My husband and I were at a party last night, consisting of mostly philosophers. One topic of conversation was the issue of same-sex marriages. In a week and a half, Texans get the opportunity to vote for or against a proposition that will ban same-sex marriages here in Texas. One of the first comments raised in this discussion was the observation that people seem to view female same-sex relations as somehow more permissible than male same-sex relations. I responded by saying that I don't exhibit that sort of inconsistency. I simply . . . oh I can't remember my exact words . . . don't believe in same-sex unions or marriages. That opened a huge can of worms. I was asked why I believe this to be the case.
Well, here's my question to you out there. Suppose you're at a party (not a debate or something of that nature) and you're asked a similar question. How would you answer the question? Further suppose that people in the group come from different backgrounds and hold different views (including religions commitments). And, you're trying to maintain not only a civil but a friendly atmosphere. What would you say?
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
My question is: Who is the one being uncivil? I have found that usually, it is the one who supports the notion of same-sex unions, or marriages, that become hostile toward those who do not support it.The supporters essentially use social and emotional manipulation to guilt non-supporters into silence.
The whole premise of same sex unions of any kind hinges on the notion of behavior.And no one wants thier behavior to be judged.And this creates the dilemma, for those who support such behaviors feel that they have the 'moral' high ground, because they do not 'judge', they accept and tolerate.There is no philosophical debte, precisely because there is no reason applied, only emotion.
I would submit this question: What evidence, scientific or otherwise, proves that people who are homosexual are genetically predisposed to it? As far as I am aware, there is none. Simply put, sexual 'orientation' is a choice, not something that people are born with.Genetic disposition is an excuse for people to refuse responsibility for there own behaviors and desires.
One final thought. I know that those who might read these words find them insensitive (because they ARE)and unloving (they are NOT), and label me a hypocrite, because I am a Christian. I do not believe in interfering with private inividual choices, and if that lifestyle is one you choose to live, well, that's none of my business.But to try and force my sanction of that behavior, through guilt and intimidation, IS my business, and it is unacceptable.It is NOT unloving nor hypocritical to reject harmful notions, even if they are popular.
Axeman, some people have proposed evidence attempting to demonstrate that sexual orientation might have something to do with genetics. One place to start is a decent online encyclopedia, called Wikipedia.
Go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
I am not hereby proclaiming that there is or isn't conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuality is, in part genetic. I haven't had the time to come through the information carefully. But, it's worth a look.
For sake of discussion or debate, what if there is compelling evidence that homosexuality is, at least in part, influenced by genetic factors? What would that mean?
As far as attempting to demonstrate the genetic factor, that's all there is...attempts.There is no conclusive evidence, or else I am sure the homosexual community would rub that in everyone's faces.
But, to follow your lead on the debate, I suppose that the short answer is that we would probably have to re-examine the moral discussion with regard to sexuality, as far as the behavioral component is addressed.We probably would have to consider the possibility that this is some sort of "cosmic screw-up", bad genetic wiring,faulty design, not the fault of the participant, but God's fault. I mean, that is where the blame gets laid, anyway.
Rosie O'Donnel said once, after her "coming out", that even if she could choose to be straight, she wouldn't.Hmmm...kinda makes you wonder.
I find it almost amusingly ironic that pedophiles use the same argument to justify thier behavior. Right now, it is considered (as it should be) base and immoral behavior. But how many years will it be before that kind of lifestyle is labeled under the same auspices as homosexuality...the "God made me this way...I can't help it...I have rights too...and so on."
Now I want to go on record and say that if someone is homosexual, fine. That's thier business. If you are a consenting adult, even if I find the practice moraly abhorrent, then what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom, is none of my concern.But I find it increasingly offensive that the homosexual agenda is continually, and publicly, pushed onto me, in an attempt for my sanction.
If I were homosexual, I think that I would be very wary of desciptions that characterize such a lifestyle in the same terms as are characterized by diseases and disorders.For people who have legitimate genetic disorders, do you think that they really want to be stricken with such limitations? People like that are daily wishing and hoping for a cure, or at least a treatment that will normalize thier lives. Do you really think that a homosexual wants that kind of stigma?
trying to add to the debate-
Lily on the question you asked Axeman about what if there is evidence that homosexuality is in some way due to a genetic predisposition. Well, isn't alcoholism related to a genetic predisposition in some ways? However, even though someone is genetically predisposed to alcoholism, that doesn't make it o.k. to be an alcoholic. Alcoholism is a drain upon the society, the family structure and the individual. The best thing for those people to do is to stay away from places that would tempt them with alcohol. I would say something along the same lines for a homosexual. There is a strong pull for them from somewhere. I don't really think it so simple for them just to make a choice in weather or not to be gay (however, with homosexuality more and more in the public eye, there are people that are just deciding to be that way because "every one else is doing it.") But, for the homosexual that really honestly feels an attraction (clarify- sexual attraction) to the same sex, it would have to be horrible and confusing to say the least. But, now where can that person turn for help? We are now saying to them, "there's nothing wrong with that", "you just have a different sexual orientation" etc... Well what if they don't want to live that way? What if they also have a deep sense that something is wrong? They are pressured by our society to accept it and not try to change it. If they tried to change they would be looked down upon and ridiculed. Would we ever treat a recovering alcoholic with the same contempt?
My argument in regard to this question would go something like that.
You have suggested at least a couple of important issues, Brittany. First, even supposing a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, that does not mean that the person has to act on such a predisposition. But, if we assume for sake of argument that some sort of genetic predisposition is involved in homosexual preferences, can we insist that a heterosexual relationship is the only correct way to go? I'm attempting to press the issue a bit further.
Second, Brittany, you asked about the possibility that some one desires something different from what their feelings are telling them. For instance, what do you tell the person who is sexually attracted to persons of his or her own gender but doesn't want to pursue a lifestyle based on that sort of attraction? I'm not sure I have a solid answer to offer to that question. What do you think?
Lily,
you are correct to press me on the issue. So, if there is a genetic predisposition does that mean that heterosexuality is the only way to go. I would still say yes. God created man for woman and woman for man. There are other mentions of homosexuality through out the scriptures, Lev 18:22 for example. In the New Testament we are called to flee from sexual immorality. But, it is trite to just tell someone that the Bible says don't do it so don't do it. I must think about the principal behind such laws and instructions. To me, these things are addressed in the scriptures because it had to do with how the Lord created humanbeings. It seems like homosexuality would be saying "God you did something wrong in the creation of humanity". It would also be impossible to pro-create in such situations. That is also one thing that we were created with the ability to do and in homosexual relationships that is impossible. Lily, if you would permit me, I think I need some more time to form my thoughts and argument on this assignment. I also need to look back over my cultural anthropology notes. We talked about this issue in that class. Our prof. had some interesting things to say about it. However, these are my initial thoughts on the subject.
I would like to submit a letter written by a friend of mine to "Dear Abby",about this very isue. My friend is certainly better qualified to address this subject, perhaps from a more scientific perspective. See what ya'll think;
"Dear Abby,
Regarding your position on genetic origins of homosexuality: I don’t know if you will have the decency to actually put this in your column but hear the voice of wisdom/reason…
From a biological standpoint the primary function of copulation is reproduction. The fact that sex is pleasurable must either be attributed to a weak theory that by random evolution an assurance of procreation developed in an “accidental” race that was capable of mutating itself into existence in the first place or to the credit of a masterful design/designer. In either case the “pleasure principle” would be the secondary function of the sexual genitalia, set in place to insure that the primary function of reproduction occurs. This pairing of necessary function and pleasure is either “a random evolutionary purposeful mutative accident” or an ingenious gift by design. Surely you do not suggest that the primary biological function of reproductive organs is pleasure do you? This would be an extremely illogical and self-serving thought. It is totally socially irresponsible to imply a status of normalcy, or worse to condone behavior, which is in fact inevitably detrimental to the propagation and genetic continuance of the person/organism in which it appears. Such a trait, if genetic, would by its very nature make absurd the belief that it could survive much beyond one generation and would also most certainly have to be viewed as a genetic flaw due to its negative impact on the generational survival of the host. In layman’s terms it would be a self-defeating “dead end” trait. To imply that the sexual orientation of one whose selfsame condition limits the successful transmission of the alleged causative trait on to any future generation is a stretch of (shall we use the term loosely) logic. As a flawed genetic trait it would be worthy, by scientific standards, of corrective research like other genetic disease. The onus is on you to come up with a better defense of your position than the citation of someone associated with two of the most liberal “politically correct” schools in the country that basically happened to notice the existence of sexually deviant behavior in animals (Wow… I’m impressed), or your blind trust in the newfound and unproven study of the human genome done using typical human trial and error methodology. Which is always kind of scary. I have no ill will toward anyone caught in the web of choosing to define their very being and existence within the narrow scope of an awkward sexual lifestyle. Though sex within a relationship has varying degrees of self and mutual gratification, to define oneself within the confines of a lifestyle that defies the primary reason for the sexual act is to elevate pleasure over function. To then seek to have it called normal by others evidences an inner need for validation. Do not be fooled, I am certain that homosexuality is either pleasure driven, a biological/psychological/physiological short circuit of the reproductive mechanism, a spiritual sickness (an option likely rejected by those who would be quick to believe in some other paranormal phenomenon i.e.: ghosts, horoscopes, aliens, witchcraft etc.), or most likely a combination of all of these. Any other assertion is morally, logically and socially dangerous, unhealthy and highly irresponsible. You better check yourself, know what you believe and be able to back it up with some degree of logic, reason and common sense. I found the subsequent ad for your book on “How to be popular” rather amusing by position and wondered if you have one on “How to be politically correct”."
A lot of the issues that we are now discussing have been addressed in this well written letter.Think about it.Comment on it. What do you guys think?
Well, much is in that letter that merits discussion. Many of you probably know where I stand on this issue, given what I have posted and given that many of you know me. But, let me play devil's advocate for a moment on one of the particular issues mentioned.
Telos does not carry as much weight these days, especially among those who support same-sex unions. Telos basically means the purpose of something. To appeal to the fact that sexual intercourse's natural end is procreation doesn't change the minds of those who advocate same-sex unions.
In fact, oftentimes the response is some version of tu quoque. People often say, take a look at Christians (especially Protestants). They oftentimes engage in sexual activity without the intent of procreating. So, think about a married couple that is using birth control as an example. What do you think of that sort of response?
On a personal note, I'm very attracted to the idea of telos. I really think that various things, in the natural world and in the artifacts world, have a particular end for which it was made. For example, the end for which human beings were made, is to image God (or to restore the image of God in which we were created). But, telos in the natural world is not a very popular notion today, especially to areligious scientists and the like.
Brittany, take whatever time you feel you need. I'm looking forward to your impending contributions.
Given what you have provided thus far, though, I have at least one question. You cited some very good Scriptural passages pointing towards the wrongness of homosexuality and the wrongness of sexual immorality in general. To push the issue a bit further, what would you say to someone who rejects the authority of Scripture. Suppose you're conversing with a person of a different faith or an atheist, what could a person say about the wrongness of homosexuality? I have some doubts about the effectiveness of taking the approach that sexual intercourse is designed for reproduction. Will someone who's open to homosexuality or even approves of homosexuality acce[t that as evidence against their position? What do you think?
Just so we are all on the same sheet of music: I reprinted that letter to show precisely the illogic of those whose position on homosexuality is to normalize the practice in the mindset of the culture.I was not trying to position myself from the Christian or Biblical point of view. I was attempting to show the skewed logic from a more secular position.
Yes,it is true that even heterosexuals enjoy sexual intercourse for the sheer pleasure of it (yeah, buddy!), but there are even cultural taboos against sexual behavior outside the bounds of heterosexual unions.Not all heterosexual behavior is proper, either, even though we (hetero's)were wired that way.It might feel good, but that is not the parameter by which a society ought to sanction ANY behavior.
If someone rejects the authority of Scripture, fine. But that still does not provide any evidence for why a society, secular or otherwise, should sanction such practices.
To use your quote, Lilly, "I have some doubts about the effectiveness of taking the approach that sexual intercourse is designed for reproduction. " I agree, but that isn't the point. It is the PRIMARY function of sexual behavior. All the letter addressed was the notion that somehow only "religious" folks had any objections to homosexuality, and only based on ignorance and irrationality.The letter responded to the ,I think, fallacious notions that homosexuality is somehow a product of either bad design, or higher evolutionary developement.
