU must combat in your ranks.
YOU must start speaking out, loudly and forcefully, against this kind of despicable sentiment. I am, literally, shaking with anger at reading those words. PLEASE, I implore all of you who are reasonable and compassionate and read your Bibles through the filter of all the God-given love, intelligence and common sense you possess, to take your religion back from this kind of hate-filled, hard-hearted and dangerous whackjob.
Dear Jill,
Are you reading this? Why aren't *you* responding to this? That's all I'm asking. I'm asking you to get in the game, here. Stop with the 30,000 feet Bible talk. People are dying. They are getting *pushed* out of your church.
Solve. The. Problem.
DR- I agree that there needs to be a ministry to gay teens, but short of changing biblical theology to make homosexuality okay, what is your proposal? I agree that something needs to be done, but I am not going to compromise God's Word to do that. To truly love someone is to tell them the truth. If a person is not open to Jesus and the gospel, the most I can do is be there for them, and love them…giving them love that they are not getting at home. Invite them over on holidays, help them with whatever they need, be a good lsitening ear…I honesstly don't know what else to do but that. If a person struggling with this is claiming to believe in the God of the Bible, there DOES need to be a ministry to them, but it needs to be true to God's Word.
Jill, why are you asking me? Why don't *you* go figure out what needs to be done? I'm tired of doing all of the heavy lifting for Christians who want to express compassion for gay kids, but don't take responsibility for the impact their theology has. And if you think I'm picking on you, I guess you can continue to think that. This is nothing personal, I don't know you. I don't care about your feelings getting hurt or not hurt, this is not about you.
This is all very simple. if your priority is ensuring that God's Word not be compromised, then go to the gay community, discover the impact your theology is having – go do the homework yourself. Put your money, your time and your effort where your compassionate words of concern are and go create the ministry yourself. You're creating the problem with your theology. If the theology is indeed, accurate – if it's inspired by God – then given His love for the vulnerable, He will provide the insight and the creativity through the Holy Spirit for you to continue on preaching your mindset and saving gay kids who kill themselves as result of hearing it at the same time.
As for me, I am entirely invested in groups that are already helping this population through call centers, YouTube campaigns and more.
If you really care about this? Stop asking people like me to answer your questions. The only word to describe that is lazy, Jill. Kids are dying. You're on the sidelines as they march to their suicides, holding up Biblical verses. The time for action is now. Go find out what your part of the solution is.
How do you think God's going to feel about those folk who go gay-killing? Pretty sure that fall under both "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself," and "Thou shalt not commit murder."
Don't most of us develop a slightly more sophisticated morality than the assumption of righteousness because some authority is based on rules… usually before we turn ten years of age? Why is it that some religious folk have trouble with the very notion?
While I won't mock and ridicule wduk, I WILL take up DR's challenge, though maybe not EXACTLY as she desires.
wduk: you are committing Scripture abuse here. Yes, the wage of sin is death. But, you are doing just as much "Scripture Twisting" (everyone read Sire's book, please) as those who claim sexual immorality isn't sin.
While I would (and do) argue that Scripture describes acts of homosexuality as sin, there is NOTHING in Scripture to indicate that it should be elevated to some sort of "higher level" of sin than any other sin.
So, if we "equalize" the playing field of sin, we should see that sexual immorality is no "better" or "worse" than any other sin.
That causes a problem for your position (that gay teens kill themselves because "the wages of sin is death"). It causes a problem because we see a much higher rate of suicide among homosexuals than we do among any other "class" of sinner. That raises a red flag for a lot of folks, including me. To me, it seems to indicate that we (and by "we," I mean "Western Christianity" in general) put a much higher priority on this particular sin than any other.
We don't see an elevated suicide rate amongst murderers. We don't see an elevated suicide rate amongst liars. We don't see an elevated suicide rate amongst idolaters. We don't see an elevated suicide rate amongst heterosexual adulterers. We don't see an elevated suicide rate amongst thieves.
Do you see a pattern here?
