Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.07.2006 /
Editors Note: One of the more interesting parts of my job is that I get the opportunity to interview non christians (a.k.a The Lost). I usuallly do these interviews at conferences for pastors. Last year I was at a conference in Nashville doing an interview with a young woman who had been raised in church, gone to church camp and Christian collge who now worked as a nurse with people nearing death. She talked about how she would pray for people and grieve with their families. To the audience she sounded very much like a Christian. When I asked her why she had chosen to stop going to church she turned to the audience (comprised mostly of white males) and said “Im gay”. You could feel the room go silent as pastors theologically regrouped and kicked themselves for letting her “trick them” into thinking she really was a christian.
This issue is not going to go away nor will we solve it here in this diablog. Ask good questions, be interested in learning another persons point of view and remember all the scriptures you know - they (already)know. As Hemant taught us earlier;they have seen the same evidence and simply come to a different set of conclusions
From Comment # 23-24 Hemant Asks Why?
“The vast majority of Christians, when asked for a biblical reason for their disdain of homosexuals site either Leviticus 18:22, or Romans 1:26-27. Both of these books are filled with rules for Christians that are considered morally reprehensible by today’s standards: slavery, oppression of women, summary and public executions for crime… yet Christians seem to have no trouble dismissing THOSE verses as antiquated or misguided. The verses pertaining to homosexuality (if indeed they do… translation is another debate) are pulled out and held up as acceptable and desirable to follow. Why is that?”
Comment by: brett
1No short answer is going to solve this one. If you are willing to read a detailed (negative) response to the Christian pro-homosexuality debate, go to http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm
Comment by: TXatheist
2Because they can follow some of the rules and not others willingly. I’ve also heard that JC relieved people of the 613 mosaic commandments and are under a new covenent.
Comment by: Ir
3From the article Brett’s link leads to:
Although supporters of homosexual unions preach tolerance and diversity, the political and religious agenda of most in the movement suggests otherwise. Developments in northern Europe and in Canada indicate that civil approval of homosexual relationships can bring along a wave of intolerance toward those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice. Penalties for publicly expressing disapproval of homosexual practice in some Western countries already range from fines, to loss of employment, to even incarceration. Christian colleges, universities and seminaries that have policies against homosexual practice will risk losing their tax-exempt status, access to national grants and student loans, and ultimately accreditation itself. Public schools will intensify their indoctrination of children into the acceptability of homosexual unions from kindergarten on and single out for marginalization and ridicule any who question this agenda. Parents’ rights in instilling moral values in their children will be abridged. Indeed, the state could one day remove, on the pretense of “child abuse,” self-professed gay and lesbian children from parents who publicly express moral disapproval of homosexual practice. Mainline denominations will comply with societal trends by refusing to ordain “heterosexist” candidates for ministry and even disciplining heterosexist clergy. Since approval of homosexual practice can only occur at the cost of marginalizing Scripture, the trend will be toward a hard-left radicalization of mainline denominations.
Brett, maybe you stand behind the above, but I call it irresponsible scare-mongering.
Comment by: Ir
4…meaning, irresponsible scare-mongering amongst Christians who think gay relationships are morally wrong.
Many other people would see the list above as positive steps against inappropriate discrimination rather than steps to be feared.
Anyway, I feel sorry for gay people because of the way many Christians talk about them and to them and because of the way many Christians think it’s so important to try to prevent legislation concerning gay people that gay people would like passage.
I think that people’s fear of ‘what is different’ has a lot to do with Christian attitudes towards gay people.
Comment by: Rick
5I’m glad the topic of homosexuality is brought out for discussion. There is a South Park episode (I forget the title) in which Stan calls up the hotline of Jesus and Pals and asks some question about being gay to the Jesus on TV show. The South Park Jesus replies, “Son, I am not touching that subject with a 60 feet pole”.
I always thought that it was a classic reply. This is the perfect case where believers and non-believers alike should simply not delve into.
Comment by: TXatheist
6Rick,
If we don’t talk about it then how do we handle it? Ignore it?
Comment by: Rick
7TX - I think I didn’t say it correctly. My intent was, in today’s circunstances, homosexuality should have been a non issue. We definitely need to encourage dialogue to promote acceptance for gay and lesbian individuals, but its a shame that its even needed in 21st centruy.
Comment by: skikid
8Cully~ Thanks for your post in Hemant asks why?
I am straight, white, female and an ally. That said I also do my best to be a follower of Jesus. I believe that humanity was created with amazing and beautiful diversity of mind, body and thought. Diversity is a gift to all of us, it pushes us to consider and explore life in the light of other people’s experiences. I believe that diversity of sexuality is a gift. I don’t think that it is ‘wrong’ to be gay, nor do I think it a ‘choice’. By marginalizing a community of people it harms them but also those who do the marginalizing, we (straight people) loose a chance to learn from people who have a very different view point, we are loosing a chance to think from a different perspective.
I realize that some may feel like I ‘pulled a fast one’ on them with this, for that I am sorry, I have never intended to be anything but honest. I also realize that some will feel that I am not ‘really’ Christian, I can accept that as well.
Peace
Comment by: Ir
9skikid, that was a beautiful post.
I don’t think you any less of a Christian because of your views on sexuality.
Comment by: KSG
10Cully,
Thank you for your comments (in Hemant asks why #23), although I don’t see the wisdom in mixing a dialogue regarding atheism with the homosexuality (but that was Jim’s choice), I definitely respect your views and opinions. Homosexuality in Xianity is a divisive issue primarily because self-proclaimed Xians haven’t learned to separate actions and persons. While I would agree with the majority of Xianity’s view in that I cannot condone homosexuality I have to say that treating any group of people (or individual) in an offensive or derogatory manner is never right. The issue most Xian’s have is that they cannot distinguish between disagreeing with something and disrespecting someone.
Concerning the civil rights of homosexuals, my frame of reference is completely different since my country, Canada, recognizes the rights of homosexual partnerships to be the same as heterosexual (something I agree with), even as far as allowing marriage (something I disagree with, seeing it not as a civil rights issue - I don’t think the government should interfere with an institution of the church).
My opinion and desire is than Xians would just get out of the way and let people experience Jesus instead of putting up roadblocks. Do you really have to tell someone that they are wrong? Especially a (please excuse my christianese) heathen? We ought to get out of the way and let Jesus change a person (if they need changing) in due time.
