|
Post by Jeff on Dec 12, 2005 17:38:48 GMT -5
I am going to move the old board over here. I will try to maximize its coherence. There were about 100 posts over there, so I will start at the beginning and try to make all of them in order--rather than simply pasting the whole thing.
PS This will take several hours, maybe even more than I have tonight. Please, excuse the mess.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:33:10 GMT -5
The Original Post 10/23/04 Op-Ed Columnist: God and Sex October 23, 2004 By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof? That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the only state where the outcome seems uncertain. Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America - as when a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field. Some scholars, like Daniel Helminiak, author of "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that. It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology," it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy. In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters. Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). While homosexuality never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19). As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth"). Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration. Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan. In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch. The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex. A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex. In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move on to barring gay marriages.) Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone," and allow gay lovers to marry. Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to remain unmarried as I am." So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether? www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/...en=0f1be2ca9c71e9c1
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:33:43 GMT -5
Adam 10/25/04
A most interesting read, shame that the writer didn't read more of what Paul was talking about. That God didn't create Gays, but because man had decided/chosen to worship the created instead of the Creator, that God then gave them over to their own lustfull desires.
Yes, the bible points out that the Gay life style is not exceptable behaviour, but just because you hate the sin you don't to hate the person. Being Gay doesn't keep you from going to heaven it just keeps you from haveing a complete relationship with God just like any sin big or small.
He should have also read a little farther in Genesis and he would have seen that God intended for man to one day leave his parents and to become one with his wife and thus the two become of one flesh. This kind of puts a damper on polygamy as you can not become one flesh with more than one spouse.
You will probally point out others in the bible who had more than one wife and you will also see the troubles they indured because of chosing to live by their culture instead of what God intended and yet still God used these people to do great things and he even blessed them, but their was Consequences to their actions.(But that is another subject)
And for those who do believe that the bible is God's words that he allowed man to put on paper and is powerful enough to keep it from being altered by man (other wise he would be a pretty week God who didn't care if you ever knew his truths). Then we are following what God wrote and not what Paul wrote as he implies.
I don't take any offense to what this man has said, but he is missing a few facts.
Curious what others may be thinking Adam (the Dead Horse)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:34:15 GMT -5
Tina 10/26/04
Adam, It seems to me that the gentleman who wrote this article was not missing the point. Paul, who wrote 12 books of the New Testament (or 13 if you are one of the few who believe Paul also wrote Hebrews) from Romans - Titus, did indeed write that it would be better for one to remain unmarried. And I quote 1Corinthians 7:8&9 "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." That's good and all what you wrote about Genesis in the Old Testament, but your main Christian apostle said these words. Not the writer. Also, there has been sooooo much scientific studies/evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but the way their bodies were created. Much like in the old days my having epilepsy was considered being possessed with demons as opposed to a neurological disorder. But the main thing is, Adam, I think you are missing the writer's point. You are focusing on the fact that you don't think he read enough of Paul's insights. Quite frankly, using Paul's insights I will say this about your following stance: That God didn't create Gays, but because man had decided/chosen to worship the created instead of the Creator, that God then gave them over to their own lustfull desires. Apparently, anyone who marries is also given over to their lustful desires. But that also was not the point the writer was trying to make. The point is that it seems that Christians conveniently choose which verses in the Bible they choose to follow and which ones they do not. For example: Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Leviticus 25:46 "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Ok, it seems to me that the problem with slavery in this country is that they came from Africa, which is not a country next to ours. Otherwise it would be ok. Now, if you are horrified with that thought, than good. You should be. We outlawed slavery as an issue that was morally and ethically reprehensible, not because it was allowed in the Bible. Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not free to go free as menservants do." I think you have a daughter. Do you feel glad that it has been okayed by the Word that you can sell her? Oh, wait, that's not allowed in this country. Well, it should be if it's ok in the Bible. Except that we have evolved to think that practice is, again, reprehensible. Exodus 35:2 "For 6 days, work is to be done, but the 7th day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." Have you worked on Sunday? I know I have. I should be put to death. How many of us need to be put to death? On that matter, I guess your pastor should be put to death since he is, technically, working on the Sabbath. Leviticus 11:10-12 "But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water - you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you." Have you eaten shrimp, scallops or oysters? You have broken God's law. They are to be detestable to you. Now, which is more detestable to God? Those who practice homosexuality, or those of us who have eaten shellfish? I'm not sure here, as it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible which of these are more reprehensible than the others. Leviticus 19:19 "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with 2 kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of 2 kinds of material." Now, see, this last one gets me. Right now I am wearing an Oklahmona University t-shirt that is a cotton-poly blend. I have broken God's law. Do you or your children wear blended clothing, because I would stop if I were you. You are breaking God's law. 1 Corinthians10:4-7 "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." Adam, I certainly hope you have never prayed while wearing a baseball cap. And I most certainly hope that your wife prays with her head covered or there is something really wrong. This may seem sort of mean, but I am trying to make a legitimate point here. The point is this: Many of these rules I listed above seem antiquated and silly in our day and age and in the culture we belong. But, Adam, American Christians should not say 'God says this and God says that', yet ignore the rest of the rules set out in the Bible. If you folks get to pick and choose which verses you follow, then the Bible is not the unfallable work of God. It is a fallable set of guidelines men wrote to worship God. If the Bible is unfallable, then you better rethink your worship as you are probably breaking a whole bunch of laws. If you want to quote the greatest commandment (Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy will, and with all thy strength, and the second is this, Love thy neighbor as thineself) then I would say that seems like a lovely philosophy. But you need to leave the other laws alone, or follow them all. This was the point of the writer. That Christians should not say homosexuality is condemned by God, when there are many more things apparently condemned by God that you aren't focusing on. Why is this particular codemanation getting so much focus when there are plenty of things Christians practice that their Bible says not to do? Take care! tina
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:34:32 GMT -5
Amanda 10/29/04
It's sad that next Tuesday many Oklahomans will be voting discrimination into the state constitution. It's sad that many people are so uncomfortable that they are willing to prevent two consenting adults from honoring their love for one another by barring them from making a binding life commitment through marriage because of their sexual orientation. My marriage is not threatened by two people of the same gender marrying. My marriage is not cheapened by the joining of two people of the same gender. I don't understand how this affects *anyone* other than the couple desiring to be joined in marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:34:50 GMT -5
Jeff 10/31/04
I just got this discussion--Jenn sent me a copy. I think Adam is correct to believe that the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. I could go through the passages again, but they have been covered pretty well already. The Bible is anti-gay, as the original author argued. I think everyone agrees about this, right?
The real question is what to do with this fact. Some people argue modus ponens:
If P then Q P :. Q
If the Bible is all-true then homosexuality must be wrong. The Bible is all-true. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
Folks like Amanda, Tina, and I think there is nothing sinful about homosexuality (right, guys?). We argue modus tollens:
If P then Q Not Q :. Not P
If the Bible is all-true then homosexuality must be wrong. Homosexuality is not wrong. :. The Bible is not all-true.
In other words, the issue, as Adam rightly notes, is not about homosexuality for the literal-minded Christian, so much as the entire possibility of being literal-minded in the first place. And, pace Adam, I don't think there is any chance of being literal-minded about the Bible, unless one wants to deny all the scientific evidence that Tina alluded to.
So, here we really do have a disparity between truth and faith. This is the real question. How do we respond when truth seems opposed to faith? And this may sound silly, but I've always liked Merlin's words: "Truth, then. For when a man tells a lie, he murders some part of the world." God must be a God of sense. The alternative is, quite literally, unthinkable.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:35:14 GMT -5
Adam 11/02/04
So, here we really do have a disparity between truth and faith. This is the real question. How do we respond when truth seems opposed to faith? And this may sound silly, but I've always liked Merlin's words: "Truth, then. For when a man tells a lie, he murders some part of the world." God must be a God of sense. The alternative is, quite literally, unthinkable.