I finally got courage to say something here. My old best friend says that God don't care what he does about doing sex with other men. If he believes there is a God that's all that matters. God will welcome him in the heaven. He wants me to forget about it. I can't.
Do you think that God will be ok to live in eternity with people who have stepped on all his commands about homosexual acts and refused to change what they want or stop from doing what they want and enjoy having sex with each other of the same sex, and don't care if God is hurt? Even when they know God has told them not to do this thing? Ever?
I think lots of them think like this. What justice do they face for them for them not caring about what God commands, after they die?
What would you tell them about this, if you could talk to them.
?
To godlovesfaithfulness:
This may not help ease your sadness any, but I would like to at least help your thought process.
To your first comment, about your old acquaintance, his is a very common rationalization. I would ask him from what Bible he is reading from, to come to that conclusion.Clearly, the Scripture is VERY clear that the acts of homosexuality are an abomination to God.In the Old Testament,specificly the books of the prophets, God had a laundry list of complaints against the nations He was preparing to punish.Usually, somewhere near #3 or#4 on the list were sexual sins, such as perversions. Many nations were either annihilated or assimilated into other cultures, either way disappearing into antiquity.
Now your friend might argue that that is Old Testament, not New Testament.In the New Testament, we are now ushered into the "age of grace", when God writeds His laws on our hearts.That is true, but it does not tell the whole story. God Himself said "I the Lord do not change."(Malachi 1:6, James 1:17, OT&NT)Y'know what that means? That means that God is still Holy, Man is still unrighteous, and sin is still sin.The New Testament book of Romans states,"The wages of sin is death," and further, Romans 8:8 states that,"Those contolled by the sinful nature cannot please God." in verse 13, it further states, "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die..."
Perhaps your friend would then argue that those were the words of Paul, a mere man, not Jesus. Well, let's look at that:Matthew 15:19 Jesus tells His disciples,"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft,false testimony,slander."
I find it interesting that Jesus labeled 'adultery' and 'sexual immorality' into distinct categories. Technically, both are sexual activities, but both are distinct in transgression. 'Adultery' falls under the domain of marriage betrayal, the violation of ones marriage vows. But 'sexual immorality' is all other sexually immoral behaviors, that fall outside of marriage, and they include the perversions.And guess what? Homosexuality is included in that list.
So to respond to your first issue, God will not welcome him into heaven, when he continually behaves in wanton disregard for God's holiness. Belief in God is simply not enough.The book of James declares that even the demons believe in God, and they tremble.Clearly belief is not the only ingredient to entrance into God's kingdom.There are two: The Scripture declares we must 1)Repent & 2)then believe. And belief is not some intellectual exercise in pondering God's existence. It is the actual committed following of His commands.
This dovetails into your second thought:"Do you think that God will be ok to live in eternity with people who have stepped on all his commands..." The short answer is a resounding no. And I've cited some Scripture above that makes that very clear.However, those verses do not just apply to the issue of homosexuality, but also to other sinful behaviors and acts that are just as detestable to God.You know, the same fate for the homosexual awaits the adulterer as well. And the thief, and the murderer, and the slanderer, ad nauseum. And you know, those folks rationalize that behavior too.
As far as what I would tell them, it depends on whether or not they are really interested in the answer. There are those who are seeking God, but don't know how to find Him. They are trapped, or so they think, in a spiritual holding pattern, looking for freedom, but not knowing where to turn. Those are hearts that are ready for the Gospel of thruth, in my limited and humble opinion. But there are those whose hearts are hard and aren't really interested in the truth, just interested in being a victim. Those who want to make God out to be the bad guy.If you tell them what I have written you, they will only get angry, or obnoxious, blaming you for being judgemental and homophobic (Man, how I hate that word, because it is so mis-defined and misused), or perhaps they will blame God for making them that way (whatever)and how could a loving God turn His back on what He created...Either way, they will not recieve the truth.
Personaly, I would tell them this,for what it's worth, "Fine, live lik eyou want to.God won't make you live for Him, so why should I? But I wouldn't bet my eternity on a hunch. You cannot have it both ways: Either you accept God's word for what it says, all of it, or none of it.What's it going to be?" And then, let them decide.
When the rich young ruler left sad after Jesus told him what he must do to inhereit life, I noticed that Jesus never went after him.And as far as I know, the rich young ruler never came to repentance. Makes you wonder how Jesus views our attempts at evangelism to hard hearted people.
He said all this stuff. he already heard all about it from a real minister, they talked to me last night. Unityer minister. They came in my room and I don't know. He says read the stuff at this place. Said that you here are behind the times, bigots, but God is never behind the times. God doesn't hate what nice people do. God makes the times. And gay is OK today. They kept saying "gays ok today". Doesn't what God want changes? like in the Bible God does lots of times. Always new, always better when people are more loving, accepting, caring nice nice people. So gay is ok today.
The real minister says Jesus might even be gay, too, with all the men of his, that who knows? I couldn't believe it, but he said why should anybody care if he was? Why is Jesus just good for girls?
The man knows that lots good Christian people think of Jesus as their lover. Why can't a man think this, too? Like the nuns do? They say brides, jesus' brides, they'r his brides. And they dream about him, write mystyc stuff. That love knows no boundaries, that no sex is a boundary...why can't I kiss god if I'm a man!? It's not fair. They gave me a real book about this. From the library here. I'm afraid to read it!
I got so confused!!! he says all the things he said he learned from his teacher. The priest agrees. That everybody isn't like completely perfect. God doesn't care about sex, only about meanness, hurting people, cheating, lying about your real feelings, there is only one sin God wouldn't forgive nobody, sinning against the spirit. he says he got the spirit and he loves me.
He sez all this stuff, and they know so much more about God than me and you guys, like it seems so. I mean, he knows all this. I just don't understand. Why do you think different? I want to, but after they came over and talked to me, I don't know!
God loves us, God would never hurt us. That's what they said to us. They just know all this and I feel dumb. Like my God is mean, and like a mean old man. Like a kid who gets mad when people don't do everything he says. So God hurts them?
Is God gonna hurt my friend? Is he gona hurt me?
God loves us, he's not going hurt us. It's ok. It's ok. That's what they say. I feel dumb and mean for saying God was wanting to hurt nice people. What do I do? Everyone says it's cool. But I'm not sure. I am totally confused! Why do I try to understand anything!?????
I can't stop thinking! I wouldn't kill like cows or sheep and burn them up for God. Times change. But I don't know! I'm scared of you guys and scared of them, too, and your all right here. I gota shut up. I'm so sorry!
My friend,
As I read your pleading, I must admit that I was moved, very nearly to tears.
I must encourage you toward the knowledge that there is no need to be afraid of me or any of us here,even if we find ourselves on the opposing ends of arguments and debates.I feel that you are very confused right now, and I must tell you that can and is a tool of the devil. Satan is the author of confusion, not God.I do not blame you when it seems that you are getting a lot of mixed messages,and I believe that you are deeply searching for truth in this matter.
You ask a very potent question: "Doesn't what God want changes?" Well, yes He does.But the changes that He wants are from us.If our natures are all impure, it is His purpose, plan,and provision to make us pure.But God doesn't change, as to His nature.Yes, God has changed the way He operates in regard to how He deals with us, but not with WHAT He deals with us. The sin issue is still the problem.
I would like to jump a little, and skip to something else you brought up that is very worthy of your thoughts. "God doesn't care about sex, only about meanness, hurting people, cheating, lying about your real feelings, there is only one sin God wouldn't forgive nobody, sinning against the spirit." I have to ask this: If this is true, on what authority,or what source did this "minister" come to these conclusions? If he says that his authority is the Scripture, then he is selecting those things that he wants there to be and rejecting other things that he doesn't like.God doesn't care about sex? Really? The Scripture is replete with references, warnings, and instructions on sexual behaviors and relationships.They are found in both the Old AND New Testaments.As a matter of fact, there's an entire book almost totally dedicated to erotic love, the Song of Solomon. So it is misleading in the least to say that God doesn't care about sex.
But let's ignore that for the moment. What about the statement that God only cares about meanness, and lying, and hurting people, and cheating? Well, yes, I would agree. But then, how does that make the cheaters of the world feel? They must feel that those of us who think that cheating is wrong are just being intolerant and unaccepting. And what about the liars? Surely, those of us who tell the truth must make liars feel real ashamed, and God doesn't want anyone to feel ashamed, right? I mean, doesn't God love the cheater,too? Or the liar? Hey, maybe you could ask your friend, or the "minister", this question: Doesn't God love the pedophile,too? I mean if God doesn't care about sex, then I guess pedophilia is okay,too, wouldn't you think? I mean, pedophiles love children, what could be wrong with that?
Please, do not misunderstand. I am in no way attacking you. I believe that you are sincerely struggling with understanding and sorting these things out.But perhaps this might shed some light on this.
In the pedophile question I raised, I purposely illustrated a common fallacy in the homosexual argument. You see, the words "sex" and "love" are often intertwined to mean the same thing, and they are not.Love is not copulation.Love is not penetration.Sexual acts do not define love. Love is not sex.All though it is true that sex is an important part of a loving marriage relationship, and should be for a healthy marriage, it is not an ingredient for love.Simply put, the same love that allows me to have a vibrant sexual relationship with my wife, is the same love that keeps me from any kind of sexual behavior with my children.I deeply love my children, so much so that I could NEVER dream of such an atrocity.So we must never confuse love with an act of the flesh, just like you could never confuse a cake with an egg, even though the egg is used to make the cake.
The next thing is; "The real minister says Jesus might even be gay, too, with all the men of his, that who knows? " Just because Jesus was surrounded by a bunch of men does not mean that they were gay. The suggestion is ludicrous.Besides,Jesus spent a fair amount of time alone with many women,a couple of whom were of ill repute.As a matter of fact, there were a couple of times when He was in situations that most ministers would not allow themselves to be put in,just for the mere appearance of it.What kind of conclusion could we make of that? Well, in fact, anything that we wanted to, but I'm sure that would be far from the truth.We can rationalize anything into the Scripture, can't we? It would all be supposition.
As far as me being a "bigot", well, when someone doesn't like what I have to say, name calling is the first thing to do.Gee, I wonder if that's what 'nice people' do? In the dictionary, the word 'bigot' is defined as "narrowinded, intolerant person." Guilty as charged. But so is your friend, because he is so narrowminded and intolerant of the truth.Am I narrowminded? Yes, because I refuse to accept any old thing that comes my way, just because it's a "new thing".Am I intolerant? Yes; I refuse to be tolerant of many things; murder, theft, slander, crimes against children (my biggest intolerance, right there), rape, and the list goes on and on.Gee, intolerance isn't so bad after all.I mean, the German people tolerated the Nazis, and we got the Holocaust, need I say more?
Your last two paragraphs are especially moving. "God loves us, God would never hurt us. That's what they said to us. They just know all this and I feel dumb. Like my God is mean, and like a mean old man. Like a kid who gets mad when people don't do everything he says. So God hurts them?
Is God gonna hurt my friend? Is he gona hurt me?
God loves us, he's not going hurt us. It's ok. It's ok. That's what they say. I feel dumb and mean for saying God was wanting to hurt nice people. What do I do? Everyone says it's cool. But I'm not sure. I am totally confused! Why do I try to understand anything!?????
I can't stop thinking! I wouldn't kill like cows or sheep and burn them up for God. Times change. But I don't know! I'm scared of you guys and scared of them, too, and your all right here. I gota shut up. I'm so sorry!"
There is no need to apologize.You don't have to shut up. Please, speak more! Don't stop thinking!Don't be scared, just because you want to know!Ask the questions. How else are you going to find out?
God is not mean.God does love everyone, and that includes every sinner, no matter what they've done.The Bible tells us that it is God's will that NONE should perish, but that ALL come to repentance.But we are not going to slap God in the face, and operate in sin, while He has provided a way to be free from sin and death, and expect to just waltz right into heaven. Jesus told us that He did not come to condemn the world, but to save it.He told us that sin was already judged, and that those who reject Him are already condemned.He came to remove condemnation from us.
The bottom line is this: Sin is sin, whether it be murder or stealing, or yes, even sexual sin.And God has not changed His mind on that.If your friend chooses to reject that, that's his business.He can go on and tell himself that if it feels good, it must be okay, and God likes it, so its okay, well, that's his delusion.But he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Godly things, because the whole of Scripture is against him.Sorry, I guess that makes me intolerant.Jesus was called that too, so I am in good company.
