Blogging Homosexuality - Introductions
Recently several friends and I have discussed some of the often misunderstood or misrepresented areas of christian living within a forming theological worldview, namely, same-gender sexuality. We who have grown up in Evangelical sub-cultures know how homosexuality is quite often understood as a "super-sin" (as Tony Campolo would term it), the most revolting of abominations. I, like my peers who grew up with me, was once entrenched in that belief. The idea that I am somehow morally superior to a friend who would find the idea of kissing a boy "normal" or being with a girl as undesirable led to damaging words and negative thoughts to these, my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I have gone through many stages in development since that time, theologically, politically, sexually, and otherwise, and I think it is time that that the church re-evaluate her treatment and understanding of human sexuality, especially in regards to homosexuality. I am not calling for the open ordination of homosexual clergy, but an honest and Christ-like understanding (or at least discussion) of how we treat our neighbors in light of Immeasurable Grace.
To foster that re-evaluation, I have decided to host an ongoing conversation with a "Queer Christian" as he calls himself. He has emailed me an introduction for himself. We will begin a series of posts/counterposts over the next few weeks. Comments will be incorporated into the post, if they are relevant. Please keep you comments humble and loving. Gay-bashing will not be tolerated.
Everyone, please meet "Q.C:"
Further Reading:
Adam Walker Cleaveland: Blogging Homosexuality - Great thoughts on the nature of discussion over this crazy thing: the internet.
Kyle Potter: Homosexuality and Evangelical Churches - He levels hetero-sexism with hypocrisy in a fantastic manner. A call for consistency.
Brian McLaren: No Cowardly "Flip-Flop" - A very pastoral and understanding letter. I think the five-year moratorium is a good plan...
Rowan Williams: Christianity Today Interview - Regarding the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.
NT Wright: National Catholic Reporter Interview - Homosexuality and Ecclesial Communion.
CBMW: The Homosexual Agenda - Relgious Liberty Under Fire - My token super-conservative link. Smile, right-wing friends!
I have gone through many stages in development since that time, theologically, politically, sexually, and otherwise, and I think it is time that that the church re-evaluate her treatment and understanding of human sexuality, especially in regards to homosexuality. I am not calling for the open ordination of homosexual clergy, but an honest and Christ-like understanding (or at least discussion) of how we treat our neighbors in light of Immeasurable Grace.
To foster that re-evaluation, I have decided to host an ongoing conversation with a "Queer Christian" as he calls himself. He has emailed me an introduction for himself. We will begin a series of posts/counterposts over the next few weeks. Comments will be incorporated into the post, if they are relevant. Please keep you comments humble and loving. Gay-bashing will not be tolerated.
Everyone, please meet "Q.C:"
"Freak of nature."
That tends to be how Evangelicals, even when trying to show themselves in acts of love, make me feel most of the time. You see I am a homosexual and I am a Christian. Don't get me wrong. I love God and I love my sweet Jesus. I want to follow him all the days of my life. However I like men and the thought of gay sex really does turn me on.
But wait. I don't practice it either. Why do you ask? Well it is because I can not reconcile participating in this type of sex and following Christ through the guidance given by and through the Scriptures and tradition.
So doesn't this lend you to living an unhappy life? Anything but! You see I believe that who we are moans with all of creation for redemption. I believe that one day there will be a great miracle. A miracle so amazing that all things become new. I believe that one day I will be changed in what some call the new creation. So I live for the hope of Christ. When we proclaim: Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again. Well I love shouting this out with as much triumph as I can muster up that Christ will come again.
I do believe that we are predisposed to various things in this life. That's called depravity. We are all sexual deviants. No "ifs" and "buts" about it. Being attracted this way is just another aspect of being screwed up. Oh boy, I can't wait for the day of redemption!
I think there might be some good reasons why this type of sex has been viewed against that of the heterosexuals. The sex of the gay guy really does not foster relationship at all. Honestly I believe God to be a God who values relationship greatly. In our type of sex it is normally either one guy horizontal while the other guy is vertical. No face to face contact. All it is is butt grinding against the crotch. Same thing with when I guy hit it from the back. Intimacy is lost. There are only a few positions that allow face to face contact and they normally require one partner to be nearly a contortionist. This type of sex will fail when they get older unlike heterosex. I still know heterosexual couples in their mid to late 80s who claim to be rocking the ceiling rafters.
And no homosexuals are not called to celibacy by default. And yes, there is a difference between the single non-practicing homosexual and the celibate homosexual.
Further Reading:
Adam Walker Cleaveland: Blogging Homosexuality - Great thoughts on the nature of discussion over this crazy thing: the internet.
Kyle Potter: Homosexuality and Evangelical Churches - He levels hetero-sexism with hypocrisy in a fantastic manner. A call for consistency.
Brian McLaren: No Cowardly "Flip-Flop" - A very pastoral and understanding letter. I think the five-year moratorium is a good plan...
Rowan Williams: Christianity Today Interview - Regarding the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.
NT Wright: National Catholic Reporter Interview - Homosexuality and Ecclesial Communion.
CBMW: The Homosexual Agenda - Relgious Liberty Under Fire - My token super-conservative link. Smile, right-wing friends!
posted by -mike- at 8:23 PM
67 Comments:
Homosexuality is a sin, that is all. Its no worse than drunkeness, idol worship or anything else, but it is a sin. You should still love them even though they are in sin. But if they don't change its comes down to are the really a christian because God works on peoples hearts right when he comes into your heart. Some people say it should be accepted, its just the way they where made. Even so even if they have more female hormones or whatever does that mean we accept it? No, just cuz people have thing in them that make them fly off the handle and murder someone, or mentally unstable to hurt someone, does that mean we accept there sin as well? Love the person hate the sin.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
For a start, I continue to insist that "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't actually happen. Hate your own sin. None of us have any business hating anybody else's sin; how arrogant would that be?
Mike, I guess you want responses to Q.C.'s comments? I greatly respect Christians who believe that a same-sex erotic union is incompatable with Christian discipleship. I also respect Christians who think that it is consistant, despite the consistently negative witness in Scripture (hint: it has to do with the reasons provided, or rather the lack thereof!)
I think the comments about anal sex are stereotyped and in poor taste.
I don't understand the difference between "the single non-practicing homosexual and the celibate homosexual." Clarifications?
