Spare me. Warrenism is the new roman catholicism. The rcc aisalso simultaneously anti-gay, pro-life, and unbiblical The guy is a consumate politician (notice how he deftly avoids the question) and a braggart. Ooops the same thing.
What you are saying is that Warren is a real “christ follower” (thus making all who disagree with hin either unrighteousness or self righteous) which makes Obama one of the true righteous also, since he chose Warrenus I to lead the” anointed” prayer at the innagurati0n.
The politically expedient spirit of Constantine lives!

I find it interesting that Rick is on the same side as Ingrid yet Ingrid sides with the gays in demonizing Rick Warren.

It does seem weird who partners with who…

(Yes playing the GBA card and it feels sort of fun!)

iggy

Rick, people are clinging to Rick Warren’s lies that “all cultures” and “all religions” for “5000 years” (the new evangelical buzzword apparently…it used to be 6,000, but I guess the world is doing the Benjamin Button thing) have affirmed marriage the way the current evangelical church wants it defined. This whole idea of “tradishnul marriage” being some enigmatic institution deserving of greater government respect than any other union is just a scam, bolstered by revisionist history and supported by people too uneducated in basic world history to know any better.

Warren et al. would garner a bit more respect if they had the common decency not to lie in order to scare the stupid.

Neil, one-man one-woman marriage wasn’t even the norm in Judeo-Christian society until several hundred years after Jesus.

Also, marriage wasn’t an institution having anything to do with love or commitment, but rather a transfer of property. Indeed, men were still free to have their concubines.

In some societies, normative marriage involved a woman and a revolving crew of male suitors.

Anthropology is fascinating.

But anyway, back to “biblical marriage.” Polygamy was the norm. Extramarital affairs with whores were awesome, as long as it was the man taking the whores. Women who weren’t virgins at marriage were subject to execution…

So, no. The Christians who sanctimoniously claim some kind of long heritage of “tradishnul marriage” are functionally illiterate when it comes to their own religious tradition.

And again, the fact that Rick Warren (as well as most anti-equality activists) felt the need to lie to convince people to support their cause is, as usual, revelatory.

If they were truly on the side of decency, their case would stand on its merits.

Instead, I have never found one single anti-equality spokesperson who’s able to get through a paragraph without lying.

Um, have you read your Old Testament lately?

As to Rick Warren’s stupid statement about one man-one woman marriage being normative across all cultures and religions, Islam allows polygamy; Hinduism has had all manner of polygyny/polyandry across its history.

Oh, and the first recorded same-sex marriages took place in Ancient Rome.

So, again, Warren’s statement is either ignorant or a flat-out lie.

Just because something is the norm among human beings doesn’t mean it’s okay with God.

True, but the original sources which you believe document the society of God’s chosen people condone polygamy outright, though more civilized minds today tend to frown on that.

The point is that appealing to scripture on this issue is hypocritical at best.

Therefore, if gays want to be “married” it should be called Homogamy – for the obvious etymological reasons.

And straight “marriage” should be called “heterogamy”?

Again, you have to abandon the myth that civil “marriage” came from God.

Marriage contracts predate Genesis. They’ve taken many forms, some you like, some you don’t.

it is no stretch to see God’s design as one man for one woman in from the genesis and the Genesis.

Actually, it is a stretch. You’re adding all kinds of things to the narrative that simply aren’t there.

In the myth, he created one of each gender to begin populating the earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

That Jewish Law allowed polygamy proves on that – it was allowed.

Except that Jewish law supposedly was the next extension of God’s plan for his people…so either every bit of it was divinely inspired and God is okay with polygamy, or you have to admit that culture evolves (and didn’t stop evolving in 32 AD), societal norms change, scientific understanding changes, and appealing to a creation myth in any way, shape, or form, in the discussion of a civil institution in 2008 is beyond silly.

And again, marriage contracts predate the appearance of Adam and Eve in the archetypical canon.

That’s one way to interpret Scripture. There are other ways.

Not really, but if you’re amusing yourself, carry on, carry on.

Jesus warned us about ignoring the “weightier” matters of the law. Warren and others are such easy targets and provide such a self righteous forum to strut your orthodox tailfeathers for all to see. But the issues that concerned our Savior were love and mercy and justice (love in action), but those issues are always last to get addressed because their path leads to us and not so much to others.

If Bell, Warren, and a handful of others were to die tomorrow, some would have no “ministry” at all until they scrounged up some others. Let’s not be like them by crying “Oh no, the government ( a collection of mostly unbelievers) has redefined marriage!”.

If God ever redefines anything…then we worry.

“You must be doing something right when your position ticks off both the proudly unrighteous and proudly self-righteousness.”

The concern should not be so much what “people group” we are pleasing or not pleasing. Our concern ought to be “Is it pleasing to God” Clearly Rick Warren has problems with mis representing scripture, history proves this.

I know many individuals who “tick off” both left and right, and it’s gernerally for being “self consumed”.

True, but the original sources which you believe document the society of God’s chosen people condone polygamy outright, though more civilized minds today tend to frown on that.

I don’t know that I would agree that the Torah “condones” polygamy – it recognizes it exists, and understands that people will do it, but it also puts pretty strict rules on the polygamist husband. It mandates that he must treat all the women equally, taking care of all their needs, and not have favorites. This article is a good, short summary.

The thing to remember is that to ancient Jews, it was all about the survival of the race, and passing down the bloodline. So it seems that for a relatively small nation of nomadic people who would have many men die in war or through other mean, allowing polygamy was a way to ensure that people were cared for properly.

It’s hard to extrapolate that permission to a present-day endorsement of why the Church should perform gay marriages.

Neil,

When did the BTK serial killer join the conversation? (Freudian slip, perhaps?) Just goofing on you in relation to your slip in posts 14 & 15.

BTT,

You (and all other gays) have exactly that same rights that I have, one hundred percent equality. You can marry a woman and so can I. You can move to Massuchusets and marry a man, and so can I. You can’t legally marry a man in a state where it is not legal, and neither can I. You can’t marry a dog, and neither can I. Equality, yes. Unanimity of desire, no. Where in the Constitution does it ever guarantee that we will all be able to legally do whatever we desire? I can just as easily make up something that I’d like to do that currently is not allowed by law and then claim that people have not granted me equality. To somehow equate the gay “rights” movement with the struggle for women’s suffrage or civil rights (which many have done) is a faulty comparison, as those situations involved true inequality.

Yeah – thanks… for the record uses of “BTK” were typo’s and NOT intended to make ay connection between Break the Terror and any serial killer. Sorry Evan.

I, for one, do not see the difference at times.

Neil,

I agree with everything Pastor Warren said in that video, and don’t understand why any Christian would find what he said not thruthful. And my political vote (like most Americans hopefully), would always fall along those lines.

I do wonder if Christian leaders go far enough by only framing the discussion that way. I think we are missing something by not pointing out the uniqueness of a Christian marriage. Traditional marriage is good on it’s own, but Christian marriage has a sacramental nature. It’s good to change confused people’s views and opinions, but I think the best way to change people is still evangelization. It amazes me how quiet the culture war is on the divorce front.

Eric, you fail to see the language Evan uses towards people on this site, and the language Jesus uses when it comes to murder of the heart?

Pull the plank out of your eye.

I agree on the divorce issue; but that does not lesson the homosexual marriage issue. I still think civil unions would be a fine choice, as long as the church does not need to sanctify them.

An excellent resourse is John Pipers’ sermon series on marriage. He really goes way right in stating that divorce is never an option, and, if one is divorced, they can never be remarried under ANY circumstances.

When are you going to start church discipline against Ingrid and her husband?

Bo,

Ingrid is not in my church.

But its interesting to note the only reason he admitted wrong doing is because Evan didn’t claim to be a Christ follower. Apparently its ok to murder people with words if they do.

PB,

You asked: “Eric, you fail to see the language Evan uses towards people on this site, and the language Jesus uses when it comes to murder of the heart? ”

Actually, as noted in my post, what I fail to see is how you could have written what you wrote in love, whether it be in refernce to a brother in Christ or anyone else. I certainly have taken note that Evan has used offensive and demeaning language and tone, but I don’t recall his saying that he hates anyone. While his language is a reflection of things in his heart, I don’t think we can go so far as to say that he is guilty of murder in his heart (which we cannot know or judge), or compare him to a serial killer.

Obviously my point goes to the tone of your post, whether it was written in love, whether it was profitable or edifying, and whether you should think more before posting things that are of that nature.

Also, is it really an apology when you justify it first? Isn’t that really a nonapology apology?

Now whether or not “Christians” can be “re-married” is a different issue altogether.

Brett,

I am assuming that this is in reference to The synoptic teaching of Jesus:

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

If so, I’m familiar with a number of linguistic studies (the most readily available is Bivins & Blizzard), which more accurately translate this teaching to mean that if a man divorces a woman for the purpose of marrying another woman, he is still committing adultery.

Chris L,

I’ll have to defer to you on the linguistics, I have a hard enough time with English.

I just believe whatever the pope tells me to believe.

Lie 1: A little after 1:30, he says he supports full equal rights for everyone in America.

Lie 2: “Redefinition of a 5000 year definition of marriage.” This “definition” does not exist…he stupidly said that marriage has been defined by “every single culture” and “every single religion” the way that modern Evangelical Christians want it defined. This is simply wrong, as a halfway perfunctory glance at any historical source on the subject shows. (Save, perhaps, a perfunctory glance at Conservapedia or something — they just make sh*t up.)

Lie 3: Makes the ridiculous claim that gay marriage is on par with child abuse.

Lie 4: Claims to have “gay friends.” I don’t know one gay person who would actually retain a real “friendship” in the true sense of the word with a person who wishes to deny them dignity and equal rights. He may have gay acquaintances, but they’re not his friends.

Granted, he might just be fooling himself, thinking his gay acquaintances actually consider him a “friend.”

Saaaaaaaad.

Break the Terror,

proposed lie 1: I don’t follow you here. Every single man in America (of legal age) has the right to marry a woman right n0w, doesn’t he?

proposed lie 2: I thought this was his weakest point because it may have been a little hyperbole. But to my knowledge most societies, even those that excepted homosexual behavior (ancient Rome) never considered that 2 men could constitute a marriage.

proposed lie 3: “gay marriage=child abuse”. I sure did not hear that! to be fair you may want to rethink this one.

proposed lie 4: Claims to have gay friends. I suppose only God can judge him on this, but he seems sincere about it to me.

I do think it’s good to discuss these things with others that have different viewpoints. Much better than calling each other liars and homophobes.

proposed lie 2: I thought this was his weakest point because it may have been a little hyperbole. But to my knowledge most societies, even those that excepted homosexual behavior (ancient Rome) never considered that 2 men could constitute a marriage.

But…to add to this: Again, marriage contracts have been around since before Adam and Eve, and they have taken MANY forms, involving all different numbers of people/exchanges of property. The history of the marriage contract even in the Judeo-Christian context has evolved significantly.

The fact that reality/science/medicine are finally putting together the fact that, from a civil perspective, it’s unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry has very little to do with the history of marriage, and my point is that appealing to religious history leaves much to be desired, as the original biblical standards for marriage leave much to be desired, and would be considered abusive and degrading by most civilized modern standards.

Break the Terror,

my point is that appealing to religious history leaves much to be desired

You may be correct on that one. Since you mention Adam and Eve; they kinda got the whole ball rolling in terms of making the wrong choices and setting standards.

biblical standards for marriage leave much to be desired, and would be considered abusive and degrading

I don’t know if you’re serious; but if you are I feel sorry that you have never witnessed a real functioning Christian marriage, and that is not a good sign for the church. My wife and I aren’t perfect but we’ve got a pretty good thing going.

I suppose there may have been some long lost civilizations that were built upon “homosexual marriage”; but realistically/scientifically/medically speaking I don’t think they would have made it more than one generation

If words actually have meaning, you have to admit that some people are being reasonable and rational in thinking that “HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ” is the textbook example of an oxymoron.

You may be correct on that one. Since you mention Adam and Eve; they kinda got the whole ball rolling in terms of making the wrong choices and setting standards.

If you believe in them literally, I guess…

It’s a fact that there were societies long before Adam and Eve were a glimmer in anyone’s eye.

I don’t know if you’re serious; but if you are I feel sorry that you have never witnessed a real functioning Christian marriage, and that is not a good sign for the church. My wife and I aren’t perfect but we’ve got a pretty good thing going.

I didn’t say anything about modern Christian marriage or say that there’s anything wrong with it. I was talking about the standards of the original societies that produced what we now call the Bible.

If words actually have meaning, you have to admit that some people are being reasonable and rational in thinking that “HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ” is the textbook example of an oxymoron.

Not really, considering the fact that marriage has meant many things over the course of millenia.

This has more to do with the strange, elevated status people put on gender, but then again, if they didn’t, the patriarchy and subjugation of women wouldn’t have survived.