Keep searching.Pray.Don't just take my word for it, research.I think that you will find that the truth is closer than you think.
Dearest,
I hear your worries. Let me assure you that you're in safe company here.
Let me take a moment to make a distinction between saying an act is wrong and saying that a person is bad. That is, the first is a comment about a particular act and second is a comment about the person. When Scripture condemns homosexual acts or other immoral acts, those are sinful acts in which we should not participate. That is not to be mistaken for a judgment on the person; that is, we are not saying that people who participate in sinful acts, such as homosexual activity, are bad people or should be treated badly. That's not correct. It's just that we should not participate in homosexual activity, just as we should not do certain other activities - such as get intoxicated or lay with our neighbors. . . We should avoid committing sinful acts.
The fact of the matter is that we are all sinners. Not one of us is better than the other insofar as sin is concerned. Only through grace and the love of the Lord, do we have hope. Through the grace of the Lord and through the love of God, we can live better lives.
Thank you. So mucccch. !! You two. I’m better now. I’m still scared of every thing. And the weekend. Where do I go?
They keep saying why do you hate? I come back from class and they wana talk. I like them. But I can’t. But I can’t help it. Like I never knew nothing. Why do I have to do this when they come to my room!? Is there anyone more who can talk to me? I want to keep this around here. I trust you, Lily. Is Axe your man? You guys all alone. Aren’t you. Like me I guess. I hope not! Because I think if I heard something that was’t just them an you, but us and us and us, I would start to understand better. But they have the us and us. I thought that they were just a few people. No way. Lots everywhere, like they have cafes bars and resturants. They were pissed today, mad about that thing in the vote, and they all came over to my room with some girls and 2 guys to be around and b with me. They all held me and told me how much they loved me and how much the people around here hated us. The unityn minister was here, before, this aftr noon, down stairs, with some other people who are maybe scared like me. We sang some songs about it, about Jesus loves me. But I don’t want to. Unless I’m ok. Ok? I don’t want to do things, sinful things. I know about that with what happened to my brother Armando. I don’t care if. He was selfish, and he paid. But he used to show me stuff. Then he went away. And I know my parents weep on his birthday. I don’t want to hurt my parents! I love them so much! I want a destiny of my own. And to teach the truth. And I know that they can’t be right about everything. And my friend says listen to me! Listen to me! The real minister wants to talk to you. You guys are wrong cuz you have to hurt people to feel better about youself, he says.
They want to talk to you. But I can’t. Decide. Can you? Talk?
GLF -
To answer one of your questions, axeman is not my man. He is longtime friends with my husband; my husband is godscheerleader.
Listen, in all seriousness, I am of the belief that God loves all of us. Why? God loves all of us because He created us and He's the greatest example of love ever. His love for us is far greater than we could ever imagine.
If ever there's a discussion about whether acts of a given sort are wrong, the discussion is about acts, not about particular people. So, when I say that Scripture points out the immorality and wrongness of homosexual relations, I am not thereby claiming that anyone who has ever participated in homosexual acts is bad or isn't loved. God loves all of us, despite the choices we make.
If God stops loving us for the bad things or sinful things we do, we would all be in trouble. None of us are free from sin. Since the fall of man, we all have a sinful nature. That is, every single one of us are prone to sin. Only by the grace of God, can we live a life that is glorious to Him.
I try to live in a way that is pleasing to God. I'm sure I fail much of the time. But one of those ways in which I try to live a life that's pleasing to God is to love others. People who have gotten a chance to know me see that this is the case, I hope.
What can I do to ease your worries and fears?
Hmmm...Sure I can talk.I am not afraid or ashamed of anything that I have written you.But I am a little confused.
I would like to respond to two things that you quote them as saying:
1)"They keep saying why do you hate?"
2)"The real minister wants to talk to you. You guys are wrong cuz you have to hurt people to feel better about youself, he says."
How are we hating?Who are we hating? You mean tell me that by stating that something is wrong, and that happens to make the participants of this something offended, that means we're the one's hating? This is a very common accusation that comes from those who participate in behaviors contrary to what the Scripture teaches.They don't like the truth, so therfore I must be the one who hates.Folks like that are only trying to elevate the criticism of the homosexual lifestyle to the level of racial discrimination and bigotry.That's like comparing apples to oranges. It's as if somehow they're telling you that we will not love you, or them, just because we say that they are wrong.This is flat out emotional manipulation on the parts of those who are telling you this stuff, my friend.
Let me state that if you, or anyone else, choose to live the homosexual lifestyle, that is your business.I personally could care less, from a privacy standpoint. But, I refuse to be expected to sanction such behavior just becuase somebody doesn't like my opinion on it. And my opinion, as well as many other Bible believing Christians, is that the homosexual lifestyls is a sin. And it is NOT just my opinion, the lifestyle is labeled as a sin in Scripture, I do not care what your "minister" friend says.I will go on record, and I hope that you show him this,as saying that he is a LIAR.By the way, you keep spelling his denominational title as "unityn". Could you possibly mean "Unitarian"? If you do, then I am not surprised at all that this "minister" has the views that he does. If I am not mistaken, Unitarians don't even believe in the deity of Jesus anyway.In other words, Jesus was just a good teacher to them.Well that is so far off base Scripturally that it isn't even worth the time to argue it.I might be wrong, but I know that the Unitarian theology is so way off base, that they will accept anything, and say it's from God. I hope you will show him I said that, as well.He is deceiving you my friend.
You know, you can sit around and sing "Jesus loves me" all night long.And it is true, He does. But why would Jesus leave His majesty in heaven, come down in the likeness of man, to be tortured and suffer at the hands of those He created and loved, die, and rise again from the grave, to free us from our sin, just so we could waltz right back into them, or just so we could stay in sin.In Christ, we are a NEW creation, the old has passed away.Sometimes, a lot of times, the truth hurts. It hurts so bad, we blame God and say that He doesn't love us, because He won't let us do whatever we want.Well, that's spoiled brats talking, not self- disciplined, God accountable, responsible adults.
I do not hate you. I do not hate them.I do not AGREE with them, and I believe they are trying to deceive you, or at best, keep you confused.But this is not a personal vendetta against them, or any person involved in the gay lifestyle.But I refuse to be guilted or coerced into saying that it is right, when it is wrong, and that Jesus sanctioned it, when clearly He did no such thing.
I would ask you this: How loving do you think they would be if you told them that you thoguht that homosexuality was wrong? I can guarantee, they would probably ostricize you from thier little community there, and call you a bigot and "homophobe". So I could care less if they though that I was bigoted. It doesn't matter what the labels are when your right.
If you are struggling with this issue, know this, Jesus does indeed love you, no matter what you've done, or where you've been.And He can and will change your heart if you will let Him.I do not accuse you, nor does He.I do not accuse anyone. I just report the facts.
Wow, I am disappointed! I was expecting a good old fashioned butt reaming from our "minister" friend, but alas, no comments have emerged in five whole days.Did I miss something?
I hope that GLF has been able to work through some of his issues, and all without fear of reprisal.We are here to help, if nothing else, to at least inform and be honest.I am praying for you, GLF, fro I understand your plight.Please let us know how you are faring.
Yes, GLF, please let us know how you're doing. Wishing the best for you.
I have been asked to communicate to you. As a preface, I find it disappointing that individuals who present themselves in the community as professional students of wisdom have so little regard for the extreme suffering, fear and anxiety they create with their rash pronouncements of seeming certainty about matters of God’s condemnation. Definitive certainty is the attitude we find here, and that attitude is not a responsible one to hold before the awesome mystery of the Lord. It is the same attitude that burned witches. No one here would wish to do such a thing, but see the danger in pronouncing sure condemnation so easily. People today get “burned”, just the same.
About Jesus’ sexuality. It’s strange (at least to me), but true: Jesus was, for all we can tell, as likely as not homosexual. We really don’t know. But there is plenty of reason to wonder. The utter absence and/or abandonment of women by him and his followers (there was no prohibition of traveling with one’s wives), the near total absence of discussion of sexuality (not surprising in a homophobic culture like that of late antiquity Palestine), and that famous glaring exception, the fact that sexual deviants like prostitutes are defended by Jesus and are his favorite company to keep, all these point to a homosexual maneuvering within a homophobic society who was at the same time a traveling rabbi. But perhaps the clincher is the manuscript discovered by Morton Smith in 1958 in the Mar Saba monastery, about 20 km outside of Jerusalem. Subsequent scholarship has confirmed the authenticity of his find beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is a copy of a letter from Clement to a student named Theodore. The letter discusses text that appears to have been redacted in other additions of Mark. Clement writes that the Carpocratian Gospel of Mark puts between 10:34 and 35,
“They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. "Son of David, pity me!" But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth, looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan.”
Love your neighbor as you love yourself, indeed! A few lines later, we read, at 10:46, this novel material,
“Then he came into Jericho. And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome, but Jesus would not receive them.”
No direct statement of sexual intercourse here, but the natural reading of the day, and today, is sexual. This language was used exclusively to indicate sexual relationships in other late antiquity writings. What do we make of this suppressed material? It suggests a very early tradition that recalled Jesus’ homosexual acts. Was this tradition correct? It certainly was courageous. In a homophobic culture like 1st century Palestine, a story like that could only get you in trouble. With both homophobic Jews and homophobic members of the early church. But they stuck to it. This is fascinating. So again, yes, it seems, for all we can tell, that Jesus was as likely as not a gay rabbi. We really don’t know. But this would comport well with his radical theology and his contempt for the Pharisaical law.
That there is no condemnation of homosexuality in the NT is also revealing. Surely something as important to “Satan’s end-times attack on America” as the “Homosexual Agenda” would have received a foresighted rebuke from Jesus, the (supposed) co-eternal divinity with the father and spirit and co-author of human history. It never does.
Not all conservative Christians condemn homosexuality. They are sophisticated enough in their understanding of the Gospels and the relation these have to Paul, the various letters and to the OT to see that no firm condemnation can be deduced. But the leadership of the more cruel and angry strains of conservative Christianity constantly quote the OT in condemnation of homosexuality and those homosexuals who are openly so and see no reason to “repent”, but this is merely picking and choosing passages that support their personal and family bigotries. They would never execute a child for being incorrigible, or a terrified rape victim for not crying out during her rape. But the OT commands these penalties. Moreover, they have only the most superficial understanding of the relationship between the OT Law and event of the NT. I call this “pie in the face theology” because it recognizes no progression in the texts, only a big pie of sentences that they throw at another’s face, all at once, without real understanding. This pie in the face theology is the product of fear and ignorance, of course. Historically, among Catholics it is the remnant of pre-Lutheran medieval theology, and among protestants in the US it’s the cold ashes of 19th century populist Fire and Brimstone theologies mainly concocted by fraudulent tent-revivalists who while posturing as ministers, had no education in the complexities and history of the Bible.
Luckily, the Biblical text isn’t a pie you toss at the people you are already predisposed (by old family and cultural traditions of bigotry, racism and hatred of diversity) to already reject.
Instead, the Biblical text has a clear rationale. The OT was the central text of a harassed and hunted people, a people amongst people who would assimilate them if they could. The OT law was to keep the Jews “a people apart”; in order to accomplish this many, many artificial devices are employed, a long list of obscure dos and don’ts that systematically build the contrast to the idolatrous peoples that surrounded them. A horror of homosexuality is clearly one such, just as a horror of shellfish is. They ignore the fact that Jesus brought a new covenant that supplanted the old, fulfilling it’s purpose of maintaining the Jew’s as God’s chosen people until the messiah came. Which is just what Jesus said, “I come not to destroy the law but fulfill it.” He did. And we started eating pork again, even lobster (gasp). Jesus did, in his own time, resist and break the law that he had rendered obsolete. For instance, when he and his men followers harvested the remnants of a field on the Sabbath. The orthodox jews were right to condemn him; he was breaking the law. But they didn’t understand that the law was now complete in its task of setting the Jews apart and holding them in place as God’s people. Now, much to their surprise, even the gentiles we God’s people. The old law was over, and what God had marked as an abomination was, in God’s generosity, made righteously available to all. Both pork, and men and women. The commandment, “love the lord your god with all your heart, mind and spirit and love your neighbor as yourself was all that was needed to transport the eternal components of the old law (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t perjure, don’t envy…) into the new covenant, while leaving the artificialities behind. The obscure and now pointless features of the OT condemnations are set aside by this New Commandment. That is a key part of “The Good News”.