BJ: Thanks man, for your thoughts. But, in your view, what makes it sin? If someone who is a glutton (they eat too much - one of the seven deadly sins) and they don't stop they're self-destructive habit, are they really a christian, according to your logic? With that, we'd have to remove the majority of obese people from active ministry and even our church membership rolls... I think we need to move beyond this.
Anonymous: I have read this before. Is this Matt?
Kyle: Sanctification is where it needs to start, baby! I usually refrain from commenting on anal sex... it is a topic I am very unfamiliar with...
I too am unsusre of the meaning of this. I posted his intro in full, although I think that there may need to be more clarification. I guess that will be for a later post...
I agreew ith Q.C.'s description of "tendencies" or "inclinations" that we as humans have toward sin. It is defiintely a result of the fall of man. Each man is drawn away of his own lust, as James tells us.
I was a bit confused with Q.C.'s comment: "And no homosexuals are not called to celibacy by default."
It seems that he thinks that it is inconsistent with Christian discipleship to live a homosexual lifestyle, but doesn't think his own personal convictions should be the rule for all Christian homosexuals. Is this what he's trying to say?
Interesting series, and great OP, Q.C. Thanks for doing this, Mike, I'm sure it'll be enlightening for everyone. Even this crazy Cuban.
Whoops, forgot to add this.
Kyle,
I don't see what the problem is with the Christian cliche "Love the sinner, but hate the sin." I think it's quite all right for me to hate, say, someone's habitual drunkenness and the damage it causes in peoples' lives, and yet still love the person and wish Christ's best for him. What's wrong with that?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rob, here's the thing about "loving the sinner and hating the sin." Who in the world does anybody say that to or about except homosexual persons? Would you ever walk up to a stranger with a gambling problem/eating disorder/random addiction and say, "I love you, but I hate your sin"? You might not say that to any stranger, but that's one of the first things that "hate the sin" type Christians always like to say to homosexual people they don't even know.
Further, it's blatantly obvious to any homosexual person that Christians hate them. Just ask around. When Christians want to talk about "hating their sin," I think it just sounds redundant. The public (any of them, in general) have a good idea of what it looks like when Christians hate, but not when they love. Homosexual persons in our society know what the hatred of the Church (supposedly for their sin) looks like, but no idea that "loving the sinner" is anything but lip service to the gospel.
I don't think that using language of "hating" anything about someone is anything but shut-down language, that kills relationship and dialogue?
If one really does share a life with someone and shoulder with them the consequences of broken and sinful patterns of behavior, then they can talk about "hating the sin" involved. But not without a relationship, not without committment. Without that, it's just arrogance.
There was also a long conversation about it here last year.
Q.C., what do you mean by using the word "Queer"? No, it doesn't sound offensive, but I'm inclined to think it means a certain identification with a "different" and marginal status.
As for the rest?
1. While you've clearly had some bad experiences (that you seem to enjoy describing in lurid detail) this falls far short of convincing me that all heterosexual intercourse is good and "conducive to relationship" while all forms of homosexual intercourse are necessarily "non-intimate." Sound to me like you're arguing that most homosexuals are into "leather 'n' bondage"? Please. Maybe you shouldn't go to certain clubs for your research!
2. You're having too much fun discussing the mechanics of gay sex, and for no apparent reasons in terms of debate. This has gotten blatantly pornographic, so aside from the whole "hate the sin" conversation, I'm done with this.
Kyle I agree not all heterosex is ideal. Just that it by very body positioning promotes intimacy more than sex between 2 men. And most gay guys I know aren't into LnB. Thats a mindset somebody really has to get into.
The reason I have talked about the mechanics is because I do trully believe it by its very nature has some real issues involved. Maybe that is in part why their were prohibitions on it. I don't know. And no talking about mechanics is not pornographic. It is an adult conversation yes. This whole topic of sexuality is an adult topic. However this is not erotica by any means.
The conversation does make me feel rather uncomfortable. However I was simply trying to make a point. The point being that I do not believe that sexual activities available to the gay male promotes a level of intimacy that can be achieved by the heterosexual couple.
Intimacyis a major reason why I believe that the partners who stay together for a lifetime (or even more than 5 yrs) is nearly nonexistent percentage rise. Which really does throw some major issues for those who try to advocate
But maybe its a topic best dropped at this point.
-QC-
On a final note for my post to this leter/essay whatnot. Is that sex is fundamental to sexuality. To discuss a perceived ideal of "follow my heart and everything will be alright" christianity is really scary. What I am trying to write is how I try to live as a Christian following orthodoxy and being a gay male. In short I am a conservative gay christian male.
This is an adventure in how I came to peace with this. And yes I am at peace with my identity.
-QC-
Thanks for the expanded answer, Kyle.
Rob: Thanks for the input. Hopefully we can all walk away with more understanding.
Kyle: I agree with you about these silly christian cliches we've got. Love is rarely seen. We all knwo the hate.
I don't think all heterosexual intercourse is "good" and all homosexual intercourse is "bad." I think that the mechanics and instances of intercourse ought not be discussed here, but I will say this, sex is to be in a commited realtionship, whether that be hetero or homo. Promiscuity is not our friend and it never will be.
Q.C: I understand that the idea of intimacy led you to your conclusions about homosexualtiy and christian living, but that goes beyond a shallow orgasm. Intimacy is not something found purely in sex (although it may be argued that it is epitomized in it) but in shared-living. A convergence of two stories into "one new flesh." You're correct in saying that sex is fundamentall to sexuality, but the nearly pornographic references in previous comments (which Kyle duly noted) are inappropriate and I would appreciate it if they weren't brought up again. Comments about the mechanics of intercourse (whether that be hetero or homo) are off-limits. It does need to be dropped.
Everyone: I continue to welcome comments. I want to make that clear: this is to be a conversation. I want to see the whole of the contributors (both those who post the entries and those who will comment on them) thinking more analytically of what they believe and why about this "issue." It will be good for all of us. The only way to go into this is to have an open-mind and be open to the possibilty of being converted to another's viewpoint. Respect and openness is key.
Grace and Peace
His eminance has spoken. :0) So, moving along...
I said above,
"I greatly respect Christians who believe that a same-sex erotic union is incompatable with Christian discipleship. I also respect Christians who think that it is consistant, despite the consistently negative witness in Scripture (hint: it has to do with the reasons provided, or rather the lack thereof!) "
Perhaps I should elaborate.
For virtually everything else that the Christian scriptures consider to be a sin, there is either provided or implied some specific moral reason: we can say that sin is sin because it is demonstrably destructive of peoples' lives and their holiness and relationship with God.