To Xian’s who would disagree with me, what do you suggest we do in order to help people meet and develop a relationship with Jesus?
By the way, why do Xian’s have such an issue with homosexuality when they quite clearly don’t have that same issue with such open “sins” as gluttony (fat preachers condemning homosexuals is rather ironic)? Sin is sin after all. And most Xian’s believe that the only sin that separates you from Jesus is the selfish choice not to accept his free gift (salvation).
P.S. skikid, thanks for your post above. And, I answered the “organic” question you had in another thread)
Comment by: skikid
11KSG~
I read it thanks… I could start a dictionary with all the ‘new’ words and phrases I am picking up here :). Thanks for your post too. I really appriciate the respect in this thread thus far.
Comment by: Ir
12KSG wrote: my country, Canada, recognizes the rights of homosexual partnerships to be the same as heterosexual (something I agree with), even as far as allowing marriage (something I disagree with, seeing it not as a civil rights issue - I don’t think the government should interfere with an institution of the church).
Hi KSG,
I thought marriage was also a civil institution.
What about a man and woman who get married without any church involvement because they’re atheists? Are you opposed to that?
(And by the way, you said to remind you: please don’t forget to tell me why some people would crucify you if they knew you were posting here!)
Comment by: Ir
13,[posting because I left the italics on again!!]
Comment by: skikid
14KSG~
I was thinking about your comment about the wisdom of this thread as I was getting ready for class.
It seems to me that there are many different criteria for ‘being Christian’ in our culture. You are Christian if… you are straight, pray in this way, have these politics etc. One of the biggest reasons that I wanted to stay as far away from Christianity was because I thought that being Christian meant being homophobic and oppressive.
Comment by: Cully
15KSG> I think that Jim may have allowed this thread a larger forum for two reasons:
a) I suspect he understands that homosexuality, and the Church’s views on it are often a large reason that people turn to atheism. I know it was a big step on my path. For those of us who believe that we were offered no choice in our orientation it seems cruelly taunting that God would wire us up one way and then tell us not to follow that path. It’s like telling all blue eyed people that they have to perpetually keep their eyes closed because blue eyes are sinful.
b) There is a larger component to my question, outside of homosexuality: Why do Christians pick and choose biblical passages to support their own beliefs ignoring those that are inconvenient for them? If you aren’t comfortable discussing it in the aspect of homosexuality then discuss it in treatment of women, or baptism, or what it takes to get into heaven. each of these things can be argued from multiple view points, depending on how you look at certain biblical passages, and ignore others.
Believe it or not I agree with you on gay marriage. Gays should not be allowed to be married by the state, but then neither should straight couples. Marriage should be exclusively under the auspices of the church, and therefore up to the church to define how they will. But a church marriage should not convey any legal privileges. A state sponsored domestic partnership, that is equal no matter gay or straight should be the only the thing the state can convey. Something far different from “marriage.”
Comment by: Stephan
16There was a very good series on this issue at Jesus Creed last month. It is a very complicated issue, and I believe Scot makes a good argument for why it should be considered a sin. I personally moved from “black and white” to “grey” on this issue.
I think the reason most Christians see it differently is that, with most sins, people at least act repentant and try to change. With homosexuality, the attitude is, “This is how I am and I’m not going to change.” That attitude offends many Christians. While I believe that no single sin is greater than any other, I believe the homosexual rights community brought this fight to the church, not the other way around.
Comment by: Cully
17Brett> I have read a pretty significant chunk of Pastor Gagnon’s essay, and my first impression is… he sure does throw a lot of words at the subject. The most relevant passage I can find to the question I am asking, (which to rephrase is: Why is it okay for Christians to pick and choose biblical verses, or even parts of verses to support themselves, while ignoring inconvenient passages?) occurs on page 33, in section 3. Gagnon posits that it is okay for him to ignore the sin of having sex with a menstruating woman because it is a “second tier sexual offense.” Rather than the first tier offense of homosexuality. He defines first tier offenses as those that called for the death penalty. Second tier offenses merely required a ritual cleansing be performed.
Okay.
Apart from the obvious question of what law school Pastor Gagnon attended, and what biblical passages defines these “tiers” for us… I’d really like to know why I haven’t been stoned to death yet. Gagnon, and Christians like him are happy to point to Leviticus as a reason for me not to have civil rights, but they CHOOSE TO IGNORE a pertinent part of the passage. I have been a practicing homosexual for 15 years. Shouldn’t my “blood be upon me” by now?
Comment by: Cully
18Stephan, that is an interesting point, and one that I have not heard expressed before. I guess it comes down to where you stand on the nature vs. nurture argument. If homosexuality is natural and therefore derived from God (in the Christian view) why should we repent? If it is a learned behavior then, yeah… I guess we should be repenting. Can you guess where I stand on this one?
Comment by: Ir
19Cully, I just want to say that I’m very impressed at how calmly you’re able to discuss this issue.
Not that I think of gay people as angry - not at all; it’s just that I know how hard it can be not to get angry when the issue being discussed is a personal one.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
20http://www.gaychristian.com is an interesting site to explore.
Why do we freak out about the biblical passages on homosexuality but not gluttony? I don’t know. Imagine if there was an outcry against gluttony like there has been against homosexuality. We’d have groups like F.L.A.B. running around (Fundamentalist Leaders against Buffets) :-)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
21KSG - Cully got it right,I introduced this topic not because of any connection with atheism. I introduced it simply to provoke Christians (atheists and non believers are welcome to be provoked as well if they feel so inclined)to get better reality about the whole issue and to help all of us grow in our ability to dialog.
How will any of us figure what’s real if we can’t talk with and listen to each other? We will just go on living in our closed little atheist/christian groups and tell everyone who already agrees with us how smart we are and how stupid “they” are.
I don’t have time for that kind of closemindedness regardless of the source.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
22Pam
I like that - Lets start FLAB and introduce it at Off The Map 2006 in November
Comment by: Jim Henderson
23Some of you may be interested in an article written by a lesbian who participated in an interview I did in Washington DC last year called The Gay Forum. Doreen tells her experience with Christians. There is also a link to the audio of the session if you care to listen
http://off-the-map.org/idealab/articles/idl0602-2-gayforum.html
Comment by: KSG
24Wow, so many things to respond to…okay, here we go…
Cully, I want to echo Ir’s words in #18, thank you for engaging us and for not getting angry with us.
