posted on October 21, 2001 02:50:48 PM new
luvbugg asked me to respond to a question in the now-locked "Another WTC Hero" thread. I was writing as the thread got locked, so I never got to post my response. Here's luvbugg's original question:
I have a question and I'm putting on my flame-retardent everything
I believe homosexuality to be a sin. However because I believe that I get accused of being hateful or homophobic or advocating violence etc. This baffles me as I'm non of those things. Homophobic unless I'm wrong would mean a fear or homosexuals right? What does not agreeing with something have to do with being afraid of it?
I would never in a million years advocate hurting another human being. I can disagree with something without wanting or advocating harm to come to someone. For instance, I also believe sex outside of marriage to be a sin but that is a personal belief of that action. I don't ask my friends if they engage in this, nor if I know about it does it effect our friendship in any way. If they ever ask my opinion I will tell them if not they probably have no idea I even feel that way.
I hope I'm not offending anyone or starting a fight but I've wondered this for a long time and it seemed like a good place to ask.
luvbugg,
You may wish to examine why you think it's a sin. If you're simply adhering to the tenets of your faith, then no, I wouldn't say you're homophobic -- although your faith may be. If you think it's a sin because your faith says it is and the idea of homosexuality makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you are homophobic.
Only you really know for sure.
It's my personal opinion that many, many people use religion to justify their own prejudices (but I'm not saying this is the case with you). These types range from those who would shout You f**kin f**got! God HATES you! to the quiet, insidious types who might be outwardly friendly to a gay person but refuse to rent them an apartment or give them a job. I think both types fully understand that their behavior is ignoble and cruel, but they use the Bible and religion as a way to wash their hands of guilt.
But homosexuality IS a sin, they'll argue. And yes, faiths like Catholicism and fundamental Christian religions have labeled it a sin. That leaves the faithful with two choices. You can blindly adhere to the beliefs of the faith, regardless that it hurts decent people, fosters prejudice and even violence against them, keeps them from finding jobs and homes, etc. Or you can devote some serious thought to the men who made homosexuality a sin.
Oh, I know, supposedly God made it a sin. But the fact is, men wrote the Bible. Men run the churches. And nobody is more threatened by homosexuality than men. From what I've seen of human nature, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the prohibition against homosexuality was the result of editorial license on the part of the Bible's authors -- you know, just something they slipped in while they were at it. It's not like God was editing their drafts.
Anybody who writes, writes with an agenda. What was theirs? Did they simply find it distasteful? Was rampant homosexuality in the past a threat to the cohesiveness of families? Did it threaten the procreative principle that's at the core of many faiths?
It's my nature to question, which probably explains why I regard myself as a "Roamin' Catholic" despite attending Catholic grade school, Catholic high school and Catholic college.
I also question the portrayal of a God who would make so many people homosexual, then supposedly turn his back on them for being homosexual. That just doesn't ring true to me. It makes me think Something is wrong with this picture. Church elders would like us to accept it unquestioningly, but for those occasions when some intrepid soul calls this seeming contradiction to their attention, they bring out a wild explanation like God is challenging that soul by making the person a homosexual. He is seeing whether the soul is strong enough to resist the temptations of the flesh. It's all a test.
In the end, I guess you can choose to believe what they tell you, or what your own conscience tells you. Me, I go with my conscience every time.
(It just occurred to me that some of my thoughts about religion in this thread seem to echo what krs has been saying about the concept of patriotism. Is patriotism another kind of religion, in a sense?)
posted on October 21, 2001 03:16:32 PM new
Spaz, I had a similar question. From where do our political convictions arise? For me , I believe it's a matter of conscience. From an early age I felt that some principles of my religious upbringing(Presbyterian) were wrong. I can't bring myself to condemn to hell anyone who hasn't heard of or accepted a particular god. I suppose I've chosen the ethical and political stands that I believe are most tolerant. I'm not certain why or exactly how this has occurred, only that it has.
posted on October 21, 2001 03:20:33 PM new
Just wanted to add that the question posed in the title is broad-based, rather than specific to the issue luvbugg was asking about.
posted on October 21, 2001 03:30:31 PM newI decide for me, Spaz...using conscience, common sense and sweet reason. This may not count, since I've been spared the sometimes confusing conflict of religion.
posted on October 21, 2001 03:56:48 PM new
I follow the restrictions the religeous community I associate with suggests but sometimes there are additionmal things I feel as a matter of conscience I must also limit myself.
