Mel White Believes in Scriptural Inerrancy?

[Experiment with Truth]

In Mel White's resource, "What the Bible says and doesn't say about Homosexuality", he writes, "I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were
saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own." And he says, "Most people who misuse the Bible DON’T search the Scriptures. They simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of theirlives quoting (or misquoting) that text."

Question: In what way does Mel differ from Fundamentalists who say all we need to do is to "search the Scriptures"?

Comment: Coming to different conclusions, both the Fundamentalists and Mel are saying they have the correct understanding of Scripture and if we only look really deep into the Scriptures we will come to the correct conclusions. Mel seems to point to the fact that his erudition has led him to some startling conclusions. And even though he doesn't say it, his actions seem to point to a belief in the Bible's inerrancy or else he wouldn't need to search the Scriptures like a Fundamentalist. This approach of needing to use the Scriptures to verify a point causes more harm than good. I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition. To do otherwise seems to only end in further argument that leads no where and causes further discension. We know that for two thousand years Christians have taught marriage to one man and one woman for life as the ideal or lived lives of celibacy as an ideal. [Although many fall short of the ideal.] I think we are most honest when we either take the teaching for what it is or leave it rather than to attempt to remake the Christian Tradition into the image we want it to be.

I look forward to your comments.

[Steven E. Webster]

Dear Experiment With Truth,

Of course, one could say that Scripture and Tradition for 2000 years supported the subordination of women. Where do you stand on that one?

I'm from a Christian tradition that approaches theology from the perspectives of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Placing Tradition above these other criteria is simply to privilege the status quo, but we supposedly worship a God who wants to "make all things new."

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

In Mel White's resource, "What the Bible says and doesn't say about Homosexuality", he writes, "I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were
saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own." And he says, "Most people who misuse the Bible DON’T search the Scriptures. They simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of theirlives quoting (or misquoting) that text."

Question: In what way does Mel differ from Fundamentalists who say all we need to do is to "search the Scriptures"?
Fundamentalism is based on the supposed existence of essential tenets of Christian belief, proven with "proof-texts", or snippets of scripture taken out of context generally. Searching implies an ongoing effort - one that does not have pre-defined outcomes or preconceived bias - an effort to approach the truth revealed in scripture.


Comment: Coming to different conclusions, both the Fundamentalists and Mel are saying they have the correct understanding of Scripture and if we only look really deep into the Scriptures we will come to the correct conclusions.
To my knowledge, unless you have read something by Mel that I haven't, Mel doesn't claim to have "the" correct understanding, but "a" correct understanding. Fundamentalism claims "the" correct one - the one and only correct interpretation of God's word. The latter is idolatry, the first is humility.

I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition. To do otherwise seems to only end in further argument that leads no where and causes further discension.
Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be.

We know that for two thousand years Christians have taught marriage to one man and one woman for life as the ideal or lived lives of celibacy as an ideal.
We know no such thing. There are a great many scholarly and pastoral works spanning that two thousand years that show a wide range of understandings about marriage and celibacy. Celibacy is also dealt with scripturally as a gift of the Spirit for which everyone is NOT suited, and as such is not held up as the ideal - unless, of course, you are talking about the variety of traditions that one way or another promoted the all-male priesthood.
I think we are most honest when we either take the teaching for what it is or leave it rather than to attempt to remake the Christian Tradition into the image we want it to be.

I look forward to your comments.
Again, there is no such thing as "the" Christian Tradition - there have been innumerable Christian traditions spanning the entire period of Christianity. Which one are you professing is the "THE Christian Tradition"? Identify that and perhaps we have grounds for discussion. From day one the effort of theologians has been an exercise in seeking to understand more of God's revealed truth - but who can claim to know God's mind absolutely? Only the idolator.

[tpdncr4christ]

I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition.

So I can't figure out how to post the video, but the link works just as well.

Tradition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw)

[Daniel]

Mel seems to point to the fact that his erudition has led him to some startling conclusions. And even though he doesn't say it, his actions seem to point to a belief in the Bible's inerrancy or else he wouldn't need to search the Scriptures like a Fundamentalist.


er·u·di·tion
n.
Deep, extensive learning

Though I can't speak for Dr. White, it doesn't 'seem' that his erudition has led him to 'startling conclusions'. It has.

Galileo came to the 'startling conclusion' that the earth revolved around the sun at a time when the 'tradition' and the church said otherwise.

Question: what is tradition?


tradition
tradition, any body of works, styles, conventions, or beliefs which are represented as having been ‘handed down’ from the past to the present. In practice, this means a specific selection of works arranged according to a certain interpretation of the past, usually made in order to lend authority to present critical arguments. Thus T. S. Eliot re‐invented the tradition of English poetry by aligning it with the work of John Donne rather than John Milton; while F. R. Leavis in The Great Tradition (1948) excluded several major novelists from ‘the’ tradition of English fiction.

Just because a thought or concept has been handed down doesn't mean it's true. It just means its been handed down.

Tell me this: is God still speaking?

[tdogg]

If we are to adhere to "the Christian tradition" then which sect of Christianity are we talking about? They all cling to different "traditional" beliefs. There is no wider gap than that between the differing Christian sects. Pentecostal religion has about 4 or 5 different sects within, all believing in different "traditions". Holding to the Christian tradition as a template for all is problematic - I would wage a large amount that no one could all the different groups together to agree on what that would be.

So, where does that leave us? Hmmmmm...back to where I always go. If I am to use the Biblical scriptures as a guide for my life, then it's reasonable to say I must use them with much prayer and meditation, on how they should be used in my life. It might not hold the same meaning for me as it does for you.

If you believe it does, then you belief in the inerrancy of literal translations. You would first need to return to the original greek and hebrew to determine what the original writings meant, then apply them literally 100% across the board. Impossible.

Please EWT, provide your definition of "the Christian tradition" if you would like some comments on that.

[pnggrad79]

Tradition, to me, is a totally human constraint that is used by humans who have trouble with the concept of free will and grace. Tradition is comfortable and time honored, and therefore, considered by some to be actual gospel, when in fact, it can't be farther from it.

For instance, in my household growing up, it was a "tradition" to say thanks to God before every meal. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you must say thanks before every meal, but if we didn't, I felt like we sinned or something and felt guilty for not doing it. Another "tradition" I learned was that we had to be in church everytime the doors were opened. Sunday a.m. and p.m., Tuesday night for visitation, Wednesday night for prayer meeting and choir practice, and anytime there was a revival. I didn't get to see "The Wizard of Oz" until I was 16 years old, because it always showed on a Sunday night, and because we HAD to be in church, we never saw it all the way through. I happened to be sick one Sunday when it showed and therefore got to see it. But that was the only reason why. "Tradition" says a lot of things that aren't necessarily biblical, but because they are associated with church or biblical things, they are assumed to be so.

If Mel White believes in biblical inerrancy, then that is his prerogative. I believe that the Bible is a living document and that God has something to say to us through it in our situation as it is right now. I believe that when Jesus was crucified, a new era in biblical interpretation began and God made grace come full circle and insisted that we look at our salvation through grace and not by the law, as was formerly prescribed. Therefore, the tradition that we should live by the 10 Commandments really is not true. Those were Old Testament laws made obsolete by Christ's death on the Cross. I think the 10 Commandments are good practice, but the way people go on and on about it, you would think it is part of the Constitution.

Tradition is not gospel and should not be confused to be as such.

[tpdncr4christ]

gRdfX7ut8gw

See. Musicals speak for me.

[Paulus]

At one time, Hebrew was the language of commerce, then it became Greek, and afterwards Latin. What is the language of commerce today? It's English.

Does this mean that the languages of antiquities are no longer good,... NO.

How many people can learn them, how long will it take to learn them, & are the libraries that have the old manuscripts going to allow a large horde of people to scan over these documents?

What is known today of the King James Version of the Bible, is not the 1611 version but the Revolutionary Version, ie, 1769, named that way because of our Revolutionary War period.

Study a Parallel Bible(sometimes has two or four versions) and see if the message changes.

Example:
The dog ran after the cat.
The cat ran from the dog.
The dog moved at a high speed after the cat.
The dog pursued the cat quickly.

Get the drift.

Go to the older bookstores and see what they would charge for 20 to 30 yr old Bibles; KJV, RSV, TLB = The Living Bible -- Paraphrase of the KJV, The Way -- An illustrated version of The Living Bible.

[I used to have a copy of The Way but I gave it to a friend who had problems understanding the KJV. The Living Bible/The Way were written in the language of the early 1970's. My friend was able to understand God's Word, that's the important thing.]

As for the Law, it doesn't disappear because God's Grace is present; it's still here. By the Law is the knowledge of sin(missing the mark). Grace is the Good News. You can't have one without the other - Law & Grace/Gospel go together. Law is for the impenitent sinner while the Gospel is for the penitent sinner.

Some might say that I'm a Bible scholar -- I don't think so, but I do have: a Concordia NIV Self-Study Bible, a RSV Bible, KJV Bible (have a KJV Self-Study Bible -- forgot if I passed it to somebody or mislaid it), An American Translation by Dr. Beck, a Wycliffe Commentary ed. 1968, 2-volume set of a Bible Encyclopedia ed. 1975, plus other books. All of these get used.

[u-dog]

Comment: I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition. To do otherwise seems to only end in further argument that leads no where and causes further discension. We know that for two thousand years Christians have taught marriage to one man and one woman for life as the ideal or lived lives of celibacy as an ideal. [Although many fall short of the ideal.]

Actually, until sometime in the 17th century, marriage was a way to make sure that AT NO TIME IN HER LIFE would a woman belong solely to herself. Marriage was a method of ensuring the orderly transfer of property from one man to another (the father of the bride to the Groom and a father to his true sons) Women were merely part of the property and were seldom consulted as to who they would marry. Only in recent centuries has this changed. The one man/one woman arrangement of the last two thousand years is a reflection of the Roman culture (not the semitic culture of Jesus) The reason that it has endured is that it suited the economic structures of the times.

For thousands of years, "tradition" held that chattel slavery was perfectly reasonable and workable and that there was no problem with one human being owning another human being and his/her labor. Most of the laws (the handmaidens of tradition) in most of the world, upheld the right of "masters" to kill their "slaves" if that seemed to them the best use of their "investment"

Tradition in the Southern states from the Civil War on held that non-whites should sit in the back of the bus, eat in seperate restaurants, go to seperate churches and schools. until people decided that this state of affairs was unjust, these "traditions" were also embedded in law.


I think we are most honest when we either take the teaching for what it is or leave it rather than to attempt to remake the Christian Tradition into the image we want it to be.

I look forward to your comments.

Let me reduce your equation to its simplest forms so we can see it for what it is:

a White man stands on a black man's back and says: "Works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a Man stands on a woman's back and says: "works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a rich person stands on a poor persons back and says: "works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a Christian stands on a Jew's back and says: "works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a heterosexual stands on a homosexual's back and says: "Works for me! If it ain't broke don't fix it"


When I go to scripture I go asking these questions: "Who is Jesus?" and "What does he show me about the nature of God?"

the answer I come away with is that Jesus is the Word of God who becomes flesh and dwells among us. Who enters the world at the margins (in a stable surrounded by shepherds) and leaves the world FROM the margins (on a criminal's cross between two criminals) In between, he spends ALL of his time touching, teaching, feeding, healing, encouraging the people at the margins and confronting / contradicting the self-righteous defenders of law and tradition. He is the one who said that humankind was not created for the sabbath but sabbath was created for humankind.

Gay people are ... gay... and people. We have the same need for human companionship and sexual intimacy as any other human beings. heterosexual marriage DOES NOT WORK for us... it NEEDS TO BE FIXED. There need to be socially sanctioned and celebrated structures within which we can meet the need for companionship and sexual intimacy.

The lack of those structures is UNJUST. If tradition stands in the way of the creation of those structures then it needs to be SWEPT AWAY! Human beings were not made for Tradition, Tradition was made for humankind.

[Zerbie]

Absolutely true and utterly beautiful, Udog.

:love::dove:

[pnggrad79]

Well said U-dog.

I maintain, however, that the law of the Old Testament was given so that humans could see their need of a Savior. The law doesn't save and never has. Only grace saves. The law is imperfect and was only there to show that we could never obey a perfect God without Jesus. Jesus was the grace we needed to fix our law problem. Grace is for the impenitent sinner and grace is the answer for us everyday.

If it is broke, fix it. So many things are broke, many of which were handed down by tradition. Tradition makes it comfortable for whomever it serves. Pure Christianity is anything but comfortable. Ask Peter on the roof when the sheet fell down from heaven with every unclean thing he had come to know. God was asking Peter to let go of his "traditions" in order to experience Him for what He is-not traditional.

[revtj]

Modernism (which is now past, thus tradition) brought to the bible a hermeneutics of suspicion. This tradition was in harmony with a Jewish way of studying scripture in which rabbinical students and others (men only at the time) learned the Talmudic and modern interpretations of passages of scripture according to the different schools of thought. Genesis 1 for example would be taught by learning multiple viewpoints of the rabbis on the depth of its meaning.

In the hermeneutics of suspicion the reader/interpreter steps outside the printed page to find social, economic and other cultural norms that are behind the writing like a cultural backdrop. We cannot assume a text had only one meaning, but like a great movie or novel, it has multiple meanings to different people for different reasons. What are those meanings and what are the reasons to prefer certain meanings over others?

Example: I was raised on Gone With the Wind. It's a great movie. But it romanticizes slavery and excludes the horrible shadow side of the evil practice of slavery. A hermenetics of suspicion applied to Margaret Mitchell's work would require us to go outside the text and see what else we can learn about slavery and, in the end, leaves us with a puzzling question as to why Southern gentility saw it as a noble institution. There are answers to that question found in GWTW and in hundreds of other resources of that period. At least one of those is this, "Slavery is biblical. It is never deconstructed as immoral in the bible."

Some people idealize the bible and biblical culture as if there is no context other than their own elevation of the tradition out of which their denomination has interpreted it. This is sentimental, & might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it is rarely true.

[Dash]

Ahh....another collection of masterful responses.


Question: In what way does Mel differ from Fundamentalists who say all we need to do is to "search the Scriptures"?

We seek to communicate in a way that our adversaries understand; therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate to respond to fundmentalist rhetoric with similar vocabulary and methods of study.

This is the way Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and Sadduccees of his day. "You yourselves say..." "Did not David, himself do..." "You have heard it said..."

And in doing so, he turned their traditional understanding of the Law and the Prophets on its head.

I don't think they liked it much.

