Interesting Exchange Regarding Homosexual Behavior And Christ-Centered Faith

[Ben E Lou]

So I received this e-mail yesterday afternoon.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***********************
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:36 PM
> To: [email protected] ([email protected])
> Subject: Feedback From WyldLife: "Real Fun. Real Friends. Real Life."
>
>
> Feedback from http://sites.younglife.org/sites/NorthlakeWyldlife
> Name: ************
> Email: ************
> I am considering having my son participate and given the range of Christian
> beliefs, I am wanting to know the organization's position on homosexuality.
>
> Please use my email this time only for a response to this question, but I do
> not want to be added to a data base at this time. Thanks, *********
>You gotta love a loaded question that comes with very little hint of what angle the person is coming from. ;) Last I checked, my county has the second-largest per capita population of those engaging in homosexual activities in the nation. However, there is also a vocal minority of serious anti-gay folks--the type who wouldn't let their kids be involved in an organization that wouldn't agree with them that "God hates fags." I always look at political/theological questions from parents with 2 primary concerns:

1. I want to answer with integrity.
2. I don't want a parent's position on an issue to prevent their kid from being involved.

Obviously, those two concerns can be at odds with each other at times. So, after prayer and some wise counsel, I decided that since she asked specifically about her child's involvement, I'd answer from the perspective of policy directly relating to her kid. (The prevailing thought was that, "the organization's position on homosexuality" can be answered in SO many ways from SO many different perspectives that I didn't want to write a freakin' book to her in response to such a short question.) I also did a little research. Her last name is an unusual one, and her first name has an unusual spelling of a common one. I did a Google search on her name and found out that she's a PhD Psychologist who used to work in Athens, and now has an office in the Decatur area. I figured it to be a safe assumption that she was not coming at this question from the far right, shall we say. ;) :p
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Lewis [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:04 PM
> To: **************
> Subject: RE: Feedback From WyldLife: "Real Fun. Real Friends. Real
> Life."
>
>
> ***********:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to write and find out more about Young Life. Our
> position is to welcome the involvement of all students, regardless of race,
> sexual orientation or creed to be involved in all of our activities. We
> share the basic aspects of faith in Christ, and very rarely do we engage
> kids in discussions about controversial and/or politicized topics.
>
> Ben Lewis
> Area Director
> Young Life Northlake
So, this morning, I woke up to this response from late last night...

----- Original Message ----- From: *********, Ph.D (And yes, her first e-mail did NOT include the "Ph.D," but her second one did.)
To: "Ben Lewis" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:33 PM
Subject: RE: Feedback From WyldLife: "Real Fun. Real Friends. Real Life."



> Good answer, I just didn't want him preached to that families like ours are
> wrong in any way. Unfortunately, the hatred against Gays/lesbians has been
> erroneously connected with "Christianity" so I needed to ask. Strange world
> that the two could ever be joined.

*****
I found that response to be extremely bizarre, particularly considering that in not knowing for sure what she was wanting to know, I did not answer what turns out to be the core of her question. Jerry Clower talked of those who are educated beyond their intelligence. This sounds like a classic example.

Thoughts?

[QuikSand]

You didn't take the bait. Test passed.

[wade moore]

You didn't take the bait. Test passed.
This was my take on it as well.

But Ben, you did answer her question I think in stating that you did not discuss these issues. Meaning that if you don't discuss it, then you definately don't "preach" it... right?

[Barkeep49]

I'm on the you did answer her question bandwagon. She wanted to know if her child was going to be preached anti-homosexuality; your answer clearly states that her child will not be preached to in that way.

I find her clearly stating that she doesn't want to be placed on your mailing list far more revealing than anything else :).

[Ben E Lou]

This was my take on it as well.

But Ben, you did answer her question I think in stating that you did not discuss these issues. Meaning that if you don't discuss it, then you definately don't "preach" it... right?I answered honestly. I said that we "very rarely" would discuss it. Meaning, if a kid asked me a direct question regarding the Biblical view of homosexual behavior, then sure, I'd answer it. Would it be "preached" from up front in a meeting? By no means. How many times have I been asked such a question in 17 years of doing this? Twice that I can remember. So yeah, I'd say that would qualify as "very rare." Perhaps I'm assigned too much to her use of the word "preached," also. My best guess is that she is meaning a more global definition of "preached" than merely standing up front at a meeting and saying something. I just looked up "preach," however, and most definitions of it do have a public component. {shrug}

[John Galt]

I just have a question about the least important part of your post - where did you hear about the 2nd highest gay and lesbian per capita population? A couple of my (lesbian) friends lived in the Atlanta area for a long time and they complained they never found much of a community there (although they did say the Pride parade was quite good).

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting. There are those who believe that the teachings of Christ, while stressing God's love for everyone and the love we should have for each other, still considers engaging in homosexual acts to be sinful and wrong. It's all there in the book.

Then there are those who believe that Christ's message of love thy neighbor stresses inclusion and acceptance and that the prohibitions against homosexual behavior contained in the Old and New Testaments are not the message of God, but simply a reflection of men at the time interjecting their (misguided) personal attitudes into the holy scriptures that they were drafting. Far from believing that Christianity rejects the homosexual lifestyle, they believe that "love thy neighbor" mandates acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

No need to discuss here which of these positions is right (or even if asking if one of them is right is a valid question).

It sounds like she believes #2 and was really asking if Young Life does too. Her question was a pretty large one--what is the basic approach to Christianity that Young Life takes viz a viz homosexual behavior--and maybe even toward Christ in general.

I think that the phrase "basic aspects of faith in Christ" is the key here. I am betting that that phrase means something very different to you than it does to her. As a socially liberal Christian myself, I see where she is coming from. I spent a year in a Christian volunteer group that was run mainly by lesbians and was VERY left wing (JVC: Northwest). The "basic aspects of faith in Christ" explored there were VERY different than the "basic aspects of faith in Christ" touted by the stereotypical "religious right." Christ to some people is a VERY left wing figure. Look up liberation theology to get a sense of that. In terms of day to day life--extreme left wing and extreme right wing Christians may as well be two different religions.

So, when one meets someone and learns that they are a Christian--I think that one (especially if they engage in a homosexual lifestyle) simply does not know what that means anymore because it can mean so many different things. And that is what she was really asking, IMO. As an active academic lesbian living in the South, she has seen both extremes, I am sure.

As to what, if anything, you should do now? You know that more than I do. I'm just trying to help you get inside her head a bit.

[Blackadar]

I'd say you answered her question.

[Ben E Lou]

FWIW, the "controversial" topic I've had the most questions about over the years has probably been the election/free will/predestination/choice/Calvinism/Arminianism question, and I'm pretty sure that one has come up less than 10 times.

[st.cronin]

FWIW, the "controversial" topic I've had the most questions about over the years has probably been the election/free will/predestination/choice/Calvinism/Arminianism question, and I'm pretty sure that one has come up less than 10 times.

Well, that's an extremely important question, but do you really think it scores that high on the 'controversial' scale? I know very few people that actually HAVE an answer to that one.

[Ben E Lou]

I just have a question about the least important part of your post - where did you hear about the 2nd highest gay and lesbian per capita population? A couple of my (lesbian) friends lived in the Atlanta area for a long time and they complained they never found much of a community there (although they did say the Pride parade was quite good).I heard it fairly recently. I did find some stats from a few years ago, which list DeKalb County as #6...