The scriptures don't seem to provide much of a rationale as to why same-sex romantic relationships are destructive. Even if we follow the Genesis creation narratives and say that there is a "creative intent" from which those relationships depart, this does not demonstrate why that is a destructive departure.
The reality is that there are many ways of living that we could say are outside of "God's original intentions" that scripture is cool with or that the Church has agreed to permit. Once again, I submit to you the state of Christian attitudes on divorce and (re)marriage. (This is more difficult for Protestants, because Roman Catholics at least have some doctrinal consistancy in these matters.)
So, in a nutshell: we can say that the Bible puts homosexual practice outside of God's "intentions," but I don't think that makes it bad necessarily.
This subject has come up a lot with me, I have a lot of friends who are homosexual & it kills me to have to watch them walk down the hall at school only to hear 'homo!' or 'you freak!' & to have to look at their faces when they get to school. One of my best friends is a lesbian, & I love her to death & her girlfirend too, but I'm not allowed to have them both over to stay the night because my parents are against it.
My dad doesn't like that I am not totaly against homosexuality, but I can't help that. I just don't really care, personally I'm all for the 'if you love someone' thing because most of my friends are homosexual or bi-sexual, & I don't judge them on it. It just makes me sick how some people react to homosexuality, but hey I'm only 15... What do I know, right?
What is the ultimate standard for calling something good or bad? I see a lot of "I thinks" and "I feels". How can we pretend to be consistent if we can pick and choose what ethical imperatives are legitimate and which are "antiquated" or "intentions"?
It seems that this is one of the major stumbling blocks for Protestants especially after the Englightenment, dogma and praxy can never be reconciled with our opinion on the reliability of the Bible and/or the christian Tradition. We want it both ways. God is revealed, but not. He is clear but not clear. That being the case, who in the end gets to be god in the 21st century?
The Bible is incredibly clear that homosexuality is a sin. This is a moral teaching that is unambiguous, and yet we cannot stand it because of perceived complexities that the inspired authors of scripture weren't privy to. When 2000 years of Christianity says unanimously "no" we have no right to say "yes". I have tons of friends and family who have at times chosen a homosexual lifestyle. I live in NY which according to my boss "we (gays) own this city". I don't shiver when a gay couple kisses on the street out of familiarity, not out of approval. I don't make gagging noises when I walk through chelsea. When I see two old men holding hands I don't think in red letters. I think it takes a lot of guts for a Christian in todays landscape to not lash out in blind intolerant rage at "the sin of all sins", the unforgivable sin of homosexuality. It takes guts because a lot of the Christian world demands co-conspirators in being unloving, callous, and spiritually negligent towards God's creation.
This virtue is however misplaced when the Christian lowers her standard, and removes the structure that gives each good its proper place in the practice of moral living. So called psychological health is not the rule of faith. What is pyschological health to begin with? We could not know without the teachings of Christ, his prophets and apostles! "Reason" is not the rule of faith. What seems perfectly reasonable to man is transient, flimsy. Our reason is that we ought to stay in bed when we really should rise early and go to work. Our reason is that someone else is probably helping that dirty old man who sleeps on the subway station steps. Our reason says that God could not become man and that man could not become God. And all these empty ideas are of course unchristian at their root. So again Mike, Kyle, and anyone else I challenge you to establish some basis for thinking that something is right or wrong, and demonstrate that practicing homosexuality is not necessarily immoral.
Kyle,
You say that sin is "demonstrably destructive" but if that was the case their would be no need for the book of Psalms. One of the major themes of those songs is that godliness doesn't pay. Aristotle understood this as well, there is a moral life that is demonstrably destructive and leads to a ruination of one's peace and well-being. So empiricism cannot in anyway shine light on this subject.
what i find most interesting is the idea that "if you truly accept christ he will change you from gay to not-gay" - or so the evagelical teaching goes. but, when it comes to all other "sins" the evangelcial line is "we are only human" so forgive us for not being perfect - seems to me to be a bit of one sided - when evangelicals fall "from grace" with money, power, abuse, hetero-sex, or drugs we say, "they are human and we should forgive" - but when a person is gay, forgiveness is not coming.
we have so many plankes in our eyes - it is hard for many to see anything, let alone the forest :)
Hi, Ian. First in general, well said. However, I think your argument sounds kind of like, "the Bible says it's sinful and bad, so we must take for granted that it's sinful and bad, and not second guess it."
I do admit that I am "second guessing" the Bible - my phrasing, of course, and not yours. But I'm cool with that.
I don't understand your second comment or what you mean by empiricism. I don't argue that we have to look at the "results" of a particular ethical choice and then decide whether it was right or wrong; I do argue that we need to find an internally consistent notion of why a thing is "sin" and why some behaviors are wrong. In terms of that, I don't know why homosexual practice is wrong - unless I want to be satisfied with "because the Bible says so."
Cheers.
Kyle,
Thanks for your response. I think your search for internal coherence is faulty. I say this because coherence itself depends on your first principles. We cannot approach a subject as neutral observers and simply be satisified that it makes sense. Whatever our worldview contains is read back into our readings not only of scripture but of nature as well. That being the case, we have to be self-concious that we have a uniquely christian vision, and I cannot see how this could be done without having something however human (like the Bible or the catholic Tradition) that can be right even when we are wrong. What use is a religion that we only believe in when we agree with it, or a faith that makes lots of "commonsense"? Not much.
I don't believe it to be a sin. In fact Leviticus is a very dark book, but there is already posts on this.
I'm gay. I'm not celibate.... but am I really considered non-practicing?
If a guy I am interested in and I begin to date him do I become a practicing homosexual?
I fully believe I am always a homosexual with a female hypothalamus. Pre-natal stress and testosterone caused me to develop this way. I do not believe it to be a sin, and I fully believe as a christian, God made me this way.
At any rate-- here is a great article I reference to explain my belief system.
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
All I can say is:
I desperately wish that I could come to some resolution on this issue. I've researched it. I've read good arguments on both sides. I've prayed on it and reflected. I can argue for either side pretty effectively but...
I don't know.
I'm gonna go with what PR told me once: "Don't think you can make God angry by loving somebody too much."
-J
Ian, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Kyle: I have always noticed that. I used to think, "Homosexuality is outside of God's intended plan for his human creatures - one man and one woman, in the covenant of marriage. Anything other is destructive to our human identity and our relationship with God." I am now "ok" that the Bible says homosexuality is uncool, as offensive at that will sound to some of the more evangelical readers...