[Daniel]

Some people idealize the bible and biblical culture as if there is no context other than their own elevation of the tradition out of which their denomination has interpreted it. This is sentimental, & might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it is rarely true.

And I loved the Gone With the Wind analogy!

[BruceChris]

I always thought that it was Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza that gave us the hermeneutics of suspicion, as the foundation for her feminist theology.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[andrewlittle]

I always thought that it was Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza that gave us the hermeneutics of suspicion, as the foundation for her feminist theology.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

It was Schussler Fiorenza who coined the term "hermaneutics of suspicion", when she wrote that "a feminist critical hermeneutics of suspicion places a warning label on all biblical texts: Caution! Could be dangerous to your health and survival". (Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, Letty M Russell, ed, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1985).

Paul Riceour, however, is credited with the concept because he wrote "Hermeneutics seems to me to be animated by this double motivation: willingness to suspect, willingness to listen; vow of rigor, vow of obedience."
(Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970).

Either way, these two are notable for helping to herald in post-modern thought into theology.

[Experiment with Truth]

Tndr4christ: I loved your post of the Fiddler on the Roof video. That made me laugh and smile. Thank you.

Andrewlittle: You asked me, "Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be."

The Tradition I am talking about is that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, by all. Those within the Tradition who have disagreed with aspects of this Tradition have been called heretics. And yes, these disagreements have resulted in bloodshed at times. But we all know the OneTradition I am talking about. It is easy to identify because it is the one Soulforce is trying to change.

St. Paul said in Thessalonians to "hold fast to the Traditions you have been taught, whether by word or by Epistle." This points to aspects of our faith beyond the mere written word. And this faith has continued in continuity and fullness from the time of Christ. To not hold fast and to change merely results in a "New Christianity" unrecognizable to that delivered to the Saints. This also results in further divisions as is evidenced by all the denominations in America. Which leads me to wonder, when does the "new" Christian Faith so differ with the original faith that it ceases to be the Christian Faith?

[u-dog]

Tndr4christ: I loved your post of the Fiddler on the Roof video. That made me laugh and smile. Thank you.

Andrewlittle: You asked me, "Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be."

The Tradition I am talking about is that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, by all. Those within the Tradition who have disagreed with aspects of this Tradition have been called heretics. And yes, these disagreements have resulted in bloodshed at times. But we all know the OneTradition I am talking about. It is easy to identify because it is the one Soulforce is trying to change.

St. Paul said in Thessalonians to "hold fast to the Traditions you have been taught, whether by word or by Epistle." This points to aspects of our faith beyond the mere written word. And this faith has continued in continuity and fullness from the time of Christ. To not hold fast and to change merely results in a "New Christianity" unrecognizable to that delivered to the Saints. This also results in further divisions as is evidenced by all the denominations in America. Which leads me to wonder, when does the "new" Christian Faith so differ with the original faith that it ceases to be the Christian Faith?


OK... I'm gonna take a stab. Catholic? Super-conservative, the Mass in Latin, "Vatican II was a travesty" Catholic. Am I right? How many points do I get if I guessed right?

[andrewlittle]

Tndr4christ: I loved your post of the Fiddler on the Roof video. That made me laugh and smile. Thank you.

Andrewlittle: You asked me, "Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be."

The Tradition I am talking about is that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, by all. Those within the Tradition who have disagreed with aspects of this Tradition have been called heretics. And yes, these disagreements have resulted in bloodshed at times. But we all know the OneTradition I am talking about. It is easy to identify because it is the one Soulforce is trying to change.
Doesn't something strike you as - hmmm, let's see - irrational about this. Everywhere! All times! By all! And yet, there are those who don't believe this unnamed tradition. Evidently they have not been in any place, at any time, or been anyone. So anyone who disagrees with the tradition which you have yet to name is a non-person. If they are non-persons, what privileges or powers or authority does that give you over them - the right to condemn them to hell, or even to help them on their way?

And, for your information, we don't know what tradition you are talking about with the capital "T", else u-dog wouldn't be taking a guess. If it's so damn good and right, why the hell can't you name it? Does it take some special divine knowledge? Wouldn't that make it gnostic? Isn't that a heresy?

Name your Tradition, and give it some flesh on those weary, old, worn out, sun bleached bones. Quit talking code and get into dialogue.

As to the rest of your post it is meaningless if the tradition you speak of doesn't line up with the tradition Paul was discussing with the Thessalonians.

Why are so afraid, Experiment? What is it about your tradition that is so embarrassing that you can't name it? Don't be afraid - we're not animals, you know. We won't carve you up and tear you apart because we don't agree with you.

[Experiment with Truth]

You know something U-Dog. I really like you. You are great. I will give you 10 points for the super conservative thing. But I am not Catholic. Latin Mass (-5 points).

Because I like you I will tell you a little about myself. You have softened me up a little. I grew up in a very little town with a Country Church. When my father took ill before I went off to College I started attending an independent Baptist Church. Then I married a Methodist after college. What a ride that was for a small town country boy. I suppose the shocker was when I felt excluded for my Traditional views because I opposed the rainbow banner hanging from the Cross at Easter. I was told we needed to enter into a dialog to discuss our differences. Dialog only meant to these people a code word for, "prolong the discussion until we have enough political power to silence these bigots". Interestingly, I never harmed any gay person, we had a gay couple in our home bible study and I gave them hugs and welcomed them into our home. However, it seemed to me that the United Church of Christ was the best fit for these people because there they could promote their beliefs.

In my journey I became tired of the viewing the Scriptures through the judgmental view of Fundamentalism. So I started looking at what other religions taught. I even travelled to see a guru of sorts from India who lived in California. I met a Professor of Philosophy and Religion who was an expert in Zen. I practiced Tai Chi and Yoga. All the while I kept asking myself, "In what way can I see Christ in all men." Many of my Christian friends worried that I was losing my faith and that I would turn out Hindu. Instead I became more dedicated to Christ. And I think discussing matters with you and others like you serves one purpose for me; to purge me of my past prejudices so the whole issue regarding homosexuality is no longer a big issue in my mind. I still view it as wrong and my children's exposure to it at public school sex education is not something I am happy with. I believe Jesus spoke to us as it being wrong by his very birth into the Holy Family. This is the high ideal for all of us to follow. In our brokeness we all fall short of the perfect high ideal. A people with a high ideal to strive for will sin less than a people with no ideal (Swami Vivikenanda).

Some of your readers will say, "Ah, what a bigot. Don't give this guy the time of day." I will be judged with little regard for the cultural influences that shaped me. I try to look at what the influences are that shaped all our ideas. One gay person I know is the way they are because of a rape and the other due to spousal abuse. Pain seems to be the human condition. So while I believe their lifestyle is wrong, (forgive me if that term offends anyone, but it is the only language I know to convey my conviction), I will not judge them at all regarding their salvation. For me that is a big step because I was told in my youth at a Baptist Church camp that God gives up on homosexuals. Imagine my fight and struggle with not only that, but the fear I faced that I myself may be damned. The fear instilled in my from my Baptist days was the result of pure hell fire and brimstone conversion techniques. And the pastor told me that they would not accept my baptism from my little Country Church because they could not be sure I was really saved. This all at the impressionable age of 18. So I have faced the demons and damage caused by misguided faith/religion too.

However, I love every aspect of the faith I was taught as a child in the old Country Church. I can't say my college experience in an Independent Baptist Church was beneficial. My journey through Methodism led me to a deeper understanding of Holiness and a search for older more Traditional forms of worship. My journey through other faiths/religions led me to the realization that God has provided a witness for all peoples, but that Jesus is unique. I bow down to him as a disciple. I am Orthodox.

I absolutely love this saying from T.S. Eliott that my professor friend loved to quote: "We shall not cease from exploration, And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started, And know the place for the first time."

So thank you U-Dog and others for your comments. Now you know my story and I am ready to move on in my faith to improve myself and hopefully to be a light to others. May the peace of God be with all.

[u-dog]

You know something U-Dog. I really like you. You are great.

I'm glad to hear it. I, on the other hand, have not liked YOU in the least... until now. Not because you said you liked me, but because you shared who you are. You should lead with your story in the future. Nothing sets off our "perimeter alarms" like a lack of transparency. We have experienced SO MANY "stealth attacks" from radical Christian homophobes that we are wary.


I am Orthodox.

Orthodox with a lower-case "o"? (as in "I believe what I think everyone before me has believed") or Orthodox with an upper-case "O"? (as in Eastern, Greek, Armenian, Syrian, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian Othodox?)


So thank you U-Dog and others for your comments. Now you know my story and I am ready to move on in my faith to improve myself and hopefully to be a light to others. May the peace of God be with all.

"move on" as in tackle the next topic? or "move on" as in stop posting here and going someplace else?

[Dash]

So thank you U-Dog and others for your comments. Now you know my story and I am ready to move on in my faith to improve myself and hopefully to be a light to others. May the peace of God be with all.

"move on" as in tackle the next topic? or "move on" as in stop posting here and going someplace else?

[raises arm...takes a big whiff of pit]

No, I didn't forget to put on deodorant...that can't be it...

U-dog? Have you been rollin' in the garbage again?

(thanks Austin for the humorous imagery (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3274). :cool: And, journey well, Experiments. :))

[u-dog]

[raises arm...takes a big whiff of pit]

No, I didn't forget to put on deodorant...that can't be it...

U-dog? Have you been rollin' in the garbage again?

(thanks Austin for the humorous imagery (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3274). :cool: And, journey well, Experiments. :))


I grew up on lake Erie and our dog used to go down to the beach, find a dead fish and roll in it. She thought she smelled SO GOOD. She didn't. But that is not my thing... so I don't think I'm at fault.

I think it was Uncle Andy that drove him away. He's such a rabid, snarling, Calvinist that he scares people. sort of a Presbyterian Pitbull.

[keltic63]

You know something U-Dog. I really like you. You are great. I will give you 10 points for the super conservative thing. But I am not Catholic. Latin Mass (-5 points).

Because I like you I will tell you a little about myself. You have softened me up a little. I grew up in a very little town with a Country Church. When my father took ill before I went off to College I started attending an independent Baptist Church. Then I married a Methodist after college. What a ride that was for a small town country boy. I suppose the shocker was when I felt excluded for my Traditional views because I opposed the rainbow banner hanging from the Cross at Easter. I was told we needed to enter into a dialog to discuss our differences. Dialog only meant to these people a code word for, "prolong the discussion until we have enough political power to silence these bigots". Interestingly, I never harmed any gay person, we had a gay couple in our home bible study and I gave them hugs and welcomed them into our home. However, it seemed to me that the United Church of Christ was the best fit for these people because there they could promote their beliefs.

In my journey I became tired of the viewing the Scriptures through the judgmental view of Fundamentalism. So I started looking at what other religions taught. I even travelled to see a guru of sorts from India who lived in California. I met a Professor of Philosophy and Religion who was an expert in Zen. I practiced Tai Chi and Yoga. All the while I kept asking myself, "In what way can I see Christ in all men." Many of my Christian friends worried that I was losing my faith and that I would turn out Hindu. Instead I became more dedicated to Christ. And I think discussing matters with you and others like you serves one purpose for me; to purge me of my past prejudices so the whole issue regarding homosexuality is no longer a big issue in my mind. I still view it as wrong and my children's exposure to it at public school sex education is not something I am happy with. I believe Jesus spoke to us as it being wrong by his very birth into the Holy Family. This is the high ideal for all of us to follow. In our brokeness we all fall short of the perfect high ideal. A people with a high ideal to strive for will sin less than a people with no ideal (Swami Vivikenanda).

Interesting. With all of these influences upon your beliefs, how do you claim that you hold to a "Traditional" Chrisitianity? You've been influenced by other cultures and religions, yet the "traditional" christianity I was taught was that, as christians, we were to exert influence on the culture.

Some of your readers will say, "Ah, what a bigot. Don't give this guy the time of day." I will be judged with little regard for the cultural influences that shaped me. I try to look at what the influences are that shaped all our ideas. One gay person I know is the way they are because of a rape and the other due to spousal abuse. Pain seems to be the human condition. So while I believe their lifestyle is wrong, (forgive me if that term offends anyone, but it is the only language I know to convey my conviction), I will not judge them at all regarding their salvation. For me that is a big step because I was told in my youth at a Baptist Church camp that God gives up on homosexuals. Imagine my fight and struggle with not only that, but the fear I faced that I myself may be damned. The fear instilled in my from my Baptist days was the result of pure hell fire and brimstone conversion techniques. And the pastor told me that they would not accept my baptism from my little Country Church because they could not be sure I was really saved. This all at the impressionable age of 18. So I have faced the demons and damage caused by misguided faith/religion too.

Is there a clue in there somewhere? are you saying that you feared you might be gay, and that God would give up on you too?

However, I love every aspect of the faith I was taught as a child in the old Country Church. I can't say my college experience in an Independent Baptist Church was beneficial. My journey through Methodism led me to a deeper understanding of Holiness and a search for older more Traditional forms of worship. My journey through other faiths/religions led me to the realization that God has provided a witness for all peoples, but that Jesus is unique. I bow down to him as a disciple. I am Orthodox.

again, I'm not sure how you can claim that you are "Traditional" after having gone on that journey.


So thank you U-Dog and others for your comments. Now you know my story and I am ready to move on in my faith to improve myself and hopefully to be a light to others. May the peace of God be with all.

leaving? you just got here.

[tdogg]

EWT

Thanks for sharing more about yourself. It helps us to understand where you are coming from a little better.

You say that you never hurt any gay people. Then you say you believe homosexuality is wrong, meaning you believe we are wrong. Then you use terms that offend and hurt gay people (lifestyle). This hurts gay people EWT. So you have most likely hurt gay people in your life.

Sounds like you maybe have moved on. If so, I wish you all the best and pray that in your journey God will open your mind and heart to the truth. Blessings & love to you.

[BruceChris]

Is the one subscribed to by everybody who considers themselves "orthodox", or who goes to the biggest church in town, and seems to fit in, and never discusses their beliefs in sufficient depth so as to realize that they do not believe exactly the same things that their fellow congregants actually do.

Consensus is easy to come by, as long as no one asks any detailed questions.

O.K., I'm beginning to sound a bit judgemental here. God loves all of us, and I believe that S/He wants all of us to love, and forgive each other.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Zerbie]

WOW!!!

What a journey!

Ya'll: What I get from the allusions to fear of being damned oneself, was the fear that any degree of "tolerance" for gay persons was viewed by the rest of his community as 'wrong' and a sign that he himself could be damned for being, I guess, too liberal. Even though Exp's belief is still quite a conservative one.

