So a minister who preaches that homosexuality is a sin is **indirectly **morally responsible for gay-bashing?
That risk does perhaps exist - alongside many other risks associated with the zealous beliefs of religious or scientific people. But, the far greater risk is that associated with thoe who would wish to prevent by fiat other people holding their own opinions and arguing for them. That way lies authoritarianism and all its associated evils.
I can’t speak for others, but i strongly believe that people have the right to hold, and to argue for, whatever opinions they choose. I would not prevent any of this “by fiat,” and in fact have argued against things like hate speech laws on this very message board.
But if people choose to have and defend beliefs that i find repugnant, such as the belief that homosexuality is perverted and wrong, then i reserve the right to refer to those people as hateful bigots, and to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Yes, exactly.
This appears to mean that you can conceive of no person who believes that homosexuality is wrong (sinful in their God’s eyes) without being at the same time contemptuous, hateful and bigoted. Is that what you are saying?
I’m somewhat conflicted on this issue, because on one level there is, in fact, a certain logic to the Christian exhortation to “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” The problem is that too many people seem to mouth this as a mere platitude, while continuing to hate both the sinner and the sin.
As in most cases where human diversity and imperfection play a part, the issue is probably not reducible to a completely black and white proposition. I concede that there is a possibility that some people who believe that homosexuality is wrong might also be truly devoid of hatefulness and bigotry. But i’ve seen so little evidence of this that, if forced to give a “yes” or “no” response to your question, i would have to answer “yes.”
I understand completely, and sympathise not much less so. I have never liked the formulation ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner’, for many reasons: a) it sounds very patronising b) such prefabricated phrases tend to think your thoughts for you, even, as Orwell warned, ‘perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself’ c) it’s not in the Bible d) Jesus, as I understand his spirit and heart, would not have descended to sound-bites, even though i) he is tough on sin and ii) in my opinion, he counts homosexuality as a sin (and I must try to follow him if I call myself a Christian).
It’s always good and edifying to be able to have a discussion about such things. I have deep-seated concerns about the dangers of “alliances” and “solidarity”, and their effect on freedom of thought and freedom of speech. As M.A. Notturno (a Popper fan/editor from Hungary) put it so well:
If you think by communalistic thinking I’m referring to “queer” thinking, then you would be right. I once saw a woman I knew, who was a lesbian, virtually hounded out of her abortion support group in London because she declined to toe the line. She was indeed a giant among midgets.
I have to take a radical Christian view in this one: Judging others is, in and of itself, wrong. I assume I don’t have to quote. Where does that leave the concept of sin? Does it mean we are to neatly and surgically separate our judgement of others’ behavior from our judgement of their person?
Pish. posh. Sin is a concept we can only ethically apply to analysis of our own behavior and person, but never to the person or behavior of others.
It’s not that we don’t judge others every day. It’s just that it’s valid to say it’s unethical to do so.
But that would mean that while it’s unethical to be homophobic, it’s also unethical to judge someone for being homophobic.
I’m not sure whether your position is ‘radical’ as a Christian position or not, but then radical is rather a slippery word that allows of different interpretations, so it probably doesn’t matter much anyway, since it cannot be resolved while people hold fast to different understandings og the word.
No, recourse to the original texts is always valuable, I think, and a useful discipline to adopt. When Jesus says “Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged yourselves” (Matthew 7: 1), it’s hypocritical judgment that he’s condemning. (Elsewhere in Jesus’s teachings - including several places in the same chapter, e.g. verse 6 (don’t cast pearls before swine) and verse 15 (beware of false prophets), we are encouraged to make judgments). After proscribing hypocritical judgement, Jesus goes on to tell us to pluck the beam of sin out of our own eye first so that we can see clearly to take the mote out of our neighbour’s eye. Obviously, such intervention is intended to be of benefit to the neighbour.
As I have said before, the way that “love” appears to be interpreted by some on this board as meaning something other than what it really means (viz. a choice to do the best for others and to obey God) is I believe un-Biblical.
When Jesus elsewhere says that “on these two commandments [love God and love your neighbour as yourself] hang all the law and the prophets”, he is validating and endorsing “the law” (the Ten Commandments, for example). Thus obedience is central to the Biblical ethos, as well as love. Indeed, of course, our obedience to God is love in action - a demonstration of our love.
You’re really spinning the passage hard to make it sound like Jesus is encouraging judgment. Here’s the whole thing:
Clear on its face. Don’t judge. Don’t do it. If you judge it’s going to come back at you. He does then indeed go on to talk about hypocrisy in particular:
Note the important conjunction - “and” as in “in addition.” It’s *not * limiting the proscription against judgement to just hypocritical judgement (as you asserted). It’s an *additional * condemnation of hypocrisy as a particularly bad (and blind) type of judgment.
But you’re reading this second passage as if it utterly contradicts the sense of the first. As if it all leads up to encouraging us to judge others in the end, just from the right frame of mind. Again a very hard spin indeed. If you really read Jesus as encouraging you to judge others from this passage you basically IMHO are capable of reading black into white.
I’m not debating whether Jesus was pro-law or anti-law. I am asserting (my) interpretation of Jesus’ admonitions as meant for us to judge ourselves, not others. We are to follow God’s law, not judge whether others are as well.
As for whether they’re radical Christian. I said “a radical Christian view” not “the radical Christian view.” I think the implications of not judging others - behavior or person - *at all * - has to be understood as radical. And very hard to do.
We are all individuals and we cannot be individuals if we all didnt have our own opinions.
My opinion is homosexuality is disgusting, as in the same way you probably find other sexually deviant acts disgusting. Seems to me acceptance of homosexuality is the result of a highly successful propaganda campaign, i certainly dont see bestiality or B&D as out in the open as images on 6 oclock news of two men kissing and fondling each other.
If you wish to label me ignorant and intolerant simply because the thought of men sticking there penises into other mens anus’s makes me squeamish in an attempt to shame me into keeping my opinion to myself then you’re giving me the right to label you facist.
No one’s saying that you’re ignorant and intolerant because the thought makes you squeamish. There are LOTS of things that make me squeamish.
No, you’re only ignorant and intolerant if you treat people who believe otherwise like they’re perverted freaks who should be locked up, shamed and treated like dirt.
Taking verse 6 first, it’s one of those texts that has passed into folklore (‘Don’t cast your pearls before swine’) without its meaning being discussed. It has become almost an unanalysed whole. It would appear that Jesus (who said a lot of hard things) is warning us not to expend energy and time in criticising other people (even though that criticism be just and warranted), not for the effect it will have upon them, but for the effect it will have upon us. Debilitating, to say the least.
What makes this text (verse 6) doubly interesting is that its cotext is the injunction/command not to judge (other people). Of course that command comes with a limiting clause (“Don’t judge unless you want to be judged yourself”), so it might be argued that there is some suggestion that if you are not a hypocrite (many people on these boards have self-identified in that way, and I believe it is possible not to be a hypocrite), then you are entitled to judge. After all, this fits in quite well with what we know of life, where we are judged (or judge) every day in a wide variety of ways, professionally as well as personally.
Regarding the comment about reading black from white, that of course works both ways. If one wishes to privilege Jesus’ command that we mustn’t judge above his command that we should deal with our hypocrisy (as it is generally agreed that we can if we have the will to do so), and take the plank out of our own eye so that we can remove the speck from our brother’s eye, then we must do this by taking recourse to a kind of hierarchy of commands (fair enough, as I suggest below, albeit arbitrary), or by taking recourse to a notion that Jesus didn’t mean one utterance to be taken literally, while meaning the other to be taken so (an approach which is fraught with problems, as essentially one’s own prejudices and predilections will be the arbiters).
Jesus took greater risks, as it were, with some of his utterances (such as the one in which he permits, at least, us to take the speck out of our brother’s eye after we have acknoweldged our hypocrisy and taken the beam out of our own) than with others (such as the command not to judge unless we want to be judged ourselves). While this means (or at least suggests) that these less risky, more transparent commands may be considered as core to Jesus’ message, it also means that those of us who hunger for the truth and for righteousness should try to understand what Jesus meant by his harder sayings. If we have eyes that want to see, in Jesus’ words, then we have more chance of understanding these harder sayings. And unless Jesus was mucking about, and leaving false trails for the hell of it, then it may reasonably be assumed that he wanted his followers to understand, and then apply, the truths that he chose to be less obvious.
To conclude from the entire canon of what Jesus said that he wanted us merely to love God, love one another and not judge (one another) is to reduce his teachings in a way that would indicate, from the fact he said so much more, is a way he wouldn’t personally have wished.
Nobody’s trying to shame you into keeping your opinion to yourself; you have just as much right to voice your opinion as I do.
And there are probably things that you do that would make me “squeamish” as well. So what?
i feel that people have the right to think however they want. if they don’t think being gay is right it there bussness. they just can’t treat people who are gay badly or diffrently. i am a gay man and out to everyone that i know. i never ask for there aproval because its my life and they can think anyway they want. they can think i am going to hell or heaven. its not my place to judge them and not their place to judge me. i will admit i have been very lucky that i have a very understanding and open minded family and co-workers. i have never had to deal with anyone who was mean to me because i was gay and i hope i never do.
<<i certainly dont see bestiality or B&D as out in the open as images on 6 oclock news of two men kissing and fondling each other.>>
So you’re comparing having sex with animals to two adults having sex. Interesting.
B&D is an even more interesting comparison, because there’s nothing in the law that precludes its participants from getting married. (And I’m a double whammy: A B&D lesbian.)
And apparently you’ve narrowed homosexuality to only involve men. Please don’t tell me you don’t mind lesbians. Because we certainly mind you.
B&D? Is that Bondage and Domination or am I hopelessly out of synch with modern times?
I would merely advise you to stop watching gay porn. Most humans can hear the word “gay” and not instantly envision anal sex, just as they can see President and Mrs. Bush and not instantly think of his penis entering her vagina- people are a bit more complicated than a sexual act (and you do know that straight people have anal sex, right?)
You might be surprised by just how seldom most emotionally secure straight guys really envision anal sex between two men.
Yes it is, and yes, you’re “hopelessly out of synch.”
And BTW, regarding “Hate the sin, love the sinner:” **It’s not a sin. **Regardless of how many people or holy books say that it is.
In that case, feel free to condemn them for their behavior, rather than their beliefs. Belief is not equal to behavior. Granted, one is supposed to behave in accordance with their beliefs, but not everyone does - and not all behavior undertaken citing a given belief is actually in accordance with said beliefs.
Okay first: it’s an aphorism, an expression and not indicative of my own personal belief about homosexuality.
Regardless: but they think it is. I’m totally willing to leave them to think so, as I expect them to respect my belief that it is not. Reasonable minds may differ, and all that.
And if you can think of a better way to define “sin” than referring to holy books and/or people, I’d like to hear it. “Sin” is a religious concept - attempting to define it (or attempting to define what it isn’t without recourse to “holy people or holy books” is ummmmm meaningless - a null set. Just because YOU don’t think it’s a sin doesn’t mean it’s not a sin under someone’s belief set.