Meaghan: Thank you for your contribution. I agree that our reactions, whether we are ok with homosexuality or not, need to change. We need to be the people transformed by, filled with, and becoming "love."
Ian: I think Kyle stated my thoughts very well. I don't understand how empiricism has anything to do with whatever...
John: There does seem to be a bit of a double-standard. God, have mercy...
Jets: Twin Falls? Nice... Thank you for your thoughts on the matter!
JHearne: Perhaps you have the best position of all, my friend. Thank you for your thoughtful words and your loving spirit.
Everyone: I am leaving to camping for a week. I will be back next sunday night. I trust that you will all behave and that I won't come home to any severed (e)limbs. God be with us all.
Last semester I wrote a paper and gave a report in a basic Christian theology course concerning homosexuality and the Christian faith. I came across an excellent resource called "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" by John Boswell. Apparently this book really turned some heads upon its release in 1980. It is, however, an enlightening book that I would encourage anyone to take a look at if interested in further reading.
I am like JHearne in that I do not feel I have all the answers or am completely satisfied with how I feel about this issue. I do, however, believe that a homosexual person should be given all of the rights in the church that all brothers and sisters in Christ share. Denying someone membership to a church (which I have heard of too often) because of their sexual orientation is sickening and not Christ-like.
Kyle,
I apologize if I was obscure in my last response to you. In plain english:
We are not nuetral observers. We have biases and feelings. When you say that you are looking at specific acts to determine their moral value based on their "destructive ends" you are begging the question. What is a destructive end? As I stated before the whole book of the Psalms overthows the over-simple idea that "crime doesn't pay"--often it doesn't. The guilty often get away with the crime within our natural lifetimes. Other times we are wronged and out of ignorance we don't even know that we have been mistreated.
Further the idea that we could begin to understand what a crime is by seeing that it was rewarded with some form of punishment (self-hurt or violence done to others, including God btw) is viciously circular.
There are certainly crimes that existed which posed no immediate harm to the moral agent or to those the agent acted upon or with. There are also abundant examples that hardly need to be brought up that demonstrate that crime does pay, and paradoxically only by faith do we know that all crimes will be paid. And only by the same faith can we know what a real crime is!
But can't we judge that crimes or sins pay by examining the harm that results from them? No, because your notion of "harm" or injury must also be based on some standard outside yourself, something public and communal. And thus far neither you or Mike have revealed what is the moral standard that we should examine where the Bible and the christian Tradition fails us. It has been implied that it is based on private opinion. In which case for you to say something is right or wrong is to say: I approve of this or that. I beg your pardon if I'm misjudging what either of you are saying.
Lastly, you say that the Bible describes practiced homosexuality as outside of God's "intentions" yet this does not in any way circumscribe the moral value of those sexual acts. What else needs to be said? Clearly we can do whatever we wish, since none of your intentions could ever be placed on a higher plane than my own, and God's intentions fare no better in determining what we ought or ought not to do?
Well what a great topic! And everybody is well spoken and really smart sounding(Ian I got what you said, you basically were acussing Kyle of reletivism, that all sin is reletive to what destruction Kyle can observe). My feelings on the issue are pretty complex. I always wondered why Jesus didn't say anything about it if it was so important, and why leviticus is so full of rules. These issues really get into culture and history. Jesus didn't say anything because he was really pissed at the rich and religious people in is culture, a very Jewish culture. Paul contrastly says a lot more, because he was talking to a Greco-Roman culture that embraced free-love, and generally horrific sexual behavior (I am not talking about just homosexuality, I'm talking about incestual and group sex, that I don't think anybody would say is ok). Paul saw this as deffinitely bad. I am not going to disagree with Paul. I think it's wrong for there to be sexual relationships aside from a man and his wife, BUT I am not telling anyone to end their bad behavior because it is a sin.
Why? Because I don't care. I don't see the destruction as long as they are safe sexually, and are protective of their hearts. I think that most relationships that engage in sexual activity (all, even marriages, with few exceptions) are doomed, or are not as good as they would be otherwise(Paul says the reason for marriage is for the release of temptation. therefore the relation is already not a necesity, but a second best option, acording to Paul at least). All that stuff aside, the message to everybody, including homosexuals, is Jesus Christ is God and his Kingdom is near. I don't care if they keep practicing, my job is to love them. We all have sins that we deal with, and most of them are reacurring sins. Jesus isn't waiting till we get our lives straight to die on the cross, he already did while we were sinners. The only time I would confront a homosexual or anybody else about their sin, is if it is ruining the unity of the church or hurting individuals in the church or community. I guess when we see the damage, destruction we say stuff.
Okay, Ian, maybe I'll end up missing your point again, but are you arguing that it's better to say, "I don't know why homosexual practice is sinful, but it is destructive and wrong because the Bible calls it sin, whether I can see that it's destructive and wrong or not." ...?
I don't claim to be a neutral observer. But here's the rub: I don't claim Paul to be a neutral observer, either. I think it's legitimate for the community to consider itself "in dialogue" with the canon of Scripture, to determine moral principles from its contents. And I'd like to know what the moral principle is supposed to be before I just lift a rule from its pages and employ it haphazardly in contemporary life.
Kyle,
you said: are you arguing that it's better to say, "I don't know why homosexual practice is sinful, but it is destructive and wrong because the Bible calls it sin, whether I can see that it's destructive and wrong or not."
My reply: No I'm saying that we don't and cannot know if anything is sinful based on its destructiveness or harmfulness. Those are arbitrary relations of terms. We cannot in our private opinion determine the moral value of something as equal to the concept of "destructiveness", firstly because destructiveness itself is vague. Can we be ignorant of an acts destructiveness. (Is it destructive to skim a little off of my job's yearly earnings?) Secondly because what basis do we have for putting a moral or immoral stamp on a destructive act? And then who gets to call something sin? You? Me? My little sister?
You say that Paul was just as culturally conditioned as you or anyone else. This is beyond question. However you fail to recognize that Paul's writings, and Paul's teachings are not on the same level as your teachings or your writings. And I'm not speaking of the literary value of anything you might distribute, I'm speaking of the difference between prophet, apostle and joe blow. Looking at what you said, I see no reason why I should take even Jesus' teachings seriously. Jesus said that looking at a woman is like adultery? So what? Well I say he was just a man. You say "He" was the Son of God? Well I do not believe you St. Peter, St. Paul, or St. John. Everyone has biases but not everyone has authority undergirding their doctrines and ideas. Hell, God has biases and "opinions".