I suppose there may have been some long lost civilizations that were built upon “homosexual marriage”; but realistically/scientifically/medically speaking I don’t think they would have made it more than one generation

Did I say that?

No, I didn’t say that.

Respond to what I say, not strawmen that are easier to rebut.

Although, I would point out, that science is starting to figure out why homosexuality stays in the gene pool and doesn’t die out. It’s called “sexual antagonism.” Google it.

BTT,

Your continued deference to the “consensus” of scientific and medical minds shows who your true god is (especially in light of your disregard for Scripture). Consensus = hogwash. You still have not proven me wrong in my statement that you have all the rights that I have. Another right that you and I share is the right not to marry someone if you feel it is unnatural for you. I promise I won’t marry a man if you don’t marry a woman.

Since you’ve set the bar so high with your critique of inconsequential spelling oversights, etc., next time you say your going to list “two” reasons, don’t expand it to three, or you’ll risk having people ignore your important third point. What? An error from Evan? Now I’m confused.

I’m out, enjoy the day everyone.

Your continued deference to the “consensus” of scientific and medical minds shows who your true god is (especially in light of your disregard for Scripture). Consensus = hogwash. You still have not proven me wrong in my statement that you have all the rights that I have.

Actually, I have. That you can’t see that is sad, and I pity you the brick wall that apparently is living between your brain and your preconceived notions, but in light of reality, I don’t have all the rights you have. Also, consensus is not hogwash. It’s science, and I know that’s hard…and you’re right: when scientific research steps on my preconceived notions of religion, I reconsider my religious thoughts, because I don’t worship a God that expects me to be stupid.

Again, radical right-wing conservatives need to drop the “you have the same rights I do” line, because, as I said, even moderate conservatives know that line of reasoning is retarded.

Since you’ve set the bar so high with your critique of inconsequential spelling oversights, etc., next time you say your going to list “two” reasons, don’t expand it to three, or you’ll risk having people ignore your important third point. What? An error from Evan? Now I’m confused.

Ooh, good point. I guess I didn’t proofread that one.

To put the following quote differently…

But that’s kind of beside the point — unless you’re obsessed with the idea that humans have to make babies, there’s no argument against people of the same gender being together. Indeed, homosexuality is found in thousands of animal species, in many different ways, and, if you read the current scientific research, you’ll find that (if you’re obsessed with making babies) male homosexuality seems to be a side effect of a genetic trait that contributes to the very perpetuation of the species, i.e. baby-making.
Read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/?from=rss

…according to the current research, you can’t have Mrs. Duggar, baby-maker extraordinaire, without also having gay men.

All the data show that the two go hand in hand, from a scientific perspective.

BTT,
I have to say, that for every article that posits male homosexuality as genetic, I could probably find one that disagrees with a genetic cause. So I would have to say that there is not a consensus on scientific data. Which brings me to my next point.

Most scientific studies, if they are motivated by a political agenda and not by a search for truth, have data that has been manipulated or presented in a way to lead to the conclusion that the researcher wants proved. Once the data collection methods, data culling methods and data presentation methods are closely scrutinized, many “conclusive” studies aren’t nearly as conclusive… reminds me of the way some people study the Bible, to prove what they want it to prove, and by careful manipulation they are able to find support for their positions.

Finally, you tend to only be accepting of studies or articles that support your point of view, while simultaneously ridiculing studies or articles that don’t agree with your point of view, come from sources that you deem unacceptable, etc.
I think it would be more honest to refute their arguments from a scientific basis than to just dismiss them outright.

But that would require you to see things from a different perspective than your own, and so far that seems to be something that you are unable to do.

Not until you learn to play nicer…

Nah. What you were suggesting was incorrect anyway.

Slate?
You routinely mock conservative source then post something from slate?

Yes.

What, per se, is your problem with Slate? If you call it a liberal site, I’ll know you’ve never read it.

I have to say, that for every article that posits male homosexuality as genetic, I could probably find one that disagrees with a genetic cause. So I would have to say that there is not a consensus on scientific data. Which brings me to my next point.

Show me.

Peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, not posted on a Christian site, please.

Believe me, I know the difference. The ones you find on Christian sites are about as reliable as the “studies” released by tobacco companies in the 70’s that said smoking is safe.

And what doesn’t count? Papers that suggest other factors but don’t explicitly deny that there’s probably a genetic factor, because I’m quite aware of the scientific consensus on the issue.

And remember, the article I provided was about male homosexuality, so don’t find something on lesbianism and try to say it’s the same, because I’m not stupid.

Just a note to clarify something–marriage in the U.S. is not a civil right, it’s an institution. Be careful using the words “civil”, “rights”, etc . . .

Wrong. It falls under the category of rights when it’s being denied a suspect class.

That was pretty much established in Loving v. Virginia.

Know your Supreme Court cases!

Ultimately, cause is irrelevant.

Not as irrelevant as “I believe my sky god says it’s a sin.”

At least mine can be proven.

Actually, the source is irrelevant. It’s the data that is important, the methods and the data manipulation. Manipulation can be for many reasons, political, religious or just personal. Again BTT, you only see your own position and can’t even consider that there might be other ways at looking at things.

And just because you are gay, doesn’t make you are an expert, it just means that you are trying to prove a point for your own ends.

Which by your reasoning makes your research suspect, since we are questions sources with an “agenda”.

And just because you are gay, doesn’t make you are an expert, it just means that you are trying to prove a point for your own ends.

Oh the smugness of the Christian who thinks he has it all figured out.

Which by your reasoning makes your research suspect, since we are questions sources with an “agenda”.

Oh, the fundamentalist disdain for real science.

Sorry, to hear the troubles you’ve been through. I don’t doubt that your feelings and sexuality are 100% real, but you don’t have to be labeled as gay by yourself or anyone else.

Oh, Jesus, gross, stop.

I’m gay. I’m glad to be gay. I wouldn’t change it if I could. And, according to real science, attempts to do so are uniformly harmful. (Yet another way Christians causes people to commit suicide.)

And just because you are gay, doesn’t make you are an expert, it just means that you are trying to prove a point for your own ends.

OR, it could mean that someone is experiencing an intense identity crisis due to the fact that the church that nurtured them for so long is now telling them they are an abomination and that God could not have made the mistake of creating what you know you are.

I wonder if any of us who are white males in American can even begin to imagine what it must be like to be on the other side of the equation – where you are told implicitly all the time andexplicitly often enough that you are a problem. You, who you are, is a problem that needs to be rectified. You are not truly human and not only that, God hates you. And to add insult to injury, the mouthpiece for this “good news” is the church – the very institution that raised you and taught you how to sing, “Jesus loves me, this I know.”

If it were me I would want to know everything I could about all sides of this issue so that I could climb out of the hell the church baptized me into.

** What I say here is not to take a side of pro-gay or anti-gay. It is to point out the FACT that regardless one’s position, we are dealing with an issue that is deeply wounding. Those who know Jesus best ought to be the most mindful of that and tread meekly, humbly and always with love.

peace

Break the Terror,

I never said you could change your feelings(science or not). But by saying “I’m gay, and I’m glad to be gay”, you are the one that is submitting to societal baggage that says a human person is defined by the sexual pleasures they may or may not enjoy. I believe you are worth more to the world than that.

And forgive me if I’m not in the mood for suicide jokes; I have a 13 year old student whose mother commited suicide a few weeks ago so I’m aware of the pain that depression and mental illness leaves behind.

God hates Shrimp!

I confess I am a shrimp eater… I love shrimp and can’t get enough… I can eat Shrimp until I feel ill… and then eat some more… Shrimp is my true sin that God hates… Yet I can’t help myself… I am drawn to it… I feel a physical attraction and need for it… I believe even some scientist claim it may be genetic and not my fault… yet it is an abomination…

I know I am forgiven of all my sin… yet… this one I will not give up as I just love to eat shrimp… God help me or not… I will eat shrimp until my dying day…

God hates Shrimp

iggy

Rick, while experience may not be the final arbiter of truth it most certainly should not be discarded as meaningless. Without our experiences our talk of absolutes or truth is meaningless, ivory-tower God-speak. It was experience, not some “absolute,” that greatly impacted Peter’s entire view of God and what God was doing in the world in Acts 10 &15.

wow, okay, my proof reading is going to pot, time to go to bed.

felicitous should have been fallacious. That makes alot more sense.

I never said you could change your feelings(science or not). But by saying “I’m gay, and I’m glad to be gay”, you are the one that is submitting to societal baggage that says a human person is defined by the sexual pleasures they may or may not enjoy. I believe you are worth more to the world than that.

No, being gay is but one aspect of my being, but I’m not submitting to societal baggage, I’m acknowledging a fact.

Your attitude about being worth “more to the world” is repugnant, as if your worldview is somehow better because you claim to know what an invisible god wants based on your supposed but unverifiable interaction with said god.

And forgive me if I’m not in the mood for suicide jokes; I have a 13 year old student whose mother commited suicide a few weeks ago so I’m aware of the pain that depression and mental illness leaves behind.

You thought that was a joke?

Good lord.

My point was that I could have chosen to buy some hot chick a beer in hopes of some momemtary pleasures. But I chose to go home to my wonderful wife after the game.

Crap parallel, because in your limited primitive worldview, you’d rather I do…what? Deny myself companionship and love? Pretend to be attracted to a woman for the sake of populating an over-populated earth and appeasing a supposedly merciful god who, if your interpretation is correct, has a very weak moral compass? Also, in this scenario, I would be denying a woman companionship with a man who really actually wants her, ever, in any world, for any reason…

Hell, no.

If there is no final authority than absolutes are arrived at by experience…which in reality means there are no absolutes.

Except, Rick, that in real life practice, there really aren’t many absolutes. Part of what I see as the scam of traditional Christianity (and most traditional religion) is the fallacious concept that we live in a world where everything can be put on either side of the line of good and evil with no gray area in between. Reality is gray.

BTT,
your assumption that I am Christian fundamentalist underscores the felicitous assumptions that underly your reasoning, and that is what I have been trying to point out to you.

If you’re not a fundamentalist, don’t act like one. I will say, though, that many evangelicals who say they’re not fundamentalists actually are, to the rest of the world. Everyone from liberal Christians outward really doesn’t care about all the cute little dividing lines more Conservative Christians place amongst themselves.

Your logic goes something like this:
only fundamentalist christians would disagree with my scientific proof
Mike disagrees with my proof
therefore Mike must be a fundamentalist christian.

No, but as to the topic at hand, there are no arguments against same-sex marriage equality that aren’t religious (at least no honest arguments…you can take every argument the anti-gay activists put up that’s supposedly “pro-family” or whatever stupid moniker they use, cut through it, debunk it, destroy it, and all you have left is bigotry hiding behind religion).

Mike, We’ve been down this road so many times before. BtT has created a two-dimensional caricature of an enemy that he projects onto anyone who uses the Bible as an authoritative source.

Yeah, because “I think God says so” is a weak argument.

That’s why I said I would not engage him any further until he learned to play nice.

And I said “nah.”

Yes, Christians make gay people commit suicide.

Own it.

Nobody “makes” someone else commit suicide.

As for your other argument, Evan, I wouldn’t suggest you marry a woman, either. There is a third option:

II Cor 7 -
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
[...]
Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

I love the fact that Evan and Chad have far more patience than I do.

Iggy,

When I actually make it to Bozeman (skiing) I will take you to Red Lobster and we will eat shrimp until we pass out.

No Chad it’s the other Chris.

I just meant that these arguments become cyclical very quickly and Evan and yourself continue to ask questions. Which IMO don’t get answered past the cursory “This is what the bible says”, which isn’t necessarily a bad position, I only question how much it actual proves. Based on the churches history of interpreting scripture I don’t blame anyone for being suspect of those that claim “This is the truth; as stated right here in Leviticus”

Chris – I agree, however there are issues which are Biblicaly clear if one accpets absolutes without any generational metamorphosis. Even the evidence of “nature”, both physiological and from procreation, are almost ironclad without Biblical support.

#122
As they say on Law and Order….anythings possible…

But it must also be possible that suicide and other mental illness such as depression and anxiety is the natural spiritual outworking of Romans 1:18-32, in which God is turning them over, giving them over to their own desires, lusts etc. and the natural result of these things.

Rick,

I think that veers the conversation. If we are talking procreation then in a very strict sense I can see that society would not benefit (population) from an all gay population (not that their aren’t ways around fertility). But to start denouncing the possibility that anyone could be gay flies in the face of science and observation. For instance I go to church with a man who is a hermaphrodite (please understand that this in no way encompasses all of who he is) when he was born his parents made the decision, based on the most prominent sex organ, that he should be raised as a girl. However as “she” grew up it was obvious to everyone that “she” was actually more characteristically a “he”. It wasn’t merely enough to tell him “just get over it” or “the bible says” or “just be like every other girl”. The possibility does exist based on visible evidence and situations like the above that God does in fact make some people gay.

