Recipe to condemn with impunity: Using Corinthians to define homosexuality as a sin

[Emproph]

(I originally posted this in Venari’s “Dr Gordon Anderson’s/NCU/Equality Riders thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=499)," and for various reasons decided it needed it’s own space.) -I've underlined the questions. -I know it's a bit lengthy, but just pick one or two points if you don't feel like writing an essay. :)

{For Reference only: 1 Corinthians 6:9,10,11-According to The New King James Version that I have:
-Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you and but were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.}

Many use this particular New Testament passage in order to avoid arguments and the charge of hypocrisy associated with using exclusively Old Testament verses, such as when Leviticus is used to condemn homosexuality but all the other admonitions and punishments no longer apply.

The reasoning for focusing on Corinthians being, that the “New Covenant” Jesus/love thy neighbor etc., invalidates the need for those punishments, but since homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament, then that part of the Old Testament still applies.

Dr. Anderson’s speech (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=499) in Venari’s post is a perfect example of this. If you haven't listened to it, most of the following applies in principle anytime this type of argument is used. {For those of you from NCU, feel free to correct me. For the rest of you, pick the preacher you loathe the most and pretend I'm talking about them} :D

My focus here is on what was not said and what is rarely if ever said outright when the Bible alone is used to justify this position. In this case, the effort to characterize the innocuousness of homosexuality as being inherently evil without lifting so much as a finger to explain why.

Dr. Anderson in his speech referenced the passage above, several times but only used the word “effeminate” I assumed this to be a substitution for “homosexuality,” but pixeltarian (NCU) mentioned that the New American Standard Bible version includes both “effeminate” and “homosexuals,” so I don’t why he didn’t use the word “homosexuals” outright.

He doesn’t clarify if "effeminate" is supposed to mean sex in a committed monogamous gay relationship, or heterosexual men who happen to have a lisp or enjoy wearing women’s clothes, or all combinations and everything in between.Why was effeminate not defined, especially in light of such a contentious issue?

Use of this passage to condemn homosexuality as sinful implies two things.
-First, by comparing it with behaviors like thieving, murderous, adulterous etc., homosexuality is established as a behavior.
-Second, by comparing homosexuals to murderers and thieves, etc., an act of consent is then equated with intentional malice, forever sinful.{A necessary distinction in order to dismiss anyone who insists they were “born that way.”}

how does one go about equating a committed loving gay relationship, or a dainty heterosexual man with raping, robbing, and murdering?

The latter examples are sin/evil because they measurably harm others, that’s the reason WHY they are considered to be sins.
Is the effort even made to distinguish sin as being necessarily evil?
Is that distinction even considered to be important?

(This is paraphrased the best I can remember it)
He goes on to talk about the power and beauty of the word “were” in this passage, as in “Some of you were like these.” He also blathers on about the “Iron Clad Logic” of it/the school/their position, etc.,

Basically what I got was this: “Some of you were effeminate and/or homosexuals” is the crux of the “iron clad logic” that he presents as the criteria for determining homosexuality to be a sin.
-“Effeminate” means gay, “were effeminate” means used to be gay, used to be gay means changeable. Therefore being gay means being changeable!
-Of course that means there is no “being gay,” only gay behavior. But again, for someone so certain, no explanation, no clarification, total extrapolation on my part. This post should NOT be necessary.

When it comes to the blanket characterization of people as equal to the scum of the Earth, using the statement “were like these,” without explanation, as the bedrock of your case is about as ambiguous a reason as it gets. For a Christian, it is irresponsible and unacceptable, verging on unethical.

The fact that there’s questions galore (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm) about the translation and interpretation of the words used in that text puts the already ambiguous on even shakier ground. Not to mention, only this passage was used, and only the word “effeminate” was used, no contextual definition of that word and therefore no explanation for it's specific use. {Shaky ambiguity equals "iron clad logic"?}

No acknowledgment that we even “think” we were born this way, or that we are convinced we didn't choose this. Are people like him unaware of this fact?

So I am left to wonder. If we are THAT sick and confused, he has the obligation to explain that as clearly as possible, so as not to cause further confusion within those who are already confused! {As in, "Gee, is he a Christian or a hypocritical bigot?"}

And if I am so sick and so confused, to the point where I am convinced I was born this way, like I’m convinced yesterday happened, how can that be a sin?

If we are evil lying unrepentant sinners whose goal is to strip away the first amendment rights of others, WHY would he not use words like EVIL, LYING, UNREPENTANT, SINNERS, who know EXACTLY what they are doing to harm others?

Obviously people like him who use scripture like this are convinced they are right and we are wrong. Being so certain of their position, why do they not clarify it?

-Are we sick and confused?
-Or are we intentionally trying to take away the rights of others?
-Or is it a combination of the two?
-And WHY are the answers to these questions NEVER addressed?

[Lydia]

This isn't quite on-topic, but I have a good friend who deconverted to agnosticism a while back in part because of Corinthians 6:9,10,11. He couldn't reconcile what those verses are traditionally interpreted to say with the his love for his son (who had recently come out as bisexual).

[Lydia]

And now for an on-topic response to what you wrote. :)


And if I am so sick and so confused, to the point where I am convinced I was born this way, like I’m convinced yesterday happened, how can that be a sin?

I'd guess that he'd say that 1) you've hardened your heart away from God, 2) you're being deceived by the devil, or 3) homosexuality is like alcoholism - some people are born with genes that make them more susceptible to that "lifestyle," but having those genes doesn't lessen your responsiblity to not sin. If anything, it increases it because you know it's a weak spot and you should take all necessary steps to avoid falling into "sin".

[Dash]

Why are these questions not addressed...

...at least by those who are busy beating the bible into a sword...

Maybe because they start with what they think they know? And knowing already, they ignore the details that contradict?

I'm thinking of mystery of animation... how the eye fills in the gaps between frames. We expect to see things moving...so even the crudest of animation techniques delights us. For the moment we choose to see only a galloping horse (http://www.poindexters.com/horse_jpg.html).

Similarly, those who start by "knowing", never see the mechanism. Of course, one can turn the metaphor around and say that some people strangely only see the mechanism, but never appreciate the magic. Either way... They think they see, but for all practical purposes they are blind to our perspective.

My good father, however, is a perfect case of how fear also prevents the opening of the mind. I myself remember feeling the very fear that I see in him. Afraid to even entertain thoughts that contradict what one thinks one knows about the bible and God. I mean...God's in your head! for heaven's sake! He knows the "blasphemy" and "heresy" that one thinks! The conservative-oriented mind, by it's nature, takes a safer...more well-known...path. It preserves tradition and prefers concrete, clearly-stated references to the subtler implications of a thousand refuting points.

In terms of Christianity...I frankly think that the mystery of the gospel message is far beyond the capabilities of many minds. "He who has an ear to hear"...only they will get it. The rest are content to eat the pablum of the law and feed it to everyone else.

Kinda rambling...sorry...gonna go over here now...:rolleyes:

[studying]

"Second, by comparing homosexuals to murderers and thieves, etc., an act of consent is then equated with intentional malice, forever sinful.{A necessary distinction in order to dismiss anyone who insists they were 'born that way.'"

Paul lived and worked in a Greek society. He would be living within a world of many licentious beliefs and practices. He would know of which he speaks. In the world of Paul; Roman men literally took people sexually whenever they wanted to. To equate rape, robbery, murdering and sexual licentiousness . . . is sensible now and then. Look at Nero for example.

"how does one go about equating a committed loving gay relationship, or a dainty heterosexual man with raping, robbing, and murdering?"

By claiming that thay were "born that way." You see this defense all of the time in today's world. Or, they "were" legally insane at the time of the act. To many people, the human mind is a place where "good and bad" decisions are made on virtually an hourly basis. Try to understand people NOT understanding homosexuality?

"The latter examples are sin/evil because they measurably harm others, that’s the reason WHY they are considered to be sins."

Paul clearly depiects this as the case between consenting adults engaging in same-sex sex. It is not hateful to agree with scripture on this. Paul's view and opinion in Romans looks like MTV today.

Is the effort even made to distinguish sin as being necessarily evil?
Is that distinction even considered to be important?

Sin and evil are one and the same thing. Most of the New Testament letters and the Gospl would prove that point. Try to understand people that understand scripture that way.

[Jessebuck]

Actually the word "homosexual" is a rather new construct - only since the 19th Century. The passages in the bible which have been translated to mean "homosexual" or "gay" actually in the original refer to male rape and/or ritual sex. In the Bronze age and later it was the ultimate degredation of an enemy to forcibly rape him. We can still see the strength of this behavior in what happened at Abu Ghraib where prisoners were forcibly sodomized with objects or made to simulate intercourse between men.

It's a case of people not understanding the historical context of the period they are quoting or rather, intentionally inserting their own prejudices into their "translation". That's why these are included with rape, murder, etc. It was an act of aggression and the prohibitions are directed at otherwise "heterosexual" men who engaged in such violent and degrading behavior during wartime. It had nothing to do with being gay or having affection for one's own sex.

After all, how many of us were outraged by the tales of Abu Ghraib. We certainly condemn those acts (I hope) and do not find them palatable or arousing.

There's an excellent discussion of the translation of this passage at Religious Tolerance. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm)

[peaceboy]

I'm glad you mentioned this Jessebuck! Homosexual is a relatively new word. The ancient world did not understand homosexual orientations like we do today. John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" discusses this as well. I have just started reading it, but it seems like a really good book about the history of homosexuality, Greece, Rome and the church. Anyone else read it?

[Emproph]

I have a good friend who deconverted to agnosticism a while back in part because of Corinthians 6:9,10,11. He couldn't reconcile what those verses are traditionally interpreted to say with the his love for his son (who had recently come out as bisexual). That’s perfectly ON topic, either way, but are you saying he went from Christianity to agnosticism? Or does you’re next post mean what he would have said?
And now for an on-topic response to what you wrote. :)
And if I am so sick and so confused, to the point where I am convinced I was born this way, like I’m convinced yesterday happened, how can that be a sin? I'd guess that he'd say that 1) you've hardened your heart away from God, 2) you're being deceived by the devil, or 3) homosexuality is like alcoholism - some people are born with genes that make them more susceptible to that "lifestyle," but having those genes doesn't lessen your responsiblity to not sin. If anything, it increases it because you know it's a weak spot and you should take all necessary steps to avoid falling into "sin".
So I’m and idiot, I’m an idiot, I’m an idiot. That sounds like a typical response, and that’s my point. If I’ve clarified that this is as clear to me as my memory of yesterday, are these people not intelligent enough to understand that any response other than “you’re an idiot” is going to come across as even more insulting? Granted, it’s a no win situation. I’m trying to determine the point in their minds where it’s perfectly acceptable to insult me, but it’s not “Christian” to be honest with me enough to share how they truly feel, namely that I’m just too stupid to know better. I've got the guts to say so to them and then listen to their response, yet I'm the alleged "godless heathen idiot." :confused:

Point being, no questions are even asked to find out how well I truly have considered whether my heart is hardened to God. There’s no interest in finding out why. If there's no interest in knowing how or why their conclusions are true about me, there's no interest in finding a solution for me. That’s where the line is crossed, or not crossed in this case. And I am determined to find that line! :)
Why are these questions not addressed...
1...knowing already, they ignore the details that contradict?
2...I'm thinking of mystery of animation... how the eye fills in the gaps between frames
3...My good father... Afraid to even entertain thoughts that contradict what one thinks one knows about the bible and God.
4...In terms of Christianity...I frankly think that the mystery of the gospel message is far beyond the capabilities of many minds. "He who has an ear to hear"...only they will get it. The rest are content to eat the pablum of the law and feed it to everyone else.
1 I get that part, hard to identify with but I get it.
2 I like that analogy/metaphor, it explains the first. I’m the same way, I think we all are to a degree. The difference between my “filling in the blanks” and theirs is that I know Biblical dogma and I know free thinking, I understand both. I’m trying to establish where the absurdity of rationale lies in thinking you know better specifically because you are unwilling to know better.
3 Thought censorship is self censorship. That’s the crux, the pith of it, nail on the head even. :tup:
4 “ear to hear,” of late I’ve noticed that that’s ‘code’ -deeper meaning, I know. I get why they don’t get that part, I’m not understanding why, what would seem like obvious logic is overlooked so readily. More on that later though. -Thanks Dash

-Buck, thanks. My “questions galore” hyperlink goes to that page.
-I Love that site, I could spend hours on there. Half the searches I do lead me there.
- I’m glad you’ve got the pentagon spying on LGBT groups up on your site, I just heard about that earlier tonight (over the phone). :)

Hey peaceboy :rainbow:

[studying]

I'm glad you mentioned this Jessebuck! Homosexual is a relatively new word. The ancient world did not understand homosexual orientations like we do today. John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" discusses this as well. I have just started reading it, but it seems like a really good book about the history of homosexuality, Greece, Rome and the church. Anyone else read it?

