"My god is true, your god is false"

[martha]

.then it isn't one based upon the four gospels.

You finally get it!!

 

[Irvine511]

That doesn't mean I can't lovingly be concerned for them and try to get them out of it.

but you can't "get" someone "out" of being gay.

and the more you lovingly attempt to do so, the more harm you are inflicting and self-hate you are inducing in and upon that gay person.

the whole Exodus movement is hate dressed up with love; it makes whatever Christian feel better about their hate -- because it's really love! -- and damages the gay person.

any other perspective is self-serving bullshit.

and i think you know that.

 

[Ormus]

First things first, I detest how "Christian" is automatically defined according to conservative American Protestant theology. All this stuff about Biblical fundamentalism only constitutes the last few hundred years of 2,000 years of Christian history.

So right off the bat, I'm going to disagree with most of the self-anointed "Christians" in this thread, as my Christian theology shares little common theological ground with yours. If I were less respectful, I could define you all as heretical apostates.

Secondly, all this talk about "God's perspective" is all in the realm of argumentum ad antiquitatem, with a good dose of ad captandum, as absolutely none of you have a clue as to what God really thinks; and those who claim to can join a long line of people throughout history who have all claimed to know what God wants or thinks and all end up contradicting one another. So either everyone is wrong or God really is a fickle deity.

Modern Christianity, more or less, owes more to medieval theology on "natural law" (predominantly via "Thomism") than the Bible, as this theology is the lens through which most Christians interpret the Bible. "Natural law," in itself, can be simply summarized as this:

"Whatever is natural is moral, as all that is natural is of God."

And, frankly, I agree with this statement.

Where it gets more complicated is that "natural law" had both a philosophical and scientific aspect to it. As such, Thomism was the standard of medieval science until the arrival of Newtonian mechanics. As such, if philosophical Thomism describes the framework of the glory of "nature," scientific Thomism did the actual defining of what is "natural."

Why I even mention "scientific Thomism" is because this is the theology that has caused the most trouble. It was highly misogynist and homophobic to incredibly absurd and illogical levels. Modern science, the current definer of "natural law," has maintained that women are not spawns of Satan and that homosexuals are products of nature. Those who say otherwise--that it is not a part of nature--no matter how much you have a hissy fit or start spitting out Biblical verses, you are still unequivocally wrong, according to the scientific process.

"Whatever is natural is moral, as all that is natural is of God."

As for my last point, I want all the fundamentalist Christians out there to understand that you are neither the oldest form, nor the sole theology in Christianity, either historically or presently. As such, those who have a more liberal interpretation of Christianity are still Christians; and, in absence of total theological consensus (i.e., my example of the numerous and contradictory people in history claiming to know "what God thinks"), societal laws should defer in favor of democracy, religious pluralism, human and civil rights based on secular humanist principles, and a legal and public educational system based on consistent, scientific principles. Any other solution is a recipe for social disaster, as no theocracy has ever succeeded or prospered without massive repression, corruption, or a flat-out sectarian bloodbath. If I am to go out on a limb, I doubt God would approve.

 

[Irvine511]

"Whatever is natural is moral, as all that is natural is of God."

but don't you see, Ormus?

it's not natural for boys to be gay. it happens when we have weak fathers and overbearing mothers. the naturally heteroseuxal child bonds unnaturally to his mother and fails to spend enough time hunting and fishing and playing catch with his father.

but not to worry! we can correct this psychological affliction and return to our natural states through reparative therapy.

 

[Ormus]

That doesn't make sense though. I know Christians who struggle with certain sins. Porn would be one. That doesn't mean I can't lovingly be concerned for them and try to get them out of it. Again, consider the perspective where many Biblically minded Christians are coming from. If they're wrong, and homosexuality is natural, then at best they're ignorant. They're not hateful though.

It is your constitutional right to believe in pseudoscience, just as it is my right to state that your beliefs on homosexuality are 35 years out of date. Scientific observations of homosexuality have determined that it is a part of nature, and observations of same-sex behavior within the animal kingdom have merely cemented this claim.

I certainly do understand where "Biblically minded Christians" are coming from, but even at that, I disagree with your usage of that description, as I would categorize these arguments as argumentum ad populum, rather than based on any genuine understanding of the Bible.

 

[Ormus]

but don't you see, Ormus?

it's not natural for boys to be gay. it happens when we have weak fathers and overbearing mothers. the naturally heteroseuxal child bonds unnaturally to his mother and fails to spend enough time hunting and fishing and playing catch with his father.

but not to worry! we can correct this psychological affliction and return to our natural states through reparative therapy.