In response to comments in #14, I will address them according to the ABC’s…
A) I agree that homosexuality may be a valid part of why some people turn to atheism.
B) Your question in B is excellent and probably so multifaceted that discussing it within the context of one issue is a more effective discussion than trying to do so on several fronts.
C) homo & hetro marriage: I agree. The state shouldn’t be involved in any form of marriage as it is not an institution of the state but of the church. Let churches decide whether or not to perform marriages. I think governments got into marriage as a cash grab (issueing licences).
Ir, I hope my comment above addressed your comments in #11. And I haven’t forgot, just haven’t had much time. I’ll post it soon (ish).
Skikid (#13), Homophobia and oppression are not Xian traits, they are religious traits.
Stephan (#15), Interesting info. at the jesuscreed site, thanks. I think the challenge within the Xian community is to come to terms with respecting homosexuals without “normalizing” homosexuality.
Pam H (19), Where do I sign up for F.L.A.B.?
Comment by: KSG
25Jim,
I agree that Xianity needs to discuss this issue as it is a huge plank in our eye. It deserves a much larger forum than this one thread (but I am aware that OTM has brought this topic forward in it’s Idealab - I’ve even posted more than a few comments there {ha,ha, now Ir is going to go there and try find out more about me ;) }): I just didn’t see the point of bringing the topic into this forum (atheism). Except maybe to encourage conversation about this topic with people who may not have discussed it before.
Anyway, you called it, and so I’ll leave it in your hands. Blessings.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
26There are some seriously smart people weighing in here - nice work KSG
Comment by: Jim Henderson
27KSG - What makes you think that this diablog is about atheism?
This diablog is about being real.
I don’t care if a person is a Christian an Atheist or whatever - Most of us tend to find theories (atheism or theologies) to support our “facts”. Left to ourselves we are often intellectually and spiritually lazy.
The Atheism/Christian axis is just another way to go about researching reality and apparently one that grabs peoples attention.
I am personally not that interested in either Atheism or Christianity. They both leave me wanting more. They both have become religions in their own right.
I am interested in Jesus and reality - that may not sound interesting to others but it has become my path.
This diablog is helping me grow in both areas.
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
28I think there is a difference between morality and sin. Sins are the behaviors and thoughts that come between us and God. I think that we can generalize some of these, but I also think that it can be an individual thing. I wish Christians, myself included, would focus less on rule-setting and more on forgiveness and letting people know that God wants to have a relationship with EVERYONE.
That said, I formed my moral values before I became a Christian. I know atheists that are “moral” people. I don’t think this issue is a religious one at all, just as I don’t believe the abortion issue is a religious one.
On this issue, I think the point of whether or not it is inbred is not as big a deal as everyone likes to make it. Is it morally wrong for someone to be in a homosexual relationship if it is not inbred in them? Does this ever happen? I think it could. Assuming that it is possible for this to be inbred, how does one know if it is for themselves or another person?
The gay marriage issue is not about legal rights but social acceptance of homosexual relationships. One cannot legislate social acceptance.
Please do not construe this opinion as a Christian one, but just an individual one.
Comment by: Ir
29Still thinking about this topic…here are a couple of things I don’t understand about Christians and homosexuality:
1) Why do [some] Christians think they know more about gay people than gay people do? How can that even be possible? It’s so incredibly invalidating having someone tell you “I’m right about you and you’re wrong about you”.
2)Why do [some] heterosexual Christians who know that they never in their lives made a ‘choice’ to be attracted to the opposite sex rather than the same sex, think that gay people chose same-sex attraction?
Comment by: Rick L in TX
30KSG said in response to Skikid (#13), Homophobia and oppression are not Xian traits, they are religious traits.
Dare I counter that they are human traits?
Rick L in TX
Comment by: Rick L in TX
31Ir asked Why do [some] Christians think they know more about gay people than gay people do? How can that even be possible? It’s so incredibly invalidating having someone tell you “I’m right about you and you’re wrong about you”.
Dare I observe that there have been atheistic posters here who have told Christians that they understand Christian faith and worship better than Christians do? Apparently this gate swings both ways. Just a thought.
Rick L in TX
Comment by: Ir
32Jim wrote: I am interested in Jesus and reality - that may not sound interesting to others but it has become my path.
Well, it sure has got my interest. But I expect you noticed that already :)
I don’t know about Jesus right now, but ‘being real’ is where I’m headed, I hope.
Jim wrote: This diablog is helping me grow in both areas.
Awesome!
Comment by: Stephan
33I don’t think many Christians still believe that homosexuality is a “choice”, but I don’t think that’s relevant. Sin is sin whether you are born that way or not. People are born with all kinds of unhealthy desires, but that does not make them ok.
I don’t want you to think I am a fundamentalist on this topic, I am really more toward the middle. I just understand the far right perspective because that’s where I come from.
Regarding FLAB, I’m all for it, but I want to reiterate something I said above. Fat people do not show up at church demanding that people accept their fat as normal, and they won’t change because they were born fat. People who gossip don’t publicly proclaim their desire to gossip and demand that everyone accept it as normal. I understand that you may not believe it is a sin, but by going to church you are going into a place where many people do. There’s going to be friction, no matter who is right.
Comment by: TXatheist
34Bruce,
How is the gay rights/marriage movement not about legal rights and more about social acceptance? If gays had the right to marry I doubt they could/would care if churches acknowledged their marriage or not. Canada legislated gay marriage last time I heard:)
Comment by: KSG
35Jim, I agree that this diablog is about being real and not about atheism, but we are viewing reality through our lenses of atheism & Xianity.
Jim, you wrote “I am personally not that interested in either Atheism or Christianity. They both leave me wanting more. They both have become religions in their own right.”
I agree. Completely.
You also wrote “I am interested in Jesus and reality - that may not sound interesting to others but it has become my path.”
Me too. You touched on this in another thread. I think the issue is how, not thatit needs to be done. For me, a part of that is in reclaiming Xianity for Jesus followers from those who hide behind the label in order to promote their own agenda (most of it unknowingly as they just perpetuate some older agenda)
And finally you wrote, “This diablog is helping me grow in both areas.”
I may be getting repetitious but, me too.
Off topic, but Ir, (since you can’t seem to turn them off) how do I do italics?