Peaceboy, same-sex sex was not only well understood by past societies but the Apostle Paul, living among the Romans and Greeks, also used a word that more than defined what we could easily consider a modern concept of the word "homosexuality."

Paul used "arsenokoitai."

The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also found in 1 Tim. 1:10 (arsenokoitai). Critics try to make some issue of this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word for Paul's use of it seems to be the first ever use of it. The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul hardly needed to invent a word male-female sex. Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the LXX translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which used the words arsenos koitin and arsenos ou koimethese. Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of homosexual relations in Leviticus. It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship [Wold, 191] recognized by classical Greek writers.

Though the debate of commited couples of any gender living together for a lifetime is not settled socially or politically, the New Testament writers were not ignorant of same-sex sexual behaviors and lifestyles.

I believe that those Christians that "think conservatively" are doing nothing wrong and those Christians embracing "progressive" thought have their work cut out for them in trying to persuade the common person that they too are ignorant about sexuality. Humans "by nature" are sexual beings, and almost every single person has dealt with understanding the sexual feelings within the context of "a life worth living."

Like Jesus said after dealing with divorce and marriage, some people may be "born eunuchs," I just haven't met any yet.

There will be plenty of new words on the horizon to describe sexual behavior you can count on that.

[Emproph]

When in Rome.... Addendum:

The man (Dr. Gordon Anderson NCU) says in his speech (http://www.northcentral.edu/news/soulforce.php) that he’s not going to talk about “sexual orientation,” because we all have an orientation, a human “orientation” called sin. And how does he go about describing this 'across the board' sin that we ALL have? By repeatedly citing the only passage in the New Testament condemning homosexuality. He portrays himself and those he represents as equal to us in sin, then repeatedly makes the same specific distinction between his sin and “our” sin.

THERE’S YOUR BIGOTRY! ...In all of it’s steaming pile of shining glory.

So on that note here’s a couple more,
-Egregious oversight on his part?
-Or was it assumed that because I’m too stupid to know I should be a heterosexual, I’d be too stupid to notice that mountain of majestic ugliness?

I’ve said it here before and I’m saying it again, they demonstrate more bigotry in their attempt to portray themselves as not bigoted.

“Better to appear as a fool than to open your mouth and remove ALL doubt.”
-{Dr. Gordon Anderson (NCU) is my new poster child for that saying.}

This just the tip of the iceberg regarding that speech, It just takes that first little lie, and every piece of logic that follows gets more and more and more illogical. One more example of the icebergs of idiocy we’re up against. Just Find that one little fray, give it a tug and the WHOLE THING unravels.

[Lydia]

That’s perfectly ON topic, either way, but are you saying he went from Christianity to agnosticism? Or does you’re next post mean what he would have said?

I meant to say that he went from Christianity to agnosticism. :)

[Zerbie]

It's interesting intellectually/philosophically to debate the *why* in why persons thinking as you describe, Emproph, think the way they do.

If you were to try to persuade them differently, or if your goal is simply to understand them from the inside out, then perhaps the speculations are necessary. Interesting, at any rate.

Yet it's my impression, jump in and correct me if I"m reading too much into it, that you are heavily emotionally invested in these particular questions right now. That you are very angry. If that *is* the case, then I wonder why you beat yourself up by focusing on these questions to such an extent.

You identify the problem above: these people you talk about *do not see you.* They either will not or cannot. You cannot make them see you. They have some idea in their minds, and when they glance in your direction, there is that idea standing in front of their eyes masquerading as Emproph. Oops. But they don't know that. They think it's you.

So, my inclination is to try and spin this thread around on you (ignore if you like!) - saying this:

1. These people do not see you. (why doesn't matter, what matters is that they don't.)
2. Nothing *you* do or say is going to cause them to drop their projections and apprehend you *as you are.*
3. There is a large tide of people across the country who are far more willing to re-evaluate their opinions of gay people based upon personal encounters/experiences/new information that comes to them.
4. #3 amounts to a huge tide of potential allies. Like the "hundredth monkey" phenomenon, once enough of them lead, we see the institutional and social progress we need.
5. Therefore why not ask, how do we reach our potential allies? Rather than ask "why are the anti-gay bigots so bigoted?" which is what I think you are asking.

Now, I know you started this thread just to get into that specific philosophical line of questioning, so it was rude of me to spin it away. But maybe a little re-directing of the question will take us someplace more profitable. Above all, I sensed anger, frustration, and helplessness coming from your notes above, and so am hoping that re-directing the issue might bring you some well-deserved hope and optimism.

You DO identify the problem correctly. But IS there anything *you* can do about it? I doubt that. So, what positive thing can be done with all your smarts and all your energy?

[Emproph]

Zerbie, I want to post this and a couple other things to possibly use as reference before I respond to your post. It's all good. ;)

I'm sure this wasn't intentional deception on studying's part but the logic or lack of it in these responses is what I'm trying to get at in regard to this thread.

Second, by comparing homosexuals to murderers and thieves, etc., an act of consent is then equated with intentional malice, forever sinful.{A necessary distinction in order to dismiss anyone who insists they were 'born that way.' Paul lived and worked in a Greek society. He would be living within a world of many licentious beliefs and practices. He would know of which he speaks. In the world of Paul; Roman men literally took people sexually whenever they wanted to. To equate rape, robbery, murdering and sexual licentiousness . . . is sensible now and then. Look at Nero for example. Licentious: promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters.
My point was to get to the bottom of HOW “an act of consent is then equated with intentional malice.” studying “responds” by regurgitating the EXACT illogic that I am questioning and considers it a response. His response to illogic is to repeat the same illogic. To not notice the illogic of that is further illogic. how does one go about equating a committed loving gay relationship, or a dainty heterosexual man with raping, robbing, and murdering?By claiming that they were "born that way." You see this defense all of the time in today's world. Or, they "were" legally insane at the time of the act. To many people, the human mind is a place where "good and bad" decisions are made on virtually an hourly basis. Try to understand people NOT understanding homosexuality? Same issues as above but the disingenuousness here is even more apparent. Here, the specifics of my examples were completely disregarded in order to make the same unmerited comparison, the very comparison I am questioning, yet framed as an answer.The latter examples are sin/evil because they measurably harm others, that’s the reason WHY they are considered to be sins.Paul clearly depicts this as the case between consenting adults engaging in same-sex sex. It is not hateful to agree with scripture on this. Paul's view and opinion in Romans looks like MTV today.After insultingly debasing every gay persons loving relationship to nothing more than "same sex sex," MTV is the example given to show WHY somthing consensual is evil.Is the effort even made to distinguish sin as being necessarily evil? Is that distinction even considered to be important?Sin and evil are one and the same thing. Most of the New Testament letters and the Gospl would prove that point. Try to understand people that understand scripture that way.So let me get this “straight,” after asking in many different ways, many times, how something can be considered a sin without being evil, studying concludes that I do not understand that sin and evil are the same. Then suggests that I should understand that people understand scripture that way (that sin and evil are one in the same).

How does he attempt to help me to understand this in regard to the excerpts above? By attempting to portray, absent logic, something devoid of evil as inherently evil.

This, in response to the question, how can something be considered a sin without being evil?

[Emproph]

I think what my last post should be put in the context of Dr. Gordon Anderson’s hypocrisy. I single him out to use as an example only. This pretty much applies across the board, including with me. The difference is that when I become aware of my hypocrisy I don’t deny or defend it, and I especially do not attempt to portray it as a Christian value.

I understand the reason for this hypocrisy. He believes he's right and couldn’t possibly be wrong. His interpretation of his particular bible is superior to every one else’s. (I'm generalizing him as himself and those he represents)

Of course awareness of that FACT is the first casualty that’s necessary to maintain such a position. Once that little inconvenience is done away with, chosen beliefs can be considered and thus construed as objective fact, and voila, I’m not a hypocrite or a bigot because I’m just repeating what “God” said. {Delusion raised to an art form}

The quintessential principle of this position SCREAMS: If I don’t see it, I can’t be held responsible. And THAT’S being generous on my part, because that requires the acknowledgment that the possibility of error exists, personal AND Biblical. Either possibility obliterates the clause of inerrancy that those like him operate under.

This is toward the end of his speech explaining why they are not allowing the Equality Riders on campus. This is paraphrased.

“Our minds aren’t closed, they’re settled.” This is his attempt to portray himself/those he represents as NOT taking the attitude that 'I couldn’t possibly be wrong and I have nothing further to learn.' I'm assuming because that attitude would be arrogant and un-Christian. And there’s your hypocrisy. Not to mention the idiocy and self delusion in thinking there’s a difference.

He goes on to make this analogy:
Do you think it would be appropriate to go to an adulterers convention? “Honey, I’m just going to an adulterers convention to listen to what they have to say.” (audience laughs-a joke made at our expense)

Now if you consider me an adulterer, thief, rapist, murderer etc., and I know that you feel that way, to teach that I want to take your right to teach that adultery-murder is a sin, without ANY new, different or compelling information, Is to teach evil upon evil. As in not just the evil of the sin, but the evil that I want to teach that evil is not sin.

We are sinners based exclusively on Dr. Gordon Anderson’s SCURRILOUS and SLANDEROUS associations with the worst forms of human evil imaginable. He then characterizes us as not seeing EVIL as sinful, and then characterized THIS as BEING the Equality Riders’ message to bring to the school. Then furthermore characterizes the bringing of “this message” as being disguised as dialogue with the motive to take away the schools first amendment rights. Those first amendment rights being the right to never have to learn the truth (because they already have ALL of it). This is the basis of his argument that his position is simply and innocuously based on 'religious beliefs.'