Somethings I have foregone as a matter of obedience things that I feel no qualms of conscience about.
I am fortunate that I have never found something that I feel I can not deny myself that my church asks me to avoid.
Homosexuality is easily explained in a Christian context if you believe man is in a "fallen" state of inperfection. I would not be surprised if there is a biological basis for homosexuality from a defect in the gender selecting stage of an fetus's developement.
I would never treat a person badly because of being homosexual. I have been approuched by homosexuals and politely declined except for one rather agressive person who grabbed before he asked and I kicked his butt like I would anyone who puts their grubby little mitts on me.
An interesting question is this:
The Bible condemns a man who lies with a man the same as a woman.
Does this cover all homosexual behavior or just the act most people consider so repulsive that is usually refered to as buggery?
The Greek Scriptures seem to object to any act that constitutes "pornea" which can be almost any uncontrolled and excessive sexual act. Most of the time this makes good sense because such activity usually harms or degrades one or both people involved.
posted on October 21, 2001 04:03:23 PM new
AN OPEN LETTER TO JT, LUVBUGG, and those who think Homosexuality goes against God.
-----------------------------------------
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
-------------------------------------------
Rocker
[ edited by nycrocker on Oct 21, 2001 04:43 PM ]
posted on October 21, 2001 04:15:09 PM new
"a biological basis for homosexuality from a defect in the gender selecting stage of an fetus's developement "
My ex-husbands family has three sons. Each sons wife has given birth to a homosexual child, including myself. Please tell me how all the wives would be able to generate that same defect at the perfect time in the fetus's development? It is genetic, pure and simple. There may be some people who do "become" gay due to things that happen in their lives thus turning them away from men or women,or there may even be some that have some trauma happen in utero [I doubt it] but I know for a fact that my child was born that way. I know it is genetic.
posted on October 21, 2001 04:31:20 PM new
That's a good one rocker! (Dr. Laura needs serious therapy imo.)
One thing I don't really understand, is why people get so bent out of shape about it in the first place. What possible difference who someone sleeps with, make on your own personal life?
posted on October 21, 2001 04:41:57 PM new Thanks Rancher and Bunni!!
But I think I need to edit it just to take out the Dr Laura part, cos these are very serious questions to people who take the bible very seriously. I want answers. Rocker
posted on October 21, 2001 04:59:39 PM new
Your opening post was just excellent, Spaz.
MEN wrote the Bible.
I think a just God would not turn his back on any of his children.
God is love, according to the faithful.
I always took that to mean He loved all, not just some. Silly me.
Let he without sin cast the first stone.
------
I really had to give this some thought, but...
Just because one believes what is written in the Bible, e.g., that homosexuality, etc. are sins, does not necessarily mean they are hateful, homophobic, or that they advocate violence.
I do believe, unfortunately, that they are in the minority.
posted on October 21, 2001 05:02:34 PM new
I don't think that any human being has the right to tell another human being what they ought to feel.
Behavior is a different matter entirely. Treat everyone the way you yourself would like to be treated is a darn good guide to follow when interacting within a society. If strangers treat me well (to my face as well as behind my back), I truly don't care what they think about me.
posted on October 21, 2001 05:04:17 PM new
Church for quite a while in my life. Being both Catholic and Baptist I was taught the behavior was wrong, immoral and against nature. But I can't remember a time in either my Catechism classes nor in my Bible study where this was even mentioned....this information came from the mouths of adults around me.
I have known a few people who either said they were gay/lesbian, or I have believed them to be. But have never had one for a friend....that I'm aware of.