I can’t explain it, nor will I attempt to, I only know that if my friend can be born with both male and female organs then genetically anything is possible. So to argue “you can’t be gay look at the word of God” is moot and is demeaning to those that are.

chris – you have misunderstood completely my comment. I believe some ARE born with same sex attractions, however that is not the deisgn of the Creator, that is the result of the curse.

My point was that even while we show understanding we cannot, either by nature or Biblical teaching, accept that lifestyle as the divine will.

But it must also be possible that suicide and other mental illness such as depression and anxiety is the natural spiritual outworking of Romans 1:18-32, in which God is turning them over, giving them over to their own desires, lusts etc. and the natural result of these things.

You should continue reading up through 2:6, PB.

I guess if you see God’s overall plan for the world as vengence rather than redemption you would have no problem in praising God for leading people whom God created to suicide.

God’s Righteous Judgment
2 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on h the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are l storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Yes Chad?

John – that is a selective portion of Scripture that without other Scriptures gives the appearance of salvation by works. Here is another Scripture from the same writings of Paul:

For ALL have sinned and COME SHORT of the glory of God.

Enter grace…

Phil – I completely agree. Romans chapter 1 is a preamble, a setup, for a revelation of God’s grace further explored in the same epistle – just as Romans 3:23 is a setup for Romans 6:23.

Selective Scripture quoting is misleading and can be used to prove anything. How can anyone suggest Romans 1 teaches God gives people up when many sinners from all stripes, including gays, have come to Christ through the DRAWING of the Holy Spirit.

“For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to

all

” (Rom. 11:32).

Perhaps PB missed this as well.

Phil, I agree with you. What a repulsive image of God it is that suggests that if you are depressed God has given up on you. Christ came for the sick, not the healthy. He came to free those in bondage, not put them in tighter shackles.

You folks are missing the point

This has to do with those in rebellion against God. Those who know better but deny the truth. Those that know God but suppress the truth. This was addressed pretty specifically to the topic at hand. Someone suggested Christians caused homosexuals to commit suicide. I suggested it was likely the natural outworking of God giving them up to their vile affections.

Not God giving up on them….God giving them what they wanted, because they didn’t want God

God giving them up…not giving up on them.

Just like Chad describes Hell…God allowing them to choose their consequences here on earth.

Of course there are instances where believers have contributed to a kind of depression that ends with suicide. Some gay children, feeling rejected by their parents, have experienced that type of depression and taken their own lives.

The instruction to those scenarios is that we need to be redemptive and compassionate with all people.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-will-have-mercy.html

Yeah, PB, I think that commentary is wrong. I’ll wager a bowl of spiked egg nog that that commentary was authored by a Reformed scholar.

Wait wait wait. I thought sola scriptura was being challenged by emergents, and Rick Warren, now PB is posting commentary, which in the context he posted it it actually supersedes scripture’s authority.

So which are you PB? Emergent or Rick Warren?

Well and not to mention that it is just retarded. No one in the 1st century ever took a systematic theology class. No one ever heard of Calvin. No one ever heard about individual election to salvation.

When you heard from the “pulpit” a letter being read and Paul says, ALL, they hear, ALL. They do no nudge their neighbor and say, “he doesn’t really mean all. You see, he means some of the Jews and some of the Gentiles. That Paul guy just doesn’t communicate it right.”

Oh yeah…

that reminds me, Bo. Thanks.

I never got an answer to my question on another thread”

RE: Sola Scriptura

Scripture, please.

The offer of mercy is to all.

much of Roamns is to show that their is no respecter of persons because of ethnicity, and that (Rom.11) the New Covenant is for “whosever will”, not just Israel (in the flesh).

#156
She is not in my church

Those others are not subject to church discipline in my church either.

But they are open to critique

That makes zero sense. In order for that paradigm to hold up you’d have to consider false teaching to not be a sin.

I would have much more respect for people who strongly disagreed with Warren on Scriptural grounds, but just as strongly disagreed with Ingrid’s “calling” on Scriptural grounds. This is my post written over two years ago, and I believe it is the only one written to confront Ingrid’s unscriptural behavior.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/11/elder-blogs-some-blogs-are-devotional.html

For any interested, this is a summary of one of the pertinent studies.

http://www.ahc.umn.edu/news/releases/homosexuality091708/home.html

Anti-gay bigot leaders like Paul Cameron (who models himself after the Nazis, literally) like to lie with data that says that gays have higher rates of depression and suicide and imply causality between that and being gay (because they expect their readers to be stupid), but this shows that the higher rates of poor mental health (and by extension, obviously, suicide) as well as risk of contracting HIV occur among a specific subset of gay men (HIV is virtually nonexistent among lesbians, so it’s not relevant to this study), those with higher internalized feelings of homo-negativity, and it destroys the religious right’s ongoing lie that being gay itself leads to these things.

PB #159
said,

But they are open to critique

Then critique her

Ah the twisted mind of pastorboy. He can twist bell’s words all day long to make him into a heretic so he has something to “critique” but when a divorcee remarries and then tries to become a super-elder, well, there’s not a problem there.

Something about straining gnats and swallowing camels comes to mind.

Well, Joe, this isn’t an isolated study.

Also, anecdotally, every gay person I know could attest to the results of that study.

The people who end up screwed up are the ones with unsupportive families, and what do unsupportive families tend to have in common?

Bigotry fueled by ancient religion.

Anti-gay homobigots like to float the myth of the secular person opposed to gay rights, but those people only exist on their used toilet paper.

Has it not become unmistakenly evident that without a common source of authority all discourse is a disconnect? Since Evan does not believe the Scriptures as authoritative than any dialogue is antagonistic.

If personal experience, friends, studies, and other sources are your authority and Christianity is a “an ancient religion that fuels bigotry” then only the Spirit can open that heart.

I remain a stupid, little man captured by an ancient religion.

Evan,

You are a piece of work. A deluded one, but one nonetheless…

Except that they aren’t unless we’re willing to completely add things to the text and say that animals started becoming gay, or that evolutionary biology fundamentally changed because a mythical naked lady ate a piece of fruit.

I’m puzzled at who you’re trying to influence here, since I don’t know any regular readers/commenters who would see that Eve is just a “mythical naked lady”. Besides which, science hasn’t proven the causes of evolutionary mutation (or, in most cases, established a linkage between mutations). Death came about as a result of the fall, so whose to say what else was introduced, genetically…

Actually, a huge comprehensive study came out recently that shows that higher rates of depression/suicide in the gay community are a direct result of internalized homophobia, and where does that come from? God’s a-hole followers.

Or perhaps just a non-hedonistic conscience. In either case, Christians don’t make people commit suicide. If they are conflicted because of their desire and their sin, as Rick pointed out, this is a result of the fall and (potentially) being conflicted/convicted about their sin. I would agree, though, a life of sin (no matter the particular sin, be it greed, adultery, theft or homosexual practice, etc.) often leads to despair and suicide.

It studied rates of depression/suicide in people who were exposed/indoctrinated into religious bigotry, whether from their upbringing, or from some fraudulent evil pretend “ex-gay” program.

Because we know that if “ex-gays” existed (and *hint* they do, and they cope quite well – I know several, and at least one just shakes his head whenever he reads your tripe, saying “I was there once…”) it would blow a lot of pro-gay propaganda all to heck…

You’re going to have to forgive me if I think you have something of an agenda here Evan.

Now Joe, the next thing we know, you’ll be telling us that water is wet…

Anti-gay homobigots like to float the myth of the secular person opposed to gay rights, but those people only exist on their used toilet paper.

Funny – I know some of those folks too – who voted on both sides of the presidential race this year. I need to tell them that they don’t exist when they come back from Christmas break – I’m sure they’ll get a kick out of not existing.

Sadly what I do see it true alienation of those who are gay. Though I may differ with Evan on many points, my heart goes out to him. I am saddened by the hurt he has had to endure and that whether someone is gay or not, many churches will ostracize someone for being different.

I have received many an email who talk of having been under John MacArthur’s ministry who have been hurt and ostracized. One person was driven out of the church for being diagnosed as Bi-polar. He was driven out and finally found a loving church that accepted him. There is much more to this story and I am not stating being gay is the equivalent to being bi-polar. I am addressing the callousness many churches have towards those who they are sent to help or to guide.

Much of the issue as I was trying to make about “sin” is that we all struggle. If we are take “abomination” passages from the OT and apply them to gays and lesbians, then we need to not eat shrimp or whatever else is stated there also.

Paul stated “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcised means anything; what counts is a new creation.” (Gal 6:15) The laws requirements have been fulfill at the Cross by Jesus so we no longer need worry about applying them. Yet, we do have the obligation to bring reconciliation to others no matter how different they are to us. In that reconciliation comes to that person, what matter then is not whether they come to Christ gay, fat, male, female, eunuch, black, white, Jew or Gentile… but that they now are a New Creation and need learn how to live as one.

This cuts across the grain of many theologies. In fact many theologies cannot even begin to work out solutions as they are steeped in the mixture of Law and Grace.

I no longer am who I was when I became a new Creations… I may struggle with the old paradigm of the person I was, but the goal is to push on into the person God desires me to be… which means daily personal sacrifice as to my desires in exchange for His.

Can one be a gay Christian? Not any more than one can be a slanderer or liar or thief or gossip or glutton… and inherit the Kingdom… for Flesh and Blood will not inherit the Kingdom… only that which is of perishable will ever enter… only that is imperishable and that which is of Christ Jesus.

We have a new identity in Christ Jesus… We are not our own anymore. We are His creation to do good works by His power, purpose and desire… and if that is not enough to please us, then we need to reassess whether we are perishing or not.

His grace is new every day…
iggy

In either case, Christians don’t make people commit suicide. If they are conflicted because of their desire and their sin, as Rick pointed out, this is a result of the fall and (potentially) being conflicted/convicted about their sin.

Chris,
I agree with you that a life of sin can lead one to a life of despair and perhaps suicide. But I am not convinced that we are talking about the same thing when we talk about gay Christians being condemned by the church (or God by extension).

I think any message that says to people, explicitly or implicitly, that you as a person are an abomination to God and unworthy of God’s love, mercy and forgiveness until you become someone you are not has left the ballpark of Good News. This is where, I think, the psychotic split comes into play – this is where the church certainly does have a hand in leading people deeper into hell rather than being the lifeline out of it.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to be raised in the church (as I was), learning to know and love Jesus and believing that Jesus loved me for years and years and then, at some point down the road, come to a realization that I am different than the people around me. I don’t have the same attractions as my friends. I want to love and be loved but not in the way my church tells me is right. I can’t escape these feelings that are inside of me but I can’t share them either or else I lose everything – even the God I believe saved me. If I tell anyone what I am experiencing I fear they will tell me what they tell the people on the streets when they hold up “God hates Fags” signs. Does God hate me? Has my entire life been a lie? Is there no grace for me? How could God create me this way with the attractions I have and still hate me? Why should I be deprived a relationship of love and mutual support and companionship that is honoring of the way God made me?

If the church functioned as she ought – as a conduit of God’s extravagant, scadalous grace – the sort of mind-splitting conversation above might get short circuited and demolished by love.

Chad.

The identities we have here are of Flesh and Blood. Paul states that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God… what matters is New Creation.

We are a New Creation the old is gone. What I was and am in the sense of flesh and blood is gone… or will be as the New Creation comes to it fullness. Just as I have exchanged my dead spirit for Christ’s Life, I will one day exchange my perishable sin ridden body for an imperishable on…

We have a new identity based on what JEsus did on the Cross and the New Life He imparted to us. So I am no longer a biker” a thief, a liar, gay, straight, male or female… I am a New Creation altogether and my purpose now is to learn how to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and give Grace and mercy to others through the ministry of reconciliation.

We are no longer a creation just of flesh and blood, as we are now alive in Christ. We died with Jesus on the Cross and were raised to New Life in Christ at the resurrection. We are no longer dead in our sins… what only matters is whether we trust Jesus or not and what He does in and through us.

Major Ian Thomas used to sum it all up this way.

“He gave his life for me, to give His life to me, to live His life through me.”

Paul stated it this way. ” For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. ” (Phil 1:21)

Paul speaks of a separation between the person and sin that indwells them… many over look this for some reason.

But Paul states clearly:

Rom 7:17. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
18. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. 20. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

To call oneself gay or straight means nothing… what matters is that we are a New Creation in Christ and when one comes to saving faith that is to be their focus…

I do have compassion with those who struggle, but I also know some who have overcome and now live their life unto God and know they are free from the sin that bound them. Again, we all struggle… some have more public struggles as it is more apparent… some have more hidden sins that are easier to hide and fool others…

So, whether Ingrid is divorced or Evan is gay or iggy struggles with tobacco… it will all fade away as it is perishable. The new will come and we will be clothed in the imperishable. We will no longer depend on “blood” for life, but on the Life of Christ. the growth is in the struggle and surrender of who we were to become who He desires us to be.

iggy

The only correct way to be a Christian is to be totally dependant on Jesus for everything… even our sexuality be it hetero or homosexual….