Comment by: Cully
36KSG, and Ir> No one has said anything to make me angry yet… hence no anger. Everyone so far is approaching this in a very civil way. I posted my original response to this over 12 hours ago and I haven’t been condemned to hell by anyone yet! Civil discourse indeed! (But I appreciate the meaning behind what you say.)
Bruce> You say “one cannot legislate social acceptance.” Can’t we? Haven’t we? Women’s suffrage, desegregation, bussing, affirmative action… all legal actions that were designed to create social acceptance by creating a social balance. (Biblical passages have been used to fight against all of these if I’m not mistaken.) By forcing the races to stand side by side and asking them to confront their biases about each other didn’t the rule of law begin to pave the way towards civil liberties for the disenfranchised? By asking for our unions to be recognized gays are asking the law to do the same for us. Give us equal footing under the law, and let us prove the rest.
Look at the statistics and you’ll see that the younger age group you poll, the more acceptance for gay marriage there is. The younger generation sees less of a distinction between gay and straight couples. A cultural shift is happening, my fear is that those who write the law are having such a knee-jerk reaction to it that the law will actually curb progress in this case. It is much easier to keep a right that you already have than it is to get it back after it is taken away. Not legally having that right in the first place will make retrieving it 10 times harder.
Jim> I haven’t said this yet… Thanks.
Comment by: seeker
37Here’s some more questions for you:
1. Why do pro-gay people think that Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexuality assume that said Christians have little experience with homosexual parenting, or have no gay friends?
I can answer the latter. They assume (wrongly) that people who are against homosexuality are hateful, and that they assault their gay friends with such theology. However, that is not the case. Some of my gay friends have no idea how I think about this because (a) it has never come up, and (b) I don’t treat them like gays, but like people. Sure, we don’t socialize at the gay bars, but we game together (PC game).
Comment by: Ir
38Stephan wrote: Fat people do not show up at church demanding that people accept their fat as normal, and they won’t change because they were born fat. People who gossip don’t publicly proclaim their desire to gossip and demand that everyone accept it as normal.
Yeah but…in that church, someone in leadership is going to be fat and someone in leadership’s wife gossips, most likely. These are ‘understood’ sins. These aren’t super-stigmatized. How many church members complain if their children’s Sunday School teacher is fat or is praying about not gossiping? Well, try putting someone who’s admitted they struggle with attraction to the opposite sex in charge of children and see how well that goes down. You can’t liken same-sex attraction to being fat and gossipping because there’s a huge amount of fear and mistrust associated with the former and not the latter.
Stephan wrote: I understand that you may not believe it is a sin, but by going to church you are going into a place where many people do. There’s going to be friction, no matter who is right.
No wonder gay people quit church. Who needs ‘friction’ - life is hard enough as it is.
So…do you think if we had an account of a gay person talking with Jesus in the gospels there would have been friction?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
39Stephan
I like your tone - and appreciate your directness
You said “Fat people do not show up at church demanding that people accept their fat as normal”
I think we do - Preachers can be fat and nothing is said or noticed about it and by their silence they are demanding acceptance - it has become acceptable to be gluttonous and still be able to lead a church - I know you watch TV so this must be clear to you.
Can you see the hypocrisy gay people feel when they hear us go on and on about their sin and ignore our own? - to say nothing of gossip,meanness or war making
While I agree with much of what you say - for me it has to be loudly tempered with acknowledging our own faults and “leading with weakness”
Comment by: Cully
40Stephan> This is the “love the sinner hate the sin” argument. Before I go too far in responding to this can I ask you to clarify something for me? I understand your argument that homosexuals are unrepentant sinners because we claim to have been “made this way,” and are unwilling to change. But you use an interesting phrase: “unhealthy desires.” Can you explain why homosexuality is “unhealthy?”
(And as an aside, fat may not be the best argument for you. I know plenty of “love me like I am or not at all” fat people. ;) )
Comment by: Ir
41KSG, put i in arrows (you can see what this looks like directly above the reply box) just before the text you want to italicize and put /i in arrows after the text.
If you forget /i in arrows you have condemned the rest of the comments to eternal italicization. Unless a savior comes along and rescues you by putting some /i in arrows at the beginning of his/her post. (For some reason I think it takes more than one /i in arrows to turn it off in a new comment, if someone up above your comment left it on)
Comment by: skikid
42Cully asked “There is a larger component to my question, outside of homosexuality: Why do Christians pick and choose biblical passages to support their own beliefs ignoring those that are inconvenient for them?”
I have yet to read the entire Bible (OT or NT)… I am working on it. A lot of what I know is what others have deemed important/relevant etc. and taught me. I have gotten the general idea that the Bible is big and complex and I cannot possibly understand it by myself (although I think I am re-evaluating this right now). So back to your question, I have been taught passages that support whatever point the teacher is trying to make.
Comment by: Cully
43Ir said: “So…do you think if we had an account of a gay person talking with Jesus in the gospels there would have been friction?”
Some would say that we do have something close to that. Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz could all be derived as gay couples. There is also some question regarding the nature of the relationship between the centurion and the boy in Matthew 8:5-13. But again, this pushes the debate into translation, and therefore another field.
Comment by: Ir
44I had heard that about David and Jonathan because there’s some verse about how close their friendship was.
What’s the basis for people reading more into Naomi and Ruth’s relationship than a mother-daughter one? (I guess if they were a gay couple does that mean they each were actually bi, since they had husbands at various points in their lives.)
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
45TXatheist wrote: How is the gay rights/marriage movement not about legal rights and more about social acceptance? If gays had the right to marry I doubt they could/would care if churches acknowledged their marriage or not.
Because civil unions are apparently not enough. I have debated this topic with gay supporters of gay marriage and it always comes down to attempting to legislate social acceptance.
Cully seems to understand that based on her response to me: Bruce> You say “one cannot legislate social acceptance.” Can’t we?…
Since we live in a democracy, you have to have a certain level (usually a majority) of social acceptance to begin with to legislate anything. This is not to say that politicians will not try to impose a minority viewpoint on everyone. This is what the intelligent design people are trying to do.
Comment by: Cully
46Ir> The biggest evidence for Ruth and Naomi is that the word translated as “clave” (”Ruth clave unto her”) in Ruth 1:14 is exactly the same word translated as “cleave” in the Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife.” But in fairness I must note that both women were heterosexually active. (In fact, Ruth was in the line that led to David, and therefore Jesus.) So perhaps they were not “active” homosexuals.