Today’s special good news is that our mutual friend has outgrown that frightened, superficial understanding of the OT as a window on God’s personal hatreds. He has instead embraced the Gospel of love and naturally, love itself.
In Christ’s Love, and PEACE.
Well, am I to assume that this response from on high is none other than out mysterious "unitarian" minister? Glad you could join us. I will deal with your fallacious entries into our discussion.
#1) As to your preface, I am indeed sorry that you find it disappointing that those "who present themselves in the community as professional students of wisdom have so little regard for the extreme suffering, fear and anxiety they create with thier rash pronouncements of seeming certainty about matters of God's condemnation." Forthrightly, I have not.ThoughI am participating in a philosophical discourse, neither my pedigree,nor my education has ever come up. You have no idea what my qualifications are or are not.
As far as having little regard for suffering,fear,and anxiety, it is those such as yourself who apostasize, lie, and basicly tell people what thier itching ears want to hear, all in the name of God's love.My friend, that is NOT wisdom. That is foolishness.
Definitive certainty is an absolutely responsible position in any study, be it biology, Physics,philosophy, or theology.To say otherwise is merely muddying the waters.It was those who were not definitive in the understanding of Scripture that led to people getting "burned," figuratively or otherwise.People who chose to ignore the real change that occurs by the Holy Spirit were the ones who burned folks in God's name, crusaded in Christ's name, or feared scientific breakthroughs, in the name of God.But those who did so were simply wolves in sheeps clothing, lawbreakers casting themselves as believers.They were not real believers, they just masqueraded as such, for the sake of power, influence, and popularity.God's condemnation fell on them as well, if they refused to repent.And I can say that with certainty.So you cannot excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
As far as any personal pronouncement of condemnation, that is not my call. It IS Scriptural, and it is not vague or veiled.Sexual sin, including homosexuality, is clearly forbidden and condemned in Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. To say that it is not is a flat out lie.As I have said before, homosexuality is not singled out for any special condemnation, but it is INCLUDED in a laundry list of "do nots."
#2)You state:"About Jesus’ sexuality. It’s strange (at least to me), but true: Jesus was, for all we can tell, as likely as not homosexual. We really don’t know. But there is plenty of reason to wonder. The utter absence and/or abandonment of women by him and his followers (there was no prohibition of traveling with one’s wives), the near total absence of discussion of sexuality (not surprising in a homophobic culture like that of late antiquity Palestine), and that famous glaring exception, the fact that sexual deviants like prostitutes are defended by Jesus and are his favorite company to keep, all these point to a homosexual maneuvering within a homophobic society who was at the same time a traveling rabbi."
We most certainly DO know.It is only someone who wants our Lord to be that way, to substantiate, sanctify, and excuse immoral behavior,that tries to spin that notion into the Scriptural canon.You assume that because the Scripture doesn't mention the wives and families of the disciples that they must have been abandoned, and for the sake of a homosexual lifestyle is absolutely absurd.In the culture of the day, women were hardly mentioned,even when they were around, such was the case in a patriarchal society.You may recall the feeding of the five thousand? As you will note, it says "not counting women and children." Itis nothing but spin on your part to suggest that because women weren't mentioned, they must not have been present. Newsflash: the Scripture doesn't mention Jesus or any of the disciples going to the bathroom, either, but it is a safe bet that they did.
#3)You flagranly use the word "homophobic" as a term of indictment and accusation. This term is nothing but a redefining (An Orwellian trait, if I ever saw one)of words for politicaly correct reasons. Your free to use that term, but it is inaccurate and meaningless. "Homo" of course means "man or human", as in "homo-sapien". "Phobe" means "fear". Put together it literally means "Fear of Man." Not fear of homosexuals. Homosexuals needed to make the notion that the very thought, of homosexuality is wrong or abnormal,is "criminal" and "hateful", thereby appeasing thier consciences. It is called "Defining Deviancy Down."
As far as the "absence of discussion of sexuality",Jseus did not refrain from it, for He declared in Matthew 15:19, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts,murder, adultery (sexual sin within marriage),sexual immorality (sexual sin outside of marriage),theft, false testimony,slander." You might argue that Jesus did not single out homosexuality under the heading of 'sexual immorality'. However, He did not single out prostitution,either.Yet amazingly, we all know what He meant.And the disciples knew as well.
The Apostle Paul, in adressing the Corinthian Church, drives this point home.Th Corinthian church was as about polluted as they come. Paul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, declares in I Corinthians 6:9,"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED(emphasis mine,natch): Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (catch that?) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Now I hate to break this to you, my clergyman friend, but those are not MY words.Those are words that were spoken by the Apostle Paul, who was commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself, face to face (well Paul was blinded, but you catch my drift)to preach the Gospel of Christ.Sorry, but the certainty of condemnation is warned by Christ Himself.Not me, nor any other Christian.Don't get mad at the messengers. Take issue with God.
To say that none of this is in Scripture is a bold faced lie, and is only meant to decieve those who are weak or unwilling to see the truth.(As a side note,Paul's letter to the Galatians is the same, chapter 5:19-21)
Want further proof? Go to Romans 1:21-27, the most scathing indictment in Scripture.I shall excerpt parts, but if you want to confirm it, read the whole chapter. "For although they (the godless) knew God, they neither glorified him as God, nor gave thanks to Him, but thier thinking became futile and thier foolish hearts were darkened...Therefore,God gave them over in the sinful desires of thier hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of thier bodies with one another (now that's all sexual sin, not just homosexuality.).They exchanged the truth of God for a lie...Because of this,God gave them over to shameful lusts. (Now get this one!)Even thier women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones (Whatever do you mean,Paul?) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for ONE ANOTHER. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for thier perversion."
Now you again might argue that this was Paul, and not Jesus, making these claims,as if that somehow nullifies the issue. Well, this same Apostle, who received his commision straight from the Lord's mouth, also wrote the famed "love chapter" of I Corinthians 13. Even if you were able to discredit Paul as a homophobe, then you would have to discredit his points on love.And by the way, nowhere does the Scripture place "love" and "sexual intercourse" as the same entities, with the exception of within the marriage vows, and only between a man and a woman.
#4) Indeed, the Old Testament is about a particular people, and yes, the OT Law was to keep the Jews "a people apart." But it was also a way to point to Christ, and it was to make ALL men aware of sin.And although Christ did come as the New Covenant, He Himself declared that not one stroke of the Law would He change.And those "particular people" were to be the instrument by which God would reconcile the whole world, Jews and Gentiles alike. But despite the manifistations on how God deals with us and the isue of sin, the face of sin, and the nature of mankind, has not changed.Neither has the ultimate penalty for sin changed.
And again, the Apostle Paul, who before his conversion, was a zealous Pharisee. He was well educated, in both Greek and Hebrew, and he knew the law probably better than anyone in his clique.Yet, when he rejected, after his conversion on the road to Damascus, the Pharisiacal revisions of the Law (for that is what many of them were, revisions, and not God's word)he still called sins those things that were in the OT Law.Here was a man who taught that ,"Therefore,there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," (Romans 8:1)and yet also wrote, "Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:8) Hmmm....If you ignore the authority of Scripture, which ones will YOU choose?
#5)You state,"the commandment, “love the lord your god with all your heart, mind and spirit and love your neighbor as yourself was all that was needed to transport the eternal components of the old law (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t perjure, don’t envy…) into the new covenant, while leaving the artificialities behind."
I find it amusing that you choose to leave in those things of the OT Law that you want to be considered sin (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t perjure, don’t envy) while glosing over the others in the list. According to both Old &New Testaments, sexual sins are right on the same page.As a matter of fact, see above for a listing of some. But you know, say I agreed with your assessment, and only those sins that you listed were still sins, man, if I were a thief, why I would be offended and hurt.If I were a slanderer, I would think that you were a "perjerphobe"(Well, that's not a real word, but just give it time to enter the lexicon of the politically correct.)If I were a murderer, I would be calling everybody who thought I was guilty a hater.Do you see? Pick whatever you don't like out of the Scripture, and ignore it.Then tell everybody that God loves them, and that they can do whatever they please, because God's grace will just ignore sin.
Well, that sounds very appealing, but it is a lie.And to tell people otherwise is flat out deception on your part.
#5) Alas, we must end on an even sadder note, if indeed you are correct about our mutual friend.He cannot have embraced the Gospel of love if he has rejected God's commands.But I pity you far more than him, because you have mislead him.My hope is that the Holy Spirit, that has begun to knock on his heart, will direct him away from your harmful propoganda,propoganda that unjustly brands those who reject homosexuality as haters and bigots, and direct him toward what the Scripture really dictates.
I am sure that you believe that you are doing God's work. Well, Hitler believed that too.And we all know where he is, don't we? (Well, maybe not; perhaps God will ignore Hitler's genocide, and let him in,too.)
This is in response to the message posted earlier today from the person acting as a surrogate for "godlovesfaithfulness."
I will agree that Christians have too often used scripture as an instrument for segregating the holy from the unholy, rather than hearing it as the story of how we have all come to be unholy, and can only be redeemed through the death and resurrection of the God who loves us. The initial "definitive certainty" held by Christians is that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That does not mean Christians dare not speak when we see immediate evidences of the sinful condition that keeps us all in bondage. But it does mean that none of us are exempt from the power of sin as we observe its effects on others. Insofar as Christians have presumed an undeserved righteousness over against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we must repent. The splinters in their eyes may indeed diminish when compared to the planks in our own.
Having said that, it must also be said that much of this referenced note from "godlovesfaithfulness" is little more than pathetic posturing, and rife with false witness. Let me offer just one example.
The author mentions the infamous manuscript discovered by Morton Smith in the Mar Saba monastery, the so-called "Secret Mark." This manuscript was part of a letter purportedly written by the church father Clement of Alexandria in the early third century CE. He cites a passage which raises the possibility that Jesus may have had a homosexual encounter with a young man whom Jesus allegedly brought back to life in some way.
Morton Smith was a respected scholar of the religious literature of late antiquity who taught for many years at Columbia University. His "discovery" of the Mar Saba text was a sensation in 1958, and was hotly debated until the mid-1970s. But not any more. It has been identified as a hoax, but of a very clever kind.
First of all, no such text of a "Secret Mark" has ever been found, at Mar Saba or anywhere else, by anyone other than Morton Smith. The text seems to have vanished. Smith had photographs made of the text, and these photographs do exist. Before his death, Smith said that he left the text at the Mar Saba monastery, and did not know what happened to it afterward. But since no copy of the original has been found anywhere, it is impossible to compare the photographs with the text. There is, therefore, nothing to "authenticate" in this matter. This episode is reminiscent of another Smith -- Joseph Smith -- whose "golden plates" delivered to him by the angel Moroni were translated into the Book of Mormon, after which no "golden plates" could ever be located.
Second, Morton Smith acknowledged his intellectual debt to the classical scholar A. D. Nock, whom Smith referred to as "his principle advisor in the classical field." Among other things, Nock possessed expertise in early Christian and patristic literature. Yet Nock himself dismissed Smith's claims, and even argued that the original letter containing the textual material of "Secret Mark" was not written by Clement of Alexandria at all. This has become the overwhelming consensus of scholarly opinion since the mid-1970s, when additional academic scrutiny was paid to Clement's writings.
Finally, even if the manuscript should turn out to be from Clement, that is no guarantee that Clement knew what he was talking about when he ascribed authorship of the "homosexual passage" to the Gospel writer Mark. After all, Clement also claimed that St. Peter was the author of the spurious *Apocalypse of Peter*, when it is apparent this is not the case.
So even if there ever was a "Secret Mark" manuscript at Mar Saba (which no one has been able to verify), and even if a reference to that manuscript was mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (which no remotely-competent scholar nowadays will support), there is ultimately the problem that we have no reason to believe Clement got his facts straight.
In addition to all this, there is no internal or external evidence from any contemporary historical source that sexual promiscuity, or even an emphasis on sexual activity, ever formed any part of the identity of the early Christian movement. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian and no great friend of Christianity, makes no mention of any such activity. Rodney Stark, the sociologist who has done the most detailed studies of the reception of early Christianity into the social communities of the Roman Empire, publicly scoffs at this allegation of Jesus' homosexuality. If this stuff was kept a secret by the early Christians, they kept it so hermetically sealed off from view that it becomes difficult to imagine how Christianity could have spread so quickly and so intentionally from the initial followers if there was an unknown (until 1958) dark and muted secret at the heart of this religious movement.