Jeff
If I under stand what your saying being literal-minded about the Bible can cause a disparity between a person’s faith and what seems to have been proven to be the truth??
How do we respond when truth seems opposed to faith?
So as I under stand the Bible, the word of God is the truth, so if there is a disparity between the two, then one must look deeper to find the truth. Most of the times the Bible causes disparity, because what it teaches is in direct conflict with a person’s culture and not the truth. The truth of the bible is through love you can full fill the whole of the Law. Example would be with love you don’t steal, murder, commit adultery, abuse your spouse or treat others as second class citizens and so on. So as a Christian my culture or even other’s culture may come in direct conflict with my faith, my job is to stand for what is the truth and not something that culture has decided to be acceptable or not acceptable the world may choose to change but the word of God remains the same. This will put me at odds with others I fully realize this, so I must know why I believe and be able to share with others when asked. Base under the new covenant that Jesus brought us, we no longer fall under the Old Testement Law system, we don’t put people to death for working on the Sabbath, we may eat what ever we desire or wear cloths made of more than one type of fabric. The law that we are to live by now is the law of Love, now God has raised up the governments of the world who put laws in place to govern us and we are to abide by these laws or reap the consequences of disobeying for it does not wield the sword for nothing. Yes, there will be times when the government laws are in direct conflict with the word of God and as a Christian I’m suppose to oppose that though I fully understand in doing so I will come under the Government’s sword that is the price some times for standing for what it is right. We are blessed in this Country to at least have a say in our government, so as some would say it is our God given right to vote and we should. I vote on most issues according to my faith when my faith is based on an issue such as marriage or abortion. Now in other areas such as who is to be my senator or president I have no guidance from faith on whom to choose other than to be informed and try to make a wise decision. Thus based off of God’s word homosexuality is a sin and should not be encouraged, but that doesn’t give us the right to beat them up or call them horrible names or treat them as if they have a dieses. But that doesn’t mean that I’m suppose to except their lifestyle, yes in a way America is slowly turning away from what is right and choosing to do what is right in their own eyes.
So for me at least there is no disparity between my faith and the truth. Just a disparity between my faith and what culture is trying to say is ok. If I through my faith and morals out the window then yes, I would agree with the Jeff, Tina and Amanda on this question about homosexuality, but I can’t so I will vote the way I’m convicted just as you will vote the way your convicted. One of our rights for being Americans, so be sure to vote.
If anyone wishes to continue this topic of Faith vs Truth, I welcome the challenge to encourage me to study my bible even more. Take care, all Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:35:42 GMT -5
Jeff 11/03/04 Adam, I’ll be writing you a long letter later on. For years I've known that the argument you and I are having is one of the two key political arguments that must be made. Today, we have some more proof. Exit polling suggests that the driving motivation behind the Republican sweep of governorships, congress, and the presidency was “moral issues.” Take a look at this: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6397077/Democratic pundits are out again trying to figure out what the Dems keep doing wrong. And they still aren’t seeing it. Look here: www.slate.com/id/2109079/ (Read the 12:01 11/03 entry) Bush did not win because he was simple; he won because the voters correctly perceived that he shares their basic values. Key among these values is the belief that homosexuals are sinful as is abortion of any kind. If the democrats want to ever win again, they have to show the country that Christians are wrong on both counts. The best way to do this is through sustained scriptural exegesis, i.e., these errant political views must be shown to be contrary to proper methods of the interpretation of the Bible. The final result of this project is to demonstrate the heresy of Fundamentalist/Pentecostal/Evangelical Christians. I promise to devote myself to debunking the Fundamentalist heresy, not so that we can burn these people at the stake or anything, but so that they can know that their hate offends God. Until we do this, the world is in the hands of silly, simple-mind, arrogant, and hateful fundamentalists: Ours (Christian) against theirs (Islamic). And anyone who knows anything about world history knows that this is a recipe for disaster. More to come, Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:36:17 GMT -5