I remember giving the subject serious thought when a friend of my parents announced their son had told them he was gay. He'd come out of the closet to them, and they were devastated. Another friend of mine had a daughter who announced she was lesbian. Her mother totally rejected her. You're not my daughter anymore was her answer.
I remember then, really having to examine my feelings/thoughts about the issue. For me when troubling issues come up I have to make it a personal. I had to imagine either of our sons telling us they were gay. How would I react? How would I feel? Would that make any difference in the love I felt for them? No, it would not.
posted on October 21, 2001 05:15:37 PM new
Spaz - Yes I would say that a twin is a defect because the cells seperate and form two individuals when the normal course of development is to produce one. In most of the world where people have limited medical help and marginal nutrition it is very stressfull for the mother. Obviosly it is a survivable defect sometimes even a triplet is a survivable error but if it goes past that it usually is not a survivable error of cell replication because four or more children can not come to full term in the room available unles there are very extensive modern medical supports available. Even so being premature usually has a price at birth or latter in life. My wife had retrolentil fibroplasia from being premature and almost lost her sight in her 20's.
Notice that I in no way suggest that a physical defect is a moral defect.
rawbunzel - Yes I would not be surprised that you are correct and the family has a genetic defect that predisposes the male children to
have a problem in their development at the critical period where the gender differences are expressed. Obviosly it is not serious enough for the line to die out.
Homosexuality is not a positive survival trait. I realize that homosexual individuals seem to have an variety of positive traits of creativity for example. But I don't think these add up to a overall positive position for reproductive potential. Obviosly avoiding some or all heterosexual relations and the increased potential for disease reduces the probability that they will pass their genetic heritage on. The fact that socially they are discriminated against is also a negative survival trait whether that discrimination is right or wrong. It is still a reality.
My wifes family has about one in three of the
males in her family exhibit a very agressive
antisocial personality. It also is not a positive survival trait but they seem to survive it most of the time at least long enough to reproduce. Sometimes their physical defect does cause behavior that is morally wrong. I think you could say that of many kinds of mental illness. Whether they are responsible for their behavior or not is between them and God. Sometimes a person is really not responsible for their actions when they are ill. Even the law recognizes that to some degree. From a practical view sometimess we have to protect ourselves from an ill person's behavior whether they are morally responsible for it or not.
posted on October 21, 2001 05:27:01 PM new
nycrocker - Just in case you really don't know this - all those laws you are talking about were an arrangement God had with the Jews. Nobody who is a Christian is under any obligation to follow them. Even the ultra - conservative jews who hire goyem to turn their lights on and off on the Sabbeth have no way to follow them because there is no temple and nobody who can prove they are of the priestly tribe of Levi from a geneology to offer those sacrifices you are talking about. The most you can say about the Law is that we can learn some principles from it. But if what Christ said is right the Law was always destined to be replaced. He said it made error manifest while it remained. But now it is gone. People are not aware of a lot of things also - like there was a sabbeth of years also where slaves were set free and hereditary land was returned to it's owners - so slavery or debt was not a permenant condition in Israel it was more like a period of intenture.
I know what you are saying - a lot of the things in the Hebrew scriptures are really harsh. And you have undoubtedly been treated harshly and unkindly by modern religion also.
So many have.
I might add that the Bible really does not say much about lesbian behavior. It is like a lot of religeous thought the extention of what the Bible does say beyond into areas not addressed. The experts might have it wrong because of cultural bias. Even male homosexual behavior is not addressed in detail as I mentioned elsewhere. What constitutes laying down with a male like female? Doesn't get explicit does it?
posted on October 21, 2001 05:29:32 PM new
For anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, what I wonder is why do you think it's wrong? In what way is it wrong?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my post. Some questions remain unanswered but that's ok.
I also go with my conscience or rather what I believe in my own heart and mind to be true not what anyone has told me or demands I believe. I find it irritaitng that if I happen to hold the same belief as a principal taught by one of the main christian religions I'm considered brainwashed or not thinking for myself but if I go against mainstream christianity then I'm open minded and think for myself.