<small> </small> <!--CENSUS IMAGE-->

<center> http://web.ecomplanet.com/TPFT8634/ServerContent/MyCustomImages/TPFT8634CustomImage0386681.gif </center>

Also, from this site: http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/TPFT8634/mycustompage0030.htm


MORE 2000 CENSUS INFORMATION

Dekalb county, Georgia
DeKalb County ranks with San Francisco, parts of Cape Cod, Mass., and the Key West, Fla., area for the highest percentage of gay couples in the nation, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released on 8/22/01.and later on the same site...
LESBIAN FRIENDLY CITIES AS PUT OUT BY GIRLFRIENDS MAGAZINE

ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Lesbian community is in DeKalb county in nearby Decatur and work mainly in Virgina Highlands or Little Five Points. Hang outs are; My Sister’s Room.
Number of gay/lesbian businesses/organizations; 92

[ISiddiqui]

Put me down for you answered her question as well. She just wanted to know if you stood up in meetings and said homosexuality is wrong, that sort of stuff.

[Bubba Wheels]

May also be purely political. Left needs to find a way to reconcile pro-homosexual attitudes with a country that basically now votes Republican and of which (the country) 90% believe in God. The hope for the left is in finding a compromising middle ground of which is labeled 'Christian' while being friendly to the gay agenda. In this case, you probably failed the test.

Interesting in the timing of it also. Time magazine just came out with 'Gay Teens' on the cover and the feature story. Two groups are highlighted, one being pro-gay and the other being Exodus.

Given her name and PHD title, my next question would be is she active in the democratic party? Would answer alot.

[John Galt]

Thanks SD. Since my Atlanta geography is so poor, can you tell me how DeKalb County relates to the city. My friends lived downtown at the time (I think). Would that be far away from the DeKalb area or not?

[John Galt]

May also be purely political. Left needs to find a way to reconcile pro-homosexual attitudes with a country that basically now votes Republican and of which (the country) 90% believe in God. The hope for the left is in finding a compromising middle ground of which is labeled 'Christian' while being friendly to the gay agenda. In this case, you probably failed the test.

Interesting in the timing of it also. Time magazine just came out with 'Gay Teens' on the cover and the feature story. Two groups are highlighted, one being pro-gay and the other being Exodus.

Please be quiet. Thank you.

[Bubba Wheels]

Please be quiet. Thank you.

Aren't you the type that trumpets ACLU protection of free speech? ;)

[Ryche]

I've actually seen a few places indicate Minneapolis had the 2nd largest gay population after San Francisco....or percentage or something like that.

[John Galt]

I've actually seen a few places indicate Minneapolis had the 2nd largest gay population after San Francisco....or percentage or something like that.

The stats usually depend on 2 things: 1) Do you do it by county or city; and 2) What size is the cutoff. For example, where I live now, Iowa City, has one of the highest (usually top 10, sometimes top 5) populations per capita in the U.S. But it doesn't make the lists that limit things to big cities. Places like Hampshire, MA (which is mostly lesbian population) make the counties list, but not the cities list. With that being said, I've never heard of Minneapolis having an unusually high gay population for a big city.

[Ben E Lou]

Thanks SD. Since my Atlanta geography is so poor, can you tell me how DeKalb County relates to the city. My friends lived downtown at the time (I think). Would that be far away from the DeKalb area or not?DeKalb is north and east of the city, but in close proximity. (Compared to the rest of the nation, Georgia has *very* small counties.) From downtown Decatur, which is the county seat and the most gay-friendly area in DeKalb County, to downtown Atlanta is listed as 7.83 miles on Mapquest. Technically, part of the Atlanta City Limits extend into DeKalb County. Most people consider Fulton and DeKalb to be the "Urban" counties in metro Atlanta. They are the only two counties that MARTA (our pathetic rapid transit system) operates in. The two primary places in metro Atlanta known for having significant gay populations are Midtown, which is in Fulton County, and Decatur.

[Fonzie]

Please be quiet. Thank you.
I second the motion. The motion can now be put to a vote. All in favor say aye...

[ISiddiqui]

Aren't you the type that trumpets ACLU protection of free speech? ;)
Yes and free speech doesn't mean you can't tell someone else to be quiet, as long as you aren't the government :p.

[albionmoonlight]

Aren't you the type that trumpets ACLU protection of free speech? ;)
You have every right to say what you want. And John has every right to politely ask you to be quiet.

Based on past history, there seems to be a pretty sharp decline in the quality of discourse once you appear in a thread. Maybe that's because you are a troll, or maybe it is because you are speaking the harsh truth and we just can't accept it. I don't really care.

I think that John was just saddened to see whatever chance this thread had of being something positive shot to heck as soon as you appeared.

[Bubba Wheels]

Yes and free speech doesn't mean you can't tell someone else to be quiet, as long as you aren't the government :p.

Yes, but why is it always the same members of the mutual 'stroke-a-thon' club (still waiting for Blackadar's post) that always seem to think I care about what the heck they think?

[John Galt]

Thanks again SD.

[Bubba Wheels]

You have every right to say what you want. And John has every right to politely ask you to be quiet.

Based on past history, there seems to be a pretty sharp decline in the quality of discourse once you appear in a thread. Maybe that's because you are a troll, or maybe it is because you are speaking the harsh truth and we just can't accept it. I don't really care.

I think that John was just saddened to see whatever chance this thread had of being something positive shot to heck as soon as you appeared.

Well, that's just your (simple) opinion. My points are valid. You don't like 'em, that's your though tamalies.

[ISiddiqui]

I second the motion. The motion can now be put to a vote. All in favor say aye...
Aye

[Buccaneer]

Eric/albion: As we have discussed here over the years, I believe there is no conflict. Ben answered correctly implying that we (as believers in Christ) are to love unconditionally. That does not mean we accept sinful acts of others (and of ourselves) unconditionally. When asked personally, Ben will share this view but it is very important to stress that it does not diminish any involvement, interaction and acceptance of the person that we are told to love. This is a very hard thing for many believers to do, to separate the sin from the person and to love that person. It is no different than accepting a known adulterer in a Sunday School class. The Holy Spirit will take care of forgiveness and the redemption, we are just told to love.

[cuervo72]

I'd say that she is raising her child with a same-sex partner ("families like ours"), and just wanted to know that her child isn't going to be preached about how families with same-sex parents are considered evil. Because you said that those kinds of political land mines are avoided in your group, I'd say you may have assuaged her fears. Unless for some reason she is specifically going around calling organizations in order to target them if they don't give the answer she likes in some way (in which case like QS said, you passed), but that seems like a reach to me.

[Simms]

> Good answer, I just didn't want him preached to that families like ours are
> wrong in any way.
That's a pretty good indicator of where she's coming from, no? No bait...just a parent concerned about the treatment her child might receive because of his parents' sexuality.

Not that that is apparently relevant in this thread anymore. :)

[Ben E Lou]

May also be purely political. Left needs to find a way to reconcile pro-homosexual attitudes with a country that basically now votes Republican and of which (the country) 90% believe in God. The hope for the left is in finding a compromising middle ground of which is labeled 'Christian' while being friendly to the gay agenda. In this case, you probably failed the test.Since I couldn't possibly care less about what is done to the label "Christian," I think not. In fact, I'd just as soon get rid of the term altogether.