His evil upon evil teaching is thus:
-First, according to the church, we’re sinners, we’re evil. Gay=gaysin
-We’ve been told by the “church” that we’re sinners and reject that, we’re evil upon evil. Gaysin-sin=more sin (evilx2)
-We want to “redefine” for the church that our evil is not evil, or in our words, that WE are not evil, now we’re evil upon evil upon evil. More gaysin-(church/gaysin=sin)=even more gaysin (evilx3)
-Not only that, our goal is to take away the rights of others to define the meaning of evil itself (first amendment rights), now were evil quadrupled. Even more gaysin-The autonomy of the Church Itself=even MORE more gaysin (evilx4)
{Actually the destructive effect of these steps are exponential, so evilx4 = evil ‘to the power of’ 4, and obviously I’m generalizing here, but the principle is the same.}

All of this stemming from the original assumption that the original premise could not possibly be wrong and there is nothing left to learn. THIS is PRECISELY how people come up with absurd notions and theories that gays are the cause of the Holocaust. Such "evil upon evil" assertions are the cause OF the Holocaust.

To claim the right to make such assertions, based on "religious freedom" or otherwise, is to claim the right to CAUSE A HOLOCAUST!

These are Dr. Gordon Anderson’s claims of first amendment rights. Hitler was against the jews because they were “against” Jesus. He had a “noble” cause too.

My above statements do not even address the error of his depiction of the Equality Ride being motivated by our desire to take away first amendment rights.

I looked it up just for the record and it was just as I assumed. Within the context of further understanding, the third out of five goals is to “hopefully create change.” (http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=2) This, is what Dr. Gordon Anderson uses to LIBELOUSLY charge Equality Riders and every LGBT person on the planet who desires equal rights, with the charge of “they want to take away our first amendment rights.”

The entire purpose of the equality ride is to educate and inform for the purpose of avoiding the taking of that first devastatingly erroneous step. Namely that of, “I’m right that gay people are equal to murderers, I could not possibly be wrong about that, and any consequences that may result from teaching that are for the good of all, and just in case they're not, I'll be forgiven."

Dr. Anderson, God's already forgiven you, how you're going to forgive yourself is the question.

When you’re characterizing people as equal to murderers thieves liars and rapists, and you’ve been told not only that this is a HORRIBLY incorrect comparison, but that it is causing harm to the point of death, and your response is a 40 minute speech defending that comparison, you are not in a position to be claiming Christianity as the basis for your premise let alone the claim that you're motivated to protect your first amendment rights.

[Emproph]

Zerbie, if anyone on this forum is worthy of spinning threads into the yarn of their choice it’s you. I say that of course with the knowledge that you would do so with the thread weavers best interests at heart.:love: Heck, when it comes to my threads, half the time I’m just glad to see ‘em keep going... So dear Zerbie, and in M. Night Shyamalan form, always feel free to... ....spin away.....:D ...or if your goal is simply to understand them from the inside out, then perhaps the speculations are necessary. That’s the entire point of this thread, I’m sick of speculating. Even if the answer is, “they don’t think twice about it,” they’re convinced they don’t have to, so be it, I wanna know. Yet it's my impression, jump in and correct me if I"m reading too much into it, that you are heavily emotionally invested in these particular questions right now. That you are very angry. If that *is* the case, then I wonder why you beat yourself up by focusing on these questions to such an extent. I’m plenty angry, this guys speech is just the latest example of “the emperor wears no clothes,” and I’m only too happy to point each and every missing fiber. (Actually that would take the rest of my life, thus the reason for Mel’s conclusion: The Debate is Over, so I take it back. In practice though, not in principle.) :)

I suppose I’m asking, why is the abject absurdity of this illogic, typical typical illogic, not being discussed? Why are the questions and points I’m bringing up here never mentioned as such, on BOTH sides. They don’t explain or are unaware of the gaping holes in their own logic, and we aren’t identifying and pinpointing and confronting those gaping holes, that’s what I want to get at here.

This has nothing to do with the Bible or the “gay” issue. Why is the argument not being framed like I’m doing here? This post has been up for a few days now there are people here and plenty of lurkers who could have answered these questions by now, they have not. This is the issue: WHY IS THERE NOT EVEN A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES?

I asked those questions above in order to find out if I’m seeing this situation correctly. The fact that “they” are unwilling to or cannot answer them, even in cursory form is a BIGGER issue than the illogic that they present as the basis of their argument in the first place! 5. Therefore why not ask, how do we reach our potential allies? Rather than ask "why are the anti-gay bigots so bigoted?" which is what I think you are asking.No, I’m not, but I can see how it would be seen that way. I get and agree with all 1-5 points that you made.

The imagery in my mind is that this is lightning bolt SHOCKING idiocy, and if it could be explained and understood as I am attempting to do here, there would be NO DOUBT as to their insincerity. No doubt, as in PERMANENT CLARITY, at least for some, gay, straight, parents, students, atheists, bystanders and everyone in between. This is THAT obvious to ME, why is it not being shouted from the rooftops? This is Cake!

This is what would be able to reach those potential allies, and especially those locked within those mental citadels of religious dogma who know something is askew but don’t have the where-with-all to make the break to objective logic. Granted, presenting it in the angry tone I’m famous for isn’t the most productive way to communicate anything let alone the contentious information of this material.

If we could put this depth of logic in simpler form and combine it with the assertiveness and activism of the equality riders, we might have something NEW and more effective to work with.
This is where my frustration lies. If I’m missing something simple as to why this is not being explained, let me know. If you’re not seeing, what appears to me as obvious and easy pickings, let me know.

I know they don’t see me and have no intention to do so. I’m trying to point out how easy it is to point out their hypocrisy when they say that they do see me. It would be a different story if they said all homosexuals are liars or delusional or a combination of the two, we don’t NEED to know any more because “the Bible says they’re bad.” I say Fine, say so! But they don’t.

That’s the lie. That is the overt abject unequivocal LIE! They are liars for not calling us liars, and unless and until they are willing to call us liars and/or delusional, THIS PARTICULAR LIE MUST BE EXPOSED.

Lies of omission are WORSE than lies outright because it is TWO lies. First to yourself that the lie of omission is not a lie, and second to portray that lie as the truth to another person. It is the delusion that the ignorance of dishonesty is the absence of dishonesty.

In regard to their KNOWN harm of others, to continue this dishonesty in the name of Christianity is a THIRD LIE. The focus needs to be on their secondary and third lies, when those can be seen for what they are, the original lie will be plainly seen.

The problem here is that they’ve dummed DOWN their own rhetoric specifically for this purpose. They’ve Christianized and sanitized it to the point that even reasoning people wouldn’t notice the idiocy, bigotry and hypocrisy of it without further careful study.

It’s like when people make snide underhanded cowardice comments, said just loud enough to hear but never communicated directly and never intended to invite a response, but always intended to fortify the insult itself with that most abominable frustration. THAT’S the dishonesty I’m talking about, and THAT’S the dishonesty that MUST BE EXPOSED.
Above all, I sensed anger, frustration, and helplessness coming from your notes above, and so am hoping that re-directing the issue might bring you some well-deserved hope and optimism...You DO identify the problem correctly. But IS there anything *you* can do about it? I doubt that. So, what positive thing can be done with all your smarts and all your energy? So that’s where I’m coming from and want to go with this. And again, If this has been done before and I’m just not aware of it or if there are obvious challenges to this I’m not seeing, just let me know. If I’m not being clear enough or haven’t put it in usable strategic form well enough yet, pull the information out of me so I can. I’m often so tangled in my own... whatever, that I don’t know how to compare what I see with what’s practically understandable for everyone else. You’re pretty good at going back and forth like that though. :rainbow:

[tdogg]

I do understand your frustration and anger - I have felt it/do feel it often. Dr. Anderson's speech was pure bigotry and blasphemy and nothing Christian or Christ-like in it. It was hate. :mad:

I have an aunt who 'just knows that she knows that she knows' that I'm living in sin, a sinful lifestyle and if I don't repend now I'll be 'lost' forever. She quotes the usual Corinthians verse and a couple others. She has no interest in discussing this with me at all, just sends her hate mail now and then with the same ole verses. She won't read anything I send her, calls it trash and that's where it ends up. Her mind is not open to anything on this. Like Dr. Anderson, she sees herself as right and righteous and I'm not, and somehow I'm not even intelligent enough to know the difference for myself. I have responded to her time and again and not sure if I have the energy anymore. It's like banging your head against a brick wall, it doesn't do anything construction and it hurts like hell. :eek:

As far as Studying, I've been thinking bout this person - if Studying were indeed here to learn as Studying has posted (in his/her own words)...well, let me start by saying in order to 'learn' aka gain knowledge, one must have an open mind in order to allow the knowledge to enter the mind/brain. Studying does not have an open mind at this point so is not in a position to 'learn'. If that is not Studying's true intent here, then at best he/she is lying when stating they want to learn. That isn't a Christian or Christ-like attitude either. It all goes together - they have no interest in learning, or teaching, only in passing on their beliefs and opinions as the only true option. Sorry, I don't buy it and I won't buy it. :disagree:

So, that still leads us to your questions. I dont' know how to address it or handle it. I started a couple letters to my aunt to respond to her latest anti-gay hate mail (which came a day after my birthday and contained no birthday wishes :'( ). Part of me is tired and done with trying to defend myself. But part of me isn't done. So I'm a bit perplexed with how to address it if at all. :confused: Personnally, I don't believe these people really know what they are basing their arguments on, it's just that 'they know' and apparently we don't. they come up with the same ole arguments and offenses and it doesn't make sense. Zerbie has a point, reach out to our allies instead, but to find our allies we'll have to wade thru these others and so that is an issue that probably won't go away.

Well, no help really, but at least you know you aren't alone in this, and maybe we can brainstorm here on how to address it. I'm really feeling like I need to respond to my aunt. I want to buy her the book Straight Parents, Gay Children but she'll probably just toss it in the trash. That's a truly sadly closed mind - to toss books. I hate that! :(

Brainstorming might equal construction ideas!? :rainbow:

[Dash]

Oh...Emproph...you lay it out so well! I simply don't think the way you do, and my thoughts lack the clarity and methodology that yours have. Nonetheless, I offer them as a response...or addenda...or florid cadenza to your statement.

Around the end of last year, I began to pay attention once more to the voices that speak against the glbt community. I suppose it began because I was interested in this movie that I'd heard about called "Brokeback Mountain." After months of exploring a number of online forums, including religious and political blogs--both conservative and liberal--and after following the adventures of our brave riders in the news and here, I have come to a single consistent conclusion. I think our disagreement with conservative elements of Christianity and society hinge on one point:

Our love is really love.

What we experience is the same love that heterosexuals experience, and there is a persistent refusal by many to believe this. Many Christians, despite what they try to do, have never really let go of their desire to judge. It is ultimately more important to them to make moral distinctions than to accept others without judgment. And what is sad is that in this issue...where they cannot see into our hearts...they are least qualified to make these judgments.

They use all the force of their faith and law to shout down the holy revelation of this truth about ourselves. Again and again without ceasing they repeat slanders against love as it manifests itself in our souls and lives. It is not love, they say. It is lust...it is hedonism...it is abuse...it is pain...it is disease...it is brokenness...it is a symptom...it is an abomination...it is crime...it is sin. They say it with disgust. They say it with anger. They say it with hatred. They also say it gently and politely. They say it reasonably. They say it with every noble and good intent. But in whichever of the many voices they say it, it remains a slanderous untruth.

