So what are you suggesting Catholics do?
Nope, they’re all SBC members. Very, very few churches have “Southern Baptist” in their name.
You’re moving the goalposts a bit here. What I was disputing was the idea that it is a “core belief.” The fact is that for most of SBC history, there was nothing in the pages-long doctrinal statement that addressed the issue at all; in 2000, they added one sentence addressing it. Most SBC churches do not address it at all in thier doctinal statements. Claiming it is a “core belief” is absurd.
In itself, I suppose the distinction between “core belief” and peripheral ones isn’t that important; but what striking to me is way you seem to be eager to find someone to be angry at.
Why the bloody-hell not? Cleansing your soul != denying your homosexuality. It doesn’t even have to mean homosexuality is a sin. Maybe that person is also a habitual gossip, and doesn’t like this, and wants to change. Couldn’t that be “cleansing your soul?” Trying to be a better person over all?
Seems like you have a beef with religion in general, not the SBC.
Even Jimmy Carter, an evangelical Baptist, called the Southern Baptist churches the ‘last bastions of discrimination’. He had quite a few complaints about the politicking (sp?) and control issues the Southern groups impose on members and the general public and their general lack of interest in other, (he feels) more important issues in his newest book.
I’m not a Baptist and don’t know much about them, but was surprised that they have so many different views- I wonder what makes them all ‘Baptist’ since they are so diverse a group? Apparantly, many churches are simply independent entities unto themselves, some belong to various smaller groups or ‘associations’. and more belong to the big associations (there are at least two really big ‘conventions’). I really never noticed that about them, living in the south my whole life.
Yes, yes, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” But I think the OP’s problem is with the assumption that a homosexual is a sinner and cannot be saved without repenting to the point of becoming either het or celibate.
Well, my church (First Congregational) is a part of the United Church of Christ and is an Open and Affirming congregation. We have two ministers who happen to be lesbians (and are married to each other), and members of the congregation march in the Santa Cruz Pride Parade every year. The UCC itself has done a lot to fight homophobia, and is, I believe, the only major mainline Protestant denomination to ordain gays and lesbians.
However, the UCC is generally considered to be a liberal denomination, and is pretty different from the Southern Baptist Convention, although we both operate on a congregational structure, which allows individual churches greater autonomy. IIRC, there were a few churches not too long ago that were kicked out of the SBC for holding more progressive views on homosexuality, which was somewhat controversial because it was very out of character for the SBC.
According to their thinking, it’s only forgiveable if you stop doing it. In essence, they forgive you if you pretend to be someone else.
As far as equality goes, they should marry all parishoners who want to be married. Otherwise, it isn’t fair. They should be supporting all forms of family, gay and straight alike, since they say that family is key to creating the kind of world god wants for us.
They need to treat their women folk better. They need to treat gays better. They need to stop harboring child molestors. That’s a start, anyway.
Show me where they treat homosexuals the same as everyone else, including the outcome after they’ve died, and I’ll retract my statement. Here’s what I hear them saying:
For crissakes, they STATE that they should be discriminated against! What more do you want?
Religion in general, Christianity in particular (with few exceptions).
They say it’s a sin, but not unforgiveable as long as they don’t practice homosexual acts. They might as well say it’s ok to be black as long as you don’t LOOK black.
I’ve always felt the same…for christianity in general. They don’t seem to agree on much of anything, yet they all choose to wear the label.
Exactly. Thanks for stating clearly what I evidently couldn’t.
I am not and never was claiming that most SB churches approve of homosexuality; they obviously do not. To repeat: My point is that it is not a “core belief.” It does not define them, in their own eyes, the way it does for you.
Incorrect. Baptists do not believe anything is ever unforgivable. You can expire whilst buttfucking whomever you like; your salvation will be based on whether or not at any point in your life you confessed to God that you (like everyone else) were a sinner by nature, asked for forgiveness, and had a sincere desire to follow Christ.
If you were to claim that homosexuality is not sinful, they might disagree, but theological correctness is not decisive in any branch of Christianity. My dad and brother (the SB ministers) think I am wrong on any number of theological issues; they do not think I am hell-bound for it.
Well, this column from the Baptist Press seems to disagree:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=2033
If you read the column, they’re obviously very unhappy with the move of many christians toward tolerance/acceptance. I haven’t read all four parts of the series, but I’ll try to get to them in the next couple days.
“A sincere desire to follow Christ”? What does that mean to gay people? Does it mean pretending to be heterosexual? Celibate? Self-loathing? What does that mean?
Kal, I don’t want to get into a complex theological and socially-justified argument about who’s doing what, especially as I tend to agree more with you. But furt has a valid point: it’s not a “core belief” and is only an issue at present because of the conflict between it and gay rights. The “core beliefs” are things like the Trinity, the Atonement, the necessity of personal conversion and salvation, the significance of Scripture as the fundamental basis of all doctrine. As in “all politics are local” it’s a blatant problem to you because of your own position.