Given her name and PHD title, my next question would be is she active in the democratic party? Would answer alot.It appears that she's not very active, if at all. I just checked. She hasn't made any individual political contributions >$200, dating back to 1990.

[Simms]

*shakes fist at curevo*

[John Galt]

That's a pretty good indicator of where she's coming from, no? No bait...just a parent concerned about the treatment her child might receive because of his parents' sexuality.

Not that that is apparently relevant in this thread anymore. :)

FWIW, I read her email in the same way.

[Ben E Lou]

That's a pretty good indicator of where she's coming from, no? No bait...just a parent concerned about the treatment her child might receive because of his parents' sexuality.

Not that that is apparently relevant in this thread anymore. :)Oh, sure. But that information didn't come out until after I'd answered the question.

[Anthony]

people actually still say "tough tamalies"?

[John Galt]

It appears that she's not very active, if at all. I just checked. She hasn't made any individual political contributions >$200, dating back to 1990.

That's not terribly surprising. I'm not sure why someone would think a PhD is more apt to be helping the Democratic Party financially. While PhD's lean more to the left, that doesn't mean they give as much to the Democractic Party as other groups.

As liberal as people here think I am and as much as I care about gay rights, I've never give a dime to the Democratic Party or any of its candidates.

[John Galt]

Oh, sure. But that information didn't come out until after I'd answered the question.

True enough. But from her view, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the question in that way. There is not a lot of trust among gay communities for a lot of mainstream institutions. I imagine that is even moreso of Christian groups. I think her question is indicative of a lack of trust more than an actual trap or trick. She wanted to make sure she got 100% honest answer and didn't want to find her kid coming home calling her a sinner who was going to burn in hell.

[Bubba Wheels]

Since I couldn't possibly care less about what is done to the label "Christian," I think not. In fact, I'd just as soon get rid of the term altogether.

It appears that she's not very active, if at all. I just checked. She hasn't made any individual political contributions >$200, dating back to 1990.

Fair enough, but a "Phd Psycologist' would tend to infer 1. Research and 2. Publication. So my Spider-Sense is still tingling.

[Blackadar]

Blah blah blah blah I'm a fucking moron blah blah blah blah look at me blah blah blah blah rant rant rant rant I don't know jack shit about being a Christian blah blah blah blah I've never read the Bible blah blah blah blah look at me look at me look at me blah blah blah

Fixed that for you

[Bubba Wheels]

people actually still say "tough tamalies"?

That's one that's been used before? Thought I was being original! :)

[Bubba Wheels]

Fixed that for you

Stroke Stroke Stroke your Boat...

[Celeval]

I think you answered it. I gather her question to essentially be:

1 - Are you going to kick my child out of the group when you find out he (is homosexual/has homosexual parents/something or other)?

2 - Is my child going to be flat out told that they are evil and bad because she (is homosexual/has homosexual parents/something or other); either by you and the ministers, or the other members of the organization?

I think you answered it in two ways. The bit about creed/race/etc answers #1 (child is welcome). You seemed to answer the second one by, if nothing else, showing that you understand there are topics that are politicized, and that (as can be read into it a bit) you're not willing to risk fracturing the group based on that.

Also, your tone, I think helped a lot. I think she was looking to see if you'd respond with fire-and-brimstone, quoting scripture every other line - essentially, if you're hardline. You answered in a well-thought out, rational manner; and I think that's as big a test as anything else (especially for a PhD in psych).

As for 'preach' - I understand the meaning as is commonly taken about spreading the Word = preaching, regardless of the context. I grew up with 'preach' being connotated with 'word from on high', coming from the pulpit, etc. Essentially, telling someone what to believe rather than engaging in discussion. Using that connotation of preach may clear her answer up a bit.

[albionmoonlight]

Eric/albion: As we have discussed here over the years, I believe there is no conflict. Ben answered correctly implying that we (as believers in Christ) are to love unconditionally. That does not mean we accept sinful acts of others (and of ourselves) unconditionally. When asked personally, Ben will share this view but it is very important to stress that it does not diminish any involvement, interaction and acceptance of the person that we are told to love. This is a very hard thing for many believers to do, to separate the sin from the person and to love that person. It is no different than accepting a known adulterer in a Sunday School class. The Holy Spirit will take care of forgiveness and the redemption, we are just told to love.
I hope that most Christians agree that we are all called to love each other without reservation. (Which is hard to do. My job involves reviewing, among other things, the facts of death penalty cases. The facts of crimes that some of these guys commit (i.e. torture murders sometimes simply for the sake of torturing and murdering somone) makes it very hard for me to honestly say that I love them. They seem less than human to me sometimes.)

I think that there is a division, however, between people who call themselves Christians and beleive that homosexuality is a sin and people who call themselves Christians and beleive that homosexuality is not a sin. Even if we all agree to love sinners and hate sins, we don't really agree on what actions constitue sins.

I know Christians who beleive that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that pre-marital sex is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that owning more than one house is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that not tithing is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that running the water while you brush your teeth is a sin (wasting God's resources while others die of thirst). And I know Christians who believe that it is not. Heck, I know Christians who, if pushed, would probably admit that they beleive that capitalism is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not.

So the general point that we all need to love each other as Christians is well taken. But what is sin? Specifically? People who all consider themselves Christian have very different answers to that.

[Celeval]

Also... so, what happens if she finds and reads this thread? Sheesh, scare her off, SD. ;)

[Blackadar]

Stroke Stroke Stroke your Boat...

We all realize that you do since you can't get laid.

[Bubba Wheels]

We all realize that you do since you can't get laid.

Sorry, one cheap shot per customer. You've now officially exceeded your quota...have a nice day! :)

[Flasch186]

Fair enough, but a "Phd Psycologist' would tend to infer 1. Research and 2. Publication. So my Spider-Sense is still tingling.

and research is a bad thing LOL be well read enough to have something published alsoa bad thing.....I sense something medevil about BW's desires.

[albionmoonlight]

Also--I realize that I was so caught up in what she was thinking, that I didn't mention:

Good job, SkyDog. You run an inclusive youth group that works to share the miracle of Christ's love with all who come to your door. You have strong personal and political beliefs which are important to you, but from what I can tell, you have never let those beliefs get in the way of spreading the message of Christ's love (to the extent that your beliefs get in the way of that message, which I can't believe is often if at all).

I thank you for your service.

[Blackadar]

Sorry, one cheap shot per customer. You've now officially exceeded your quota...have a nice day! :)

With you, bucky, there's no quota. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[John Galt]

I hope that most Christians agree that we are all called to love each other without reservation. (Which is hard to do. My job involves reviewing, among other things, the facts of death penalty cases. The facts of crimes that some of these guys commit (i.e. torture murders sometimes simply for the sake of torturing and murdering somone) makes it very hard for me to honestly say that I love them. They seem less than human to me sometimes.)

I think that there is a division, however, between people who call themselves Christians and beleive that homosexuality is a sin and people who call themselves Christians and beleive that homosexuality is not a sin. Even if we all agree to love sinners and hate sins, we don't really agree on what actions constitue sins.