It is still a blasphemy against love.

They refuse to yield the right of judgment. They refuse to see the fruit that their judgment bears as it ripens into violence against those they oppose. They refuse to acknowledge that we who cry out are worth much more to God than many bibles and many laws. Ten plagues would not change their hearts. No desert vine will teach them. No talking donkey will turn them from their path. No saliva will open their eyes. No crucifixion and no blood will quench their thirst for justice.

But we know our love is love. Brokeback spoke it as clearly as any story could. For watching that movie, many were given the rare chance to enter into the very skin of two men who knew this love. Many saw it and looked upon Love and loved Him. Many saw the pierced One and wept for the wounds the world has given. But for those who will not listen nor see, it was as powerless to change them as our longsuffering cries.

They have their law, and we have our love. Their law makes many sinners out of brothers and sisters, and sends the weak and suffering into exile. But for all their declarations and certainties, and for all the algebra they calculate against us. For all the grace they hoard from us....

...there is still no law against love.

[Zerbie]

How beyond beautiful, Dash! And *yes.*

Tdogg - you bring up, here & elsewhere, such an important issue - the point of balance between effort and patience, the tug-o-war between action and observation. The energy cost to us of brick wall slamming and windmill tilting. Sometimes, for our souls' sake we must tilt the windmill. At others, we must walk away without engaging in the first place.

Emproph - bravo! Reading your dissection of Anderson's statement showed me where you were going with this thread. At first I didn't see its trajectory, which is why I spun it. Now that I see its potential, no way I wanna spin this. It's too good! ;)

I'm going to start another post anyway to follow that tangent. :lol:

[Zerbie]

I suppose I’m asking, why is the abject absurdity of this illogic, typical typical illogic, not being discussed? Why are the questions and points I’m bringing up here never mentioned as such, on BOTH sides. They don’t explain or are unaware of the gaping holes in their own logic, and we aren’t identifying and pinpointing and confronting those gaping holes, that’s what I want to get at here.

This has nothing to do with the Bible or the “gay” issue. Why is the argument not being framed like I’m doing here? This post has been up for a few days now there are people here and plenty of lurkers who could have answered these questions by now, they have not. This is the issue: WHY IS THERE NOT EVEN A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES?

I asked those questions above in order to find out if I’m seeing this situation correctly. The fact that “they” are unwilling to or cannot answer them, even in cursory form is a BIGGER issue than the illogic that they present as the basis of their argument in the first place!No, I’m not, but I can see how it would be seen that way. I get and agree with all 1-5 points that you made.

The imagery in my mind is that this is lightning bolt SHOCKING idiocy, and if it could be explained and understood as I am attempting to do here, there would be NO DOUBT as to their insincerity. No doubt, as in PERMANENT CLARITY, at least for some, gay, straight, parents, students, atheists, bystanders and everyone in between. This is THAT obvious to ME, why is it not being shouted from the rooftops? This is Cake!

This is what would be able to reach those potential allies, and especially those locked within those mental citadels of religious dogma who know something is askew but don’t have the where-with-all to make the break to objective logic. Granted, presenting it in the angry tone I’m famous for isn’t the most productive way to communicate anything let alone the contentious information of this material.

If we could put this depth of logic in simpler form and combine it with the assertiveness and activism of the equality riders, we might have something NEW and more effective to work with.
This is where my frustration lies. If I’m missing something simple as to why this is not being explained, let me know. If you’re not seeing, what appears to me as obvious and easy pickings, let me know.

I know they don’t see me and have no intention to do so. I’m trying to point out how easy it is to point out their hypocrisy when they say that they do see me. It would be a different story if they said all homosexuals are liars or delusional or a combination of the two, we don’t NEED to know any more because “the Bible says they’re bad.” I say Fine, say so! But they don’t.

That’s the lie. That is the overt abject unequivocal LIE! They are liars for not calling us liars, and unless and until they are willing to call us liars and/or delusional, THIS PARTICULAR LIE MUST BE EXPOSED.

Lies of omission are WORSE than lies outright because it is TWO lies. First to yourself that the lie of omission is not a lie, and second to portray that lie as the truth to another person. It is the delusion that the ignorance of dishonesty is the absence of dishonesty.

In regard to their KNOWN harm of others, to continue this dishonesty in the name of Christianity is a THIRD LIE. The focus needs to be on their secondary and third lies, when those can be seen for what they are, the original lie will be plainly seen.

The problem here is that they’ve dummed DOWN their own rhetoric specifically for this purpose. They’ve Christianized and sanitized it to the point that even reasoning people wouldn’t notice the idiocy, bigotry and hypocrisy of it without further careful study.

It’s like when people make snide underhanded cowardice comments, said just loud enough to hear but never communicated directly and never intended to invite a response, but always intended to fortify the insult itself with that most abominable frustration. THAT’S the dishonesty I’m talking about, and THAT’S the dishonesty that MUST BE EXPOSED.
So that’s where I’m coming from and want to go with this. And again, If this has been done before and I’m just not aware of it or if there are obvious challenges to this I’m not seeing, just let me know. If I’m not being clear enough or haven’t put it in usable strategic form well enough yet, pull the information out of me so I can. I’m often so tangled in my own... whatever, that I don’t know how to compare what I see with what’s practically understandable for everyone else. You’re pretty good at going back and forth like that though. :rainbow:


Emproph - You are crystal clear. Gotcha now. You are brilliant. I think you're leading us towards the solution we've been seeking.

What I get from your words above, in no particular order, is this:

* the disingenuousness of the "truth in love" framing from the anti-gay "side" (which covers their posterior since the foam-at-the-mouth hatred of Phelps types alienates, and they seek to lure)

* why is there no discussion of the *essential* matters behind the arguments (on both "sides")?

I'll attempt to answer that, being certain that you are keenly aware already of that which I'm about to repeat. Put it in the larger social context. The US has seen a devastating decline in education in the past generation or so. The decline in education coincides with a disappearance of rhetoric (I've only ever encountered rhetoric in history books, myself), and a disappearance from the scene of *real* debate. It's all replaced by expensive media air-time, hence the ghastly over-simplified language of the 15 and 30 second sound-bite. These phenomena then train the individual to expect and accept them as the natural order of things. All that talk of shrinking attention spans, etc.
So if both "sides" ignore the essentials, that is because LGBT groups are also playing the game of 15 second sound bites.

What I get out of this thread now is the search for a new "frame." Either, we frame emproph's points into some 15 and 30 second "bites" and let those crawl into the collective public ear (feasible, very feasible), or we wait hopefully for the culture to re-direct back to rhetoric and debate (not exactly practical!).

* Why no legitimate attempt to address essential isses? See the larger cultural context. The electromagnetic spectrum is very expensive, hence the brevity of sound-bites.

* Emproph's point: the fact of evasion (on part of the theocratic right) is more essential than the pseudo-logic that evades the real question. Right. Easy - call them on it. But first we need to establish the validity of the real questions as best we can for the mind of our audience. Ie: our Message needs to get written, unified, and get out there!

Emproph provides a message that must reach our "moveable middle."

So emproph, here's your homework. :p

Collect and organize your points quoted above. Go ahead and write little syllogisms. Go ahead and put it in little bullet points. Write out the longer explanations and also give each one a companion cliff-note, so we have both at our disposal.

Then we all need to seriously consider getting the word out there. But at least it's a place to start. We can go anywhere from here.

[awediot]

I must admit emproph, the depths and scope of your writing, particularly in this thread, put me off at times and I don't give them the chance to confound me. That is a failing on my part as you always have much to say (more than I usually pick up on) whether I agree or not. And it is the sense that I may be missing your point that tends to silences my reply (rather be thought a fool than remove all doubt... I am my own poster child here).

If a central theme to this thread remains the question (posted some time ago) as to how a thing can be seen as a sin, but not evil, the answer is simple if sin is believed to be the result of ignorance, which is innocent. Ironically a view held by very few Christians, and used by even less.

Judgment of ones actions is a discernment necessary to survival and sanity. It is abandoned at ones own peril. Judgment of another's Soul is role no man has, though some do mistakenly crown themselves with it. Unfortunately it is far too easy to confuse the two when we justly condemn another's behavior, and much easier still to hear in another's words more than what they mean.

This is not to justify any of the misguided efforts of those who would damn us for things they cannot understand, just add some perspective.

[awediot]

I backtracked to your original post, as I agree much can be learned from this thread, and I wanted to prove just how clueless I can be. Might any of this serve to clear up gaps that may not be your point anyway?:o

...how does one go about equating a committed loving gay relationship, or a dainty heterosexual man with raping, robbing, and murdering?

They have no comparative innocuous sin and do not see this a sign of being wrong, but that homosexuality must be by definition nastier than our description or sincerity of defenses we convey. The normal life we try to signify must be the exception. ( and sadly, it is. But it also IS the exception in the straight world as well---which is probably our fault too)

And if I am so sick and so confused, to the point where I am convinced I was born this way, like I’m convinced yesterday happened, how can that be a sin?

Slam dunk! And that one hits bone... even the clarity their own prayers bring regarding this dilemma must serve only to discomfort them...

WHY would he not use words like EVIL, LYING, UNREPENTANT, SINNERS, who know EXACTLY what they are doing to harm others?

... because he is attempting to use the same nonviolent concepts used here. And the sweetness with which one can shred another's Soul is salt in the wound. The Down Side of Nonviolence.

-Are we sick and confused?

Yes, but probably no longer about this issue...

-Or are we intentionally trying to take away the rights of others?

If the desire and ability to keep certain types from joining in their private club is considered a RIGHT, yes we are. (and this is my central, borderline disagreement with aspects of this group, BTW)

-And WHY are the answers to these questions NEVER addressed?

They are grand, frightening and some answerable questions.

I agree with your frustration emproph, and am ashamed and confounded to have the name of my belief used in such 'anti-christian' ways. They still think logic and common sense is to be put aside if it 'conflicts' with THE WORD. They have yet to discover they need not be contradictory, and they can indeed take the brain the good Lord gave 'em, out of its box.

We do not pose a threat or offer an adjustment to a particular, out of place sin. We loom as the very possibility of undermining it all. The chink in the armour, weak link and Achilles heel that if acknowledged, may inadvertently reveal a way in, unraveling the whole universe, their sacrosanct truth, education, reputation, family and their very Soul. You underestimate how terrifying and intelligent a demon you seem in their eyes. They are generally nervous children who have yet to take their first steps into spiritual adulthood. The fact that they have gained power and influence without the (one would hope) prerequisite gentleness and decency, is a great injustice and one of God's irritating mysteries.

[Emproph]

Thanks you guys, there's way too much quality responses/material here to reply to in full just yet.

tdogg -I’m glad you used the word brainstorm. I’ve tried to do it around here before (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=286) but haven't gotten much of a response. Then again, it was just that, brainstorming, not necessarily presented with a specific strategic angle on how to go about it. Good to know you’re on board in that sense though. (p.s. I have plenty more thoughts on your post) :)

Dash -Ok, you need to write a book. I almost cried when I read that last post, it made me weak, and perfectly apropos sentiment.

awediot -The feeling’s mutual. When you signed on I was like, OMG THIS is what people mean when they say they don’t understand my posts. I know it makes perfect creative sense, but I just don't always-get-all-of-it. :rainbow:

And Zerbmeister, that’s the best homework assignment I’ve ever been given. :tup:

[Daniel]

Our love is really love.