Let me run through traditionalist beliefs regarding sex. There is a Catch-22 in it, but look at it from the perspective of a person selected at random, not from that of a specifically gay man:
- Human sexuality was given by God but is a strong temptation to sin, outside its proper use.
- The proper place for sex is with one’s spouse within marriage; any other use of it is sinful.
- Intentional desire (“lust”) for someone not one’s spouse is sinful. (Distinguish from the casual “He/she’s hot” in passing, which is a part of natural God-given sexuality.)
- The proper marriage ordained by God is between one man and one woman.
- If you’re not married, you’re expected to remain celibate and to manage your sexual urges as best you can, minimizing sin and asking forgiveness when you do sin.
Everybody is sinful, to varying degrees and in varying ways. In particular, everyone feels sexual desire in sinful ways. But there is a proper outlet for it.
Now, of course, that puts gay people, who cannot marry someone they’re romantically and sexually attracted to, at a disadvantage. That’s the Catch-22 of it. But salvation-wise, they’re in the same boat as everyone else: sinners by nature, forgiven by God on repentance. That you may be looking at a hot man instead of a hot woman and having lustful thoughts makes you no different from the single straight man: you’re both committing the sin of lust. That your sexual liaison with someone you’re not married to may be same-sex instead of opposite-sex makes no difference; you’re both fornicating. And so on.
I’m not seeking to defend this view to you, but I think it’s important to grasp it, and to realize that the typical conservative Christian does mean what he says: he’s as much a sinner as you, enthralled to the same lusts, just with different objects. Gay people aren’t being singled out by that.
Now, granted, there’s a “lunatic fringe” among the conservative Christians, with vociferousness inversely proportional to their numbers, who are firmly convinced that gay people are in fact intentionally and maliciously perverse and deserving of whatever punishment their self-righteousness digs up as appropriate. But they’re in a minority even among their co-religionists. Most of them are saying, in effect: we’re in the same boat, just looking at different sex objects, sinners in need of God’s grace.
It’s inappropriate here to get into liberal theology, focusing on God’s mercy and our Christ-commanded duty to not judge but befriend and love, and that the Biblical condemnations were not of consensual gay relationships but of fun stuff like anal gang rape, sodomistic temple prostitution as part of fertility rites, the condemnation of enslaved boy prostitution, use of gay sex by jaded straight socialites in a search for new kicks… But be aware that even most conservative Christians are not sitting in judgment over gays, beyond the standard by which they judge themselves and their fellow straights.
Polycarp, this isn’t really directed at you, but at the theoretical person whose arguments you are presenting. However, I feel that there are two questions I would ask, based on your posting:
What is the proper outlet for homosexual desire? A sham heterosexual marriage?
On this viewpoint, would you (or the person you’re speaking for) be opposed to those Christian organizations, such as Exodus International, who feel that a homosexual orientation is sinful in and of itself, and feel it is their mission to “cure” and “convert” homosexuals to heterosexuality? I know many people personally who think that, if I were to stop finding other men sexually attractive and transfer my desires to women instead, I would be a great deal less sinful than I am at the moment. Are they wrong?
Poly, how can you ask me to look at this through the eyes of the random person when your “proper use of sex” description offers *no possible way * for a gay person to ever even strive to be good within the constricts of this religion? You say human sexuality was given by god but it has to be experienced within it’s proper use. There IS no proper use for a homosexual. They cannot even HOPE to be good christians with regard to sex within these constricts.
Not for homosexuals.
d’ya THINK?
The huge difference here is that a straight person can choose to marry. They don’t HAVE to live in the fringes. They don’t HAVE to have extramarital affairs. I cannot imagine what that must do to a gay believer, but I’m guessing it’s about as demoralizing as it gets.
Oh…I grasp it, alright. I vehemently disagree with your statement that gay people aren’t being singled out. I see no other way to interpret it as long as gays aren’t allowed to marry. Knowing you as a liberal christian and a defender, I am surprised that you see it the way you do. The playing field isn’t level. It’s as simple as that.
They may judge themselves the same, but to deny a large portion of the population the basic right of falling in love seems to me to fall suspiciously short of “befriending and loving” one’s fellow man.
I lost my response to you, Kal, but it amounts to this: I was, out of a sense of fairness, trying to present an argument I understand but don’t agree with, and I’m out of this; let a conservative Christian try to defend it. But the logic they apply is this: according to their understanding of God’s will, your choices, like mine and everyone else, are two: enter into a (opposite-sex) marriage, or remain celibate. And believe me, I can grasp exactly the problem that presents to someone of same-sex orientation. So I’ll consider it fully refuted by your argument; I just felt that justice to them deserved its honest presentation, on their terms.
Poly, I understand your attempt at fairness…typical of you to want to do that. If only they had the same sense of fairness you do! Yes, homosexuals have the same options, but their options don’t encompass honesty, fairness, love, happiness or a healthy sex life. Great choices. Sigh…the mind boggles…
And for those churches that do not believe homosexuality is a sin, such as the United Church of Christ?