I know Christians who beleive that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that pre-marital sex is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that owning more than one house is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that not tithing is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that running the water while you brush your teeth is a sin (wasting God's resources while others die of thirst). And I know Christians who believe that it is not. Heck, I know Christians who, if pushed, would probably admit that they beleive that capitalism is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not.

So the general point that we all need to love each other as Christians is well taken. But what is sin? Specifically? People who all consider themselves Christian have very different answers to that.

Not to distract away from albionmoonlight's points, which are all good, I think there is alot of ambiguity in what it means to "love" someone in the Christian sense. It is my (outsider's) understanding that many view "love" as a paternalistic love while others view it is a "love" of toleration. I think this difference can be shown in a lot of missionary work. Converting (be it from other religions or lifestyles) is an act often justified by paternalistic "love." That is, by converting that person, you are saving their soul and showing "love" by doing what is best for that person. This is in contrast to a "love" that is more of a "live and let live" view of the world. This second, tolerant "love" does not mean you hide your views, but that you don't believe it is your mission to know what is best for everyone else. Perhaps the difference also stems from how one views "pride" as a sin (since conversion requires more pride than humility, IMO).

Anyway, those are just my outsider thoughts, so please tell me if I'm wrong.

[Subby]

Her query seems fairly straightforward to me. As a parent you want to put your child in nurturing, learning environments and do what you can to keep them out of harmful ones.

What kind of effect would it have on a child if they were taught that their parents were going to Hell for being sinners? Whether or that is your particular religious belief or not, you have to recognize the severely traumatic psychological impact that would have on a child.

Unfortunately, not all Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin are as understanding and thoughtful as Bucc or SD.

I applaud her for doing a little legwork and making an effort on behalf of her child. Many parents can't be bothered.

[CamEdwards]

It's actually spelled tamales.

Carry on, my wayward sons.

[Fonzie]

Fair enough, but a "Phd Psycologist' would tend to infer 1. Research and 2. Publication. So my Spider-Sense is still tingling.
1. It's implied, not inferred.

2. It's Spidey sense, not Spider-Sense.

3. Being involved in research and writing peer-reviewed scientific publications does not make one a democrat. It makes one a scholar.


This post has been brought to you by your friendly neighborhood psychologist!

[Ajaxab]

Not to distract away from albionmoonlight's points, which are all good, I think there is alot of ambiguity in what it means to "love" someone in the Christian sense. It is my (outsider's) understanding that many view "love" as a paternalistic love while others view it is a "love" of toleration. I think this difference can be shown in a lot of missionary work. Converting (be it from other religions or lifestyles) is an act often justified by paternalistic "love." That is, by converting that person, you are saving their soul and showing "love" by doing what is best for that person. This is in contrast to a "love" that is more of a "live and let live" view of the world. This second, tolerant "love" does not mean you hide your views, but that you don't believe it is your mission to know what is best for everyone else. Perhaps the difference also stems from how one views "pride" as a sin (since conversion requires more pride than humility, IMO).

Anyway, those are just my outsider thoughts, so please tell me if I'm wrong.

Interesting thoughts on love here. Would it be fair to say we need both kinds in this world?

I'm also interested in your position as to how conversion requires more pride than humility. I suppose one could, from an outsider's perspective, suggest that one is acting in what they perceive to be their best interests in converting, but can you elaborate on that?

[John Galt]

Interesting thoughts on love here. Would it be fair to say we need both kinds in this world?

I'm also interested in your position as to how conversion requires more pride than humility. I suppose one could, from an outsider's perspective, suggest that one is acting in what they perceive to be their best interests in converting, but can you elaborate on that?

I'm not sure we need both. I'm a big believer in tolerant love. That is not relativism, as critics argue. I believe in Truth. And I believe in evil. But I also believe that it is always better to think about something from someone else's perspective before making an action that affects them. And I also believe that while there is Truth, I would be a fool to believe that I know it with the utmost certainty.

And that dovetails to why I believe conversion comes from a position of pride. For me, even though I am not religious, humility is a virtue. Arrogance is the mistake of small minds (and I recognize that I am accused of arrogance moreso than any poster on this board). Doubting one's own beliefs and ideas is essential for intellectual honesty and for growth as a person. When you are converting someone (especially when they show no desire to be converted) you are often (but not always) supplanting their judgment with your own. That is why I think their is a pride that is dangerous. I prefer a belief system that is less confident in itself. Doubt is a good and healthy thing. Changing one's mind is not weakness - it is strength.

[cthomer5000]

3. Being involved in research and writing peer-reviewed scientific publications does not make one a democrat. It makes one a scholar.
I also thought that was a pretty interesting assumption on his part.

[nfg22]

Eric/albion: As we have discussed here over the years, I believe there is no conflict. Ben answered correctly implying that we (as believers in Christ) are to love unconditionally. That does not mean we accept sinful acts of others (and of ourselves) unconditionally. When asked personally, Ben will share this view but it is very important to stress that it does not diminish any involvement, interaction and acceptance of the person that we are told to love. This is a very hard thing for many believers to do, to separate the sin from the person and to love that person. It is no different than accepting a known adulterer in a Sunday School class. The Holy Spirit will take care of forgiveness and the redemption, we are just told to love.

Agreed...I mean what difference is a homosexual than anyone without Christ? Sin is still sin and that means you are condemned, homosexuality is just as bad as anyother sin in the fact that it seperates from God, and Christ is what we need. I used to be such a staunch republican and now I dont bother about politics, really whats the good in making better morals for america if no one knows the saviour? So I say preach Christ.

[John Galt]

I also thought that was a pretty interesting assumption on his part.

BW could cite the various studies that show academics contribute more often (as much as 9 to 1 by some studies) to liberal groups. For BW, that is a reason to distrust academics and to believe they are indoctrinating the youth of tomorrow. His assumption is revealing, but, unlike most of his other beliefs, is actually supported by some evidence.

[Kevin]

I found that response to be extremely bizarre


Bizarre? Sounded pretty straight forward and reasonable to me.

[nfg22]

I hope that most Christians agree that we are all called to love each other without reservation. (Which is hard to do. My job involves reviewing, among other things, the facts of death penalty cases. The facts of crimes that some of these guys commit (i.e. torture murders sometimes simply for the sake of torturing and murdering somone) makes it very hard for me to honestly say that I love them. They seem less than human to me sometimes.)

I think that there is a division, however, between people who call themselves Christians and beleive that homosexuality is a sin and people who call themselves Christians and beleive that homosexuality is not a sin. Even if we all agree to love sinners and hate sins, we don't really agree on what actions constitue sins.

I know Christians who beleive that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that pre-marital sex is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that owning more than one house is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that not tithing is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not. I know Christians who beleive that running the water while you brush your teeth is a sin (wasting God's resources while others die of thirst). And I know Christians who believe that it is not. Heck, I know Christians who, if pushed, would probably admit that they beleive that capitalism is a sin. And I know Christians who believe that it is not.

So the general point that we all need to love each other as Christians is well taken. But what is sin? Specifically? People who all consider themselves Christian have very different answers to that.

While there is sin that isnt specifically said in the bible homosexuality is.in the New Testament Romans 1:25-26, 1st Timothy 1:10...also talks aboutitin dueteronomy and Leviticus in the old testament but I cant find those. Dont get me wrong, Love the sinner because God loves them otherwise He wouldnt have sent His son to die for them. But the it is a sin, if you area Christian who believe the bible at least.