I believe a wide variety of things to be a sin. Some of those things I actually do out of choice and some I do just because I haven't overcome them yet. Some I'm sure I do without thinking and some I don't do at all. Just as I don't expect others to concern themselves with my sins I don't really concern myself with others sins but if asked I have a belief and an opinion on what is or isn't a sin.
I can't bring myself to condemn to hell anyone who hasn't heard of or accepted a particular god
It isn't up to me to condemn anyone to hell for anything. I'm not even capable of it. The assignment of heaven or hell belongs to God. But like everyone else I have an opinion on what is right and wrong. I hate the snowball effect of because I don't agree with homosexuality I MUST agree with mistreating people and that simply isn't true.
nycrocker
I actually could answer those questions for you but I have this strong feeling you aren't really looking for an answer.
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I don't believe I have ever done any of the things you mention and Leviticus has nothing to do with my belief whatsoever. I'm not a main stream christian so my beliefs don't really hold up to a nice neat box format. I kinda wish you weren't quite so close to this subject, it seems to makes you angry and I can understand why, but I would love to have an honest conversation with you about different beliefs as I'm sure I would learn something, and maybe, just maybe, you would to.
posted on October 21, 2001 05:40:49 PM new
Rocker here ya go
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
"First a formost always invite all the neighbors down wind to the BBQ ahead of time .."
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
"Well I wouldn't take less then 100 horses and at the least a dozzen goats."
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
"Check her temp and look for signs of PMS !?!?!?"
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
"Your friend is totally wrong on this one you can have both mex and canadian salves as long as they have a green card and you pay at least minimum wage these day's.."
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
"This one you have wrong as well, Your neighbor is a slave of a boss who forces work on the sabbath you are only obilgated to help this slave to freedom or make him your salve ."
HAHA
Or you could read many pages forword and find that all these things were done away with after the birth of chirst..
chirst only comandment is that we love one another as we love christ this should end the discussion but my guess is it won't ...
posted on October 21, 2001 05:54:35 PM new
Ummm....Gravid...None of the families sons are gay. They are all married and have several children. But each of the sons has a child that is gay. Both boys and girls. My daughter is gay. One male cousin is gay and one female cousin is gay. From watching them grow up I am sure they were all that way from birth.
Rocker, I love that letter! How true it is!
As far as the original question posed in this thread my conscience and life experiences guide me.
posted on October 21, 2001 06:19:39 PM new
raw - I see what you mean. None of the 3 original sons are gay. I would have to ask two questions. What is the situation of the rest of the line from which the man came who had these three sons. And are there environmental factors that could have effected this new generation that did not effect the previous one such as pollution of their environment by chemical that mimic estrogen?
See I am not looking for any one answer why people are the way they are to satisfy any particular religeous or political view. Sometimes we don't know. Sometimes it is
really a lot more complicated than we think. Sometimes it is very simple and we don't have the slightest clue.
Maybe the number of gay people goes up or down with global warming. Think I am kidding?
Stranger things have happened. It works for alligators. The temperature of the nest determains the sex of the 'gators! Truth.
Now how do you tell that an alligator is gay?
I don't think I want to go there.
posted on October 21, 2001 06:21:48 PM new
gravid,
When I asked about twins, I was trying to gauge the degree of pejorative content in your use of the word "defect" (aside from the inherent negative connotation of the word). I figured since you applied it the same to twins, there wasn't an implied judgment.
The fact that socially they are discriminated against is also a negative survival trait whether that discrimination is right or wrong.
I wince at the use of phrases like "not a positive survival trait" (this isn't Darwinism 101), but I can't debate that homosexuals are at a disadvantage when it comes to procreation. Still, calling discrimination against them a "negative survival trait" is off the mark. Bias against gays is not a homosexual trait. It's the trait of the homophobe who's doing the discriminating.
posted on October 21, 2001 06:22:16 PM new
Church or Conscience?
Conscience. I approach church leaders/groups the same way that I approach everything else, using my own personal conscience guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit. But what you said, Spaz, can not apply to me because I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God and therefore without human flaw. Flaw, in my belief, would be with interpretation and never with the scriptures themselves.