My mistake. Three men make a tiger, after all.

 

[popsadie]

Wow...I think I just got called a fundamentalist...this could be a first.


Ormus....In the four gospels, Jesus quotes much of the OT. I don't see how one can throw out the OT if they claim to be a follower of Jesus. Now, if you are a catholic and believe that dogma is as essential as the scriptures, I might understand where you are coming from.

 

[phillyfan26]

If homosexuality was a choice would it be a sin?

It is not a choice, so I don't see your point.

 

[phillyfan26]

How?

I don't know if "alter" was necessarily the right word. Any oppression of homosexuality should be looked upon as with race and sexism, in law and in conduct. While government and religion don't mix, they won't legally be allowed to segregate, regardless of religious beliefs. Racism and sexism haven't survived as church practices, so I hope that religion will reform itself.

I really have no plan. I just don't understand how people can use religion to segregate, as opposed to unite.

 

[martha]

I don't know if "alter" was necessarily the right word. Any oppression of homosexuality should be looked upon as with race and sexism, in law and in conduct. While government and religion don't mix, they won't legally be allowed to segregate, regardless of religious beliefs. Racism and sexism haven't survived as church practices, so I hope that religion will reform itself.

This makes more sense.

I really have no plan. I just don't understand how people can use religion to segregate, as opposed to unite.

Me either.

 

[phillyfan26]

Certain religions/beliefs should be forced to alter itself?

Do you really believe that?

What force? Gentle persuasion or something else?

Will I be fined, thrown in jail or executed if I fail to alter my religious beliefs?

Your thoughts here phillyfan26 are scary. I only read this thread once, but it seems that about half of the posts are in favor of some retrictions on religious belief and expression.

The ancient Romans didn't care about what gods or how many gods you worshiped. What got the early Christians in trouble and many killed was their belief that Jesus was the only way. They refused to bow to the emperor as god.

Well, religion or not in this country, you can't break American laws. It should be made illegal to segregate homosexuality, just as with racism and sexism.

I have to say, to suggest my thoughts as scary is laughable. I'm one of the ones trying to eliminate segregation. In this country, you can't break laws based on religion. With laws against segregation against homosexuality, you can't do it, like it or not.

 

[phillyfan26]

If Christians were after killing and harassing homosexuals, I could see your point, but they simply follow a religious text that says that homosexuality is perverse and a sexual sin. There is a difference between belief and discrimination.

Yes, because when the Bible was written, they knew homosexuality was natural and not a choice. [/sarcasm]

Do you think religion was created to unite or to separate? If you think to unite, then why would some natural trait be sinful?

At one point, left-handedness was equated to the devil, so religion clearly hasn't always been correct, and again, they are wrong here. It's been proven.

Do we need Ormus to explain the interpretation of homosexuality as a sin being incorrect again?

 

[Ormus]

Ormus....In the four gospels, Jesus quotes much of the OT. I don't see how one can throw out the OT if they claim to be a follower of Jesus. Now, if you are a catholic and believe that dogma is as essential as the scriptures, I might understand where you are coming from.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores early Christianity's attitude on the OT. The immediate decades after Jesus' death and resurrection had two very distinct Christian sects, the Jewish Christian, Church of Jerusalem (led by the apostles, St. Peter and St. James), which believed in the entirety of the OT and all Mosaic Law, whereas the Gentile Christian, Church of Antioch (led by St. Paul), maintained that Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT, and, as such, its laws were no longer in force. Instead, the Church of Antioch believed that there was only one commandment, and that was Jesus' commandment to love one another. The Church of Antioch's revolutionary theology had much to do with Paul's zeal in evangelism, and did not want to burden potential converts with Jewish legalism that might make them change their minds. Paul, in every respect, believed in the liberation of Christ, rather than the yoke of the Law.

By the second century A.D., Jewish Christianity was officially obliterated, and all that remained was Paul's Gentile Christianity. And it was these Christians who formed the many councils that ultimately created the New Testament canon. Many of them passionately argued that their new Biblical canon should only contain the books of the New Testament that they were creating, as that is all that they believed in. However, others effectively argued that, without the inclusion of the OT, that key references to it in the NT would be misunderstood. As such, the OT was included into the larger Christian Biblical canon with the sole expectation that it would be used as a reference guide. It was not to be used as a guide for morality; that was the purpose of the NT.