Adam 11/03/04 I did a Google search please feel free to check for your self and share any other findings you have. scientific evidence of homosexuality Professor gives scientific evidence of homosexuality www.le-national.com/Worldnat/homo-evidence032004.htmlNote this site below doesn’t believe in the Evidence and does give a good argument for Free will of choice Homosexuality: The Scientific Evidence www.whyprophets.com/prophets/gay_gene.htmIf anyone has other sites or info for me to read over on this view for or against please share. I look forward to your letter Jeff Your friend even if we may have different views
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:36:44 GMT -5
Lonnie 11/03/04
I am sadden by the lack of open mindness of our country. I am disheartened by the lack of understanding our country has shown. I've have spent the last six months being assaulted by campaign ads that have not shown platforms or a direction our country will take if the featured candidate won. Instead all I saw was a the viciousness of anger, the destruction of another human, the disassembling of character and by the time I made it to the voting booth yesterday, it was with a heavy heart and a sickness in my stomach. And unfortunately, even greater than those two things, a great sense of relief to finally be done with the negativity of the ads. I was ready for the rabies of politics to be quarantined. However I know in the next four yrs we will continue to see a bigger division in our political wheel and instead of fighting together, we will be fighting against each other. This is not progressive nor is it beneficial for our country. The lack of respect that people have shown each other does not show moral values nor does it show "good" Christian beliefs. I was raised to believe that if someone is a "good" Christian then they didn't have to advertise it nor did they have to state it on a constant rate as if they were trying to convince you or the themselves. Their actions would be the way to determine the type of Christian they were. Which leads me to the next thing. For the last couple of weeks, I have read the discussion on "God and Homosexuals" (paraphrased I know)...and I have kept my mouth shut mostly due to the fact that this is such an extreme line of belief. (I will not quote the bible nor will I delve into the interpation of the bible for that is truly what it is...an intrepation of the words. The bible we now know is not the original words and has been re written and re edited in the past. Men have beaten and killed their wives and have used the bible as their defense, stated the bible gave them the right to do what they wanted with their "property". I believe people can read what they want in the words when it suits them too. Just my humble opinion.) I believe that love is such a fragile and such a beautiful gift that it is not my place nor anyone else's to state that two consenting ADULTS can not share that love with each other in a public forum and legally be married. I have a friend who is a lesbian who was "married" in Oregon in March. Her and her partner have chosen to spend the rest of their lives together just as Chris and I made the same decision when we stood before the preacher 13 1/2 yrs ago. However, when Chris and I go to any of the 50 states we will be recognized as a married couple while my friend and her partner will not have that same recognition. My 11 y'old daughter's school held their "mock" election to show them the voting procedure and how the system works. She is a very vocal and very upfront child. When the discussion turned to the question of gay marriages, she stated she thought that people who wanted to get married should be allowed to. She stated "just because someone is gay doesn't mean they aren't human. They love people too." Several of her classmates turned on her, accused her of being gay, accused her of not being a good Christian. My daughter being who she is snapped back with "What makes you think you are so great? What if you turn out to be gay when you are older, and you aren't going to be allowed to be married." And children being children sneered and walked away. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or down anyone's beliefs, we all have the right to think what we think and to believe what we believe. I may not agree with what others do or believe but I respect their right to have opinions that are different than mine. I only wish that more people could show some sort of respect to others who aren't the standard norm in society. Speaking for the first time, Lonnie
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:37:05 GMT -5
Jeff 11/03/04
Adam,
I am supercharged about this exchange. To be honest I have already started collecting my religious library and software. It has been scattered around the house on various bookshelves. I find it bracing that the first thing you did was go and look at my evidence and the first thing I did was go and look at yours. I also agree with you that the friendship is a bedrock. I don't know of anything that we could say to each other that would jeopardize our friendship. We have talked about all our most intimate views of the world. You should also know that I deeply respect your vews. I know where they come from and you have showed nothing but a complete willingness to be open about them and even question them.