Of course it comes as no surprise whatsoever to me that the yoga and energetic studies/practices led to a deeper communion with Christ. That is what yoga, practiced correctly, does. (deepen one's religious faith, whatever the religion, I mean.)

I have to emphasize Tdogg's point too, though: using terms like "lifestyle" and saying 'homosexuality is wrong' and that you don't want your child to learn some actual real-life facts about gay people in sex ed (age appropriate class, one assumes) IS hurtful to gay people, even if you have been unaware of it so far. Perhaps one of your children's best friends might be a little gay child. Teaching that little child he (let's make him a boy in this case) is "wrong" for being who he is, and SO wrong that people like him must not even be mentioned or taught about is extremely damaging. Think about what life must look like to a 10 year old boy who knows that he is gay - imagine that child listening to everything you say about homosexuals, and before you speak, as you choose your words, imagine him listening.

This world is a complicated place. There are people who have been traumatized and/or sexually abused and have resultantly struggled with their sexuality (whether hetero OR other), and this struggle can include confusion about one's sexual orientation. There are also people with non-hetero orientations who have not dealt with abuse who simply are as they are (just as there are straight people who DON'T become gay after abuse or trauma). There are ALL types.

One thing set me off, Exp, and that was the implicit suggestion that gay people have no ideals, or have low ideals. That is a ridicuously false implication. I have tended to seek out the companionship of gay people since I was a wee thing, because I have found through observation that, to make a gross overgeneralization, many gay people tend to have the LOFTIEST of spiritual and humanitarian ideals.

It is my fervent wish that you will cease seeing your gay friends' sexuality as a sign of their "fallenness" or "brokenness." Sexuality, whether acted upon or not, is linked inextricably with the soul's capacity to love. :dove:Taking away the homosexuality from a gay person = taking away their nature to love. It is the noblest, highest part of the human spirit - and if you try to carve it out of someone, or if you doubt it, you do harm to that soul.

As for "lifestyle," consider all the gay persons who live much the same as you do: sleep, wake, work, dinner, time with family and/or partner: I can only then assume that you disapprove of your own lifestyle just as much, since it consists of the same behaviors? :confused:

Best wishes to you as you continue your journey. Thanks for stopping in here along the way - pick up some of our ideas and examine them sincerely for a while.
:pray:

[revtj]

Originally Posted by BruceChris
I always thought that it was Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza that gave us the hermeneutics of suspicion, as the foundation for her feminist theology.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Oh yes, she made the method popular with the name "hermeneutics of suspicion" in the rise of feminist critique in the 70s-80s. But it really all began with what is called the Modernist movement at the turn of the 20th century when for the first time in 5000 years the academy was safe to apply all the disciplines and resources of science to the Bible and question meaning based on trying to construct (or reconstruct) context. Prior to this it wasn't popular though it had been done. (i.e. people were merely tried for heresy instead of being burned at the stake :rolleyes:) So I would attribute the hermeneutics of suspicion to the modernist movement --> Ricoeur --> Schussler Fiorenza : sort of like the gift that keeps on giving.

I would put this long tradition over and against fundamentalism which simply forbids questioning the text. This is known as the "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" movement & it has a grip on some Americans the same way Osama bin Laden's interpretation of Islam has a grip on some Muslims.

I choose freedom. I choose conscience and the Holy Spirit to lead me to the truth. I acknowledge all of us don't have to agree 100% to be the body of Christ, doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God. I do not wish to punish those who interpret the Bible differently than I do, neither will I be degraded or oppressed by them either.

[wmanion]

I believe that EWT is hinting to the tradition of marriage which for two thousand years has taught one man and one woman. However, this one man and one woman tradition was not the original tradition...polygamy was the tradition. It was not uncommon for men to have many wives and concubines to serve him and provide him with heirs. Howbeit, the traditional marriage of today is not the traditional marriage of two thousand years ago. Women are not property; divorce is more of a norm than staying together until death do us part. Marriage has evolved into something completely different than what it was 2000 years ago. Serial Marriage is more of the norm when it comes to marriage.
And yes, from what I understand SoulForce is peacefully advocating the right to marry for all despite sexual orientation. Any rights that are denied individuals due to skin color, religion, gender or sexual orientation while another group has those rights is the true definition of special rights. Why is it so hard to see who it is that really has the special rights in this country?
This country began with educated white men who were propery owners having all the special rights...we have evolved and we aren't done yet!

Bill

[pnggrad79]

I hope we aren't done yet. I am of the opinion that we repeat our mistakes here in the US because we haven't learned a damn thing from the past.

We pay lip service to freedom in this country and the Constitution seems to be more of a suggestion than the letter of the law, because we conveniently sidestep many civil liberties and deny basic freedoms to our citizens based on our sexual orientation.

[Gennee]

There is a difference between tradition and traditionalism. Traditions are generally time honored events usually a part of the family, church, etc. Traditionalism makes events, rituals, or whatever as hard and fast rules or requirements-something that goes against scripture. An example would be when the Pharisee's chastising the apostles for not going through ritual of washing hands before a meal.

Jesus was persecuted because he often went against traditionalism. One example is talking with the Samaritan woman. Jews and Samaritans were enemies because of the mixed heritage of the Samaritans among other things (a topic for another discussion). Healing on the Sabbath was another. Jesus often went against tradition and traditonalism because there was the greater need of ministering to people.

I believe there have been many lost opportunities for God to do a mighty work in many churches because tradition and traditionalism took precedence.
I believe that the LGBT community may be a part of His plan to awaken the church about some errors regarding how people are treated.

I do believe in the bible's inerrancy after much study and prayer. If ten people were asked the same question You would get ten different answers.
After over thirty years of reading, study and prayer, there are things in scripture that still do not comprehend but that's okay. I don't know everything and neither does anybody else. The important thing is to do His will and use His instructional (the bible) on how to conduct ourselves.

Gennee

:)

[antonyh]

I've read this thread and it is full of interesting perspectives. I am left wondering why we can't just say:

The Bible is a human response to God. Period.

As a human response to God, the Bible itself is full of all the goodness and all the corruption characteristic of the human race.

When I read Paul's strident denunciations of LGBT people in Romans 1, I can say, "Paul was wrong about the issue. I need to guard against the human tendency to judge things I don't understand. I need to realize that most of my opinions about things around me are uneducated..."

The gross errors and much of the horrific material in the Bible can instruct us about the very nature of the human response to God...and it's immense dangers. This may be a greater lesson than the many good things in the books.

The Bible is like a mirror. It is a simple reflection of the goodness and the ugliness of the human race blamed on God. To make it a divine book is madness.

[u-dog]

When I read Paul's strident denunciations of LGBT people in Romans 1, I can say, "Paul was wrong about the issue. "



Antony!

Paul is NOT STRIDENTLY DENOUNCING LGBT PEOPLE !! He is referencing some (we don't know what) unsavory practices carried on by gentiles in order to get the Jewish Christians shorts in a knot. In chapter two he uses their outrage at the nasty Gentiles to hang the self righteous soandsos.

Don't buy into the shoddy exegesis of the far right!!!

[tdogg]

I've read this thread and it is full of interesting perspectives. I am left wondering why we can't just say:

The Bible is a human response to God. Period.

As a human response to God, the Bible itself is full of all the goodness and all the corruption characteristic of the human race.

The gross errors and much of the horrific material in the Bible can instruct us about the very nature of the human response to God...and it's immense dangers. This may be a greater lesson than the many good things in the books.

The Bible is like a mirror. It is a simple reflection of the goodness and the ugliness of the human race blamed on God. To make it a divine book is madness.

Antony, funny, after reading Gennee's post, I got to thinking...It's not so much that the Bible is or isn't inerrant. It's the failure of people to be perfect in their translating and interpreting that which God supposedly gave to them to write down. Then I read your post!

The old experiment, where several people sit in a circle, one starts it off by whispering something in the next person's ear and so on, all around the circle. At the end, it's never what the original whispered words were. Somewhere between God's intent and man's interpretation of that intent, things went a bit haywire. Then throw in the ancient original scriptures, condition, time, culture, those who wrote, and pass it down along the centuries, with various people continuing to interpret and translate - it's a wonder we can salvage any use out of the words we have today.

That's why it can only work with prayer and meditation, in context of our time and culture.

[kara speltz]

I briefly scanned the replies, and just want it to be very clear that Mel does not believe in biblical inerrancy and the suggestion that he does is preposterous. Any one who has read his writings or heard him speak knows this allegation to be untrue. kara

[antonyh]

Antony!

Paul is NOT STRIDENTLY DENOUNCING LGBT PEOPLE !! He is referencing some (we don't know what) unsavory practices carried on by gentiles in order to get the Jewish Christians shorts in a knot. In chapter two he uses their outrage at the nasty Gentiles to hang the self righteous soandsos.

Don't buy into the shoddy exegesis of the far right!!!

If you read Thomas E. Schmidt who has a Ph.D. from Cambridge in New Testament, he in good conscience believes that Romans 1 condemns homosexuality. His exegesis is not shoddy at all. He even admits to his Evangelical presuppositions in the preface.

My point is simply that if you view the Bible as a human response to God, then you don't have to worry who is right or wrong in the exegetical debate. You recognize the true nature of the Bible...a fallible, human book reflective of the problems of the human race.

[antonyh]

Antony, funny, after reading Gennee's post, I got to thinking...It's not so much that the Bible is or isn't inerrant. It's the failure of people to be perfect in their translating and interpreting that which God supposedly gave to them to write down. Then I read your post!

The old experiment, where several people sit in a circle, one starts it off by whispering something in the next person's ear and so on, all around the circle. At the end, it's never what the original whispered words were. Somewhere between God's intent and man's interpretation of that intent, things went a bit haywire. Then throw in the ancient original scriptures, condition, time, culture, those who wrote, and pass it down along the centuries, with various people continuing to interpret and translate - it's a wonder we can salvage any use out of the words we have today.

That's why it can only work with prayer and meditation, in context of our time and culture.

I studied textual transmission in Seminary (& textual criticism) and I am fairly comfortable that we have good original language texts to work with (although that was not always the case). I am also comfortable with the translations. They don't get at the nuances of the original, but they are decent.

I totally agree with you about the problems of interpretation. We are marginal idiots when looking into the Biblical world and trying to figure out what the texts meant.

My assertion was deeper. I am saying that even if we had the autographs, they would still be a human response to God. The writers may delude themselves into thinking that they were writing on God's behalf, but they were not. That is my assertion.

[kara speltz]

My assertion was deeper. I am saying that even if we had the autographs, they would still be a human response to God. The writers may delude themselves into thinking that they were writing on God's behalf, but they were not. That is my assertion.

I surely agree. Can you imagine these guys who God is inspiring trying to comprehend the world we live in now with our cell phones and computers? There would be no way they could comprehend the word as it was expressed to them, because it would seemingly be impossible. Thus they would think they must have misunderstood and would keep trying out different scenarios that might make sense to them.

kara

[wmanion]

I also agree. The authors, with well intent I am sure, were still human and were struggling to understand the world around them and God. I have yet to meet anyone who is above making mistakes or misinterpreting events in our daily lives. We still do it today even with a greater knowledge of how the world works and there is still much that we do not know and understand. My long journey started in a foster home with a Baptist Minister at the age of 14, I knew I was gay before puberty ever landed, (though gay was not a known term to me until much later), I did everything to hide my sexual orientation, even to the extent of marriage and children, but it was not until I became true to myself that I actually became free and found a closer walk with God than I ever had.
The Scriptures are historical and contain much wisdom but without actually taking into account the mind set of the day, we will continue to misinterpret. There are many great writers today who are inspired, but not fallible...I wonder how people will interpret their works many years from now.

[Experiment with Truth]

The only alternative to Tradition is a poor tradition. When Christ prayed that we "may all be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in You", this prayer is not fulfilled by everyone worshiping differently and creating their own rituals. The many varied forms of ritual within actually divide us and does not make us One. There is not "Unity in Diversity". Diversity in worship is the by product of fierce self-directed and self-concerned individualism. And each of us pursuing our own Scriptural interpretation makes each of us a Pope unto ourselves! And what is evident is we seek the interpretation we like best. I for one am not willing to be so bold as to say I have the correct interpretation of Scripture. I must submit my will to Christ's Church.

This is why gay marriage rituals mean little to those outside their immediate community and mean nothing to the Church in which marriage is a Sacrament. Sacraments bind us with the Saints, past, present, and future. The Truth handed down to us does not change. The only change by the Holy Spirit is the change he brings in our lives to know the Truth. Otherwise what was revealed to the Saints in a prior age was not Truth, but only a small portion of the Truth.

The only alternative to this is to believe that God makes us all new and we, in the modern age, are much better than our forefathers because we are so much more wise and knowledgeable than they. But knowledge brings us nothing or very little in the Spiritual world, for the true faith can be held by a Child, as Christ said. In fact, knowledge and erudition can be a big hinderance and lead us away from the Truth.

To search the Scriptures through prayer and meditation is only good if it brings you to the One Truth. You could be praying and meditating on the wrong things! The Holy Spirity will lead one to the One. One person in here summarized this belief as, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." I prefer, "God revealed the Way." And "Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." This is much better than "God revealed something, but none of us truly understand nor those before us truly understood what he meant. So, what would you like to believe? Anything you want too?"

[simpleman]

You say that you never hurt any gay people. Then you say you believe homosexuality is wrong, meaning you believe we are wrong. Then you use terms that offend and hurt gay people (lifestyle). This hurts gay people EWT. So you have most likely hurt gay people in your life.


In case anybody was wondering, it's responses like this that make me not feel like sharing anything other than opinions on this board. If EWT had simply left out "I believe being gay is wrong". Everybody would have hailed him as an open-minded loving, giving, caring person. What a guy to have sought a real guru! But instead he gets the same response that anyone else who has that belief gets. "You are hurting gay people, you have hurt gay people, and if you don't be careful with your words, you will end up hurting more gay people".

Why can't that one difference be overlooked? My uncle is a thrice-divorced adulterer, but do I think my uncle is a "wrong" person? Of course not! I love my uncle, but he's made some mistakes. Do I love my uncle less? NO! Do my feelings hurt my uncle? Maybe. Should I decide that divorce and adultery are acceptable in order to keep from hurting my uncle's feelings? No.