[Ajaxab]

I'm not sure we need both. I'm a big believer in tolerant love. That is not relativism, as critics argue. I believe in Truth. And I believe in evil. But I also believe that it is always better to think about something from someone else's perspective before making an action that affects them. And I also believe that while there is Truth, I would be a fool to believe that I know it with the utmost certainty.

And that dovetails to why I believe conversion comes from a position of pride. For me, even though I am not religious, humility is a virtue. Arrogance is the mistake of small minds (and I recognize that I am accused of arrogance moreso than any poster on this board). Doubting one's own beliefs and ideas is essential for intellectual honesty and for growth as a person. When you are converting someone (especially when they show no desire to be converted) you are often (but not always) supplanting their judgment with your own. That is why I think their is a pride that is dangerous. I prefer a belief system that is less confident in itself. Doubt is a good and healthy thing. Changing one's mind is not weakness - it is strength.

That helps as far as answering my question goes. So you would say that conversion is more of an imposition than a free choice made by the other. Based on the above though, wouldn't we say that all forms of argument are in a sense about conversion, i.e. supplanting another's judgment with our own? I guess it hinges on how we would define 'supplant' though.

Another question I would raise would be, can there ever be a humble paternalistic love that you could live with? If so, what might this look like?

[Samdari]

BW could cite the various studies that show academics contribute more often (as much as 9 to 1 by some studies) to liberal groups. For BW, that is a reason to distrust academics and to believe they are indoctrinating the youth of tomorrow. His assumption is revealing, but, unlike most of his other beliefs, is actually supported by some evidence.

I think he is playing on the general perception that "Academia" (despite spending 10 years in places of higher education, I've never been there) is a liberal place, and extending that to assume that all college professors are liberals/Democrats, when in reality, the preponderance of them are affluent, older, white, and male. What political persuasion does that bring to mind?

[nfg22]

That helps as far as answering my question goes. So you would say that conversion is more of an imposition than a free choice made by the other. Based on the above though, wouldn't we say that all forms of argument are in a sense about conversion, i.e. supplanting another's judgment with our own? I guess it hinges on how we would define 'supplant' though.

Another question I would raise would be, can there ever be a humble paternalistic love that you could live with? If so, what might this look like?

I would say that conversion doesnt have to be a imposition in fact if it is I do not believe it is true. Not until a free choice is made then can we truly accept Christ. I chose freely, and its is a belief and if you do not believe that by yourself then it isnt true. If God wanted imposition to be used then He would impose it in all of us.....

[John Galt]

I think he is playing on the general perception that "Academia" (despite spending 10 years in places of higher education, I've never been there) is a liberal place, and extending that to assume that all college professors are liberals/Democrats, when in reality, the preponderance of them are affluent, older, white, and male. What political persuasion does that bring to mind?

I'm not disagreeing. But even though most academics are still white males, they are also more often democrats than republicans. Surveys at some of the top schools show whole departments without a single person who contributed to GOP groups. The funny thing, and the hard thing for the anti-academic conspiracy theorists, is that the level of "liberalness" in academia extends into the hard sciences as well. It is not surprising to see a Women's Studies professor who is liberal, but why would someone expect a chemist to be leftist?

With all that being said, I think most academics don't contribute to political causes at all because their views are not represented by either party. But they do lean to the left.

[RendeR]

Fair enough, but a "Phd Psycologist' would tend to infer 1. Research and 2. Publication. So my Spider-Sense is still tingling.

Making bald faced assumptions like this, and calling it "sense" you ought probably to get a seeing eye dog or something, because you are blind. Sadly I think its intentional.

[John Galt]

That helps as far as answering my question goes. So you would say that conversion is more of an imposition than a free choice made by the other. Based on the above though, wouldn't we say that all forms of argument are in a sense about conversion, i.e. supplanting another's judgment with our own? I guess it hinges on how we would define 'supplant' though.

Another question I would raise would be, can there ever be a humble paternalistic love that you could live with? If so, what might this look like?

Argument among equals with awareness of the nature of the argument is good. The problem with conversion is that it often targets the vulnerable. Historically, much of conversion of the pagan world was justified by a "White Man's Burden" type of argument. We were saving the savages from themselves. That, to me, is clearly a position of arrogance.

Now, the case of homosexual conversion operates a little different. Often these groups target gays who are emotional wrecks. Usually they are ravaged by guilt and depression. Engaging in counseling to remove people from being gay strikes be as arrogant as well. It is saying that these people would be better off if they suppressed their "gay" side. That is inconsistent with mainstream psychology and is often to the emotional detriment of the patients over the long term.

In both of those cases, I don't see "argument" happening. To me, that is "conversion" (although I can't offer definitions to fully distinguish them).

Humble, paternalistic love? I guess the only case is when the other person is truly a child or child-like. If someone is a capable adult, I don't know if I see an appropriate time for any paternalistic love. But I have to admit I haven't though about this before.

[Raiders Army]

2. It's Spidey sense, not Spider-Sense.
Actually Peter Parker has referred to it as both...so you're both right.

[albionmoonlight]

If someone is a capable adult, I don't know if I see an appropriate time for any paternalistic love. But I have to admit I haven't though about this before.
If my friend is a herion addict, I am going to do pretty much everything in my power to get him off herion. That's paternalistic, but the alternative seems to be watching my friend kill himself slowly. My belief that certain things are so wrong (like hard drugs or cult membership) is solid enough that it trumps others rights to self-determination. And I am pretty much for treating them like a child for their own good.

Now, where does that leave me when I object to people trying to "convert" homosexuals because they would put homosexuality in the parenthetical that I have above? It probably leaves me as a bit of a hypocrite.

Trying to balance people's right to self-determination (in which I beleive very strongly) with a belief in some absolute rights and wrongs (which I have) is very very challenging.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

It is interesting. I would fight to get my friend off herion, but I would be less likely to try to get a stranger off drugs against his will. I wonder why? Maybe I feel that I have more of a right to control my friends' lives than I do the lives of strangers? Hmmm...

[John Galt]

If my friend is a herion addict, I am going to do pretty much everything in my power to get him off herion. That's paternalistic, but the alternative seems to be watching my friend kill himself slowly. My belief that certain things are so wrong (like hard drugs or cult membership) is solid enough that it trumps others rights to self-determination. And I am pretty much for treating them like a child for their own good.

Now, where does that leave me when I object to people trying to "convert" homosexuals because they would put homosexuality in the parenthetical that I have above? It probably leaves me as a bit of a hypocrite.

Trying to balance people's right to self-determination (in which I beleive very strongly) with a belief in some absolute rights and wrongs (which I have) is very very challenging.

I guess I would term the heroin addict as somewhat "child-like" and thus, some measure of paternalism would be justified. They are an in-between case, though. And I agree with you - I would spend more time helping a friend than a stranger in that regard. With that being said, I've let friends be addicts before without being that forceful about it. I guess I don't really have a firm feel of what I would/should do in these cases.

[Cuckoo]

Eric/albion: As we have discussed here over the years, I believe there is no conflict. Ben answered correctly implying that we (as believers in Christ) are to love unconditionally. That does not mean we accept sinful acts of others (and of ourselves) unconditionally. When asked personally, Ben will share this view but it is very important to stress that it does not diminish any involvement, interaction and acceptance of the person that we are told to love. This is a very hard thing for many believers to do, to separate the sin from the person and to love that person. It is no different than accepting a known adulterer in a Sunday School class. The Holy Spirit will take care of forgiveness and the redemption, we are just told to love.