In short, the entire argument offered by Morton Smith and his minions, now thoroughly discredited by scholars, strains even minimal rational credibility. Christians need not take seriously the completely speculative claims that Jesus might have been a homosexual. Neither should anyone else.
To the person who is speaking on behalf of godlovesfaithfulness, my particular response is threefold (followed by a few general remarks):
1. Philosophy comes from two Greek words, which put together mean "lover of wisdom." I am certainly a lover of wisdom. But, I am seeking the truth. Should any person present a valid argument (a belief backed by good evidence), I am certainly going to examine that seriously.
That being said, little has been presented for me to examine, which brings me to the second point.
2. The comments most recently posted by godlovesfaithfulness's surrogate commits a number of fallacies - I'll just name a few here:
Fallacy of Appeal to Fear -
Claiming, whether implicitly or explicitly, that we hate homosexuals (from our mutual friend, I gather the claim as been explicit on many occasions. Claiming that we carry some sort of vague attitude that got witches burned; that's certainly an appeal to fear.
Fallacy of Straw Man - What you're assuming is that we're homophobes and haters of people who prefer a homosexual lifestyle. There are none here on this blog. In fact, people here are very loving (have you even read the comments?!). And, people who know me know that I'm a loving person; and, my love (does NOT have boundaries (such as race, gender, sexual orientation, political positions, religious preferences, etc.).
And, comparing lack of tolerating homosexual acts with racism and bigotry? How in the world are they even analogous. No evidence was presented to show how they are analogous. I suspect this is yet another appeal to emotion.
3. The evidence that was presented possibly favoring an open or positive interpretation of same-sex unions was not convincing for reasons already mentioned by axeman and especially by lutheranprof. The so-called evidence (the alleged secret Gospel of Mark) has been disregarded as credible.
Here are some general comments:
Homosexuality was never the focus insofar as sin is concerned. It simply was the topic of discussion in this posting. Sin, in general, is not good - whether sexual in nature or not. All of us are unholy; all of us are sinful. Through Jesus Christ and only through Jesus Christ is there redemption for us.
The general focus of our lives should be on the Lord and how we can glorify him. This shin-dig we call our lives is not about us. It's not about putting ourselves front and center as the goal. We ought to live our lives completely to the glory of God. I'll be the first to admit that that is an extremely difficult task; there isn't a day I haven't fallen short of that. But, what we ought to do to live to glorify God is another topic for another time.
Peace be with you.
During the early centuries of the Christian movement in Rome, at first Chritians were considered part of the culture, just another religion. Then it became just tolerated, because more and more polytheists and secular progressive thinkers of the time became annoyed at the changes in behaviors of the common folk, as a result of Christian influence.Then it became vogue and even encouraged to ridicule and mock Christians. Christians were even considered "dangerous" and "cannibalistic" (or occultic, if you like) because of the sacrament known as Communion, or the Eucharist.Eventually, Christians were blamed for a fire that destroyed Rome, even though Christians had nothing to do with it.But the Emporor of the day (I cannot recall if it was Caligula or Nero, or another) laid the blame solely on the Christians, simply because it was conveinient, and they were already branded as suspect.
In the 20th century, Hitler bgan to invade the halls of churches, by slowly and deliberately using the power of the Nazi government to repress any notion that the National Socialist Party was evil and murderous.Those Christian ministers who refused the party line were either exiled or imprisoned, with those "christians" sympathetic to the dictatorship, would "preach" in thier place.Thus Hitler grabbed control of the single institution that is in direct opposition to his tyranny.Hitler had to have the minds AND hearts of the people in order to pursue his evil doctrines.Hitler's puppets preached hate and genocide as "gospel" and "love",all in the name of Jesus.It was a complete twisting of the Gospel, and when it could not be twisted any further, it was simply rewritten.
That is what the surrogate for GLF, and his ilk have done, and are doing.You do not like the truth of the Gospel as it is preached, because it interferes with your little dogma, and it causes you to consider your behaviors.So instead of submitting to its truth, you attack the messengers as evil, twist the reality to conform to your little close minded world, and rewrite (or "find") the Scripture to suit your whim.Then you blame real believers as "bigots" and "homophobes", as if we're the ones with the hate problem.I submit it is people like the surrogate for GLF (for we feel very sorry for GLF, because they are in a state of confusion and fear)who hates and wants to make himself feel more wise and above the fray.
I will say it again, whoever you are, though you speak on GLF's behalf, you are deceptive and causing great harm to GLF.We are the ones telling the truth.Sorry if that bothers you.
The majority of scholars of late antiquity Christianity do regard the Secret Gospel of Mark fragment at Mar Saba find as authentic. Not a hoax or a forgery. (Check your local departments of history, religious studies, or if you are feeling lazy, try wikipedia.) When scholars’ studies are motivated by a pure interest in history, not a defense of orthodoxy, the vast majority take the SGM seriously, and have for decades. Leading Harvard scholar Helmut Koester’s explanation of the letter is probably correct; lot of “Marks” were floating around in the 1st c, and this is likely to be one of them, with a homosexual bent, recopied in the 17 or 18th c. All this is old news.
A galley proof of a recent book by a lawyer named Stephen Carlson, to be published by Baylor University Press (the biggest Baptist University on the Planet, hardly a source without an axe to grind) has been making its way around and has received mixed reviews, some pro some con. You can go to Carlson’s website for a long list of positive reviews; many are by bloggers. (He will not post negative ones, apparently.) In it he tries to show that Smith was lying, and had personally forged the document. The attempt to show the SGM was forged is not very convincing; the method of looking for mid-stroke stops has some merit, but in this case it appears to most to be strained. There are too few cases where this looks like it is happening. At any rate, this telltale of forgery was known to forgery experts since the 19th century, more than a dozen of which examined photos of the fragment, and none of which reached our lawyer’s conclusions. The analogies to Smith’s own handwriting are similarly seen as weak by many and speculative at best. Most experts regard the fragment as a 18c work, probably a re-copy, not a 20c forged one. But we really don’t know for sure either way. Carlson may be right, but most find his case to be a heap of weak arguments. Such heaps do not constitute a strong one. The problem of motive is especially pressing: if you wanted to forge something, why something so vague, and then fail for 15 years to develop it into something that attracted any widespread interest? There is significant evidence that after the controversy erupted the fragment was removed and probably destroyed by the Greek Orthodox monks who reside at Mar Saba. If this is true, we’ll never know.
Of course you can find conservative websites around the internet who deny the authenticity of the fragment for political purposes, but no matter. Reading our “prof”’s preface of paralytic orthodoxy, we can well speculate that one of these sites is his! And what a hallowed declaration of orthodoxy it is! Who ever she or he is, serious scholars of history don’t usually do that when they enter a debate.
It gets worse when our Lutheranprof remarks that Clement identified the homosexual passages of the fragment as by “Mark”,
“Finally, even if the manuscript should turn out to be from Clement, that is no guarantee that Clement knew what he was talking about when he ascribed authorship of the "homosexual passage" to the Gospel writer Mark.”
But Clement never claimed the “homosexual passage” was by “Mark”, he clearly claimed precisely the opposite. Clement states that the “homosexual” passages were added by a perverted sect, the “Carpocratians”. After discussing an expanded version of Mark (the “secret” one), Clement remarks,
“But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.”
Yes. That’s right. Our Lutheran Professor/debunker has never read the fragment. That's embarrassing.
Moral of the story; do your own research, friends. Don’t go to “hired hands” to put up a show for you. Because show is all you will get! Not reality.
And naturally, all this misses the issue about Jesus: none of the cumulative evidence for the possibility, even probability, of Jesus’ homosexuality is engaged (only a bit of it was touched on in my previous message). I think the worst thing we can say about Smith is he was long aware of this strange aspect of the Gospels and wanted to draw attention to it with an ambiguous but pregnant false little ditty.
I have little time for these things, but later I will briefly turn to the confusions I find in the other comments made here. Recall that this exchange is not essentially about the homosexuality of Jesus, nor the authenticity of the SGM fragment, it is about misusing the Bible to justify cruelty and intolerance, to spread fear and self-loathing among those who do no wrong and certainly do no harm. It is about misusing the Bible to justify sinfulness towards others in our community. We must be cautious that we never do this. Your church leadership, even your friends and families perhaps, appear to be successfully tempting you to do this. There is grave moral danger here, and little moral caution has been shown.
For now I have placed the alleged Clement letter below, so that you and your Lutheran professor may enjoy reading it.
In Christ's love and PEACE.
____________
From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.
You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan," they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and, boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. Frorn this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men." For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly," teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away," and, "Let the fool walk in darkness." But we are "children of light," having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high," and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is," it says, "there is liberty," for "All things are pure to the pure."
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ,"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem," and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise," the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only,
"And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."
But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.
Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy...
[Here the text abruptly stops in the middle of the page]
GLF -
To the surrogate of the one now speaking on behalf of our mutual friend - you mentioned some interesting points regarding the Secret Gospel of Mark. I'll confess there's plenty I don't know. I will do my homework. It isn't laziness that withholds me at the moment; my own academic work takes precedent. But, in due course, I'll give a very careful reading of your remarks as well as the text you've included. For the time being, other more pressing obligations call.
hi. i'm new here, but i'll boldly jump on in.
one problem i see with the ideas put forth by the “surrogate” is the ever poplular idea that Jesus is all love, meaning that we should do whatever we can to get along and be loving and let each other do what we want. but you have to do some very selective reading to come to this uderstanding of Jesus. He had a very clear idea of sin, and a very strong sense of its consequences. Some would have us believe that the extent of the Gospels is that Jesus came to tell us to hug and get along, and leave each other alone to be what we are. But it clearly teaches that what we are are sinners. Sin is not something to be accepted. He indeed ate and spent time with sinners, not because he was one of them, as suggested, but because “It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick.” “If your brother sins, rebuke him and if he repents, forgive him.” We are people who need to be rebuked, corrected, healed, changed, and accepted. Not just the latter. It is clear that Jesus is concerned with much more than feeling nice and getting along. That is a seemingly well-intentioned thought, but misguided at best.
some would also say that Jesus came to make the old law obslolete, openning up men for men, women for women, etc. “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Admitedly i’m not sure the extent of what this means for many things. But he goes onto say things like “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This is far from opening the playing field. The more i read the more i imagine how full a black marker would be needed to come to a version of scripture that teaches what some believe it does.
As for the “Secret Gospel”, it seems from what I’ve read, some articles as recent as this year, that the case is all but decided either way. There are many for and against. So to state that “The majority of scholars of late antiquity Christianity do regard the Secret Gospel of Mark fragment at Mar Saba find as authentic,” is a bit misleading. Admittedly, i’ve done only one day of research, but it seemed to be pretty undecided. Regardless, the fragment, if legit, still does little. It’s one third hand scrap against the entire body of knowledge we have about Jesus. We are now supposed to believe from this that Jesus was not only a homosexual, but a pedophile, the encounter in question being a “youth”. Honestly, everything in me revolts against the thought of how this reading interprets the “mystery of the Kingdom of God.” Any classical understanding of scripture would find this idea revolting. While gut feelings are hardly philosophical evidence for anything, it’s something, and is honestly my first reaction. This doesn’t mean that i’m homophobic or am revolted by the homosexual friends that i have, but rather that we are being asked to understand the Kingdom of God as being something that was explicitely described as depraved and deplorable. It would be the same if it had been that the mystery of the Kingdom of God was to become a swindler, or an adulter, or a thief. Indeed Jesus hung out with tax collectors, so maybe that’s what we’re to think as well. It somehow all seems very far fetched.
Indeed Jesus taught many hard things to accept and understand. But i don’t think that this was one of them. Besides the fact that, if they were going to kill him anyway, and everything he did was against the Pharisaical law, why not divulge that as well. If his goal was really to set people free to do things as these, it seems he would have done so. He tells the disciples “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” They didn’t seem to be afraid of much, and neither did he. they were killed for proclaiming Christ. what more were they afraid of in telling the whole story?