I will say I had to learn how and am still learning how to love my wife as Christ loves the Church… Let alone lover others God loves them.

It is not a matter of “right or wrong” it is a matter of a proper identity. It is seeing yourself as God sees you and trusting Him with who you will be though you cannot see it yet.

It is not easy… but if we keep looking at “iggy the guy who parties hardy” as my identity, I will continue to steer toward what I am looking at… Like a child on a bike will steer that bike into a pole in a middle of a parking lot… thought he has all the room in the world his focus was on the pose and he will hit it. So if we focus on our sin and “stopping sinning” we will have more of a struggle than to surrender to the fact we sin and trust Jesus with it. In that there is a natural (supernatural) empowerment to overcome the “sin”… with the focus on Jesus and doing God’s will, the focus is no longer on ourselves and things fall away.

Again, it is not easy… the best example though is floating… if you try you sink… if you relax and let the water carry you; you float. The same with being in Christ… if you fight your sin, you sink… if you relax and rest in the finished works of Jesus, then you “float”… or flow in the Spirit which as scripture states we cannot sin if we are in the Spirit.

Now, some turn this into some special “power” or “anointing” yet I am saying it is a natural outflow of loving, trusting and resting in Christ Jesus.

iggy

since I don’t know any regular readers/commenters who would see that Eve is just a “mythical naked lady”.

uh…maybe NOT just a mythical naked lady but I believe that the creation story is just that a story. I maybe proven wrong entering eternity but I don’t think my salvation hinges on believing on Eve.

I would note for the whole class:

Never has anyone on this forum who holds beliefs that resemble Chris L’s engendered such disdain in me, and I’ve never been tempted to talk to any of the rest of you the way I just did above.

That was all for Chris L, and him only, on a personal level.

And those comments to possible reader/friends of Chris L…

yikes, Evan!

what if sexuality is derived from a variety of factors?
You seem very deterministic when it comes to sexuality. up/down, black/white.

Why can’t their be the possibility of change for some people–in one direction or the other?

why does it have to be all or nothing one way or the other?

Why can’t Chris L’s friends change?

I don’t think the answer to help people accept you is to take an stance that is in inverse proportion to the opposition you feel and then lash out at people you don’t know, have not journeyed with, etc.

And as far as Chris L. being an “A-Hole” (I excuse that language when it comes from an unbeliever), I am declaring a cosmic tie for the entire human race. Aside from God’s grace, I fully define that term.

Chris – the word I used “unbeliever” echoed Evan’s own words.

I would never call you any of the other words, because you are actually a “jerk”. (In Jesus’ name) I agree, we must afford ourselves the luxury of an unexpressed thought.

Evan is just like Ingrid. Fundamentalist, no room for anyone in their world but people who believe exactly like them, and terribly rude.

merry,

If it is the truth why is it frustrating? One of the keys to our faith is our personal testimonies… we can overcome even Satan himself by the Blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony.

Rev 12:11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony;

If we value the Person of Jesus who is our Truth… then that is were the power to overcome sin is. I gave no “pat” answer and if you read I also said it is not easy and is a struggle. The acknowledgement that we do still sin as it still dwells in us, is the acknowledgement we need Jesus. This is without condemnation as some may hand it out. It is in kindness and sincerity that Jesus did as he promised and that we can dwell in Him instead of sin.

Also, maybe one should ask “where is God?” as to ask that question should lead someone to seek out and be received by God.

I had a man give me the best advise I ever had… he said that many people come to the end of their rope and tie a knot in it and hang on for dear life… he said we should grease that sucker and let go for that is when we are in the Hands of God and have put our trust in Him.

That is the point I am making… for if we are truly New Creations in Christ Jesus, what we hold only holds us back from what He has. To hold out a hand with a closed fist keeps us from being able to take what is being given… but with an open hand we allow God to pick and choose what He sees best to remove and what to give to us in exchange.

One point about my anger, I thought I needed to work on stopping swearing. But when God showed me the destruction that my anger caused in myself and others, I realized that what He pointed out was the priority. I later realized that swearing became less an issue as when the anger was dealt with swearing became less.

It is that we allow the Counselor to work in our new life and lead us and guide is in Truth and lead us from error that things fall away that were once our bondage.

There is no “gay” in Christ… there is no “anger” or “fear”… it is that we learn the higher law of Love that we come to walk in Power over sin… in all of its forms.

Again, to write off things that are based in the Truth of God as “pat” answers diminishes their power…

I agree some seem to give out bible verses as if they are remedies in and of themselves… yet I am not saying or doing that… I am holding out the Person of Jesus Christ to lead someone to victory in Him.

I have seen people changed by the Person of Jesus Christ… from homosexuality to drug addiction… and on and on and cannot deny that there is Truth in that.

iggy

merry,

I misread your comment to mean that I was giving “pat” answers and it made me very. very angry…

j/k

iggy

Okay, then, tell that to Evan. All I’m saying is that I kinda sorta understand where he’s coming from.

The thing about Evan’s situation is I don’t think he really sees homosexuality as a sin. Before we start telling him it’s a problem/struggle/sin he can overcome (at this point I don’t think he sees it as a problem, struggle, or sin that needs “overcoming”) lets all be clear on why its a sin and what part. One is not going to repent from sin if they are fine with it and don’t see themselves as having anything to overcome. It’s just not going to happen.

chris,

We should and do… but remember all that matters is what is done “in Christ” as that will be all that remains. In that we were available we have reward. Yet the focus is not on reward, but on the prize that is Christ Jesus.

The Christian life was never meant to be easy… in fact often the choices a believer has to make are the hardest to make.

iggy

Evan comes here and posits arguments they disagree with? Are we only allowed to disagree on the terms you present? What are those terms?

No not at all…Vehemently disagree. Challenge, push back, and present “facts”. But when it denigrates into assumption and assigning of motives it is no longer fruitful nor beneficial and should be avoided. Which scripture is pretty clear on.

Not everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

And not everyone who agrees with me is right.

Again, telling someone there wrong isn’t being mean. Telling someone that you know people who disprove what they’re saying isn’t mean either

Telling them the are hedonistic, deluded, lost souls probably borders on the mean line. Maybe I’m mistaken but we on this site have argued ad nauseam about the effectiveness of pointing out sin. Most I think have said it’s tacky at best and ineffective at worst. So I ask where is the line? Fred Phelps is over the top but calling Evan deluded and hedonistic and pronouncing his eternal destiny is OK? I doubt Evan would be able to distinguish between the two. But Evan can speak for himself.

Eceryone who disagrees with me is wrong.

I still contend that discourse without any agreed upon arbitor of truth is not only unproductive, it almost always leads to frustration and unpleasantness. The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.

#208
I am only concerned with everyone on here who claims to be a Christian view of being Gay. Evan is not a Christian, therefore, his views are not governed by God’s view, and really not my concern.

It is the liberal, moralistic, throw out the scripture’s clear teaching for the benefit of making peace at all costs view that concerns me. For heavens sake, take a stand like Chris L. at least.

Neil, #182 from Chad is an example:

I agree about being a new creation. I affirm that we find our identity in Christ and not in our gender or our race or our nationhood or our sexual orientation. However, I am not so sure it is fair to say “to call oneself gay or straight means nothing” if you then go on to say that being being straight is the only “correct” way of being in Christ. It sounds like lipservice.
Imagine if I said being male or female means nothing in Christ but if you are a female you are less than a man? My actions, in treating a woman as a second-class citizen or one who is not fully bearing the image of God, betray my confession.
Or, if I said that white and black do not matter in Christ while treating black people as if they were part of the “American Problem” (a designation given them at the turn of the 20th century and before)?

It sounds like Chad is saying (please correct me if I am wrong Chad) that one can find his/her identity in Christ and still be a homosexual.

So I can still be a practicing adulterer and be a Christian? I can be a fornicator and be a Christian? A drunk? a Murderer? I can just add the name Christian and my predilictions are somehow justified?

Chris and Merry – great points.

Evan – I am sorry for the way some people tend to use Jesus.

What is ironic to me is that there are some who will read Evan’s backlash and see it as evidence that they are on the right path, hitting the right buttons. They might say things like “Well, Jesus said the world would hate us” while high-fiving their pals.

Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Evan is wrong and the few of you are right. Evan is in sin and you, in the Spirit of Christ, hope to see his conversion. How well is that working out?

#216
Of course, being married to only one woman and for twenty years at that, I am not qualified to comment.

Seriously, I think there is likely evidence that the number of divorced/one parent households in the last 40 years has a direct impact on the number of Homosexuals today as well as other societal issues like a rise in crime, premarital sex, living together instead of getting married…etc. This, the divorce rate and the homosexual revolution were fueled by the free sex and no fault divorce movement in my opinion.

# 218

Rick, for the sake of clarity, a practicing, unrepentant ________ can be a Christian?

John Calvin was a practicing murderer, was he a Christian? He was self righteous and mean, was he a Christian? Martin Luther was given to drink and coarse language, as well as a rabid anti-semite, was he a Christian?

Please do not suggest that grace must be activated by works, the man in Corinth was committing a sin that even the heathen reject and HE WAS A CHRISTIAN.

Oh yea, we have it all figured out.

PB’s version of salvation has nothing to do with Christ. It is all about works. It is what you do or do not do that gets you on God’s good side. Christ might as well not ever lived, died or rose again.

225

No, Chad, that is not even close to being true. Stop lying about me.

But your grace grants license to be immoral. Paul speaks about that in Galatians.

Grace is transformational, it changes you. It makes you a new creature. It causes you to do works that are evidence of your repentance.

John – there are a growing number of gay people who embrace Christ as the only Savior and the only way to eternal life but remain unable to see understand their sin in its true light. I fully believe that a saved sinner can continue in sin, being deceived, and still be saved.

If not then all the health and weath believers who practice hedonism and greed are lost. How many evangelicals swear? get drunk? Lust? Judge? Hate? Etc.

I admit that we all should be pursuing Christ and forsaking sin, however grace overcomes sin. Paul even antisipated the question “Shall we continue in sin” because he knew that we should reject sin, not because it saves us, but because it pleases the Father. Only God knows those that are his, but I find it rather odd to suggest that we as western Christians can pile up money for ourselves and be saved and yet a gay sinner cannot trust Christ and yet struggle the rest of his life.

If a person tells me that they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who paid for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead, and yet that person cannot deny their same sex attractions, can I not consider that person a brother who needs prayer to come into a fuller knowledge of God’s will for his life?

Pastorboy,

There you go. Continue with that thought.

Here is the thing… One can practice homosexuality and still be a Christian… that is not saying it is right but one can practice sin and still be a Christian… but one cannot be a homosexual and a Christian at the same time… the same goes for liars, thieves, slanderers… gluttons…. gossips… and whatever other sin fills the blank. Yet one will not keep on practicing if they are a believer as God’s promise is to drive out the work of the Devil that now is in our hearts by the Seed of Christ that is now planted there.

The dividing line is a matter of identity. Is one a child of the living God or a Homosexual? Again… it is one or the other. Again a child of the Living God can fall into and/or practice homosexuality as he/she can fall into any sin. It is a matter of identity that one is as God states they are or they follow their own way.

We all sin, but if one tries to straddle both worlds in the flesh, they will be torn apart by the sin that entangles them… it is as I stated in the surrender and total dependency we find freedom from sin and the God given strength to stand up against the sin that once held us.

iggy

When a person does not embrace Christ, then the discussion of any specific sin issue remains irrelevant to the core issue, which of course is Christ. It is meaningless to discuss the sinfulness of the gay lifestyle without the common ground of a committment to Christ. That is just politics as practiced in America, one group of evangelicals hollering that abortion is wrong while the other group of unbelievers hollering back it is not.

In effect, we are presenting the law as opposed to presenting Christ and we are, by implication if not intention, requiring a change of life before a change of heart. We are presenting condemnation as a preamble to the gospel.

Dicussing ceratin sins with anyone who does not embrace Christ, especially one who despises Him at this time, is inadvisable and counter productive. We should show love and compassion, but should not ever engage in discussions that are meant for the church. God has given me great compassion for gay people since before I was saved I was a deeply promiscuous sinner, but my sexual sins were a badge of conquest and accepted by society, while the gay person is often rejected by his own family and friends.

Having said that, the discussion about how believers and the church should treat the gay community, and more specifically gay people who are interested in Jesus, is a profound subject that stretches the limits of grace and moves us from the comfort of the temple and into the dinner table of the sinners.

The most vitriol concerning our open and honest re-evaluation will come from the modern day Sanhedrin. People will call us compromisers and sinners, but I find myself in good company when I remember Someone else was called a winebibber and a friend to sinners.