Mike I'm glad you're moderating a discussion on this controversial topic. It must be hard because passions can lead the dialog into chaos so quickly. There have been very thought-provoking posts here already - I just want to offer a couple cents' worth of my thoughts.
I discovered a strong abundance of sexual feeling for my male friends in fifth/sixth grade, and an almost absence for my female friends. I became very homophobic, bashing classmates with mean-spirited jokes - I didn't want anyone to suspect my private thoughts. In high-school I went to Mass, Bible study, and Praise & Worship twice or three times a week, confession about three times a month. I studied very closely what the Bible, the Magisterium, Tradition, and the Catechism have to say about same-sex attractions and acts. I hated my own desires, in turn hating myself for having them. The guilt became almost too much to bear. Lucky for me a good friend figured out my dirty little secret and helped me come out spiritually at least. He said that I should bring these feelings openly to God in prayer. His pastoral guidance ended up saving me, because I have found a much more secure and loving relationship with God.
I know a lot of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people don't set their sexuality and spirituality on a collision course like i did, but I do want to ask the churches to please be gentle and sympathetic with teenagers and young adults like me. You are God's hands and feet. You are light and salt. These teenagers listen to you. I know it sounds cheesy, but use pastoral guidance, like the Good Shepherd.
Ian, you appeal to extreme cases. When it comes right down to it, I can't tell the difference between what you're saying and, "it's sinful because the bible says so, and that's that." Is there meant to be a difference?
Kyle,
"Extreme cases" explore the logical results of a philosophical position. These are called reductio absurdum arguments. When engineers build an elevator for example they test the device to its breaking point to see how far it can go. I don't think your ideas can take the pressure of realistic questions. It's not fair for you to dismiss legitimate questions, any more for it would be for me to dismiss your legitimate questions. If I should be convinced of your take on sexual ethics I would need you to demonstrate that there is an epistemic ground for me to stand on to critique the Bible's expression of sexual ethics. Everyone has first principles, and everyone has a worldview.
I got news, man. I know what your big words mean. And I also know you're not making them make a whole lot of sense together.
God bless you, man, but this has gotten silly.
And that, Kyle, is called an ad hominem argument. :D
Ian, I think what he trying to say is that your language is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. This is not a philosophical debate. You jargon is not necessary or helpful.
Day, it's good to see you comment. Very well put. Thank you for your comments.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have been following the post and have been enjoying it thoroughly. I am confused though.
KYLE : Why is it so hard to understand what Ian is saying? - I don't mean to lead to insult - he seems to be clear it his statements. And I would have to agree with his view.
If the Holy Scriptures & Holy Spirit are not our guides on moral issues, than what is? Or do you not believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Here are 2 old posts of mine that touch on this topic. I will say more later. Here are these for now...
What is not love.
The Less Faithfull
What is not love
I have noticed an attitude expressed on this blog and elsewhere about homosexuality that treats the Biblical prohibitions against same-gender sex (please note that Scripture does not speak of the inclination to homosexuality at all, but only of the action of two men or women having sex together) as not grounded in any solid reason. On the contary, it is argued, positive reasons are enumerated in Scripture for not murdering or not stealing. When it comes to the God's "logic," however, it is untrue to assert that there are no positive reasons to live the homosexual lifestyle.
First of all, just let me say that not all sin involves harming others or upsetting the peace of a community; nor does it involve physically harming yourself, and sometimes it can seem downright pleasant until we see the end result, which is a wretched soul. It only involves, according to the the Church Fathers, and particularly the Easterners, "that which is against nature." Since God created nature, nature is inherently good; but since it is through our free actions fallen, it is internally discordant and susceptible to other influences. When we deliberately make a choice to sin, we are making a choice which rebels against what we were naturally created to do. Conversely, when we live fully in accordance with nature, we fertilize the ground of our souls to live in union with God.
The reason which, I submit, is implicit in Scripture for the prohibition against same-gender sex is that it is unnatural and a perversion or distortion of the original ('natural') purpose of sex, which was not meant to be purely recreative but to a large extent procreative. Consider God's command in Genesis for Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, and how this admonition is not possibly met within the homosexual framework.
That should reason "it is untrue to assert that there are no positive reasons NOT to live the homosexual life."
Brandt, I think I'm confused by all that because it sounds to me like Ian is saying "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," and I am really certain he wouldn't actually say that.
I also have difficulty with any position that refuses to have a reckoning or even a discussion with the Canon itself: if "the Bible" says "no" to something, I want to know why. I think that's legitmate. The reasons I think it says "no" to most thing may or not be fully logical conclusions, but in the absence of another theory, I think I'll stick with my own.
What I think I'm hearing from both of you guys is that Scripture doesn't to offer a rationale, nor are we at liberty to discern one, from the things it allows and prohibits.
Kyle:
Doesn't it strike you as not a little arrogant to assume that Scripture has to meet your standards of a rationale for its prohibitions against same-gender sex in the first place? I'm not saying it doesn't offer any rationale (and I do think we are at liberty to discern one, or more accurately the Catholic i.e. Universal Church is at liberty to discern one) - but I wonder why one should call one's self a Christian at all if one is not going to rely on at least Scripture to understand what is and isn't an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Rather I think the method we should take is to trust that God has a good rationale for His prohibitions against same-gender sex in Scripture, and then to study to see what this rationale might be. Of course, this will require the use of an extra-Scriptural interpretive framework, but then that is inescapable for any theological paradigm.
So, I return to my question: why does Scripture have to meet your standards of a rationale for its prohibitions against same-gender sex in the first place?
In Kyle's defense, I think that we are denying one of the most precious gifts given to us if we simply take something as it is rather than questioning our own interpretation, the community's interpretation, or the traditional interpretation of an issue. This gift is the human ability to discern and reason; to me this is wisdom.
Christianity would not have progressed to where it is today if it had not been for inquiring minds searching for answers, even if the answer was not in sight. If individuals in the Christian community did not question certain aspects of the Bible, I think today we might still believe the Earth is flat, we might believe the Earth is the center of the universe, we might believe that slavery is acceptable; we might believe that women should be covered from head to toe and not speak in the church. I understand there are contextual differences, but isn't that what is at the forefront in a discussion such as this? Every friggin' pychologist and scientist believes that same sex orientation is not a choice. Is there a chance that they are wrong? I suppose. But do we have to abandon all logical thought and practice here? I sure hope not, especially on an issue that is mentioned so few times in the Bible.
