Interesting Exchange Regarding Homosexual Behavior And Christ-Centered Faith

[CamEdwards]

It's actually spelled tamales.

Carry on, my wayward sons.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I found that response to be extremely bizarre

Bizarre? Sounded pretty straight forward and reasonable to me.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

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

Actually Peter Parker has referred to it as both...so you're both right.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This might be my favorite FOFC post of all time.

Oh, stop it. You're making me blush.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

people actually still say "tough tamalies"?

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

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

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

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.

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

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

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.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well played.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

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]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

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?

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Ryche

But maybe that's where it starts?

A slippery slope, indeed...

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

That was a quick reply, thanks JG

It's Friday and I'm avoiding working.

[QuikSand]

Nice post, Anxiety.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Better yet - go masturbate and let God kill the kitten for you.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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...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]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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.