They use all the force of their faith and law to shout down the holy revelation of this truth about ourselves.

They refuse to yield the right of judgment.

But we know our love is love.
For all the grace they hoard from us....

...there is still no law against love.


Yes. Yes. And more yes to all of the above! Dash- your words are beautifully written. And your 'voice' made me cry with joy and recongnition. Hope you're saving what you wrote.

Emproph- Reading and watching your journey here has been like watching a skilled surgeon do his work. I think you've made an accurate diagnosis of the patient. But does the patient want the cure? The conclusions you've come to would be one bitter pill to swallow- as Awediot notes. I think Zerbie has cannily put her finger on the matter: How to get the treatment out there for those who can face it.

[keltic63]

a discussion that I've gotten myself into over at the UMC boards has me thinking about this thread.

We could get into a huge debate over why I feel the way I do or we can just love and accept one another as we are.

"can't we all just get along?" kind of thinking..... evidently not when you say, however politely, that I'm going to hell in a handbasket because I'm gay. Julie is just too "nice" wanting to keep her christianity cloak about her, eventhough she "knows" homosexual acts are wrong, but God loves gays and straights alike.

I keep coming back to this thread. If you really believe I'm sick/confused/reprobate, then say so. If I'm that confused mentally, is it still sin? How can God hold that against me? I'm an idiot, I can't know better!

I think I'm getting this argument formed in my head, but for me, it still needs refining! Help?

[Zerbie]

Hmm, well I'm not one to help ya Keltic - this just ain't my territory. (I've never gotten the whole gay=sin equation, simply see nothing there no matter how much I look at it, so I'm not one to take on this debate).

I am, however, eagerly awaiting Emproph's return with the completed "homework" or hey, just a rough draft will do. Hear that Emproph? rough drafts still getcha an "A" and a whole fresh crop of carrots. Emproph is our guy when it comes to that particular argument - come back, come back!!!

That said, I ran into another whole set of anti-gay arguments the other day and wanted to pass it along to you, E, (it's a video collection you can view free on the internet) but 1) you're busy with this stuff, 2) I had serious trouble getting the links to work, and 3) my blood pressure rose so high after 45 seconds of listening that I thought my eyeballs were going to explode! I didn't want to inflict that on you. But if you're interested in taking on FOF's lead anti-marriage strategist's very best arguments, I will pass the info on to you. I'm talking about Glenn Stanton, btw, dunno if you've run across that name yet. He's quite the debater - came here last summer and trounced our activists on a radio show. :mad:

From the 45 seconds I heard, the arguments are emminently debate-able, they seem to be based purely on insulting gay people while claiming not to, and on distortion of the real issue. I just couldn't deal with listening to the insult - I ended up cursing out my computer monitor and shutting the program off. :rolleyes:

[Emproph]

Emproph- Reading and watching your journey here has been like watching a skilled surgeon do his work.

I think you've made an accurate diagnosis of the patient. But does the patient want the cure? The conclusions you've come to would be one bitter pill to swallow- as Awediot notes. I think Zerbie has cannily put her finger on the matter: How to get the treatment out there for those who can face it.

Daniel that’s one of the best compliments I’ve ever received. I sincerely appreciate it, thank you. :tup:

I didn’t say anything to that and to the rest of you too, I haven’t come back here yet because there are so many more things in all of your replies that I wanted to elaborate on before posting further, but it’s becoming a distraction to the real work at hand, my “homework assignment” (or if you prefer, my 'homowork' assignment :D). So I don’t thing you’ll mind if I try to keep speeding ahead. :)

Keltic I read your post earlier and I started a response to you after going to that UMC thread. From what I read, you were doing a pretty good job of holding your own and their feet to the fire, most graciously. And now with pastorsteve and True to Him, I cannot believe after everything that was said in that thread that they would have the gaul to come in with their "Because the Bible says so" BS, no qualification, no explanation, knowing full well how insulting that was and still thinking that's Christian behavior. :mad:

Anyway, before they came in I decided that I should just get in on it (I've been over there a few times so far). So I wrote out a response, mostly addressing Ezekiel but covering all the issues up to pastorsteve, and it was great, so then I signed up and tried to post it. I don’t think it was much longer than Zerbie’s post above but I couldn’t preview it or even post it, and I saw from your post there you had that problem too. I couldn’t find any information on posting limits so I e-mailed and asked about it, haven’t heard back yet.

As I’m sure you saw I posted there earlier and I'll be following the thread, this is exactly what I'm looking for. We can always talk specifics here though as well. :)

[Emproph]

I am, however, eagerly awaiting Emproph's return with the completed "homework" or hey, just a rough draft will do. Hear that Emproph? rough drafts still getcha an "A" and a whole fresh crop of carrots. Emproph is our guy when it comes to that particular argument - come back, come back!!! I hear ya’ loud and clear and those have been my exact thoughts as of late. I want to start posting one example at a time. (The arguing points or ‘sound bites,’ cliff’s notes, and the more thorough explanation.) Otherwise I get overwhelmed with the enormity of all the different parts and one thing just starts bleeding into another.
That said, I ran into another whole set of anti-gay arguments the other day and wanted to pass it along to you, E, (it's a video collection you can view free on the internet) but 1) you're busy with this stuff, 2) I had serious trouble getting the links to work, and 3) my blood pressure rose so high after 45 seconds of listening that I thought my eyeballs were going to explode! I didn't want to inflict that on you. But if you're interested in taking on FOF's lead anti-marriage strategist's very best arguments, I will pass the info on to you. I'm talking about Glenn Stanton, btw, dunno if you've run across that name yet. He's quite the debater - came here last summer and trounced our activists on a radio show. :mad: I’ve been busy with this and I’m moving, today in fact. (Just two miles away and have lots of help, but prayers welcome.) So that’s been a whole ‘nother stress, the distraction in relation to what I’m most passionate about.From the 45 seconds I heard, the arguments are emminently debate-able, they seem to be based purely on insulting gay people while claiming not to, and on distortion of the real issue. I just couldn't deal with listening to the insult - I ended up cursing out my computer monitor and shutting the program off. :rolleyes: You’re preaching to the choir here. I dread going to those sites when I’m researching because I have the same adverse reaction. Sometimes when I have to go to one, FOF, CWA, AFA etc., I literally make sure I “avert my eyes” to anything other than what I’m looking for as I know what I’m looking for is going to make me mad enough. But when I’m ready I'll check it out, I've put it on my gay agenda. :lol:

[Emproph]

I don’t know if these are necessarily in order but this is a rough draft. Consider it Brain fodder (<you can use that..:D).

First the response to the arguments or questions need to be noticed as being a consistent pattern of response with the goal of being able to continually and EASILY come back to the original question.

Examples of consistent pattern of response:
-no answer at all
-same non-answer (confusion/diversion/irrelevance)
-an even more convoluted explanation
-etc.

Each of the above "responses" need follow up questions/responses that lead to the same:
-no answer at all
-same non-answer (confusion/diversion/irrelevance)
-an even more convoluted explanation
-etc
And so on until there is either breakthrough or stalemate. Stalemate is fine so long as it is defined as such in no uncertain terms to the arguing party in question. At least you know where that person stands and why, and they know they are no longer credible with you.

Second, the EASILY part is what needs to be noticed and recognized by anyone watching and reading, that’s the contagious part. No formal “training” necessary, no need to go to a certain website etc. The truth is seen and immediately recognized as such. Nothing’s off the table, just not necessary, I do eventually want a centralized website for this though.

Third, in order to get this to go mainstream it needs to start with those who are already sympathetic. By not exposing the KNOWN shenanigans of FOF and the likes, the mainstream media are collusive in this, it has to be from the grass roots up, in this case “Blogging for change.” This grass roots effort doesn’t require door knocking, phone calls, mailings or leaving your home. By capitalizing on our often ‘loser-like’ independence, THIS is how we liberals can unite. The joy of this is that we can take our time with our responses to make sure they are precision accurate and presented most effectively. That’s where a website to refer back to would come in handy. (I’m looking to take classes).

I think part of, if not the core of this strategy needs to revolve around the questions that cannot be answered.

Using questions themselves, specifically to avoid all the tanglings that can come with supposition that can lead to the perception of accusation. To avoid: On our side, getting angry and less able to argue effectively and on their side, giving them further ammunition. “See how the gay agenda operates? Always trying to accuse people who disagree of having an agenda!”

It’s their response to the questions that are their answers, whether they answer the questions directly or not, or not at all for that matter, this part is already the case of course. We need to be able to consistently and systematically extract and elucidate the meaning of their non-responses.

(Example of questions)
These are pretty much the heart of it. This is all based on the assumption that the Bible is inerrant:
Where in the Bible does it say that your interpretation of it is also inerrant?
How is it possible to determine something to be inerrant without actually being inerrant?

I believe the Bible is true. I hate homosexuality. God hates homosexuality (via the Bible). Therefore, God confirms my hatred of homosexuality.

MEANING: I believe the Bible is true. I believe my understanding that homosexuality is perverted is true. Therefore my belief that the Bible is true confirms my belief that homosexuality is a perversion. (Ergo: Beliefs + Beliefs = Facts.)

The original belief in Biblical inerrancy doesn’t stand to reason that’s why they have to make up or find their own misleading studies and statistics about gays, to forge the universe back into the box they created it in. “Because the Bible says so” doesn’t fly in a court in America, or with anyone who has a working brain for that matter. In the court of public opinion, homosexuals eat feces flies, in more ways than one..

My point is that once the Biblical aspect of the argument has been sufficiently neutralized, next comes the barrage of statistics and studies. Easy enough to counter if one is familiar with them and/or know how to become familiar with them. “The Politics of Demanding and Refuting Sources” is the title of next weeks lesson children, and hopefully I'll have some lesson plans ready by then too. :rainbow:

[Emproph]

This is an experiment, I'm just going to keep editing this one post to try and nail these particulars down, so pay no attention. :D

Examples of consistent pattern of response:

-no answer at all
--You ignored me. Why did you ignore me? Ignoring people is not Christian.

-same non-answer (confusion/diversion/irrelevance)

-an even more convoluted explanation
--That's your interpretation, there are many others, how do you know better? Without knowing of all interpretations, how CAN you know better?

-other
-{Not Sure Where These Fit Yet}
-- Refer to 'The Gay Agenda,' as "The Christian Right's Gay Agenda" (The characterization of equality as something sinister) It belongs to them.

Definition--UnChristian behavior = behavior that is not Christian
Definition--Anti-Christian behavior = behavior that is unChristian but is justified/portrayed specifically as being Christian behavior

--Ignoring the issue or not answering question 3 times = troll. They are no longer to be engaged except to be referred to as troll and why. (Troll 4x, Troll 5x, Troll 6x...)

--homosexual behavior = heterosexual behavior. heterosexuals not having sex with the opposite sex at the moment they are speaking with you, are not heterosexuals. And thus not in a position to make that distinction. This includes virgins.