“Recall that this exchange is not essentially about the homosexuality of Jesus, nor the authenticity of the SGM fragment, it is about misusing the Bible to justify cruelty and intolerance, to spread fear and self-loathing among those who do no wrong and certainly do no harm. It is about misusing the Bible to justify sinfulness towards others in our community. We must be cautious that we never do this.” The rub is , where does our own sinfulness come into play in regards to others’ sin? it seems that if i allow my brother to sin, or go so far as to say it’s okay, i’m sinning all the more. it is not a fun feel good doctrine that many of us hold in calling sin sin. it is out of a desire to truly follow Christ whether it’s easy or hard, and taking up your cross sounds all but easy and fun. we seek to follow because we believe it is truth, not because it tells us everything we want to hear. if we’re going to use the bible as a standard of sin, then we should do so consistently and honestly, as difficult as that may be. gold is refined by fire, not told it is beautiful as is.
finally, we could come up with obscure passages that no one has read and make them feel foolish for it until we’re blue in the face, but it does little but expose arrogance, which has little to do with love. if we’re really men and women looking to follow the example of Christ however we understand him, we’ll do best to stick to that as closely as we can. otherwise we risk joining a large company of people who use Jesus not as a Messiah, but as a stick to swing in defense of our own often well meaning ends. but it seems to me that we should be the instruments, not the other way around.
All I have to say (well, for now,lol) is "WOW!" What a powerful and insightful introduction to the discusion, elninomudo. My hat's off!
I been with him and we have conzcrated us to Christo, we have a candle and cruz and we kiss the cruz and we know he is with us. And we love god
Our minister is so sweet f un, wise he makes us feel ok good free, we tell our families and they , ok some, are learning the gospel.
Listen to me. Listen. We want to help you,
Last night our firends have gone out and come back and read what you say, IT SO FUNNY and we love talking about it. My sister gets mad, but its ok. We don't tell her to. We tell her to love. She knows its the pie thing. We don't make fun of you we think you are nice and want to be good and ur sad, kinda controled and scared by what other people tell you, not god about us we think you don't understand that the bible stopped being about hate when Jesus came and said he has a new vision. we live by his love all we can.
we worry that you are unhappy with ur livews, like u work at bad things, some of u. Not the maestra!
We think about love, la vida. No cruelness, nothing but what love fits. So we don't lie or hurt, steal. We ask what love wants and when love doesn't want any mrean thing, we now it's JUST mean. So does my sister. She sez hi. We love you, we have a candle for u. We want to help, but class is so cold, I'm fraid. But we pray. And last night jesus sent a regalo and we want to share it to u. When we kiss tghe birds at dark all started singing outside. We went out and they were singing! And we walked by them and tey were singing in the dark!!. We sing in the dark for christ.
We pray for you to learn the real voice of god, GOD GOD GOD he comes to you! and not bow down to th other voice, the voice of fear and anger. You act like jews who are stuck, that the other one's way, to keep you jews, to make you forget how great our Lord is, Because Jesus put that behind us. He said Satan, get behind me. : )
We love you, put the enemy behind you, por f please
I am so happy in Jesus! he wants me to talk to u.
glf,
espero que los amigos tuyos estan enseñarte el Escritura. porqué –Toda la Escritura es inspirada por Dios, y útil para enseñar, para redargüir, para corregir, para instruir en justicia, a fin de que el hombre de Dios sea perfecto, enteramente preparado para toda buena obra.—Segunda Timateo 3:16. Nadie aquà esta hablando en odio. Buscamos la verdad, y a veces la verdad está difÃcil. Esperamos tambien en el amor de Dios. Pero dice –El que tiene mis mandamientos, y los guarda, ése es el que me ama; y el que me ama, será amado por mi Padre, y yo le amaré, y me manifestaré a él.—San Juan 14:21. El amor de Jesús es gratis, pero tambien se cuesta mucho. Por el amor de Dios vivimos, y por ése amor Jesús murió. Murió porque tenemos el pecado. Cuando pecamos, se muere otra vez. Creemos tambien que Jesús es –el camino, y la verdad, y la vida.-- ¡La Vida! No hay la vida sin Jesus. No tenemos miedo –Porque no nos ha dado Dios un espÃritu de terror, sino de fortaleza, y de amor, y de templanza.-- Mira, el amor no esta solo. Necesitamos tambien templanza, dominio propio. Tenemos guardar su mandamientos. Amor es uno. Pero, otra vez, dice –Si me amáis, guardad mis mandamientos--.Juan 14:15 ¿Ves? No esta que nosotros no creemos en su amor. Es que su amor es verdad, y la verdad esta que el pecado es mal. Porque tenemos pecado, murió. Y ¿como sabemos que es pecado? La Escritura. Si un hombre enseña algo diferente que la Escritura, no esta enseñando Christo. Si alguien enseña un amor indiferente y facil, no es el amor de Dios. Por favor, lee la Escritura y cuando un hombre dice algo la contra, cree la Escritura. Porque la es la voz de Dios. Como dices ,el Señor es buenisimo, y por el amor de Jesús, tenemos la vida. Gracias a Dios por tu fé y pasión. Estamos orando por ti tambien. luego.
kind of getting back to the original topic... one thing i've been thinking about is how and if this issue should really be discussed. from a Christian perspective, the real issue isn't if someone is gay or not. the core issue is that they're not following Christ. that of course isn't something we could or should legislate. but i guess in some ways i feel like homosexual marriage is a secondary issue. sin will play itself out, and i'm not sure if it does any good to fight against legalization or not. i guess in some ways that's just not the hill i want to die on. of course, when i vote, i'll always vote it down. if we think something is wrong you don't have to discuss it, but you can certainly vote how you think. like someone said here, it's ridiculous to be pressured to agree and consent to something that you see as wrong. but i hate getting in discussions with people, because i don't want to get caught up in defending heterosexuality, or spend all of my time arguing about morality. if someone doesn't know Christ, morality doesn't matter a bit. but again, there are certainly actions that i don't agree with and won't condone. so i guess my question is, should we spend time discussing issues of morality with not Christians, with whom there is no agreed point of authority, and if so, how? do you think that perhaps there is some good in it? it seems too often to eventually result in angrily and deafly cheering for your team, not actually getting anywhere. i really am not sure. that has to do very much with what i've been thinking about same-sex marriage, and other things as well. thoughts?
Elninomudo, wow you raised several important points in your most recent posting. One point discusses this posting in particular. I concur that the focus of Christianity does not center around one's sexual orientation. Moreover, i am in agreement with you insofar as this is not a hill on which I want to die, to use your words. That being said, let me do a bit to explain my approach.
I originally intended this blog for like-minded Christians (ones that think through various issues using reason). I have very few answers, if any. So, I'm constantly on the search for answers. How, for instance, is the doctrine of the Trinity not a contradiction? Well, to be able to entertain any answers to that question, one has to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.
Certainly, in starting a blog that's available for anyone to see or comment, we will have visitors and commentors that aren't Christian. And, that is find; it fact, that's encouraging. By having a posting on Same-Sex Marriages, I was not inadvertantly trying to send any hidden message of any kind. At that time, the state of Texas was about to vote on an amendment regarding that issue, so I thought it would be interesting to discuss the moral issues concerning that. What is more, the Vatican is about to release a written document, next week, stating it's amended position on homosexuals in the clergy.
That being said, and given the course the comments have taken, I'm not sure any fruit has been produced as a result of the discussion, I'm sad to say. I'd rather leave this discussion to rest, than perpetuate any misunderstandings or making people mad.
Another issue you raised concerned morality and whether we should bother discussing morality with non-Christians. The answer to that question is a resounding yes. We should discuss morality with others, even non-Christian persons? I'll admit, on the one hand, I have pragmatic attitude motivating me to to answer in this way. We already live in a very global environment. Our neighbors, within the same country, are of different races, social and economic standings, religions, what have you. We have to find a way to leave peacefully. One aspect of law is to enforce what is morally correct.
But, in saying this, there's no promise that the dialogue will be easy and agreeable. Determining what is right and wrong is a highly controversial endeavor. But, I argue, it must be done.
How? Well, philosophers, ethicists, and the like are discussing that as we speak. The approaches vary widely. Some say that we cannot divorce religion from ethics when we talk about what is right and wrong. And, some try to talk about what is right and wrong, independent of any religious position. There are different avenues to take for this approach. One avenue is to look at the sort of values all societies share in common (such as valuing life, respecting truthfulness in general). Another avenue is to derive a means by which we can determine whether an act is right or wrong.
Am I anywhere in the ballpark of what you were inquiring and questioning?
lily,
that definitely makes sense. i think what i have a hard time with is trying to argue outside of religious convictions and reasoning. on one hand it's impossible for me to divorce how i see the world from why i see it that way, and why i think it is the way it is. but the difficulty, obviously, is that not everyone agrees on the foundation. i think i agree that it has to be done, but i feel like it must inevitably tie into the deeper issue. is it possible for christians to genuinely argue from an agreed upon, independent basis? in some ways i feel like if christianity is the way i see the world, or is my "worldview" if you will, there's no way i can talk outside of that without kidding myself. i want to honestly and effectively talk to people about things like that, but i feel like if everything i'm talking about rests and is dependent on the same rock, people on the sand will have little way to understand what i'm talking about without also being on that rock. does that make sense? a difficulty i'm having too is that, it seems like, for issues such as same sex marriages, those who adhere to the same authority should be able to come to the same conclusions. but, as is clear from some of the things in this blog, that's not even always the case. so in answer to your very first question (as i came in late i kind of got bogged down by the rest. sorry) i don't know how i would discuss same-sex marriage in a diverse crowd. i'd probably be as open and honest about it as possible, and as gentle as possible, knowing that people will get irate and take things wrong no matter what you say. in fact, i was in a similar conversation the other day. there were four of us. me and a french guy (go figure) were both against it. i was a bit timid to bring up the whole "well, i believe God made us this way, so..." i think one problem we face is that once the idea of "belief" comes into a conversation, it all gets relegated to "well yeah, keep that to yourself & don't push your beliefs on other people." shaeffer talks about the problem of things being put outside the realm of arguement, into just opinions, and how an entire shift sometimes has to be made to talk about Christian truth as true truth. but if we believe Christianity as Truth, it's much more than just opinion. so what kind of external guide to right and wrong can a Christian agree to? it seems that the default standard, especially in the homosexual issue, is whether or not it hurts other people. with this topic it seems that there's no logic to appeal to. the "hurting people" card gets played every time, and outside of a Christian framework, i never have anything to say. if you have any common ground points that one could start with, i'd love to hear them.
so how did the vote turn out? i've been hearing a lot about the vatican decision here. i imagine it'll be the topic of many a discussion in the next few weeks. i'm getting ready. :)
I suppose I am getting in on this a bit late. Not even quite sure if there is still enough interest maintained to make my comment worthwhile (I can see that the last comment was posted on the 23rd). But as I read the above, I fear, I came across ideas so compelling and dangerous that I felt the screen might as well have been on fire (and I am saying this, pointedly, about both sides of the discussion). Even now, my palms are cold with sweat and my heart races with feeling as I write.
I must say bravo, elninomudo - I couldn’t be more thankful of the responses you made. What joy relief is! I think you’ve taken it through the eyes of someone ‘standing on the rock”, indeed. In fact, I agree with you so much that I really needn’t comment at all, except that I wanted to say a few things which, I hope, might humbly illuminate your responses.
The first point I feel I must address is nothing more than the very ‘point of it all’. Of life, I mean - which is, I might add, to learn to Love as He does, which requires obedience to Him and humility, that we might allow Him to make us in His image. For this entire discussion must stand upon some base reason for having it, and we can include that reason with the very material which is discussed, and in addition to that, everything we do from moment to moment in this life. We do not discuss these sorts of things as idle chatter; and yet our entire point of discussing them at all might be lost or misinterpreted by others in the way we present our argument. And we, in our human frailty, sometimes allow our well-meaning argument (but misdirected tone) to manipulate our own minds, causing us to fall into a groove which moves us quite far from His Love’s true course (I have fallen into that groove all too often myself, I must admit. It’s hard, in the midst of unreasoning sin of our age, to avoid that groove and still be passionate about His Truth that is essential to His Love.). On the other side of things, we may be caught up in an irrational definition of Love, one which is quite far from what God says is Love, but is actually much nearer to another definition of ‘love’. This other ‘love’, which is ubiquitous and insidious in this world, deceives people, through their feelings, to accept in their minds what would be (if they dared to push it, through logic, to its unavoidable conclusions) nothing more than humanistic, selfish ‘love’ (not love at all – in fact, its the heart of evil), which makes us very unlike Him and far from His image.