I haven't read all the other responses in this thread, and I probably won't given the way these things come out when certain people become involved. But this is nicely said, Buc. Kudos.

[QuikSand]

1. It's implied, not inferred.

2. It's Spidey sense, not Spider-Sense.

3. Being involved in research and writing peer-reviewed scientific publications does not make one a democrat. It makes one a scholar.


This post has been brought to you by your friendly neighborhood psychologist!

This might be my favorite FOFC post of all time.

[Fonzie]

This might be my favorite FOFC post of all time.
Oh, stop it. You're making me blush.

[JasonC23]

people actually still say "tough tamalies"?
Actually, he said, "though tamalies," and I have no idea what that means. :eek:

John, you're in Iowa City? Didn't know that. I've only been back a couple of times since graduating in 1996, and I miss it.<!-- / message -->

[John Galt]

Actually, he said, "though tamalies," and I have no idea what that means. :eek:

John, you're in Iowa City? Didn't know that. I've only been back a couple of times since graduating in 1996, and I miss it.<!-- / message -->

I'm a proud Hawkeye grad and happy to be back. It will be sad to leave again.

[Fonzie]

I'm a proud Hawkeye grad and happy to be back. It will be sad to leave again.
I must've missed this elsewhere - where are you moving to next?

[John Galt]

I must've missed this elsewhere - where are you moving to next?

Don't know. My term here ends next August. After that, I'm a free agent.

[NoMyths]

On the other hand, Ben, the first time you drop an f-bomb (and I'm not talking about the four-letter variety) around the kid, you might be getting a rebuttal to your email. :p

[Samdari]

On the other hand, Ben, the first time you drop an f-bomb (and I'm not talking about the four-letter variety) around the kid, you might be getting a rebuttal to your email. :p

Well played.

[Pumpy Tudors]

In Mineapolis if you see two men embracing they may not be homosexual. It might just be that they are cold.
I will agree with this. I've only spent about 4 hours in Minneapolis in my life, entirely within the airport. It was FREEZING in the airport.

It was also JUNE.

[Ryche]

In Mineapolis if you see two men embracing they may not be homosexual. It might just be that they are cold.

But maybe that's where it starts? :D

[Fonzie]

But maybe that's where it starts? :D
A slippery slope, indeed...

[Abe Sargent]

Not to distract away from albionmoonlight's points, which are all good, I think there is alot of ambiguity in what it means to "love" someone in the Christian sense. It is my (outsider's) understanding that many view "love" as a paternalistic love while others view it is a "love" of toleration. I think this difference can be shown in a lot of missionary work. Converting (be it from other religions or lifestyles) is an act often justified by paternalistic "love." That is, by converting that person, you are saving their soul and showing "love" by doing what is best for that person. This is in contrast to a "love" that is more of a "live and let live" view of the world. This second, tolerant "love" does not mean you hide your views, but that you don't believe it is your mission to know what is best for everyone else. Perhaps the difference also stems from how one views "pride" as a sin (since conversion requires more pride than humility, IMO).

Anyway, those are just my outsider thoughts, so please tell me if I'm wrong.


As one of the token ordained ministers here, I have to agree totally with JG here. Some Christians "love" perjoratively. I think true, honest love is what is intended. I have a lot of gay friends who work for me. (ironically, not a lot of lesbian ones, I just don't know that many). I have hired a ton of gay staff to work my complexes. I would do anything for them. I hug them, hang out with them, chastise their work when it is necessary, swing by their room to see how things are going, ask if they need any food when I go to the cafeteria when they work the front desk, help them out and try to work with them when life things get in the way of the job, and so forth. I schedule my lounges for Ally programs for them to do. I love them and cherish them as friends and employees.

I also happen to think that homosexual activity is a sin. However, that is God's place to judge, not mine. It's important to note that some Christians treat homosexuality as a super-special sin, instead of a normal one They treat people who get drunk or people who gossip differently than they do homosexuality. That's simply wrong. Both my father (a Baptist minster) and myself (another Baptist minister) disagree with that basic philosophy. It's a-Biblical. When a Christian treats homosexuality as something different, something worse, that's what I take umbrage with, and that may be what you are sensing, JG.

Now, to be fair, I do think that it is important for a Christian to mention to friends reasons for being a Christian. I don't see what all of the fuss is about when some people are insulted when a Christian mentions why they are a Christian and why they thionk the other person should be as well. Nobody ever gets up in arms when I mention that a movie was really cool, and that they shoudl watch it. Nobody gets up in arms when I tell them that I thinmk they should exercise for their own health. Even if they disagree, they do so politely. Religious conversation should be no different.

As such, JG, I would point out that religious conversion-leaning conversation should take place, only it should be because of the love that one bears for another, not as the symbol of the love, but because it naturally flows (and should be exhibited in other areas as well.) In order words, first should come the love, then the conversation, not vice versa, if that makes sense.

You'll note, for example, that although sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, that I've never been anything other than respectful and caring with you. You have also given me the same, which I recognize and appreciate.

I wish that we could have more intelligent and loving conversations about religion here on FOFC without the heckling and attacking that so regularly accompany Internet message boards. Ah well, that is, I suppose, a wish for another day.


-Anxiety



Edited for grammar

[John Galt]

Great post, Anxiety. I appreciate the sentiments and agree with you wholeheartedly.

Among my close group of friends, I have two catholics, a lutheran, a baptist, a seventh day adventist, and only 1 agnostic/atheist. The Christians have never shown me anything but respect and love in my life.

The only places I have ever experienced hostility from religion are through the media and on this board. It's strange to me. I've had no problem with Christians in my life, but it seems like the "bad Christians" get a lot more media coverage and some even get elected to office. As for why there are some hostile Christians on this board, I don't know. I'm just glad there are people like you, Revrew, GrantDawg, and others who combine faith with tolerance.

[Abe Sargent]

Great post, Anxiety. I appreciate the sentiments and agree with you wholeheartedly.

Among my close group of friends, I have two catholics, a lutheran, a baptist, a seventh day adventist, and only 1 agnostic/atheist. The Christians have never shown me anything but respect and love in my life.

The only places I have ever experienced hostility from religion are through the media and on this board. It's strange to me. I've had no problem with Christians in my life, but it seems like the "bad Christians" get a lot more media coverage and some even get elected to office. As for why there are some hostile Christians on this board, I don't know. I'm just glad there are people like you, Revrew, GrantDawg, and others who combine faith with tolerance.


That was a quick reply, thanks JG :)

Maybe this is our fault (ours being the more...shall we say rational?), Christians. Maybe we should be louder, more vocal, more visible and more ready to put our views out there for others to hear. I'm going to have to ponder this for a bit.


-Anxiety

[John Galt]

That was a quick reply, thanks JG :)

It's Friday and I'm avoiding working. :p :)

[QuikSand]

Nice post, Anxiety.

[Bubba Wheels]

That was a quick reply, thanks JG :)

Maybe this is our fault (ours being the more...shall we say rational?), Christians. Maybe we should be louder, more vocal, more visible and more ready to put our views out there for others to hear. I'm going to have to ponder this for a bit.