Something has gone wrong. Western Christianity has become something unbiblical; Western Christianity has become something that disproportionately condemns one sin above another.
To those who believe that homosexuality does not equal sin, I UNDERSTAND. I really do. This is where you claim that the disproportionate amount of attention paid to homosexuality somehow means that it is not "sin."
But… (I like big BUTs, and I cannot lie), bottom line (for me and my understanding of Scripture), is that we are doing too much condemnation and not enough loving regarding this specific "sin" issue.
My fingers are being forced to type this . . . but – well put, MX.
The problem, for me, comes in how the "loving" works out with those Christians who hold this sin up so very high. Because too often, that "loving" seems to be taking action to change said gay sinners, rather than accept them, in all their sinful glory.
This is all great. Now go do somerhing about it. You are the one creating the problem. Go solve it.
"Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetuous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."
So, really, having sex with someone your own gender is on the same level as not being able to change a tyre (effeminate), being a fanboy (idolator), sleeping around (fornicator), ambitious (covetuous), fibbing (swindlers), or – irony meter go sproing – calling people names (revilers).
Does that mean everybody who calls us "faggot" ends up in hell with us together? Now, that really sucks.
Lady, you live in a Captalist world. Hell, you live in the country that made capitalism the success story it is today. (I'm not going to say how I guessed you are American – Mindy would accuse me of being not nice.) Even if you seriously claim to not be covetous yourself, you must be aware that the wealth you enjoy simply by living there has been accumulated by greedy white men (who tended to be fornicators as well as thieves, drunkards, swindlers and most definitely idolized wealth) by slavery, exploitation, war, and wholesale destruction of entire cultures and ecosystems. Usually with the bible in hand.
He who is without sin cast the first stone. And the devil can quote scripture with the best of them. Seriously, it is always the peeps who think they are the good guys that make big J weep…
I will not accuse you of anything. I love this comment. I hope you are heard.
OK, well, I might accuse of something, eventually. But today, nope. Besides, it's my birthday today, so I got my snarkiness out of my system in MX's general direction, and now I am all sweetness and light. My daughters are accompanying me to a big Art Fair, around which we will wander and admire the lovely work of others.
Happy day, all!
Happy Birthday, and enjoy the Fair!
Happy birthday!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
Happy birthday, Mindy!!!
Hope you and the kids had a great day!
Thanks, guys – you're sweet! We had a lovely afternoon – walking and looking at some spectacular art, seeing lots of friends. Nice time. Back to reading!!
Sorry I missed this. Glad your birthday was lovely!
thanks, Ric. Didn't mean to make this about me . . . sorry, John!
By no means am I casting stones, Freefox. I am a sinner saved by GRACE ALONE, and not by my own merit! Believe me, I often think about the condition of my own heart, realizing how God absolutely HAD to do that radical thing called the Cross to save me from His judgment.
Also, I would never say that I have never been covetous…being an American is almost synonymous with that, I agree. I'll also agree that I have fallen into the trap of being covetous when I was not walking with Him, but because I am following Jesus now, His grace has given me a spirit of peace and contentment, even though I don't have very much. I'm a single mom with two kids, so I don't have a ton of money to throw around. But, the main thing I'm learning mostly is thankfulness and trust in God. Thankful that I and my children are healthy, thankful that our house is not in foreclosure, thankful that we have food on our plates. Everyday is an emotional struggle (and financial one, too), but that's where I CHOOSE to trust that God's Word is absolutely true, and I can ALWAYS trust in Him to provide for me and my children. And for the past 3 years since my initial separation and divorce, He has not failed me or disappointed me in any way. He has been very faithful to me, though I have strayed far from Him at times.
As for the devil quoting scripture: the devil twists it to suit his own evil purposes. Like when he was telling Jesus in Luke 4: "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." He was challenging God to affirm His identity. But, Jesus knew that He was who GOD said He was, and was unmoved. My scripture quoting was in context, not out of context. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change what the Bible says. Like I said before: I didn't write the Bible. I didn't put all that about what sin is defined as in The Holy Book. I just choose to believe it. And in that, I recognize how sinful I am, as well, and that is why I need Jesus!