Jesus tells us the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." And to clarify what “Love” means, let us look in Corinthians: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
These passages are the heart of what I mean to present, and it is deeply important that we intertwine their meanings in both our hearts and our minds. For Jesus commands us to Love with a specific Love. All law hangs upon this Love; it is the very reason for the laws. And yet His law is essential to it, for it tells us what His Love is and how it can be done. I feel the need to repeat those last two sentences, for emphasis, but I will not; I simply ask you to go back and reread them a few times if the meaning was not put forth strongly enough.
More specifically, and to address the point of discussion , there is no foundation for a Christian to discuss morality without a true understanding of His Love – faith and freedom rest upon His Truth. When Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex in 1644, the phrase was absolutely earthshaking. Lex Rex means ‘law is king’; prior to that it had been Rex Lex – obviously meaning ‘king is law’. The world at that time had been dealing with the arbitrary commands of a human government as law (clearly, this was not the Christian way). In Lex Rex, Rutherford wrote that law, and no one else is king. If we understand that this law comes from a perfect God in Heaven (Who is unchanging because He is perfect), and we live under that law, then nothing can be done to move it, and we will be working in accordance to His will when we obey it. Even the heads of government will be under the law, and not a law unto themselves. But I fear our age has moved towards the opposite end of the spectrum, where law is King and people do not believe in any absolute higher than mankind to determine what that law is. We have come to a place where the secularized society uses an ephemeral ethical standard to institute what has been dubbed ‘sociological law’. To make it worse, the lies of our deteriorating social ethics (which pretend to be truth) deceive well-meaning Christians by their feelings, sending the poison of their meanings to the person’s mind. We cannot detach the God who is there from any of His reality and expect to get anywhere in discussion. We must have some base to reason upon.
I guess, if I were placed in that party, which discussed the issue of homosexuality, I would have to embark upon a very long discussion indeed, working out through logic, how morals stand upon a base. I do not know everything, none of us do; but we must look to Him for Truth. Jesus promises “"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Yes, it would be tiresome to explain everything from the beginning, and of course, I would not likely really get anywhere with most people. But what else could I do, and still look upon the creations of God, who I am trying to Love with His perfect Love? Love is the motive for obeying Him, and if I do not Love those whom I meet, I do not obey Him. But to really Love them, I must also try to help them obey Him if I can. I still cry when I read Paul’s words: “For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.” How can I stand next to those and not at least try to explain His Truth, in Love?
‘If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.’
Welcome Ashley. The break in dialogue or postings likely was due to Thanksgiving holidays. But, rest assure, interests in the topic haven't waned in the least; just wait and see.
Elninomudo, I've taken some time to think hard about what you have said. You're right, carrying on a discussion with someone standing on a rock is much different from carrying a discussion with someone standing on shifting sand. In fact, sometimes the task seems so daunting, discussion between a person standing on a rock with a person standing on sand seems quite pointless.
When I am amongst a crowd of people, I tend to be a listener. I'm more interested in hearing what people have to say than speaking. As I continue to study, I'm learning and relearning how little I really know. That saying which goes: high schoolers think they know everything, college students think they know some things, and graduate students and post-graduate students realize they know very little. Well, that applies to me. Not only am I listener, but, in general, I tend to avoid controversy (what am I doing in philosophy, you might ask). Like you said, people who aren't on a paar with you can be quite hostile and they'll find anything about which to be offended. What makes this blog a better forum for dialogue is, I hope, that we can reason about the truth together. This isn't about getting personal but about seeking truth and wisdom.
As for the issue of hurting people, let me begin by affirming that we ought to be considerated. However, let me make a distinction between hurting people as a goal and pursuing a different goal (but in the process hurting person(s)). One difference is that in the former the entire focus is hurting while in the latter the focus is something else (e.g. determining the truth of a particular situation). The focus of this blog definitely is not the former.
The sort of love that the Lord exhibits towards is greater than any love we can fathom. But, that's no guarantee that the love the Lord shows towards us will always feel good or feel pleasant. For instance, the pastor preached on Hebrews 12:1-12 today. In that passage, amongst other things, it talks about the Lord disciplining those he loves. Discipline never feels good when it is occurring. Nevertheless, the Lord disciplines us out of love, to make us better people. Does that make sense?
Have I satisfactorily answered any of your questions and concerns?
I do hope that, friend and adversary alike, had a wonderous holiday weekend. I say "holiday" because not all celebrate Thanksgiving with thanks or honor,but all seem to enjoy the time off (well, if you had any lol).
It is good to see that, during my self imposed hiatus, we have some new blood in the discussion.And it is riveting, to say the least.I would like to address something that I have noticed within the last few comments, if nothing else than for clarity of my own understanding.
It seems to me that there is being made a distinction between those who have Scriptural foundation as the basis of ethics versus those who do not.While that distinction is quite clear, it seems to me that this distinction is being used (unintentionaly)as an excuse to ignore or pacify ,in some way, those who choose to ignore or rebel against God's laws. While it is quite true that we can't, as human beings, all agree on a foundation for truth, that does not dimiss or nullify truth.
Romans 2:12-13 state, "All those who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."
Then in Romans 2:14-15 the real thrust of the passage gets emphasis; "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law (or, in other words, the same 'foundation') do by nature things required by the law,they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,since they show that the requirements of the law are written on thier hearts, thier consciences bearing witness, and thier thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
My point? I believe that the mark of God, the very image, is "fashioned" (for want of a better word) on evey human being, not only in physical appearance,but also in the mental, Psychological, and spiritual aspects of our personalities. The Scripture tells us that our very consciences have (again, for lack of a better term) been programmed with the nature of God.Not as gods ourselves, but as 'images' of the Creator.Therefore, it is not out of reach to conclude that even those who have never heard of Jesus may very well be capable of operating in "good conscience." So I must respectfully reject the notion, at least thus far, that just because someone does not share Christ as the foundation of truth, is incapable of understanding right and wrong.They may reject truth, they may rebel against truth, but they understand it and make thier choices.
I realize that this probably falls out of the scope of the particular subject that we have been disussing, but I sense a philosophical drift in the definition of the terms of the disussion.It is a VERY late hour at which I am writing (and after a 9 hour drive ,to boot!) so perhaps I am not in the best position to extrapolate, but hey, I can't resist jumping back in.It's way too much fun to be on the sidelines!
clarity is a virtue often chase, seldom reached. there are a couple things i was unclear about, and i apologize for that.
first, in response to axeman, i fully agree. my intention wasn't to say that anyone apart from Christ has no moral inclinations. the point was that, apart from a biblical foundation, there is nothing firm to base them on. i fully believe that the Law of God is written in the hearts of man, and that indeed, we often live by that, despite what we say we believe. whether we like it or not we live in a (i believe) God-made world within God-breathed laws. a man can say that we are products of evolution with no inherent dignity, but when i slap his wife he's certain to react otherwise. he can say that emotions are merely chemical processes in the brain, but when he kisses that same wife, he’s likely feeling otherwise. the issue is not whether or not we deep down know God's law (indeed i believe we do) but how we can align our words and actions. if it is in fact true that we live in a God-breathed world, then any other explanation or worldview will be inaccurate, either grossly or slightly. and the problem is that out of our worldview come the tools with which we teach, argue, try to live by, etc. but, aside from a true understanding of the world (not all-knowing, but true) they will always fall short and cause us to live in tension (to use Schaeffer’s words). a Darwinist view of the world cannot explain why we get upset when our wife is slapped. there is no value in a kiss other than survival of the species. these things we know, but cannot argue from foundations other than that upon which the world is made.
i very much agree that we should not ignore these people. the question is how do you describe a sunset to a man who’s never opened his eyes? certainly there are things he knows about the world that are true. he knows that the sun is warm, but he doesn't know that it gives us light to see the world around us. he knows that fire is hot and shouldn’t be touched, but since he can’t see it, he often doesn’t know how to avoid it. he can feel many things, but until he sees them by the light, he never really knows them. and until his eyes are opened, there are just some things that don't apply. it doesn’t make sense to ask him to leave the room while you change, or to insist that it’s rude not to face you when you’re talking to him. his problem is not seeing you naked or being rude, it’s that his eyes are closed. indeed it may be uncomfortable to have someone in the room while you’re naked and rude to never look at someone speaking to you. those things don’t change. and perhaps you should try to get him in the habit of these things for the day when his eyes are opened, but you’d certainly never come up with reasoning that makes sense to him until that day. he indeed has a sense of right and wrong, but his rebellion in keeping his eyes closed is the real issue. that’s the main thing i’m having problems with. i can’t come up with any good reasons why anyone should enjoy a sunset with closed eyes. in some instances i think it’s better to convince him to open his eyes. the sunset will speak for itself.
looking at it another way, just because someone doesn’t think something is wrong doesn’t mean it’s okay to do. i see that aspect too. and maybe that’s where we need to come up with basic guidelines to work from. another thing i was unclear on (upon re-reading my entry) was the “hurting people” issue. aside from any Biblical or other religious/ideological standard, the one we come to that we can agree on is, “if it’s not hurting anyone, it’s okay.” that’s a standard argument in areas like gay marriage. “it’s not hurting anyone, so why should you care.” we can all agree that murder and stealing and such are wrong, but other than that, it’s an open game. unfortunately, anymore we don’t make the distinction that lily made earlier.
there is indeed a difference between things that cause pain as an end, and things that cause pain but as a means to an end. our society has dubbed anything that causes pain “bad”. you cannot discipline your children with spanking anymore, because it causes pain, and that is bad. you cannot hold a pro-life event on some college campuses because it might make people who have had abortions feel bad (as i read today). you cannot lovingly express that homosexuality is wrong without being labeled a bigot. you cannot speak of obeying and loving Christ, and how they interplay, because obedience is sometimes hard and painful. certainly, the end in all of these things is not to bring pain or to make people feel bad. in these cases, if pain is a result, maybe it means that something is wrong. you learn by pain that the frying pan is not to be touched, you don’t make your hand numb so you can do it anyway. it will cause destruction whether you feel it or not. Schaeffer (i’ve been reading him a lot lately) talks about how we can never come to know God unless we understand our true guilt before Him. God doesn’t just want us to feel bad, or have guilt feelings, but really understand our guilt, and receive His forgiveness from it. all that to say, pain cannot and will never be a workable standard for morals in a society. but maybe, short of being a Christian society, that’s what we have to work up from. it still leaves a lot of difficulties and ambiguities in the realm of legislated morality.
i don’t know if any of that clarified what i was trying to say or not. but i hope it was a step forward, and not otherwise. :)
I have neither the clarity of mind or the time to get as drawn into this blog as I would like. However, I would like to contribute some facts that arose out of some independent studies that may help the issue.
I'll preface that this information came from a Catholic Apologetics web site. While I have my own issues with the Catholic church, there are some matters of the Catholic faith that remain the same.
At any rate, the site had this article up on its site and it addresses some heath issues - both physical and psychological - associated with homosexual unions. Since the tone of this discussions has turned to the relative "harm" of something as an indicator used by the secular public, this article uses their approved methods to show that what they desire is not appropriate. (and how appropriate is that?)
I may start adding more, but school and other duties beckon first.
Enjoy and God Speed.
anonjr, welcome. the website you listed is indeed interesting. i took a quick look. i'm especially pressed for time in the next few weeks as i attempt to finish this revision of my dissertation before family comes to visit for the holidays.
but, here's something i'll put out there. while purusing the article, it claims that it is arguing in favor of exclusively heterosexual marriages on purely secular grounds. here's the question or task: what reasons does the site or author of the site present in favor of heterosexual marriages? second, how does that evidence bode?
Hey, Gang. Is there still room to get on board? This is my first "blog," so I may be moving at dinosaur speed with respect to all you quick, furry mammals, with your big brains, and such. I don't want to rehash old ground, or hold up the line, but my time is rather limited, and I want to do justice to such a critical discussion. So how about it?
Thanks much.
theolog, ofcourse you're welcome. not too crowded here for you and many more.
Phew!... Lets get out of the forest of philosophical banter. Why do we keep calling into question questions that we already know the answers to? Is arguing the truth fun? I hope I speak for everyone when I point out that this horse is more than dead. How God wants us to act is not (and has never been )confusing. He has given us knowledge about how to be good through the special revelation of Christ and the Bible. All of the "laws" can be condensed into love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Note that love is the key word. This doesn't seem an especially large bit to rememmber but sadly we often leave it behind while getting caught up in the lesser laws(and thereby causing the observation of the lesser laws to be an obsolete and even selfish practice - think 'pharisees').