I have friends who think I am too conservative. Some say too liberal. Others say orthodox. Others say heretic.

Anyone more liberal than me is too liberal.

I guess to a big extent it is arbitrary. To be completely honest, the point that I set for “liberalness” is the bodily resurrection of Christ. I tend to think that without that event we are, as Paul said, “to be pitied more than all men.” And that seems to be the point that a lot of theologians on the left get stuck on.

It seems to me that to deny the resurrection is to deny the basic tenet of the Christian faith really. It really is missing the point of who Jesus is.

So I guess I don’t know I’d call Chad “too liberal”…

Oh, and as an aside – I don’t mind being called a liberal. I think Jesus was a bleeding liberal in his day.

Wow, a gay guy with a real job. Who knew!

I know!

You know, statistically, gay people have a higher per capita income than the rest of the society at large.

It must be the wages of our sin.

Also, we get residuals from whoever our recruits recruit, just like Amway!!!

I think Jesus was a bleeding liberal in his day.

He ticked off all sorts of people…

I think in some ways we read too much into the term right/left divide, and I think it’s even more complicated because of the way American politics plays into it. Like one of my pet peeves is when politicians of any strips invoke the name of Jesus to try and garner votes. It’s like the equal but opposite maneuver of comparing someone to Hitler in an argument – as soon as you mention Jesus to strengthen your political argument, you are in some way admitting an inherent weakness in it.

The battle cry of the “new Democrat” seems to be “Jesus wants you pay higher taxes”…

LOL Rick & BTT.

I was wondering something similar. How can you hold a job when, as a gay person, you are constantly visiting bath houses and thinking perverse thoughts?

Well, that settles it – the authority on Christ and all things scripturally related has declared the Lord Jesus as a “bleeding liberal.”

what in the world, paul, are you talking about?

Then I find it curious that on most posts you find yourself aligning with Chad. I think you meant to say, “I hate people who don’t agree with me and support my views.”

Is this your “nice” way of calling me a liar and a fraud?

LOL Rick & BTT.
I was wondering something similar. How can you hold a job when, as a gay person, you are constantly visiting bath houses and thinking perverse thoughts?

OMG have you seen the new iPhones?

Multi-tasking, my friend.

Anecdote: Out of all of my gay guy friends, I know exactly ONE who has been to a bathhouse, and we made fun of him for days when we found out.

Chad – you mentioned that Jesus was a “bleeding liberal” in His day. How so?

A liberal is someone who compromises in order to “win friends and influence people”. Reaching out to the down-and-out does not make someone a liberal.

All that talk about denial of self, picking up your cross (an instrument of death for the flesh) and following Him caused Him to have a loose following of people who loved the fish and bread, but despised the requirements of discipleship.

In terms of you being a liar, I don’t think you are. In terms of being a fraud, I don’t think this is intentional. As I said in other posts, you are very misled, and in your efforts to ‘re-imagine’ and ‘re-invent’ the gospel, you are being led astray. I think you’re a good man with noble desires, but it appears to me you have swerved off the path (yes, I guess I’m being subjective, so take it as you will).

Again – apologies for plain speaking.

Well, all liberals are liars and frauds.

Not to mention, PB reminds me immediately following his extensive commentary on what the Christian life must look like that,

Chad, frankly, your opinion does not matter

Chad – you mentioned that Jesus was a “bleeding liberal” in His day. How so?

A liberal is someone who compromises in order to “win friends and influence people”.

LOL Paul. Talk about deluded.

Paul, by redefining the word “liberal” to meet your own worldview you have just become what you defined.

Fortunately, a “liberal” is not what YOU think it is. From Dictionary.com, a liberal is:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

How was Jesus a liberal? Many, many, many ways.

“You have heard it said….but I say to you….”

In one sentence Jesus capsized conservative, orthodox Judaism and showed how big a liberal he was.

Given the discussions and disagreements you’ve had here, I suspect you know what I mean…

Yeah, I knew what you meant It doesn’t bother me.

I know I am extremely liberal when it comes to God’s extravagant, relentless, victorious and unmerited free grace.

I only desire that I was more humble like Rick so that I could cease in my desire for all Christians to start seeing this the way I do.

#271
Chad, poor choice of words, it was meant to say this:

Chad, the only opinion that matters is God’s from the scripture

But it said Chad your opinion doesn’t matter.

Chad your opinion may be wrong, but it matters. At least to me.

A liberal is someone who compromises in order to “win friends and influence people”. Reaching out to the down-and-out does not make someone a liberal.

Hehehe, wow, somebody believes everything he reads online.

Okay, and something else just occurred to me about those men who claim they have “come out of the homosexual lifestyle.”

The key word there is “lifestyle.” In research, there’s always the matter of causality. You can get all the “ex-gays” in a room (shouldn’t need to be a large room) and yes, they may all be gay, but that doesn’t imply causality in itself. Usually, the common thread, and you hear this in their “testimonies,” is that they slept with every guy they met, became addicted to drugs, spiral, spiral, spiral, spiral, and then “Christians” (the true Amway recruiters) convince them to blame it on their sexuality, rather than their own poor, irresponsible choices.

You never hear the story of the “ex-gay” who was happy, well-adjusted, loved, prosperous, and just then one day they knocked on the door of Exodus International. All these groups do is teach these guys to make their sexuality their scapegoat.

The fact that you are able to recognize the complete subjectivity of your judgment of me and yet still give it speaks volumes.

Chad, it is not a judgment, just an observation. You continuously advocate for compromising the gospel and disseminate false teachings on virtually every post. In addition, you use very slippery language so as to try and influence without being pinned down specifically (I think others have noted this as well).

I admit subjectivity for the very fact that I recognize I am not an authority and I am not your judge. I simply prefer to state the truth, in hopes you’ll recognize this and consider, rather than buttering you up.

“You have heard it said….but I say to you….”

In one sentence Jesus capsized conservative, orthodox Judaism and showed how big a liberal he was.

Well, the only thing I would add is that in some instances when Jesus said this he was actually being more conservative, actually getting back to true meaning of the law. For example, in His teaching on divorce he was actually speaking out against the practice that made it easier for a man to divorce a woman.

There are many happy, well adjusted and contributing members of society that are gay. Let us not diminish the credibility of our views by suggesting that all gays are contemplating suicide or are in the throws of depression. Thay are not, and that is not the issue.

The only issue is this:

Who is Jesus the Christ?

Well, the only thing I would add is that in some instances when Jesus said this he was actually being more conservative, actually getting back to true meaning of the law. For example, in His teaching on divorce he was actually speaking out against the practice that made it easier for a man to divorce a woman.

True, but that practice was embedded in Torah. To the “conservative” Jews of Jesus’ day, for him to suggest that Moses was only allowing something back then out of cultural necessity but the spirit of the law means something different would sound like blasphemy – or, extremely liberal. They would no doubt wonder: Who is this rabbi to question our customs, laws, traditions, and MOSES? Jesus, at almost every turn, upended the status quo (the conservative viewpoint) and pointed to something far more liberal than his contemporaries could stomach. It got him killed.

You claim that your sexuality is a part of who you are, then in the same sentence say that it is who you are. Which is it?
And…
Does sexuality control you (like an animal) or do you control it?

Those aren’t conflicting statements, PB. It’s a literary device, don’t get worked up. It is both part of who I am, and it is who I am. In the same way, blue eyes are part of who I am, and I am simultaneously a blue-eyed boy.

*PB’s head explodes*

I’m not like you, apparently. My sexuality isn’t an addiction. But I kind of already answered that above.

Chad,

I think Chad is too liberal.

Hope you won’t be agry with me, but I have to agree with Neil on this one. I admire your commitment to being a family man and a pastor (it can’t be an easy calling). I admire your commitment to extending grace and compassion to ALL. When you are practicing your pastoring duties don’t forget to keep in mind John 8:11.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

I agree you shoudn’t beat people up with it, but that is Gospel.

PB’s version of salvation has nothing to do with Christ. It is all about works. It is what you do or do not do that gets you on God’s good side. Christ might as well not ever lived, died or rose again.

In short, it’s less about Christ and more about appeasing the great Hitler in the sky.

Okay, I’m finally caught up on everything I missed yesterday.

Hope you won’t be agry with me, but I have to agree with Neil on this one.

Not angry. I just won’t defend your Catholicity anymore

I am not sure why you think I am encouraging people to continue in sin

Phil,
I don’t disagree with you. I think this only serves to highlight my initial comment that these labels are arbitrary and subjective. I am sure there were certain groups in Jesus’ day who thought him conservative. And on the same issue, others thought him too liberal.

My point was rather simple: When Jesus says “You have heard it said….but I say to you” he is in effect turning the conservative, established, customary way of interpreting the Torah upside down. When he says that EVERYTHING in the Law and Prophets hangs on 2 commands: Love God and neighbor, he is being quite liberal in his reading of Torah and his interpretation of what it means to be a good Jews. When he eats with sinners, tax collectors and converses with women in public and even Samaritans he is being quite liberal in the way he is living out the “faith” of a good Jew.

And let me say again: Being liberal is a not a bad thing. It has nothing to do with the definition Paul C gives it, as you well know. If liberal, however, means reformer or generous (which it does) than Jesus was a bleeding liberal.

That’s always been one of the rubs for researchers, and what gives lie to the homobigots’ line that it has something to do with, what is it…distant fathers or molestation or overbearing mothers, blah blah blah.

Well, and I would think the fact that of identical twins one can be gay and the other straight would shoot such theories down as well. The 2 grown men they showed last night had the same environment, same mother and father, same nurture issues and yet one is gay and the other not. Go figure.

Part of the gospel is the requirement of discipleship which means we are to follow Christ – falling down and stumbling daily, but with His help becoming more like Him as He works in us.

Paul, you should read the sermon I preached yesterday. If you can get past the fact that I focus on Mary, the mother of Jesus, you might be suprised that I agree with you.

Something About Mary

I don’t disagree with you. I think this only serves to highlight my initial comment that these labels are arbitrary and subjective. I am sure there were certain groups in Jesus’ day who thought him conservative. And on the same issue, others thought him too liberal.

My point was rather simple: When Jesus says “You have heard it said….but I say to you” he is in effect turning the conservative, established, customary way of interpreting the Torah upside down. When he says that EVERYTHING in the Law and Prophets hangs on 2 commands: Love God and neighbor, he is being quite liberal in his reading of Torah and his interpretation of what it means to be a good Jews. When he eats with sinners, tax collectors and converses with women in public and even Samaritans he is being quite liberal in the way he is living out the “faith” of a good Jew.

Well, you say you aren’t disagreeing with me, but then you go on to disagree with me, lol…

All I was saying is that it’s not entirely accurate to say there was an “established, customary way of interpreting the Torah”. There were constant debates about how to interpret the Torah, much in the same way there are constant debate about how to interpret the Bible today.

So, yes liberal and conservative are close to meaningless, but I think we come back to them because they give a quick way to classify people. In essence, I think Christians should be known as Christians only, not liberals or conservative. So an end result in that is that at some points we shouldn’t be surprised if we get criticized from either side.

As a kind of side note, I could argue that Jesus was an “originalist” when it came to the Torah, because He was about getting back to the original author’s intent…

As a kind of side note, I could argue that Jesus was an “originalist” when it came to the Torah, because He was about getting back to the original author’s intent…

You could. But the gymnastics required to prove that when the author said: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, his intention was to say: Turn the other cheek, do not repay evil for evil, love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you.

Perhaps it was a scribal error?

You could. But the gymnastics required to prove that when the author said: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, his intention was to say: Turn the other cheek, do not repay evil for evil, love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you.

Ah, yes, but wasn’t the intention of this to limit violence, not condone. So Jesus was all about revealing the heart of the law, not re-writing it. Something about “fulfilling, not abolishing”…

When Jesus says “You have heard it said….but I say to you” he is in effect turning the conservative, established, customary way of interpreting the Torah upside down.

Actually, he is using this formulary phrasing to emphasize his own authority in interpreting Scripture (which only rabbis/sages with s’mikah were allowed to do), and it had nothing to do with liberal/conservative designation.

As Phil notes, Jesus sides with both ends of the spectrum (which, I would also note, is a classic conservative/liberal spectrum, not a modern one)

When he says that EVERYTHING in the Law and Prophets hangs on 2 commands: Love God and neighbor, he is being quite liberal in his reading of Torah and his interpretation of what it means to be a good Jews.

Again, this is not a liberal/conservative issue. Most Jewish schools held that the most important command was the shema (Love God), and all interpretations were for the purpose of showing which commands were the most important sources of all other commands. Jesus’ top two are identical to the top two cited by Hillel the Elder, who died when Jesus was a toddler.

When he eats with sinners, tax collectors and converses with women in public and even Samaritans he is being quite liberal in the way he is living out the “faith” of a good Jew.