As for David and Jonathon, check out 2 Samuel 1:26
Comment by: TXatheist
47Oh, I see you don’t mean social acceptance you mean if the political representatives are willing to push it through based on their political base. Like Texas putting gay marriage on the ballet last year. The current Governor knew he’d get support for him and against gay marriage by letting the people decide. I do see what you mean.
Comment by: darci
48I think that many Christians continue in their behavior, and expect that, not only will they not have to answer for it, but that others will accept it and them,without question. Christians seem to have a knack for excusing their own stuff while pointing at others. Homosexuality, for some reason, is the biggy to Christians, while other issues are either ignored or swept under the rug.
Quick story to illustrate: My cousin whom I grew up with, came out to family and friends about 11 years ago. His father *who had an affair, divorced his wife and remarried* still belongs to the same church, serves on various boards, while at the same time has not spoken to his son since he told him he was gay, and refuses to until my cousin *turns from his sinful life.* So sad. So very sad, because my cousin just wants a relationship with his dad. Interestingly, he does not hold his dad’s affair or remarraige against him…
Comment by: Cully
49Bruce> First off…. his. His response to you, not her.
Civil Unions ARE enough. (for me at least) Plenty in fact, provided that they are equal in every single way to what is legally provided by straight marriage. This is why I advocate divorcing the word “marriage” from the whole debate and leaving that solely in the hands of the church.
Comment by: Ir
50Cully thanks for explaining about Naomi and Ruth and for the link to the verse about David and Jonathon. That was the verse I was thinking of.
Comment by: Stephan
51I posted ad nauseum over at Jesus Creed (linked above) on this topic. I’m right there with you, Jim. We are hypocrites for saying this sin is worse than others, and we tolerate some sins while we revile others. I only argue the conservative side because there appeared to be few here to speak for them, not because I totally agree with them. I will now rest…
Comment by: Cully
52Stephan> I understand. I read through some of the stuff at Jesus Creed just to see how this was being debated elsewhere. There do seem to be many more… let’s say “vocally conservative” debaters over there. In the end I was turned off by that site because it was a little too much Christo-speak, (cracked Eikons and phrases of that nature) and seemed much more geared towards the internal debates of Christians than what has gone on here so far. Thanks for playing a part.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
53Darci, thanks for sharing your story with us. Hopefully that relationship will reconcile.
In Gregory Boyd’s excellent book, “Repenting of Religion”, he writes:
“…overweight people are generally welcomed into church fellowships without any suspicion. We may be thankful for this. No one accuses churches of compromising the Word of God because they accept overweight people into fellowship. Indeed, few would think of questioning the commitment even of churches that have an obese pastor. Consider then, why is this same gracious mindset not extended to gays for instance…far from seeking to ascribe worth to gays by siding with them against discrimination, many conservative churches and organizations consider it righteous to take a hardline stance against this sin not only in the church but in society…it is rare to find a conservative evangelical church that is not antigay, at least in attitude, if not in its explicit ministry.”
This sh*t has got to change.
Props to OTM for trying to affect change.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
54Ir wrote The biggest evidence for Ruth and Naomi is that the word translated as “cleave” (”Ruth clave unto her”) in Ruth 1:14 is exactly the same word translated as “cleave” in the Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife.”
Though the point of this thread and blog is not finer points of biblical interpretation, this calls for at least an airing of a response.
There are three verbs in Genesis 2:24. The sexual union in marriage is not carried by the word “leave” or “cleave”, but by the words “become one flesh”. “Cleave” means “to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly” (Webster) - i.e., the opposite of “leave”. What’s being described in Genesis is 1) a concluding of the parent-child relationship as primary; 2) the introduction of a new marital relationship as primary, 3) a sexual component of that new relationship.
If there is a ground for a sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi, it is not found by comparing the use of the word “cleave” in Ruth and Genesis.
Having said that, I agree with you, Jim, that This issue is not going to go away nor will we solve it here in this diablog.
Rick L in TX
Comment by: Jim Henderson
55BTW Stephan - I like Boyd, Pinnock and Sanders and also Capon if you’ve heard of him
Comment by: Esther
56Wow, now I know that I actually have more than one similar stigmas with the homosexuals. I am a X’ian and I’m divorced. When I attended the gay forum held by OTM last Nov., I found that I had many similar feeling and experience with the gay X’ians that shared on stage. We are both being treated as having committed an irrevocable sin by Church… (At least my church does) And yet, we both have experienced a God that is larger than what the church has ascribed. The God is much more merciful and gracious, and sometimes we feel that we are even more closer to God than “they” are.
Now, I have one more “sin” - gluttony. (I have to look this word up for I don’t know what this word means.) If we want to parallel “gluttony” with “homosexualality”, I think there actually maybe some similarities. I started to have this over-eating problem when I was 7 years old. It is a psycological and emotional problem which is not easy to change over-night. No doubt I suffer from it all life long. Now I am feeling guilty for not being oppressed by the Church because of this than the homosexuals :-)
Hey, this is my first time coming out! It’s not easy….
PS. Nice to see you back here, Pam.
Jim, again, thank you. Although I do not write too often on here, I try to read as much as I can. I just love it. I am so agree with so many points you brought out here.
And I love all ALL these REAL people that do dialogues here.
One question: I always feel compelled to share these thoughts with the apparently “closed minded” X’ians around me. Do you think it’s worthwhile or it’s a waste of time?
Comment by: Stephan
57Esther, I think it’s a great idea to share these thoughts with your closed minded friends. Maybe it will open them up a bit, or challenge their way of thinking.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
58Esther - Keep being real - its good for your soul even if others aren;t into your opinions.
You train people to respect you by respecting yourself
Comment by: Esther
59Thanks.
There are too much I wanted to say, but, I’ll just say, “thanks!”
I know you’ll understand.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
60Hey Esther! Good to see ya come out of the shadows and join in the diablog, as Jim calls it. Thanks for being real with us. I absolutely think it’s great to speak up about your perspective to your friends. That’s what happened to me. There I was hanging on to my black/white dogmatic views about homosexuality when friends I respected and trusted revealed an open and different outlook than mine. That’s what started a shift in my thinking.
{{hugs}} to ya Esther!