Scientists and psychologists are totally not in agreement on this. And the ones that are pointing to as something that is inherent are saying different things as to what. So your appeal to authority here is totally invalid. And if someone just takes the time out to read the debate on this issue from their point of view, even the proponents say it is controversial and uncertain.
Also the argument of whether something was mentioned once or many times in relating to how authorative it is, well is just faulty. To use an analogy... if a law "A" was set in motion and mentioned just one time is it less authorative than law "B" where we hear about it regularly? Heck no. If we broke law "A" we still have to pay the consequences.
Also there were probrably alot of things that were pretty much givens to the early church. That in letters and general commuications they did not have to be expressed every single time. This issue simply may have been one of them. And one of those things that have stuck through us through out the years in tradition.
I'll admit that not ALL scientists are in agreement on this subject; bias and other factors contribute to scientific studies. But The American Psychiatric Association, World Health Organization, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, Academy of of Pediatrics and Council on Child and Adolescent Health are all in agreement that homosexuality is not a choice. Invalid appeal to authority? I don't think so - unless we simply dismiss such organizations as not knowing what they're talking about. I never claimed homosexuality was totally "genetic" or totally a "nature vs. nurture" issue. What I am suggesting is the possibility that orientation is not a choice; why must me dismiss this claim by someone more authoritative than you or I?
The fact that the issue of homosexuality is brought up so few times in the Bible does not make it a non-issue. I never made this claim. But when we look at it in the context of where it is mentioned, though, I think some debate is merited in that it is, for instance, placed in the same area as abominations like wearing jewelry in church. Why are we not hotly debating that issue today? But I also believe that when a particular teaching or issue is mentioned more than others in our Biblical texts, I can't help but think that something makes it very important and that it is something essential to living out God's will. In that area, you accuse me rightly, my friend.
I'll give you that most, not all studies, point to that there is some sort of precursor to homosexuality. But when you look at the studies all they can do is point towards that people have desires and in part driven towards intimate relationship with a person of the same gender. Thats all they say.
But thing is we can make the same appeal about individuals who are driven towards anger to the point that it most naturally expresses itself as being explosive. However these individuals are prescribed medication, enrolled in anger management, and given ample support systems to learn to manage it.
**I am not saying homosexuality is a mental illness.** What I am saying is that because we have learned of potential reasons why we may respond in a certain way does not mean we have to live that way.
Another example to this would be that certainindividuals because of different things in their life or biological makeup has maked them prone to mishandle food by craving a large amount of it. If they given into their cravings, and yes they feel it as a need they must do, then they will gain excessive weight and put themselves into bodily danger. These individuals must choose then to practice restraints to the best of their ability and overcome their inward urge to gorge.
Also the appeal to authority is generally a weak argument. But it is still an argument. Just also in some of those organizations you mentioned there were some pretty good debates that went on about the whole issue. And the debates still haven't ended yet.
You are also right that certain areas where homosexuality is talked of in scripture is in a rather funky place. However there are other places where it isn't.
And in regards to teachings of Scripture I tend to think that certain ones may have potentially been emphasized more so because of the very importance of it however I do still think that most times when they have come up in scripture is because they were particularly relevant to the discussion at hand or the history that is trying to be conveyed.
Hey Y&A this is quite enjoyable to discuss this with another brother. If I ever come across as harsh please don't interpret it that because that is not my intent. I just wanted to get into the debate. =)
Oh yeah and on a sidenote I do support mental health very vigorously or I wouldn't be in 2 different jobs in the mental health field.
No problem, bro - you're comments and analyzations of my comments are more than welcome! I am learning things here at the same rate I am trying to inform, for which I am thankful.
And sorry for my hideous bad grammar. Ha I never spellcheck!
People really get distracted thinking about the sex as sinful with same gender attraction/relationship. In my own 30 yrs of trying to figure out what to do with same gender attraction I have, it finally made sense when it was pointed out to me that it's about idolatry. Banish the thought of sex for a second. What is going on is I am going from person to person, trying to get the hole in my soul filled. Sex is intimacy, and intimacy can seem to hold the promise of soul filling. But this quest for soul filling goes on without and before sex.
As to the Bible saying it's a sin - the Romans 1 passage goes on to Romans 2 to say "and you are them." So, if we are to think of whatever and whoever has unrepentance, we first must be entrenched in having ourselves in the "we are them." And, I agree, such conversations, repentance or not, come when a relationship has been built and one has earned the trust and respect to speak out. How else can we even come close to thinking we know if a person is unrepentant or not? And, I take unrepentance as a heart attitude, not just unrepentant to a sin here, or a sin there. The NT words about any sin are written to people in churches that were built on relationship with one another - meeting in homes, eating meals together, consistency in attendance, getting to know each other.
Lastly, a friend of 21 yrs who has always had same gender partnerings/lovers, is vehemently anti-christian, what God keeps telling me to do with her is to love her. She already is primed and ready for the rejection, how bout if I can show her something other than rejection, without giving my ok for her choices. If she were ever to pin me per my view of her life, I am ready to only say "I think God wants to share in a love relationship with you." It's not about what she's doing with whom, God wants her to come home, God wants her heart. That's the first thing to tackle.
Wow! Thanks everyone for the convo! I wasn't expecting this much for response! I will have another post up shortly regarding this issue and I may even give out my position... There is too much to respond to but again I thank you all for the feedback!
Grace and Peace
-me
I wasn't going to, but what the hell...
David Richards, the reason that faithful Christians have such a hard time discussing difficult questions like these is that folks like you are always ready to insist that, merely because we voice our questions and doubts, are not and cannot be faithful Christians.
Sod off.
Kyle:
Your comment for me to "sod off" engenders the very attitude you are supposedly trying to extinguish toward homosexuals. I am a Christian too, and if you can't respond to my points with the kindness and charity you expect us "traditionalists" to offer homosexuals then I see no reason to you seriously.
Children, behave.
:)
David: I agree with Kyle that your comment was unduly harsh and lacking the fine art of tact (which we are all guilty of from time to time) Perhaps entering into a conversation with Kyle over the difference of opinion regarding the role (and understanding) of scripture, tradition, and reason in a community of faith would be a better choice than askingg for bullet-points (email would also be a better medium for such a thing)
Kyle: Play nice.