[wmanion]

Colossians 2:8 Parallel Translations

NASB: See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (NASB ©1995)
GWT: Be careful not to let anyone rob you of this faith through a shallow and misleading philosophy. Such a person follows human traditions and the world's way of doing things rather than following Christ.(GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
ASV: Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:
BBE: Take care that no one takes you away by force, through man's wisdom and deceit, going after the beliefs of men and the theories of the world, and not after Christ:
DBY: See that there be no one who shall lead you away as a prey through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the teaching of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.
ERV: Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:
WEY: Take care lest there be some one who leads you away as prisoners by means of his philosophy and idle fancies, following human traditions and the world's crude notions instead of following Christ.
WBS: Beware lest any man make a prey of you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
WEB: Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.
YLT: See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

[u-dog]

In case anybody was wondering, it's responses like this that make me not feel like sharing anything other than opinions on this board. If EWT had simply left out "I believe being gay is wrong". Everybody would have hailed him as an open-minded loving, giving, caring person. What a guy to have sought a real guru! But instead he gets the same response that anyone else who has that belief gets. "You are hurting gay people, you have hurt gay people, and if you don't be careful with your words, you will end up hurting more gay people".

Why can't that one difference be overlooked? My uncle is a thrice-divorced adulterer, but do I think my uncle is a "wrong" person? Of course not! I love my uncle, but he's made some mistakes. Do I love my uncle less? NO! Do my feelings hurt my uncle? Maybe. Should I decide that divorce and adultery are acceptable in order to keep from hurting my uncle's feelings? No.


OK Simpleman.. we get it. THIS is the reason you don't want to share opinions (though it doesn't seem to stop you from DOING it.)

What is it that keeps you from LISTENING TO OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THEIR EXPERIENCE????

People tell you over and over and over and over but you don't get it. Is it because you don't WANT to get it for some reason?

Sigh...

Ok... Once more into the breach!


Your Uncle is a serial adulterer. by which you mean that he violates his marriage vows repeatedly. That is despicable Behavior

I am a gay man. THIS IS AN HONORABLE, MORAL, ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC of my BEING

To say that "being gay is wrong" is not the same as saying "committing adultery is wrong"

To say that "being gay is wrong" is EXACTLY the same as saying that "being Black, or Asian, or left handed is wrong" You CANNOT say that without disrespecting WHO I AM.

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. It is a matter of MY LIFE, MY EXISTENCE, MY ESSENTIAL NATURE AND IDENTITY.


In case you haven't paid attention: I am a gay man. I am married for 23.5 years to a woman. I am a father of 3 sons. I am a pillar of my community. I am a leader that others follow. I am faithful to my marriage vows. I pay my taxes. I mostly obey the speed liimit (give or take 8mph). I have been gay since BEFORE puberty. as a child I had HUGE crushes on other boys. As an adolescent I sexually desired other boys and had no real interest in girls, as a young adult I struggled, prayed, begged for healing, and considered suicide as ways to escape my gayness. I could no more escape my gayness than I could escape my shadow or take off my fingerprints. IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WHO I AM.

Stop comparing me to an adulterous uncle !!!!!

Stop comparing me to theives, liars, murderers and other criminals !!!!

Stop doing these things or GO AWAY !!!!

[u-dog]

If you read Thomas E. Schmidt who has a Ph.D. from Cambridge in New Testament, he in good conscience believes that Romans 1 condemns homosexuality. His exegesis is not shoddy at all. He even admits to his Evangelical presuppositions in the preface.

My point is simply that if you view the Bible as a human response to God, then you don't have to worry who is right or wrong in the exegetical debate. You recognize the true nature of the Bible...a fallible, human book reflective of the problems of the human race.

But I DON't believe that. It is partially that. but it is also a vehicle by which the Holy Spirit conveys the Word of God to us. So "writing it off" as merely a human response doesn't work.

I am not familiar with Dr. Schidt's work. I am familiar with Dr Robert Jewett's work on Romans (professor at Wheaton College or Garrett Seminary... or both).

He argues that Romans 1 is just a piece of a larger argument against idolatry of the Law on the part of the Jewish Christians in the Roman church. He begins this argument by raising up charges against gentile morality (not necessarily gentile christians, just the larger gentile culture of Rome) his intention is to get the jewish Christians riled up and agreeing that these are terrible things. We (in the 21st century) really don't KNOW what the terrible things were. only that they involved males with males and females with females. the Romans knew though and thats all that matters.

Paul then goes on to show how the REAL problem stems from Idolatry.

That is usually where conservatives stop reading. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt stops there too. I don't know. Jewett argues that the rhetorical structure of Paul's argument carries over into Chapter 2 where Paul suddenly whirls on the Jewish Christians (who presumably are cheering Paul on) and accuses them of the same sin (idolatry, not whatever nasty stuff the Gentile Romans are doing.) Only they are committing an idolatry of THE LAW.

The irony is that if contemporary conservative Christians REALLY read the WHOLE argument they would know that it is THEY that are the real target of Paul's brilliant and subtle rhetoric. It is they that are involved in the sin that Paul is identifying. It is THEY that are making a graven idle out of scripture.

[Zerbie]

In case anybody was wondering, it's responses like this that make me not feel like sharing anything other than opinions on this board. If EWT had simply left out "I believe being gay is wrong". Everybody would have hailed him as an open-minded loving, giving, caring person. What a guy to have sought a real guru! But instead he gets the same response that anyone else who has that belief gets. "You are hurting gay people, you have hurt gay people, and if you don't be careful with your words, you will end up hurting more gay people".

Why can't that one difference be overlooked? My uncle is a thrice-divorced adulterer, but do I think my uncle is a "wrong" person? Of course not! I love my uncle, but he's made some mistakes. Do I love my uncle less? NO! Do my feelings hurt my uncle? Maybe. Should I decide that divorce and adultery are acceptable in order to keep from hurting my uncle's feelings? No.

I believe Simple is not listening. But others may be, so I too will respond to this.

RE: the first paragraph, see U-dog's response above. See from U-dog's words that these statements DO hurt gay people. It hurts people to be told that their being is "wrong," whether you understand that it does or not. The hurt still happens. If we tell such things to a small child, the hurt is magnified to great harm.

We still seem not to "get" that gay people are not all adults. They are gay as children. I remember back to the 7th or 8th grade when one day, hugging an 11 year-old 6th grade friend after a performance, it suddenly hit me like lightning that the sweet, skinny little 11 year old in my arms was a gay child. That was when my understanding of homosexuality - and homophobia - turned on its head. When I knew that all the condemnation (and outright hatred) towards homosexuals was aimed at someone's innocent little boy.

It cannot be overlooked because that belief teaches our own children they are "abominable" just for being themselves, and prompts them to try to destroy themselvs (and some do).

[Zerbie]

OK Simpleman.. we get it. THIS is the reason you don't want to share opinions (though it doesn't seem to stop you from DOING it.)

What is it that keeps you from LISTENING TO OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THEIR EXPERIENCE????

People tell you over and over and over and over but you don't get it. Is it because you don't WANT to get it for some reason?

Sigh...

Ok... Once more into the breach!


Your Uncle is a serial adulterer. by which you mean that he violates his marriage vows repeatedly. That is despicable Behavior

I am a gay man. THIS IS AN HONORABLE, MORAL, ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC of my BEING

To say that "being gay is wrong" is not the same as saying "committing adultery is wrong"

To say that "being gay is wrong" is EXACTLY the same as saying that "being Black, or Asian, or left handed is wrong" You CANNOT say that without disrespecting WHO I AM.

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. It is a matter of MY LIFE, MY EXISTENCE, MY ESSENTIAL NATURE AND IDENTITY.


In case you haven't paid attention: I am a gay man. I am married for 23.5 years to a woman. I am a father of 3 sons. I am a pillar of my community. I am a leader that others follow. I am faithful to my marriage vows. I pay my taxes. I mostly obey the speed liimit (give or take 8mph). I have been gay since BEFORE puberty. as a child I had HUGE crushes on other boys. As an adolescent I sexually desired other boys and had no real interest in girls, as a young adult I struggled, prayed, begged for healing, and considered suicide as ways to escape my gayness. I could no more escape my gayness than I could escape my shadow or take off my fingerprints. IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WHO I AM.

Stop comparing me to an adulterous uncle !!!!!

Stop comparing me to theives, liars, murderers and other criminals !!!!

Stop doing these things or GO AWAY !!!!

Dave,

Bravo for your heartfelt and courageous words. :award:
It hurts like hell to know that some readers will dismiss or even scoff at them.

I'm standing right next to you seconding everything you've written above.
:mad::shield::pray::love::love::love:

[antonyh]

But I DON't believe that. It is partially that. but it is also a vehicle by which the Holy Spirit conveys the Word of God to us. So "writing it off" as merely a human response doesn't work.


I think that is where we probably differ. I think of the Bible as a human book. Borg also believes that the Bible is a human response to God. I guess that puts me at the outer fringe of Christian theology. I respect your views, I once held them, but I've changed.

[antonyh]

Dave,

Bravo for your heartfelt and courageous words. :award:
It hurts like hell to know that some readers will dismiss or even scoff at them.

I'm standing right next to you seconding everything you've written above.
:mad::shield::pray::love::love::love:

Dave,

I'm with Zerbie and you on this. I've been told that being gay is a problem like alcoholism and I find it deeply insulting. So thank you for saying what you said.

Antony

[antonyh]

The only alternative to this is to believe that God makes us all new and we, in the modern age, are much better than our forefathers because we are so much more wise and knowledgeable than they. But knowledge brings us nothing or very little in the Spiritual world, for the true faith can be held by a Child, as Christ said. In fact, knowledge and erudition can be a big hinderance and lead us away from the Truth.

We are smarter in the modern age. We're children of the Enlightenment. A whole new approach to knowledge has dawned. Now we study nature on it's own terms, not through the lens of a human book and the authority of the Pope.

[Steven E. Webster]

We are smarter in the modern age. We're children of the Enlightenment. A whole new approach to knowledge has dawned. Now we study nature on it's own terms, not through the lens of a human book and the authority of the Pope.

While I sympathize with your viewpoint, there are a couple of problems:

1) There were "smart people" before the Enlightenment. Some of them got burned at the stake, probably. There's even some "enlightened thought" found in the Scriptures, even from Paul.

2) The Enlightenment is in some trouble. For instance, we have an anti-science, anti-enlightenment crowd in power in the White House right now, some of whom are "pretty smart." If they had their way, the Enlightenment would be relegated to the past, and "faith-based" "science", law and government would be the "smart new thing." Regent University Law School is planning to turn out the "smart" people who are going to try to bury the Enlightenment. Intellectuals speak of a "post-modern" age that will succede the "modern" age of Enlightenment--what that age will look like is a matter of dispute.

You are right, Antony, that because some viewpoint is held by "tradition" is no real argument. It is an "argument from authority," which is no real argument. That tradition and some scripture hold that men should be the "head" of their households and women, children and slaves should be subordinate is no justification whatsovever for women's subordination and slavery.

The "place" of LGBT people is very much tied into the "tradition" of patriarchy and its related gender roles. That is why we see all these issues: women, slaves and LGBT people becoming issues as the Enlightenment struggles with Tradition.

But that is not to say that modern people are "smart" and ancient people "dumb," nor that the Enlightenment couldn't be replaced by another worldview that is hostile to the Enlightenment. Some would argue that the Islamic world rejected the Enlightenment and ancient scientific knowledge passed from the Islamic world to go on to "enlighten" the West. What the Islamic world needs is another dose of the enlightenment, and that is happening in some quarters.

Maybe in the future the U.S. will reject the Enlightenment and it will pass on to Europe or China. The U.S. empire will decline and will be replaced by Europe or China as the "most advanced" world power.

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

While I sympathize with your viewpoint, there are a couple of problems:

1) There were "smart people" before the Enlightenment. Some of them got burned at the stake, probably. There's even some "enlightened thought" found in the Scriptures, even from Paul.

2) The Enlightenment is in some trouble. For instance, we have an anti-science, anti-enlightenment crowd in power in the White House right now, some of whom are "pretty smart." If they had their way, the Enlightenment would be relegated to the past, and "faith-based" "science", law and government would be the "smart new thing." Regent University Law School is planning to turn out the "smart" people who are going to try to bury the Enlightenment. Intellectuals speak of a "post-modern" age that will succede the "modern" age of Enlightenment--what that age will look like is a matter of dispute.

You are right, Antony, that because some viewpoint is held by "tradition" is no real argument. It is an "argument from authority," which is no real argument. That tradition and some scripture hold that men should be the "head" of their households and women, children and slaves should be subordinate is no justification whatsovever for women's subordination and slavery.

The "place" of LGBT people is very much tied into the "tradition" of patriarchy and its related gender roles. That is why we see all these issues: women, slaves and LGBT people becoming issues as the Enlightenment struggles with Tradition.

But that is not to say that modern people are "smart" and ancient people "dumb," nor that the Enlightenment couldn't be replaced by another worldview that is hostile to the Enlightenment. Some would argue that the Islamic world rejected the Enlightenment and ancient scientific knowledge passed from the Islamic world to go on to "enlighten" the West. What the Islamic world needs is another dose of the enlightenment, and that is happening in some quarters.

Maybe in the future the U.S. will reject the Enlightenment and it will pass on to Europe or China. The U.S. empire will decline and will be replaced by Europe or China as the "most advanced" world power.

Steven Webster

I find myself agreeing with all you say. I'm simply saying that the Enlightenment taught us to study nature on it's own terms instead of explaining the world deductively through classical texts (i.e. divine, authoritative revelation). By "smart" I simply meant that we have these new insights to work with.

And you're right, these new insights are under aggressive attack throughout the world.

My Episcopalian priest used to tell us that revelation is ongoing and I like to believe that the Enlightenment was from God.

[Steven E. Webster]

I find myself agreeing with all you say. I'm simply saying that the Enlightenment taught us to study nature on it's own terms instead of explaining the world deductively through classical texts (i.e. divine, authoritative revelation). By "smart" I simply meant that we have these new insights to work with.

And you're right, these new insights are under aggressive attack throughout the world.

My Episcopalian priest used to tell us that revelation is ongoing and I like to believe that the Enlightenment was from God.

Antony,

You probably know that Anglican Tradition (the "T" word again!) developed during the Age of Enlightenment and does theology by reference to three criteria: Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Reason is the part that I believe the Enlightenment added.

In my own Methodist tradition we added Experience to Scripture, Tradition and Reason--also an Enlightenment element. But, as I say, there are smart people who want to reject the Enlightenment and embrace authority rather than reason or experience. I think it's a dangerous movement.

God's revelation does continue in the everyday developments of reason and experience, otherwise we'd be worshipping a very dead God indeed.