Comment by: brett
61hi cully
thanks for your response on the ebayatheist blog
gagnon, like myself, is someone who is trying their best to be faithful to a belief system that best helps them explain the universe as they see it… you will nowhere find gagnon (or myself) personally condemning homosexuals… he is (as a scholar) merely trying to be faithful to the texts that he is reading
to take this to a personal level, i am a straight, divorced christian
before my divorce both myself and my (then) wife were involved in affairs… something that my faith VERY unambiguously forbids (and, to my knowledge, no one is arguing that point :-), and when i finally ‘came out’ on this issue, i knew what it meant to feel the wrath of religious people, not all of it holy or pure!
what i do know is that what i did was wrong on many levels (deceit, hurting my children, hurting my wife, hurting friends and people who i taught christian principals to)… and that the God portrayed in the Christian scriptures is willing to forgive me and help me change my behaviour
the argument therefore is not about a ‘condemning horrible God’, but about whether the practice of homosexuality comes under the category of ’sin’ at all
gagnon’s arguments are comprehensive, but his most powerful ones are
1. the scriptures are never positive about homosexuality
2. the scriptures condemnation of homosexual practice occurs throughout the ‘canon’, not just in historically/culturally specific areas
3. the scriptures advocate a male/female pattern for sexual relationships as being part of the creation ordinance
4. and, most sensitively, the scriptures see homosexuality in a similar area to incest, in that it is a situation where instead of complementarity, we have a situation where the ‘classes’ are too similar to be correct… the old testament pattern of ‘norms’ sees things that are too similar or too dissimilar as being equally suspect
now, these are all very brief summaries, and rely on the person believing that the Christian scriptures are ‘authoritative’ in some way (another BIG discussion)
if you don’t, then there’s no argument to be made!
as someone who does, i’ve been looking for loopholes for ages… i’d love to be able to look my homosexual friends in the eye and say i believed their lifestyle was ok, i am well aware that their situation is very different from mine (i’ve been celibate and single by choice since my divorce) in that i can choose to enter a (by my beliefs God-blesses) sexual relationship if i choose to, whereas (by my beliefs) they can’t
people like myself (and i believe, gagnon) aren’t gay-haters… they are just people who find themselves in a situation where they cannot intellectually justify the homosexual lifestyle as being consistent with their belief system (and are baffled by those in their faith community who can!)
thanks for reading this far cully
all the best
brett
Comment by: Katherine
62‘homo & hetro marriage: I agree. The state shouldn’t be involved in any form of marriage as it is not an institution of the state but of the church. Let churches decide whether or not to perform marriages. I think governments got into marriage as a cash grab (issueing licences).’
Er, what if you’re not a Christian?
Comment by: HumanistEditor
63Christians…why stop at banning gay marriage? Bring all of God’s law unto the heathens, the sodomites, the secular humanists.
Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver’s and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye’s shall be cleansed.
For proof that these shrimp-sucking sinners are destroying the sanctity of our dinner tables…BEHOLD –
Leviticus 11:9-12:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Pinch the tail
suck the head
burn in hell
http://www.GodHatesShrimp.com
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
64brilliant parody. thanks for the link.
Comment by: Ir
65brett, if you come back, I’d be interested in your response to my comments #3 on this page, which was a response to the article to which you linked.
Comment by: Siamang
66Here’s a point, Brett, and before I begin, thanks for you openness to bring your personal history here. It’s hard to bring personal stuff of a not-so-nice nature into a discussion, and I appreciate your personal story.
You’ll have to help me, brett and other experts in scripture, because I don’t have the verse to cite.
But doesn’t Christ specifically tell us, like twice, that we aren’t to divorce?
Doesn’t he say if you marry a divorced woman, that is adultery?
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
And then here
Luke 16:18 says, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
I could be totally mistaken here, but IIRC Jesus himself never says anything about homosexuality, but totally unloads on what we call divorce.
Here’s a pretty fundamentalist reading of the scriptures concerning divorce:
http://www.bible-truths.org/tracts/divorce.htm
There are a lot of remarried christians in the world, who are nevertheless opposed to gays being gay. “Practicing the homosexual lifestyle” is the derisive term.
But aren’t remarried divorcees, by Christ’s definition, “practicing the adulterous lifestyle”?
And what remedy is there? Should those marriages be annulled, and those people either return to their original spouses or become celebate, so they’re no longer living in sin?
Because that seems to be the only remedy many christians would accept for gay people.
I’m quite amazed at the clear double-standard here. “Divorce, specifically condemned by Christ as adultery, really just fine” “Gayness, not mentioned at all by Christ, BADDDDDDD!!!!”
Comment by: Stephan
67Siamang, you’re exactly right. There is a double standard. I have always believed that divorce was wrong, but that it was a fact of life, and it would be too hard to ask someone to stay celibate after a divorce, so remarriage should be an option. I have not applied that same logic to same-sex marriage. I believe homosexuality, like divorce, is morally wrong. But the only moral option, according to most Christians, is celibacy. If I would not ask that of a divorced person, why do I ask that of a homosexual? I am in the process of questioning my beliefs on this, and have not come to a conclusion yet.
Comment by: TXatheist
68I have a challenge for the xians and even atheists. Find one passage where JC condemned homosexuality. Hint #1… you can’t.
Comment by: Ir
69But TXatheist, no true atheist would take on a challenge like that because it involves looking at a Bible! (j/k)
Comment by: Stephan
70TX, We’ve been here before. For Christians who believe the Bible is inspired by God, the red letters carry the same weight as the black ones. There is plenty in scripture that identifies homosexual behavior as a sin. Just because it did not come out of Jesus’ mouth does not make it any less valid.
What I find more disturbing is the amount of things Jesus did say that many Christians seemingly ignore. We already mentioned divorce. He also talked a lot about greed and materialism, our national pasttime. He talked about acceptance. The people who He condemned were either the powerful or the self-righteous, precisely the people most modern day Christians pander to. I’m working to change myself on these issues, and maybe I’ll help bring about larger change in doing so.
Comment by: TXatheist
71Stephan,
That’s my point, Jesus never condemned homosexuals and if you want to use other parts of the bible to justify your points I have some questions on what happens if you work on the sabbath, a child curses their parents or if you pray in public like school prayer. Your move, Jesus never condemned homosexuality…right?