But here you have only one of his (at least) eight rulings on the debates of his day. On marriage and divorce, for instance, he sided with the most classically conservative school. The common practice at the time was to allow divorce for anything that displeased the husband, including burning his supper.

As a kind of side note, I could argue that Jesus was an “originalist” when it came to the Torah, because He was about getting back to the original author’s intent…

Exactly.

In any case, Chad, my point isn’t to prove you are “too liberal” or anything like it. I’m just getting back to the point that I think we tend to see Jesus through whatever lens we want sometimes. Instead of asking to be made more like Jesus, we try to make Jesus more like us.

Something about “fulfilling, not abolishing”…

Correct. Which, in today’s culture, comes accross sounding very liberal.

It’s funny, but most of the debates had by “conservatives” vs. “liberals” comes down to the difference between those who abide by the letter of the law and those who insist on the spirit of the law.

Honestly, transport our discussions to the 1st century and the same dynamic is in play. PB (I’m using PB as an icon for this view) would no doubt be telling Jesus that he has “swerved off the path” and is no longer believing in the “authority of scripture” because scripture clearly states: an eye for an eye. Period. No discussion. Case closed. To suggest otherwise is only to prove you do not view scripture as God’s holy word.

Today: Scripture clearly says homosexuality is a sin and women should not be ordained and so forth. Period. No discussion. Case closed….

enter Jesus.

It is interesting to note that throughout the OT, there was a clarion call by the prophets to uphold many of the things Christ taught… Isaiah is a perfect example (fatherless and widows in Isaiah 1 or Isaiah 58 for example).

Unfortunately, the tendency is to replace true relationship with God by religious formality and rules (ie: washing before eating). This is what the Jews were guilty of in Jesus’ day.

Even with the 10 commandments, I believe the majority of them had to do with our relationship to each other.

If anything, Christ was making the call to discipleship more difficult than it was under the law because now it was becoming a matter of heart and motive. It is easy for us to clean the outside of the cup, but to have the inside cleaned requires a denial of self and intimacy with Christ – the only one who can deliver us from ourselves.

The problem today is that many embrace Christ while at the same time rejecting Him (ie: no different than the “fish and bread” followers in John 2 and elsewhere). God really has to help us.

Chad –

Today: Scripture clearly says [murder] is a sin and [fornication is not acceptable] and so forth. Period. No discussion. Case closed….

enter Jesus.

See Chad – insert whatever sin you like and – VOILA – you re-invent the scriptures to your own desires. That’s essentially what you’re doing here.

Notice that Christ did not come to abolish or do away with the moral law (ie: 10 commandments), but the ceremonial law.

With statements like the one above, you are using the word of God deceitfully. That’s not right.

Today: Scripture clearly says [murder] is a sin and [fornication is not acceptable] and so forth. Period. No discussion. Case closed….

enter Jesus.

apples and oranges, Paul C.

Such a distortion makes a mockery of the gospel and the rule of love.

Apples and oranges, Chad. Not even the “conservatives” (Shammai and/or the Sadducees) would argue that “eye for an eye” was a demanded recompense.

You insert the word “demanded” which is uncalled for. I said the Torah allowed for it.

So question: According to Torah, is an eye for an eye allowed?

According to Jesus, is an eye for an eye allowed?

See the difference?

So question: According to Torah, is an eye for an eye allowed?

Yes.

According to Jesus, is an eye for an eye allowed?

It depends.

I’m sorry Chad, but the illustration I used was meant to be extreme to outline how your line of reasoning breaks down.

Essentially, you are advocating a “whatever works for you” kind of gospel which is not the true gospel. It poses as “liberal” and progressive, but it deceitful and untrue.

A true man of God preaches the whole counsel of God – both the sweet and bitter herbs.

It is disingenuous and impractical to ignore literary devices used by the Scriptures and our Savior. Similes, metaphors, hyperbole, exagerations, and other linguistic tools are meant to amplify truth, not construct an unweildy and useless argument that magnifies the literary conduit rather than the truth it attempts to reveal.

Notice that Christ did not come to abolish or do away with the moral law (ie: 10 commandments), but the ceremonial law.

See, it says right here in 2 Seminary Drivel 3:16!

This is far more apples-to-apples than any of your comparisons this morning.

Got that? Loving the same gender and recognizing the equality of women are tantamount to murder.

Neat!

A true man of God preaches the whole counsel of God

there is that self-righteous swagger I love so much about you, Paul!

there is that self-righteous swagger I love so much about you, Paul!

There it is again – Chad runs back to his ever-reliable “self-righteous” labeling. Without fail.

What foolishness indeed to remind us that the whole counsel of God is important for the growth and maturity of the saints. So self-righteous indeed (even though this was the premise of Paul’s epistles to young ministers like Titus and Timothy).

There it is again – Chad runs back to his ever-reliable “self-righteous” labeling. Without fail.

You make it too easy, Paul.

What foolishness indeed to remind us that the whole counsel of God is important for the growth and maturity of the saints.

Again, you redefine what you say or how you say it to fit your own ends. That is not what you said. Indeed, the whole counsel of God IS important for growth and maturity of the saints – I agree with you there. Where you became self righteous is when you did this:

Essentially, you are advocating a “whatever works for you” kind of gospel which is not the true gospel.

and then, after asserting that I do not advocate the “true gospel” you say:

A true man of God preaches the whole counsel of God. (emphasis mine)

I’m sure you can show me what a “true man of God” looks like, right?

Chad – I was outlining that one way to discern a true man of God from one that preaches but is not necessarily called of God is to pay attention to what he preaches. If he advocates a warped gospel that does not line up with Jesus, the apostles and prophets (who all agree) then, chances are, he is not a true man of God.

So, if you want to cry foul every time someone points out what is clear in scripture, then you are welcome to that.

I still think you’d make a terrific politician, if that helps.

Anyone catch Ingrid’s latest screed over Obama? Apparently John the Baptist, who rebuked Herod for adultery is somehow relevant to Rick Warren praying at the inauguration.

Of course John McCain, much like Ingrid, is divorced which makes his subsequent marriages adultery. I guess those divorcees stick together.

Bo – There never is a dearth of targets which can provide a continuing merry-go-round of blog posts. I am against particpating in the political process, however I believe Rick Warren’s motivations are good.

O = zero
B = two
A = one
M = thirteen
A = one

Add them together and you get 17, add 649 and you get 666. I think you get the picture…

For everyone:

If you would hit me, I would respond with an elongated disembowelment that would make Hannibal Lecter look like Gandhi. I remain a committed pacifist unless provoked.

RE: #175

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but I’m honestly not seeing it. I did choose some specific words I don’t normally use, and I’m not sure I would avoid them (were I to have to do it again).

[Joe - thank you for your injections yesterday - they were right on point.]

1) I’ve reached a point where I’m not sure it’s all that helpful or loving to put up with Evan’s constant condescension, deriding all people who disagree with him as bigots, believers in sky-gods, believers in myths, rubes, dinguses, what have you. Most of the “data” and “studies” he spits out are just about as reliable as PB’s “data” regarding Rob Bell. Now, while it is reasonable to hold PB/Ken/etc. to a higher standard (since they ought to know better), that isn’t to say that non-Christian commenters should be held to no/little standards.

2) If you’re going to comment on a blog that deals primarily in exploration of religious truth, then expect your answers to deal in religious truth, rather than deriding them for not integrating whatever bits of “science” you might deem relevant.
_____________________

Responses:

Because we know that if “ex-gays” existed (and *hint* they do, and they cope quite well – I know several, and at least one just shakes his head whenever he reads your tripe, saying “I was there once…”)

Because Chris L can tell if their dicks get hard when they see hot guys.

No, they don’t. Even the “ex-gay” leaders admit they’re still attracted to the same sex. They’re just recloseted, that’s all.

What defines our basic identity?

1) Our biology.
2) Our desires.
3) Our actions.
4) Our values.
5) Our God.

Basically, you’ve declared that #1/#2 defines who we are. This is no different than an animal in the field.

Those who have escaped the lifestyle of homosexual practice are not “recloseted”. Instead, they’ve chosen to allow their identity to be defined by God (that they are saved, that they are free of having to find their value in what they do or that they have to follow their fallen desires to find completion, etc.)

Some do find heterosexual partners and make lifelong commitments to them. Others choose celibacy. Both are in line with a personal righteousness we are all called to, not in order to be saved, but because we are saved. Does this mean they are never tempted w/ homosexual desires again? No. But they’ve already decided that their desire doesn’t define who they are. Even if they have those desires, their identity is not “I’m a homosexual”.

Or perhaps just a non-hedonistic conscience.

Go to hell, asshole.

Really?

I chose the word I did (non-hedonistic) quite carefully in this case. Your original statement:

Actually, a huge comprehensive study came out recently that shows that higher rates of depression/suicide in the gay community are a direct result of internalized homophobia, and where does that come from? God’s a-hole followers.

I read this as “if only God’s a-hole followers didn’t treat homosexuality as a sin, there would be less depression/suicide in the gay community”.

Sorry Evan, it is a sin, unless you want to just basically toss out Biblical definitions of sin as optional.

Rather, I would suggest that when one is living a life of sin (regardless of the sin, not just homosexual practice, since it is the action and intent that defines sin, not just the temptation), depression and thoughts of suicide are not unexpected. I know – I’ve been there (different sin, same result).

Now, my choice of ‘hedonistic’ as an adjective.

I originally had no adjective, but that would suggest that those living in slavery to a sin have no conscience. This is not the case – it’s just that the conscience has become purposely blind to some sins.

The classic definition of hedonism is “anything’s OK if it feels good”, with the modern version being “as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, anything’s OK if it feels good”. I would contend that it is a mixture of misguided guilt over past corporate sins and hedonism that has led some within the modern church to try to define away homosexual practice as a sin.

Has the church (and are parts of it now) royally screwed up in the way it has treated homosexual sin as different than other sins? Most definitely. Does it need to act in more discreet and gentle ways to deal with this issue? Most definitely. Is the solution to define away 5,000 years of consistent, correct interpretation of this practice as sin? Not by a long shot.

I’m beginning to think you’re closet, actually. It hadn’t occurred to me before, but it would explain a lot. The ignorant, hateful crap you spew about gay people is on par with what comes from those dealing with self-hatred.

I do not think that gays are an abomination. I do believe, though, that if they are practicing a sin that they are sinning – the same way that if I am claiming to follow Christ, but acting in a contrary manner, that I am sinning as well.

I do think that, if you become a Christian, you are called to a life of sacrifice and obedience, and that for some the cost is greater than others. For some, the cost of giving up a homosexual lifestyle is no cost at all, and they are heartless when dealing with people who struggle with this sin. For some, the cost of giving up a life of luxury and materialistic comfort is huge, and they try to justify their greed for creature comforts via a “health and wealth” gospel. The cost for each one of us is different, with some sins being easier to forgo than others.

In light of this, one of my favorite passages in all of Paul’s writing comes from Galatians 6 -

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that naturewill reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

We do need to help each other bear our burdens. But declaring a burden to not be burdensome is not all that ‘helpful’.

Merry: When people say vague things like “God can help you overcome your sin” and “I know people who struggled with your problem who are now coping quite well” it’s really not helpful.

Merry, this was not my purpose in bringing up the people I know who have struggled with and overcome homosexual sin. Rather, it was Evan’s continued insistence that they don’t exist, that such programs are “evil” and “brainwashing”, etc. that I grew tired of him telling me that the flesh-and-blood people I know do not exist, or that they should “repent” and return back to their lives of sin.

The thing about Evan’s situation is I don’t think he really sees homosexuality as a sin. Before we start telling him it’s a problem/struggle/sin he can overcome (at this point I don’t think he sees it as a problem, struggle, or sin that needs “overcoming”) lets all be clear on why its a sin and what part. One is not going to repent from sin if they are fine with it and don’t see themselves as having anything to overcome. It’s just not going to happen.

We have been over this in the past a number of times, which was why I didn’t reframe it this time. However, I’ve tried to be fairly consistent in separating homosexual temptation (which is, like any temptation, just a temptation) from homosexual practice (which is, like giving in to practice any temptation, a sin). In many ways, our language around homosexuality makes this worse.

How so?

If you are always being tempted to steal, but you resist that temptation, you are not labeled a thief. However, if you are always being tempted toward physical relationships with members of the same sex, but you resist those temptations, you are labeled a homosexual. So our labeling is inconsistent, and we tend to carry this labeling over into the way we treat this sin. And that is wrong. At the same time, we don’t solve that wrong by going so far in the opposite direction that we no longer even define the practice of a sin a sin.

Why is homosexuality the one sin where they should just “get over it” but all the other sin in the world is a “thorn in the flesh, one day I’ll overcome”? Seriously!

I am not familiar with any sins publicly practiced within the church (or at least my own) that are treated with a wink and a nod, or just “thorn in the flesh, one day I’ll overcome”. Given Matthew 18 and Paul’s treatment of the man in Corinth, I would say we’re not told to coddle ANY unrepentantly displayed sin.

