homosexuals; what do you want/expect from me, a Christian

Great Debates
241

What then do we do with those who do not revere the Bible in any way? The Bible saying that sodomy is bad (which is another debatable point) has no bearing on one who does not find the Bible to be a guide for their lives.

While you appear to be addressing Polycarp, who does identify as a Christian, remember that many who are reading your words are not Christians and place no emphasis on the Bible. It does no good to state that sodomy is sinful when someone has no relationship with Jesus and places no special emphasis on the Bible.

Many choose what you may consider to be the wrong path. Concern yourself with all of them. Focusing on one specific action which you consider to be sin does not lead others to communion with Christ and can be harmful.

Go out and show the world Jesus Christ is Lord and that they need to repent of their sin, as surely everyone has committed some sin. Once you have done that, then worry about what specifically does or does not constitute sin.

242

It always amuses me to ask the “Bible says so!” crowd why their rule book applies to my boyfriend, who’s 100% Navajo. Nothing like seeing a train of thought screech to a halt against a towering wall of racial guilt. Fun for my whole family.

243

It seems that some people are just incapable of grasping the concept that someone does NOT believe in the Christian God. They really can’t see that they don’t-people who claim otherwise are merely looking for excuses to sin or whatever.

shrugs

244

I believe in the bible and I’ve studied it exclusively. (14 years of Christian schooling) and I’ve found no evidence that homosexuality is forbidden to Christians. Read Father McNiell’s “The Church and the Homosexual”.

245

Now, why does this remind me of the door-to-door missionary in Kissing Hank’s Ass?

“When Hank kicks the shit out of you I’ll be there, counting my money and laughing. I’ll kiss Hank’s ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater!”

246

I find it odd that, while certain Polycarp and I are on the hideously wrong path, it seems alien to condemnatory minds that there is any chance they could be. There is a saying I learned in English class: “Writing a book is a two part process. The first part is done by the author, and the second part by the reader.” Everything we read gets filtered, not just through the biases and beliefs of the author, but also through our own as we take in the text.

There is no such thing as a text of any complexity which can be read exactly the same by everyone. The Bible is not a simple book, though its message may be. The words on the page, if you read the same version as another, may be exactly the same, but you and someone else may get completely different meanings from it. In sacred texts, what makes us believe we got the meaning right? Well we cannot question the author(s) in detail, since they ain’t physically here, so what it rests on is faith. Your faith, ThoughtPolice, and my own are most likely just as strong. We both believe the other has garbled the message of the Bible. We both believe the other to be in error.

So we both make a wager that we are right and the other wrong. Only God can truly say which one of us wins this little bet, but as someone else said before… if your God is the one who exists, ThoughtPolice, I’ll burn gratefully because such is a God I want no part of.

247

So, ThoughtPolice, you have not produced a verse in which Jesus condemns homosexuality explicitly, but you have built a beautiful little Catch 22 which says sex outside of marriage is sin, yet does not allow a certain portion of the population to marry. With respect I disagree that fornication is the point of the homosexual lifestyle. A couple of very dear friends of mine are gay men in a committed relationship and, in all the hours of conversation I’ve had with them, there’s been almost no mention of sex and a great deal of talk about their home, their garden, their cats, and their families.

Also, like Polycarp, I am a member of the Episcopal Church. Becoming a priest in our church is not an easy process. It requires some years of study and the priest of a church is not only answerable to the vestry, a committee of members of the church, but also to the Bishop of his or her diocese and, ultimately, to the Archbishop of Canterbury. A priest can be removed from the priesthood for immoral acts. In fact, one priest I know was removed from the priesthood for committing adultery.

Also, for the record, I have spoken with Polycarp’s wife, and she is a wonderful, interesting person who is very much worthy of him (give her my love, will you, Polycarp?).

I am a devout, hardcore Christian who prays daily, has absolute, unshakeable faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I have seen miracles and, I’m told, I have even touched lives. I realize the details of my faith may be as unorthodox of my life, and I respect your right to disagree with me. Nevertheless, if God will condemn my friend and his partner because of who they love regardless of whatever else they do with their lives while accepting heterosexual Christians regadless of whatever else they do, then I will not worship him. Don’t worry – I’ve told Him that on more than one occaision, and I’m prepared to accept the consequences.