Comment by: Stephan
72TX, I’m going to have to fall back on the argument I’m sure you’ve rejected before. You have to read everything in context. Much of the Old Testament was written for Israel as a list of things to set them apart from everyone else. Some of the New Testament rules were written to specific churches for specific situations. You have to read everything in the context in which it was written, and weigh it against the rest of scripture.
This, unfortunately, is where things get difficult. One person’s idea of the “context” may different from that of someone else. It’s not necessarily that we ignore certain parts, we just emphasize some and de-emphasize others. I’m sure we do in inconsistently and to suit our own tastes at times. I’ve making a very real effort lately to be more consistent in how I live out my faith. It’s not easy, but it’s a work in progress.
Comment by: Siamang
73Stephan wrote:
Again, I’m coming from a background where I don’t have a brilliant command at scripture, so correct me here…
But isn’t a lot of the “plenty in scripture that identifies homosexuality as a sin” mostly in the OT? And around the same stuff that makes mixed-thread clothes and eating shellfish a sin too?
I mean to bring this up, not because I have any really clear view of the overall scriptural opinion on this stuff. But when I have brought up that other stuff in Leviticus, like not touching a pigskin (there goes football!),I’ve had Christians say, “well, those are the old laws, Jesus is the new covanant, so we don’t live under the old laws.”
So I’m wondering, WHICH laws Jesus annulled. That’s where I wonder where the New Testament stands on homosexuality. Okay Jesus never mentioned it, but WHY did He never mention it? (At least as seen by believing christians).
I mean, Jesus probably never mentioned wearing clothes of two different kinds of threads either, but we can assume that that’s not still forbidden. And that stuff about how we must kill someone if they mention another God but Yaweh to us. I’m sure that’s not the current law.
All I could find in the New Testament is this one reference:
That’s the King James translation. Newer translations say homosexual there.
If that’s it for the new testament, one reference where married divorcees and gays are equally damned, then what’s up there?
That’s where I’m coming from in asking if Jesus mentioned homosexuality. The “red letter” question. It’s because I’ve been shooed away from asking whether other things in the bible are still taken as law by the New Covanent vs Old Covanent stuff.
If I misunderstand, I apologize.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
74Siamang. Your point is well taken. I think, even though I think that homosexual behavior is wrong, it is quite telling that Christ never takes the time to mention it, nor does he ever address in Scripture the horrible practice of leaving an unwanted child to die by the side of the road, which was much practiced at the time, too.
For me, that’s why these things are not my life-issues, as they are with many of my fellow Xians. I look at it this way. If Christ IS who He says He is, and you get to know Him, then I have to trust that he will deal with anything in your life that needs to be dealt with, and then You and He can work it out. In other words, I’m not going to make it the goal of my life to “fix” you.
By the way, I’m particularly fond of the argument that has been made about how many vocal right-wing Christians are so outspoken against abortion and homosexuality, and yet are strangely silent on issues like greed and materialism, which Paul seems to equate with idolatry, which is surely much worse. Those of you who are atheists, please know that many of us in Xianity ARE looking at and wondering about those questions, too.
Comment by: Stephan
75Siamang, I’ll refer to Jesus Creed again because Scot did such a good job of handling this question, and because it’s not a two sentence answer. It’s a lot to read if you read both his entries and the comments, but I basically agree with what he said. I don’t expect you to be convinced, but it might help you understand that perspective.
Comment by: TXatheist
76I’m going to say this as fact then. The red letters in the bible that are the supposed words of Jesus never condemn homosexuality and unless that exact fact is wrong then I remain correct.
Comment by: Stephan
77TX, I will cede that point to you, I just don’t think it’s relevant. Jesus also never said two plus two equals four, but I still believe it is true. In fact, that’s not in the Bible anywhere, but I still believe it. If we Christians only relied on Jesus’ words to dictate truth we would have even more unanswered questions.
Comment by: skikid
78Someone once told me to stop looking to the Bible as a book of answers but just to let it ask me the questions. There are a lot of connotations to be drawn from this and I am not going to pretend to have addressed them all. Its an interesting thought though.
Comment by: Texan
79I have a story about the gluttonous preacher comparison because I’ve seen it happen.
When I was a kid, I attended a Catholic church. There were two priests there. Both were not in the prime of health, being overweight, one more than the other.
I loved these priests. We had them over to our house many many times and my family was very close to both of them.
However, some people in the church decided to call them out on two things with the purpose to have them removed from the church. From what I remember, both were charged with gluttony, and one was also charged with alcoholism. I was a child at the time, but my parents spoke a lot about it then and years later because the charges bothered them so much….the situation mattered a lot to them and us kids.
One priest ended up leaving the church and in time the other one followed(–when he left, he was much slimmer….I don’t know, maybe stress can pull the weight off….perhaps it was something else). It really impacted our family that the church had behaved this way and the wound was long in healing.
I’ve never heard of another instance of something like this, but my thought is that churches that go through this might try to keep it relatively quiet….. I won’t rule out the chance that I didn’t fully understand the situation as it was then, but I feel like my parents probably related it to us kids as best as possible.
As far as I know, the priests are working in ministry at other congregations.
So I tell the story because reading these blogs has me thinking about this situation and how homosexuals see things. I believe I’m coming to an understanding and sincerely appreciate the blog comments and Cully.
Some of my thoughts are still developing, but it is a tragic thing when someone who wants to know and love God is turned away because they are flawed in someone’s eyes. I don’t believe that this should be and my heart breaks. When someone wants to believe in God, there should be nothing to stand in the way of them getting to know Him.
Thanks for the thoughts. They are insightful.
BTW, I don’t attend that church anymore.
Comment by: Texan
80Ok, so when I first decided to say something, there were like 50 entries here. I apologize if the above seems to come from nowhere…
I should have refreshed my screen first..
:-)
Comment by: Ir
81Siamang, there’s one other NT reference used to condemn homosexual behavior as sinful:
Bear in mind that all sexual activity outside a marriage relationship is condemned as sinful in various places in the Bible (as usually interpreted, anyway) - it’s not just sexual activity between two people of the same sex which is treated that way.
Comment by: TXatheist
82Stephan, I am presuming you are making an honest attempt at meeting halfway and that is great. If you want this atheist’s view or the full spectrum of how I am meeting halfway, Jesus never existed, so for me to state JC said anything is challenging to even say.
Comment by: Stephan
83TX, I realize you are quoting the Bible to get me to defend my own beliefs, not because you put any credibility in it yourself. I can respect that, and I won’t call you a Christian for quoting it, as long as you don’t call me a mathematician for saying 2+2=4.