And the point of the original post was that divorce is a greater threat to the family than gay marriage.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, we don’t always get to set the agenda of what questions/issues we’ll be addressing. Sometimes, I think the church leads the fight on this issue (which is probably not the way to go about it), but quite often (as in the response to Rick Warren) the church didn’t go looking for a fight, but the fight came and found it…

Chris – this blog has allowed me to cultivate a buffer zone except in certain situations, language being the most prominent in my weaker brother mentality. As you have mentioned once, I attempt to retain a detachment designed to avoid frustration. And when their is no agreed source of truth, frustration is the emotion du jour.

I am beginning to see a paradigm not unlike that which Peter faced when confronting unclean food or Gentiles or Philip encountering the eunuch on the side of the road (eunuchs from “the ends of the earth” were not people God presumably favors) and each of them, upon experiencing God’s grace in their lives, asking: Who are we to withhold water to baptize?

We’re back to apples and oranges, Chad.

Both items you cite (unclean food, eunuchs) are not redefining sin – they are redefining ceremonial cleanliness.

Tell me, would Naaman have been healed had he bathed anywhere but the Jordan River?

Both items you cite (unclean food, eunuchs) are not redefining sin – they are redefining ceremonial cleanliness.

Not just that, they are redefining who is “in” and who is “out.” It would seem that one of the favorite pasttimes of Chrsitians today – figuring out who or what are beyond the reach of God’s grace – was alive and well in the 1st century.

So the issue is not equating sins, the issue is your method of argument/logic.

The “you have heard it said…but I say” comments were meant to dislodge a rigid interpretation of scripture. I was contrasting the way Jesus used scripture with the way many readers of scripture do it today. In the context of that discussion that should all be clear.

It was Paul and PB who took it to the absurd level of saying that you can insert whatever sin you wish and VIOLA just invent any sort of holiness you like. That is not true. If you or they wish to lay that on me then lay it on Jesus. Did Jesus say “you have heard it said…but I say to you” and haphazardly insert anything he likes? No.

Furthermore, I have said in my response to you and to them WHY you cannot just insert anything you like. I am not trying to redefine sin or make sins that are clearly sins into non-sins. Homsexuality, like women in ministry, has it’s own set of issues and contexts that must be dealt with on its own merit. Just because someone suggests homosexuality may not be a sin is not to say that we are now on a willy-nilly-anything-goes sort of Christianity where soon murder will be justified as well.

It is not an issue of who is in and who is out. The issue is what is sin and what is not.

So are you saying one can be “in sin” and still be “in”?

Just because someone suggests homosexuality may not be a sin is not to say that we are now on a willy-nilly-anything-goes sort of Christianity where soon murder will be justified as well.

But that doesn’t go with the culture of fear, Chad.

Some people need to fear all these things, because they don’t trust themselves to make good choices unless the Big Angry is holding a gun to their heads.

I sure hope so…

Is that a hope of desire or a hope of expectation?

pssst: I agree with you!

Chad: It was Paul and PB who took it to the absurd level of saying that you can insert whatever sin you wish and VIOLA just invent any sort of holiness you like. That is not true.

Actually Chad, your response here outlines how you define sin…

Simple: Murder and fornication (or adultery, lying, stealing, and the others that PB used to make the same argument) are sins arising from selfishness and in all the cases they objectify, demean, insult and victimize the “other” – all of which are contrary to the gospel, the way of Jesus.

So, we reduce sin to whether or not anyone gets hurt. That would make idolatry a-OK as it does not “objectify, demean, insult and victimize the “other””. You get into a mess when you try to re-write what the scripture says Chad.

The point is that your logic here is severely flawed (as it is when you try to bring in the eunuch – stretching things beyond their limit)

While you accuse some of equating homosexuality with murder (which was not the point), guess what you are doing? Trying to reduce it to the level “women in the ministry”.

Temptation again. My goodness. Refer to what I said about twisting verifiable facts to fit your ideology. Are animals who have gay sex victims of temptation? Is the debbil involved? Why he mess with animals? Animals so cute!

Of all the arguments that I’ve heard, I have to say this may be the weakest. Who cares what an animal does? Since when is that measure of morality?

Dogs eat their own excrement – is that moral or immoral and how does it pertain to human behavior? It doesn’t at all. A total non sequitor…

John: While you accuse some of equating homosexuality with murder (which was not the point), guess what you are doing? Trying to reduce it to the level “women in the ministry”.

*ding* *ding* *ding* we have a winner!

This is why I keep trying to ask you about hermeneutics, Chad. You don’t seem to follow any consistent hermeneutic when it comes to Scripture, apart from some vague “does it fit into my big meta-narrative view of Jesus”?

The “you have heard it said…but I say” comments were meant to dislodge a rigid interpretation of scripture. I was contrasting the way Jesus used scripture with the way many readers of scripture do it today. In the context of that discussion that should all be clear.

And my point is, I’m fine when Jesus does it… but less so when you do.

So, you’re saying it’s not a good idea to follow Jesus’s example, and better to get hung up on specific verses that are obviously not meant as cross-cultural condemnations.

I think Jesus probably really rolls his eyes when Biblical condemnations of one thing are used to conveniently condemn other things entirely.

This, by the way, is why it’s dangerous for fundamentalists to actually know gay people and acknowledge the reality of what sexuality is and what it isn’t. If they do that, then they can longer use those verses, because they would understand and have to acknowledge that there’s a huge difference between every single (all 5 and a half of them, out of thousands of verses) condemnation applied to gay people, and the average gay person.

Sorry Paul – the curse of multiple open windows.

The credit is yours…

You just want to find something wrong with everything I say and are willing to say anything to do it.

Yes, the truth finally emerges. My sole intent is to warp the truth that Chad tries to dispense. A veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Secondly, Idolatry would still fall into what I described above.

I didn’t think you’d actually try to make this stretch, but after the eunuch was brought in, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised!

And even provided me with the biggest laugh of the last few days, as well…
Something tells me, though, that the fundies would be more upset with this assessment than I, since I just find it hilarious and a microcosm of your gross ignorance on pretty much everything you write…

Uh huh! It’s cute when you say you’re not a fundamentalist.

I think I made the point earlier that everyone from liberal christians outward would sort of laugh at the little dividing lines fundamentalists put between themselves.

As to the ignorance of what I write, I would put my intellect up against yours anyday, in any academic pursuit, and I would even give you a head start and permission to use cheat sheets, calculators, whatever you need.

The fact that you see science as such a cut-and-dry thing pretty much tells me you have little experience in actually dealing with it.

No, I don’t see science as “cut and dried.” I do, however, understand that when the weight of the research is tilting heavily one direction and away from the other, that a consensus starts to develop.

Of all the arguments that I’ve heard, I have to say this may be the weakest. Who cares what an animal does? Since when is that measure of morality?

You’re missing the point, Phil…it’s not about morality. It’s about whether something is fundamentally part of the fabric of nature or not. Homosexuality, quite obviously, is. And I have seen the argument made here that even evolutionary biology went off kilter when Eve ate the fruit. That’s what I was alluding to.

Neil – remember, according to evidence there are over 15,000 species that have been caught having homosexual sex. At least that’s what Evan says.

1500, Paul, 1500.

And you can Google these things for yourself, I shouldn’t have to hold your hand.

I’ll even help with your search: “homosexuality in animals” should be a good basic search. So what you do is you type in http://www.google.com and you’ll see a little space where you can enter things. Now, type that in. Then!!! Hit “search.” Now, be sure you’re not in Google Image search, or you might end up with pictures of wombats in drag singing “Bette Davis Eyes” which would be hi-larious, but not relevant to this discussion. When you get to the results page, you should click on some links. Here’s another word to add to your search that might take you to some really interesting things. “Oslo.” Now, I’m aware that you might be under the impression that gay marriage destroyed heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia, because that’s a fundamentalist lie that’s gotten some traction in recent years, but it’s been disproven by grown-ups, so don’t get the impression that there are only gay animals in Norway because of gay marriage.

If you need any other assistance, I like to help!!!

And no, this issue is not reduced to the level of women in ministry. It is RAISED to that level. Once again, the male ego rears its head.

Heehee.

Because, really, the Christian opposition to homosexuality isn’t isolated.

It has to do with the overall threat of undermining the patriarchal power structure.

“If wimmins can teach be self-sufficient and love each other and menz don’t all pump their seed in ‘em and make my dinner, then how’m I gonna keep convincing mahself I’m above the rest of creation with mah white skin and mah penis?”

Don’t the oil and pharma companies do it all the time? The same is done by interest groups. Come on. On the one hand you hold your intellect up so high and yet…

Yes, Paul, but hundreds of separate studies do not an “interest group” make.

There is regular academic science and there is bought-and-paid-for science.

You’re a fool if you think that all those studies that showed homosexuality in animals were part of an “agenda.”

As far as the fall and original sin, I would yes, it did affect evolutionary biology to some extent. It affected everything.

See, and this is where you lose me. Because it’s been proven that there were societies for thousands of years before this supposed “fall,” before Adam and Eve were created, whether by men (likely) or by God. So unless you’re willing to grant that the societies that came before were, indeed sinless, then trying to attribute all kinds of cause-and-effect to a story about naked people in a garden doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Evan – I believe Rick had it right earlier on (possibly 100s of comments earlier on this same thread) that it is IMPOSSIBLE to reason when there is no objective source held up and agreed upon to have credibility.

We end up running round and round the mulberry bush.

I agree, but there’s nothing in Christianity, nor any other religion, that inherently gives it the right or the credibility to set that standard.

Our Lord Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life…” That settles it for me – by faith.

I do commend you for one thing: you are a straight speaker and you don’t have a tendency to couch your words. You at least don’t pretend to hold the Bible up high and then try to undermine it and I think that is admirable.

May you find peace.

You’re a fool if you think that all those studies that showed homosexuality in animals were part of an “agenda.”

Studies most often don’t get funded w/o pre-existing bias, with results often exhibiting *bingo* the expected result…

Studies most often don’t get funded w/o pre-existing bias, with results often exhibiting *bingo* the expected result…

Keep on stickin’ it to the scientists and the liberals, you’ll get ‘em one day.

I’d like to see how a study such as that could be “biased,” plz.

Most of the observations were made as a result of unrelated studies, for one thing, but even a study that seeks to find out if our closest relatives in monkey land exhibit homosexuality would be pretty hard to come at from a “biased” perspective.

Scientist 1: “Monkey’s bein’ gay?”

Scientist 2: “Not these monkeys.”

Scientist 3: “But if the monkeys aren’t bein’ gay, then the Gay Mafia won’t give us any more munnies!”

Scientist 4: “Oh look, those monkeys over there are bein’ kinda gay.”

All: “Phew!!!”

Chad,

To say your a Wesleyan with your view of scripture is causing John and Charles to roll over in their graves.

Pastorboy,
Is it true you said we’re hoping to destroy the Bible over here? I’m curious.

The way you’re reading Genesis, you might well say that Jonathan Swift really did think it was a good idea to eat Irish babies.

Now, Phil – that was just a modest proposal…

Except that, again, if things within the “divinely inspired narrative meant to convey a theological point” are proven false, say, by genetic mapping and evolutionary biology (such as the preposterous idea that death “entered the world” through sin), then it’s nothing short of insane to continue basing arguments on the disproven parts, especially when one is willing to acknowledge that the garden of eden story is just that — a story, even if it’s a story meant to teach something.

How in the world does genetic mapping prove or disprove anything about the presence of evil in the world? If anything, it strengthens it in some sense – the fact that death is encoded within all living things to some extent points to a common point of infection.

By the way, I happen to lean towards a theistic evolutionary model of creation, so I don’t necessarily automatically reject all evolutionary arguments.

Could someone show me what the Wesley’s view of Scripture was?

So you weren’t saying all of us? Like say for instance, me?

Joe,
I think your Pastor plays games with scripture, but I do not have enough information on you. In some instances I disagree with you, but I would guess that you take scripture at face value.

Evan – Oh, and again, I feel sorry for the sad women who end up married to “ex-gay” porn obsessed men. It must be horrible to go to bed every night with a man who will never find you attractive and can’t get aroused by your body without pills and shutting their eyes to fantasize about men. other women.

Such a non-argument.

Except in that scenario, he could at least be theoretically attracted to her.

But, you should know this, but mens’ sexual responses are involuntary — either you are attracted to a person, or a gender, or you are not.

I could no more make myself sexually attracted to a woman than you could make yourself sexually attracted to a man (that I know of).

Evan: and you can play house all you want, get married, use whatever pills you have to so that you may bed your wife, you might even get her to calf a couple of offspring,

Evan, you loose a lot of credibility when you reduce the miracle of child birth to “calving offspring”. What a completely ugly, graceless, demeaning metaphor. This is especially disingenuous for someone who supposidely descries the male dominated patriarchal societies. We are not animals Evan, we are created in God’s image. (See myth #1).

