One December day, when I was seven years old, and alone in our house, I sneaked into my parents’ bedroom, hauled open their closet door, and found, fresh from the department store, just about every toy I had asked Santa to bring me that upcoming Christmas.
Aghast and transfixed, I then knew the brutal truth: far from being way up in the North Pole, Santa Claus was in the closet.
Har!
No, but seriously: I didn’t like my new reality. I liked my old reality, the reality in which I had believed for my entire life—the more imaginative reality. But what could I do? Try to somehow reconcile the unwrapped purchases in my parent’s closet with the whole idea of elves working away in their North Pole workshop?
Love the Santa, but hate the sales receipts? Try to pray away the pay?
Forget it. It was over. Adulthood had scored another knockout.
Perhaps you see where I am going with the metaphor.
That’s right: one day, when you’re home alone, and in no way prepared to deal with it, gay people are going to jump out of the closet and beat you up.
No, but just like the time was then upon me to accept that gift-giving Santa Claus doesn’t really exist, the time is now upon you to accept that gay-bashing Jesus Christ doesn’t really exist. But at least with your new understanding of the way things are, you get to keep Jesus Christ. I had to totally ditch Santa Claus: all of a sudden Smokey the Bear was more real. But you get to totally change your entire understanding of gay people, and still remain 100% Christian. Christianity will actually get better for you, because fully accepting gay people will decrease the amount of anger and stress, and increase the amount of love in your life.
Pffft. Upon learning there was no Santa Claus, I immediately dropped out of Little League and started smoking cigarettes. So. You know.
Here’s the thing: in days gone by, it was reasonable for Christians not to question conventional wisdom about the Bible. Because everyone used the Bible to justify slavery, for instance, Christians were okay with believing that some of their fellow human beings were just another species of farm animal they rightfully owned. Later, we Christians were entirely comfortable using the Bible to justify the atrocious idea that women are second-class citizens too simple-minded to be trusted with the vote.
And up until the Internet made readily available all kinds of previously inaccessible knowledge and information, we could be excused for believing that the Bible indisputably states that God considers homosexual love a moral abomination.
Today, however, anyone who can read, or simply watch YouTube videos, is forced to acknowledge the absolute credibility of the universe of scholarship, and the reasoning based upon it (here’s mine), which unequivocally proves that the Bible does not, in fact, oblige Christians to believe that homosexual love, in and of itself, is necessarily any less moral than is heterosexual love.
That closet door is now swung wide open. The truth of the matter is now there for anyone to behold.
Christians today who take seriously the search for truth must admit that the old axiom that homosexuality is a sin has been forever reduced in status from objective truth to subjective opinion. From fact to belief. From beyond question to unquestionably dubious.
Believing that homosexual love is a condemnable sin, in other words, is now a choice one must make.
And what Christian—what person at all?—would choose ignorant condemnation over enlightened love?
So what if there’s no Santa Claus? We still receive all the gifts. And we still get to hold hands, gather around the Christmas tree, sing all the beautiful songs, and feel all the beautiful love.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 584 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
Thanks, you guys.
unfortunately, there are all too many folks who willingly “choose ignorant condemnation over enlightened love?”
Great post, John, but BOY it’s troll city in the comments. DR, Lymis, Gary, I wish I had your patience to attempt engage in intelligent debate. But boy, it sure looks hopeless!
I’ve been really busy this morning: was at the dentist, for one. Now in Starbucks from which I must soon cut out. Usually I control this stuff better. I’ll see what I can do real quick here before I leave. In the meantime, I apologize for that mess, and can only beg your indulgence and patience.
No apology needed. You’re doing great. Peace.
Shared it and love it. Just one slight thing “That’s right: one day, when you home alone” – typo on ‘you’re’
Yes! Thank you. good eyes.
Yes. I have been posting it and the petition to a lot of LGBT pages and not all “Christian” ones (Gay Marines, etc.)
I wanted them to know that they have the right to keep their faith in spite of what they hear and give them the opportunity to sign the petition.
GLAAD South Africa was a page I put the petition on!
Surely there are one million people who are Christian and accepting to sign that petition.
@Caring Heart….. when the student is ready, the teacher will come. Those ppl at one million moms are not ready….
The meanie opening was not keeping Believe Out Loud and Bring Your Gay Teen to Church from loving it. (Me neither, but I totally get the change.)
You know, I’m not a biblical scholar, but I’ve done my fair share of reading and researching from multiple sources. People like Andy can play the “holier than thou” card all they want. It won’t change the fact that Jesus taught love, acceptance and tolerance.
Amen!
Bravo!
Lulu, I want you to go and get your Bible and look something up. Ezekiel Chapter 16, verse 49. This is what it says, but I want you to see it for yourself.
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
That’s the King James version. So what the Bible says is not that Sodom was destroyed because of gay sex, but that it was destroyed because of pride, greed, and laziness, and not caring for the poor. Don’t you believe what the Bible says? If you don’t, what is it you do believe and why?
Jesus’s message was not “love, acceptance, and tolerance.” Yes, that would be nice if it was, but that was not what he taught. Jesus’ message was, “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). Yes, Jesus did hang out with the “sinners” and the outcasts of society, but he did not condone any of their actions. He did however, forgive them of their sins! He never taught acceptance of others’ sins, but of other sinners and he never taught tolerance of sin, but to be loving towards those who are lost in sin. Jesus said it himself, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17). We were already condemned before he came because, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), hence the need for the world to be saved. We are told to “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31). So, yes!, we shouldn’t be full of ignorant condemnation. We should be full of love and treat those who are sinning with the same love and respect that we’d like to be treated with. That, however, does not make whatever sins someone is committing okay. We are called to love others and call them to Jesus who will forgive them for their sins.
Be blessed!
Paul, you’re still judging. You can wrap it up in whatever pretty paper you like. Bottom line is that Jesus never said word one about homosexuality or loving LGBT relationships, so calling them “sin” – however you choose to respond to sin aside – is judgmental and hypocritical and playing God by a human not qualified to do so.
God doesn’t speak TODAY only through an ancient text. What, you think He told some guys back then to write stuff down and then disappeared? That makes about as much sense as you or anyone else determining which faulty translation of which ancient verse to cherry-pick when determining someone else’s sin. You need to spend some time here, Paul – reading John’s blog posts on this subject and the many, many comments of people far wiser than I.
This subject, as far as most folks regularly here, has been put to rest. Don’t “love” our LGBT brethren by telling them how Jesus will forgive them for being true the way God made them. That’s just insulting – to them, to God, to all who believe.
Hi Mindy. You’re awesome.
already shared – and very awesome!
@Natalie: Agree to disagree is fine. Except when one of the “-gree-”ers chooses to step beyond passively having their view. The moral thing to do is stand up to bullies, and call them out for what they are(n’t). Esp so, when they relentlessly attempt to use God’s name as a shield for their bullying. (That bit about using His name in vain, it doesn’t mean just don’t ever say goddammit.
But Santa Claus *does* exist! Seriously, every bit as much as Jesus Christ at least. (There should have been no reason you ever had to stop believing in him, John. I’m sorry. Your parents probably just didn’t understand it themselves. How wide was the chimney [if any] of that house, relative to the amount of toys you were getting? It seems reasonable to me to conclude that Santa’s helpers had stashed them there in advance, as they weren’t gonna fit down the chimney Christmas Eve.)
OMGosh you mean there’s no Santa!!
@Kimberly Moser Musci Phillips What about that Nathen guy who keeps saying ‘agree to disagree?’
It seems to me that if homosexuality is a sin, then it should be possible to identify which of the 2 commandments is being broken, and which of the 10. I discount the 1st and greatest commandment, offense against God, because we can’t really speak for God and God can deal with such in her own time and way. So what offense is there against a neighbor? Then, among the 10 commandments, it is only adultery when there is infidelity, and that clearly is an offense against a neighbor, but it is separate from homosexuality. Then I found it: failure to honor father and mother. I have a dream of my son someday coming home for the holidays with his wife and new baby. If he were to take up with a man, that dream would have to die and I would grieve for it. Of course, the folks who wrote that commandment down would have seen producing grandchildren as an obligation. We don’t. I could replace that dream with a different one, especially as I know gay couples with children. Of course, my son isn’t gay, but he isn’t showing much signs of settling down with a women and having kids. So I may still have to let that dream die. I would be disappointed. My sons have disappointed me before. I love them anyway, and they honor me in different ways.
So what if it is a sin? We have a grace for that.
Is it still a sin if our parents approve? My translation seems to be that I am supposed to honor my parents, not agree with them, and not live my deepest truths by their standards if I see things differently.
Lymis, the short answer is no, or at least not anymore. Love, grace, and forgiveness bring healing.
I don’t think approve is the right word. I can’t come up with the right word. Something like see-through-the-eyes-of-love. If the parent rejects the child or if the child will not give the parent the chance to work through it, then there is a breach in the relationship. That is sad and wrong and, yes, sinful.
No, I don’t think that loving, caring relationships are sinful. I know that some don’t believe same-sex relationships can be that way. I can’t look into people’s hearts, but I see some such relationships that sure seem to qualify. Too, I’ve talked to people recently who don’t believe that truly loving, caring relationships exist between men and women, and that is really tragic!
I’m sorry. I think I missed your point. You are still saying that being gay breaks one of the 10 Commandments because some people’s parents might object?
I’m saying that’s the best I could come up with, and it is really weak. I don’t even buy it, though our family relationships do affect our families. My connection of same-sex relationships to that commandment was more than a little facetious.
Why is it important to analyze sinfulness? Why should I care what rule it breaks rather than what relationship it breaks? How does whether something is a sin change how you relate to someone? Who is without sin? I see those trite signs “love the sinner, hate the sin” and wonder if those folks think that is easy, what they think it means to love. Love is hard, it is expensive, it will transform you. Love is picking up the cross. You love FIRST. When you know someone, when you have made it clear in word and action that you care about them, that you will defend them from harm and oppression, when their pain is your own, when you have their back, THEN you can start to talk about sin. When you can speak to them one-on-one as beloved children of God, when you know who they love and love who they love, THEN you can start talking about their relationships. Loving someone by bullying them, passing laws against them, rejecting them, excluding them, berating them? No Way!
Gotcha. I always got more mileage out of the command not to covet my neighbor’s ass, but everyone has their own perspective on these things.
I have a family friend whose two daughters both are lesbians. And he was disappointed for exactly the reason you describe. But then his daughter came home for the holidays one year with her wife and his grandchild, and they seem pretty happy now.
We’re in a transitional period. Things are messed up. But in the future I hope parents will dream of and imagine the future with gay kids as much as they now do the ones with straight kids. It’s certainly not the kid’s fault nor a sin that they weren’t born an entirely different child than the parent hoped for, any more than it’s a daughter’s fault if her father wished for a son to play baseball with.
LOL. And btw, the Pharisees got their feelings hurt alot, when Jesus called them names. Didn’t mean He wasn’t telling them the truth, just that they were so blinded by their religion that they didn’t recognize God when they were looking right @ Him.
I guess that calling someone “whited sepulchers” and “blind guides” and “brood of vipers” isn’t as bad as calling them a dick.
I’ve learned something.
thanks, you guys.
“Didn’t mean He wasn’t telling them the truth, just that they were so blinded by their religion that they didn’t recognize God when they were looking right @ Him.”
You hit the nail on the head.
Amazing, the comment thread on your blog, worrying that mean-spirited and willfully ignorant, self-righteous and sanctimonious, rabid gay-bashers might get their feelings hurt because you called them a not-nice name. Waah. Somebody please give those poor widdle d!@#s a hanky.
Because THAT is the textbook bully, one who can name-call, condone violence, lead the charge to publicly denigrate/dehumanize and condemn others…and then whimper and cry foul when confronted w/ just a small taste of their own medicine.
Okay, I took the meanie part out.
Thank you!
You also seemed to have taken the bible out too.
Andy? You’re a dick.
Interesting given your advice below on how you should treat me. Kind of disqualifies everything you say doesn’t it?
Learn to read.. I have zero issues with name calling. Bring it.
Isn’t Andy Dick some actor?
Attention class! Now, I want you all to take a look at this right there: this is a troll.
Why? Is it simply because it elicits an emotional response? No, DR, among many others, plays highly effectively on emotion, but she’s not trolling, is she?
Why? Is it because she happens to agree with your viewpoint, whereas this guy doesn’t? No, that’s entirely subjective.
The thing is, Andy here makes comments like this one that have no relevant substance *except* that which is emotional! Noting what is absent from a post can hardly be thought to add to the conversation, unless there anything *interesting* to be said about it. Any one of us could sit here all day listing the things John might have taken out of this post: maybe he was about to include a really hilarious one liner about an elf, a fairy, and a long hard North Pole but decided it was inappropriate for younger readers. But that’s just a waste of comment space.
However, to see the true substance in an argument the apparent conclusion of which you dismiss out of hand can be at times difficult to do. You actually have to bother reading it, for one; if you don’t, then you can’t really tell a troll from a long hard North Pole. (Speaking of which, DR is right to recognize that trolls can in fact be classified as a subclass of dicks; however, it must be remembered that not all dicks are trolls.)
So, such a comment as Andy’s here is known as a troll, and Andy is trolling when he makes such a comment. If Andy *never* makes a substantive comment relevant to the item he is posting the comment in reply to, then Andy himself—that is, this very persona—is a troll. Is that the case here? Is Andy a troll or does he just troll too much? Does it even matter?
Either way, he would need to be gotten rid of: a true troll is just a waste of time, emotions, and the electrons of cyberspace, and a person who trolls too much is equally futile to engage with, having a personal agenda they’re unwilling to let off of, and so is not interested in, and must to be kept from disrupting, reasoned discussion and legitimate debate.
Most Silly Putty people are one of those two sorts.
On the other hand, one who trolls, who perhaps even is a Silly Putty person, while not so much as to become an unbearable burden, likely has some sort of issues—some unresolved psycho-spiritual troubles rooted deep in their emotional being, from which they hijack the rational being—relating to whatever the subject of their comments is, that they’re working through, and it seems to me, first, that such will typically leave soon enough of their own volition (if not, then they eventually become who trolls to much and, consequently, must be booted), and, second, that if there are folks available and willing in the meantime to patiently counter, calling them on misdirected and/or emotion-driven arguments, it may well do them some good in the end actually (though those involved with them may never know it).
In any case, I think we might need to be a bit more discerning of this: we seem to be evaluating equally substantive and equally emotive arguments with iniquity which depends on whether they lean the same direction as our own opinion or appear contrary to it. And this directly and—by increasing the apparent bias around here—indirectly drives away people we might actually be able to effectively engage and potentially make useful allies of. Not to mention: basic principles like fairness, progress towards the goals of peaceful harmony, etc.
I’m suggest we look closer at who others are and engage them more appropriately (even perhaps additionally according to their own manners, regarding forms of address and use of slang and/or vulgarisms, and according to their apparent education, trying neither to talk down to them nor over their heads). When we ourselves choose to just lash out, whether in a bit of pride or a fit of passion, it helps us to commiserate with one another, which is good. But a surfeit of the same is to our detriment, both in our capacity for and in our carrying out the promotion our views and advancement of our causes. So I suggest we take not to get too immoderate. Soulmentor, for instance, recently pointed out, that we were throwing about accusations of “hate” where it wasn’t really apt and didn’t really help. It is the temptation to do such things that I’m calling upon each of you and upon us all to resist. Moreover more I’m calling on us publically to point out, as a group, when we, as a group, transgress, just as Soulmentor did and as I do now (though hopefully not is so many words
).
