"By this quote (emphases mine), we need help, chose wrong, are bad and impure. "
—Well, Esprix, at least you are not guilty of ickiness, as I am . . .
Hoopy Frood is right on the mark I think. I can understand that lots of fun, and tempting, things are labled sin in Judeo-Christian ethics. Many of them are also a bad idea. Still I find the male from to be incapable of achieving the beauty and grace that the female form can. Combined with the fact I only engage in relationships with people I find at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing I’ve never been tempted to become romantically involved with a guy. There is pretty much no way to seduce me, or many other heterosexuals, into a homosexual relationship.
This alone doesn’t show it isn’t a sin but it makes me wonder. Also why would God consider something people have no control over sinful.
Good so far. I agree with you, puddleglum, subject to the idea that “no other gods before me” may mean that there are other supernatural entities without the love, power, wisdom, and/or concern for humanity of YHWH God, or that He in His infinite mercy and wisdom may not show Himself to others under other guises than we know Him.
Friend, I must demand that you operate on the facts and research conclusions on this issue. Foremost among these are that no male human being chooses his sexual orientation. (I am not suggesting that women do, but that there have been a few accounts of women “choosing to be Lesbian” – whereas aside from Dan Quayle’s comment that “he chose to be straight” there is absolutely no anecdotal evidence that anyone has chosen their sexual orientation. And there is plenty of evidence that indicates that one in general cannot choose to change it. Now, of course one makes choices all the time, with regard to having sex or not as well as everything else one does; there’s a MPSIMS thread on scott evil’s choices as regards his two sexual partners and a Pit thread condemning those who raised side issues on it. But whether Hamish gave his friend “encouragement” instead of “help” (in the senses you mean) would not change whether he was gay or not; about all it might do was drive him to suicide.
If, on the evidence of the conservative interpretation of the Bible, the only moral choice for a gay person is celibacy, that’s fine; you’re entitled to say just that. But suggesting that he “change” or that his friend “chose to be gay” due in part to his influence is on a par with your “choosing” to be born male, not female or hermaphroditic. (Sexual reassignment surgery actually makes it easier for you to “change” than for Hamish or his friend to, as was mentioned earlier.) What you do with your sexuality, like what Hamish and his friend do with theirs, is your choice and subject to moral decisions; what it is, is not.
You picked the wrong planet to live on, then. “All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” And I would think that a gay man who is honest with himself and intending to live a moral life would be an excellent influence; he’s been through a lot more than most people and had his will power shaped by stronger forces.
Okay. “Coming out” is sinful? I’m amazed; I thought that honesty and forthrightness (coupled with a little tact where needed) were virtues, not sins.
You learn something every day!
Homebrew, been there, done that. And thanks for the help; sometimes I feel like I’m fighting a lone battle. 
Hugs right back atcha, Sister Coyote! I italicized the comment about your mother because I’m convinced that if Wicca had Jesuits, you oughta be one – your ability to reason casuistically is something I stand in awe of.
Game. Set. Match.
Either this elephant is like a wall or it is like a rope.
Often those who are convinced by an argument on a mb to change their opinion do not post testimony to this effect.
And often the self-select themselves out of the boards that have the demographic against which you are banging your head when they realize they no longer identify with it.
Thanks for the encouragement katerina. It means a lot to me.
**Steve Wright asked:
And I fear that my original question still stands: how does being gay stop people being reconciled to God? Because I don’t see any answer beyond “well, that’s the way it is” in your post, puddleglum, and I am unable to reconcile that answer with the concept of God as Perfect Love.**
The question was debated in Why is homosexuality a sin but no satisfactory answer was ever decided other than “Well, God said so.”
After a bit of thought, I’d like to advance a radical hypothesis: God (the J/C/I God) never said anything about homosexuality, at all.
Many Christians will grab the nearest Bible and point to verses in Leviticus and St. Paul’s Letters and say “yes, it does, see right here!”
No it doesn’t! We dont’ know who wrote Leviticus. That ancient scribe or Temple priest is lost to antiquity. Tradition say that God wrote (or at least dictated) those verses. That “tradition” doesn’t hold up under analysis and historical scrunity and archeological evidence. Cecil’s staff gave excellent proof of this here.