The problem as I see it is a deep one. It is philosophical, specifically epistemological. In the near future, I will be providing you some clear cases of contradictions within the bible or scriptural immorality so that you can tell me what you make of them. I will not do this to put you on the spot. What I will be looking for is how you are willing to modify your interpretations to account for them. Next I intend to use this evidence as proof that you do not interpret the Bible literally. In fact, no one can.
Stay tuned. For those of you who do not want to have this discussion, tell me so I can remove you from the CC list. I anticipate that it may take at least a year.
I am writing this in a brief 5 minute break between classes, so I've got to go.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:37:24 GMT -5
Jerod 11/03/04
I am eagerly awaiting this discussion not so much so that i can oppinionate but more that i can cheer on jeff lol sorry adam. on a visit to my gf's parents house last night he asked if i voted and knowing his position on the matter i told him no. he told me halloween weekend that a vote for Kerry was a vote against god and truly i find it more reversible. a man that would send a thousand men to their deaths so that he could surround his family tree with a little more gold is worse than criminal. i voted for kerry because bush is worse than any evil ive personally seen. im only 21 i hope it doesnt get any worse. so for ppl to say they voted for bush because of his religious values ... actions speak volumes more than words in the bible ive read.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:37:49 GMT -5
Adam 11/03/04
This isn't a very good comparision, but I see what your trying to point out. To me this is very simular to Preacher Bob at OSU who screams out the Mosaic Law to everyone passing by. Some of you will know of this man. When I confronted him on a passage he was taking out of context he tryed to cast me out by saying "Get the behind me satan!" and then refused to talk or listen to me at all. He didn't even wish to explain why he believed the way he did or why he couldn't answer my question.
These are the types of Christians who I fight so hard to not be assosiated with. But when I start quoting scipture this is probably the first picture that pops into people's heads and then they just write me off as another of those religious nuts.
As for the man and the lions, God called us to share the Good news Gospel with the world of humans not animals. This man was not right in the head and I hope he gets help.
I know my responses will be scretinized very heavily by the majority of this group, thus making me a black sheep. I understand this and will take no hard feelings towards anyone for this.
My responses and veiws will probably be in direct conflict with what others have decided to be reality. I still believe in the love the person not the sin philosiphy. I'm truly sorry for how poorly others treet people who are different. I my self have never treeted homosexuals in or out of the army any different than I treet any one else. I have even stood up to defend them from verbal and physical attacks. Does this make me simpathic to their cause no, but it doesn't make me a hater either. They are people who have choosen to live a different lifestyle contray to my faith.
I'm sorry that I get lumped in with these other radicals who hate and thus I'm viewed to be just like them. So who is the close minded person??
I respect anyone who is willing to stand up for what they believe even if I don't believe the same. As many of you already know I will point out what I believe and why I believe the other person is wrong. I'm not trying to pick a fight only understand why you have choosen to go the path your on. Like any debate these discussions will get heated, but again I hold no anger towards anyone and I hope no one will hold anger against me.
In the end it's not my job to prove to anyone that the bible is Perfect, my job is to share the Good news Gospel of eternal life. It is the Job of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of not believing in Jesus. As a believer my other responsibility if I choose to take it is to know the word of God and always be prepared to give an answer or correct those who honestly miss understand the Word or confront those who are knowingly changing what it sayes.