-Anxiety

More rational Christians? Would that have included John the Baptist in your opinion? Sometimes folks like you use words like 'rational' when they really mean to say 'stealthier.' We already have too many 'stealth' Christians, at least politically.

[sabotai]

All of this caring and love that's going around in this thread just makes me want to go punch a kitten in the face.

[Fonzie]

All of this caring and love that's going around in this thread just makes me want to go punch a kitten in the face.
Better yet - go masturbate and let God kill the kitten for you.

[Subby]

More rational Christians? Would that have included John the Baptist in your opinion? Sometimes folks like you use words like 'rational' when they really mean to say 'stealthier.' We already have too many 'stealth' Christians, at least politically. You should stop posting for five seconds and re-read what Anxiety posted. Then take it to heart.

[albionmoonlight]

I've had no problem with Christians in my life, but it seems like the "bad Christians" get a lot more media coverage and some even get elected to office.
The extremists get the attention and are easier for people to understand and the media to portray. Someone like Anxiety who tries to experience God's love and grace in his life and confront the hard questions of our day with a blend of rationality and spirituality is hard to box and group and understand. Somone walking around with a sign saying God hates Fags is easier to understand.

Someone who tries to understand the subtle issues of race and class in America is hard to get a bead on. Someone who says that "Bush hates all black people" is easy to understand and show on the 11 O'Clock news.

The noisemakers get the attention--be they political extremists or religous zealots.

[Bubba Wheels]

You should stop posting for five seconds and re-read what Anxiety posted. Then take it to heart.

I think that I got his point, hope he got mine. Have a nice day! :)

[Warhammer]

As such, JG, I would point out that religious conversion-leaning conversation should take place, only it should be because of the love that one bears for another, not as the symbol of the love, but because it naturally flows (and should be exhibited in other areas as well.) In order words, first should come the love, then the conversation, not vice versa, if that makes sense.

First off, great post!

Second, one thing that bugs the day lights out of me is when Christians try to convert other Christians to their form of Christianity. What is even worse is when said converters suddenly lose interest in you when you express no desire to convert to their views.

I have always tried to be a good person and follow in the footsteps of Christ. I have never tried to convert someone by beating them over the head with religion, but instead through my actions. In some cases, I like to think I may have helped people meet Christ. One time this happened was way back in 8th grade. One of the kids in my class asked why people believe in God, and why people belong to different religions. I gave him a barebones intro, and encouraged him to visit different congregations to find one that felt right, he would know the right one when he came to it. What amazed me, was another kid basically said, there is only one church to go to, mine, don't go to the others, they'll brainwash you, etc. If there was ever a time I wanted to smack someone this was it, I felt like telling the kid, "Hey, we're playing for the same team, it doesn't matter which church he goes to, but that he gives it a chance to accept Christ."

Anyway, rant off.

[Solecismic]

Isn't any religion defined as exactly what the individual has faith in?

You believe what you want to believe. You read the Bible, interpret it as you see fit. You may or may not go to church and seek guidance from a pastor or a minister.

Some read a certain passage in the Bible, and interpret it as saying homosexuality will destroy humanity unless every single gay person is hunted down and murdered. Others read the same passages and wonder why people make such a big deal about homosexuality when eating shellfish appears to be about as serious a crime.

Christianity is just like clutch hitters in baseball. If you're a Christian, you call what you believe passionately part of the religion. If you're a baseball fan who believes in clutch hitters, you call the players you like "clutch."

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know if this is the right place for it or not, but since most people seem to still be in this thread, I thought that I would pass on a book recomendation. I just finished reading The World's Religions.



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0062508113/qid=1128715860/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6030319-4693627?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It is an easy to understand brief summary of the major religions in the world. It does a really good job of explaining the core faith beliefs in each religion without getting too bogged down into political details. It also does not pit them against each other, but shows them each for what they are and only compares and contrasts when necessary to prove a point.

I feel more educated having read it, and I feel that I have a better understanding of my own faith though having gotten a sense of the faith of others. I, in other words, recommend it. Especially for people trying to understand what is really at the core of their belief system.

[Abe Sargent]

More rational Christians? Would that have included John the Baptist in your opinion? Sometimes folks like you use words like 'rational' when they really mean to say 'stealthier.' We already have too many 'stealth' Christians, at least politically.


I mean what I say. No, of course I wouldn't include John the Baptist. Are you trying to catch me in some sort of trap? :) John the Baptist was never a Christian. He died prior to Christ's cruxifiction and subsequent resurrection. He was a Jew. However, any further conversation on this is not really germaine to the topic, which is about Christianity and homosexuality and the regularly observed tension between the two.

You cannot deny that many Christians do, in fact, treat homesexuality as a sin-plus, as if there were some sort of categorization of various sins, and homosexuality is worse than, say, premarital sex. I've never known a family to disavow a child who regularly got drunk or who was a known gossip. I see no reason why homosexuality should be treated differently.


I believe that the view that I espoused earlier is the best way one can reconcile the following passages:

"Judge not, lest you also be judged."
"Vengeance is mine, says the Lord."
"Do not seek vengeance or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am your Lord."


These passges, and numerous others, indicate that God has reserved judging, vengeance and other similar judgmental activities for himself. By the way, that last passage is from Leviticus. A lot of people want to dismiss the love-focused message of the Bible as mere New Testament rambling, but it is the heart and core of the whole Bible, from beginning to end.


"The most important one (commandment), Answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Isreal, the Lord our God is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these"


This means that one should love God completely and love others wth abandon. There is no room here for anything else, including ambiguity. All people deserve our love. Period. Whatever the Bible says is wrong I believe to be wrong (within the confines of the New Testamant, of course. I don't believe that it is wrong to, say, wash mildew off my bathroom tile with Scrubbing Bubbles).

However, the only way that I see to combine the two basic thoughts that I have listed above is to say this: God judges. he reserves the right of vengeance and judgment over all, including me for my actions. My role is to love God and others. To accept them, help them, sacrifice for them, and if necessary, die for them. Along the way, my role is also to instruct them and be a guide to show them the path of Christ as well.

This is how I am convicted by the Holy Spirit. It is also how I intellectually read the text. This is even how I teach others. I believe that my head, heart and conscience are in alignment on this one.

-Anxiety



Edited once again for grammer, becasue I type too quickly ;)

[HomerJSimpson]

You should stop posting for five seconds and re-read what Anxiety posted. Then take it to heart.


He would have to have one.

[HomerJSimpson]

I mean what I say. No, of course I wouldn't include John the Baptist. Are you trying to catch me in some sort of trap? :) John the Baptist was never a Christian. He died prior to Christ's cruxifiction and subsequent resurrection. He was a Jew. However, any further conversation on this is not really germaine to the topic, which is about Christianity and homosexuality and the regularly observed tension between the two.

You cannot deny that many Christians do, in fact, treat homesexuality as a sin-plus, as if there were some sort of categorization of various sins, and homosexuality is worse than, say, premarital sex. I've never known a family to disavow a child who regularly got drunk or who was a known gossip. I see no reason why homosexuality should be treated differently.


I believe that the view that I espoused earlier is the best way one can reconcile the following passages:

"Judge not, lest you also be judged."
"Vengeance is mine, says the Lord."
"Do not seek vengeance or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am your Lord."