Pray No Fear

[Zerbie]

First of all - I LOVE the Susan B. Anthony quote. See, she was *cool!*

Secondly - whaddaya mean I could use some brain fodder? Is that an insult. :mad: *smack*. What I could really use is a good chill pill and some theta brain waves, not more stimuli.

Thirdly - good luck with your move. I hope you will be comfortable and happy in the new place. :pray:

I've enjoyed reading your drafts so far. Keep 'em coming. Yes, I concur the mainstream media treats groups like AFA and FOF like they hold a neutral stance on issues, rather than an extreme one.

As to the arguments against gay marriage, I cannot get a working link. When you have the time and inclination, take a look and be prepared you may get mightily pissed off. To find the arguments, since I can't get a link for you, do this:

Go to azpolicy.org (that's my local set of opponents). At the top of their home page, as of now, they have a banner that reads "why NOT gay marriage?" and you can get to the video by clicking there. You might want to take frequent pauses to let the steam evaporate. I couldn't watch more than 45 seconds, total (I listened to the sub-heading, How does my gay relationship hurt your marriage?) and thought my eyeballs were going to burst and spew across the room.

[keltic63]

Keltic I read your post earlier and I started a response to you after going to that UMC thread. From what I read, you were doing a pretty good job of holding your own and their feet to the fire, most graciously. And now with pastorsteve and True to Him, I cannot believe after everything that was said in that thread that they would have the gaul to come in with their "Because the Bible says so" BS, no qualification, no explanation, knowing full well how insulting that was and still thinking that's Christian behavior. :mad:


OK, I had to go back there and post. If you've seen it there, it is substantial, and hopefully somewhat pithy. (and no, I'm not typing with a lithp) I used some of your words and ideas. I hope you don't mind. I'm insulted that True to Him thinks I've done no research on this at all. Yet, he repeatedly ignores the questions we bring up, posts some platitudes, and the "Bible says so" stuff without benefit of good interpretation, and thinks that settles things. It's not been that long since I posted over there (5 hours at this point) but I've noticed that no one has responded to my particular post yet. I'm hoping the silence means they don't have a response. If a response comes, I'm predicting that the questions will be deflected and a new argument will be presented. (you saw it here first, folks! Place your bets!)

[Emproph]

{I wrote the material for this and the following posts by hand because I didn’t have the computer hooked back up yet (my move, all good:tup:). Then I got back up and running and I went over to UMC and started reading through that thread and just about lost it. I figured it’d be best to get this stuff up here first}

Plagiarize me all you like Keltic! :) -what's that line, immitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Please take it that next step.. :D

(I’m using Julie as an example -she seemed quite sincere)
The thing with Julie and like, just as the quote you put earlier. The “good Christian” stance, she doesn’t want to “debate” her beliefs for the sake of being a “good Christian.”

You ARE the debate. I’m not suggesting to get confrontational with people like her, you guys had a really “Christian” conversation, much better than I could do, but by engaging you at all, she’s already debating. You guys were already debating.

To say I believe you are sinning but I don’t want to debate my beliefs as to why with you is to say that I’m arguing with you but I don’t want you to think so (and in her case), because I don’t want to think that about myself. Essentially, I’m right and you’re wrong, I have no desire to learn otherwise, so let’s just agree to disagree by you agreeing that I am right without asking any more questions, SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO ASK MYSELF ANYMORE QUESTIONS.

To say “I love you, even though you're wrong, but I don’t want to share with you why or how, BECAUSE I AM A CHRISTIAN" is not an invitation to debate, it is the demand for one.

-Here’s the qualifier: You can believe anything you want and believe that you are right too, you don’t even have to know or care why, that’s not the debate. But by saying that you don’t want to debate that in the name of being Christian, for the sake of treating me the way you would want to be treated yourself, I need to know which particular stance you take in order to even attempt to respect it. Otherwise you're breaking the only commandments of Christianity.

-- Loving God above all else, by treating others the way you would want to be treated.

You’ve determined that I or some aspect about me is evil. If you know why and how, then I need to know that.

If you do not know why and how, other than “because the Bible says so,” then I need to know that.

And if that is the case then I need to know that you do not CARE why and how I or my “behavior” or my “lifestyle” is evil.

There is are BIG BIG differences, this is what I’m asking.

[Emproph]

(Our beloved die hards have learned to think ahead.)

JUST IN CASE they happen to find a “gay gene.” The “argument” says, well that STILL doesn’t make it ok or natural because it’s like alcoholism. It’s another strawman, build up a fake idea and then easily knock it down "argument."

To start with, there are statistics on the success/recovery rate of alcoholism and they are significant enough to dismiss drug addiction as even being comparable with the attempts to be "Ex-gay."

So that’s 2 distortions. Characterizing Loving someone as a destructive behavior #1, and #2, comparing known definable success stories of sobriety with the virtually non-existent stats on ex-gays. All of the small % of success rates that I have ever read of, include VARYING degrees of questionable success, and those definitions of success are all over the map.

Such as, Ex-gay = celibacy, or having heterosexual sex and/or “relationships.” Even the studies Exodus International points to from NARTH include complete failures, or unavailable to be included in studies. (I always wonder what happened to them...)

Even Mike Haley, Focus on the Family’s Ex-gay guru, mentions in his book that the “temptation” rears itself every so often “like a pesky little fly” he says. MIKE HALEY IS A BISEXUAL!

Point being, the best success stories of recovery from “gay addiction” are negligible at best, there’s NO comparison to those who've gotten sober, to say so is distortion at best. Except for TOTALLY straight Stephen Bennett, the poster child for the price of heterosexuality, TOTAL MORAL CORRUPTION. The quintessential testament that God only loves gays as long as they are willing to spend the rest of their lives lying about others.

Be ready for “there’s also little to no success/recovery rate for pedophilia too,” Again, distortion. We’re not talking about CHILD ABUSE, were talking about 2 people in love!

So the “just in case there is a gay gene” argument is a non sequitur, another distortion, a straw man argument. Characterize the situation in an unholy light and then easily condemn it.

[Emproph]

(Like insects and insecticide, they just keep adapting.)

The comparison of the “sin” of homosexuality/behavior with adultery is an attempt to ‘soften’ the perception of bigotry. It’s usually not intentionally deceptive, but the intention is to justify the hatred by conforming/distorting it to the bible.

By comparing the “sin” of homosexuality to adultery, the insulting and inflamatory comparison to theft rape and murder are avoided, yet the connotation and 'disgust' of sexual sin is maintained. The obvious and MONUMENTAL problem with this particular characterization is two fold.

The comparison/characterization is between a gay couple who love each other and one partner of a straight couple who is cheating on the other. You have the sexual "sin" of sex outside of marriage, and worse, the dishonesty of what that implies. It’s nothing short of changing the subject for the purpose of avoiding the issue, -how can love be evil? {Or am I delusional, and why, and how do you know beyond “because the bible says so?”}

Within the context of the Biblical story of the woman at the well, where Jesus Loved the sinner but admonished the sin (adultery), lies another entirely deeper level of insidious distortion and distraction.

Since Jesus, God, didn’t directly say anything about homosexuality, by portraying it as equal to adultery, now he did. AND, since Jesus is now seen as being against it, the very effort to characterize homosexuality as equal to adultery can now be seen as “what Jesus would do.” Absolving our beloved bigot of all responsibility in doing so. Leaving us with the impression that something is amiss but we don’t know quite what.

It’s not necessarily intentionally deceptive. The intentional part is the effort to continue thinking they are right and we are wrong, it’s more self deception. And there’s you’re bigotry, in this instance and all the other distortions like it.

It’s the DESIRE to think homosexuality is wrong that is the bigotry.

[Venari]

Emproph,

You greatly missed a few points.

First, Dr. Anderson presents the argument that "homosexuality is ok because it is natural and there for not immoral" is flawed. It opens the door for other "issues" to be argued along the same lines. This is not a comparison of homosexuality to any other sin but presenting the argument made by Rev. White and Soulforce are flawed and on those grounds NCU refused to engage them in conversation.

Second, despite the claims of Soulforce NCU has never expelled a student for just being gay. Here is a link to a student message board where MANY students repeat this Student Discussion (http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=147278&categoryID=0&type=schools&schoolID=2461&viewType=0&schoolLevel=7&IsSticky=0&Mytoken=0A35E793-C526-4837-9BAB700A80ACD58C107295531). I know you'll read things you'll take issue with but the underlying point is none of the students that know the facts behind previous dismissals form the University. From this point Soulforce was not approaching NCU in an honest manner, this and other issues.

Third, there was a lack of respect for the right to have differing view points. NCU offered to sit down and discuss how with the Equality Ride if they agreed not to protest, this was refused by the Equality Ride, that was protest not to still visit. Also there is an attempt to change out policies, which from that stance of Soulforce may seem decimator. But speaking as a student they are fairly distributed and applied to all students. Granted homosexual conduct is not allowed, but it comes down to this is a private, religious group, who has the freedom to believe what they want. NCU in no way encourages "gay bashing" and I have known many students to received disciplinary action for making derogatory comments to other students perceived as homosexual.

So I guess NCU believes homosexuality is a sin, but will protect a gay student from being harassed by other students.

That is what I believe NCU represents... and where Soulforce is failing. People are not always going to agree, and I would hate to live in a world where everyone agreed. What becomes key is building respect with the people you disagree with.

NCU is firm in its stance but was willing to talk, Soulforce was form in its stance and unwilling to talk and only wanted NCU to change.

Who is intolerant?

-Venari

[Emproph]

First of all - I LOVE the Susan B. Anthony quote. See, she was *cool!*Thank you, I know. I’d seen the quote a couple times but I don’t think with the credit to her name, so finally I did, and then confirmed with a search and now I can use it. Still trying to locate a couple other goodies...Secondly - whaddaya mean I could use some brain fodder? Is that an insult. :mad: *smack*. What I could really use is a good chill pill and some theta brain waves, not more stimuli. Oh I forgot, YOU have a husband... Wait no, If I recall my drunken stupor correctly, I don’t know who I was referring to, but what I may have meant by that was that you’re pretty good at organization, so I’m throwing this stuff out in the hopes that someone, somewhere, somehow, can help me focus more gooder so I don't just confuse eyeball popping people like you with my ramblings who lose it every time someone happens to demonize entire groups of people like us in the name of Christianity... :lol:

And the move went just fine, though I didn’t appreciate it at the time, so thank you. Just as soon as I’m feeling a little bit too good about myself I’m planning on heading over to that website you've suggested and get right back to the angry bitter little self I know and love so well..

Ya’ know, maybe you should watch that thing again, just set up a video camera before doing so this time, as long as the eyeballs remain attached and can be put back in, you could probably make the guinness book of world records. Not that you’d be able to appreciate it, visually speaking of course...

-Bear with me on this next one, It’s a big ramble. Well maybe it’ll makes sense, I’ll know tomorrow...

{P.S. If I had one wish, I’d give the internet literate world a cordless mouse. I don’t know how I’ve lived this long without one. Oh and a coke too.}

(P.P.S. Thanks for weighing in Venari, I appreciate it, I’ll get back with you. :))

[Emproph]

Emproph,

You greatly missed a few points.