For me, this is not about singling out gays. For me, this is about others who claim to be Christian changing the truth of God's Word because they don't like what it says. That's not my fault; I didn't tell God how to define Himself or what "Holiness parameters" to set. it just is what it is. Inasmuch as being gay is a sin, so are a lot of other things which i am also guilty of. I'm not judging gays. I'm just saying that I cannot agree and say it is not a sin when my God has explicitly stated that it is.
@ Jill: Beware. Smugness is a form of pride.
hahaha wow! that's a bit of a stretch to assume i am smug because i hold fast to my own beliefs. might the same be said of anyone who holds to his own belief?
Jill,
You mentioned you are divorced. I'm sure that's been horribly devastating for you, not to mention your children who shatter as a result of divorce. Divorce is an epidemic in the Christian community, we enjoy an even higher rate of divorce than the secular community does (about 57% of christian marriages end in divorce compared to 54% of the US average).
The Bible is quite clear on those who divorce committing adultery when and if they remarry. Given God's Word on the matter, will you remarry if you have the opportunity?
What I meant to say before I got sidetracked by my sophomoric criticism of capitalism was actually that I thought being on the same sin-level as whimps, hedonists, fibbers, mudmouths, lushes, and gluttons isn't all that bad. I doubt there are many peeps on the planet who aren't one or more of the above. And of course I would never claim to be without sin.
As for your claim that you believe EVERYTHING in the bible, I have a hard time believing you. Even if you go the (extremely dogdy) Leviticus doesn't apply to us followers of Jesus road, between the two different stories of creation and the two mutually exclusive lineages of Jesus, claiming to believe everything in the bible is a bit like claiming to understand non-Eucledian geometry. Read Lovecraft and know that your sanity is doomed if you walk that path. Lol. But seriously, you believe everything Paul says? "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." Seriously? "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Hey, I am a man. You are a woman. So, woman, do not disagree with me! Do not usurp my authority! Do not presume to teach me anything, but be silent!
Come on. That's silly.
(And you have to explain to me that Grace thingy. So, when you sin, you still are saved? Aren't I, too? So, as long as I accept Jesus as my Saviour, I can bugger who I want, right? I'm having an, uh, hard time wrapping my, uh, head around that.)
Hi, freefox! I will respond to the other stuff later, but right now, I want to touch on the subject of grace:
If a person accepts Christ, he has to accept ALL of Christ's teachings (which is the being gay is not God's original design for humankind). If a person truly believes and accepts that, and accepts that he is a sinner and believes Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for his sin (which is hell for ALL sinners, and not only gay people), and trusts that Jesus death on the cross was in and of itself ENOUGH of a payment to keep him out of hell…AND lives a life purposely following Jesus and DOING what He commands, then we say that person is saved. Saved people DO still sin, but they do not live lives of sin. Meaning that, in my former life, I was very promiscuous and under the penalty of death as a fornicator. But Jesus paid the price for me, so I wouldn't have to pay the price for it. I believe that and now live a life of celibacy until marriage. Do I still sin in different ways? Sure, but I am quick to recognize it and ask God for help…because I really can't live the life He wants me to without His divine strength. When I sin, I repent of it and make it right with those I've sinner against, and then set myself back on a path of right living before God. I know that when I do fail, there is grace for that. There is grace for all sinners, but grace is not to be used as a license to do whatever we want. If we believe that God's Word is true, we need to live that way, thus proving our faith in God by living it. For example, if a person believed that eating meat was awful for the body and produced an acidic internal environment, but continued to eat meat…that person probably doesn't really think it's unhealthy or he simply doesn't care about how what he's eating affects his body. But if he really DID believe eating meat was harmful to the body and created an acidic internal body environment that leads to disease and other less serious maladies, he would become a vegetarian or a vegan, thus living out what he believes.
I have to run, but I'll write more later!
Have a good evening!
Are you teaching, Jill? Are you trying to teach me about Grace?
