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," 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 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}

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 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.

Originally Posted by Emproph

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.

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...

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Lydia

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?

Originally Posted by Lydia

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

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."

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!

Originally Posted by Dash

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.
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

[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 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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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.

Originally Posted by studying

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.

Originally Posted by studying

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.

Originally Posted by studying

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.

Originally Posted by studying

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.” 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. 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.....

Originally Posted by Zerbie

...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.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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!

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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. 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!?

[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.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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.

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.

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.