By the way, this is a question I’ve asked a few times: in your opinion, is a homosexual who has accepted Christ as his or her Saviour yet continues in a homosexual relationship condemned to Hell?

Respectfully,
CJ

248

Is there a concise and formal name for this particular tactic? It is so very common that I feel there must be.

249

Hmm.

I’d call the first paragraph an Appeal to Authority argument (raised in apparent attempt to trump priest’s authority with divine authority) and the second paragraph a Circumstantial Ad Hominem. The Circumstantial Ad Hominem might carry an implicit Appeal to Fear, with the usual hellfire and brimstone subsumed in the mildly stated “wrong path” and the suggestion of consequences.

I’d say the entire thing is rooted in an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, and would suspect that that is, in essence, a “If my god doesn’t behave the way I think it does, I’m lost and confused, so my god has to behave as I think!”

250

You know, it occurred to me that in the interests of honesty, I’ve always stressed the idea that I am a married heterosexual male who feels strongly called to espouse the cause of our gay brothers and sisters. But in doing that, I realized, I’m in some ways sounding like there’s something horrible about being gay – “No, not me; I’m not one of them; I just think they’re being treated horribly.”

If I were gay, I’d admit it proudly. Perhaps the third most meaningful relationship of my life, after God and my wife, has been the love that I’ve shared with the young man who walked into our life with no ties except to his best friend who was staying with us, became our ward and our son in all but the legal sense, and for whom my feelings can only be described with the words “I fell in love with him.” Even now it’s hard to encapsulize our relationship in simple terms of friendship, father/son figure, or anything else, though he’s happily married with three wonderful kids – we love each other as two men who have been through a huge amount together and have been the source of strength for each other when the other needed it. So it’s been very easy for me to understand how a romance between two men can exist – I’ve been there.

W/R/T CJ’s first point, I found the comment on Dr. Chuckie’s website that “allowing gay marriages to take place will permit unbridled sexual license.” Huh? :confused: How do monogamous relationships, even ones you don’t improve of, constitute “unbridled sexual license”?

251

In other words, Polycarp-gays will HAVE SEX WITH EACH OTHER!!!

:rolleyes:

252

OHMYGOD!!! NO WAAAAAAAAAAY!

That is some seriously fucked up shit :wink:

253

I don’t think I’d be too concerned if I was you, Polycarp. You’ll note that I was the first one to out you as a straight guy when whatshisname was berating you for being gay. The reason I did so is that I don’t think gay people can win the fight for equal civil rights on their own; it’s going to take people of all orientations who understand what being gay is all about to do so.

The more people like you there are out there, who the straight supremacists can’t dismiss out of hand for being abominable sinners, the better. Everyone expects gay people to fight for their own rights. But having straight people who staunchly stand behind us is invaluable.

You’re not one of us, but you’re standing up for us. That’s something to be proud of in and of itself.

254

I suspect this is grounded in one (or possibly both) of two ideas:
[ul][li]“Homosexuals are also child-molesters (etc)” (Does anyone have any statistics on this?)[/li][li]“If we permit homosexuality, people will next be asking for us to permit paedophilia, rape…etc” - a classic slippery slope argument that also ignores the issue of consent.[/ul][/li]
As I say, this is only my suspicion, which I will gladly abandon if DrChuckie would care to correct me.

255

Just a point (outside of y’all’s arguments):
Judaism (or one tradition of Judaism) interprets the phrase which states not to have sex to mean that:
During ancient times, people were homosexuals this out of lust, not to form a meaningful relationship-this is what God is against, not the forming of a meaningful relationship.

I would like to remind you that the Bible can be interpretted in many, many ways, and not just the way that mainstream parts of religion teach it as. Remember that it is only their points of view that they are teaching; you have your own that are just as valid in regards to interprettations of the Bible (unless they have actual historical sources which prove completely that a particular interpretation was correct).

256

I think most of the folks here (excluding the ones that disregard the Bible altogether) would agree. However, there is a small but vocal minority of Christians who appear to feel that their interpretation isn’t actually an interpretation at all, but rather a position of absolute fact.