When we observe these two simple commandments we will follow all of the lesser ones naturally. One thing that we often forget is that a person is not his/her ideas. We need to differentiate between a person's bad ideas (which cause bad action) and the person (whom we are commanded to love). The rest of everything is up to God and God alone. We should hate the bad idea and the bad action but we must love and sincerely pity the lost people who are thinking those bad thoughts and commiting those bad actions(which are ultimatly self-destructive). So let's quit tiring everyone (and confusing ourselves) with vain words, and spend our time giving hope to those lost people INSTEAD OF MAKING OURSELVES LOOK RIDICULOUS TO THEM BY ETERNALLY PONTIFICATING ABOUT SILLY STUFF. Amen.
begood,
unfortunately some things aren’t as obvious to some as it is to others. i think most of us here would agree with you that the truth in Christ as revealed in the Bible is pretty clear. no one’s arguing about what truth is. the question is how to relate that to others. most people i come into contact with will have no idea what i’m talking about if i just come up and start spouting the Gospel. for many people there are too many things standing in the way for them to believe. if a man is convinced he isn’t lost then the Gospel makes no sense to him. “Therefore, be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves.” sometimes yo have to point out the problem before you can point out the solutione. though it’s not in my power to change people’s minds i do believe God wants to use us as instruments to do His work in reaching those who don’t know Him. and it’s love that we’re talking about. try going up and talking to an englishman in french and expect him to understand. he won’t, and he won’t feel very loved. if i’m lost it doesn’t help me if someone rattles off directions i don’t understand and throws me a map i can’t read. to love someone is to meet them where they are. to love my neighbor as myself is to find out what he needs, how he needs to be served to meet God, and do that. maybe the people that you know are completely open and indeed asking you to show them hope. praise God if they are. but for some of us it’s not thinking about these things that make us look ridiculous.
besides, pontificating is what a philosophy blog is for, no?
Welcome to all new contributors, even those with whom I may disagree.Indeed, it wouldn't be any fun if only just agreed. Ignorance can ride on the horse of agreement. Hey, not bad! I wrote that one myself!...Okay, time for some humility!I am sure that none of you will let me get away with pride.So forgive me, post haste!
At any rate, I must at least make an observation, with regard to our new friend,"begood." By the way, I like the name there, begood.Please do not perceive what I am about to write as an assault on your opinions.I am going to at least attempt to answer the implied questions in your posting.
I believe we must centralize our discussion to the initial question posited at the beginning of these postings.When our dear friend Lilly started this discussion, she simply asked how to address any disagreement or opposition to same sex unions without such opinions being recieved uncivily or defensively.Lilly's query was meant to solicit our ideas and perhaps sift out her answer with our help.It is not just useless pontification, or pharisiacal pandering, it is an honest attempt to sort out thoughts and feelings about a very volatile issue.Those who have responded have sitrred the pot, and I believe that we have all been edified and informed, regardless of the position that you may take on it.If I disagree with someone, then I am forced to give a reason why. And I had better be settled with my answer, or else I am the one who will look foolish. But even looking foolish can help teach a lesson.Either way, it is not useless nor futile to debate these issues.We either know what we believe, or we don't.Perhaps another way to look at this is the Apostle Paul. If Paul took the attitude that we should not discuss certain issues, then I submit most, if not all, of the New Testament would not have been.The Apostle Paul publicly challenged many of these same issues, not only with the religious leaders of the day, but also the secular culture of the day.Paul debated the popular philosophers and challenged thier opinions on a consistent basis.If Paul took the tack of, "It's all about love," we would not have the basis of all of our theological dictums. I submit to you that God so instructed Paul to not allow the secular progressives of the time to gain a foothold in the minds of the populace unchallenged. I would also submit that we as His servants, should not,either.
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." These are the powerful words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Should he not have engaged the public discourse?
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." These words are by the great Albert Einstien. Had he listened to the staus quo, had he considered the mockeries of his peers, had he allowed his considerable vision to be stifled, he would've never stumbled upon the greatest discovery in all of physics.
Our own brittany lane wrote these words:"In order to restore, we have to come in contact with the broken."
That requires that we must often challenge false notions with truth, no matter how painful that may be.
“He that always gives way to others will end in having no principles of his own.” wrote Aesop. Letting lies and falsehoods go silently unchallenged shows a lack of principles.Or at least a lack of understanding of your principles.
And I could not resist a quote from the late,fantasticly wierd Frank Zappa: "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." That comes from not challenging the myths that people choose to surround themselves with.
Now, I must state that I agree that there is a way to lovingly and civily address certain subjects within the public discourse.However,I think that your statement, "So let's quit tiring everyone (and confusing ourselves) with vain words, and spend our time giving hope to those lost people INSTEAD OF MAKING OURSELVES LOOK RIDICULOUS TO THEM BY ETERNALLY PONTIFICATING ABOUT SILLY STUFF." is merely an attempt to hide your head in the sand.You cannot offer hope to people who already think that the Gospel is ridiculous and foolish.Many unsaved folks simply reject the Gospel because WE Christians don't really know what we believe, or talk about, and we have no cultural relevance in thier minds.Perhaps if we better understood what we were talking about, on any given issue, we could be better "givers of hope." I Peter 3:15 tells us to, "Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have."
I leave you with a final quote, by Aldous Huxley, that I think sums most of my statements.“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Why is it important to have these discusions? Because facts are often ignored, and they are obscured from the public view by those who are threatend by truth.
Man, now I need a soda. My brain is parched!
You may misunderstand what I'm concerned with. I understand that this is a philosophy blog, and am in no way against rational disscusion of God' truth. In fact such disscusions are seriously lacking in present-day society. But where is this blog page going? When will we tie this up and move on? As I see it, the original post has already been answered: We should lovingly but firmly explain that same-sex unions are, if only by virtue of being self destructive, not good. And also explain that as Christians that (even though we firmly disagree with their bad ideas) we still love pity such lost people.
It's amazingly freeing to be a Christian because we have God's absolute wisdom to rest upon, and therefore with such a base should be able to come readily to a good conculsion amongst ourselves. Especially over something as trival as how handle the homosexual issue. Now, before I end I'd like to address the fact that my above conclusion concerning same sex marraiges is only a generalization (something that we can log in our heads). The specifics over how we should deliver such truths to others is completely subjective to the individual we are dealing with. No two people are going to recieve truth in the same way. That being said, we must recognize that to properly deliver truth to another person we need to lovingly spend time with that person and trust that, through us, God will help their hearts and minds to see. And since there are nearly an infinite number of situations we can't know exactly how to act in each one and therefore must play it by ear, loving God and His form, trusting him, and loving others. I fear that by continuing to twitter over the specifics and diffuculties of being a Christain we are in danger of falling into pride and are using up valuable God-given time to stuff our own heads with a bunch of silly particulars instead of spending it TRYING our best to help people that do not know God by spending time with them. All I ask is that we use rational disscusion how it's meant to be used: to come to a conclusion. Being able to come rationaly to a SUFFICIENT conclusion is a wonderful gift from God, and I rejoice that there are such intelligent people who love to flex their intellect, but let's not get caught up in the love of words for words sake. Such love (and time) would be better directed toward hurting souls.
God Bless.
Good sir/madame, I believe that I completely understood your issue. However, I think that your admonition concerning our discourse is misplaced.
I submit that it is not a waste of time, nor a way to fan the flames of intellectual rhetoric, or as you succintly put it, "flexing [the] intellect...caught up in the love of words."
I think that you miss the point of this blog. Furthermore, there is no rule or Biblical impetus to cease or draw to a conclusion. The purpose of this blog is rational discourse, and often that requires time and effort, especially if you are trying to draw others into the discussion.
You state, “I fear that by continuing to twitter over the specifics and diffuculties of being a Christain we are in danger of falling into pride and are using up valuable God-given time to stuff our own heads with a bunch of silly particulars instead of spending it TRYING our best to help people that do not know God by spending time with them. All I ask is that we use rational discussion how it's meant to be used: to come to a conclusion.”
You may indeed fear that we are in danger of falling into pride, but that is a fear of your own making. We are not here to blow our own horns. We are here to educate and be educated, even in disagreement. As far as “using up valuable God-given time,” as I mentioned in my last posting, I think if you were around the Apostle Paul, you would probably have said the same thing to him. I am sure that Paul’s detractors had leveled similar charges. But it is not a waste of time speaking truth. Nor is it an appeal to human pride.
In regard to “filling our heads with silly particulars,” in a real rational discourse, there are no ‘silly particulars.’ Discerning truth often means digging deeper, weeding out the dross, and organizing ALL of the issues. Truth is as black and white to me as it is to you, but unfortunately, such is not the case with those in the world. In dealing with them, and some of our less informed brethren, the ‘silly particulars’ are vastly important.
As far as “trying our best to help people that do not know God, by spending time with them,” that is a nice sentiment, and a wondrous exercise, but it is quite logistically impossible, since most of us in this discourse are separated by many miles, and we do not even know each other’s real names (well, Lilly’s a personal friend of mine, and there are one or two that have popped up that I know personally, but not the individual that needs the help). Quite frankly, it has been those who don’t know God, and perhaps don’t understand these biblical truths, who have spurred the discussion. It seems quite obvious to me that those of us who are Christians ARE lovingly helping them. We are, after all, pointing them to the truth. This is not intellectual masturbation (oops, hope I didn’t offend with that term), but a real spiritual battle going on within the confines of this blog.
I would submit to you that your piety is well meaning but misdirected. As far as an issue of pride, piety certainly has a stronger pull toward pride than intellectual stimulation. Do I think that you are guilty of pride? No, I think that you mean well. But I resent the implication, passively or aggressively, subtly or otherwise, that by our discussions we are nothing more than “clanging cymbals.” You strike me as someone who is so ‘heavenly minded’ that you’re ‘no earthly good.’ With all due respect, get your head out of the clouds.
Before you respond (an I suspect that you will), please allow me to tell you that my last comments are not in any way meant to malign or assassinate your character. There was no malicious intent in my letter, although the printed word cannot convey facial expressions or tone of voice.It was my intent to challenge your position, but not attack you personally.I stand by what I wrote, just making sure that the intent was pure, if not the grammar.Here's to a good "pen" lashing! (I know, I know, it's a keyboard...)
To all of those who think it permissable and intellectually honest to attack Lilly of the Valley on her views: get over it.This particular posting was meant to throw the ball around, to discuss the ideas and opinions, in an intellectual response to an honest question.Lilly posed a situation and a scenario and asked our opinions, desiring to know how we might respond in a similar situation.
Even though she did state what she personally believed about the situation, there was no hatemongering or diminishing of other opinions.She asked a simple question, with the hoope that she would get some substantive responses.Instead, there have been nothing attacks and threats form those who would disagree with her. Opposing views are welcome,and none have been "censored", as some would lead us to believe.They HAVE been disputed and disagreed with, but that is not censorship.Apparently, to those who are militant in thier support of homosexuality, and all of the peripherals that go along with it, simple disagreement equals censorship.
Lilly's question at the beginning of the forum asked how to disagree with those who support same-sex marriages without creating an uncivil or unfriendly atmosphere. As we can obviously see, those who support the homosexual agenda are anything but civil. Agree with you, then we are considered enlightened. Disagree with you, and we're nothing more than dung and beneath your contempt, not really worthy of life.Sounds to me that it is your side that is the haters.It is your side that makes threats and implies some kind of action that would try to silence those who disagree substantively with you.Your side is more akin to Hitler, Stalin, and the KKK than we ever will be.
As I queried in my very first comment on the subject, "Who is the one being uncivil?I have found that usually, it is the one who supports the notion of same-sex unions, or marriages, that become hostile toward those who do not support it.The supporters essentially use social and emotional manipulation to guilt non-supporters into silence."
How prophetic.
And while we're on the subject of who said what,I believe that it was I, not LOV, that made some pretty brazen statements. Why don't you attack me? Is it because you don't have any real intellectual basis for your position, or is it because you don't know who I am, and can't really get to me? I do not fear you, nor do I care if you did threaten me.You have nothing but rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.You are angry and bitter, have no substantive argument, and are not in the majority, statisticly or pragmaticly.You twist the Scripture to suit your own ends,highlighting the verses that seem to support your position, ignoring the verses that prohibit such lifestyles, and when you run into an obvious conundrum, you attack the messengers. Well either the Scripture is the Word of God, or it isn't. Either it is true, or it is a lie. It cannot be both.
To those who would villify Lilly's good name, you are a bag of endless contradictions and bigoties.
Post a Comment