Evan, you loose a lot of credibility when you reduce the miracle of child birth to “calving offspring”. What a completely ugly, graceless, demeaning metaphor. This is especially disingenuous for someone who supposidely descries the male dominated patriarchal societies. We are not animals Evan, we are created in God’s image.

Heehee, lighten up.

“Calfing” is a funny word.

The point is that both sexual fantasy scenarios are sin. The heterosexual fantasizing about other women when having sex with his wife is just as guilty of the same type of sin as the homosexual married man. Neither scenario is OK.

Except that (again) the straight man married to woman could theoretically be attracted to HER, whereas the gay man married to woman is not ever going to be ATTRACTED to her.

This one fraud, John Smid, who actually lives in my city with his “wife” (and I have no problem using his name, because he used to run Love in Action), really laid it out at one of those Love Won Out “ex-gay” roadshows, with this line that just…encapsulated everything, and said so much, to the point that people who were there, on both sides (by which I mean, people who were snowed in by the “ex-gay” thing — and most of the attendees aren’t gay people, but families of gay people — as well as journalists reporting undercover), hit the internet immediately afterward with this “ew, this is disgusting” reaction.

He said:

“I’m sorry, but my wife’s vagina is enough. I’m going to be honest. It’s enough. It is enough for me. If it is not enough for me, then that’s my problem. You know, I really have to be honest about that. God created her for my fit, he created that and I need to honor and respect my wife. I need to respect that.”

Say it with me: UGH.

Not, “ya know, come to think of it, her vagina is pretty awesome!! You know, for a girl.”

No, “my wife’s vagina is…enough.”

Now, again, this isn’t just one of the “struggling” men trying to pray away the gay. No, this is one of their erstwhile leaders.

And just because this guy is hilarious, here’s part of his talk on underpants:

“What is it that stirs that up? And we have to look at things like how am I talking? What’s my verbage? Who am I relating to? What kind of clothes am I wearing? Where am I going? Am I visually allowing myself to go into places that stimulate my sexuality? If I’m going to try to deal with masturbation and sexually acting out, I better turn down the flame. ”
…if I could be so bold – what kind of underwear do I wear that no one else sees? When I put that underwear on, am I feeling sexual? Is it stimulating my sense of sexual power? Is it making me feel more erotic? Do I feel more sexual around other people because of the way that I feel wearing that underwear?

Not only hilarious, but retarded and completely infantilized.

Jesus’ General, one of the best bloggers around, responded like this:

I’ll never forget the day I first heard you speak about how your “wife’s vagina was enough.” I remember silently praying as I heard it, “please God, give me what this man has. I too want to be satisfied by my wife’s vagina.”

He eventually answered that prayer, but I have to admit it was something with which I had to struggle for many months. It just didn’t seem very manly to put my little soldier into such a warm and snuggly place. And it wasn’t just a mental thing. Private Johnson would mutiny by refusing to come to attention every time I tried it.

Then one night, after a couple of failed attempts, I turned on the tee vee next to the bed. Ben Hur was on. It was the scene where Chuck Heston is reunited with his old friend, Stephen Boyd. And what do you know, suddenly my little soldier was raring to go. I immediately made another attempt on the vagina, craning my neck so I could see the television screen, and by gosh it worked. Finally, my wife’s vagina was enough for me too–that and a copy of Ben Hur (I later learned that John Wayne’s Sands of Iwo Jima and anything featuring Abe Vigoda work as well). I think it’s because the addition of the movie made the vagina seem just a little less girlie.

patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/03/panties-of-redemption.html

(removed the http so it wouldn’t get hung up in moderation…)

Could someone show me what the Wesley’s view of Scripture was?

lol nc. You don’t really expect PB to know, do you? Yet he can say they would be “rolling over in their graves” if they read my comments here. lol. That is about as likely as PB having actually read any profs from Duke Div.

Chris L re: 392.

Rabbit trail.

You can spend as much time as you like knocking what you perceive to be my hermeneutic or lack thereof. All of that is just a nice attempt to divert the conversation. It has the same “feel” as a GBA argument: Let’s just discredit Chad’s hermeneutic and then we don’t need to take anything he says seriously.

Funny you should mention “heavy” and “light” readings of scripture. We call it weighing the scriptures – something the Quakers do well and a practice I think is valuable. I have much of that in mind when I consider the grand meta-narrative that is Jesus, which takes in the whole counsel of scripture, doing what Jesus did: weighing the scripturs (grace always topped the scales, btw).

Peter Gomes writes in his latest book on the Scandalous Gospel of Jesus Christ that Jesus did not come preaching the scriptures he came proclaiming the Gospel. I won’t get into what that means here and now but leave you to chew on it.

I’m still interested to hear what situations you find it OK to not turn the other cheek.

To refresh your memory I asked if was allowed to take an eye for an eye in Torah and you answered: Yes.

I then asked if it is OK with Jesus for you to take an eye for an eye and you answered: Depends.

Depends on what?

Evan,

One’s sexuality is just **one** facit of his life. The Bible speaks a lot about that, but that is not the only thing it speaks of. Jesus said:

Matt 15:18-20 – But (M)the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. “These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

Your speech is very crude, demeaning and hurtful **on a consistent basis**. That’s just as big a sin issue as the homosexuality.

It is one thing to profess a belief in the acceptability of a mutually loving homsexual relationship. I disagree that this is Biblical, but the homosexual issue is but a part. Any sex outside of marriage is a sin. Promiscuity by people of either perference is a sin. That does not even seem to be an iota of your World View.

The Homosexual Lobby likens your struggle to the Civil Rights movement,. I disagree with the analogy, but MLK and his movement won over white America by appealing to the moral high ground. But you’re just as bad as the Silvas of this world in your own way. We could perfectly agree on the homosexual issue and yet our world views on sin would apparently still be worlds apart.

The Homosexual Lobby likens your struggle to the Civil Rights movement,. I disagree with the analogy, but MLK and his movement won over white America by appealing to the moral high ground.

Heh. Coretta Scott King agreed.

But really, I’m neither lying nor slandering people, nor libeling…

Oh, and as to “crudeness.” I’m really not very crude here, save for when I react before responding to Chris L.

But…ya know. Get over it. This is a typical conservative reaction to a liberal. Can’t rebut the arguments, fixate on the potty language.

As far as appealing to the “moral high ground,” my side already has that.

We don’t lie about our opposition, we don’t seek to deny rights to our opposition, we don’t seek to deny them their right to practice their faith peacefully, again, because it bears repeating, we don’t lie about them, we don’t use scare tactics to convince unwitting people who mean well to support hatred, bias, and bigotry.

Here’s the thing, though. I’m really not interested in bringing the extreme fundamentalists over to my side. They’re a much more aged group than those on the side of equality. Actuarial tables are brutal, but they are what they are. In fifty years, complete gay equality will be taken for granted, and this time will be looked back on with a collective “what?” just the way we look back on slaveowners and segregation. For the current time, I’m more interested in being a small voice in pointing out the lies and hypocrisy, and taking the veil off the religion to expose the bigotry hiding behind it, again, not to convince those on the fringe right, but those in the middle.

It’s a truism that people who know a gay person vote 2-1 in our favor. (Yet another place where the “sin” analogies die their dumb death. Let’s play fill in the blank and see why they die their dumb death: “If you know a (rapist), you’re more likely to vote in his favor.” Nope. “If you know an adulterer, you’re more likely to vote in her favor.” Nuh-uh. “If you know a pedophile, you’re more likely to vote in his favor.” Nyet. “If you know a murderer, you’re more likely to vote in his favor.” NEIN!)

But that simple fact is why we’re winning, and why, even though that dumb little Prop 8 squeaked by (because the supporters lied and scared people in their ads), it still lost 11 points in support from the first time they voted on it, and why, after all the protests, around 10% of people who voted FOR it say they would vote AGAINST it today, and why, ultimately (and probably sooner than we know) it will most likely be struck down by the California Supreme Court.

Promiscuity by people of either perference is a sin. That does not even seem to be an iota of your World View.

Haha, show me where I argued for promiscuity. That’s part of the point I’ve been making, but I’ll do it again for good measure: Equating somebody screwing an entire city block each weekend with two people falling love, of any gender combination, and building a life together is nothing short of retarded! Two people falling in love and committing to each other for life is not “promiscuity,” no matter HOW bad you are at speaking the English language!

Actuarial tables are brutal, but they are what they are. In fifty years, complete gay equality will be taken for granted, and this time will be looked back on with a collective “what?” just the way we look back on slaveowners and segregation.

And then in another 100 years there will be another complete about face and gays will be shunned again. And the cycle continues. But God’s word remains unchanged. So, whatever gives you “hope”.

You can spend as much time as you like knocking what you perceive to be my hermeneutic or lack thereof. All of that is just a nice attempt to divert the conversation. It has the same “feel” as a GBA argument: Let’s just discredit Chad’s hermeneutic and then we don’t need to take anything he says seriously.

How can I discredit something that does not exist. Now, the lack of any sense of order beyond your own personal interpretation of “the overarching narrative” of scripture just tells me that you’re not all that serious about knowing anything about it. And you call me anti-scholarship? Please.

IF you had a hermeneutical approach, you would likely understand that this is not a diversion, but rather an attempt to get to the heart of the matter – the nature of what is and is not sin, and how to deal with both. But, as Rick notes, without any standard apart from ourselves, there’s really no point in discussing anything.

Funny you should mention “heavy” and “light” readings of scripture. We call it weighing the scriptures – something the Quakers do well and a practice I think is valuable.

While I am familiar with the Quaker practice (my great-grandfather was a Methodist minister married to a quaker, and his wife was from a Quaker family on the underground railroad in SE Indiana), it is not completely identical. And to suggest that “grace always topped the scales” pretty much ignores a good number of the debates he weighed in on.

Peter Gomes writes in his latest book on the Scandalous Gospel of Jesus Christ that Jesus did not come preaching the scriptures he came proclaiming the Gospel. I won’t get into what that means here and now but leave you to chew on it.

No need to “chew on it” – Jesus came steeped in Scripture, proclaiming a Gospel that was thoroughly part of it, not apart from it. His disciples, as religious Jews from NE Galilee, would have had it memorized. To teach that the “narrative arc” of it somehow sits apart from the details within it is foolish and pointless, and if you can’t speak the to the finer points to show how the “arc” comes to be, you have no business teaching it. Teaching Scripture without any order to it beyond some vague meta-narrative (some of which I have heard are so toothless and powerless that pretty much nobody need die for them, I would add).

I’m still interested to hear what situations you find it OK to not turn the other cheek.

To refresh your memory I asked if was allowed to take an eye for an eye in Torah and you answered: Yes.

I then asked if it is OK with Jesus for you to take an eye for an eye and you answered: Depends.

Depends on what?

I depends on motive. Is it revenge? Then no. Is it self-defense, then possibly. Is it a matter of civil court? Then probably not. Is a matter of criminal court? Then possibly.

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

And then in another 100 years there will be another complete about face and gays will be shunned again. And the cycle continues. But God’s word remains unchanged. So, whatever gives you “hope”.

The same way we’re about to enslave blacks again?

FAIL.

You can spend as much time as you like knocking what you perceive to be my hermeneutic or lack thereof. All of that is just a nice attempt to divert the conversation. It has the same “feel” as a GBA argument: Let’s just discredit Chad’s hermeneutic and then we don’t need to take anything he says seriously.

How can I discredit something that does not exist.

“Well, I can pee on that tree all the way over there! I bet you don’t even pee! Non-peer! Look everybody, Chad’s a non-peer!”

*goes outside and spells h-e-r-m-e-n-e-u-t-i-c in the snow, with pee*

So let’s talk about sin.

I have questions to ask in two parts.

First, the first part:

What is sin? What are the wages of sin? And what are the consequences of a life bent on sinning?

Please feel free to use your Bibles.

btw, PB, I really am glad to see you trying to defend Wesley and get up to speed on who he was. Just a friendly word of advice though: Going to umc.org and finding snippets of Wesley’s sayings from our Book of Discipline is not how you should get to know Wesley. Rather, you should go to a good library and read his journals, sermons (many of them you can get online at ccel.org) and biographies. It would be well worth your time.

All this talk about hermeneutics reminds me of a site I used to frequent but can no longer stand – Biblicalthought.com. I browsed there for a moment the other day and was reminded why I no longer comment there (well, I was banned, but that is beside the point). It is all this ivory tower babbeling that they are so caught up in that they have completely missed the heart of God. They would rather trip up those who disagree with them with arguments over logical fallacies or suspicious hermeneutics than address the core issues. They hide behind their scholarship to avoid getting their hands dirty. It’s pitiful.

How dreadfully boring, smug and just….gag. Such comments, IMO, are a great excercise in completely missing the point