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

In case anybody was wondering, it's responses like this that make me not feel like sharing anything other than opinions on this board. If EWT had simply left out "I believe being gay is wrong". Everybody would have hailed him as an open-minded loving, giving, caring person. What a guy to have sought a real guru! But instead he gets the same response that anyone else who has that belief gets. "You are hurting gay people, you have hurt gay people, and if you don't be careful with your words, you will end up hurting more gay people".

Why can't that one difference be overlooked? My uncle is a thrice-divorced adulterer, but do I think my uncle is a "wrong" person? Of course not! I love my uncle, but he's made some mistakes. Do I love my uncle less? NO! Do my feelings hurt my uncle? Maybe. Should I decide that divorce and adultery are acceptable in order to keep from hurting my uncle's feelings? No.

So, now that you know more about us, what words hurt us, what makes us feel disrespected...is it too much to ask that you word your posts accordingly? If something you are saying hurts another person, what problem would it be for you to adjust how you say something?

Stop with the 'lifestyle' bit. We have explained to you how it's NOT a lifestyle. Why would you want to continue to use this word when you KNOW it's disrespectful and hurtful? Why can't you figure it out, after being told time and again, it's HOW WE ARE BORN, WHO WE ARE. Not a decision we make cause we think it's cool or something.

We've explained how disrespectful, ignorant and hurtful it is when you categorize our being gay with crimes and wrong-doing. So, why do you continue to do this? Why would you explain about your uncle's adultery in the same breath you discuss 'gay'? We've told you how we feel about that, so the logical and respectful thing to do is to NOT do that.

[Zerbie]

So, now that you know more about us, what words hurt us, what makes us feel disrespected...is it too much to ask that you word your posts accordingly? If something you are saying hurts another person, what problem would it be for you to adjust how you say something?

Stop with the 'lifestyle' bit. We have explained to you how it's NOT a lifestyle. Why would you want to continue to use this word when you KNOW it's disrespectful and hurtful? Why can't you figure it out, after being told time and again, it's HOW WE ARE BORN, WHO WE ARE. Not a decision we make cause we think it's cool or something.

We've explained how disrespectful, ignorant and hurtful it is when you categorize our being gay with crimes and wrong-doing. So, why do you continue to do this? Why would you explain about your uncle's adultery in the same breath you discuss 'gay'? We've told you how we feel about that, so the logical and respectful thing to do is to NOT do that.

:agree:

Brava, Tdogg!

:award:

An excellent union of passion and logic! :applause:

I thank you so much for saying so, because Simple's words all come along with an undercurrent of contempt for gay people, even though he does not express any directly in posts. Nevertheless, they communicate contempt and disregard.

Thanks for setting things straight, T. ;) :love::love::love::love:

[antonyh]

Antony,

You probably know that Anglican Tradition (the "T" word again!) developed during the Age of Enlightenment and does theology by reference to three criteria: Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Reason is the part that I believe the Enlightenment added.

In my own Methodist tradition we added Experience to Scripture, Tradition and Reason--also an Enlightenment element. But, as I say, there are smart people who want to reject the Enlightenment and embrace authority rather than reason or experience. I think it's a dangerous movement.

God's revelation does continue in the everyday developments of reason and experience, otherwise we'd be worshipping a very dead God indeed.

Steven Webster

I guess I've become uncomfortable adding Scripture and Tradition to the conversation. The Bible has plenty of great things to say, but so does Shakespeare.

[Steven E. Webster]

I guess I've become uncomfortable adding Scripture and Tradition to the conversation. The Bible has plenty of great things to say, but so does Shakespeare.

Antony,
You are right, we ought to be uncomfortable adding Scripture and Tradition to the conversation. That is what the "hermeneutic of suspicion" is about that has been discussed elsewhere here. We need to be suspicious--good old Enlightenment skepticism. The traditional interpreters of scripture have had their biases and they've used the "argument from authority" to the disadvantage of those marginalized in society.

There is also a "hermeneutic of recovery" that empowers women, LGBT people and other disfavored minorities to find the alternative and suppressed voices in Scripture and Tradition. That involves bringing reason and the minority experience to bear on Scripture and Tradition.

The fault is not entirely with scripture and tradition, but with those who hold the positions of the "authoritative interpreters of scripture." The New Interpreter's Bible by Abingdon Press of the United Methodist publishing house, a study bible with extensive notes and commentary, has the commentary on the Gospel of Mark by the lesbian-feminist Southern Baptist New Testament scholar Mary A. Tolbert (see link here http://clgs.org/2/2_3_1.html)

Scripture and Tradition are no longer the sole property of the homophobes! They just haven't got use to it yet!

Steven Webster

[simpleman]

OK Simpleman.. we get it. THIS is the reason you don't want to share opinions (though it doesn't seem to stop you from DOING it.)


I said that this was why I didn't want to share anything other than opinions. (i.e. life story, personal experiences, etc.) Because it seems that the response to EWT's personal story (which was very open and honest, btw) was diluted by the fact that his journey has led him to believe that being gay is wrong.


What is it that keeps you from LISTENING TO OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THEIR EXPERIENCE????

I do listen to these things. Why does this mean I automatically must change my religious beliefs?

Your Uncle is a serial adulterer. by which you mean that he violates his marriage vows repeatedly. That is despicable Behavior


I am a gay man. THIS IS AN HONORABLE, MORAL, ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC of my BEING

So I suppose that my uncle is not characteristically unfaithful, only despicable? I'm overweight, so that means that it isn't my fault, but rather that I am honorably, morally, essentially, and characteristically predisposed to eating food, and so I should embrace that, and continue to be overweight? I don't know, it all depends on one's personal beliefs. If you believe that eating too much, or adultery, or homosexuality is innate to a person, then none of these things are wrong. Your belief that homosexuality is innate, and a part of you, should not keep you from being able to speak on important issues, or be homosexual, or get married, or work, or be in the military, so my belief that homosexuality is wrong shouldn't keep me from discussing issues, either.


To say that "being gay is wrong" is not the same as saying "committing adultery is wrong"

To say that "being gay is wrong" is EXACTLY the same as saying that "being Black, or Asian, or left handed is wrong" You CANNOT say that without disrespecting WHO I AM.
Only if you believe that being gay is not wrong. You are entitled to your belief, and I respect you and your belief. I disagree with you. Maybe we agree on something else? We will never know, because no one will listen to me unless I change my beliefs about being gay.


IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. It is a matter of MY LIFE, MY EXISTENCE, MY ESSENTIAL NATURE AND IDENTITY.
In case you haven't paid attention: I am a gay man. I am married for 23.5 years to a woman. I am a father of 3 sons. I am a pillar of my community. I am a leader that others follow. I am faithful to my marriage vows. I pay my taxes. I mostly obey the speed liimit (give or take 8mph). I have been gay since BEFORE puberty. as a child I had HUGE crushes on other boys. As an adolescent I sexually desired other boys and had no real interest in girls, as a young adult I struggled, prayed, begged for healing, and considered suicide as ways to escape my gayness. I could no more escape my gayness than I could escape my shadow or take off my fingerprints. IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WHO I AM.

I have paid attention. You also sat down with your children recently to tell them that you are gay. I have the utmost respect for your leadership skills. I respect your role in your community. I'm glad that you feel a duty and commitment to the people in your family and in your community. I don't consider your homosexuality to have anything to do with these things. I also wouldn't want you to be removed from any position you might hold. You sound like a great fellow. Does this mean that you will change my religious beliefs? Doubtful. Will I listen to you? Yes, because you have proven to be a person that I would discuss various issues with. I wish you would do the same with me, regardless of my beliefs. Or must I simply change my beliefs? Is that what it will take?


Stop comparing me to an adulterous uncle !!!!!

Stop comparing me to theives, liars, murderers and other criminals !!!!

Stop doing these things or GO AWAY !!!!

I'll try. But they aren't meant to be offensive (but they are, I'm sorry, I just like to be honest to people about myself and my beliefs). Can you bear with me? Or will you just continue to call me a jerk?

[antonyh]

Scripture and Tradition are no longer the sole property of the homophobes! They just haven't got use to it yet!


That statement alone could get me reading the Bible again.

[antonyh]

Only if you believe that being gay is not wrong. You are entitled to your belief, and I respect you and your belief. I disagree with you.


So why do you believe being gay is wrong?

[u-dog]

Simpleman,

Here are your words next to the guidelines to which you agreed to adhere when you joined the forums.

Only if you believe that being gay is not wrong. You are entitled to your belief, and I respect you and your belief. I disagree with you.

Anti-Gay comments
We welcome people who are on the journey to understanding and accepting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. However obvious anti-gay comments will not be allowed in the public forums. Such comments are not merely opinions, but rather a way to demean and oppress GLBT people. Any posts deemed by the Soulforce staff to be anti-gay will be removed. First time offenders will always receive a warning via private message. Repeat offenders will lose both their right to post messages on any of the Soulforce Public Forums and also their right to send private messages to other members.


You believe that it is immoral for me to exist. I believe that the opinions that you hold are immoral. Since I am unable to be other than I am and you are unwilling to abandon your immoral and blasphemous opinions... I don't think that there really is anything further that we need to say to each other.

[tpdncr4christ]

I'm sure you aren't necessarily going to read this, but what if I told you I believe being homosexuality is a sin? What if I told you that every breath that passes into my lungs is an abomination to God. I feel, every time I see a guy, a warmth in my heart, and as soon as I can comprehend it, it turns to a piercing fire of hatred and pain. Homosexuality is a sin. It is a horrible sin, and I do not feel that I am clean enough to even eat the dirt that Christ brushed past. I am devalued as a person because of my sin. I loose so much, I am without many privileges, so much so that I cannot marry someone, and I willingly embrace my place. I can't even love someone properly. All I can possibly feel is lust towards another man, I will never understand love the way you do. I will never be able to see children of my creation go out into the world. I hate God for it. I pray every day to be changed, I pray every day to see a girl and love her. I wish for an erection at a cute girl and vomit when I see a cute boy. I consider my life an insult to God. I consider every breath I breathe, every ounce of blood I pump is an abomination.

You know that feeling, when someone kicks you in the nuts? That deep pain in your gut? I get that, every time I hear someone say being gay is a sin. I will not call you a jerk for presenting that ideal not knowing it hurts, but to continue to do so, well knowing the pain you are inflicting, that makes you a jerk.

I cannot pray the Gay away
And to the fire's that come my way
If the Lord on High, to Hell sends me
Then gladly, I'll go, knowing I AM ME

:pray:

[tpdncr4christ]

PS. It's the weirdest thing. Funny almost... but not quite. It's kinda like sitting in front of two televisions. Neither one is listening to you, but they're both preaching. And when you listen to one the other shouts louder and says, "YOU AREN'T PRAYING HARD ENOUGH!" I believe both televisions... ?

I wrote this to prove a point. And it made my heart sad. Being me (erections when boys walk by and all) makes my heart happy. I'd rather make my heart happy.

All this above, is to prove a point. Show you what the televisions are yelling at me.

[Emproph]

The only alternative to Tradition is a poor tradition. When Christ prayed that we "may all be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in You", this prayer is not fulfilled by everyone worshiping differently and creating their own rituals. The many varied forms of ritual within actually divide us and does not make us One. There is not "Unity in Diversity". Diversity in worship is the by product of fierce self-directed and self-concerned individualism. And each of us pursuing our own Scriptural interpretation makes each of us a Pope unto ourselves! And what is evident is we seek the interpretation we like best. I for one am not willing to be so bold as to say I have the correct interpretation of Scripture. I must submit my will to Christ's Church.

This is why gay marriage rituals mean little to those outside their immediate community and mean nothing to the Church in which marriage is a Sacrament. Sacraments bind us with the Saints, past, present, and future. The Truth handed down to us does not change. The only change by the Holy Spirit is the change he brings in our lives to know the Truth. Otherwise what was revealed to the Saints in a prior age was not Truth, but only a small portion of the Truth.

The only alternative to this is to believe that God makes us all new and we, in the modern age, are much better than our forefathers because we are so much more wise and knowledgeable than they. But knowledge brings us nothing or very little in the Spiritual world, for the true faith can be held by a Child, as Christ said. In fact, knowledge and erudition can be a big hinderance and lead us away from the Truth.

To search the Scriptures through prayer and meditation is only good if it brings you to the One Truth. You could be praying and meditating on the wrong things! The Holy Spirity will lead one to the One. One person in here summarized this belief as, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." I prefer, "God revealed the Way." And "Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." This is much better than "God revealed something, but none of us truly understand nor those before us truly understood what he meant. So, what would you like to believe? Anything you want too?"


Idolatry is the #1 sin in both the Old Testament AND the New Testament.

The FIRST commandment, Exodus 20:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&version=31):"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Then in the New Testament, God as Jesus, says it like this: Matthew 22:36-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40;&version=31;):"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.Notice the sentences after that:And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."It makes perfect sense if God is literally unconditional love. If one's first love IS Love, then we automatically "love God," and would automatically love other's as ourself - thus, the second New Testament commandment "is like" the first.

Idolatry then is believing in one's own ability to define God as less than ONLY Love - through a book perhaps (the Bible, et al) or "Christ's Church," etc. To claim such an ability is the definition of pride (http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/pride.html), because it is the "worship" of one's own ego -- the antithesis of unconditional love, and certainly not something a God of infinite Love had to come down here to teach us.

Whom, if not for tradition, would you suggest be the one to decide what "Christ's Church" is, if not yourself?

It's my understanding that the only "interpretation" as to whether something is of God or not, is whether and to what extent it is of Love (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204;&version=9;) or not.

What part of "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" don't you think we understand?

Or do you not think that God IS Love?

[Emproph]

Your Uncle is a serial adulterer. by which you mean that he violates his marriage vows repeatedly. That is despicable Behavior

I am a gay man. THIS IS AN HONORABLE, MORAL, ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC of my BEINGSo I suppose that my uncle is not characteristically unfaithful, only despicable? I'm overweight, so that means that it isn't my fault, but rather that I am honorably, morally, essentially, and characteristically predisposed to eating food, and so I should embrace that, and continue to be overweight? I don't know, it all depends on one's personal beliefs.

If you believe that eating too much, or adultery, or homosexuality is innate to a person, then none of these things are wrong. Your belief that homosexuality is innate, and a part of you, should not keep you from being able to speak on important issues, or be homosexual, or get married, or work, or be in the military, so my belief that homosexuality is wrong shouldn't keep me from discussing issues, either.

u-dog makes it a point to distinguish between being and behavior, and you take the opportunity to conflate the two, and then complain that we are unfairly rejecting you personally because of your beliefs.

We do take issue with your beliefs, but it's because they don't make sense.