"But I suffer not a woman to teach" says the Good Book. How dare you?
"For me, this is about others who claim to be Christian changing the truth of God’s Word because they don’t like what it says."
Excuse me, Jill, but YOU are the one changing—perverting—the Truth in God's Word. First, you have somehow reinterpreted as references to homosexuality as you understand it, things written in a culture to which the whole concept of homosexual identity (or sexual orientation in general, or even individuality in which to establish such identity) is foreign. Second, you (or translators you wholly trust to do the impossible: to convey a text in the construct of another mentality yet precisely realizing fully identical implications) have clearly conflated certain things, allowing conclusions far broader than the words themselves could possibly support. Third, you take these words themselves as the actual Word of God, when they themselves clearly indicate that Christ Jesus is the Word; the text is but an icon made of Him, which clearly cannot capture the magnitude of His essence or give very precise definition to His features, or depth to His Person.
Matthew Tweedell, this is very well stated. I've tried to say this and have failed. This captures the distinction between the original scriptures, today's bible, and the Word. thanks.
@FreeFox, thanks for stating this: "So, really, having sex with someone your own gender is on the same level as not being able to change a tyre (effeminate), being a fanboy (idolator), sleeping around (fornicator), ambitious (covetuous), fibbing (swindlers), or – irony meter go sproing – calling people names (revilers)."
So many ignore their own reflections too well.
Thank you John for this post. We love you!!
Celibate gay Christians and straight Christians who think all gays must be celibate might be very encouraged by a new book called "Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality" by Wesley Hill. Around my other reading experiences, it truly is a one-of-a-kind book in the gay Christian genre.
I'm sure it's about as life affirming as brain cancer.
Listen, try opening your mind up a little bit. There are a lot of people who live celibate lives for whatever reason. This relentless aggressive hostility against those who are *choosing* to do so is just as abusive as those who would try to force someone into celibacy via theology.
Stop demanding that everyone view sex and intimacy by your own terms.
It's a refreshingly honest look by someone who has decided to count the cost and to make that cost known in some rather public ways. On top of that, it's a short volume. The book is well-written from a reading standpoint and goes beyond a simple formulation of "Thou shalt not have sex" into some rather candid reflections about what life actually looks like. Additionally, the book places an impressive burden of responsibility on straight Christians that should lead a reader to ask the question, "Could I possibly require this way of live of every gay and lesbian person?"
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 1:26-27 – "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."
C'mon people, it's stupidity (or rather denial) to say that homosexuality isn't a sin. That being said, it is just one sin of many.
As does 1 Corinthians 6:11.
Exactly!!! I don't judge homosexuals because I am not any "better"! I was definitely a fornicator and an idolator…but I am forgiven. The point is…homosexuality is a sin, but it is unfairly demonized as the worst of the worst. Really, all sin is the same, and we are all sinners in one way or another, saved only by grace and not our own merit.
Jill, how can it be a sin? It is not a choice, it is simply a state of being.
Is it a sin to be born with one green eye and one brown eye? Is it a sin to be born any other kind of physiological "difference?"
How, in this day and age, can you still say that??? The Bible has been translated many different ways. I don't believe for one moment that it is not a gray area. It is absolutely a gray area, even for a rigid Biblical scholar, unless you refuse to accept that translations vary.
BlueSky, you are full of thine own waste.
To quote a favorite movie line: You are not only wrong, you are wrong at the top of your voice.
I am neither stupid nor in any kind of denial, and I can recognize a "sin" when I see one.
Besides the very valid points others have already made, even if we read these verses by themselves & as they have been translated in these particular expression in modern English, what if one is not an "offender" against anybody and has his/her natural relations set for those of the same gender (the going against of which is, yes, perverted)?
Matthew Tweedell: You pose an excellent question and one I have struggled with for years. What you are really asking is, "Why did God create us to sin?" Or put another way, "Why would God condemn us for something we can't help but do?" We all have a desire to sin in some way or another (not just homosexuality) and it seems unfair for God to punish us for just doing what is natural for us to do. And I don't have an answer to why God has either created or allowed sin to be a part of life. But God does provide us with this … "He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is His mercy toward them that fear Him.