I have had some very good friends who were homosexual, one whom was obvious from at least 2nd grade. Though I at one point in my life I outwardly gave my approval, I now feel that I was wrong. I now generally prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" approach so that I don't feel obligated to say anything one way or another...which may be somewhat cowardly but at least everyone is happy. I will/do avoid outward public displays but I would never be unkind if it were not graphic, which is no different from my expectations of hetrosexual behavior. I do not watch tv shows that depict homosexuality as acceptable because watching is "buying" and my "buying power" is something I use to voice my belief. A medically oriented show would not bother me. Homosexuals would be certainly welcome in my home but should not feel free to express "man/woman" type affection openly in the presence of my family. (My brother is also not welcome to sleep with his girlfriend here though what they do at home is none of my business.)
I expressed my questions/concerns about the genetic/medical issues in the other thread. I don't think being born with a predisposition is "sinful". To act upon it would be according to scripture. Is that cruel? No, it is no different than the hetrosexual person who does not find a suitable mate. I believe that if that is the case, then God simply had other plans for that person besides procreation. Christ said in an instance of adultry, "Go and sin no more". He was not cruel or hateful.
Scripture teaches that sin is sin is sin, that ALL have sinned, "God loved us while we were yet sinners" and Christ asked, "Who can cast the first stone?" I can't so I don't cast stones. Yet, I should be able to hold to my belief based on scripture and no one should cast them at me either.
But all that aside, scripture indicates that homosexuality is not the core spiritual problem, but only a symptom of the core problem.
According to this scripture, what IS the spiritual problem? (Keep in mind that "they" refers to a group...much like America.)
Romans 1
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
And according to this scripture, what are the PRODUCTS/RESULTS of that core problem?
I don't think being born with a predisposition is "sinful". To act upon it would be according to scripture.
Also, a Methodist minister explained to me that this was the basis for the change in "church policy" for the United Methodist Church. That the church does not condone immoraly sexual behavior, homeosexual or hetrosexual. If that is the case, they need to be sure it is clearly understood.
I was very much avoiding the alleged "preaching" approach but since questions were specifically directed to me, answers were given the best way I know how.
I don't plan to change. I don't expect anyone else to do so either. Now, how much "tolerance" is there here really?
posted on October 21, 2001 06:31:04 PM newJust because one believes what is written in the Bible, e.g., that homosexuality, etc. are sins, does not necessarily mean they are hateful, homophobic, or that they advocate violence.
Thumbs up, Femme.
Gravid, the scripture above does mention women.
Homosexuality is easily explained in a Christian context if you believe man is in a "fallen" state of imperfection. I would not be surprised if there is a biological basis for homosexuality from a defect in the gender selecting stage of an fetus's developement. I would never treat a person badly because of being homosexual.
Agreed, and also on your explaination about Rocker's scripture.
And guess what, we are ALL fallen. Christ is the only "pick-me-up" available. Without redemption, it's "hell bound" for me.
posted on October 21, 2001 06:38:27 PM new
For anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, what I wonder is why do you think it's wrong? In what way is it wrong?
I think homosexuality is wrong. For me it goes against science. and religion. I have never heard of any living mammals that are gay except for humans. Many religions are against it, and makes sense to me why. BUT also religion tells us not to hate. I hate homosexuality the sin, but not the person. I would hope in time they ask God for forgiveness and many do.
posted on October 21, 2001 06:50:18 PM new
So right dman.
or anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, what I wonder is why do you think it's wrong?
Scripture about homosexuality:
Gen. 19:5-8; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17; Judg. 19:22; 1 Kin. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2
Kin. 23:7; Rom. 1:24,26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9,10.
CHIN UP!
Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our
Lord.
Must go for now. Duty calls.
[ edited by jt on Oct 21, 2001 06:51 PM ]
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
This may not count, since I've been spared the sometimes confusing conflict of religion.
Rocker 
[ edited by nycrocker on Oct 21, 2001 04:43 PM ]