So, here’s your homework assignment:
As an exercise aimed at making more nearly complete our understanding of such things, let us answer the following questions:
1) Do you think Andy trolled too much, and is Andy a troll? Why or why not?
2) Was I trolling earlier today in the previous two articles on this site?
BONUS) Are either, both, or neither of Andy and me Silly Putty people?
Calling someone a troll is the easy way to dismiss a position that is contrary. It only shows weakness.
Hi Andy,
I haven’t said you are a troll. I have asked that as question. Would you like to give us the correct answer now?
I did say that this comment is a troll. I understand why you might be confused: I’m going with one of the less common—but, of a term the meaning of which is still evolving, I believe increasingly met—understanding of the word. This is chosen, besides for its being something near what the general understanding may likely be in a few short years, particularly so as to allow application of it in the most straightforward objective fashion I could come up with.
I look at your comment above and I ask, does it say something substantive and relevant to what it purports to respond to?
Noting that something seems not to there (regardless that I find the Bible mentioned by name 5 times there), and—and this is key—saying no about it than that (not telling us why you think that is, or what the possible implications of that are), is only saying anything at all really if it is a response to an implication or assertion that such a thing in fact were there. Yet John was not making such an assertion, from what I can see, and moreover the ostensible relevance of your remark itself is a connection with his assertion to have taken something out. Nevertheless, you neither support, nor deny, nor share how you or anyone else think or feel about, this. Rather, you connect it to something that, as I mentioned, isn’t really anything at all: For what you are saying is not that John actually has removed this, but that it seems all the same as it were so when you find the text devoid of it.
Do you deny this? Surely if you had meant something like that you’d seen that it was there in some earlier draft, you would certainly want to clear that up, unless you are laying bait—or under the definitions set out above, trolling. Either way, you are, in that particular instance, just saying things to evoke a response, not really to communicate anything! And that is wasteful the time and efforts of people reading it, repeatedly scrolling past it, potentially wanting to respond to it, even thinking about it—not to mention those of yourself.
THIS is the MT that we know and love
FWIW, I do find that, *sometimes*, engaging with a troll (whether a comment or a person) can be a useful exercise in putting together a coherent explanation of my own thoughts and understandings. Even if this is wasted on a particular troll, it could still be of benefit to someone else, or to myself at a later point in time….
Good for you, John. It does improve the piece.
And now, it’s safe for Facebook!
thanks, L.
Thank you… and happy to post it! Wonderful example for people to understand… I may get into yet another conversation with someone over their harmful beliefs! It has happened before.
By the way… I heard a wonderful sermon about tolerance recently. It’s wrong and keeps any of the tolerated issues under wraps. Conversation, examples, openness about who we are, and voicing our beliefs where ever we are (church, work, facebook, and out in public) will further the path to equality faster than any tolerant attitude. If you believe something is wrong state it, share it, talk about it!
Thanks for your cheering voice amidst the darkness of the world John. Keep up the great work. And thank you again for reconsidering. Much appreciated.
This post so clearly outlines the delusion of thought and belief found here. What a shame!
Could you be specific?
Read the post, aside from the personal experience that is shared, there is not one factual element. Even the poll results are misleading.
So you believe in Santa Claus?
Santa is more believable than the “theology” presented that’s for sure.
So because John Shore, and many many others I might add, disagrees with *your* theology, he’s delusional? Is that what you’re saying?
Let’s all make sure that we speak kindly and gently to Andy as he calls someone delusional. Let’s make sure that Andy’s feelings are prioritized because if we don’t, it’s our fault that he doesn’t change his mind.
Gotcha!
My sarcasm aside, kind words are always good, and even though I believe Andy’s on the wrong track here, he’s still a child of God.
He is an abuser who perpetuates lies that are so deeply damaging that they scar people permanently.
We should just ignore all those gay kids killing themselves as a result of this sound Christian doctrine.
And let’s not forget the bullying of those kids.
I am saying that there is no scriptural basis for those views and therefore must come from somwhere else.
The choice of suicide is a tragic one but placing the blame on Christianity or what the bible teaches is quite ridiculous and a shameful display of coopting tragedy for gain.
Where do you think depression comes from, Andy?
Everyone has feelings of depression from time to time due o life circumstances. Depression as a condition is biochemical in nature.
“Depression as a condition is biochemical in nature.” So, you’re willing to buy science on some things (like that depression is or can be biochemical in nature) but not on others (like that homosexuality is a normal variation on the sexuality continuum, just as blue eyes are a normal variation on eye color.) Really?
Normal is the condition of a fallen world where sin rules. So being normal is not what God call us to. He calls us to holiness.
Not to mention that science has no conclusive answers regarding homosexuality. No genetic links have been found so it is incorrect to group eye color with sexual orientation.
Um, yes science. Part genes, part in utero environment. Where have you been? even that’s on YouTube!
So life circumstances can make someone depressed. Ok. Good. We agree.
And what of rejection? Withholding affection, ostracism?
You might recall harry Harlow’s wire monkey experiments and how those turned out.
Being made to feel worthless, evil, an abomination, not accepted. Not loved unconditionally. Not love at all. These are life circumstances, yes? That lead to depression that leads to kids feeling hopeless and unloved…..and killing themselves.
Whatever we say, we are told, kids are listening. How is it that we worry about the violence and images in movies and video games when it comes to this age group, but not what they hear about themselves from their peers, teachers, family, friends, clergy, and parents?
I’d say there’s no scriptural basis for the view that homosexuality is a sin. Seriously, I’m not being snide here.
Well ok. Not sure how to respond or what bible you read but it’s pretty clear despite the attempts to rewrite it that the practice of homosexuality is sinful.
Hmm, so what I’m hearing from you is you’ve never studied the issue. Okay. Well at least now we know you get your beliefs from culture. Thanks for explaining.
Actually I have studied quite extensively and am happy to flood this blog with biblical truth. Say the word and I will begin.
Andy you said – “Actually I have studied quite extensively and am happy to flood this blog with biblical truth. Say the word and I will begin.”
Time to back up your bravado here big boy. You have been called out on your lack of substance at least 3 or 4 times now and every time you have responded with silence. Seems to me like it is way past time for you to either put up or shut up!!
So don’t practice homosexuality. But it’s not your place to judge whether someone else has sinned or not. Eyes on your own paper! Leave judging to the only one who can do it right–the Lord.
Hear hear!
I am just pointing out that the theolgy here around this issue is not from the bible.
Amen!
OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS!! LOL! Game Over, try again next time.
Trolls belong under bridges, not on here
I know you wont agree, but shared personal experience is far more authoritative than scripture to one who endeavors to live in love, grace, and truth. You can no more encapsulate the spirit of God in a book than to contain it in a shoebox.
Truth in personal experience is relative truth. Everyone has a story but that doesn’t means there is universal truths in every story. Therefore there really is no authority in personal stories.
(Except Andy’s interpretation of Scripture which is by nature, subjective.)
Thank you!
Experience plays a huge role in how we know and understand God and Scripture. John Wesley came up with what is now known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. He pointed out 4 things we keep in mind: Scripture, Reason, Experience, and Tradition. You have to use all 4.
Agreed but if something contradicts scripture it’s not from God.
Psssst, Hey Andy…
Scripture contradicts scripture in a great many instances…so by your definition scripture itself must not be from God.
Gary much of the contradictions that a cursory reading brings are not contradictions at all. Real contradictions simply mean we do not yet have a full understanding of.
Anyways if God chose to contradict Himself He can but we cannot contradict God.
That’s a cool trick, right there, that.
What happens when scripture contradicts science, which is also of God? You said, “Real contradictions simply mean we do not yet have a full understanding…”
Like with science.
So, as we have seen in the great battle between Science and Religion and Religion’s deification of scripture down through the age…the Church has historically (and continues to do so) thumbed its nose at science, despite very convincing evidence that the Church has been in error…a number of times …about very significant things based on a simple reading of the text.
I found this passage today to be enlightening, where Jesus, in my view, is admonishing against literalism. Matthew 16:5-12. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A5-12&version=NIV
What is, is. We can’t change it. But it doesn’t mean when we see it, or read it, we are interpreting or understanding it correctly. We should strive always for open eyes and ears that can hear what is, not what we want to see and hear and do the hard and difficult work of traveling down the path of, what if I’m wrong.
I see no conflict between faith and science.
I’d say that “love your neighbor” is a pretty good scriptural basis, as is the part about going to hell for not taking care of your neighbor when they are oppressed, since how you treat them is how you treat Jesus.
I’ll agree there is no scriptural basis for Santa Claus.
Or the Internet, for that matter, and yet, here you are.
What exactly do you think people are “gaining” from calling out the bullying, hatred, and abuse that goes along with that teaching?
It’s not “ridiculous” to say that the hatred toward LGBT people that’s preached as “Christian truth” (like from Pastor Harris a couple posts back) leads to teen suicides. DR has posted time and time again about teenagers kicked out of their homes for being gay, about kids desperately praying for God to make them straight so their parents will let them come home.
For Christians to act like LGBT teen suicides have nothing to do with mainstream Christianity’s teachings about homosexuality is so ridiculous as to be willfully ignorant. It’s like screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater and saying that, while of course it’s tragic that people were trampled to death running out, that was a choice they made that has nothing to do with what you said.
I love your analogy! Very well put.
Andy, here is an excerpt from an article about grace (please give it a serious read):
So, within a few clicks of the mouse I found some pictures that drew my interest. I looked a little more; then all of a sudden my heart SANK! “Oh, my God, what have I done? I just crossed over the bridge into forbidden land. I have broken a place in my life that I have never strayed into before—NEVER!”
My mind began to rush into all of the years of instruction, of challenges for others, and into fears of “What do I do now?” My mind was scrambling, and anxiety filled my heart. Then all of a sudden, something came to me that would become a life-changing, life-transforming experience with Jesus.
“John, what is the deepest thing you know about Me?” Jesus spoke through my anxious heart. I replied, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” He said, “Apply that right now.” I began a whole new process of prayer with Jesus. I began to unravel the last few minutes as I have never done before. “Lord, You have not condemned me, so I will not receive any condemnation from You for what I have chosen to do.”
Then the Lord said, “John, why are you here? What has brought you to look at those pictures?” I began a dialogue with Him about all of that, realizing that a lot of it was motivated by my own curiosity. After pondering the questions that brought me to search the internet, I heard Jesus say: “John, do you have any more questions?” In my own amazement with this conversation I said, “No, no I don’t think so.” Then He said, “Well, then, I guess we are done with this for now, aren’t we.”
Oh—I just experienced something about grace that I have never experienced before in my entire life! At a point where I felt as though I had just committed the “unpardonable sin,” Jesus came into my heart with such calmness. He didn’t yell, He didn’t shame me, He didn’t scold me or embarrass me. He just acknowledged where I was at, listened to my heart, and in many ways, brought me into a teaching moment with Him right there.
I realized—duh!—that Jesus was beside me the whole time. This wasn’t a surprise to Him. But even more, He also put all of this into perspective. It wasn’t so much about the pictures I ventured into. My relationship with Him was far more important to Him than the clicking of my mouse while I looked to satisfy my own curiosity.
God became man, right inside my own heart, and dwelt with me! He showed me a personal side of our relationship that was one of the most significant experiences with Him I have ever had! He revealed to me just how close He is and how much He loves me.
I found a new revelation of the life-transforming power of grace. I learned something about humankind that had never crossed my mind before. All of the challenges, confrontations, “preaching the truth” I had done in the past didn’t hold a candle to meeting with Jesus and finding His love and incredible ability to show me the truth that there is no condemnation from His heart to mine, if I am in Him.
Link to the article about grace: http://skippingtothepiccolo.com/2012/04/29/stories-of-reconciliation-i-found-grace/
Reading that article, made me think of my son, when he became a teenager, and the choices he made. We caught him with books and photos, which we confiscated. We did not be mean or condescending, as we knew it was natural for a young man to look at these things. (Who knows what all I would have done, should there been internet when I was a teenager.)
And as Jesus loves us, we loved our son, without condemnation. We answered his questions. When he got older, and we again found materials, we again confiscated them, and we again, continued to love him. Jesus will continue to love us, no matter how many times we do things he doesn’t like. No matter how we sin, we are still his children, and he died for us.
Yes, it’s personal. John is sharing his insight into a cultural phenomenon. Elsewhere in his writing he has gone to some lengths to explain how this phenomenon is consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Since you characterize this piece as representing delusional thought and belief, I was wondering what *specific* beliefs/thoughts you think are delusional. (Really, I’m pretty sure you’re going to say that “real Christians can’t be gay”, or some such, but I thought you might at least put some effort into *explaining* why you *believe/think* that).
At least you admit that you are taking your beliefs from culture not God’s word. I have read his writings on the subject. The fallacies are simply piled on top of each other.
Re-read what vj said. NOT that their beliefs are taken from culture but that John has previously explained how his beliefs are consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
He asked you a question, Andy. Why do you believe what you believe? We’re all waiting.
My belief is based on the bible and life experience.
Okay, so what exactly in the Bible makes you say that? Because, and this may shock you, I take my beliefs from the Bible as well. I’ve studied using the NIV, ESV, NRSV, along with my Greek and Hebrew Lexicons for over 6 years.
I guess what I’m saying is get a little specific. Tell me how come you think the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. If asked I can give a detailed account of the various verses (AKA clobber passages) and why I think they don’t actually speak about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. I hazard to guess you don’t even know what verses are used to condemn me.
Wait your beliefs are based on the Bible (big B btw) and “life experience”? Would you please explain what “life experience” taught you that being gay or anything else for that matter is wrong?
God’s word has to be interpreted so that it is internally consistent. God is rational. Teachings against homosexuality are rational in the contexts they are presented in Scripture, when we understand scripture for what it is – man’s evolving understanding of the incomprehensible. However, contexts change, and our understanding of God grows, (hopefully), though remains forever imperfect.
The contention that consensual physical affection between married (sacramentally if not legally) people is inconsistent with any notion of God, sacramental theology, sexual theology, and human theology.
Agreed. And since God has told us, and Jesus affirmed, the marriage bond is between God, man and woman, homosexual unions are inconsistent with any notion of God, sacramental theology, sexual theology and human theology.
No, he didn’t. He went to a wedding, and he said nice things about straight married couples.
He also said a loving Father feeds his child bread when that child is hungry. That is not a condemnation of foods other than bread.
There is real scriptural support for the concept of straight marriage. It does not follow that gay marriage is condemned, especially when “in Christ there is neither male nor female” – so anything that is good in Jesus’s eyes between a man and a woman would by definition apply to two men or two women as well.
What a perfect example of extremely flawed reasoning, not to mention flawed theology. Your position is built on shifting sands.
You’re not God. You therefore are incapable of seeing anything and anyone for what s/he is, including yourself. So quit judging others.