These passges, and numerous others, indicate that God has reserved judging, vengeance and other similar judgmental activities for himself. By the way, that last passage is from Leviticus. A lot of people want to dismiss the love-focused message of the Bible as mere New Testament rambling, but it is the heart and core of the whole Bible, from beginning to end.


"The most important one (commandment), Answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Isreal, the Lord our God is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these"


This means that one should love God completely and love others wth abandon. There is no room here for anything else, including ambiguity. All people deserve our love. Period. Whatever the Bible says is wrong I believe to be wrong (within the confines of the New Testamant, of course. I don't believe that it is wrong to, say, wash mildew off my bathroom tile with Scrubbing Bubbles).

However, the only way that I see to combine the two basic thoughts that I have listed above is to say this: God judges. he reserves the right of vengeance and judgment over all, including me for my actions. My role is to love God and others. To accept them, help them, sacrifice for them, and if necessary, die for them. Along the way, my role is also to instruct them and be a guide to show them the path of Christ as well.

This is how I am convicted by the Holy Spirit. It is also how I intellectually read the text. This is even how I teach others. I believe that my head, heart and conscience are in alignment on this one.

-Anxiety



Edited once again for grammer, becasue I type too quickly ;)


Great stuff.

[Subby]

Anxiety is just crushing it out of the park today.

[albionmoonlight]

Good job, Anxiety.

[Bubba Wheels]

I mean what I say. No, of course I wouldn't include John the Baptist. Are you trying to catch me in some sort of trap? :) John the Baptist was never a Christian. He died prior to Christ's cruxifiction and subsequent resurrection. He was a Jew. However, any further conversation on this is not really germaine to the topic, which is about Christianity and homosexuality and the regularly observed tension between the two.

You cannot deny that many Christians do, in fact, treat homesexuality as a sin-plus, as if there were some sort of categorization of various sins, and homosexuality is worse than, say, premarital sex. I've never known a family to disavow a child who regularly got drunk or who was a known gossip. I see no reason why homosexuality should be treated differently.


I believe that the view that I espoused earlier is the best way one can reconcile the following passages:

"Judge not, lest you also be judged."
"Vengeance is mine, says the Lord."
"Do not seek vengeance or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am your Lord."


These passges, and numerous others, indicate that God has reserved judging, vengeance and other similar judgmental activities for himself. By the way, that last passage is from Leviticus. A lot of people want to dismiss the love-focused message of the Bible as mere New Testament rambling, but it is the heart and core of the whole Bible, from beginning to end.


"The most important one (commandment), Answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Isreal, the Lord our God is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these"


This means that one should love God completely and love others wth abandon. There is no room here for anything else, including ambiguity. All people deserve our love. Period. Whatever the Bible says is wrong I believe to be wrong (within the confines of the New Testamant, of course. I don't believe that it is wrong to, say, wash mildew off my bathroom tile with Scrubbing Bubbles).

However, the only way that I see to combine the two basic thoughts that I have listed above is to say this: God judges. he reserves the right of vengeance and judgment over all, including me for my actions. My role is to love God and others. To accept them, help them, sacrifice for them, and if necessary, die for them. Along the way, my role is also to instruct them and be a guide to show them the path of Christ as well.

This is how I am convicted by the Holy Spirit. It is also how I intellectually read the text. This is even how I teach others. I believe that my head, heart and conscience are in alignment on this one.

-Anxiety



Edited once again for grammer, becasue I type too quickly ;)

Well, then I'm still a little confused on your previous point. If you divide Christians into 1. Rational 2. Non-rational, isn't that making a 'judgement?" Or its ok to judge Christians, but only Christians? Not sure where you draw your line of 'judgement."

[John Galt]

Well, then I'm still a little confused on your previous point. If you divide Christians into 1. Rational 2. Non-rational, isn't that making a 'judgement?" Or its ok to judge Christians, but only Christians? Not sure where you draw your line of 'judgement."

I can't speak for Christians, but I like to think I'm a tolerant person. However, that in no way precludes me from thinking you are a dumbass. Tolerance does not mean you don't render judgment. To me, it means you recognize that your own judgment may be flawed and that only a fool thinks they are right all the time. And you are that fool.

[Bubba Wheels]

I can't speak for Christians, but I like to think I'm a tolerant person. However, that in no way precludes me from thinking you are a dumbass. Tolerance does not mean you don't render judgment. To me, it means you recognize that your own judgment may be flawed and that only a fool thinks they are right all the time. And you are that fool.

So, we can take your statement as an example of non-Christian love? The kind of compassion our society will have by banning faith from public like the ACLU advocates? Interesting.

[John Galt]

So, we can take your statement as an example of non-Christian love? The kind of compassion our society will have by banning faith from public like the ACLU advocates? Interesting.

It is always good to see the classic Bubba duck-and-troll manuever. Can't you ever stay on subject? We were talking about how you are a dumbass.

[Subby]

I picture Bubba with a box of extreme right flash cards next to his computer. They say stuff like "ACLU", "Hillary Clinton" or "Godless Communism". When his brain grinds to a halt he just fishes around for one of these and *boom* he has more posting fodder. :)

[Abe Sargent]

Well, then I'm still a little confused on your previous point. If you divide Christians into 1. Rational 2. Non-rational, isn't that making a 'judgement?" Or its ok to judge Christians, but only Christians? Not sure where you draw your line of 'judgement."


Once again, not germaine to the topic, but I will answer briefly. I believe the judgments mentioned in the Bible are ones that God care about. As much as God loves me and cares about me, I don't really think that he cares whether or not I get a coke or a coke with lime when I go to the store. That's a judgment call, sure, but not the sort that anybody would reasonably claim that God wants to reserve for himself.

I think this is a limitation of the English language specifically and language in general. Judgment, like many words, can be defined differently. In this case, I believe that God is specifically speaking to what he has already told us. He is attributed as saying that homosexuality is a sin (in order to bring us back to point) therefore I leave it to him to make those judgments. He has told me to love. He has told me to not judge. I should obey both equally. I fail sometimes, but that is what I aspire to.

Saying that some people think one way while others think another is not judgmental, it is characterising. It's a useful diagnostic tool. I cannot be right about everything from a statistical standpoint, although I believe that I am correct on everything. Therefore, I find it easy to avoid judgment and instead work on my love.

Everybody has their own temptations. I am have literally no temptation to take drugs. I have never drunk a drop of alcohol in my life. However, I have a tendancy to be prideful. I want to be humble. I want to attribute my musings to God. I want to honestly mean it when I say that I don't need accolades, although honesty requires that I mention that I really enjoy it. That's my temptation. I am convinced that some Christians have a major temptation with being judgmental.

I do not know what your temptations are. I would not presume to know. I have not read your posts in enough detail, nor would I tell you my suspicions here in front of everybody if I had any. However, I have just prayed for you. And I will again. We all could benefit for more prayer, I think.


-Anxiety


(In summation, no I do not believe that act is judgmental. Even if it was, I do not think it qualifies as the sort of activity God prohibits. I do not even think that being judgmental is my weakness, although it can be for others.)

[Flasch186]

i laughed so hard many times throughout this that I would need to go change my underpants if I had some on.

[Fonzie]

i laughed so hard many times throughout this that I would need to go change my underpants if I had some on.
Well then...perhaps you should consider changing your chair?