Mike:
I don't see how my comments were "unduly harsh," though perhaps they "lack[ed] the fine art of tact" - which is another way of saying that I was blunt, something for which I can't apologize. I asked valid questions which have yet to be answered. I was met with the response that folks like me are the reason that faithful Christians have such a hard discussing difficult questions like homosexuality. I said nothing either way about the struggling homosexual's ability to be a faithful Christian, but I did question the authenticity of the faith of those who are willing to rationalize what the Bible explicitly teaches in order to fit their non-Christian notions of relevance, or to give us all warm fuzzies.
See, my question is not about struggling homosexuals themselves, but about those who are willing to compromise the deposit of faith simply because the square peg of a 2,000 year old faith doesn't fit into the round hole of their relativistic mentality. When I am met with such hostile responses as "sod off" (not even a counter-argument) it only helps prove my point that such people care more about tolerance for a specific group of people than they do about love and acceptance in general, or about preserving and upholding Truth. This leads me to conclude that this debate within Christian circles is agenda-driven and is not a genuine outgrowth of a real re-evaluation of both Scripture and Tradition.
Perhaps my impatience stems from the fact that Christian supporters of gay rights impose these double-standards in which one's insistence that the homosexual lifestyle is unacceptable to Christians is seen as intolerant and inconsiderate, but the response of homosexuals or their supporters that we should shut up or, in the words of our eloquent spokesperson, "sod off" is vindicated or at the very least downplayed. You want my opinion? Kyle won't "play nice" because I ask too many questions, questions which require thinking through things and go beyond an appeal to emotion.
So I repeat: if my questions can't be answered honestly and openly, without some personal attack on my character or without an appeal to emotion, then there is absolutely no reason why I or the rest of the Christian community should take you guys seriously. If I have sinned in any of these statements, please point it out to me; I'll repent. But if these comments happen to offend you, I can't apologize for speaking what I feel is the truth.
I share David's sentiments.
David said "I did question the authenticity of the faith of those who are willing to rationalize what the Bible explicitly teaches in order to fit their non-Christian notions of relevance, or to give us all warm fuzzies."
But David, rationalization is what we all are guilty of. Otherwise, we would be cognizant of every sin in us. And I think there are sins we do that each of us are not aware of till the Spirit taps us on the shoulder.
So, if rationalization of sin is the dividing line for is their faith serious or not, I would say it's a category that doesn't work. We need to find another category.
Personally, I think, when doing this person to person in the real world, to do the Spirit's work of shoulder tapping, is a tremendous task. I just hope when it comes to me, I am well entrenched in knowing in my being, that I am them. I think that must be what we start with when we're going to start discussing what is sin and what isn't or how to treat it. To get it within all our being, that I am them. I think it's what that scripture means that says about when correcting a brother in sin, watch that you don't sin too. I think that means, watch out that you don't deceive yourself into self righteousness, or thinking you have it together better than this person you have to correct - that that is the sin, thinking we are better than. If we get it in our being that we are them, we might be less likely to be deciding whose faith is genuine. And for it to be more about in relationship over lots of time, finally earning the right to join the person's struggle with a particular sin and be their support as they try to be as free as they can be of it at that time, and in this life. And if we are so blest, perhaps be a guide for them too.
Just in the last couple days, I'm beginning to wonder if the problem in all the discussion christians do about homosexuality, is we are talking about a group, we are talking about a 'them." When perhaps what the Bible has in mind about talking about sin and all, is we are in relationship with one another to the extent we are helping each other in our sins. If that's what we're doing, no need to get a group together to talk about another group's sin, because I'll be in the trenches, doing this with my brothers and sisters in Christ, one on one.
it says "required field cannot be left blank." writing this to see if this is the required field meant.
Maybe my "eloquent" response published then. I don't know.
Dave Richards:
If Kyle is to answer your questions, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer the questions posed to Dr. Laura Schlessinger regaridng the other rules from Leviticus.
Seems only fair!
Perhaps rationalizing the Bible results in some important changes to the conversation.
JQ Christian:
You are misunderstanding my comments. I didn't say that rationalization was the text for who's in and who's out of Christianity. Rather, I question the authenticity of faith when one elevates their interpretation of a Biblical text (which often turns out not to be an interpretation, but a rationalization) over against the plain sense of that text and the way in which it has always been understood and implemented by the text. In the case of homosexuals, the Church has never explained away those texts in order to allow practicing homosexuals into her flock, or to condone gay sex.
Bbaltrus:
You seem to think that the only way a Christian can consistently be against homosexuality on the basis of Scripture is if he accepts several other "outdated" Old Testament allowances or laws, such as selling children into slavery and having no contact with a woman during her menstrual cycle. One problem with this is that it doesn't take into account that not all laws were given for the same reason. Some were given for the purpose of foreshadowing something in the New Covenant (like circumcision to baptism), others were given for health reasons or to seperate Israel out from among the nations, and still others were given as concessions to human weakness - specifically, the certificate of divorce comes to mind here. Trying to argue that an acceptance of one Old Testament law, e.g. capital punishment, results in an acceptance of all Old Testament laws, is therefore the logical fallacy of slippery slope and is unwarranted by the fact that not all laws are intended to have the same purpose (some are moral, others practical, etc).
Furthermore, the act of same-gender sex is mentioned in the New Testament as well as the Old, and it is no more favorable in the New than in the Old. There are not laws in the New Testament concerning selling children into slavery or not touching women during their menstrual cycle, but you will definitely have to work over-time exegetically to make Romans 1 fit into your paradigm that Christians should embrace same-sex unions.
A final note: a Christian such as myself accepts a broader tradition which does not base its opinion on homosexual behavior strictly on Scripture but on what the Church has always believed, taught and confessed. Neither Christ nor His Apostles nor their successors ever condoned the homosexual lifestyle much less advocated it. The Church has never received the idea that same-gender sex and same-sex unions are a legitimate expression of "a man leaving his mother and father ... and becoming one flesh with his wife." Why the devil should we start now? Because culture says so?
I totally screwed up that last post. The first "text" should read "test," and "has always been understood and implemented by the text" should read "has always been understood and implemented by the Church."