If you believe that being and behavior are exactly the same thing, then believing that it's a sin to hit someone with a rock would be the same as believing that a rock is a sin -- any rock. One is a behavior, one is being.

If you believe that something like a rock, that simply exists, can be a sin, and you're more concerned with this than the person who picks up the rock to hurt someone else....

To compare homosexuality with adultery is to compare the desire for a partner with the desire to CHEAT on that partner.

Do you honestly not see how this could be taken as offensive, and how scandalously illogical it is?

[u-dog]

Idolatry is the #1 sin in both the Old Testament AND the New Testament.

The FIRST commandment, Exodus 20:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&version=31):"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Then in the New Testament, God as Jesus, says it like this: Matthew 22:36-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40;&version=31;):"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.Notice the sentences after that:And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."It makes perfect sense if God is literally unconditional love. If one's first love IS Love, then we automatically "love God," and would automatically love other's as ourself - thus, the second New Testament commandment "is like" the first.

Idolatry then is believing in one's own ability to define God as less than ONLY Love - through a book perhaps (the Bible, et al) or "Christ's Church," etc. To claim such an ability is the definition of pride (http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/pride.html), because it is the "worship" of one's own ego -- the antithesis of unconditional love, and certainly not something a God of infinite Love had to come down here to teach us.

Whom, if not for tradition, would you suggest be the one to decide what "Christ's Church" is, if not yourself?

It's my understanding that the only "interpretation" as to whether something is of God or not, is whether and to what extent it is of Love (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204;&version=9;) or not.

What part of "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" don't you think we understand?

Or do you not think that God IS Love?



Patrick, I am in awe of you! you are smart, creative, insightful, incisive and... very very :cool:

[andrewlittle]

The only alternative to Tradition is a poor tradition.
The only way to make sense of this is to edit it to say, "The only alternative to the tradition that I hold as the one and only right tradition ia a poor tradition." You have made an idol of the, as yet, unidentified tradition to which you hold. In this tradition, where is the room for scripture and the revelation of God - or is that just people who hold to your particular indescribable tradition have experienced God's revelation?

When Christ prayed that we "may all be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in You", this prayer is not fulfilled by everyone worshiping differently and creating their own rituals. The many varied forms of ritual within actually divide us and does not make us One. There is not "Unity in Diversity". Diversity in worship is the by product of fierce self-directed and self-concerned individualism. And each of us pursuing our own Scriptural interpretation makes each of us a Pope unto ourselves! And what is evident is we seek the interpretation we like best. I for one am not willing to be so bold as to say I have the correct interpretation of Scripture. I must submit my will to Christ's Church.
Your tradition evidently allows for using snippets of scripture (in this case from John 17) totally out of context and in regard to subjects that it has nothing to do with. That tradition, then, must view scripture as simply a tool to be used to justify its own idolatry - words to be manipulated for its own end.
By your definition, Christianity has never been "one". There have been different worshipping, liturgical and ritual traditions from the very beginning as evidenced by the Gospels themselves. Unity is a concept that has no purpose whatsoever without diversity. Ephesians is a book dealing with the nature of unity while encompassing the diversity. "Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him." Eph 3:8-12

What you want is uniformity - having people conform to your own concepts and traditions as if they were the only right ones. You idolize your own imagination and belief structure, and expect othere to do the same. While you may not be so bold as to claim you have the only right interpretation of scripture, you do claim to have the only right tradition - and you are willing to subjugate scripture to that tradition as if it were yours alone to manipulate and distort.

This is why gay marriage rituals mean little to those outside their immediate community and mean nothing to the Church in which marriage is a Sacrament. (I thought you said you weren't Catholic - "You know something U-Dog. I really like you. You are great. I will give you 10 points for the super conservative thing. But I am not Catholic. Latin Mass (-5 points)" http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=33730&postcount=21) Sacraments bind us with the Saints, past, present, and future. The Truth handed down to us does not change. The only change by the Holy Spirit is the change he brings in our lives to know the Truth. Otherwise what was revealed to the Saints in a prior age was not Truth, but only a small portion of the Truth.
While Truth may not change, the way we understand Truth, and grasp its meaning with our limited concepts, does. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. You have decided that the truth to which you hold is the one truth and that it is the Truth ordained by God. Your are idolizing your ow concept of truth. We can never know God's Truth fully, as we can never know the "mind" of God, and to assume that we do is arrogance run amok.

The only alternative to this is to believe that God makes us all new and we, in the modern age, are much better than our forefathers because we are so much more wise and knowledgeable than they. But knowledge brings us nothing or very little in the Spiritual world, for the true faith can be held by a Child, as Christ said. In fact, knowledge and erudition can be a big hinderance and lead us away from the Truth.
God has continued to reveal God's self - God is not dead or monolithic as you would like God to be. God has continued to engage with the world, and so the world's concept and understanding of God has continued to evolve.

To search the Scriptures through prayer and meditation is only good if it brings you to the One Truth. (Your truth?) You could be praying and meditating on the wrong things! The Holy Spirity will lead one to the One. One person in here summarized this belief as, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." I prefer, "God revealed the Way." (But only to you and those who believe as you do?) And "Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." (And the continued work of the Holy Spirit?) This is much better than "God revealed something, but none of us truly understand nor those before us truly understood what he meant. So, what would you like to believe? Anything you want too?"

So you truly understand what God revealed and the rest of us are misguided at best, driven by the devil at worst. Is that it? You are an idolator, and are evidently quite happy being such. Good for you. When God retires and makes you God, I will be happy to concede to your will and word. Thankfully, that will never happen.

[keltic63]

This is why gay marriage rituals mean little to those outside their immediate community and mean nothing to the Church in which marriage is a Sacrament. Sacraments bind us with the Saints, past, present, and future. The Truth handed down to us does not change. The only change by the Holy Spirit is the change he brings in our lives to know the Truth. Otherwise what was revealed to the Saints in a prior age was not Truth, but only a small portion of the Truth.




What an unneccesary swipe at the committed and loving same-sex couples who have been able to go to states and countries where LEGAL marriage is available to them. I cannot believe how incredibly crass and rude this statement is; it is offensive to the many LEGALLY MARRIED same-sex couples in this forum! How heartless of you to demean and belittle the marriages and relationships of lgbt couples.

HERE IS YOUR WARNING! One more guideline violation, and you will no longer be part of this cyber-community.

[Progo35]

Okay, I could go on all day about this; I love these conversations. Here I go:

I'd say that my "tradition" began when my parents focused on the Two Greatest Commandments. I learned that it was extremely important to love God and others and I really took this to heart. I put a lot of energy into doing that, which actually is probably why I was an easy target for being harassed: I didn't WANT to be mean back. It just wasn't who I was. Unfortunately, I haven't found reference to compassion as a specific "spiritual gift" in the Bible, but I think that's a major spiritual gift of mine that God gave me. In following this "tradition," I had a very close relationship of God that was sustaining and relatively unfettered by denominational constraints.

I was raised in the Episcopalian tradition, and attended a BEATIFUL church that was hundreds of years old, with gorgeous stained glass windows. Those pictures always meant a lot to me as a symbol of marriage between God's glory and man's ability: God touching us through art. And, we did a lot of older prayers, and hymms. I was confirmed at fourteeen and felt that this was a major step in my life.

I also enjoyed more contemporary worship. I liked the Christian contemporary songs because I felt that they were an up-to-date, fun way to integrate the preferences of other teenagers my age and the faith that was familiar to me. I didn't generally like some of the mainstream pop songs because they seemed to be talking about sex, which I sensed was a private thing: ie, I didn't want to imagine what the singer was doing with his or her girlfriend/spouse. Now, please remember, I was quite young then, between 7 and 10. Anyway, that's why I liked that.


In terms of the broader "Christian tradition," my response would be that I don't think that believing in the Bible's inerrancy inhibits social activism or sensitivity. It is not wrong to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. As I've said in other posts, the Bible is NOT a logical document, nor is Christian theology fact. That is what makes faith faith.

But, in terms of traditional pit falls, one of the major things I see is people reading the "oppressive sounding" passages while ignoring each instruction's counterpart. For instance, the the NT says, "wives, submit unto your husbands as unto the Lord. Husbands: as the spritual head of your household, you must love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Generally, "Church" with a capital C refers to all Christians. Christ loved his Church so much that he DIED for us. This sentence really clarifies the previous sentence. From my reading of this passage, I understand "submission" to refer to the wife giving up her own desires in order to care for her husband. But, if the husband if going to love his wife LIKE CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH, then the husband is ALSO going to give up his desires to care for her. Thus, the Biblical description of this relationship was meant to be interpreted as being equal between husband and wife. In terms of calling the husband the "spiritual head," I belive, from talking NT and OT history at Gordon, that Paul was probably referring to the fact that in Biblical times, males generally took care of the financial wellfare of his family and also spoke for them. To me, the Bible doesn't indicate that this should be the case, but shows that God speaks to us all based on what we know/understand. The husband had major responsibilities for protecting the family, so Paul was referring to that. Nowadays, when I think of a guy being the "spiritual head" of the household, I tend to think of the male instinct to protect his family and comfort his wife and children in adversity. I think that Paul may have been apealing to that instinct.

But, finally, Christian tradition also indicates that women played a major role in the early church and may have carried Paul's letters back and forth, presided over church meetings, etc.

I think that when we look at tradition, we will see that much of the church's bad actions across history result not from the belief in Biblical inerrancy, but from ignoring companion passages that make seemingly out-dated commands much more applicable.

[Emproph]

Patrick, I am in awe of you! you are smart, creative, insightful, incisive and... very very :cool:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j107/chasmith25/awshucks.jpg


Edit: I'm going to go with the less is more version. However, if you'd like to see that image again, it resides here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/crescentfresh/Photo47.jpg).

[Daniel]

What an unneccesary swipe at the committed and loving same-sex couples who have been able to go to states and countries where LEGAL marriage is available to them. I cannot believe how incredibly crass and rude this statement is; it is offensive to the many LEGALLY MARRIED same-sex couples in this forum! How heartless of you to demean and belittle the marriages and relationships of lgbt couples.
.

I'm one of those people who is legally married.

The cowardly lion (Wizard of Oz) was looking for the heart he already had. I hope you find yours Mr. Experiment with Truth.

[Experiment with Truth]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

This is why gay marriage rituals mean little to those outside their immediate community and mean nothing to the Church in which marriage is a Sacrament.

Originally Posted by Keltic63

What an unneccesary swipe at the committed and loving same-sex couples who have been able to go to states and countries where LEGAL marriage is available to them. I cannot believe how incredibly crass and rude this statement is; it is offensive to the many LEGALLY MARRIED same-sex couples in this forum! How heartless of you to demean and belittle the marriages and relationships of lgbt couples.

And with that final comment by Keltic 63, I rest my case. Notice how he emphasizes and uses the word LEGAL. That emphasizes marriage based upon the whims of political change, not the Church. And that is exactly what I was trying to say, because the Church does not value LEGAL matters when they violate God's Commandments. To me the marriage certificate of the State means very little. It was the Sacrament of the Church that mattered.

I would much rather have someone say about the Church that "I don't believe in that non-sense" and be forthright about it. In fact one of my best friends is that way. But I do not like people saying, "Well Christians have had it wrong all these years, so we got change 'em to give legitimacy to our movement." The latter is extremely deceptive. How many pastors take oaths to uphold the teachings of their denomination knowing in their hearts they disagree with those teachings and they will strive to change them? I can understand a person who rejects Christ, but for the life of me I cannot understand dishonesty and deception.

And don't bring up the argument about Christian's using the Bible to support slavery. Those Christians used the Bible to twist it's meaning to suit their purpose and ignored the teaching from the beginning that we are all created in the image of God. In the same way today, many Christians use in-depth Scriptural analysis to twist the meaning of passages and words to promote the gay agenda and ignore the teaching from beginning of the Scripture, to the Church's teaching to the present day that we are created male and female. In this way, Mel White's article about what the Scriptures Really Say About Homosexuality sounds like a sermon from the 1860's "Why God Thinks Slavery is Okay".

For those that are still searching for Christ in a new way, I can tell you he is present and worshipped in the same way as he has always been. Keep searching and you too will find the "Ancient Faith".

[Daniel]

And with that final comment by Keltic 63, I rest my case. Notice how he emphasizes and uses the word LEGAL. That emphasizes marriage based upon the whims of political change, not the Church. And that is exactly what I was trying to say, because the Church does not value LEGAL matters when they violate God's Commandments. To me the marriage certificate of the State means very little. It was the Sacrament of the Church that mattered.

Whim? There are quite a number of countries that have gay marriage- more than a whim I would say.

You mean YOU don't value gay marriage. Stop trying to say it is the 'church' because there are plenty of churches and clergy happy to marry gay people.

Perhaps you've been living under rock?

Guess you've never read Boswell. The first marriage-like ceremonies in the church were between members of the same sex.

Ain't that a kicker?

I guess you have some reading to do. You can do it after you've been banned.

[Dash]

I would much rather have someone say about the Church that "I don't believe in that non-sense" and be forthright about it. In fact one of my best friends is that way. But I do not like people saying, "Well Christians have had it wrong all these years, so we got change 'em to give legitimacy to our movement." The latter is extremely deceptive. How many pastors take oaths to uphold the teachings of their denomination knowing in their hearts they disagree with those teachings and they will strive to change them?

How do you feel about Martin Luther and the Reformation? He seemed to think the Church "had it wrong."

I can understand a person who rejects Christ, but for the life of me I cannot understand dishonesty and deception.

How 'bout your own? Does it give you the same squirmy feeling that I had reading your first posts in the "Hello" section?...

[As a side note...at the risk of being unkind...and in the category of absolute self-disclosure..."Experiment's" post activated my "spider sense" in the same way Simon's first post did. Something about it seemed disingenuous and inauthentic, portending much unpleasant and unproductive dialogue.]

Look, you came to us as a kind of "concern troll"...really...let's be honest about it. It's a very deceptive, duplicitous posture. If you wanted to say the things you said in your last post, this is not the forum for you. You've read the guidelines...you must have signed on "knowing in your heart you disagree with those teachings and you will strive to change them."

Hypocrisy is a terrible thing, but it is easily fixed. Repent! ;)

[wmanion]

[QUOTE=Experiment with Truth;34323]And with that final comment by Keltic 63, And don't bring up the argument about Christian's using the Bible to support slavery. Those Christians used the Bible to twist it's meaning to suit their purpose and ignored the teaching from the beginning that we are all created in the image of God. In the same way today, many Christians use in-depth Scriptural analysis to twist the meaning of passages and words to promote the gay agenda and ignore the teaching from beginning of the Scripture, to the Church's teaching to the present day that we are created male and female.