First, Dr. Anderson presents the argument that "homosexuality is ok because it is natural and there for not immoral" is flawed. It opens the door for other "issues" to be argued along the same lines. This is not a comparison of homosexuality to any other sin but presenting the argument made by Rev. White and Soulforce are flawed and on those grounds NCU refused to engage them in conversation. Fair enough, I did not realize that the message was stereo specific, but I'm challenging his challenge, that's what is at issue here.Second, despite the claims of Soulforce NCU has never expelled a student for just being gay. Here is a link to a student message board where MANY students repeat this Student Discussion (http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=147278&categoryID=0&type=schools&schoolID=2461&viewType=0&schoolLevel=7&IsSticky=0&Mytoken=0A35E793-C526-4837-9BAB700A80ACD58C107295531). I know you'll read things you'll take issue with but the underlying point is none of the students that know the facts behind previous dismissals form the University. From this point Soulforce was not approaching NCU in an honest manner, this and other issues. I take you at your word, you’re there and you would of course know better than me. That’s not the issue that I have. I've read your posts and I appreciate your concerns, It's not a point of contention.

It has nothing to do with the equality ride or Dr. Anderson, or making religious schools accept homosexuality as not sinful. What I mean is that they are all a part of it but not the significant part.

The reason we’re having this discussion is because of the HORRIBLE flaw in his reasoning. But he and his speech are just representative of it. That man characterized me and every other gay person on this planet as a thief, murderer, rapist etc. repeatedly, did you read what I’ve written? Go, back, Answer my questions and I’ll answer yours. Pick one or two even, throw me a bone here, humor me, I'm desperate!

I’m willing to have this discussion, but it’s not about the equality riders. It’s about the reason for the equality riders. The reasoning in his speech, or lack of it EXEMPLIFIED the ONLY reason why that experience had to happen in reality, not just at your school.

I honestly want answers to these questions Venari, if it's possible. Do people like him really think I'm just to stupid to realize that I'm sick? Do they think I'm lying when I say I'm certain I'm not, or do they just think that I'm lying? How is LOVE EVIL? Do you know what he would say? This is what I NEED to know if I am to not judge them unjustly.

Do they EVEN think about it? Because if you're going to TEACH that an entire group of people are equal to murderers, without explaining why, without explaining how, and then say that your doing so in the name of the truth of Christianity, then you've got A LOT of questions to answer.

This is the issue, this is where I'm coming from.

[dewdrop_world]

First, Dr. Anderson presents the argument that "homosexuality is ok because it is natural and there for not immoral" is flawed. It opens the door for other "issues" to be argued along the same lines. This is not a comparison of homosexuality to any other sin but presenting the argument made by Rev. White and Soulforce are flawed and on those grounds NCU refused to engage them in conversation.
Don't have time now to write a full response, but this is not an accurate reflection of the pro-gay position.

A more accurate reflection would be, "Homosexuality occurs in nature, it does not harm the participants, and suppressing one's given sexual orientation creates separation from the divine (which IS immoral)."

Since Dr. Anderson didn't address the real argument, his counterargument does no more than knock down a straw man.

hjh

[Venari]

It has nothing to do with the equality ride or Dr. Anderson, or making religious schools accept homosexuality as not sinful. What I mean is that they are all a part of it but not the significant part.

...

The reason we’re having this discussion is because of the HORRIBLE flaw in his reasoning. But he and his speech are just representative of it. That man characterized me and every other gay person on this planet as a thief, murderer, rapist etc. repeatedly, did you read what I’ve written? Go, back, Answer my questions and I’ll answer yours. Pick one or two even, throw me a bone here, humor me, I'm desperate!

My question is what is wrong with his logic? To Dr Anderson homosexuality is one aspect of "fallen" human nature. That is everyone’s nature is to sin and homosexuality is part of that nature. Being part of that nature doesn’t mean it is right but rather on par with every other sin.

This comes to the crux of the matter. Dr Anderson, the AG and many other churches view homosexuality as sin and that is where the issue comes from. There is a group of people who view your sexuality, which you accept as being from God, as part of fallen human nature and when expressed a sin. That does not mean you, nor any other gay person, is inherently wicked. Rather it means you have a capacity to sin in a way that others may not.

So embracing homosexuality as a natural and good gift from God represents to them embracing sin for that sake of your own comfort while rejecting the truth.

I know this is fairly brief. The matter comes to how do you interact with the people who disagree with you? Do you call them the poster child for speaking and removing all about of being an idiot? Do you Go to the source and ask them to clarify their statements? Or do you realize there may be an irreconcilable difference?

What matters is we have a right to hold our own views no matter how much another person may not like them. What matters is not becoming divisive and drawing the line in the sand over the issue and coming to an understanding.

So yes the Equality Ride and Soulforce does tie in here. They approached NCU and other schools demanding change of their beliefs not attempting to foster understanding.

I would love to hear Dr Anderson say "You know what, I was wrong." But I know the man is sincerely and honestly convinced his beliefs are right and I respect him for that.

Finally, you need to consider your point of view may sound just as absurd and conflicting to people on the "other side of the fence." So instead of looking on how opposed they are to you look for what you have in common and build a trusting relationship from there. (I know you may never meet Dr Anderson but this applies to anyone who would hold the same view.)

-Venari

[Emproph]

Maybe I haven’t been clear enough. If ya' don’t care why something is a sin, so be it, that’s what I’m trying find out.

As it stands, I respect Fred Phelps and his “God hate’s fags” gang more than those you've described ^above because they have the guts to say what they feel. They hate me and want me to die in the worst way possible, period! THAT I can respect, as sick as that sounds.

What I don’t respect is pussy footing around the issue. So NO, YOU’RE WRONG, IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY OR CHRISTIANITY. It has to do with honesty.

There is one question, and one question only. Do you, or do-you-not reason the meaning of sin beyond “because the Bible says so?"

I don’t care which one of the two it is. I just want to know WHICH ONE it is.

If it is indeed reasoned beyond "Because the Bible says so," there should be no problems answering the follow up questions because they will have already been determined.

I consider the attempt to define evil to be IMPORTANT. If it is a sin, you've called ME EVIL. Now I want to know WHAT THAT DEFINITION OF EVIL IS.

Is it or is it not, "just because the bible says so?"

My "Sin" is not harming ANYONE!!! If malice is not a requirement for evil and sin, so be it, JUST SAY SO.

Honestly, have I not been clear on this? There is a group of people living on this planet, Christian and non-Christian alike who define evil as something that causes harm.

Do the Dr. Andersons of this world NOT make that distinction between causing harm and not causing harm when determining what is a sin, OR do they blindly accept what the Bible says when it's convenient for them?

And what is effeminate supposed to mean as a sin worthy of hell?
{Sorry Venari, I took out the angry part (hell), but I'm frustrated because I can't get an answer, I'm just asking why}

[Venari]

As it stands, I respect Fred Phelps and his “God hate’s fags” gang more than those you've described ^above because they have the guts to say what they feel. They hate me and want me to die in the worst way possible, period! THAT I can respect, as sick as that sounds.

What I don’t respect is pussy footing around the issue. So NO, YOU’RE WRONG, IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY OR CHRISTIANITY. It has to do with honesty.

Emproph,

This is where the problem arises. It appears that you are assuming because someone disagrees whit homosexuality they hate you. Fred Phelps hates gay people, his reason "God Hates Fags." There is a big difference between that and a person who says they disagree with homosexuality on the grounds they think it is a sin... note that it’s not because God hates them.

You seem to have this view that you either accept homosexuality or you hate homosexual people. The world is not that "black and white." You will find many people in the in between the two. While Dr Anderson may say some things You hate he has never shown hate to gay people nor has he ever said anything near what Phelps says.

What really matters is how you view things. You are choosing to see people who disagree with you as hating you. Sure, Dr Anderson isn’t the most accepting person of homosexuality but I have known him to show great compassion to students "struggling" with homosexuality and he’s one of the last people to ever want to dismiss a student for homosexual conduct. (NCU has clarified the rules that being openly gay is not grounds for dismissal but engaging in sexual activities with a person of the same gender, or opposite, is.)

Emproph, so while you may disagree with what he’s saying it is not coming from a hate of homosexual people, as you claimed. Rather the view that homosexuality is a sin and the belief that many homosexual people can become heterosexual. So the point of contention is the two differing beliefs you and him have not his hatred of homosexuals.

-Venari

[dewdrop_world]

My question is what is wrong with his logic? To Dr Anderson homosexuality is one aspect of "fallen" human nature. That is everyone’s nature is to sin and homosexuality is part of that nature. Being part of that nature doesn’t mean it is right but rather on par with every other sin.

There isn't much fault to be found with these few links in the logical chain -- but, as every logician knows, if you begin with faulty premises, even if the logic is impeccable, the conclusions will still be incorrect.

So, what are some of the premises?

- "No one is born gay," or the related proposition, "Homosexuality is only about sex acts or desires -- there are no differences in psychology, temperament, or identity between gays and straights." I can't make a full refutation here, as dozens if not hundreds of books have been published on the subject. I will simply note that this contradicts the lived experience of lesbian and gay people around the world. If Dr. Anderson wants to argue against that lived experience, he's free to do so, but instead he just dismisses it as non-existent. (I'm not alone in feeling that this betrays Christ's example of listening to the sinner before dispensing advice.)

(As an aside, the "homosexual temperament" is also a valuable and necessary corrective to some of the more damaging trends in society: the tendency for orthodoxy to turn into mob rule both outside of and, more sadly, within religion; rigid gender roles which cause suffering, especially the paranoid, easily threatened hypermasculinity men are expected to live up to; the glorification of competition over cooperation; the list goes on but time is brief.)

- "The Bible defines completely and correctly what sin is." This is a far-reaching topic touching on theology and epistemology, and obviously I can't discuss it completely in a couple of paragraphs. To sum it up (and to oversimplify), if we accept that God is infinite, and the Bible is demonstrably finite, then it seems an unavoidable conclusion that the Bible is at best incomplete, if not potentially mistaken in some areas. This seems a negative conclusion but it's actually liberating! One is free to recognize God in guises other than those presented in scripture. God retains full agency to work as needed, wherever, whenever and however necessary (if God is constrained by the Bible, then God is no longer infinite -- the theological consequences of which statement one must consider very carefully). The Bible takes its rightful place as a guide pointing the way on a path that the reader must walk for herself, rather than being misused as a substitute for the path.

Note that I'm not arguing that the Bible has nothing of value to say about sin -- only that it should be the beginning of a search for wisdom, not the end. If one discovers factual evidence that contradicts the Bible, it's foolish to deny that evidence just because it would threaten the Bible's primacy. It's also foolish to throw out the Bible altogether. It means there is hard work to do in reconciling the two. It's disappointing, though not surprising, that so many Christians would turn their backs on the hard work in favor of an easier, superficially more secure approach.

That's just two -- I'm sure there are other questionable premises but I'm running out of time this morning. It seems to me that Dr. Anderson's argument depends on at least these two premises to appear airtight, but neither of the premises is as solid as he would like to believe.

So instead of looking on how opposed they are to you look for what you have in common and build a trusting relationship from there.

I've been saying exactly this from the beginning! The problem is, it only works if both sides are interested in finding the common ground. In practice, I've found that Christians who hold the anti-gay view are often completely uninterested in common ground. It seems important for them to identify themselves as true Christians, making every one else false Christians. If we're to establish common ground, they will need to at least temporarily set aside this self-identification, and it isn't easy (at least on the Internet) to find people who are willing to do so.