Thanks Guys and Gals Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:38:04 GMT -5
Ellen 11/03/04
Well, sometimes I have something to say and sometimes I don't. However, this time I truly believe that we are talking about morality. The democrats have come full circle. When I was young, the democrats were the party of hard working straight shooting individuals that stood up for the poor or middle classed people and their rights. The democratic party was for the underdog. We weren't for gay rights, abortion or anything else that was what we considered immoral. Now look at us we are standing up waving a flag that says Yes were for all the things we once thought were wrong. We have divided ourselves. The old school democrats that have a set belief that somethings are still wrong and the new democrats that want all there rights. I for one am with Adam. I feel if we let our moral values decline any more, then who are we. A bunch of moralist, sex perverted, people. I truly believe that you can and should love the person, it is the act that should be disliked. I don't think it makes me a less person to say that homosexuals are persons that need our understanding and our love and most of all prayer. But by no means do I have to say that I condone what they do. Every person has to make choices and every person has to live by the choices we make. This is a choice issue. I love you guys no matter how you feel. But this is where I stand. Ellen/Mom
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:38:28 GMT -5
Jeff 11/03/04
Choice or Genes?: False Dichotomy 1. Okay we have lots of work to do here before we even get started looking at any evidence. The reason is that the basic question is poorly framed by our national debates. It is a false dichotomy, meaning that lots of other possibilities than these exist. It would be like me walking up to you and saying politely, "Would you rather give me your wallet or your watch?" A reasonable person would say, "Neither!" The same is true here, there are lots of positions in-between or completely outside the scope of these two alternatives. To reframe the debate, we need first to decide on the boundaries of the issue, so that we'll know when we have crossed the line. Here are the first two boundary claims that I would propose, and I look forward to reading any that you have:
1. Homosexual behavior is not wholly determined by one's nature or genes 2. Homosexual desires are not wholly a matter of choice
The key distinction is between behavior and desires. You are certainly right to claim that there is always, or nearly always, an element of choice in homosexual actions. But I am right to say that homosexual desires are not wholly within our control. I could argue for this if you like.
Here is one line of evidence: There are transgendered folks in the world, i.e., people born with the partial and/or malformed genitalia of both men and women. In the 60s and 70s, when the idea that one's gender was wholly a matter of choice was popular, the doctors would ask the families what gender they wanted in the child and attempt to make the appropriate surgical changes to the child's anatomy. (Unethical doctors sometimes made the choice themselves. Frequently, they would cut off a deformed penis or testicle and make "girls" of these transgendered infants.) In many cases of surgical sexing, the choice by the family or the doctor turned out not to be right. In other words, despite having basically female genitalia and being raised as a girl, lesbian desires would surface in adolescence.
And here is another line of evidence: Ask yourself if you remember the day you consciously chose to be a heterosexual. No matter how you answer this question it shows that some homosexual desires are not chosen. Imagine you say, "I never chose!" Then you are saying your sexual preference is not a matter of choice. Wouldn't it be duplicitous to say that homosexual preferences are any different? On the other hand, suppose you say that you did choose. What did you choose between? You would have to say you chose between your heterosexual and homosexual desires, if you deliberated about the choice in the relevant sense. But then the question becomes, where did these homosexual desires come from. In the end, you'll just have to admit that they were there, or you'll be involved in an infinite regress. Are we agreed on this much, i.e., the two boundary propositions? I feel confident that I could establish either one to your satisfaction if it were required of me. 2. I have a question about sources of information and evidence. My inclination is disregard most evidence that is likely to be biased. There are Christian publications that are very good sources, like the Christian Science Monitor. But most are very selective about the evidence and arguments they even consider. And I tell my students that if you want to make a good case, you need to avoid these sources. Instead, you should consider the very best evidence of your opposition. So, if you want to provide me with an assessment of the evidence, it should be one that I would accept as free of bias. The same goes for me.
A further refinement: There is no such thing as "The Christian thing to believe," because there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as Christianity. Rather there have always only been Christianities, plural. You've got practices ranging from snake-handling to arsenic swallowing to just sitting quietly and thinking about the greatness of God going on under steeples across America today. I once attended a "service" in which we were asked to draw moments that were spiritually and psychologically important to our spiritual growth. (A friend of mine-no names, I promise-drew an Eiffel Tower penis springing from his groin.) That was one Sunday in a Unitarian/Universalist church. There is no such thing as orthodoxy, not really, though many people have died for the idea. At the very least we can say--with the Protestants--that whatever right beliefs there are, are not right because they were delivered from some kind of temporal, clerical authority.
So for us, there can be no retreat into orthodoxy or dogma. If our discussion forces us to believe things folks in our respective congregations don't believe, then so much the worse for those respective congregations. Right? If we disagree about anything here, then we have to talk about this stuff first.