I would submit that the nameless scribe or priest inserted those verses to give divine consent to the prevailing attitudes of the day. They’re not the word of God.
As for Paul, I find him a curious case. If God really felt that strongly about homosexuality, why didn’t Jesus himself ever mention it? I’m fairly sure that none of the 4 Gospel writers who knew Him directly ever mentioned Him saying anything about it. Only Paul mentioned homosexuality. Why is this? Again, I think it’s the case of the writer inserting his own prejudices or the prevailing attitude of the time into the text to give it divine approval.
**Hoopy Frood wrote:
You mentioned the Church’s that were in favor of the ban, but not the ones who opposed it. The gay community would help both us moderate and liberal Christians and themselves if they to would voice the fact that there are Church groups that support them. We need support from the gay community just as much as they need support from us if things are going to change.**
The problem, Hoopy Frood, is that the core issue isn’t about the gay community. What’s really at stake here is “who is the dominant voice for Christianity?” Is it the Liberal and or Moderate Christians, or is it the Fundamentalist and Conservative elements? The gay community is simply the biggest issue where the contrast between the various voices is most visible.
Many of the Liberal and Moderate Xians maintain that they’re the majority within the Christian community. If so, they’re a silent majority. The ones who get their voices heard are the Fundamentalist and Conservatives. They’re the ones proclaiming they speak for Christianity. Also, check out the websites of the various major Christian denominations. Look up their opinion on homosexuality. Except for the MCC, all of them either condemn it or disapprove of it. A few of them are debating the issue, but it’s far from settled which way the final decision will go.
And not all of the gay community is Christian, either (such as myself). Invovling non-Christians in an argument that’s essentially about Christian theology seems hypocritical at best. So, I’m standing on the sidelines, pointing to the Liberals and Moderates that this is something that’s important and they need to pay attention to it.
Friend, I do not see what puts you in a position to demand anything of me. You have an opinion, you can defend it if you are able, but if you are going to demand that other people share your opinion its not going to be much of a debate.
::: waves Hi to Katerina and echoes the welcome to Great Debates :::
When the heck are you gonna come to Raleigh, girl?
The answer most conservative Christians would give to the comments on the author of Leviticus and Paul is that “The Bible is God’s Word; therefore everything in it must be accepted as having a didactic truth value. If Paul defines something as a sin, it is therefore God speaking through him who is making that definition.”
Getting into Scriptural criticism is perhaps not germane to the point here, unless Puddleglum or another taking his stance finds it to be needful to support his position. But to be totally fair to that POV, one does have to acknowledge that the belief is not founded totally on prejudice but on an understanding of Scripture. And Puddleglum, if forced to it, would admit that he is as much a sinner under God’s Word as the gays he criticizes. (I think; there are some strange theological views out there, and Puddleglum may belong to some holiness group that believes that Christ’s cleansing of sin means that he and his co-religionists are sinless. Note that this is not borne out by Jesus’s own teachings, but it is a tenet of some allegedly Christian belief groups. Best evidence I have for what he thinks, though, does not suggest this.)
Getting back to the OP, with some unasked-for help volunteered, typically a Christian tends to believe something along the following:
“I know that not only is there a real, single God who is all-powerful and all-knowing, but also that He loves me and has called me to follow Him. I recognize this through the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels – because I know that in some way He was God incarnate, taking on human form and living as one of us, feeling our hurts, sharing our joys and sorrows… And because He chose to go to the Cross and die in agony, through this self-sacrificial deed He “paid off” the debt we all owe for being sinners.”
Now, odds are that this gay Christian character in your book either is or will move towards a fairly liberal understanding of Christianity – or will be stressed out by the inner conflict from his sense of gayness in his inmost self and the Bibliocentric teaching that just being gay is inherently sinful, and either reject Christianity altogether or be driven to self-loathing and possible suicide. (I’ll ask gobear and jayjay whom I know have come out of similar situations to validate that analysis, but I think I’m pretty close to on target.)