Unfortunately, fast forward over 1000 years to the Protestant Reformation, and we end up with a haphazard syncretism of Jewish Christian theology with Roman Catholic theology (the official successor to the Gentile Christians of antiquity)--all context completely discarded. The most confusing aspect of Protestant theology has to be its completely reductio ad absurdum arguments when it comes to the issue of salvation. On one hand, you have the passionate insistence that faith alone is all that is required for salvation (in keeping with Gentile Christianity); on the other, though, you have the passionate insistence that certain beliefs or acts are grave sins that will send you to hell, no matter what your faith is (in keeping with Jewish Christianity).

So, frankly, where my arguments come from is from a historical understanding of the theological conflicts that occurred during early Christianity, and a thorough examination of one's conscience to decide where to go from there.

 

[butter7]

"Whatever is natural is moral, as all that is natural is of God."

Hehe...people who believe in Taoism would start screaming for plagiarism now...

 

[popsadie]

Honestly, I don't see myself ever going out and 'ministering' to homosexuals. This is an area of the scriptures that I struggle with, but I cannot deny that scripture does say a few things about it.

 

[popsadie]

My beliefs regarding the OT-

Jesus fulfilled the OT.
Although Christians aren't required to fulfill all of the laws in the OT...the laws in the OT express the nature of God.
In the four gospels, Jesus didn't make the OT easier...he made it even more stringent.

I suppose my basic theology is based on my understanding of the four gospels. I believe that the rest of the New Testament should be interpreted in the light of the four gospels.

 

[martha]

but I cannot deny that scripture does say a few things about it.

Do you eat cheese on your meat sandwich? 'Cause scripture says things about that as well.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is not a choice, so I don't see your point.

My point is that as a behaviour it is a matter of consensual acts between two or more individuals, it is a matter of liberty and it wouldn't matter if it was hard wired or elective it isn't wrong.

 

[Ormus]

Honestly, I don't see myself ever going out and 'ministering' to homosexuals. This is an area of the scriptures that I struggle with, but I cannot deny that scripture does say a few things about it.

A couple of things on this subject:

1) Concepts translated in the Bible as referring to "homosexuality" are not referring to modern homosexuality. They are often in reference to archaic pagan idolatry rituals involving sex--which were bisexual orgies in worship of the gods. As such, the condemnation was likely a combination of furor against idolatry with what they saw as unloving and abusive sex acts. The linguistic clues are all over the place in the original texts, and, often, these very ambiguous passages end up making perfect sense in this context.

"Modern homosexuality," as we know it today, was not understood at even a basic level until 1874, which caused quite a lot of controversy at the time for suggesting that homosexual acts were not done by heterosexuals who were possessed or did it consciously out of hatred of God, and, even then, our modern understanding that it is not a result of mental illness or distress did not exist until a century after that.

2) Back to my discussion of "scientific Thomism" for a moment, this philosophy is why modern Biblical readers think that the Bible is sex obsessed. The Bible also happens to have some controversial passages regarding the morality of slavery (Mosaic Law allowed for slaves, and St. Paul calls for slaves to obey their masters more than once) and the place of women (St. Paul forbids women to instruct over men, which would pretty much make our entire educational system largely immoral), but we have correctly viewed these passages as the result of archaic customs. Why most Christians refuse to view the supposed anti-gay passages as archaic cultural relics on par with prohibitions against multi-fibered clothing is due to lingering prejudices stemming from that "scientific Thomism."

So, frankly, I cannot and refuse to accept the argument that "Biblically-based Christians" have a duty to, essentially, be anti-gay, because it is no more a part of the Bible today than it is a part of the Bible to own slaves or to ban female teachers.

 

[popsadie]

Ormus....again, I personally am undecided on the subject. I was just defending other christian's beliefs about homosexuality. It is funny that you mention Paul though. In Romans 1:26,27...Paul speaks explicitly against same sex sexual acts. He says that it was an indicator that the people were godless. This message is reinforced in Timothy 1:10.
To be honest, this is an area of scripture and church teaching that I struggle to reconcile. I have had several friends who practice homosexuality and a few of them believed in Christ. If you are right, and this is just a cultural thing, then I guess they have nothing to worry about. If you are wrong, and they believe in Christ, then I guess this is something God will work out within them....either way, I do not believe I am using my understanding of the scriptures to Hate gays.