What a perfect example of a completely worthless comment.
Not only is Lymis absolutely correct…but you made no effort to attempt to even present anything to challenge the statement.
Andy, if you really believe the reasoning is flawed (which it is not, btw), from a logical/philosophical/theological standpoint, please explain. Do not say it is wrong. Tell us WHY it is wrong. Specifically.
First, explain how this logic is flawed – which tenet of logic does it violate? How is YOUR logic valid instead (as in, which laws of logic does it honor that Gary’s does not).
Second, explain how this is flawed theology. State the verses you believe show this to wrong, and then tell us how and why they show it. Tell us why not based on a 2012 English translation of the Bible, but tell us how you KNOW the passages, in their original languages and forms, were discussing homosexual relationships rather than promiscuous, stress-relieving or alcohol-induced sexual activity between straight guys. Especially since the concept of “sexual orientation” didn’t exist at the time, so the presumption was, of course, that all human beings were straight. What we now call gay sex existed, yes. But they did not differentiate between gay and straight. They presumed that “gay sex” was happening between straight dudes. Puts a whole different spin on things. But please, explain how you are absolutely right and I am clueless.
I guess I view this issue much like Paul views eating food that was sacrificed to idols. Paul didn’t care one bit whether or not food was sacrificed to idols. (1st Corinthians chapt 8 and 10) But he was sensitive to those that believed that it was sinful. Evidently, this was a common debate in the early church. Some thought it was a sin, others didn’t.
Paul clearly fell into the camp of believing that it was NOT a sin. But, he was gracious and understanding towards those who felt otherwise. He “agreed to disagree” about it. He even agreed to abstain from it while in the presence of those who felt it was sinful.
Why can’t (both sides) in the church “agree to disagree” about this issue today? Obviously Paul condemned any hatred, divisions, or quarrels that arose from this disagreement. But he didn’t condemn the disagreement itself. I believe that we should try to do likewise in the church today. Let’s love each other. Let’s worship God together. Let’s be respectful of each other’s views. But let us not try to convince others to give up their convictions.
By the way- I am *well* aware that the evangelical church today is doing a very poor job at the harmony I am proposing. But I am also becoming aware (from this website) that the more “liberal” Christian community is perhaps equally doing a poor job at promoting harmony and understanding about this issue.
When a child is in danger and CPS is called, the first priority is getting children away from the abuser and into a safe place. Harmony and understanding comes later – the first priority is protecting those who are vulnerable. That is how urgent this issue is – those who’ve engaged in this have a sense of urgency that is less about making sure you feel good about yourself and more about the emotional, physical and spiritual wellbeing of the GLBT community (particularly the children). That you and others who believe like you do (and teach your kids the same) don’t see yourselves as harming this community is nothing that anyone can do if you refuse to acknowledge it. The only thing left is intervention.
Maybe, as finding a voice that is perfect in any situation is rather difficult, especially as the dissenters can be anything but harmonious and understanding themselves.
Most who think like I do are peaceable people, yet know that we need to at least say something to counter the hatred, attempts at dictating hurtful dogma, and silencing real discourse that is aimed towards those who are trying to speak or don’t have the means to speak for themselves.
We ain’t gonna always get it right, and sometimes, just calling a kettle a kettle serves the purpose of helping people to remember that it is a kettle. That can be “fun” when people insist that “NO! Its a pail! How dare you call it a kettle!”
Agree to disagree about whether or not it’s right to judge one’s brother unjustly? I don’t think so. That’s sin, buddy, and a sin the Bible isn’t ambiguous about at all.
I need to walk away from this one before I lose my temper. You honestly don’t see a difference between hurting innocent people and a trivial disagreement over scruples? Look, in my church, the Episcopalian, there are people who cross themselves and bow towards the cross when entering the church as a sign of respect, and there are those who feel that crossing oneself is a form of idolatry. That’s a disagreement of the variety you’re referencing. Although there may be uncharitable thoughts, unspoken, more often than there ought to be, we respect each other’s beliefs, and we get along, because it’s truly not important how others choose to glorify God.
You honestly don’t see the difference between this and saying that someone ought to live and die loveless and alone?
Please read 1st Corinthians chapters 8 and 10. Then let me know if you think that there are any parallels to our present situation. Please don’t judge me until you’ve read it. As fellow believers in Christ (I assume?) we owe it to each other to at least investigate whether we can get along without compromising what each of us seems to be equally convinced is true.
Not being judgmental is NOT the same as abolishing any belief in right and wrong. I’m not trying to convince you that homosexuality is a sin. I’m trying to convince you that it is Ok for me to be a Christian and believe that it is – provided it is not accompanied by the multitude of other sins that are often associated with this belief (hatred, slander, etc).
See above. You are saying that you believe God wants 10% of the population to live and die loveless and alone. I don’t think that’s an okay belief for you to hold. These aren’t theoretical points of dogma you’re arguing – these are real human beings who are really being hurt.
Re: 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Again see above, but having read them just now I see another and larger problem, which is that the situation isn’t parallel at all. Paul makes the argument that eating meat offered to idols is clearly wrong, but there are those who know that an idol isn’t a thing and can eat that meat without in any way participating in the ritual of eating meat sacrificed to an idol. He’s not saying that it’s OKAY to participate in pagan rites of worship, and some people disagree about whether or not it’s wrong. It is wrong to worship idols, period – but some people are capable of eating food sacrificed to an idol without worshiping the idol.
What makes this different from the situation about homosexuality is that being gay isn’t wrong, on any level. Period. No need to have scruples about it. No need to abstain for the sake of one’s weaker brothers, because there’s no way to harm them by being gay.
All sin is harmful and an affront to God. Not to mention the social and psychological damage it causes.
Sin is falling short of the glory of God. Specific acts aren’t sins, attitudes behind the acts are. Jesus said the devil could quote scripture for his own purposes; are you therefore saying that quoting scripture is a sin?
Scripture quoting isn’t a just a sin. It’s a heinous sin! Down! Down with scripture quoters I say!
You keep saying ‘agree to disagree’ and with all due respect sir, PRACTICE what you PREACH!
I’m trying to! But people on this website are telling me again and again that my beliefs are hateful and even sinful. I’m not telling you to change your beliefs about homosexuality. I’m asking for you to respect my beliefs. But don’t tolerate any bigotry, hatred, or slander from me. (I hope you’ll notice that I have tried my best to refrain from those sins during this debate!)
I’m asking you (again and again) if there is any hope for a unified church body without compromising our respective beliefs. Again and again, the answer you (and others) are giving me is “NO”. There’s no room for respectful disagreement on this issue.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I think there is a 3rd path here.
Actually, having read some of the comments, i’d have to disagree. These replies seem (to me at least) to be very respectful.
Dude. It is not peoples’ “opinions” that your beliefs are harmful!! There is *proof* that it is harmful!
In all seriousness, is there a similar hope for a unified church body that includes the Ku Klux Klan? Can you all just agree to disagree over whether black people are human beings that should be allowed free access in society?
Is there room for respectful disagreement on the issue?
I was thinking exactly the same thing…
Brilliant.
I can see your point in wanting harmony and unity within the Church (body of believers, not individual churches.) That, I believe, is a noble pursuit. But comparing this issue to eating sacrificed food is a poor, illogical choice. They are in no way equal. Choosing to eat sacrificed food does not mean you’re condemning those who don’t. Likewise, choosing to not eat that food isn’t telling those who do eat the food that they are sinners.
If we were to truly apply this section of Scripture to the issue of homosexuality, those who believe it to be a sin would merely not engage in same-sex relationships. You and I both know that’s not what happens. They tell LGBT people that they’re not in “right relationship with God,” that they’re going to hell, that they’re not allowed to participate in the church, etc.
So let’s love each other, let’s worship God together. I do that *only* because I’ve found a community of faith that accepts the fullness of who I am, including my sexual orientation. I was NOT allowed to worship and was not respected at a previous church. They are the ones that caused disharmony, not me being gay.
Think about just what “agree to disagree” would look like.
I think it’s reasonable to say that Christians and Jews can agree to disagree that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God.
But that is in large part because Christians are, for the most part, no longer claiming that their view should be the basis of civil law, including the often severe discrimination and the justification for bullying, child abuse, gay bashing, anti-trans violence, and a systematic exclusion from equal civil rights and secular participation in society that the “disagreement” over homosexuality currently involves.
Show me the Christian people who disapprove of homosexuality and are still working vocally and tirelessly for civil justice and equal treatment of LGBT people, chastising other Christians for their hateful words and actions, and advocating total civil equality, and I’ll talk to them about agreeing to disagree, while sincerely thanking them for their efforts. But somehow, there’s a shortage of them. The best we can get from all but a tiny, nearly invisible minority of anti-gay Christians is silence, and often, active participation and vocal support of civil prohibitions of gay equality. (This is, of course, completely distinct from the efforts of pro-gay Christians.)
“Let’s worship God together” is rich, when one of the most common results of the disapproval of homosexuality is banning LGBT people from the communities who disapprove. What you are saying, in practice, is “you go over there and do whatever the heck it is that you people do, and leave us good Christians to worship in peace.”
Please don’t pretend that is is a purely theological discussion with no real-world consequences, or that gay people and straight people have equal agency in all this, and that anti-gay views don’t translate into anti-gay laws and actions.
Because as things stand, “let’s agree to disagree and just love each other” is, in real world consequences, far, far less a call to Christian mutual love and tolerance than it is a call for “fags, dykes and trannies to shut up and know your place.”
I know you wouldn’t use that language, but the underlying idea is there in all it’s hurtful clarity. And if you think the defining criteria for moral judgements is the vocabulary used, you need to rethink more than a few things.
And of course, the biggest flaw with your argument is that the way Paul came down on that debate was “if it works for you, then there is nothing wrong with it, but if it doesn’t work for you, you should avoid it.”
It was most definitely not, “if it works for you, at least agree with the others that it’s still a sin and they are right to condemn you, and if it doesn’t work for you, condemn the ones who do it and work to pass laws that apply even to the people for whom it isn’t a religious prohibition in the first place.”
Your post has a warm and fuzzy tone, but it doesn’t work the way you think it does.
Once the majority view among Christians is “I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t have a problem with you doing it if it works for you, and if you find that it doesn’t, feel free to come talk to me for advice, otherwise I’ll keep quiet over here and leave you alone” then we can start talking about “agreeing to disagree.”
Bravo! Can you hear me clapping?
That’s an unbiblical view. One unbiblical view follows another here it seems. Live and let live is not biblical and not what we are called to do as Chrustians.
I guess if you disagree so much with everything, everyone has said, you are welcome to troll a page where you actually have common interest.
You’re free to leave the blog at any time. Or stay here, spit in the wind, and see where it gets you.
You seem to think that “unbiblical” is some sort of meaningful accusation.
Even the Bible makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was sent to us to continue God’s revelations about things that we as a people were not ready to know during Jesus’s life.
That doesn’t mean that each and every subsequent interpretation or new idea is automatically valid or godly, but it’s certainly about as clear as things can be that the Bible is not going to be the final word on things. So “unbiblical” can only at best be a morally neutral term, not a trump card.
Pardon the snark, but you are aware that Jesus rose and is still around, aren’t you? Is He on some sort of enforced vacation, or is He still allowed to influence His Church and individual believers if He wants to?
Given that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is “like unto” the Greatest Commandment, seems to me that anything that increases Christian love among Christians and their neighbors can’t be just dismissed out of hand.
See also, sheep and goats, and what following Scripture at the expense of caring for the oppressed and in pain can get you.
Lymis, you are remarkable. Amazing. Patient. Eloquent. I am honored to be posting on the same blog site. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your beautiful written thoughts.
Well, right back atcha and to more than a few other posters. And thank you.
“Live and let live is not biblical.”
=koff-koff= “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” =koff-koff=
Yes and I would want others to tell me the truth and to tell me if I am sinning not lie to me.
Andy, you are sinning. Everything you are saying here is loaded with sin. The sin of judgment, the sin of taking God’s name in vain – speaking for Him and assuming you KNOW how God feels about gay people. There. I feel so much better for having pointed out your flaws. I hope you feel relieved to know that this piousness you feel so very good about in your personality is actually a grievous sin against the very nature of God. You are an abomination for so cruelly hurting so many of His creations, and are, sir, doomed for all eternity. Have a nice day!
Yeah sure whatever you say. You demonstrate yet again an ignorance of the meaning of scripture. We are called to call out false teachers and false teachings. This place is loaded with it. What’s tragic is that you don’t even realize it or don’t want to.
Sounds like some people are calling YOU out as a false teacher w/false teachings. Whatcha gonna do ’bout dat? You hold your Bible in one hand & say, “It means THIS!” they hold their Bibles in their other hand & say “No, it means THAT!” so you are both at stalemate.
The thing to do is to jettison everything except the central core teachings, which Rabbi Hillel came up with 100 years before Christ (although Christ quoted him in the NT): “Love God, love your neighbor. All else is commentary.”
Andy the way to call out false teachers is to confront them with truth. You state that we are ignorant of the meaning of scripture…very well. Show us your refutation to our understanding of scripture. Lay some exegesis on us demonstrating you have studied the issue and have something of substance to bring to the conversation.
All you have done thus far is stand on the sidelines of the debate screaming accusations and insults at those engaged in honest dialogue about one of the most important issues of our time.
Yeah, Gary, I asked for that, too. Specifics regarding why our understanding of incorrect translations, etc. is wrong. Specific reasons that your logic he called flawed is, in fact, flawed. I got nothin’ in response. I’m not really surprised.
You are sinning if you treat people poorly or differently or think they are less than if they are gay. By not supporting Justice and Equality for gay people society discriminates against them. This is a sin.
What seems to be a common theme with you, Andy, is anytime someone disagrees with you *they’re* the ones with unbiblical views or faulty theology or faulty logic. So basically anything that goes against what you think is true is outright false. You’re the only one that’s right. Honestly, it gets old. The people on here commenting (DR, Lymis, etc) are extremely intelligent, Christ-like people who have used their God-given intellect and reason to come to conclusions about the Bible. I don’t see any evidence that you’ve done the same. You spout what you’ve heard or what you were raised to believe. Either bring something new to the table…some original thought…or go back under your bridge.
Does “unbiblical” mean “a view you don’t like”? Because here are a couple examples of very “live and let live” Bible verses.
1 Thessalonians 4:11
Matthew 7:1-5
Romans 14:4
1 Corinthians 10:29-31
If you want to actually have a discussion, explain why you think something is unbiblical. Otherwise, all you’re doing is running around yelling “You’re wrong! You’re wrong you’re wrong you’re wrong!” I’m sure that’s fun, but I’m not seeing how it’s useful to anyone, you included.
Awesome!
I’m familiar with the passage and idea behind it. Paul does likewise elsewhere. Posed as the question “is this a Romans 14 issue” as a shorthand. I can say definitely that, for neither say of this issue, does that approach apply.
The only applies in instances where no sin is being committeed. So, for those who think homosexuality is a sin, they would not acept this approach, and likewise for those who see the terrible harm that comes solely from the view that homosexuality is a sin. The issue is of such gravity, one way or another, that we have to get it right. Whoever is correct, “agreeing to disagree” would be a compromise too far.