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us."
That's not what I'm asking, since man, not God, created sin, and there’s nothing we do that we couldn't help but do.
Sin consists in the perversion of one's own nature. Just as we get angry with someone only when they act not according to the nature we've projected upon them, so it is with God: when one is acting consistently with the God-given nature of their being, he/she would not be sinning but doing the will of God. But to discover who God made us to be, we have to understand properly how we are as a part of a much greater whole, and we must learn our place in it. So we must explore the world around us as well as the intricacies of our own soul until at some point we can, in some small way, break through the barrier of ego—of self—that we've constructed between the two. It is thus that we come to know our true nature.
@MT
Your point raises the question: how can we know the difference between the nature god instilled in us and our own nature?
The answer must necessarily define what is meant by 'nature' so as to establish the boundary between the two you say we possess. I don't think you have means at your disposal to successfully do this.
If you can't do this, then you can't 'know' what you say we need to know to know our true nature. So to assert that man – not god – created sin is an empty assertion based only on your say-so, as is your assertion that one's nature or the part god instilled can be 'perverted' in order to define what sin is, as is your assertion without having any means at your disposal to know whether one is following the god-given nature part or one's own, as is your assertion that we can learn "properly" what portion of the whole is our place, as is your assertion that we have some means to determine what defines "properly", as is your assertion that we can figure out how to break through our 'ego' that we have supposedly constructed without in some way infringing on the part given to us by god. Assuming for the moment we successfully negotiate all of this highly dubious path you have set out before us, by what means can we verify that we have, in fact, come to know our 'true' nature?
You like to write arguments like this, MT, but fail to appreciate just how wobbly your starting point is and how it is so often unknowable unless one simply assumes it to be true. Your 'answers' are no such thing: they are assertions without any means to verify that they are probably true, probably accurate, probably correct.
Thank you, ~b.
Besides all your assumptions and assertions without any means of verification, there are a few that I need to correct as they are verifiably false:
Nowhere did I assert any difference between “the nature god instilled in us and our own nature”. In fact, I identified our own true nature with that which the Father has dictated that we have.
The boundary of which I spoke is between that which is within us and that which is all around us.
It is not so that the assertion that man, not God, created sin is empty. But of course, you don't believe in God, so of course you would have to agree that sin is something caused by the presence of man, and not God. If you did know God, however, you could know that He didn't cause anyone to sin, neither did He Himself ever sin.
Lastly, I was not giving answer to any questions there.
(I would like to point out that where I said, "…angry with someone…," this actually applies equally to things as well as people.)
Thanks for clearing that up!
You know, Romans 2 definitely helps to put things in context.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Read the fifth passage, about halfway down the page. It infuriates me when people think that the English translation of the Bible is the end-all-be-all of what was actually said. The only way to know what was originally written is to read it in the originally language it was written in, or to consult someone who is fluent in that language about context and definitions.
Actually, read the whole page. You probably should, anyway.
@Bluesky starting any conversation with 1 Cor 6:9-10 without any preamble… in fact starting any conversation with ANY scripture without preamble is rude, and the quickest way I know of to lose an audience.
Read the gospels and the book of Acts and see how Jesus and his Apostles started conversations. You might learn something.
eg: "I perceive that in all things you are very religious…" (Paul speaking to the people of Athens)
"Let down your bucket and give me a drink." (Jesus to the woman at the well)
"Where are your accusers?" (Jesus to the woman taken in adultery)
"What would you have me do for you?" (Jesus to the lepers)
You know it was never from a bible bashing scripture howling abusive place that they came, but from a perspective that they were talking to human beings who don't deserve to be brow beaten.
Just saying…
Thank you for this article. After reading it, I felt compelled to share my experience with the subject of trying to deny myself a life of love. http://xkot.livejournal.com/586080.html
« 1 2 3 4 5 »