I have not heard anyone deny that God first created male and female. However, not being allowed to use what is written in the Bible as argument because you say they twisted the scripture, only proves one thing. The scripture can be twisted to meet the bias of any given time and any given society. Even after slavery was abolished, the Bible was used to promote the separation of the races. According to some they should never have been allowed to mix, go to the same public schools, etc. The late Rev. Jerry Fallwell was for segregation at the beginning of Civil Rights and did not want the segregation to end.
I grew up in an era where you did not even marry someone else of a different denomination. I was taught the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon spoke of in Revelation. And of course, scripture was used to justify these beliefs.
I can understand why you feel you do towards homosexuality. I hated myself for years for being a homosexual. I attended church on a regular basis, obeyed God, prayed for a healing, taught Sunday School, attended Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri, married, fathered three children, divorced (not because of my homosexuality) but because of her unfaithfulness, won custody of the children and raised them own my own with the youngest only being 14 months old at the time. My children are all straight and accepting.
It was not until I accepted who I am that I could even begin to reconcile my faith. I knew I was attracted to men before I even reached puberty; it was not something I chose.
The Bible even teaches us that sometimes we do not get the answers we want or the healing that we want because we pray amiss. When you pray for a healing that you do not need, you are praying amiss.
Back to the main point, telling us that we cannot use scripture to argue our point while you can to argue yours is hypocritical to say the least. I respect that you think we are wrong and you are entitled to that belief and we are entitled to ours. I posted this poem in my introduction but I am going to post it again because it says it all for me.
Dear God,

I have come to you today,
Because, well, you know, I am gay.
The world thinks that this is my choice,
So they refuse to hear my voice.

I have been told that you hate me,
Can this really be a possibility?
They say that I am damned to an eternal hell,
But if I act, as if I am not what I am, all will be well.

But God you know I have tried,
You know how many times I have cried.
You know that I have pleaded for a change,
That my life you would take and rearrange.

But no matter how hard I tried,
No matter how many tears I cried,
Everything inside of me has remained the same,
So I ask you now, who should I blame?

Do I blame the society who is unaware?
Do I blame the people who just do not care?
Do I blame those who sit by and shake their head?
Proclaiming that I would be better off dead.

We have become the lepers of today,
And everything that goes wrong is blamed on those who are gay.
However, I know that I am who I am today,
Because it was you, who made me this way.

I did not choose to purposely disobey,
I did not choose to turn away,
But I have chosen to be who I am,
Without shame and not living a sham.

I have chosen to embrace the gift of love,
For surely, this was the gift from above.
So God, now I ask you take me by the hand,
And help me make others understand.

Remove the blindfolds from their eyes,
Remove their shackles and disapproving cries,
Awaken in them the spirit of love so true,
And let them know that being gay…came from you.

Mac McClure August 28, 2005

[Jamie McDaniel]

Experiment with Truth has lost his posting privileges.

[tpdncr4christ]

Don't bring up the argument about Christian's using the Bible to support prejudice and discrimination. Those Christians use the Bible to twist it's meaning to suit their purpose and ignore the teaching from the beginning that we are all created in the image of God. Many Christians use in-depth Scriptural analysis to twist the meaning of passages and words to promote the Conservative Christian Agenda and ignore the teaching from beginning of the Scripture, to the Church's teaching to the present day that we are created in the image of god. In this way, Experiment with the Truth's responses about Mel White's what the Scriptures Really Say About Homosexuality sounds like a sermon from the 1860's "Why God Hates Slaves."

I really didn't have to change that much... :D

[Jennifer5]

Experiment with Truth, gone.

Simpleman, getting a lot of people very upset with him.

U-dog, being super-dog and being the first REALLYput the words out there.

Austin, as always, the one to put a real perspective on things and move you to tears.


And the all of you... wow....





carry on..

[u-dog]

The really sad part of EWT's position is that he is ABSOLUTELY committed to a "Tradition" that has NEVER EXISTED. The idea that there is an unchanging tradition of uunchangng beliefs to which we can appeal for authority is a fantasy.

No (capital T) Tradition is ever more than a generation or at most two generations old because reliable memory doesn't go back any further than that. beyond that history gets all mixed up with romantic notions of what it was like in "The good ole days".

For EWT to suggest that slavery was just a matter of a few people "forgetting the tradition" is nonsense. The Church was BORN in a world economy that was built on slavery and the (capital C) Church NEVER opposed it until its economic viability was already coming to an end.

Sigh.

[keltic63]

Experiment with Truth, gone.

Simpleman, getting a lot of people very upset with him.

U-dog, being super-dog and being the first REALLYput the words out there.

Austin, as always, the one to put a real perspective on things and move you to tears.


And the all of you... wow....





carry on..


pssst. simpleman is banned too, I just didn't announce it. :o

[BrentRichards]

For the record, and for perspective, I think we MAY (no bets) have been dealing with an Opus Dei type in EWT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei) ... an ultra-right Catholic group that makes most fundies look like pikers. Just my theory... here is a (decidely critical) take on OD: http://www.odan.org/

[Jennifer5]

The really sad part of EWT's position is that he is ABSOLUTELY committed to a "Tradition" that has NEVER EXISTED.
Yeah... that's a little weird... :rolleyes:

pssst. simpleman is banned too, I just didn't announce it. :o
That kinda makes sense. I could see that coming.

[Steven E. Webster]

For the record, and for perspective, I think we MAY (no bets) have been dealing with an Opus Dei type in EWT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei) ... an ultra-right Catholic group that makes most fundies look like pikers. Just my theory... here is a (decidely critical) take on OD: http://www.odan.org/

Well, I thought at one point EWT might have been a conservative or Opus Dei catholic. But decided that he is what he said he was "orthodox"--as in "Eastern Orthodox."

His initial argument was that disputes over interpretations of scripture arise from the Protestan belief in sola scriptura or "scripture alone." The standard Eastern Orthodox critique of Protestantism is that Protestants dispute over scripture when all the answers are really found in adhering to "Holy Tradition" including all the liturgy, sacraments and "traditional" and supposedly "unchanging" teachings. "Holy Tradition" is the only reliable interpreter of Scripture.

There has been quite a movement of Evangelical Protestants over into Eastern Orthodoxy---not really big---but big enough to have been commented on. EWT sounds like one of these former Evangelical Protestants who've adopted some brand or other of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, it sounds like EWT has simply switched from one form of Fundamentalism for another.

But, who knows, he could be Opus Dei too--there's a million Fundamentalisms out there to choose from.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Well, I thought at one point EWT might have been a conservative or Opus Dei catholic. But decided that he is what he said he was "orthodox"--as in "Eastern Orthodox."

I have a friend who belongs to both churches, that being the Orthodox Chrurch and the church that 'Dorothy' attends: he hasn't stopped being gay though he has chosen to live the lilfe of a monastic. And he isn't alone in that 'calling'. Many have done so.

The Eastern Orthodox Christians that I have known are more open than one would suppose, but maybe that is what the faith looks like here in my area (what does THAT say about 'tradition', huh?)

A group called Axios marches in the Gay Pride parade every year.

http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/axios.html

[Jennifer5]

It doesn't make sense to me...

I know a guy who's gay and a very active member of the Russian Orthodox Church... he's out to the pastor (or father, or whatever they call them, can't remember), and in the case of one of the 2 or 3 churches he attends in the area, one of the pastor's son's is gay and out to the church. Orthodox are much more open then many think... so I really don't understand where EWT was coming from.

[donalociardha]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on the Soulforce web site. I am a gay man, and an quasi-ex-Catholic of the Opus Dei mold. That is to say that I'm kind of on the fence as far as my faith commitment goes (or as I would have termed it in my younger years - my commitment to 'the' Faith (capital "F!")) :)

Reading the posts from EWT and simpleman brought into stark relief the issues I'm dealing with surrounding my sexuality and the Catholic religion.

The way I see it, the defining issue for me and for the question of Catholicism and homosexuality is whether homosexuality is an integral part of one's person and nature or not.

If you follow conservative Catholic voices on the subject of homosexuality, you will notice that many avoid using the term, "orientation" to describe homosexuality. Instead, they will most often use the word "inclination." The reason they avoid use of the term "orientation" is because orientation implies that one's homosexuality is an integral part of one's person, and they cannot reconcile their theology on sexuality with this idea. To them, everyone is truly heterosexual, whether they experience this fact subjectively or not. (In other words, homosexual people are not experiencing their true sexuality).

Please note that not every conservative Catholic necessarily takes this to mean that homosexuals can change their sexuality *in this lifetime*. (For example, read the writings of conservative Catholic and now-celibate lesbian Eve Tushnet - http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957)

Nevertheless, no conservative Catholic (that I have ever read) would posit that anyone has homosexual feelings in Heaven. It is expected that homosexuality, as an unnatural inclination (detachable from the individual experiencing that inclination) will not exist in Heaven. According to conservative Catholics, everyone in Heaven will be their authentic, heterosexual selves, and experience themselves as heterosexual.

For me personally as a homosexual, this means that if I accept Catholic teaching in this area as true, I will never experience my true sexuality in this lifetime unless I can undergo reparative therapy. If reparative therapy doesn't work (which it hasn't!), it means that I have to wait until death to experience my true sexuality, which of course is heterosexuality.

In the meantime, I should not come out as homosexual, entertain homosexual erotic thoughts (which would constitute a mortal sin if I'm not mistaken), but rather act as though I am a heterosexual until I pass from this life.

Of course, my subjective experience has been that my homosexuality *is* an integral component of who I am. That's why I'm on the fence! It's hard to break with a faith tradition in which you grew up, especially if that tradition holds that you could very well end up in hopeless eternal torment upon death if you live as a homosexual!

What road will I choose? I'm still figuring that out. Please keep me in your prayers, and thanks for reading!

Donal

[Daniel]

Of course, my subjective experience has been that my homosexuality *is* an integral component of who I am. That's why I'm on the fence! It's hard to break with a faith tradition in which you grew up, especially if that tradition holds that you could very well end up in hopeless eternal torment upon death if you live as a homosexual!
l

Hi and welcome.

Ok.....I'll get right to the point. You make it sound as though the your view of things, being 'subjective' is somehow inferior to the 'objective' view of the church. Just because you have a large group of people believing something is wrong doesn't make it true. Hey! The Catholic Church 'crucified' Galileo because he posited that the earth revolved around the sun- and the Church thought otherwise. Well....they were WRONG. And they are ignorant about sexuality...especially gay sexuality. The world does not revolve around being 'straight'. An 'objective' view of nature tells us this.

How about living heaven on earth right now instead of worrying about what happens later? Accepting yourself is one thing. Having the Church accept you is another matter. THAT may come is this life time...or it may not. The thing is....what are you going to do with your life NOW?

Why not just let yourself be happy as you are? There's nothing wrong with you.

~

Now....of course most people who come to this forum who have an inkling that they are gay are pretty thrilled to find this place. And you will forgive me if I wonder aloud about your presence here.

Do you need encouragement or are you here for other reasons?

I guess time will tell. I say this because your post seems to say two things at once.

[Jennifer5]

donalociardha, welcome. :)



Daniel, I THINK that donalociardha is just trying to make the point that when you grow up knowing one thing, you get very stuck in your ways and it becomes hard to escape??? (yes? no? what are you saying donalociardha?

[Emproph]

Of course, my subjective experience has been that my homosexuality *is* an integral component of who I am. That's why I'm on the fence!

It's hard to break with a faith tradition in which you grew up, especially if that tradition holds that you could very well end up in hopeless eternal torment upon death if you live as a homosexual!

Donal

Is threat of eternal torment based on your faith tradition?

My point being, how compelled would you be to believe that homosexuality was a sin if your "faith tradition" did not purport as much?

The definition of God in the Bible is unconditional love. Sin in the Bible is described as actions/behaviors that harm others, and that are less than loving.

The little I read of Eve Tushnet's article (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957) that you linked to was brilliant. I wish I could expound further. Suffice it to say that I take it that you've read it too.

So back to my question. If the threat of "eternal torment" was taken out of the mix, to what extent would you feel that your same gender attraction would be a threat to your salvation?

Do you believe that it is a sin to question God?

It seems to me that only a God of love would allow itself to be questioned directly, and only a God who is NOT love, would resist such a notion.

I'm not trying to break anyting here (except possible illusions perhaps :)), but these are the thoughts that go through my mind when I consider describing the God who is love that I know.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m14/msinncnt/44f26f0e.jpg

Love doesn't judge
hatred is judgment of love

Hatred of homosexuality is judgement of the desire to love and be loved.

From what I've gathered (from the churches), the claim is that this is confusion. The important question is, do you feel that your desire to love and be loved by and with the same gender is confusion on your part? And do you feel that they are in a position to diagnose you as fundamentally confused, based solely on your same gender attraction?

:)

[u-dog]

Hey Donal! welcome! We are glad that you are here.

Hey Daniel? Is it possible that Donal accidentally brushed up against one of your hot buttons? Cuz the tone of your post was uncharacteristically harsh and didn't seem in proportion to anything Donal said or to the tone of his post. just asking.

Donal: When I read what you said about your "subjective" experience, what I heard you saying was your "lived" experience of your own gayness. You experience a cognitive disonance between your lived experience of gayness and the church's teaching about gayness. Am I correct?

I thought your explanation of the conservative Catholic understanding of sexuality was very clear, concise, and helpful (to me as a non-Catholic Christian gay person) My impression of Catholic theology (as an outsider) is that it is always very careful to be internally consistent so that all of the parts work together toward the same end. I have also noticed that this means that it works very hard to exclude OUTSIDE facts that may disrupt that internal consistency. Case in point: Gallileo's theory of heliocentricity and John Paul II's belated apology. I have also noticed that because of its higher dependence on the authority of tradition and the Church it is less likely to let the Bible interfere with the internal consistency of its theology. This dependence on tradition and the authority of the Church (i.e. The Pope) also allows the church to concoct wierd, unbiblical sillinesses like "we'll all be straight in heaven" :confused:

Given that resistence to allowing "the truth to get in the way of a good story" * its not surprising that the church can't hear the truth of your lived experience of gayness. But as Daniel has pointed out... the Church has been wrong before in dismissing the lived experience of real people.

Again, Welcome to SF! (and, just for the record, Daniel is a heck of a nice guy with much wisdom to impart)

-----
*(my dad used to say that if our family had a crest the motto in Latin at the bottom would be "never let the truth get in the way of a good story")

[Dash]

Hey Daniel? Is it possible that Donal accidentally brushed up against one of your hot buttons? Cuz the tone of your post was uncharacteristically harsh and didn't seem in proportion to anything Donal said or to the tone of his post. just asking.