Here’s where I see you going with this: Just like one wouldn’t eat meat sacrificed to idol in front of those thinking it sinful, gay Christians everywhere would hide their orientation and their relationships and families in any setting where anyone believed homosexuality to be sinful. As if not eating that particular peice of meat instead of the other one was the same as denying myself, my wife and my future children to my dearest community. No one is harmed by abstaining from eating meat sacrificed to idols, but grave harm is done my hiding one’s sexual orientation.
That’s the parallel. But maybe it isn’t what you meant. Maybe you just meant that I don’t have to insist that everyone agree with me. Fair enough. I’m not. I’m insisting that my orientation not be a barrier to my full civil rights and full membership in the church. When someone is willing to have a married lesbian pastor in their own church, and doesn’t in any way negatively affect others struggling with their sexual identity, they can have whatever misguided personal misgivings about themselves partaking in same-sex acts as they want. I won’t force them.
To be fair, I haven’t really thought through the details of what such a church body would “look like” or “feel like”. But I’m just becoming convinced that there has to be some sort of middle ground where we both can affirm each other as Christians without being hateful towards each other and without compromising our own beliefs.
I have Christian friends and family who think drinking, dancing, and gambling are sinful. I don’t agree with them. I don’t hide my drinking from them. But I don’t invite them to a bar to go drinking with me or to a club to go dancing. We still respect each other’s beliefs.
That’s because your friends and your family aren’t putting you in harm’s way or telling you that you’re going to hell because of your “beliefs”.
Secondly, these are behaviors you’ve listed. You want to keep moving the focus to “gay behaviors” – meaning sex – because it’s easier to justify your point of view. But it doesn’t apply consistently. Your marriage is not defined by you and your wife having sex. That doesn’t define the love you have for her (at least I hope not).
You simply don’t get the last word here on what this is all about and I think yore having a difficult time with that.
Exactly Nathan!
Lisa, it’s very simple. here’s the difference.
You and others like Nathan really do see this as some kind of theological discussion that you can have and just walk away from peacefully if there is a conflict. Free speech is what we talk about, making sure everyone is listened to and heard. Agreeing to disagree because in the end, it’s just all about the “idea”. The “interpretation” of the Scriptural words.
Others have finally acknowledged the fact that this is emotional abuse that is sanctioned by those of us who are Christian. It’s not theoretical. It’s not just about bouncing around concepts and ideas, speculating about what God thinks or doesn’t think. It’s very simple, our hearts have been broken by gay men and women. We have allowed them to have the last word on how our “ideas” about what God thinks about them are driving them into despair and driving them away from any experience with Jesus. We’re not in “idea” mode. We’re in “intervention” mode where peoples’ feelings and being polite are secondary.
In short, the Nathans of the world want to keep talking about this burning building and make sure he’s respected if he doesn’t see himself as lighting the match so of course he’s going to prioritize being spoken to with kindness. We’re trying to put the fire out. It’s time to decide which lane you’re going to pick.
“But I’m just becoming convinced that there has to be some sort of middle ground where we both can affirm each other as Christians without being hateful towards each other”
There is, and that comes in honoring the fact that God can and does speak to each of us as individual creations as well as in a body as Church.
The middle ground is “I don’t get it, but I am willing to trust that you know what you are talking about with regards your own life, your own experience, and your own walk with God.”
The middle ground is that if you don’t feel that homosexual activity is a part of what God wants for you, you should not be forced into participating in it. Which is convenient, because pretty much nobody advocates making it mandatory for anyone.
The middle ground is acknowledging that moral judgements have to be on a case by case, person by person basis, not on a sweeping condemnation of something that is outside your own personal experience. Feel free to judge individual gay people as moral or immoral based on their actual lives and the fruits of their actual spiritual path. If you are condemning people you haven’t actually met for actions you assume they are taking based on rules you don’t understand, don’t pretend that isn’t anything other than prejudice.
Golly, wouldn’t all this be so much simpler if Jesus had just given us the example of spending time with people that were assumed to be sinners, or worked his miracles without checking first to make sure that the recipients were Christians in good standards according to the rules of the Southern Baptist Convention or Papal Decrees. Gosh, maybe if he had even gone out among the people rather than spending all his time preaching to church-going folks in the comfort of approved church buildings.
Or heck, maybe if he’d healed a Roman or two, or said something nice about Samaritans.
Sigh. I guess we’ll never know.
OK, Lymis, I’m going to start a fan club. I’m at my part-time shopkeeper job, and as I was reading your description of “the middle ground,” I gave a resounding “YES!” and then had to look around real quickly to make sure no one was in the shop. I am going to use this definition of middle ground. Thank you again.
So murder is ok sometimes?
Lying is ok sometimes?
Child abuse is ok sometimes?
Rape is ok sometimes?
Is that your moral middle ground? If so keep it!
How DARE you compare homosexuality to those atrocities! You are unequivocally homophobic and are everything John describes in this post. God have mercy on you and your soul.
Sin is sin. I understand how you might be upset. It’s not fun hearing the truth about our own sins.
Don’t even try to pull the wool over my eyes with your passive-aggressive tone. First of all, I’m not a lesbian, so you fail there if you think you’re calling out sin on my part. You’re the one who can’t handle being called out on your sin of being a self-righteous, judgmental pharisee. Jesus was talking about people like you when he spoke of hypocrites, because you care more about holding on to your bigoted, outdated views of the law than you do about love and humility. Stop projecting your own issues onto the rest of us. Take a dose of your own medicine.
As for me, I will confess to projecting my own issues right here…
Jesus was talking about *us*. All of us. Whosoever we are who tell others our interpretation of Scriptures, we are the teachers of the law. Whosoever we are who believe the Jewish mythology (which is included in our Old Testament) of the sect which professes a resurrection on the Last Day, we are the Pharisees.
Whosoever we are, save Him who is perfect, we indeed are the hypocrites.
Even if it’s your brother who has the plank in his eye, it is only by your judgment that you see this as more significant than the speck, if that is all it is, in your own. Where indeed is the line between a speck and a splinter, a splinter and a stick, a stick and a plank? What ruler can measure them, but the Ruler of all? He holds the standard of weights and measures for such things as justice, truth, and love.
So let us not judge. For it is possible that if I only knew the magnitude of my own transgression, I would be far less hasty in assessing that which I see in my neighbor as something we should even call a speck at all!
Are you honestly suggesting that God sees no difference between lying and child abuse? That’s just sick.
Wait…so these things are only wrong because your particular interpretation of the Bible (most of the time) says they are?? You’re saying that your adherence to a particular set of teachings found in a particular book is the ONLY THING keeping you from thinking these things are just find and dandy?
Good God. Keep your rigid belief in your particular interpretation of Scripture. Apparently you need it.
Awesome. Will steal in future.
Yes. Yes. No. No. I’m answering for me. I can easily come up with scenarios in which murder would be justified and and God would undoubtedly forgive. Same with lying. Murder in self-defense, murder in defense of another, yep, I can see that. Lying, sure. I don’t imagine you walk around telling everyone to whom you speak the flat-out truth about everything, do you? Of course not.
Regardless, none of those have a single thing to do with being gay! Those are choices, actions, behaviors. Conscious decisions take place, leading to those choices, some of which are indeed, indefensible. Raping is never, ever OK. Child abuse of any kind, never OK. Victimizing innocents, using power to victimize – the worst of the worst. Again, has NOTHING to do with being gay.
Gay people who commit heinous crimes are as guilty of sin as straight people, of course. Duh. Regardless of the crime.
And still, none of this has a single thing to do with being gay, OR with the finding of middle ground in the “debate” over “gay as sin.”
That you would even bring this into the conversation shows how little you understand, how desperately far you have to go before you can be forgiven of your own sins of judgment, hate and bigotry. How sad your life must be that you must hold so tightly to something that is so clearly borne of ignorance and fear. That you cannot allow yourself to THINK with the brain with which God blessed you, rather than parrot what you’ve heard and read. That you can’t quiet those fearful, angry voices in your head long enough to let yourself be filled the Holy Spirit , who is trying so hard to show you how you got it so very wrong. Shhhhh. Just . . . listen.
Dear Christians who are so obsessed with making sure everyone knows you’re one of the good guys,
Our fellow Christian pal Andy just compared two men or two women who are in love, are raising kids and totally devoted to one another to rape and murder.
Thousands of people just read that. And thousands of people just watched only a few of us stand up against him. And thousands of people just made a decision that people who follow Jesus are spineless, passive and don’t care enough about this to try to do something about it.
Until we grow a collective backbone, snap out of making sure everyone knows we’re ok way over here away from Andy and find a way of being louder than he is together- of staying longer than he does together- we will simply never earn the title of being “good” from those he hurts so terribly. We’ll get there, there’s more of us all the time. But until then, please – stop asking people to pay attention to us instead of Andy. It’s our responsibility to make sure they have a choice.
Murder is the deliberate and unlawful taking of a human life. Now admittedly that gets to be a sticky issue since there are times & cultures that value some human lives less than others (Jews in Nazi Germany, f’r instance, or African-Americans in the antebellum South). There are times when it is considered reasonable to use lethal force to defend one’s self or others against attack. So, assuming all human lives are held to be equally valid, and no reason exists to assume one is in immediate danger sufficient to warrant a lethal defense, no, murder is not okay.
Lying is absolutely okay under certain circumstances. If the aforementioned Nazis want to know where Anne Frank is, it’s perfectly okay to say she skipped town weeks ago even though you know she’s hiding in your attic.
It’s never okay to abuse anyone, regardless of age. Abuse is when one person or group enjoys such power over another person or group that the victim is virtually defenseless.
Rape is often a form of abuse or, in the cases of statutory rape, committed under conditions of fraud (which, technically, are a form of abuse insofar as the victim is defenseless due to lack of truly informed consent).
So, bottom line:
It is never ok for the stronger to take advantage of the weaker.
Whatever occurs between two people as an act of informed consent is no one else’s business unless it adversely affects a third party. (F’r instance, if Mr. & Mrs. Smith like listen to loud polka music, it’s no concern to their neighbors unless the music is so loud as to disturb their privacy.)
Lymis, I agree 100% with you. I would never (EVER) tell an adult homosexual that I thought they were living a sinful lifestyle. That’s between him and God to work out. The difficulty comes with my kids. I feel the need to guide my kids’ moral development the best I know how. As such, I feel that I have to instruct them that I view homosexual behavior as sinful. (just like I instruct them on so many other areas of life) When they are old enough to do grapple with scripture on their own, then, of course, I will let them make that judgement call. (and I would hope that I will never second-guess their decision)
And have you considered the harm you could be doing to your children if you are wrong? If they are gay, they are gay. You can’t change that. Do you want to risk them feeling despicable and unlovable, hiding themselves out of shame or fear from those they care about? And gay or not, do you want them passing those messages on to gay kids they undoubtedly know (whether they realize it or not)?
Nathan, don’t you understand that by telling your children that, *should* one of them be gay, you are killing that child inside with your words? Literally, killing their very spirits. Your saying that you believe it is sinful will not make them not gay. It will only make them believe that you will never be able to truly love them, make them believe that they must, forever, live in secret from you in order to preserve the facade of love they have. You may think you show your children unconditional love, but those words belie that message, those words tell them that there ARE conditions. “I love you, unless you happen to be gay. Then, kiddo, you’re going to have to become someone else, or lose my AND go to hell!” Yeah, that’s what you want them to take away from your “guidance.” And trust me, that’s what they’ll hear. And if it’s not themselves they have to hide from you, it might be a friend. Or worse, your teachings will turn them into bullies – unintentionally, I’m sure, but yep, that’s what ‘ll happen. Because they’ll parrot what they hear from you, and that classmate who is just coming to terms with his or her own sexual identity will hear YOUR words come out of your child’s mouth and be reminded, once again, that they are wrong, bad, less than. I speak as someone who doubted parental love her whole childhood, although for different reasons, and I promise you that you are doing more damage than you can possibly imagine.
Your kids will grow up with the same beliefs you do and hurt the same people you do as a result of you transferring this to them.
But you think it, right? Why do you think that’s any less painful?
“Lymis, I agree 100% with you. I would never (EVER) tell an adult homosexual that I thought they were living a sinful lifestyle. ”
You have already done that, repeatedly, right here, and you did it again right in this post, specifically aimed directly at me. On a blog read by a huge number of people. I am an adult homosexual, and you just told me, in a note specifically addressed to me, that you are compelled to instruct your children that homosexual behavior is sinful.
So, you’re either telling me that my love and marriage is sinful, or that you intend to lie to your children.
You might not walk up to a random gay couple and spit on them, but I’m not going to give you credit for Christian restraint because of that.
You cannot have it both ways, and you are not allowed to be on a moral high horse and pretend that you aren’t condemning me, and millions of other gay people, with just about every post you write.
I hope Nathan and others are paying attention: That’s some really sound reasoning right there. You can’t deny logic. (Well, technically, Andy apparently can, when the logical contradiction is scriptural.)
This needs to be its own post. Whoa.
Nathan, please read very carefully the comments right here from both Lymis and Diana. Carefully, thoroughly, and with as open a heart and mind as you can muster.
So many of those of you quick to dismiss homosexuality as sin truly don’t understand what you are asking. You truly believe it is all about sex. That gay people only care about sexual hook-ups, and as long as their “urges” are satisfied, they go about life just like you and me. But that isn’t it, not by a long shot. Of course there is a promiscuous percentage of the gay population – there are certainly a lot of promiscuous straight folk out here, a culture of people who don’t believe marriage is forever, those who use prostitutes, cheat on spouses, etc – but those “naughty” gay people don’t define the LGBT community any more than the “16 and pregnant” casts define all straight young American women. That’s just stupid to assume.
This has been said a gazillion times on this blog, but it apparently needs repeating again: Just like you didn’t choose to be straight, they didn’t choose their sexuality. They didn’t wake up one day and “decide” to be gay. And my apologies for speaking in such general terms here, but generalizations seem to be what fundamentalists best understand.
Nathan, Andy, you guys developed, I’m sure, crushes on girls at some point in your childhood, right? You found yourself inexplicably drawn to Susie or Debbie or whomever it was that made your little prepubescent heart swoon. You may not have ever acted upon it, never said a word about it, but you knew from that moment on that girls were special – and some girls were just, well, inexplicably extraordinary. You probably had a girlfriend or two along the way to meeting your wife, fell in various stages of puppy love til eventually you found the real thing, real grown-up love, and decided to spend your lives together. Yay for you. God smiles upon you, and you are free to share that wonderful union with everyone, whether you know them or not. You publicly claim each other, you wear rings, you sign documents, you hold hands, you are, in every way, two halves of a whole, real, recognized relationship. And if you aren’t to that point in your lives yet, then I assume you’re on that path. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
All of the joy and heartache and wonder and intensity of those special relationships in your life, from the first crush til your wife – not the sex, but the EMOTIONAL CONNECTION and COMMITMENT – that’s what you are asking LGBT people to live without. Forever. A gay man CAN’T feel any of that for a woman. A lesbian CAN’T feel that for a man. They may have strong feelings of platonic love for someone of the opposite sex, just like I love and adore my best women friends, but that is not the same as that special, intimate connection with THE ONE. And you can feel that, know it’s real and believe it will last forever without ever having sex – EVEN IF YOU’RE GAY. You don’t have to have sex to know you’re gay, any more than you had to have sex to know you were straight. You just WERE.