Comment by: Siamang
84Ir, thanks for that quote.
I’m not sure what’s the cause and what’s the effect there in that passage. Does it really say that they became gay because God gave them over to lust?
I’m not sure what the “due penalty” they “recieved in themselves,” ahem. But this isn’t the Song of Solomon, so I’ll demur.
Texan, what a sad story you tell. You know, with the scandals going today in the Catholic Church, are you SURE it was gluttony the preists were accused of? Or is that just what the children were told?
Beside that point, I know of which you speak when you say things about being turned away. The minister at my mother’s methodist church used to be catholic. But she was called to the ministry, and couldn’t do that work in the catholic faith, being a woman.
Comment by: Texan
85It is sad! It probably scarred some of my family members for life with regard to the Catholic church. Perhaps it was the way it was handled within the congregation. Gentleness and kindness go a longway….
I’m pretty sure about the charge. Of course there is always room for error, but I wasn’t so young that I wasn’t allowed to know the “dirty” topics. My parents wanted us to know about dangerous people, molesters and strangers, so they would not hesitate to warn us of individuals….especially if they were close to the family. As of lately, we are still in contact with them, so they saw no danger.
I hear that on the ministry bit. My husband and I looked hard at the Catholic church for ministry options….but being married, we obviously don’t qualify, he couldn’t even be a decon until he’s 35 years old. So we look elsewhere, no problem. There are enough denominations out there to suite just about any taste or comfort level.
Comment by: Ir
86Siamang, I can’t answer your questions about the passage but if you really want answers I expect you can find lots of Christian sites on the Internet claiming to have them.
Comment by: Siamang
87Just google “due penalty” lol!
Comment by: K. Wibbing
88Hello, thought I’d drop in with a comment. My
husband and I are Christian, and we both believe that homosexuality is not God’s best. We also think the Church hasn’t treated gay folks very well, by the way. It’s as if sexual sins are somehow greater than little white lies (and wars in the pews, and gossip, materialism, etc etc; you get the picture.)
My husband came up with an interesting argument concerning why homosexuality is still a problem whether it’s genetic or not.
For those of us that accept the Biblical creation, God made Adam and Eve genetically perfect. There was no death until the Fall. Then, death along with genetic imperfections were introduced. People lived hundreds of years, and slowly the genetic pool became more and more flawed as time went on … and lifespans decreased.
It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a genetic change brought on by the Fall of Man or just plain sin, it still isn’t a lifestyle acceptable to God~it still isn’t God’s best for His creation. Sin deeply marred all of mankind, that’s why Jesus had to come.
When we accept Christ as our Savior and Lord, we aren’t just forgiven of sin, we are made WHOLE. It says in scripture that, by His stripes we are healed.
Here’s a testimony of what God can do:
My grandfather was nearly dead of stomach cancer, emaciated; nothing but tumors, skin and bones lying in a hospital bed.
His doctor had told my grandmother to go home and make the funeral arrangements. He was given morphine to control the pain and then left to die.
One evening the congregation gathered at his bedside, along with his doctors and nurses, and they prayed for his healing. They left around 10 p.m. and he looked asleep.
The next morning he awoke and his stomach was flat and he felt fine; no pain, no morphine, no nothing. He got up and dressed and headed out of the hospital. The nurses nearly had a coronary when they saw him stroll down the corridor. They grabbed him and asked him where he was going and he said, “I’m goin’ home, God healed me…”
If God can cause a man bloated with tumors to rise up and walk out of a hospital completely well (no cancer ever returned, by the way; he eventually died of a stoke at 94 about 45 years later), then He can certainly change or forgive and heal someone’s sexual orientation.
But you have to want it and believe that He can do it.
Like the blind man that came to Jesus, and Jesus asks, “WHat do you want?” (To anyone nearby it seemed obvious, but interestingly, Jesus asked.
“Lord, that I might see…”
TM
Comment by: Siamang
89K. Wibbing,
That’s a great story. But I frankly find it quite hard to believe.
What hospital was it? What was the doctor’s name? Do you have copys of the x-rays?
Comment by: TXatheist
90K Wibbing,
There are many stories that people refer to as NDE, near death experiences. There are also many unknowns in the medical science community. I’ll tell my story of NDE. When I was 12 I had a motorcycle accident where I flew over the handlebars, landed on my helmet/head and was unaware of what was around me. For 20 minutes I talked, walked and made my way home assisted until I remember waking up on the kitchen floor. No god or light ever came for me. My brain fixed itself if you will and I regained normal conscienceness. It’s like a cut on your hand. Your brain sends the signals to correct it by coagulating the cut.
Comment by: TXatheist
91K Wimberly,
2 counter points to the gay thing. If God made everyone then he made gays that way. No one can state 100% for certain why some people are gay. We don’t know why but persecuting them isn’t going to make it go away. The gay closet and the atheist closet are somewhat similar. We know who we are, we just disclose it cautiously because of the 1% of the world is whacko.
Comment by: Sandra
92God does not have to give an explanation and even if you had the doctor’s name and x-rays, it would make no difference. God’s miracles are just that… HIS Miracles! And I have been blessed with miracles as well.
Comment by: fran
93I’ve always been curious about how they’d answer that question too. If the omniescient, omnipotent , omnibenevolent god made us all why would he make gay people anyway or was the devil involved in the manufacturing business at creation as well . beezlebub industries ( the snake factory )
Comment by: Kassy
94getting back to the marriage question, I’d just like to point out that marriage exists in every human society, Xian or not. It is originally a civil institution concerning inheritance rights. Most religions, recognizing its importance, co-opteded it into themselves to increase their power over their flock - be it xian, jewish, budhist, or aboriginal dreamers.
Comment by: Cully
95I believe she’s saying that if there is a genetic source for homosexuality, then it is a negative fault resulting from genetic drift after the “fall.” Interesting argument. It’s genetic but not God’s fault.
Okay, so if we are going to go with a literal Adam and Eve, which it seems like we are here since they were created “genetically perfect” then I guess we’ll be going with a literal biblical age for the earth as well? I believe 6,500 years is the accepted biblical age. How then do we have human DNA that is 535,000 years old? (this by the way is date of our earliest common X chromosome ancestor, the closest science comes to “Eve.”)