Some years ago, I did a study of sex in the Bible, going back to the Hebrew and Greek words. Using books that gave the interpretations, since I haven't taken Greek or Hebrew classes. That said, what struck me is the words that we take as what one set of genitals is doing with another, has an attitude behind it in the original native words. Like the string of not's in Leviticus, for example, not lie with neighbor's wife, says "don't use your physical strength to take advantage of a weaker person." I think we tend to get stuck with what's going on with the genitals, and it seems what is first, is the attitude driving the genitals. Take away the attitude, you haven't the sinning with what is being done with the genitals.
And in my non-expert exploration, it made sense that the prohibitions were combined with having to be involved with the worship of another god to take part in the same gender sex.
I wrestled with this for 12 yrs, and regardless of another god involved, I had to go back to Genesis and our biology. Against nature.
But apart from that, discussion like this can only establish for us an idea of right and wrong. What is missing is the reality of walking with a person struggling in a sin. And ending a struggle with a sin is not a matter of sincerity or authenticity of faith. Finally coming to an understanding of how to deal with the sin can take decades sometimes. I think this is why it's so important that we emphasize the necessity of these things happening in a relationship with another, spanning many years, when then we've earned the trust and respect to help a person who is struggling. And that puts it all in a different light. These discussions tend to bottom line what is right and wrong. But bottom line is being with another person, and letting another person be with us, in our struggles. We are helping each other to stand, then, not just knowing what is right and what is wrong.
"We are helping each other to stand, then, not just knowing what is right and what is wrong."
Amen.
two things about this real quick:
a) being predisposed to homosexual tendencies may be 'genetic' or however you want to look at it being 'natural.' i have no problem with saying that.
b) given that, though, it doesn't mean that these things are good/right/ok/nice/etc. this is the place where our culture comes in. we are not taught adequately how to deal with these urges (just as heterosexuals aren't taught how to deal with deviant sexual urges).
i've gotten into this late, so there's a whole lot that has already been said, some of which i agree with some, well, i don't.
i would also like to say that while i didn't read any of the stuff about the 'mechanics' of same-gender sex, i do think that it plays a part in intimacy. being a married man who has had sex in various ways (i won't go into detail), i know that there are some ways that do actually foster intimacy. then there are some that do the exact opposite. they denigrate intimacy. i know this from experience. if my wife and i were to only have sex in a certain way (the same way that homosexual males have sex), it would most certainly mess with our level of intimacy. sex is tied more closely with intimacy than most on here seem to think. i didn't used to think that was the case. then i got married and learned different.
"Take away the attitude, you haven't the sinning with what is being done with the genitals."
"... only hav(ing) sex in a certain way (the same way that homosexual males have sex), it would most certainly mess with our level of intimacy."
Am I actually reading this?
thunderbeard: do you mean sodomy?
jq and thunderbeard: Are you saying that there are acceptable forms of same-gender sex?
You mean you're all for same-gender dancing, kissing, hugging, spooning?
And not just gay women, but gay men too?
For the record, I'm all for the above. I'm simply not interested in ... erm ... sodomy. sorry, i really can't think of a good euphemism for that one.
Hi Day. Long answer : if an alcoholic hasn't drank alcohol for a decade or so, does he say he used to be an alcoholic, or is he still an alcoholic. I ask, cuz I don't know how to present myself - I want to say : remember, I am one with same gender attraction. Then I think - or was it : used to have? I think it is I have. There's this thing about repeated behavior burning paths in the brain, and those paths don't go away. We can just learn whether to go into further what those paths bring up in us, or go - oh, yeh, I remember that, I needn't go there anymore. I am a "them," or is it : I was a "them?" The deep rooted fears whereby my same gender attraction pops up saying "here's the comfort blankey," will pop up now and then, and the knee jerk reaction of the brain pathway, supposedly that same gender intimacy would be soothing, will pop up bing bang bong. It's when I notice the attraction is in my head, I then have a choice of what to do with it. And what I know now, is it holds forth a false promise of assuaging a wound. I do not fault anyone for wanting wound assauaging, and I do not fault those who go for the quicker, easier attempt for wound assuaging. But my hope is at some point they figure out it isn't really fixing the wound.
It is that sort of way that I mean there's an attitude behind what the genitals are doing. From my experience, my contention is that same gender lovers/partners is about idolatry - trying to use another person to fill a hole/wound. And as human beings, another human being hasn't the capability of doing so much as to fix a wound. Sure, we are blessed to have various joys in various relationships. But it's when we enclose the joy in our fist and try to wring out of it what we need to help our wound, we have made the relationship/person/joy an idol. My contention, from my experience, is same gender partner/lovers is about using the relationship as an idol, to try to assuage a wound. Once a person does the years of willful work it takes, to understand that about themselves, and a willingess to change that, then the change of how we do relationship, how we do partners/lovers will change. For m, I didn't use opposite gender relationships as idols. My wound was about same gender, so I looked to same gender. I didn't expect from opposite gender, what I mistakenly thought could be obtained from same gender.
So, take away the attitude, and you change what genitals are doing with genitals.
I have no problem with same gender dancing, hugging, appropriate kisses(like affectionate cheeks). I don't know about spooning, that might be weird if it's done with other than a lover, or with one's young child.
i don't just mean sodomy. i'm talking about various forms of sex (some that heterosexuals do also).
also, i think that allowing yourself to give into and enteratin thoughts that are contrary to the way of christ (just like hating your brother is equated with killing him).
In response to Dave Richards I offer the following. My understanding of Romans differs from yours. I do not agree that homosexual acts are mentioned in the New testament and therefore it fits into the same category as the other outdated laws fro Leviticus.
For those of you who wish to understand some other thoughts on the text of Romans as well as some of the other topics, I leave the following links:
Romans
Leviticus and Homosexuality
Can You Be Both Gay and Christian?
I am not involved with this organization at all. I simply am trying to get other understands out into the conversation.
Additionally, you mention something from Genesis that has always caused me concern as I evaluated the issue of homosexuality and God. Again my understanding is that Adam was initially interpreted to mean Human not man. Following this definition woman was made from Adam and is therefore also human not a gender. I have seen nothing on this interpretation to test its validity, but I remain convinced that God and his Son Jesus had no intention of making homosexuals into the "sinners" of this earth. I instead seem to think that we have made them into the Samaritan women at the well that Jesus received a cup of water from and offered eternal water to.
As a red letter Christian, I try to follow Jesus teachings 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
great blog. keep up the good work.
heres a LINK that may give you a persective that HOMOSEXUAL is WORD and NOT a choice. IT s a NORMAL process within nature.
this is very informative.
http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals
thanks:)
Post a Comment
<< Home