Think about all of this, and while you are doing so, learn more about what those Biblical passages really meant when they were written – please. Read John Shore’s book, UNFAIR. I implore you (and you, Lisa) to do that. Read all of it, every story, and especially the part at the end about what the Bible really says.
And really think about everything you are asking a whole portion of our population to live without. Really think about the fact that “agreeing to disagree” isn’t really that at all – and Lymis explains it far better than I ever could. Not when you would look away at the two men holding hands in the park, or the two women snuggled together to watch a movie. Because they’ll see the look of disgust on your face, even if it’s fleeting, even if you try to look away fast enough to hide it. And they’ll know that even if you aren’t publicly shaming them, you’ve done nothing to support them, nothing to help ensure that they are protected under the law and by the same rights as you.
I have gay and lesbian friends and neighbors and fellow parents at our schools. They are wonderful people and I would not DARE to assume I know what God has in store for them, and especially would never assume that their love is any less, on any level, than mine is. How utterly sanctimonious that would be!!
My teenaged daughters have gay and lesbian friends. They are some of the most delightful kids I know. Smart, funny, and incredibly kind – generous and compassionate and wise beyond their years. Two are in a serious relationship, most of them are just beginning to think about dating. They haven’t come close to having sex, but they have no doubt about who they are. They are gay, they are lesbian.
Fortunately, to their generation, in our chosen communities, it is no big deal. These are kids whose parents have made conscious decisions to find schools and church communities that are welcoming and affirming for their kids, and I admire those parents so much. To them, it was a natural decision – you do what is best for your children to keep them safe and healthy. I look at these kids, who are being accepted into great colleges, who have lots of friends, are confident and strong – and I SO wish that all LGBT kids had families like theirs. I compare them to the kids who feel they have to hide who they are from their families for fear of being ostracized, and all the pain and trauma that creates, and I know how blessed my girls’ friends are.
And I pray, every single day, to my God whom I *know* cherishes love above all else, that people like you will someday come to understand that these kids and every single one like them is as deserving of a life lived in the light of honesty and integrity and love as you are.
While we are forming fan clubs….
Well said.
I hope you were talking to someone other than me. I agree with John’s opinions. I have friends and family that are gay, and have stood by them every step of the way. So, by including me, I have no idea what you are talking about. My only statement was, that I like to try to change peoples opinions, and I like to share John’s material. However, I thought that abusing some one by calling then profane names, prior to trying to change their mind, was not the way to do it.
Lisa, Jesus called the religious leaders snakes. How do you justify that? He wasn’t nice to them, because they deserved to be humiliated and humbled.
Once again, what Did I do, that you all have decided to jump on me? Melody, what does that have to do with anything? I have said nothing wrong, I am not saying that the Bible thumpers are right, instead, I have said the opposite. I agreed with Nathan in as much as him stating that Christians can love everyone, as that is what Jesus says to do. So we can all get along, because that is what Jesus told us to do.
“where we both can affirm each other as Christians without being hateful towards each other and without compromising our own beliefs.
I have Christian friends and family who think drinking, dancing, and gambling are sinful. I don’t agree with them. I don’t hide my drinking from them. But I don’t invite them to a bar to go drinking with me or to a club to go dancing. We still respect each other’s beliefs.” This is what I agreed with. I believe it. If you are gonna jump me, at least have a reason to do so. Waiting for someone to come along, just so you can throw a fit with them is silly.
Okay, Lisa, calm down. I wasn’t jumping on you. I’m just saying that nice words don’t necessarily do the trick and that sometimes need to call a spade a spade. And if Jesus was harsh with the religious leaders, why shouldn’t we put people in their place as well?
Lisa, for what it’s worth, I can certainly understand what appears to be your point of view on this, and that yes, you’re a supporter and ally.
And I can understand, and in many ways absolutely agree with the desire to try to have this sort of conversation in calm and rational language, with a shared dedication to coming together in love to find a solution.
The answer to “what did I do” may or may not be fair, and sounds like it isn’t accurate, but here’s what it was: the way in which you responded felt to many of us like the kind of answer that the kind of people who value conciliation over compassion often give – an answer that many of us have heard far more often than you’d imagine.
Those people – the ones it felt like you sounded like – often, quite literally tell gay people that being upset is “just as bad” as being a bully. That, yes, we’re right to disagree with being fired from our jobs, kept from marrying, having our spouses deported, not being able to insure our children, being assaulted, having our youth kill themselves in vastly greater numbers than straight kids, but we should at least have the common courtesy to disagree nicely. After all, we’re dealing with Christians.
I won’t deny the knee-jerk aspects of it, but I also won’t apologize for the fact that in literally decades of doing this, I’ve very rarely been wrong to see that attitude as a cover for something far darker.
And, as several of us have said, it may seem natural to compare this to choosing not to drink or dance in front of someone who might be offended by it. But I suspect you can only think that because you may not have given serious thought to what “not being gay in front of someone who might be offended by it” means. Very few of us make out in front of even our most supportive friends, much less actually have sex. So you can’t be talking about that.
That leaves us with the idea that I have some sort of moral responsibility to keep someone from even knowing I am gay if it might offend them. Not to be with my husband, not to call him my husband even though we have the legal paperwork to prove it. Not to discuss issues of importance to me, like, say, my civil rights.
And, if you scrape the surface even a little, you’ll find that “agree to disagree” in practice doesn’t ever even mean “You tone down your gayness and I won’t express any disapproval and we can get through this together.” In practice, somehow it always means, “I get to say whatever I want about the matter, and you agree to shut up about it.” That’s when it doesn’t mean “Let’s compromise. I’ll call you a pervert and you agree with me.”
Sometimes the reaction splashes onto innocent, well-intentioned people. And that’s wrong when it happens. But it isn’t unreasoned, and it isn’t unjustified, and it isn’t completely out of the blue. It’s in direct response to the fact that the vast majority of the people who use that sort of tone truly only want to have us shut up and go away and stop demanding to be treated like people, so that they can go on with things in peace and not have to worry about them.
Seeming to side with someone who has said some of the things that Nathan said really did make you sound like that kind of person. It’s wonderful to know you aren’t. But it might be important for you to pay attention to how it happened.
Some of these things are like the nice little old lady who just can’t seem to understand why all the “coloreds” don’t understand how nice she is, and how she really tolerates “race mixing.” The very words she uses to make her point prove that she’s missing the point.
Nothing you’ve done rises to that level, of course, but that’s at least part of the reason for the reaction you’re getting.
Lymis,
I was only agreeing with a piece of what he had said, the piece that I had commented on. I did not go back through everything he had said, to justify my stance. I will try to do better in the future though.
I agree you you 100%. It is completely wrong, to have people treat you the way they have. It is not right to have your liberties ignored. It is not right that your spouse or partner (in states that do not recognize your marriage) can not be considered family, in a hospital, even when you are lying in bed, possibly dying. Not being able to be by your side. Not being able to get insurance for your spouse. I am one millions percent behind you!
As I was reading your post, I had the vision of the little old lady. The same vision of the lady that you did in the end. I will admit, that there are situations that I might say something wrong. But I seriously believe that it would be that I have not lived your life, so I am ignorant as to some generalizations that people make, or say to you. I would NEVER intentionally be degrading.
So please, tell me if I say something that makes you angry, and explain why you say it. I want to learn. I want to know how to be a better person.
As painful as yesterday was, I am glad that I stuck it out, and didn’t leave because I felt attacked. Thank you to you and the others, that have reached out, and taken a second look at me, to see that I am truly not trying to be negative.
You’re welcome, and part of the point of all this is to give people who do care, and who do want to learn, some of the tools and perspectives they need.
Since you got me with the metaphor about the nice old lady, let me belabor it a little and point out that somewhere, someone failed her by not sitting her down and saying “Grandma, I need you to listen carefully……”
And sometimes, we need to phrase things a dozen different ways, or tell a dozen different stories, or get out of the way and let someone else tell the same story in a way that someone might hear just a little better and make that breakthrough.
And some of it has to come from the other side, just as you did, asking a serious question in a genuine way as to how what you thought was clear could be so misunderstood.
Part of the frustration a lot of us have is that when we are nice, when we do explain, people waggle their fingers and shout “Satan! Satan!” It’s hard to make a point that way, just as it is with people who keep saying, “Wait, let’s all back up a step. You know you’re all perverts, right?”
It gets old, and we can be testy about it. Because meanwhile, people are dying.
I included you because of the agreement with Nathan about comparing being gay with “the sins” of drinking or gambling and the whole “agreeing to disagree” concept. If I misunderstood you, I apologize for putting your name in my comment.
Hi Lisa,
I think some people have a very gentle and loving spirit and conflict is just really hard for you. Which is just who you are and there are a lot of really beautiful gifts that come with that. Thanks for letting me know how you feel and I’m glad you’re here. It’s really good to have people with different perspectives and sensibilities. xoxoxo
DR,
Thank you for writing that. You are a very perceptive person. I really had not thought about it that way. But you are right. I don’t handle conflict very well.
As a child that was told that I could not have my own opinion, I could not argue, and imagination was stupid, I have not formed a way to cope with this in my life. At 47, you would think that I would by now. Basically, I have retreated from the highly ‘religious’ and bigoted people that I live around.
I am doing what I can, in my small way, to try to make things better in the world. I know that I can’t even barely scratch the surface, but, it is what I can do.
After sharing so many of John’s posts, I finally wandered in yesterday, and whoa! I was reduced to tears, and almost swore off ever coming in here again. So, again, thank you for you kind words.
I know exactly how you feel! This may be difficult to believe, but conflict is hard for me too (as much as I get into it here on the blog). It’s never the ideal. I guess I’ve grown in that area a lot after I realized that being liked and approved of (which was my motivation for avoiding conflict) was less important than pursuing what’s true. But it’s scary! It’s scary every time and it hurts my heart every time too. Though I’m a lot more comfortable with it now (obviously) and I’m realizing how people being honest with me, especially when they are mad and how I’m hurting someone and say so (even unkindly) was the mirror I needed to see myself within.
I’m glad you’re here and while I’m sure you’ll learn some stuff from those here, I’m sure we’ll learn from your gentleness and plea for kindness too.
And I don’t think *anyone* deals with conflict well, no matter what age. I think we just get through it, though it definitely bothers some more and others less.
I just wanted to back up Lisa. I too do not handle conflict well. I do not want people to feel hurt and I probably worry too much about what people think.
I like reading John’s posts. I have sent them in message form to specific friends as well as the petition but do not feel comfortable posting them on my own wall (at least not yet).
That does not mean I need to get new friends. Not everyone is ready yet. I think that most of my friends agree with me but would be more comfortable saying so in person. I have at least one relative and probably several that I would worry about.
The bottom line is, “it’s personal” – what you put out here on this blog/fb is permanent so you have to be comfortable with that. People can get pretty “fired up” or at least sound that way in the comments and those of us who are more sensitive have a tendency to take it personally. I feel like Lisa got dragged into some of the comments and really shouldn’t have been included. I hope she feels comfortable posting again sometime since this was her first time commenting on the blog. I am new at this too and I could not keep up with it all yesterday. To be honest, trying to go back and read it all now seems like too daunting a task but perhaps this weekend I will try. Peace everyone!
Wonderful. Absolutely love this comment.
Indeed. Comment quality here is off the charts today. Thanks esp. to Lymis and Mindy.
You haven’t even thought it through? Are you kidding? We have to live this EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES? We think about how we can possibly live within Christianity all the time. And you want to make a suggestion when you haven’t even thought about how or if it could even work? And seem to be getting upset wheother people insist it won’t. Well, we’ve had years to learn from experience why “agreeing to disagree” is not going to cut it here.
I have people in my life that I disagree with. Drinking, gambling – unless it’s an addiction, who cares?! That is nothing like having people in my life who believe that my relationship with MY WIFE is inherently evil.! Who don’t think I (and just me, not them) shouldn’t have a family. Who view the best parts of me, my greatest capacity to love on the same scale as their worst sins.
But I’m not sure what you want is even to agree to disagree, as I read what it is you want. The middle ground you want can be right here:
I affirm you as a Christian. I do not at all hate you. I have not been and will not be hateful to you. As part of that, I will not even for a moment want for you anything less than full equal rights and full membership in the church. I will defend your right to these things. If you are oppressed, I will come and stand by your side against injustice. You will not need to change to earn any of these things. I will accept you as God created you, and until you hurt someone I will accept that as what you believe it to be and respect the decisions you make for your own life with the humility of knowing that I will know less about what is best for you than you do.
Your turn.
This is beautiful, Christine. I hope one of them will take that turn.
Amazing.
Thanks, you guys.
Simple things is, my beliefs don’t require any compromise to love Nathan wholly and fully. And to show that love, back it up with action, show him he is loved.
Love does not compromise what I believe – it is what I believe.
“Paul clearly fell into the camp of believing that (eating food that had been previously sacrificed to idols) was NOT a sin. But, he was gracious and understanding towards those who felt otherwise. He ‘agreed to disagree’ about it. He even agreed to abstain from it while in the presence of those who felt it was sinful.”
When my friends are dieting, I try to avoid eating things in front of them that might tempt them away from their diets. This does not mean that I avoid those things altogether. I just don’t eat them in front of my friends who are trying to lose weight.
What you are asking of gay people is very different. You’re asking them to live in the closet. You’re asking them pretend to be something that they’re not. You’re asking them to hide the commitments they’ve made to the people they love. Would you like it if you couldn’t kiss your wife in public? Weren’t allowed to hold her hand or hug her? Sit next to her in church? Introduce her to someone else as your wife? Had to refrain from giving her the look from across the room–you know, the “I can’t wait to get you home alone” look? Had to treat her like a mere friend, or even pretend not to care about her at all? Would that be even slightly acceptable to you? Because this is what you’re asking/demanding of gay people in the name of “agreeing to disagree.”
Gee Nathan, you don’t ask for much, do you?
I’m pretty sure Paul would taken swift action if these people weren’t merely upset by this but had taken it upon themselves to demean and persecute those for believing differently.
I keep thinking over and over about passages in scripture that encourage us to be concerned first about our own state of mind, pathway of faith, attitude, and relationship with God. It is repeated enough throughout the New Testament, that I gather it is an important thing we should be doing…so important that maybe looking at other’s state of minds, pathways of faith, etc. are of much less importance.
Because of that I find myself continually dismayed by those of religious ilk, who demand that we conform to them, instead of simply their and we “working out our own faith…” When I see people of faith attempting to mandate their brand of morality, to the point that it causes more harm, more division, more strife, more distrust, I just gotta wonder what the hell they are thinking…But then I remember. I need to be concentrating on simply doing what God tells me to do, which was summed up in two simple sentences that discussed loving God and neighbor.
(ok, rant done, sorta feel better)
I’ve said this so many times I almost get sick of saying it: Too many people care more about being right than being compassionate.