I'm glad you're back and feeling better, by the way!
James

[Zerbie]

The issue here is, saying one disagrees with homosexuality rings as, someone disagrees with being. Homosexuality is a part of what someone is, it is not a philosophy with which one agrees or disagrees.

[Venari]

There isn't much fault to be found with these few links in the logical chain -- but, as every logician knows, if you begin with faulty premises, even if the logic is impeccable, the conclusions will still be incorrect.

So, what are some of the premises?

- "No one is born gay," or the related proposition, "Homosexuality is only about sex acts or desires -- there are no differences in psychology, temperament, or identity between gays and straights." I can't make a full refutation here, as dozens if not hundreds of books have been published on the subject. I will simply note that this contradicts the lived experience of lesbian and gay people around the world. If Dr. Anderson wants to argue against that lived experience, he's free to do so, but instead he just dismisses it as non-existent. (I'm not alone in feeling that this betrays Christ's example of listening to the sinner before dispensing advice.)

Well, that is just it Dr Anderson would say, or my understanding of his stance, is that some people are born gay. That is a homosexual person has a natural orientation to be attracted to someone of the same gender. So there is validation of the feeling that many people did not "choose" to be gay that for what ever reason they just are attracted to someone of the same gender.

The conflict lies is in the view of acting on those feelings as being a sin or not, which comes down to how you view the Bible.

Also, as you pointed out the issue of "mob rule." I think it may be better describes a "mob mentality" being a conception becomes popular and then become a pre-conception of a large group of people. That is to say there isn’t any truth to the conception on an individual level but when applied to a whole group that is where it begins to fall apart. Namely the stance that "Christians hate gay people." A Christian may not hate a individual gay person they may dislike parts of the "gay community." When looking at a pride parade they will see things they may never even consider doing. Or from my experience at an MCC church I was viewed as "up tight" for not going on "dates" and walking out on a congregant who invited me over for dinner with another intention as well.

The point being something can piss you off and a person can really dislike it but the point is reaching the point with the offending person so you find the common ground. Even if they choose not to.

This is where I think there is a problem with this thread. Emproph while understandably upset posted what his perceptions of Dr Anderson were and then imposing what his perceived motives are. Instead of taking the time to maybe write Dr Anderson a letter asking him to explain his position or looking deeper into other chapel sermons he had delivered.

-Venari

ps
Thanks for the welcome back.

[Venari]

The issue here is, saying one disagrees with homosexuality rings as, someone disagrees with being. Homosexuality is a part of what someone is, it is not a philosophy with which one agrees or disagrees.

Zerbie, you Rise a really good point. So how do you show someone who disagrees with homosexuality that it is ok?

The issue shouldn’t be broken down to a "were right, your wrong" because that will not reconcile understanding. But the point is to increase understand so raise tolerance of the differing views. Not everyone is ever going to agree but people can understand each other.

-Venari

[dewdrop_world]

Well, that is just it Dr Anderson would say, or my understanding of his stance, is that some people are born gay. That is a homosexual person has a natural orientation to be attracted to someone of the same gender. So there is validation of the feeling that many people did not "choose" to be gay that for what ever reason they just are attracted to someone of the same gender.

The conflict lies is in the view of acting on those feelings as being a sin or not, which comes down to how you view the Bible.
The second of my two points is actually more substantial. I know Dr. Anderson would disagree but what do you think?

Also, as you pointed out the issue of "mob rule." I think it may be better describes a "mob mentality" being a conception becomes popular and then become a pre-conception of a large group of people. That is to say there isn’t any truth to the conception on an individual level but when applied to a whole group that is where it begins to fall apart. Namely the stance that "Christians hate gay people."
I don't share this view -- I actually find it quite offensive to hear anti-Christian comments in the gay community. It reflects as much of a lack of understanding on our side, as Dr. Anderson's sermon reflects a lack of understanding on his.

James

[Venari]

- "The Bible defines completely and correctly what sin is." This is a far-reaching topic touching on theology and epistemology, and obviously I can't discuss it completely in a couple of paragraphs. To sum it up (and to oversimplify), if we accept that God is infinite, and the Bible is demonstrably finite, then it seems an unavoidable conclusion that the Bible is at best incomplete, if not potentially mistaken in some areas. This seems a negative conclusion but it's actually liberating! One is free to recognize God in guises other than those presented in scripture. God retains full agency to work as needed, wherever, whenever and however necessary (if God is constrained by the Bible, then God is no longer infinite -- the theological consequences of which statement one must consider very carefully). The Bible takes its rightful place as a guide pointing the way on a path that the reader must walk for herself, rather than being misused as a substitute for the path.

I think I see the main point being the finite nature of the Bible and the infinite nature of God. I guess the issue is how one views each. The Bible is about God but written for man who is finite. We would be unable to grasp the infinite nature of God so He reveled Himself in a manner we could understand. So the finite nature of the Bible dose not reflect on God but on the nature of man.

So with the infinite nature of God and the invite nature of man it comes down to how you view the Bible. My stance is given the small amount we can possible understand of God all we need to know was reveled though the Bible. The Bible doesn't have to be inerrant. It is not meant to be scientific documentation, or perfectly accurate historical records. But it is infallible. It provides us with everything we need to know. It is meant to be our authoritative guideline of our faith and conduct.

This comes back to how one interprets what the Bible says about Faith and Conduct.

-Venari

[Zerbie]

Well Venari, on the "disagreeing" thing, I don't believe there is anything *to* show. Homosexuality is all wrapped up innately in one's feelings, sexual response system, heart, and spirit. It is not a philosophy. It is not an argument. It is being, and only a *part* of one's Being. Why has it been intellectually broken off, like breaking the hand off of a clock, to be looked at and analyzed separately from the completeness of which it is part? *That* is a question with real validity.

I'm asking you to look at the matter thus: how do you disagree with 'being' something? Do you disagree with me, Zerbie, for being? And on what premise? Do you disagree with me for having been homosexual in the past? Do you disagree with me for being bisexual, either in the past or the present? Do you disagree with my heterosexuality as expressed in my marriage? Do you disagree with your own homosexuality? (If you see it as such).

These are not questions I desire answers to, they are rhetorical questions designed to challenge your premise that homosexuality is a thing that *can* be disagreed with.

Perhaps a simple change of words would express your intended communication better. Did you maybe mean, people disagree with a belief that homosexuality is a morally neutral matter? Just saying you "disagree with homosexuality" reads as lobbing an attack on gay people's *being* because the homoerotic wiring is all inter-meshed with one's innermost being, it is *part of* that innermost being. After all, it is at the core of one's ability to love.

[Venari]

Perhaps a simple change of words would express your intended communication better. Did you maybe mean, people disagree with a belief that homosexuality is a morally neutral matter? Just saying you "disagree with homosexuality" reads as lobbing an attack on gay people's *being* because the homoerotic wiring is all inter-meshed with one's innermost being, it is *part of* that innermost being. After all, it is at the core of one's ability to love.

I guess that is what I failed to communicate. The general stance I am seeing within NCU and the AG is a persons identifying as homosexual is not a sin but acting upon homosexual feelings is.

So how does one reconcile between I am homosexual by nature so its ok and I am homosexual by nature but acting upon the feelings is when it becomes a sin.

-Venari

[keltic63]

I guess that is what I failed to communicate. The general stance I am seeing within NCU and the AG is a persons identifying as homosexual is not a sin but acting upon homosexual feelings is.

So how does one reconcile between I am homosexual by nature so its ok and I am homosexual by nature but acting upon the feelings is when it becomes a sin.

-Venari

this is an interesting concept to me. I have come to the conclusion that being homosexual is most likely genetic, but there are environmental factors that could affect that outcome as well. I question how one can say, God made me gay (and by many counts, born as an inherently evil person by reason of being homosexual) but homosexual acts are evil, so I must not ever act upon the very thing that is natural to me. Would God make a person with innate desires for someone of the same sex, then put restrictions on them, condemning them to hell for acting on the very restrictions that God has placed upon that individual? Isn't this a "catch22" ? God makes a person with a desire, then declares that the desire is evil, and acting upon it would condemn the individual for eternity?
The idea of "original sin" doesn't quite answer this. Because all of us are born with original sin, but God didn't create us as such, we became this way when Adam and Eve (or the people of the original creation, depending on what your belief of that story is) chose to disobey God.
So, for my experience, and thus, my belief, I find that God would not make me Gay, then pronounce judgment upon me for acting upon those desires. Instead, this is one variation of nature, and it is proper for me to act on those desires, in love for another human being.

On more thought on this: Matthew 5:28 says: But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Does it matter then if I never act physically on my same-sex desires? If I have the desires, have I not already committed the act?

[Emproph]

I honestly want answers to these questions Venari, if it's possible. Do people like him really think I'm just to stupid to realize that I'm sick? Do they think I'm lying when I say I'm certain I'm not, or do they just think that I'm lying? How is LOVE EVIL? Do you know what he would say?
This is what I NEED to know if I am to not judge them unjustly.

Do they EVEN think about it? Because if you're going to TEACH that an entire group of people are equal to murderers, without explaining why, without explaining how, and then say that your doing so in the name of the truth of Christianity, then you've got A LOT of questions to answer. Maybe I haven’t been clear enough. If ya' don’t care why something is a sin, so be it, that’s what I’m trying find out.

As it stands, I respect Fred Phelps and his “God hate’s fags” gang more than those you've described ^above because they have the guts to say what they feel. They hate me and want me to die in the worst way possible, period! THAT I can respect, as sick as that sounds.
{^The bold part was the entire purpose of mentioning that.}

There is one question, and one question only. Do you, or do-you-not reason the meaning of sin beyond “because the Bible says so?"

I don’t care which one of the two it is. I just want to know WHICH ONE it is.

I consider the attempt to define evil to be IMPORTANT. If it is a sin, you've called ME EVIL. Now I want to know WHAT THAT DEFINITION OF EVIL IS.
Is it or is it not, "just because the bible says so?"

If malice is not a requirement for evil and sin, so be it, JUST SAY SO.

Honestly, have I not been clear on this? There is a group of people living on this planet, Christian and non-Christian alike who define evil as something that causes harm.

Do the Dr. Andersons of this world NOT make that distinction between causing harm and not causing harm when determining what is a sin?

And what is effeminate supposed to mean as a sin worthy of hell?
I'm frustrated because I can't get an answer, I'm just asking why}
All of the above has been in the conversation I’ve had with you alone and has been asked countless other times before in this thread. I asked the same question 3 times in my last post and made it a point to present it as a yes or no question so there could be no doubt as to what I was asking yet your response has been the following:-It appears that you are assuming because someone disagrees whit homosexuality they hate you.
-You seem to have this view that you either accept homosexuality or you hate homosexual people.
-You are choosing to see people who disagree with you as hating you.
-Emproph, so while you may disagree with what he’s saying it is not coming from a hate of homosexual people, as you claimed.
Rather the view that homosexuality is a sin and the belief that many homosexual people can become heterosexual.It is this refusal to answer the question that is my point, your "responses" are the exemplification of my contention with Dr Anderson. You have attempted to refute my contention with Dr. Anderson by demonstrating my complaint precisely, you are Dr. Anderson.

You have twisted my words and turned my questions and their meaning into a soup of irrelevance. Obviously you have no intention of having a rational conversation with me. You