Jeff
PS I just read your last letter, which is very fine. I will be saving everything you write on this topic. You bring up a nice point about our use of the word "hate." I do not use this term lightly, as I'll explain later on.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:38:45 GMT -5
Adam 11/03/04
I will take some time to read over what your sujesting as I hope all who are of interest will also. So that I fully understand what your boundrys are and how I may wish to add to them or not. Either way I will be asking some questions on what you have just sent so as to better under stand it.
Seems this topic has gotten more interest than the others I've responded to.
Talk soon
PS and yes I'm keepping a copy of all our discussions on this topic to date so as to not misquote anyone and to make sure I address all possible questions.
Also I didn't know that about the Democratic party. Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:39:02 GMT -5
Lonnie 11/03/04
Discrimination is still...discrimination. I agree with Jeff's example of knowing one is a heterosexual...it wasn't a decision as much as it was what it was. My friend dated guys because she knew she was supposed to, in fact her parents were radically against homosexuality and she was very harsh in her attitudes about gays and lesbians. She felt they were a group of people that needed to realize they had lost their way to God. It was a hard transition and acceptance of self when she realized that she was not straight, that no matter how hard she tried to be with men, she felt used and useless. The first time she fell in love with a woman she suffered self hatard for herself and actually contemplated suicide. She is a very spritual person...in fact, probably more than a lot of people I do know...she is a warm, caring, loving person. She helps her family and her friends and shares herself with the community. Her actions show more of who she is than her sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:39:19 GMT -5
Carol 11/03/04
Jeffrey, Very interesting discussion. Would love to be included in your list. Want to ask a few questions first, though.
You stated: 1. Homosexual behavior is not wholly determined by one's nature or genes 2. Homosexual desires are not wholly a matter of choice
Are you referring to behavior as you would to ANY sexual behavior? As in, anyone could, at any time, opt for celibacy, regardless of their sexual orientation?
If you support your first premise/ground rule to mean anything else, I would have to disagree wholeheartedly with your whole premise. In which case, it would probably be best if you leave me out of the loop, or allow me to follow it without participating.
So, let's start there if we can, please.
Thanks, Carol
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:39:35 GMT -5
Jeff 11/03/04 Exactly.
I am having a conversation with Justin right now about this very issue. He thinks I should have been clearer in that post. I guess he is correct.
Here is the problem: Many people fudge the distinction between behavior and desire. And it is important not to do that. There is a sense in which all consentual sexual behavior is chosen. But that leaves open the question of whether the desires are chosen. This is why Kerry and Bush's exchange in the 3rd debate was so spetacularly unhelpful. I think it left some Christians saying, "Man, those gays know what they are doing, and they do it anyway." And, of course, understood a certain way, they are right.
But in what sense are they responsible for their desires? My first move here is just to say this:"Well, they cannot be wholly responsible for them."
Jeff
PS Can I post your response to the whole group?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:39:59 GMT -5
Carol 11/03/04
Yes, you can post my response, including this: It is my own belief that each of us is born with a gender identity and a sexual orientation. As in the physical anomalies you noted, and as could be said of any birth defect, one or both may sometimes be innately confused. I also believe there can be specific traumas that occur in a very young person's life, as a result of which the person may subconsciously choose to pursue a different path than the innate one -- one that is somehow perceived to be "safer," perhaps -- but I believe this is exceptionally rare. My belief on this subject stems from my core beliefs about human nature and, to a certain extent, about our humanity or lack thereof. Probably not the day to go into those core beliefs. More pertinent to today's portion of your discussion is that this is indeed my belief. Your group has been in discussion for some time now. You have graciously extended an invitation for me to join the subject at hand. There may be some among your group (other than your Mom, who already knows my thoughts) who find my viewpoint too far afield to include in the dialogue. I am at the polar extreme of the sin-against-God end of the debate and am aware that my beliefs are considered heresy by some. Just want to be up front about my starting point on this particular subject. Will try to get to the other question tomorrow. Carol
|
|