They’re so convinced *they* are right that they don’t leave their minds open to the possibility that others may have some truth to bring to the table.
Compassion cannot exist without truth and love. It’s not truthful or loving to let someone live in sin.
“It’s not truthful or loving to let someone live in sin.”
OK my bullshit-o-meter went through the roof on that one.
You just threw out the entire foundation of not standing in judgment of others in large part because it is impossible to know what is sin in their lives. In fact…it is usually the weaker brother (by Paul’s definition) who deems it necessary to rebuke and stand in judgment of the stronger brother for “sins” which they do not have the maturity to recognize as freedoms.
A compassionate loving God does not call something “sin” when it is impossible to repent from it and have the Holy Spirit change it. The days of you masking your homophobia and need to control what sexuality is and is not are over.
People do change. Sexuality has been found to be fluid not necessarily fixed according to the latest science.
Therefore no one is calling anyone to change the unchangeable.
That’s about as wrong as things can get. In fact, it’s even more wrong right now than it was recently, because the author of the single most widely quoted study that indicated change was possible has flatly retracted his claims, apologized to everyone who was hurt by it, and asked for it to stop being quoted, because both the methodology and the conclusions were deeply flawed:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/04/24187/
The other thing that people are starting to actually deal with is the actual existence of bisexual people, as opposed to their theoretical existence as mere footnotes.
Someone who exclusively had sexual behavior with people of the same sex and then chose to change that and has exclusive sexual behavior with someone of the opposite sex isn’t someone who was “cured” or whose sexual orientation “changed.” What’s far more likely, if in fact they are telling the truth about their experience, is that the are and always have been bisexual and shifted the focus of their activities within the unchanged range of their natural attractions.
Of course, nearly every leader of nearly every ex-gay group that has ever been formed has subsequently come out, said they were lying all along, and that their heterosexuality was a sham that they desperately wanted to have be true.
Any “cure” where a significant percentage of the relatively small number of success stories later say they were lying is deeply suspect, especially when every reputable medical and psychological body say that change is not possible.
And of course, the most important refutation of your comment is that even if there is some small percentage of highly motivated people who are able to, through great personal effort, achieve a change, it doesn’t follow that change is possible for everyone.
There are so very, very, very many people who tried so hard and so long to change that blithely announcing it’s no big deal and everyone should just shut up and change is, frankly, unhinged, staggeringly insensitive, and, well, unChristian.
Andy is correct to this limited degree: It has been observed that some people who were exclusively same sex oriented in their adolescence / young adult years do broaden their range in their late middle age years, becoming bisexual to one degree or another. They do not lose interest in their own gender but gain something of an interest in the opposite gender.
And it happens with or w/o prayer, so that doesn’t seem to be a factor.
I pretty sure that happens to straight people, too, though – women get more interested in other women as they age. Seems natural either way, but the degree of shift is small. Essentially negliable in this context.
Again, though, the equation of sexual behavior with sexual orientation. People are not straight, gay, or bi because of who their sexual partners are.
There is clear and obvious proof that people’s sexual behavior is fluid, especially over a lifetime. There is no clear or obvious proof, and a great deal of proof to the contrary, that sexual orientation is not.
Tell that to Ray Boltz.
And of course if you really believe this…then you have to believe that you can be attracted to and fall completely head over heels romantically in love with a guy. Otherwise…you are just bullshitting here.
Oh, Andy, for heaven’s sake. That has been so refuted as to be almost laughable. Yes, human sexuality is fluid. Over the entire body of humanity, not within one person. I am middle-aged. If I suddenly decided to give a relationship with a woman a try, that wouldn’t mean that I suddenly “became” gay. It would mean that all along I’ve been bisexual and have just never allowed myself to consider it. Because human sexuality happens along a continuum. Some people are very straight, some very gay, some bi, some in between. That’s NORMAL.
For some reason I am thinking of 1 Corinthians 13 as I have been reading your comments…as well as wondering about the imagined scenario if Jesus would be sandles to the ground today (personally I think he’d be wearing Nikes)
Who did Jesus keep company with? Lepers. people with deadly communicable diseases and social outcasts. Shepherds, poor, often uneducated, and also social outcasts for cultural reasons, prostitutes…easy to see why they got the short end of the social ladder. Tax collectors, politicians, people of other faiths, theological scholars, people with mental disorders, people with personal political axes to grind, people Jesus knew were only hanging around to get something from him….
Sorta like the people Jesus would be hanging around with today. Which is why I can’t figure out where the idea that we only keep company with those just like us in every way has persisted in Christianity.
Jesus shared meals and homes with them, talked with the, listened, laughed and cried, had compassion and love for them…despite that every last one of them lived in sin…as do we all.
Compassion exists because of love, because one’s version of trust matters less then the person we are interacting with. God’s version of love is so far more advanced then ours could ever be, because God’s love doesn’t look at the petty crap we tend to get fixated on. All he asks of us…and yeah its just an itty bitty impossible task…is to try love with as close a capacity to God’s as we can. And trust me, compared to God’s is diddly squat, and half the time we don’t even use that much!
To be clear, this was directed specifically at Andy.
As if you aren’t a sinner yourself.
(Also directed at Andy.)
I most certainly am a sinner. I don’t try and change scripture to avoid that though like the here.
“So what if there’s no Santa Claus? We still receive all the gifts.”
You can let go of the myth, step off of the cliff. Faith will hold you up. It really will.
I love this article. But I have a problem. I read the article, but only after I got over wanting to close it because your statement, “And no wonder, what with recent polls showing that approximately fifty-two percent of Americans now think that you’re a complete dick.” seriously sent me to a bad place.
You are a grown and mature man that could make much more of an impact by leaving the “trash talk” in the can where it belongs. I work in a NYC public high school, and I know the “talk”, however, as a Christian, I try and instill the fact that speaking above trash raises you to new places.
I also do not think people are “dicks” by believing what they do. I believe they are fearful and afraid of change and openness in relationship. Calling those who are fearful and afraid “dicks” certainly won’t help their eyes open. It will shut them tighter and have them hang on to their fears that people are going to hurt them. If I’m called a dick, I am being dismissed, insulted and unlistened to… trust me, I know this personally because of the job description above!
Just saying… won’t repost this because of the statement, but it’s a shame because it is a great article.
Thanks for listening and keep up your hard work!
Joan,
I appreciate people who make an effort to cater to the ways I prefer being spoken to (particularly when I ask for it). I think that’s a reasonable thing that good people do for one another, it’s good to set boundaries, particularly when we’re talking about the things that all connect us together.
I’m not sure for many of you where this guideline became ok to apply – insist, even – on those who have been deeply wounded by Christianity. Or when the Holy Spirit made us so incredibly touchy that we actually focus on the slight bits of sarcasm and even name-calling that is lobbed over by those who are furious with us for really excellent reasons.
From where I’m standing, those who make an issue of “dick” and “pansy ass” are missing this massive opportunity to build character and to advance a few levels within your emotional maturity. To understand what is behind those words. To actually face the raw, unedited and uncensored anger from those we’re wounded so terribly in the GLBT community (or anywhere) instead of demanding that someone our community has endangered and abused via our theology is trusting enough to let us have it to our face. And those like John who are such advocates for them are doing the same. Consider that, please.
DR,
I appreciate your comments.
As Joan and I were trying to point out, a lot of people will simply stop listening to a word you say, once you add profanity. It doesn’t matter if it was the best sermon ever spoken. They hear nothing after the ‘dick’ or after you insult them.
As I said, that is their choice to *allow* a name to prevent them from pursuing the Truth. We choose what keeps us from pursuing the Truth of Christ. For Christians, it would appear that will only hear the truth from someone if it is packaged in a very specific way. That does not represent anything but our inability to handle anger and grief that we have caused.
If one can not be respectful to others, when trying to make a point, they will not listen. Using the ‘F’ word, or calling someone names, prior to trying to change someone’s opinion, is useless.
Will your banker appreciate it, and give you a loan, if you sprinkle your business plan with profanity, or while calling the bankers names?
There is no comparison inless the banker is punching my gay kid in the face as I politely ask him to consider stopping.
( while I’m asking for the loan)
Yes. This is true.
Sorry, but I don’t use pansy ass and dick as communication usually. If you say it’s because I’m emotionally immature, I disagree. But hey! I see emotionally immature every day. I do understand what is behind those words — but the raw, uncensored anger will not help us convince others of the truth. That is what I was stressing. To send this to someone who believes differently from I would put a bigger wedge between us than cause any actual conversation.
I do consider John Shore a wonderful man working for equality. And I often share what I feel will help my “fb friends” better understand the truth. But this didn’t make my sharing ONLY because calling them dicks before teaching them isn’t worthwhile.
I agree Joan. Well said.
Raw anger in many of our faced is exactly what it took to wake us up.
I find your way of speaking artificial and forced. I have to use it sometimes when I visit my mother-in-law, who feels as you do. And having observed her, I would say that calling someone “dick” in a nice, straightforward manner, is a lot more pleasant for me to be around than the pussyfooting elisions she uses to avoid it. I don’t think the only place for “trash talk” is in the gutter, and not only do I prefer George Carlin to the Church Lady, I think he’s more Christian in spirit. Which is to say, not everyone has the same tastes you have, and you are arguing a matter of taste.
Perhaps there’s a version of the Bible where “viper” has been taken out.
So I removed the meanie part.
Christians are exhausting. You are a saint.
You are right DR we are pretty exhausting.
I’m sick of us. This petulant, demanding tone where we actually think it’s fine to ask people to censor themselves so their rage at being wounded by our choices is more “palatable” is nauseating. I think we’re the most infantile, self-absorbed group of people on the planet when it comes to dealing with the ways we hurt people and are too prideful and stubborn to face.
Really? For that you won’t pass it on? Not even by starting at the “Anyhoots” and saying that it is a quote from a recent John Shore essay?
Not even when he apologizes in the very next line?
Not even as a response to the people who say in explicit (but often, the oh, so polite terms you seem to prefer) that all gay people, by definition, are a threat to marriage, a thread to civilization, have an explicit agenda to corrupt kids, are all actively working to destroy Christianity, and are by definition eternally damned to hell?
Not even because gay kids are killing themselves because they think nobody understands and support them?
Yeah, I can see how ensuring polite discourse is way more important than any of that. Gotta have some standards, after all.
Sanity.
I strongly defended the meanie stuff in the letter to the death-to-you pastor. I think anger and what comes of it are appropriate in displaying a strong defense of vulnerable groups and that feeling the force of anger can sometimes shock offenders into reflecting on what they are doing.
But here, I think I might agree it was counterproductive. Didn’t get to read the original, though, so hard to tell.
The difference seems to be two-fold:
1. Here, John is writing first. It isn’t a direct response to anything. It’s to all those who hold a particular belief – a wide a diverse group – whether they have said or done anything about it or not.
2. It really seems to be for them. The other letter, while addressed to the pastor, seemed more for the benefit of those hurt by him (as open letters often are). Here, John seems to be trying to really connect with the people he is writing to, and so it isn’t censorship but an awareness of audience and purpose.
There’s a time and a place for calling people dicks. This just might not have been it. I probably would have shared it anyways, but I can’t know what that would mean in your place. Anyways, problem solved. Just hope it doesn’t mean the meannie bits are gone for good.
The tone police is in full force today. The finger-wagging of those of you offering “good advice” is exhausting. Well intended. And exhausting.
Disagreeing is not always policing. Just suggesting. No finger-wagging. I don’t have any problems with calling people dicks, as I think I made clear.
Actually got to read the original intro. I take it all back.
Smooch!
I wish you could post this to these “Christians” – they just delete anything that is not something they post though no matter how nicely you try and say it.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=453
Heck, I’ll post it. It’ll get deleted but maybe some people will see it.
Yes, you are funny. I love reading your posts.
That being said, I have a concern. I live in the middle of the Bible belt, and I am a Christian. I have numerous ‘religious’ people, including pastors and their wives, on my FB friends list.
I am trying so hard to get people to change their way of thinking, as you are. They are so entrenched in their beliefs. I like to share your words of wisdom, to help sway the the people that read my posts.
Unfortunately, the people that I am trying to sway, will no longer read a word that I say, should I post this article to my wall. I find the sarcasm funny, but they will close their minds as soon as they read that they are a dick.
I am not sure if you are wanting to help change the world, and make it a better place (I think that you are trying to do that), but sometimes the way you say things turn off someone that you want to change. Sometimes getting a laugh, has the opposite effect on those that you are wanting to ‘listen’ to you.
Lisa, if people on your Facebook wall aren’t dedicated to pursuing the Truth of Christ enough to look past tone and style, then nothing anyone would say – even if John had chosen to write this in lovely, gentle haiku – would listen.
People who are truly pursuing Christ are able to – via the Grace and discernment provided via the Holy Spirit – to look past anger and sarcasm and see what they are, pain and grief over how unrepentant sin ravages the vulnerable. Many Christians are feeling “under attack” right now regarding this issue because those of us who do hold these beliefs are being held accountable to their impact. And those of us who do not are being held accountable for why we are staying silent or passive, not organizing ourselves (like John has here) to become a louder voice over this abuse.
Consider that. Anger is quite often, an activating agent. It stirs people in their deepest, most unconscious place. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is going to disturb the waters and He is going to use anger to do that. If you’re feeling led to post this, then do it and let your friends start being accountable to the truth in these words and facing their choice of distancing themselves from the truth (if that’s what they do) because it’s not packaged in the specific way they prefer. That’s one thought!
If you love reading my posts, but have friends who would shun you if you so much as posted what you love to read on your own wall, then it seems to me you need to make some new friends.
John, really? Find new friends. I did not expect that response at all.
I am trying to help make the world a better place, which is what I thought was your objective also. How does one make changes, when they drop the friends that they have, and only be friends with those that have the same opinions that they have.
I prefer showing people a different way of looking at things. Things that most wont even dare to speak of, for fear of going against the Bible.
Lisa, I understand your intent. I believe that you want to change the world and you’re in a tough place. But please – notice where you’re spending your energy here. You’re putting the burden on people like John to censor himself so the message can be “served up” to those who have so far, refused to listen to anything. You’re placing the burden on those who have been wounded their by our Church (and your friends) – as well as their advocates – to speak a specific way. Christians have somehow found a way to be OK with demanding that people move toward *us* – in this instance, use the language we prefer – instead of us meeting them exactly where they are and starting there. Even when it’s when they think we’re a dick.
When Jesus pursued the one lost sheep, He didn’t demand that the sheep walk halfway up the hill and run at a specific pace. He just went to where that sheep was and got him.
Maybe it’s not so much that you should get new friends, but that the friends you have should develop slightly thicker skins? The world is full of evil that rightly causes offense, but there so many worse things to get offended about than a few expletives (if ‘dick’ even rises to that level). You could always give your friends a ‘cuss-word alert’ along with the link, or, if you really don’t want to share John’s own words you could always paraphrase….
meanie part gone.
Lisa,
You make a good point. This post seems to be more for “us” and not for “them”.
I do think John’s essay (the last chapter of his new book) is written in a way that it can be shared. It is long though so sharing parts might be the way to go. And I think for things like this, it is best to talk “one on one” vs. on your wall. I had a heavy debate break out on my wall and it was extremely uncomfortable for me and I’m sure others reading it. I don’t know if you will get a message when someone comments under your comment but if you do and would like to talk about this more, please send me a fb message.
http://www.facebook.com/caring.heart.5
Best to you
I heard someone (not giving a name as this is a paraphrase) report asking a colleague why he and his parish had such difficulty with accepting homosexuality, even when presented with biblical basis for such. The response he got was that people were scared that if this thing that they had been taught forever was false, what else might turn out also to be false.
That’s such an honest response. Good for that person. That’s someone finally getting to the truth of all of this.
Yes. Important insight. How fear holds us back. Thanks for sharing this.
Love you John! So much : ) you’re the best friend I have that I’ve never met!
How do you explain the Corinthians having once committed homosexual acts, but have now been washed and cleansed by Christ?
They were not in the kinds of same-sex relationships that we find in a modern context, where persons of equal socio-legal status *choose* to commit themselves to one another. They engaged in idolatrous temple prostitution and/or licentious orgies (there’s a *reason* the Roman Empire is pretty synonymous with orgies). They used and abused slaves and captured enemies, who had no legal standing to refuse. When they turned to Christ, they would quite naturally be expected to give up whatever they had previously being doing in the context of worshipping idols.
The closest equivalent now would be the sexual abuse that occurs in prison. I think we can all agree that there is world of difference, morally speaking, between what happens in prison, and two adults of the same gender wanting to spend their lives together?
Hey Chris, I see from your blog you support Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Is this correct?
Correct.
Just wanted to be sure.
Hate to say it but I won’t be attempting to reason with you. By supporting the quackery of this man and his organization you demonstrate that you are willing to completely disregard all reason, scientific knowledge, and revelation from God Himself through His creation, in favor of your dogma. Not much hope of productive discourse with one who so willingly embraces profound ignorance.
Good call.
Nice try at attempting to bait me. Not falling for it. Should you wish to discuss your off-topic baiting somewhere else, feel free to do so. Thanks.
LOL!
No baiting…merely stating the obvious…LOL
You asked me a question and and I answered simply. This is not the thread to debate such a topic. Do you know how much I may or may not agree with him? No, you don’t. You commit an error by assuming that just because I write a post or two about him from a recent conference that I wholly support him or not. You’ve made your mind up about me without even exploring what I may or may not believe. The whole guilty by association thing, I guess. Why don’t you go ahead and associate me with Westboro while you’re at it? Since I obviously believe that homosexuality is a sin, I may as well be in the same bed as them, right?
Nope…that pig won’t fly…lol.
You have already stated you believe in a literal 6 day creation…which likely means you also believe it happened somewhere around 6000 years ago.
Nuff said.
I think there was a point in there where I believed in a six day creation AND that homosexual sex was a gift from God…
Yup, definitely some overlap in there. And it even made sense in the internally coherent fasion.
Maybe not a lost cause after all…?
No, it’s not enough said. You’ve judged me to be someone based on one association. Therefore because you assume I may be an unreasonable person and refuse to have any discussion at all. Really? Who’s being unreasonable here? Basically, you have sought to paint me into a category in order to shame me so that nobody would want to have any discussion with me.
Spin it how you want.
“Why don’t you go ahead and associate me with Westboro while you’re at it?” Okay, we will!
Agreed. If the shoe fits…
Chris, how stupid do you think we are? I’ve read your nonsense before this, enough times to know that Gary is spot on, totally nailing it in his assumptions of you based on that one word answer. You are an arrogant pip who, if you support even the existence of the Creation “Museum,” thumbs his nose at proven science. Someone like that hardly qualifies as one worth arguing, since, in fact, you refuse to listen, consider or accept anything that flies in the face of your very narrow worldview, regardless of how often it is proven wrong.
You fling insults, twist words, and insist that you are right and everyone else here is an obvious moron, touting yourself as somehow superior in YOUR relationship with the Almighty than any of us. People like you, people who spew your vile, hateful bigotry, regardless of how you pretty it up, make my skin crawl. I’ve tried civilly “discussing” with you before – no more. I will call a spade and spade and move on. You, sir, are that spade.
Give me one example where I’ve insulted someone, twisted someone’s words, touted myself as superior to everyone else. Just one. You accuse and slander me of a lot! Hateful bigotry? Narrow worldview? Really? When I take God’s Word at what it is? Really?
Stop the accusations and address the issues. Gary asked me a question to bait me just to attempt to discredit anything I may have to say right off the bat. Proven science? Does science outweigh God?
You certainly seem to believe that your ability to reason and understand outweighs God. And yet if you support even 1 theory, just 1 of the creation museum’s pitifully ignorant and false (resoundingly proven time and again as false) shams which they attempt to pass off as scientific theory, then you reveal yourself as one who willfully embraces profound ignorance, just as I stated before.
Since God created the laws of physics and everything in the universe…science is a great way to understand God. It is in fact one of His methods of revelation to us.
Science is a great way to understand God, when it doesn’t disagree with the Bible.
You must be right. After all…all of our great men of faith believed the bible when it contradicted science.
Let’s see…the great Martin Luther agreed with you. He said this…
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
And of course great bible scholar agreed with you as well…these are the words of John Calvin…
“”Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.’”
These men of God also thought their understanding of scripture was absolutely correct and used it to further profound ignorance and to shame and discredit those who merely studied God’s creation and reported what they found. Whatever you think about these men’s contributions to history and the church, one thing is certain. They were profoundly ignorant in their understanding of scripture as it pertained to God’s created order…as are you.
Now to tie this all back to the purpose of this particular blog entry.
It is this very same allegiance to scriptural dogma, which is just as certainly based on a false understanding of scripture as Ken Ham’s, that leads to the gospel of Jesus Christ being used for a weapon of hate and bigotry against homosexuals.
Talk about baiting. No, Chris, I’m not going to wade back through your responses to other posts here OR on FB to find examples of what I’m saying. They are there, you know they are, and regular readers of John’s blog know they are.
And the question is not “Does science outweigh God?” because science IS God, it is us, His creations, using the intellect and curiosity with which He blessed us to help us better understand HOW our world began, how He has done all He has done. They are never contradictory.
The question is, “Does science outweigh the Bible?” And the answer is YES, it does. Because over the centuries since it was written, we have learned with that intellect. We have come to understand far more than humans did then – by USING OUR GIFTS FROM GOD, our brains, our growing understanding. So when we figure out that something in the Bible is myth rather than fact, we don’t throw the entire Bible away, we simply appreciate it differently. We understand now that it explained the world in terms people understood THEN. And when everything that has been proven wrong or no longer applies in this day and age is stripped away, the central message of God’s LOVE, of loving your neighbor – those hold true for always.
You don’t take God’s word as it is. You take it as you want it to be so you can justify your privilege and self-righteousness. You are unbelievably delusional if you think we should trust a myth over what’s been proven.
(rolls eyes)
First of all, if you read it, they were heterosexuals who sinned, and as a result of that sin, God gave them over to unnatural passions, with they acted out in idolatrous disregard of God’s plan for them.
That doesn’t describe the reality of people who have a natural homosexual or bisexual orientation. For gay people, heterosexual activities would be the unnatural passions and actions.
You’re referring to Romans 1 and not 1 Corinthians 6.
1 Corinthians 6 is referring to the fact that they were liars, murderers, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, etc and that those engaged in such as a way of life would not inherit the kingdom of God.
He goes on to explain how the grace of God had saved them from that life of sin.
If one discounts one part of that list such as the homosexual part by trying to excuse it as one cultural incident, then one has to discount all of it. So, it’s okay to murder? Okay to lie? Okay to cheat on your spouse? Okay to have pre-marital sex? All of that is okay? What about pedophilia? Bigamy? Where does one draw the line?
God instituted marriage in Genesis when he says that a man will leave father and mother to be united with a wife (a woman). Be fruitful and multiply, God says. Homosexuals can’t follow God’s commands in that regard, can they?
Who says that homosexuality is natural? Science? Hah! Culture? Hah! Nothing has proven that homosexuality is a natural part of being human other than the sin that is within each one of us. Sin causes us to act against God’s will.
I’m confused, below, Nathan (who is aligned with your belief) says that sin at its core doesn’t hurt anyone. It would be great if you guys got your story straight on sin given the “Truth” of it is so objective and so clear (or so you all keep saying).
Okay, my bad. I don’t pretend to play chapter and verse. I prefer to focus on content, context and actual meaning.
No, you don’t have to pitch the whole list if you disagree with part of it, any more than you have to pitch the whole Bible if you don’t believe in a 6 day creation myth or that women should be quiet in church, the simple little dears.
What you have to do is have some sort of other standard by which to evaluate which parts of any given list apply, and in what ways.
It is not okay to murder, because the other person doesn’t consent to being murdered, and someone is actually being harmed. Pedophilia is wrong, because children cannot meaningfully consent to adult sexual activities, and are often enough harmed by it that it’s appropriate to ban it in all cases.
Cheating on one’s spouse isn’t okay because you’re breaking solemn agreements that you made with another person – and having sex with someone else with their full consent and enthusiastic support isn’t wrong at all. Bigamy is illegal, but it isn’t immoral, again, if everyone involved happily consents.
Premarital sex is morally neutral. Sometimes and in some expressions of it, it’s dehumanizing. At other times and in other expressions of it, it’s a positive good.
Lying is general bad, but there are times when it is morally acceptable or even morally required. Letting the Nazis know who has Jews in the attic, even when they ask nicely, would definitely count as A Bad Thing.
Same sex sexual behavior occurs in nature in all species of primates, most species of birds, and the whole range of canine and feline species. That sort of counts as “natural” by any rational definition.
Your “sin causes us to act against God’s will, which is for us to be heterosexual, because homosexuality sin” is circular, if not actually spiral, logic.
No, you’re viewing scripture as interpreted by culture today, not in how or when it was written. Context is king, as they say, and you’re attempting, as John has to place the context in today’s society. Homosexuality is okay in today’s society, so, it must be okay in the Bible.
You suggest that culture dictates what is moral and isn’t moral. Really? Is that in the Bible somewhere? You suggest that the 6 day creation is a myth.
In other words, you don’t believe even the first words of the Bible. If you don’t believe part of the Bible, how can you believe any of it?
That’s where apostasy starts…remove parts you don’t agree with or assume or myth or culture says can’t be right, and the next thing you know, you’re believing a lie.
Well actually yeah…much of the “morality” expressed by Paul was very culturally specific and no longer applies today. You know…that whole intent of the law thing rather than the letter of the law that Jesus spoke of.
And don’t patronize with the nonsense about not believing the first words of the bible. It only requires a little wisdom to recognize the difference between metaphor and science.
Recognizing that it is a myth does not preclude acknowledging that it is true, Chris.
It is a story of the Creation; creation stories are a category of mythology; period.
There are many mythologies among the many peoples of the earth, many of which appear to contradict each other. It is possible, of course, that none of them is true; it is possible that exactly one of them is true; and it is possible that fundamental elements of truth may be found in more than one (for example, if Genesis is true, then the Creation story happens to be true in both Christian mythology and Jewish mythology).
And yes, the big bang and the evolution of species constitute part of modern scientific mythology.
Well I don’t know what to think now. Here you make perfect sense. On the other thread you’re a totally different person who thinks being gay is wrong because the Bible says so and should never be questioned!
Actually, I think if you read what John has written on the subject carefully, you will see that he puts it all in the context of when it was written and that is exactly why we can’t take it “literally” as it appears in our Bibles today.
ahhhhh. thank you, AMA.
John certainly gave it a good old college try but it falls way short. Even the best efforts will not change the meaning to what you would like it to be.
Same goes for you, Andy.
I am not the one trying to change the meaning. As much as I would like there to be a different meaning there is not. Practicing homosexual are sinning. No way to get around that no matter how hard you try.
Have you tried? Have you read the exegesis on those scriptures from the other point of view? Have you read John’s book? Have you talked to gay people who explain they didn’t choose who they fell in love with? Have you tried, Andy? Have you tried to walk in someone else’s shoes, to see what the mountain looks from a different angle, the way Jesus taught us to put others first before ourselves?
The original meaning is not the English translation. You just want it to be so you can deprive gays of their rights.
andy, i very much doubt that you obey all the commands and observe all the prohibitions of the bible. a convenient list of some items clearly labeled as sin in the bible was made in the humorous [but serious] ‘letter to dr laura’ a decade or so ago — easily found on the internet, e.g. at
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
and please don’t try to dodge those injunctions because they come from the hebrew scriptures rather than the NT. if it’s god’s word, it’s ALL god’s word, and you are bound by every jot and tittle. or — if you can pick and choose which injunctions to observe — so can non-heterosexuals.
in any case, NT documents implicitly condone slavery, and explicitly condone monarchy and the subjugation [and silencing and veiling] of women — so the same standards would, by such a theology, apply under both covenants [or dispensations, if you are dispensationalist].
the point might be made, as one pastor i heard made it succinctly, is that all the bible is written FOR us; not all of it is written TO us. which is perhaps another way of saying what john shore has written here.
All of the Bible is written FOR us. Not all of it is written TO us. I love that!
Christy I have. I wish I could say that the bible says homosexuality in any form is not a sin. It would make things easier. But it says it is a sin. I have read all the arguments against that truth. All the verses and all the reinterpretations. They fail miserably.
Contex those are red herrings and straw man that have been knocked down repeatedly. Maybe you all should expand your horizons a bit.
I’m curious Andy, what does your enlightened view think of those of us who are no longer practising homosexuality? I’m pretty sure I’ve graduated by now. Ask my wife…
LMAO Cindy. This is an awesome comment.
“Contex those are red herrings and straw man that have been knocked down repeatedly. Maybe you all should expand your horizons a bit.”
Huh? C’mon, Andy, really? That’s all you’ve got? Do you even know what the red herring and straw man fallacies mean? Because the exegesis of which Christy speaks has actually NOT been “knocked down repeatedly.” I’m sure fundamentalists have continued to disagree with them, insist they are wrong – but that means nothing, because they are bringing no evidence to the table. And more and more Christian leaders are beginning to understand and accept that what is defined as sin is NOT homosexuality. You are not only in the minority here, you are on the losing side of this argument. You are missing the bus, and you’ll be disappointed, because God is driving.
Cindy for the win!
Good points in that last comment of yours there, Andy!
(It might be good though, if, for the sake of others, you demonstrated how and why contextualist’s arguments strike you as insufficiently rigorous or invalid.)
I’ll grant that, taking the Bible at face value, it does seem to clearly indicate homosexual sex to be sinful.
But have you considered that that may have been revealed at stage in human history to early to have any way of distinguishing in the text what today we call straight people and gay people? Indeed, it’s probably good that Greco-Roman institutions of pederasty or involving ritual orgies, etc., fell by wayside of history as Christianity rose to prominence in the world. But these have little to nothing to do with LGBT identity, gay rights, etc.
If the scriptures do presuppose a concept of committed homosexual relationships, then they notably decline to condemn them specifically. However, if, as it seems, the New Testament does not presuppose such a concept, then it is erroneous to understand the scriptures as condemning these relationships, except perhaps for those who believe such relationships to be wrong for *them* (and such people ought to be only heterosexuals, if we consider the crime of going against one’s nature a wicked perversion).
Moreover, in general, none of the commandments given, in any interpretation that men might make of them (considering that the minds of a men cannot fully grasp the complexities of, for instance, true love), are traditionally taken to apply in an absolute sense like this. The Bible clearly indicates that we are not to kill. No if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. Yet somehow we go to war. And in war, we occupy cities, though we are not to steal. And in love, we fuck, even though sex is naughty and nasty and animalistic. But it’s not wrong: all is fair in love and war.
And if there is this possibility that same-sex love-making isn’t always sinful, then, well, like John Shore’s article here says.
You know what Andy? Just because you’re saying this kind of thing all over the blog is all I need to change my mind. I don’t need specifics. I don’t even need you to be clear. Just saying “John bad. Wrong. False Christian” has opened my eyes. Thanks, brother.
DR you are so far into deception nothing I say will make any difference to you, that’s clear. That’s why I feel sorry for you.
You don’t feel sorry for me. You are terrified of me.
The only deceived one here is you and anyone else who cares more about a legalistic reading of the Bible than what Jesus actually taught. You don’t feel sorry for anyone here, you filthy hypocrite. You just love to tout your uninformed bigotry as truth.
“No, you’re viewing scripture as interpreted by culture today, not in how or when it was written. Context is king, as they say, and you’re attempting, as John has to place the context in today’s society. ”
You appear to have missed my point exactly. You asked me about lying, cheating, murdering, and child abuse, not about Scripture.
I’m not viewing Scripture according to today’s culture. I’m viewing lying, cheating, murdering, and child abuse as moral issues in the world in which I live. Since you appear to want to discuss them in terms of Scriptural language, I’m willing to meet you there and discuss them, at least in part, on those terms.
But the morality of something does not lie in whether or not the BIble supports or condemns it, even though in a lot of cases, the Bible can help us clarify our reasoning. There are a lot of things the Bible got completely wrong. I have no obligation to support my views with specific Biblical quotes.
I don’t live in the 4th century BC, nor in the 1st century AD. I don’t have the option of making my moral choices in those times or in those cultures. I live in this time, in this culture, and (with all that omniscience and omnipotence and all) that seems to be God’s intention for me.
Of course I make my moral choices informed by the culture in which I live. Not entirely, and not exclusively, but let’s not pretend that modern Christianity is somehow distinct from modern culture, or that you get to skim off everything good and put that under “Christian” and take everything bad and put that under “Modern culture.”
And I make my moral choices as a man who has been on this planet making moral choices for a half century. I don’t need a chapter and verse citation to justify every moral choice I make.
The map is not the territory. The travel guide is not the destination. And a facility with quoting Scripture is not a relationship with the Living God.
Perfect. I love this statement because it so perfectly defines you and why your views really don’t make much of a difference in regard to truth. Thanks for sharing!
“There are a lot of things the Bible got completely wrong. I have no obligation to support my views with specific Biblical quotes”
I’m sure that Lymis is even *more* open to this Truth of Christ you’re allegedly claiming you have after a hostile comment like this.
There are so many well-intended people out there who want us to love Andy and treat him with kindness. And I love them, I love the purity of their heart and their earnestness. I love that they believe in the best for him.
What I think they miss is Andy is truly, encased in fear. He is terrified to the point that his entire mind and heart are closed to entertaining any idea that would shake the world he has constructed for himself. It’s not that he *won’t* consider something different – he can’t. It’s too terrifying for him to consider that he’s wrong because he’d lose too much (or that’s what his brain is telling him).
We can only pray for Andy and protect gay men and women from him. That’s truly all we can do. Our common goal needs to be being louder than Andy and literally where we can, limit his impact on this community. We can do that by voting the right people in, by participating on this blog and by never allowing him to have the last word. We can do it by staying here longer than he does and having the courage to face the Andys in our church, even if it means losing some friends. It’s super scary and I know one thing, I know that Jesus can change Andy if and when Andy ever finds the courage to open his heart. And we can pray for that Grace. It’s truly our only hope for people like this (and it should be).
I have no fear regarding standing up for biblical truth and calling out false teachers.
I know that’s what you believe about yourself, Andy. I know that’s what you believe you are doing. You’re in twice as much darkness because you believe what you are doing is motivated by righteousness. So you can’t see it.
But you ARE a false teacher, Andy. And that’s the painful truth you simply can’t see. You can continue to disagree with and denigrate John Shore and every one of us commenting here, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong on this topic. That literal Bible inerrancy is not ever what God intended, and that even if it was, that literal reading (by definition, even!) MUST be done in the historical and cultural context of the time in which it was written.
Homophobia has been shown to be strongest amongst those who fear those feelings within themselves. I don’t know if that is your story, and you are terrified of being your true self for fear of losing God and your church and family – if so, I pray for you to find a way to be true to yourself.
What I imagine is more likely is that you fear letting go of this interpretation of Scripture because, oh my God, if THIS is fact, if homosexuality is not, in fact, abhorrent to God, then what ELSE is not carved in stone? What other pieces of your foundation will begin to shake and crumble? And the truth is, none of them will. None of them that are based on the primary premise of a LOVING God. You will free yourself up to think for yourself -and that doesn’t mean doing anything “wrong.” It means losing the hate, losing the judgment, focusing on seeing and doing what is good in this world. I hope one day you are brave enough to find God’s love and free yourself from such fear.
That’s because, as Mindy said, you are a false teacher. You are nothing but a liar and a coward who plays the martyr when we call out your hypocritical, self-righteous behavior.
The sheer pleasure you’re clearly taking in your quick 1-2 liners is chilling. If one who truly desires those who are gay to come to Christ, you’d invest time and energy in explaining your beliefs, doing so carefully with great precision. You are revealing a lot more about yourself than I think you intend to.
Well, it’s clear you’ve decided to dismiss me for one reason or another, whatever it took.
So if this post serves for you as the perfect definition of why my views make no difference to you, I can live with that, because I think they do express my views on the subject.
Slavery is wrong, and we can’t use the Bible itself as the sole authority for making that claim, because the Bible sends very mixed messages on it, clearly and explicitly approving of it in places and clearly upholding the dignity of all people in Christ in others. We need an outside compass for that evaluation.
Eating pork or shrimp is not wrong, but we can’t use the Bible itself as the sole authority for that, either. Nor for not forcing a woman to marry her rapist, nor for not stoning non-virgins, nor for favoring monogamy over polygamy.
I’ll stand by that conviction. And if that is the basis for you dismissing my views, it’s certainly not going to make me lose sleep.
It does affect my opinion of your spiritual maturity, not only that you’d hold the view in the face of everything arrayed against it, but that you seem to take such glee in doing so. On the other hand, immaturity is usually easier to overcome than obstinacy. It’s pretty clear that you don’t know what you know, and that’s a pretty big opening for the Holy Spirit.
Yes. This.
If the word is TRANSLATED wrong, then the list isn’t being thrown out, we’re just learning homosexuality was never IN the list.
So, in all the cultures where women leave their families to be married (not men, which is extrodinarlity uncommon), they are all getting it wrong? And I can procreate, by the way… Not to mention Paul’s celibacy and his calling other people to it. Encouraging other to disobey those commands. The evil celibacy agenda.
And please, will people finally get it together to decide if gay sex is sinful because it is natural or because it is unnatural. You can’t all have it both ways.
“So, it’s okay to murder? Okay to lie? Okay to cheat on your spouse? Okay to have pre-marital sex? All of that is okay? What about pedophilia? Bigamy? Where does one draw the line?” I’ve tackled most of those items above. The stronger taking advantage of the weak b/c the weak can’t defend themselves is always wrong. Lying is wrong when it is used to take advantage of someone. It’s okay when it’s being used to preserve life or genuinely help a person.
My father died of Alzheimer’s; like most Alzheimer’s patients he suffered from “sundowning” (i.e., a condition that as night falls, the Alzheimer patient believes they have to leave the premises and “go home” even though they may actually be in their own home). To keep him from getting hostile until it was time for him to take his nightly sleeping pill, we would tell him we’d take him home “as soon as the kids come back with the car”. That would satisfy him for a few minutes, then he’d ask to leave again, and we’d lie to him again. It kept him from becoming agitated and being a threat to mom, so I have no qualms about having done it. If you think I’ve done wrong, take it up with God. If you like, I can pass along some suggestions on how to arrange a meeting.
There’s nothing in the Decalogue (a.k.a. The 10 Commandments) prohibiting premarital intimacy. Moses proscribed it, but then Moses proscribed a lot of things. If you’re wearing a cotton / polyester blend right now, then you’re a worthless sack of human excrement in Moses’ eyes.
“Who says that homosexuality is natural?” Well, it’s been observed in all mammalian species, several species of birds, and some reptiles (frankly, people don’t want to get close enough to crocodiles and rattlesnakes to find out). If animals do it, then pretty much by definition it’s natural. Unless you’re saying animals have a sin nature (i.e., an ability to tell the difference between right and wrong). That would imply a soul, and what kind of God would create souls that were incapable to repentance? If animals engaging in homosexual mating (and some of them do mate for like with partners of the same sex) and they have no souls to be endangered by sinful acts, it follows the actual act of homosexual relations is therefore not sinful in and of itself (there may be various behaviors leading up to it that are sinful, but then those behaviors would apply equally to heterosexual relations).
“Be fruitful and multiply, God says. Homosexuals can’t follow God’s commands in that regard, can they?” I dunno, Chris; I’ve met some pretty fruity homosexuals and several of them had kids…
Well said! Thank you.
Back on that whole “all for us but not all to us” bit, “be fruitful and multiply” was a direction to the only 2 people on the planet. There are now 7 billion. I think it’s been covered.
I’m gay, and I have a degree in mathematics. So, does that mean I’m both fruitful and can multiply?
I also have two wonderful stepdaughters by my (entirely gay and always new it) husband’s first marriage. Gay doesn’t mean infertile.
what a great article!
interesting, interesting. I appreciate that you challenge those Christians who are openly malicious towards gays. That’s needed. My concern is that, by highlighting “those” Christians, you’re minimizing those who don’t agree with you, yet still remain gracious, searching, conversant (if that’s a word), and intellectually honest. We may be in the majority, but there are some of us out there. Again, thanks for stirring the waters, John.
Larry, I think part of the problem is that you don’t have to be openly malicious to hurt someone. Teaching that being gay is a sin harms gay people, even if you do it without any malice in your heart. It leads, provably, to ostracism, to discrimination, and to suicides.
A gracious, searching, intellectually honest person who signs a petition to overturn same-sex marriage out of an honest desire to follow the Bible does just as much real tangible harm to LGBT people as a hateful bigot does with the same signature. That’s not to say that the bigot probably isn’t doing more harm in other areas and that the good person isn’t doing other good—just that intent doesn’t magically absolve anyone of the consequences of their actions.
It’s not just that Christianity needs to stop being hateful and openly malicious toward gay people. It’s that Christianity needs to stop *harming* gay people. Respectfully and politely continuing to harm people isn’t enough.
Kelly teaching someone that being gay is not a sin harms them much, much more.
Andy, your real name is Frank, right? You.have the same superiority complex and make the same insipid, unproven statements, with no source but the Bible. You can’t prove the Bible is the definitive source for morality, especially when you don’t understand the historical and cultural contexts in which it was written. The original Greek was NOT homosexual. Ignorance does not excuse bigotry.
Because teaching them to despair and kill themselves is working out so well.
“Kelly teaching someone that being gay is not a sin harms them much, much more.”
And that differs from “teaching someone that being black / female / mentally disabled is not a sin harms them much, much more” exactly how?
Sexual choice is not the same thing as race or physical characteristics. It foolish of you to try and suggest that.
Andy, when did you choose to be straight? Was it when you were a little or did you choose to prefer women over men in high school?
I’ve noticed that Andy has yet to answer even ONE of these questions. Obviously when he has no answers he simply ignores the question. Very transparent strategy…but I guess if that’s the best ya got and are unwilling to learn anything…ya go with what ya got.
LOL
Oh, now there is an interesting point about people who harp about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Either they enjoy taking a cheap shot at a vice to which they are not tempted, or maybe they are tempted. Gay vs. Straight are not binary opposites, but a continuum. (There are several axes of sexuality.) The majority of people are pretty straight. Some people are pretty gay. These folks have no experience of having a choice about their sexuality. I certainly don’t, so I have a hard time seeing what is so threatening about the idea that other people’s sexuality might be different. However, some people, maybe many people, are on that continuum. I am aware that some, in fact, do experience a choice about how they are going to manifest their sexuality. I can see how someone like that, if they were brought up believing that you were either straight or one of those awful sinful Other People, might be terrified by being in the middle. They might want to have all kinds of strict rules and laws, held with great certainty, to shield themselves from an uncomfortable truth. Or they may have something else that drives them toward a legalistic certainty. But this is just conjecture. The truth is between them and God.
To love is a choice and who you love is a choice, saying anything otherwise would be going against God’s nature. We have a choice and its very simple, you can either choose to live or die. If you choose to live then you will die, if choose to die then you live.
Jim, when did you choose to be straight? Was it when you were a little boy or later on in high school? What did it feel like to make a choice of preferring women over men? Was it a relief?
Indeed. And if you choose to love, you will live.
(because you will die.)
if im a gay man blind folded and a woman is performing fellatio on me and i have no other way to determine her gender besides to look at her in the face im going to enjoy it regardless is the fact that im gay going to stop me from ejaculating while being pleased by a woman if i dont kno its a woman NO ! now if i open my eyes and see its a woman i might be upset and disturbed AFTER i realize what just happen and that it wasnt a man proving homosexuality is a preference not race or gender or anything else like that your not born with it and to suggest that is sick race disabilities from birth and your GENDER!!!! is immediately determined homosexuality is developed doesn’t matter how young it start its still developed
What about pheromones? What about the fact that women probably give a different physical sensation than men do? And even if you’re right that a gay man couldn’t tell the difference if he was blind-folded (and I notice you make no mention of gay women), why are you reducing sex and romance to mere stimulation of the sex organs? Is that all that sex and romance mean to you? What makes you think everyone is like you?
This example is ridiculous, your’e simply confirming what a nerve ending is. Even children can orgasm having no idea it is about “sex” – it’s because their physical parts work. Sex is all about attraction and desire – sexual pleasure and subsequent behavior starts, continues and ends in the mind.
Anything a person has no control over is not a sin. No one has ever produced evidence that sexual orientation is a choice (what one does w/that orientation is a choice).
You used the term “being gay” in the sense of an innate condition being a moral failing. I gave examples of other innate conditions. The ball is now in your court to explain why the state of being gay is a moral failing but the state of being black / female /mentally disabled is not.
This made me laugh. And then filled me with disgust. We are not talking about “sexual choice” here. And that, dear Andy, is what this whole thing boils down to.
Are you married? Have you ever had sex? As Lymis mentioned, your spiritual immaturity is really showing here, so I’m wondering if you are actually old enough to understand what you are talking about here.
If you are obviously not funny, then why am I laughing so hard?
1 2 3 »