In that case you have to realize that “sin” to a liberal Christian does not mean “violation of a specific commandment” and therefore be avoidable – it means “falling short” of the categorical and idealized demands of Jesus – “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect” – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength, and Love your neighbor as you do yourself.”
God, being a loving Father, is quick to forgive our falling short of these ideals and strengthen us consistently to do better, to come closer to achieving them. He expects each of us to do our best to be the best self we can, and to forgive each other just as we wish to be forgiven – even when they don’t deserve it, because neither do we. His forgiveness and strengthening is a totally unmerited gift of love – that’s what we mean by grace.
In this context heaven for the righteous dead is yet another gift, of his grace. And it would only be a worthwhile gift for those who have come to love Him – for dalovindj, with his conception of a sadistic megalomaniac, heaven would be a nightmare. (Imagine being shackled hand and foot and then locked into the same room with Fred Phelps for a parallel!) But there is a sense of peace and fulfillment felt by most Christians right here on Earth – though many of us fail to show it very well to others. There is no reason on Earth (literally) why we humans should not “die all over” – cease existence completely when our bodies suffer a fatal error and crash – like we assume a nematode or mayfly or petunia plant to do. Hell is merely the state of suffering impotence we experience when, not having turned to Him and found that peace and fulfillment, we do die, and the echo of our inner spirit feels this as it extinguishes – but, given the apparently paradoxical metaphors used, I suspect that extinguishment is akin to falling down a black hole – nearly instantaneous from one perspective but perpetual from another.
I’m not sure I’ve done a particularly good job of describing the inner feelings and the faith felt by a Christian, but I’ll be happy to keep trying if you ask questions for me to answer. (Assuming this is of any value in fleshing out your character, or you develop some interest in the answers personally.) Bottom line is, I love and trustGod, and because I do, I want to live a life pleasing to Him – especially because doing so makes me feel good in myself as well. I like being free to love you as a brother and to say so without any fear of what somebody’s gonna think about it. And that’s what He gave to me.
Was this any help?
Excellent post, Poly.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :runs screaming from the room:
Also getting back to the OP, has anyone come up with a RELIGION-BASED objection to transsexualism?
Puddle claimed he thought it “icky,” but also admitted he knew nothing about it. There might be biblical objections to any alteration of the body—but wouldn’t that hold equally true for people who get tattoos, nose jobs or shave their beards?
Eve -
There is something, somewhere, in the Bible about transvestitism being a no-no. (Can someone help me out, here?)
This is, IIRC, one of the things used to nail Joan of Arc (the fact that she wouldn’t give up men’s clothing. Not to mention that she kept tromping the English armies).
However, I don’t think there’s anything about transsexualism per se. Of course, I don’t know how much of an issue it would have been, either?
Sister Coyote:
If anything, Eve has Scripture on her side – the original Eve started life male, as one of Adam’s ribs. (Insert inane Hepburn/Tracy reference at your peril!)
Well, yes, but I suppose the meek would inherit the earth a bit quicker if they kicked some ass, but how meek would they be after doing that?
I don’t know how much I can help on this observation, really. My faith, such as it was, wasn’t terribly strong from the get-go. I was Catholic mostly because I was raised Catholic, and even when I began to have doubts (which were related to but not central to my sexual orientation) I kept involved with the Church both because of my school situation (parochial all 12 years) and because of my parents.
Even when I did leave it was as much because the whole cosmology was abhorrent to me as because the God of the Church acted pretty shitty to his gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual children. Not unlike the character in City High’s What Would You Do?, I ran away so my Daddy couldn’t rape me (figuratively, of course).
At the moment, I’m agnostic. I’m not sure anything exists “out there”, other than what we can see and detect. Makes it a damn sight easier to be gay, too.
jayjay
Fantastic!
=)
I just wanted to pop back and expand on this one; I didn’t really intend it to be a pithy throwaway.
IMO, one of the key differences between Fundamentalist/Conservative/Literalist Christians and Moderates/Liberals is that the F/C/Ls seem to desire political power to impose their own values and views on the populace. If M/Ls were to try to combat this in the same arena, it could and would be argued that they were just doing the same; attempting to wield political power in order to push their agenda.