 

[Irvine511]

I have had several friends who practice homosexuality and a few of them believed in Christ.

tell me, how do you "practice" heterosexuality?

 

[coemgen]

Yeah, so maybe He didn't.

What spiritual gymnastics Christians are capable of when they want to feel good about hating and discriminating in the name of Jesus.

How convenient that the OT allows you to hate (just like God!) and essentially disregard Jesus when you get uncomfortable with someone's different sexuality.

As a follow-up, tell me this, where does God allow you, personally, to do what He does? Oh let's say, for example, hate?

God the Father and God the son are the same God. Like I've said before, Jesus spoke more about judgement than anybody. It's not spiritual gymnastics, it's knowing the Bible.
Never did I say anything about discriminating -- we were talking about hating the sin and loving the sinner. The Bible's clear God hates sin, but loves the sinner. The concept is Biblical. Plus, to clear it up I wasn't referring to me considering homosexuality a sin, I've said many times I'm undecided on the issue. I was explaining where many Christians come from. In regards to Christ and homosexuality, if homosexuality is a sin, then people who practice it need Christ. If it's natural and not a sin, those people need Christ, too, because we're all sinners. That's how I see it.

 

[BVS]

tell me, how do you "practice" heterosexuality?

Don't you have to practice first? Practice makes perfect.

 

[coemgen]

but you can't "get" someone "out" of being gay.

and the more you lovingly attempt to do so, the more harm you are inflicting and self-hate you are inducing in and upon that gay person.

the whole Exodus movement is hate dressed up with love; it makes whatever Christian feel better about their hate -- because it's really love! -- and damages the gay person.

any other perspective is self-serving bullshit.

and i think you know that.

I understand that, Irvine. You're completley missing my point. I'm explaining where many Christians come from. Yes, they may be wrong, but that's there perspective. Until you see where they're coming from and they see where you're coming from, nobody's going to get anywhere. It's that simple.

 

[anitram]

I have had several friends who practice homosexuality

Look at the way you're framing it.

Would you say, "I have had several friends who practice caucasianism?"

 

[Irvine511]

I understand that, Irvine. You're completley missing my point. I'm explaining where many Christians come from. Yes, they may be wrong, but that's there perspective. Until you see where they're coming from and they see where you're coming from, nobody's going to get anywhere. It's that simple.

i understand where they are coming from, but people are being psychologically damaged from all this "love." it's abuse, and it must stop.

 

[coemgen]

It is your constitutional right to believe in pseudoscience, just as it is my right to state that your beliefs on homosexuality are 35 years out of date. Scientific observations of homosexuality have determined that it is a part of nature, and observations of same-sex behavior within the animal kingdom have merely cemented this claim.

I certainly do understand where "Biblically minded Christians" are coming from, but even at that, I disagree with your usage of that description, as I would categorize these arguments as argumentum ad populum, rather than based on any genuine understanding of the Bible.

Call it whatever you want, Ormus. Yay for you. My point, once again, was just trying to explain where many Christians come from. And, also, once again, I wasn't speaking as one of them.

 

[anitram]

I understand that, Irvine. You're completley missing my point. I'm explaining where many Christians come from. Yes, they may be wrong, but that's there perspective. Until you see where they're coming from and they see where you're coming from, nobody's going to get anywhere. It's that simple.

But why do we have to bend over backwards for Christians and nobody else? The perspective of a Muslim man in Saudi Arabia might be to beat his wife and kill his sister if she strays from family values. The perspective of a white racist down south might be that blacks have no place in polite society. We don't try to "see where they're coming from" because guess what - they're wrong, offensive and that's that. Period.

 

[coemgen]

i understand where they are coming from, but people are being psychologically damaged from all this "love." it's abuse, and it must stop.

And that's a perspective I'm trying to understand and respect. That's the perspective Christians need to hear. When the two sides actually listen to each other rather than condemn or judge, we'll get closer to peace on the issue.

 

[coemgen]

But why do we have to bend over backwards for Christians and nobody else? The perspective of a Muslim man in Saudi Arabia might be to beat his wife and kill his sister if she strays from family values. The perspective of a white racist down south might be that blacks have no place in polite society. We don't try to "see where they're coming from" because guess what - they're wrong, offensive and that's that. Period.

A Christian trying to get a person out of a sin they feel is damaging though it may be natural, doesn't have the same heart as someone who beats or kills a person.

By immediately assuming any Chrisitan who considers homosexuality a sin has hate in their heart, is just as damaging to any attempt at understanding as anything else.