Again, Welcome to SF! (and, just for the record, Daniel is a heck of a nice guy with much wisdom to impart)


U-dog, I think if you find Daniel's post to be harsh, blunt or whatever, you will need to lay some of that on me as well. We were discussing this post in his home last night, and I brought up the wierd feeling this post gave me. :-|

I certainly mean no offense to our new friend, but there are a lot of things stated in that post that are absolutely inappropriate for this site. The only thing that makes them allowable is that the poster is a gay man. If Simpleman, or Alakazoom or Experiments With Truth were to present this information, many would be very upset. In this case, we look up on these veritable statements of religion-based bigotry with some kindness. It just makes me uncomfortable to think about others here who might read them.

I don't know... what do you think?

And Donalociardho, please forgive my sensitivity. I hope that will accept our welcome and not hesitate to join in the discussions. There are many folks here with much wisdom--not the least of whom is Daniel--and you will find much comfort here for all your fears.:love:

[Daniel]

This old dog- meaning myself- just wants to know: why the sitting on the fence Donal? It is simply fear of divine retribution after death? Or is it something else? Are people in your life on the fence about you?

The whole fence metaphor is rather emasculating btw. Gets one in the groin so to speak.

The only way to get off the fence- as I see it- it to leap. Leap of faith. Leap of love. Either way, it's a leap.

It takes a lot of courage to leap into Love. If you're looking for permission to make that Leap of Love....well.....I'll be nudging and shoving with the best of them. Wanna sit on the fence for your whole life? You are hurting no one but yourself.

[Dash]

Nevertheless, no conservative Catholic (that I have ever read) would posit that anyone has homosexual feelings in Heaven. It is expected that homosexuality, as an unnatural inclination (detachable from the individual experiencing that inclination) will not exist in Heaven. According to conservative Catholics, everyone in Heaven will be their authentic, heterosexual selves, and experience themselves as heterosexual.

It's interesting to me that anti-gay christian positions are so often framed in terms of heterosexual marriage. In the gospels Jesus says quite bluntly that in heaven we will neither marry nor be given in marriage...that we will be "like the angels" (whatever that means). I get the impression that following the teachings of Jesus would lead take a rather indifferent position toward marriage itself (not anti-marriage..just not dogmatic) and to tradional gender roles, and concepts of loving unions. Jesus makes it very clear in his response to the Sadducees that it doesn't matter how many husbands a wife has on earth...ultimately it is irrelevant to our essential nature. It would seem impossible to "experience oneself as heterosexual" in a state which is not defined in terms of marriage.

Am I incorrect in this?

[Zerbie]

I don't get why the fire alarms are going off about Donal's post? :confused:

I recognize I'm contradicting Daniel here (who I think the whole world of, Daniel is a sweet, wise angel :good::love:) but I don't get how the "mere" or "simple" fear of eternal torment can possibly be passed over as a trivial consideration.

Imagine that it's your understanding of reality that coming out as gay = eternal torment. Wouldn't you rather wait out 60 or 80 years of repression than spend eternity in hell, if that's what you thought was going to happen?

The questions are whether there is a hell, whether being gay automatically sends you there, and so on. These are HUGE questions.

When I was very little and I thought I might grow up gay, and whether or not I would, that I wanted to be an activist for gay rights, I asked all these types of questions first before jumping off the diving board. I can't imagine how someone could bypass the step of asking the questions. I do know one gay man who once told me that he was taught he would go to hell for being homosexual while saying glibly in passing, "Well, maybe I will go to hell for it, but I'm happy now." I was bowled over that he could possibly go on without having examined that question, that he could live with a belief that hell might be dangling over his head, and not implode from the stress. I think most people want to be sure of this question.

What I got from Donal's post was that he is questioning what he was taught about going to hell for homosexuality because he is caught in a conflict between accepting himself as he is and his fear that what he grow up learning might be correct after all. I somehow missed whatever red flags Dash perceived; I've re-read his post and can't find any inappropriate parts. I'm seeing sincere questions and genuine conflict/concern. If that's the case, I'm afraid we may be scaring away someone who genuinely needs to be here.

[kara speltz]

Nevertheless, no conservative Catholic (that I have ever read) would posit that anyone has homosexual feelings in Heaven. It is expected that homosexuality, as an unnatural inclination (detachable from the individual experiencing that inclination) will not exist in Heaven. According to conservative Catholics, everyone in Heaven will be their authentic, heterosexual selves, and experience themselves as heterosexual.

Donal

Dear Donal: I am a radical Catholic in the mode of Dorothy Day and the Berrigans. My understanding is that we are spirit beings in heaven and there will be neither heterosexual or homosexual orientations in heaven. While I'm not totally sure there is a heaven or a hell, if there is one, it would seem to me that sexuality is not a part of what we will be in heaven.

I can't recall in which gospel, but Jesus says something about people will not be with their husbands and wives in heaven, so I think this is one place where I'm not out there on the left branch of understanding.

In any case, I want you to know that I am an out lesbian at my parish and an integral part of our community. I have even preached the gospel and then announced that our LGBT group is having some special event. So let me assure you that you can be Catholic and out.

Now Opus Dei is a whole other bag of worms, and one that I hold no respect for in terms of who and what they are.

Kara

[u-dog]

I somehow missed whatever red flags Dash perceived; I've re-read his post and can't find any inappropriate parts. I'm seeing sincere questions and genuine conflict/concern. If that's the case, I'm afraid we may be scaring away someone who genuinely needs to be here.

I agree with you Zerbie. During the depression my Grandmother (a single mom responsible for her daughter and her mother) made $12.50 a week, but whenever a hobo would knock on the back door and ask for food (the house was not far from the NY Central Mainline from Chicago to NYC) she would make them a sandwich and let them eat it on the back porch. the aunts and uncles told my mom (a llittle girl at the time) that her mother (my grandmother) was a damn fool and was being taken advantage of by people who weren't even really hungry and could be working.

When asked about it, my grandmother sat my mom down and explained that when, in the fullness of time she was standing before the judgement seat, nobody was going to count how many times she had allowed herself to be taken advantage of. But that there WOULD be an accounting of how many hungry people she had turned away empty.

I sort of think we should operate under the same principle. We can afford to feed the occasional troll if it means that we never turn away someone who needs to be welcomed here. :love:

[kara speltz]

What a great story Dave. Your grandmother sounds like she was a fantastic woman. Clearly you come from what we used to refer to as, "good stock." :love: Kara

[antonyh]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on the Soulforce web site. I am a gay man, and an quasi-ex-Catholic of the Opus Dei mold. That is to say that I'm kind of on the fence as far as my faith commitment goes (or as I would have termed it in my younger years - my commitment to 'the' Faith (capital "F!")) :)

Reading the posts from EWT and simpleman brought into stark relief the issues I'm dealing with surrounding my sexuality and the Catholic religion.

The way I see it, the defining issue for me and for the question of Catholicism and homosexuality is whether homosexuality is an integral part of one's person and nature or not.

If you follow conservative Catholic voices on the subject of homosexuality, you will notice that many avoid using the term, "orientation" to describe homosexuality. Instead, they will most often use the word "inclination." The reason they avoid use of the term "orientation" is because orientation implies that one's homosexuality is an integral part of one's person, and they cannot reconcile their theology on sexuality with this idea. To them, everyone is truly heterosexual, whether they experience this fact subjectively or not. (In other words, homosexual people are not experiencing their true sexuality).

Please note that not every conservative Catholic necessarily takes this to mean that homosexuals can change their sexuality *in this lifetime*. (For example, read the writings of conservative Catholic and now-celibate lesbian Eve Tushnet - http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957)

Nevertheless, no conservative Catholic (that I have ever read) would posit that anyone has homosexual feelings in Heaven. It is expected that homosexuality, as an unnatural inclination (detachable from the individual experiencing that inclination) will not exist in Heaven. According to conservative Catholics, everyone in Heaven will be their authentic, heterosexual selves, and experience themselves as heterosexual.

For me personally as a homosexual, this means that if I accept Catholic teaching in this area as true, I will never experience my true sexuality in this lifetime unless I can undergo reparative therapy. If reparative therapy doesn't work (which it hasn't!), it means that I have to wait until death to experience my true sexuality, which of course is heterosexuality.

In the meantime, I should not come out as homosexual, entertain homosexual erotic thoughts (which would constitute a mortal sin if I'm not mistaken), but rather act as though I am a heterosexual until I pass from this life.

Of course, my subjective experience has been that my homosexuality *is* an integral component of who I am. That's why I'm on the fence! It's hard to break with a faith tradition in which you grew up, especially if that tradition holds that you could very well end up in hopeless eternal torment upon death if you live as a homosexual!

What road will I choose? I'm still figuring that out. Please keep me in your prayers, and thanks for reading!

Donal

Do you want to find someone to love and make a life with?

If you answer 'yes' to this question, then you have your answer.

[kara speltz]

Dear Donal: Had another response to your posting that I wanted to share. And that is that there are all sorts of saints in heaven who in their life had homosexual feelings. Just to name a few. Cardinal Henry Newman who was buried with his life partner, Fr. Mychal Judge, the fire chaplain who died on 9/11. Fr. Henri Nouwen, one of the most read theologians of our time. Mary Moylan, one of the Catonsville 9, who committed her life to serving others. Dr. Tom Dooley, the famous doctor who, during the VietNam war set up medical clinics all over Indochina. Those are the ones we know, but there are clouds and clouds of lesbian and gay saints who we don't know about who watch over us as we traverse this earthly planet. There are even lists that the internet has passed on of those who we are fairly sure were gay and lesbian, but have no knowledge for certain.

We are God's children, called to serve and often because of our special oppression, we have committed our lives to the service of God. Walk proudly with that cloud of witnesses. Read the 139th psalm knowing in your heart that God has always known who you were since S/He knitted you in your mothers womb; and you are wondrously made.

Kara

kara

[BrentRichards]

Dear Donal: Had another response to your posting that I wanted to share. And that is that there are all sorts of saints in heaven who in their life had homosexual feelings. Just to name a few. Cardinal Henry Newman who was buried with his life partner, Fr. Mychal Judge, the fire chaplain who died on 9/11. Fr. Henri Nouwen, one of the most read theologians of our time. Mary Moylan, one of the Catonsville 9, who committed her life to serving others. Dr. Tom Dooley, the famous doctor who, during the VietNam war set up medical clinics all over Indochina. Those are the ones we know, but there are clouds and clouds of lesbian and gay saints who we don't know about who watch over us as we traverse this earthly planet. There are even lists that the internet has passed on of those who we are fairly sure were gay and lesbian, but have no knowledge for certain.

We are God's children, called to serve and often because of our special oppression, we have committed our lives to the service of God. Walk proudly with that cloud of witnesses. Read the 139th psalm knowing in your heart that God has always known who you were since S/He knitted you in your mothers womb; and you are wondrously made.

Kara

kara

A. Thanks for metioning these folks, Kara, especially Mychal Judge ... what a remarkable man! I (a Presbyterian) have had his photo on my computer desktop for months ... if anyone hasn't seen "Saint of 9/11" please do.

B. Welcome Donal. I'm thinking you're just a little bit Irish? Of strong Welsh extraction myself, and both our people know a little bit about getting stomped on by the English, so we have that in common, in addition to our orientation and conservative (mine Protestant) background.

It seemed to me Donal was simply laying out the assumptions that form his background, rather than embracing them or trying to suggest we should accept them as true. For one of us "far right wingers" (which I certainly was, whether Donal was/is or not) to get to the point of being "on the fence" is no small accomplishment.

Hope you'll stay and play, Donal.

[donalociardha]

Hi everyone,

I feel horrible that I sent out weird vibes, I am legit! :) I think the fact that I skipped all pleasantries and went right into my own personal drama was a bit tactless, :o Temperamentally I'm a bit cerebral and socially retarded (:p), so please intepret my post as down to that!

I just want to thank Zerbie, Kara, BrentRichards, U-dog, and Jennifer for giving me the benefit of the doubt! Zerbie and Brent, you translated my feelings to a "T."

Since everyone was dealing with EWT's and simpleman's ideas, I wanted to bring up and clarify the issues that surround the debate on homosexuality in the conservative Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox, Protestant) world and to bounce those ideas off of everyone. In so doing I didn't even stop to think how offensive those ideas are or how they might upset anyone (Just imagine having to digest those ideas for half a lifetime, no cake walk I can tell you!!!)

As for me personally, Daniel got it right when he said it's just a leap of faith. I was hoping that through thorough examination of the issues, I could bypass the leap of faith (I hate leaps, I don't even like to skip! :o), but it doesn't look like that's the case.

Before I forget, I do want to say how wonderful I think Soulforce is, and how encouraging it was to me to find such a group who believes in non-violence, which is dear to my heart, as well.

A few guys brought up some great points I would like to dive into further but I'll use other posts for that.

Thanks again!

Donal

[donalociardha]

Brent, yes my family is from Ireland, fair play for catching the Irish (Gaelic) nomenclature :) Welsh is a beautiful-sounding language, I wish I could understand it! - I'll have to study a bit sometime. I'm grateful that Wales was spared the Counter-Reformation, you can't wipe your *** in Irish Catholicism without being sorry for it :p

Kara, I'm really glad you brought up those individuals - I'm going to do a bit more research on them, that will very helpful.

Zerbie, you were right on the money - I'm both afraid of being wrong and of, well, let's say the risk of being wrong!

Dash, you raise a great question about Heaven and heterosexuality. Better than for me to try to explain it in garbled words, do a Google search on "Theology of the Body" if you're interested. Basically the premise is that heterosexuality is the key for understanding...well, basically God and the whole universe! Yeah, it's not easy reading...and has contributed to my turmoil... I must really come off as masochistic, :o

Have a good one everyone!
Donal

[donalociardha]

Emproph,

You liked Eve Tushnet's piece? I would love to hear your thoughts in more detail. I found her piece incredibly depressing - to me (and maybe I'm way off base here) it seems she's saying develop your friendships, be Catholic, and forget about ever loving someone of your own gender in a sexual way. Am I wrong?

At the risk of coming off as patronizing, her essay is the second one, the first essay is gay-affirming.

Donal

[u-dog]

... do a Google search on "Theology of the Body" if you're interested. Basically the premise is that heterosexuality is the key for understanding...well, basically God and the whole universe!
Donal

Can you say I - DOL - A - TRY? Tell me this is a joke. PLEASE! :rolleyes: