Homosexuality

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**Prepare for a shocker: I don’t think the Bible is the verbatim word of God. I do not believe it is inerrant. So “the Bible says it’s wrong” is not the end of the analysis for me. And an “it is, too” from you is not going to change my mind…I say, baloney. You have no right to declare that God expects sheep-like behavior from His followers; He might expect it from you, but He expects the exact opposite from me. Faith and inquiry are not mutually exclusive, and a faith that is adhered to knowingly, through questioning and introspection, seems to me to be a richer thing than one adhered to through ignorant devotion.

ESPRIX:

What do I consider a Christian? The people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Just because they don’t follow him the same way you do doesn’t make you, or them, any less Christian.

Thank you.
**

Jodi, sorry for misspelling your name on my last post. I was in a hurry leaving work.

My question to you is this: How can you purport to follow Jesus’s teachings? He taught that the scripture is the word of God and is to be adhered to. He taught that he IS God. Do you rationalize that by rejecting parts of the bible that you don’t like? How, if you don’t accept the bible as the word of God, do you claim even to KNOW the teachings of Jesus? I don’t think he authored any textbooks.

Polycarp,
same question to you. You seem not even to accept God, much less the bible, let alone the bible as God’s word. By what criteria do you make the claim of being a christian? Your scholarship does impress me. But knowing the bible and being able to quote commentaries, while commendable, do not a christian make. I don’t mean to start a flame war here, I’m just confused as to what the word “christian” means to all of you.

[Joe_Cool]

One other thing:
I apologize if my tone was out of line. I have a lot of respect for you, and I’m very sorry if I came across as a jerk. My questions were sincere.

[Polycarp]

Well, Joe, I think I understand your confusion. My first reaction (which I hope you’ll forgive) was to get very hostile at “he’s judging me as not a Christian.”

Well, no, I lay claim to the title for the same reason you do: I’ve taken Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, put my faith and trust in Him, and strive to do His will.

Where we seem to differ is in the “take” we have on the meaning of that last part: “Strive to do His will.”

You seem to be very firmly in the “Bible-as-God’s-law; accept no substitutes” camp. And I do indeed respect that.

I believe that every word in Scripture is there because the Holy Spirit intended it to be. But I don’t believe that every word is God speaking. Paul makes it clear where he’s giving personal advice as a leading Christian, as opposed to stating something that he “received of the Lord” (his words) in one passage in First Corinthians. There is a wealth of material in the Bible, including what is clearly Jesus’s own words by any interpretation (two examples: the verbatim quotes of “Talitha, cumi” and "Ephphatha in the original Aramaic that He spoke at two healings.

For me, reading the Gospels usually means getting a grasp on the message Jesus is trying to convey as a whole, not narrowly focusing on a particular passage. And I get the very clear picture of a Man Who was dead against legalism: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” against self-righteousness, who saw man’s inhumanity to man and was saddened, and called for all-consuming love of God expressed in showing love and compassion for one’s fellow man, thus leading them to the healing and revivifying love of God.

That’s the life I try to live, as God gives me strength. And the message I try to convey when I talk about my faith.

On the other thread that I linked to on page one, I said this:

I am a Christian. A very devout and sincere one, IMHO. And I have a major problem with those who take certain stances on how they understand Scripture arrogating exclusive rights to “what Christians should think.”

I am fairly certain that homosexuals sin. I am quite certain that heterosexuals sin. And I’m reasonably certain that celibate people sin. (And you bisexuals can jump into whatever category suits you from the above; I haven’t forgotten you either.)

And I am absolutely certain that I sin.

When I finally get to the point where I am no longer sinful, I will concern myself with deciding whether in my opinion somebody else about whom I know little more than his or her sexual orientation is sinning by being or doing whatever he or she happens to be and do. Do feel free to call me for my opinion on this; you’ll know it’s time to do so because the pigs will be flying north on their spring migrations.

I humbly urge that procedure of behavior on my fellow Christians. With an eye to the idea that while St. Paul may have discussed what in his (possibly inspired) opinion constituted moral behavior, Jesus was quite explicit about getting the timber out of one’s own eye before one looks for dustmotes in someone else’s.

Also on that thread, which I asked for your reaction to as well as Jersey’s, I analyzed the Scripture on homosexuality which you and she have made regular reference to. I’ll quote that here too:

Y’know, Biblical interpretation is a game everybody can play, and no two people are gonna come up with the same answers, as a general rule.

If you believe that every word of the Bible holds today, and is verbatim inspired by God, then you’re obliged to keep the Torah. And there are a few Jews for Jesus who were Orthodox Jews and do just that. For the most part, Christianity seems to have taken the attitude that Jesus’s self-sacrifice eliminated the need for the ritual law, and His teachings, combined with Peter’s vision about the clean and unclean food on the sheet from heaven, eliminated the dietary law, but that the “moral law” left when those were eliminated is still binding.

And it is so easy to find a proof text to support whatever personal prejudices you have for or against something.

I respect Jersey and Joe for holding true to their beliefs. I will observe some points, however:

1. The Bible has never condemned “homosexuality” – the word is never mentioned. It’s an abstract noun used to define a group of things. It does appear to condemn certain acts that modern society terms “homosexual acts.”

2. I don’t think it’s possible to pick and choose what Old Testament laws you’re going to keep. If you consider any as binding, you’ve gotta go for the whole package. Anything else is interpretive selectiveness – the same sort of thing that conservative Christians condemn liberal Christians for doing.

3. Paul’s comments would seem to reflect that Christians may not commit homosexual acts. However, there are some interesting twists here:

a) In Romans 1, he seems to feel that same-sex desire is something that replaces “natural” heterosexual desire. This does not accord with the testimony of most gays. Beyond that, it is not a sin condemned, but rather a punishment by God for turning from him to the things of this world – along with a list of vile attitudes. And he follows it with Romans 2:1 “So also were some of you.” This hits home to me: “There but for the grace of God…” In my perspective, he’s talking about “queer chic” as practiced in big cities a few years ago, and as was common in 1st Century Rome, where people jaded with “normal” sex would “try out” a gay affair, along with other things considered vices. This is a whole different ball game from what present-day gays and lesbians are talking about when they discuss their sexuality.

b) The other places he and other letter writers mention it is in a list of sins or sinners who will not inherit the kingdom. Note carefully that it’s tied into fornication, prostitution, etc., along with some non-sexual sins. My take on these passages is that they’re condemning lust in the classic sense in which it’s among the Seven Deadly Sins – not normal healthy sexual desire for one’s beloved, but the need to use another as a sex object for immediate gratification with no significant relationship involved. The variety of heterosexual sins have this in common; to suggest that in the middle of gratifications of lust Paul throws in an entirely different concept – a form of sexual behavior that is condemned regardless of context, strikes me as erroneous reasoning.

To be sure, there’s a yuck factor among many heterosexuals about any form of homosexuality. But to read that into this passage is another case of prooftexting to cloak your own feelings with “what the Good Book says.”

And, as andygirl pointed out, most homosexual Christians hear, “Love the sinner; hate the sin” with the emphasis on the second half and an attitude that the first half means, “when they repent of having such sinful desires.” Which is never what it means anywhere else.

The couple of occasions in which Jesus deals with sexual sin, he is reasonably gentle with it. Seems reasonable, considering that He created people with sexual desires and is now human himself, and has a pretty good handle on what sexual temptation is all about. What he does get up in arms about is self-righteous vainglory and the tendency to want to make rules for other people to follow. He generally hewed to the Pharisee line in theology, but came down on the selfrighteousness and rulemongering of the leading Pharisee group so strongly that the name has become synonymous with the attitude today. And it seems to me that most Christians, particularly the conservative evangelicals, have failed to learn anything from that.

We Christians are quite flatly commanded to love every other human being as ourselves, unless I’ve got the point to the parable of the Good Samaritan all wrong. And not to judge. Which means, to me, that Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer and a few other homophobes that trot out those verses I mentioned above to condemn gay people are sinning far more grievously than the typical gay person ever thought of doing.

Jersey? Joe? your take on this?

I’m sincere in wanting to know your reaction to that – and also your reaction to what I posted about my faith. I think we’ll get much further ahead trying to understand one another than in castigating each others’ beliefs. And I promise not to get offended if you suggest that in your view, one who doesn’t take the Bible literally is not a Christian. Though I’ll proceed to argue the point with you in some detail!

[Spider_Woman]

two men or two women having sex together is a sin. Telling a lie is a sin. a man and a woman who are not married having sex is a sin. Does that mean you can’t be friends with anybody who sins, otherwise you’re a hypocrite?

and goes on to say

DrMatrix and Andygirl,
I don’t know what to say. I believe that it is not a physiological quality that makes you homosexual

In response to the first, let’s take one part of that: it’s a sin to tell a lie. So when courageous men and women sheltered Jews from the Nazis in WWII, they lied about it. Was that a sin? The world just isn’t that black and white, JerseyDiamond. How can you judge what is sinful? Only an onmiscient being (as the Christian god is described to be) would have possession of all the facts, and that god says judge not lest ye be judged.

In response to the second part, how can you possibly know what causes a person to be homosexual or heterosexual when science, psychology and medicine have been trying for years to discover what makes that differentiation, (and they still don’t know)? Do you think that someone would choose to be ostracized, hounded, and murdered over something that was within their choosing to change?

[Freyr]

**Jodi wrote:

You have no right to post as if you speak for all Christians. You do not. You speak for yourself, and for perhaps those others who ascribe to your apparently fundamentalist views. You do not speak for the millions of people who are moderate or liberal Christians and who believe that God’s message of peace and understanding and His exhortation that we judge not lest we be judged prohibits us from condemning the peaceful, harmless actions of others.**

And thank you, Jodi, for voicing this message that so deparately needs to be heard. It’s good to know that Christians such as yourself and Polycarp speak out against those who claim to be the sole voice of Christianity.

[vanilla]

One of my best friends, Phil, told me that if God loves him, then He loves him even though he (Phil) is homosexual.
God would be more likely to not “love” him if he were a bad person; that is, cheating the poor, mistreating elderly etc.

The Bible does also say that while we were yet sinners, God died for us.
He didn’t die for us after we got worthy enough or did enough good deeds.

Will God send people to hell for being gay?
I have no idea, and no one else who is alive right now does either. It also say in the Bible that we don’t know the mind of God, He is too above us.

Not being gay, its not something I worry about.
In other words, its not My business.

[Polycarp]

Superb, Jodi and Freyr!

In view of the fact that Joe Cool has chosen not to respond, though he’s been active in his own thread, I guess I have no recourse but to regard him along with Jersey Diamond as having essentially been trolling me on this and the other thread. Very unlike Joe to do so, but I gather emotions run high on his side of the fence as well. Although perhaps he’s simply forgotten he decided to make some allegations about my beliefs here.

Apropos of the whole “sin” routine, I was, quite literally, handed a particularly pertinent comment by a famous medieval mystic, Julian of Norwich. This is from her Showings (title of her book, and also her term for the encounters with God she experienced):

Holy Church taught me that sinners are sometimes worthy of blame and wrath,
But I could not see these in God in my showing.
I saw that our Lord was never wrathful, nor ever shall be.
God’s lucidty and unity will not allow this.
God is the goodness that cannot be wrathful.
Our sole is oned to God, unchangeable goodness,
And therefore between God and our soul
There is neither wrath nor forgiveness
Because there is no between.
I saw wrath and vengeance only on our part.
Gd forgives that in us.
For wrath is a turning away from peace and love and is opposed to them.
It comes from a failing of power or of wisdom or of goodness on our part.

#

And all will be well
And every manner of thing will be well.

[Jodi]

JOE COOL – I am not ignoring your question, but I do think POLYCARP has answered it better than I could. So since I am occasionally accused of eating up band-width with overly-long posts, I’ll just say: What he said.

[Kyomara]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**

Yes DrMatrix, I do believe it’s a choice, and many people believe that way too!

Nobody with a working understanding of science or human sexuality believes “that way” too, exclamation point notwithstanding.

**

I’m gonna have to go with Jodi on this one, doc. Just because you don’t feel it was a choice doesn’t mean it’s not like that for others.

I’m really tired of the “nature vs. nurture” argument that so many people seem to think actually has some bearing on the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. People in the “nurture” camp believe that it is a choice, more than likely encouraged by a particular kind of upbringing or life experience. “Nature” folks say it is biological and try to use this to justify homosexual behavior.

The reason this pisses me off is that homosexuality doesn’t NEED to be justified. It doesn’t hurt anyone. In their sex lives, of all things, people should just be allowed to do what they want, as long as no one is (unwillingly) hurt. It doesn’t matter if it is a choice or not. It is human sexuality and if it makes the individual happy, then it is RIGHT. Homosexuals shouldn’t have to use the “nature” argument to defend their lifestyle. Do what you want, people. It’s only sex.

There are just too many variables invovled for you to be able to say that all homosexuals are “genetically” homosexual. If the first girl I fell in love with was dark skinned, I might be more inclined to date dark-skinned women. And if my first love experience happened to have a cock, then doesn’t it stand to reason that I would have a thing for guys?

To chalk it all up to nature just makes it more difficult for people to accept the broad scale of human sexuality.

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, but it kind of goes both ways. No, it isn’t a choice.
That should be stated, so people will maybe start to come around…it may be the first step. But then, I always say, if it WAS a choice, then what’s the big deal?
If homosexuality was the WORST thing a person could do, we’d be lucky, wouldn’t we people?

[Kyomara]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Yeah, but it kind of goes both ways. No, it isn’t a choice.
That should be stated, so people will maybe start to come around…it may be the first step. **

Correct me if I’ve got you wrong (and I get the feeling there’s a good chance I do), but are you saying that even though you and I know that homosexuality can be a choice and isn’t necessarily genetic, we should still pretend for a while that we think it is so that people who have a personal moral problem with it will come around?

If this is what you mean, I disagree. To insist that any form of human sexuality is always genetic opens up the doors to so many other psychological problems for the people involved…well, that might be an overstatement.

Let me put it this way: whether you are gay or straight, to define your sexuality as purely genetic (in my opinion) is to permanently cement your personal view of yourself. This in turn closes you off to new sexual experiences. It denies the fluidity of human sexuality. Why can’t I like girls this year and boys next year? Why do I have to be “wired” as gay or straight?

I think there is so much shame in our culture regarding sex that even a lot of gay folks want to apply some sort of strict rules to their sexuality in some strange effort to morally justify their activity. “I am gay because I am SUPPOSED to be, and therefore my sexuality is morally legitimate.” Well I say, quit being ashamed!

[Esprix]

How someone could choose their orientation - let alone somehow choose to be homosexual in today’s society - is beyond me. Suffice it to say I’ll go along with all the major psychological professional organizations that say it’s out of your direct control.

But, you’re right. This country is supposed to be about freedom, and that should include the freedom to engage in consensual, non-abusive relationships of any sort, be they same-sex, opposite-sex, or multi-partnered. (And no, animals and children are out of bounds.) It shouldn’t matter if it’s a choice or not - we should have the freedom to choose regardless.

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**Superb, Jodi and Freyr!

In view of the fact that Joe Cool has chosen not to respond, though he’s been active in his own thread, I guess I have no recourse but…**

I have not forgotten, nor was I trolling. I’m putting a good amount of thought into what you said, and will respond to you when I’ve finished putting together a quality response worthy of the one you gave me.

I suppose I could fire off a weak answer without considering your words fairly, but that would be trollish, and I don’t think you’d appreciate that much.

I will answer you. I’m just making sure that when I do, it will be something meaningful.

PS.
I really don’t think JerseyDiamond was trolling. I just think she’s very passionate about what she believes. And if she comes off as too harsh, well which one of us doesn’t? Let him among us who is without sin…

[Kyomara]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**How someone could choose their orientation - let alone somehow choose to be homosexual in today’s society - is beyond me. Suffice it to say I’ll go along with all the major psychological professional organizations that say it’s out of your direct control.
**

Okay…perhaps “choose” is the wrong word. Preferences of any kind do not necessarily imply a choice. You like what you like, for whatever reason. I never chose to like peanut butter and banana sandwiches…I just do.

My point (again…sorry, I know I am being redundant) is that homosexuality is not necessarily wired from the time you are born…except for those who believe that every single thing about your personality is nothing but the way you are hardwired, which is an issue for another thread.

As for the “why would anyone choose a lifestyle that opens them up to so much persecution?” argument, I have started to get a bit peeved by this one as well. Yes, homosexuals are persecuted by society at large and there are many places where it is downright dangerous to be one. But my gay friends who live in big cities with large gay populations live as contently as you please. No, they don’t live completely without persecution, but the number of them that have been faced with enough overt persecution to really make their lives miserable as homosexuals is very small. There are enough places where one can be openly, comfortably gay these days that I think in many (urban) cases the above argument doesn’t hold that much water.

There are plenty of folks who live on the fringes of society for various reasons. The reason homosexuals take so much shit is because they are on the fringe for sexual reasons and America is obsessed with sex. Gamers and hobos get to be “weird.” But queers are SINNERZZZZ.

[Joe_Cool]

I’ve actually been considering bowing out of this thread, and maybe taking our discussion to another one where it isn’t so much of a hijack. You’re right, emotions are running a bit hotter than I like. And even though I admit I’m partly to blame, there are those who see a flame and just go for broke fanning it.

There’s quite a bit of hostility toward christians on this board, and it makes it very easy to send off an angry, defensive post without considering the effect and the topic. Which is another reason I haven’t posted here in a few days.

But I hope those of you (nobody in particular, you collectively) who see red any time somebody claims to believe the bible or cites it as a reason for their beliefs, will keep this in mind: Your automatic hostility toward bible-believing christians is no different and no more excusable than the hostility toward homosexuals for which you (unfairly, IMO) blame us.

[MrVisible]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**But I hope those of you (nobody in particular, you collectively) who see red any time somebody claims to believe the bible or cites it as a reason for their beliefs, will keep this in mind: Your automatic hostility toward bible-believing christians is no different and no more excusable than the hostility toward homosexuals for which you (unfairly, IMO) blame us. **

Except that I don’t see anyone trying to pass legislation to try and keep you from going to church. I don’t see any campaigns to keep you from marrying someone of your own faith. I don’t see political campaigns using anti-christian rhetoric as platform planks.

You’re using a holy book, one which has a wonderful message of tolerance and peace, as fuel for prejudice and hatred with which to pass secular laws to impose your warped values on people who do not share your faith.

Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by mrvisible *
**…You’re using a holy book, one which has a wonderful message of tolerance and peace, as fuel for prejudice and hatred with which to pass secular laws to impose your warped values on people who do not share your faith…Be ashamed. Be very ashamed. **

Generalize much? Thought so. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

Polycarp, If it’s all the same to you, I’d prefer to continue our discussion via e-mail, where I believe the signal-to-noise ratio will be much higher. My address is on my profile, if you are interested.

[vanilla]

Its my understanding that sex outside of marriage is consdiered by bible beleivers to be a sin.
So, heres a wild idea: legalize gay marriage and voila! Its not a sin anymore!

[Polycarp]

Joe, thank you for your gracious reply, and I’m overjoyed to know you were silent simply to consider your answer to me rather than the unjust accusation I suggested.

I would not object to e-mail, but I owe a bunch of e-mails to people already that I’m thinking through what I need to say in: dylan and bunnygirl in particular deserve answers.

I’d welcome a new thread discussing the subjects we seem to be at odds on, with respect for the various positions implicit in it. I certainly can understand what you’ve posted of your stance, and while I disagree, I can respect it. And I think that honest posts that do not condemn people other than in the general terms of “if somebody does X, he/she’s wrong” would be respected as such. It’s far too easy to read condemnation into a statement – I don’t judge conservative Christians, I merely state that their approach to Scripture is contrary to the one Jesus taught, so far as I can see, and that they, like I, are all too prone to fall into the human trap of being ready to judge another.

Use your own judgment on whether to start such a thread. Setting a “ground rule” in your OP if you choose to do so that no comment on the moral standard of a given behavior is to be taken as condemning those who disagree and do practice that behavior would, I believe, be respected by others. And I think it would prove interesting to explore where we end up going with such a thread. I know almost everyone learned quite a bit from the Christianity and Love series of threads that paralleled the argument we’ve begun here. Over on the Pizza Parlor, I know of one man who sincerely practices the “love the sinner/hate the sin” concept with regard to the Bible vs. homosexuality – he works alongside gay people and cares deeply about them as people, while holding his religious beliefs and discussing them honestly with them when opportunity for conversation allows. I tend to disagree with his stance, but it’s very clear from what he’s narrated that he respects them as people with their own hurts and joys, and listens as well as witnesses. And they respect him for that. I think you’d get the same reception here if you (or anyone else holding such views) spoke as a sincere, loving Christian rather than an apparent self-righteous judge in your posts.

[Neurotik]

As I was reading this thread, I came across someone claiming that because they were wiccan, a Christian should not allow her to live, based on the “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” As I was trying to find it again, I couldn’t, so I apologize for not being able to quote. In response to the Wiccan statement, however, Wiccans and the witches being talked about in the Bible are not the same thing. In the biblical sense, they are specifically referring to witches as defined as Satanists…not pagans in general. This is not to say we should go around killing those who worship Satan, I just wanted to raise the point that Biblical passages can be taken in the wrong way.

As for the Bible being the literal word of God, unless you are reading the original Hebrew/Greek texts, you are getting a translation, one that probably got messed up a few times while being copied over and over again. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the literal word of God. The best we, as Christians can do, is act upon the overriding themes of the Bible (love, forgiveness, humility, tolerance, etc.)in order to demonstrate our faith.

Another point is that in Acts it is specifically described that Christians were required to give all their worldly possessions to the faith community, so that money might be distributed among members who needed it for food and shelter and the like. In fact, God struck down a couple who hid some of their personal possessions from the Apostles. So, my question, is if the Bible is the literal word of God, why is it that most Christians I know do not have this sort of socialist community set up?