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

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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]

Originally Posted by Venari

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.

Originally Posted by Venari

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]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Venari

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?

Originally Posted by Venari

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]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

- "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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

Originally Posted by Venari

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.
{^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:

Originally Posted by Venari

-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 do not have enough respect for me to even attempt to answer my questions and have furthermore manipulated my reasons for asking them.

This is a waste of my time and I may as well be talking to a wall. Before anymore space on this thread is wasted I’d appreciate it if you’d drop it.

You can believe what ever you want about me but I am not going to tolerate your manipulation of my words any further.

If you want to continue to characterize my questions as statements of attack then please start another thread.

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Venari

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 revealed though the Bible.

So, God created human beings with intellectual faculties so that they could then be robots reading their program from the Bible?

Originally Posted by Venari

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 also doesn't answer the question of what one should do upon discovery of factual evidence that contradicts the Bible. If it is incomplete or wrong in its understanding of what it means to be gay or lesbian, how can it be considered infallible?

Of course, this is where they say gay people are deluded -- as if they can know better than somebody who experiences being gay first hand! And so we come back around to the point about listening. There was the public Jesus who made speeches and broad, general pronouncements, but the private Jesus (who hung around with people who were considered to the the scum of society at the time) listened carefully before giving advice. Over on the UMC boards, there's a fellow who goes by the handle of pastorsteve. Basically he has only one thing to say about homosexuality: "I don't care how you feel, this is how you should live your life." So why should I take his advice when he is plainly not willing to follow Christ's example in his interactions with others?

One of your earlier sentences provides an interesting hint into what's going on:

Originally Posted by Venari

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

"Comfort" cuts both ways. One of the reasons why pastorsteve and others like him don't want to listen to gay people's stories is that if they did so, they might have to entertain the notion that the Bible might not be telling the whole truth about homosexuality. If they depend on the Bible as their rock (even though the best anyone can do is depend on one particular view of the Bible, which may or may not be correct), it can be troubling to say the least to consider that may be the rock is not as solid as desired.

So, they want gay people to suffer psychological damage at the hands of self repression or discredited and abusive "reparative therapies" -- all so that they don't have to face the discomfort of uncertainty! So that they can have someone to feel sorry for ("oh, those poor, misguided homosexuals, they just don't know what they're doing, not like us").

I will not sacrifice the wholeness that I began to discover only after coming out so that they can avoid the difficulty of thinking for themselves.

Plus, it's an extreme misconception to think that coming out is comfortable. If anyone thinks we just wake up one morning and say "oh gosh, I think I like guys, heigh-ho, off to the bathhouse I go," they are completely missing the deep struggle many of us go through. Another sign of lack of understanding or respect for our experiences. More than that, it means they're making their decisions about the morality of homosexuality based on faulty information.

James

[dewdrop_world]

Or, to make it really simple... a question came to mind on my way into work this morning.

What if God never intended Scripture to be used in the way Biblical literalists use it?

And, the followup question, observing that traditionalists are so sure that their usage of the Bible is correct, what is the reasoning by which they justify this manner of use?

The typical answer is that it's a matter of faith, but that's really a dodge. Why is THAT faith OK while less-literal readings of scripture are suspect to them?

James

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Emproph

This is a waste of my time and I may as well be talking to a wall. Before anymore space on this thread is wasted I’d appreciate it if you’d drop it.

Emproph,

I cannot tackle your entire argument all at once, simply I don’t understand what you are trying to say and second I don’t have time to sit down and respond to everything I think you are saying. Such as in the case to me it seemed you are not making the distinction between people who "hate homosexuals" and who "disagree with homosexuality."

To me it seems you hate Dr Anderson, someone you have never met. Also you call me him for pointing this question out ... is it a matter of you just hating the person you see as an enemy?

-Venari

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Venari

Emproph,

I cannot tackle your entire argument all at once, simply I don’t understand what you are trying to say and second I don’t have time to sit down and respond to everything I think you are saying. Such as in the case to me it seemed you are not making the distinction between people who "hate homosexuals" and who "disagree with homosexuality."

To me it seems you hate Dr Anderson, someone you have never met. Also you call me him for pointing this question out ... is it a matter of you just hating the person you see as an enemy?

-Venari

Now your trolling. If you post in this thread again I'm reporting it.

[dewdrop_world]

Emproph, please calm down.

(((hugs)))

James

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Now your trolling. If you post in this thread again I'm reporting it.

I'm sorry but I am responding to an attack against me and against the president of my school. If you do not want to have a conversation about the claims you are making please say so and not further accuse me of "trolling" or threaten me.

Thanks,
Venari

[dewdrop_world]

Venari --

Please calm down.

(((hugs)))

James

[Venari]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

Venari --

Please calm down.

(((hugs)))

James

Thanks James,

I've noticed your often gentle touch diffuses many arguments.

-Venari

[keltic63]

Bumping this for the following section:

Originally Posted by Emproph

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?

I need to get this in my mind again, and use it, perhaps over at the UMC boards.