Stephen Bennett Plans $50K Evangelism Trip to Provincetown
Last year Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM) chartered a bus and took 30 Christians from Connecticut to evangelize gays and lesbians vacationing in Provincetown, MA for four hours. “Several” more folks from out of state joined Bennett there. Six hundred gift bags (printed with “You are truly precious in God’s Eyes” in pink, because it is the “symbolic color” of glbt folks) were distributed.
Inside each gift bag was a Bible, two gospel tracts for homosexuals and a special Bible insert which contained all the verses on salvation and what God says about homosexuality. Also included was a 25 minute CD with the gospel and a special recorded message directed to the homosexual, giving the listener a chance to pray and receive Christ.
Apparently the AFA and CFA provided financial support (both are thanked for their “full support in making this … a complete success”).
Bennett described the day as “life changing for all involved”, noting that his group of “strangers in a foreign land” sensed “sadness in many of the homosexuals’ eyes” and felt a “spirit of heaviness and evil” which reminded them of Isaiah 3:9 — “they parade their sin like Sodom”. He recounted a few positive stories, but noted a “greater number of negative” exchanges than positive ones.
One homosexual man who received a gift bag … noticed our t-shirts and came up to us, giving the gift bag back. “Get out of here and leave us alone! You and your message of hate are not welcome here!” he said.
After an altercation erupted between glbt folks and the Christian group, possibly ignited when Bennett’s group took photos of a man in drag and others in front of a pizza place, Provincetown police “told the evangelists they now feared for their physical safety and it would probably be best to leave P’town.”
Bennett and crew left convinced that “the lives of homosexual men and women … will be changed for eternity”, and on the bus ride home “many tears were shed for those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle in Provincetown”.
Eight months later, he is mounting a larger scale trip for August 7, scheduled to coincide with Gay and Lesbian Family Week in Provincetown. This time the plan includes chartering buses to bring Christians “from all over New England”, suggesting that “EVERY church in Massachusetts needs to be part of this outreach!!”
To do so, SBM says it needs $50,000 to cover its costs, and mentions buses, evangelists’ t-shirts, and Bible gift bags.
Let’s do a little bit of math here. How much evangelism could $50K buy? In round numbers, 500 participants distributing 6,000 Bibles appears to be within reach:
| $ 8,000.00 | Eight charter buses to bring 400 people in, and another 100 people arriving via independent means. |
| (According to BusBank.com (a national broker for bus charters), one-day cost for a bus seating up to 55 people will run $600-1,200. At $1,000 per bus, with 50 people on each bus, $8,000 could transport 400 people. | |
| $ 2,500.00 | T-shirts (400 bus riders + 100 self-transporters, $5/shirt) |
| Subtracting the above from the $50,000 fundraising goal leaves | |
| $ 39,500.00 | for Bible gift bags, which would buy |
| 5,600 |
Bible gift bags at $7 each; since 400 bags remained at the end of last year’s trip, as many as 6,000 could be available, or 12 bags per evangelist. An average of 14 bags were distributed by each person in 2003, a quarter of them by the two who handled distribution. |
These numbers are only the roughest of estimates, of course. Lower costs (or having participants pay their own way) could increase the headcount and the number of gift bags; higher overhead could decrease them. But they raise interesting questions:
- If SBM is actually mounting a smaller operation, where is the $50K going?
- Has Stephen Bennett Ministries collaborated with Provincetown officials on logistics? Is an approved parade permit needed?
- How will an attempt to put a Bible gift bag in the hands of ten percent of the estimated 60,000 people impact P’town?
- What crowd control measures and contingency plans would be appropriate?
By Bennett’s own account, 30-some people distributing 600 gift bags resulted in a dozen positive anecdotes, a “greater number of negative” interactions, including at least one potentially violent altercation. If he’s sincere about multiplying that effort by a factor of 10-20, the disruptions could multiply as well.
Luckily for SBM, Provincetown folks have proven themselves fully capable of ensuring the free speech rights of visitors, even when the speech is disruptive or hateful.
Filed under: Stephen Bennett
*laughs for 10 minutes*
um, I really don’t know what to say.
Perhaps he’s left room in the budget for a pair of these so he can visit one of local drinking establishments where the homa-se-shu-alls frequent without his secret identity being discovered AGAIN.
Then again, all the gay boys I know have a few drinks and magically seem willing to make out with girls. Maybe it’s his plan to spend the extra cash getting half the town drunk so they’ll at least be “bi” till it wears off.
oh my god the women wear pink shirts but the men have to wear white
*resumes laughing*
I just finished reading the article on the SBM site and I must say this isn’t the first time I’ve read/heard Bennett sound like a catty queen. Steph, are you sure you still aren’t gay, honey? ;-D
Lines like this:
“I joked with him and told him his perfume was beautiful and I asked the name of it - I said it would smell great on my wife.” (um yeah, on his “wife”, riiiiiiight)
“A very sloppily put together Marilyn Monroe look-alike was sitting with a group of militant homosexuals in front of Spiritus Pizza - a popular pizza place in town.” (lol. A little “queer eye” there, Stevie?)
“The lesbians were the angriest though. They weren’t ashamed to hide their hate - nor their mocking of God and Christianity.” (Hetero men fantacize about lesbians all the time, you have to be gay not to love the “angry lesbians.” ;-))
And why does it seem as though no one in the gay community knows this guy from his previous so-called gay incarnation in P-town. That place is a viper pit of gossip, how come we never hear from anyone there who used to know him?
(((Then again, all the gay boys I know have a few drinks and magically seem willing to make out with girls. Maybe it’s his plan to spend the extra cash getting half the town drunk so they’ll at least be “bi” till it wears off.)))
I’ve never heard any of these “ex-gay” fundies mention fag hags, ever, and I’ve listened to/read practically all of their materials. Exodus, Joe Dallas, Bennett, etc, none mention it. But it’s like, such a fixture in the gay community, how could they forget to preach about it?
“I’ve never heard any of these “ex-gay” fundies mention fag hags, ever, and I’ve listened to/read practically all of their materials. Exodus, Joe Dallas, Bennett, etc, none mention it. But it’s like, such a fixture in the gay community, how could they forget to preach about it?”
Because they only have a limited and unoriginal set of cookie cutters: the one with the distant father, the one with the sexual abuse during childhood, the other with the promiscuous activity during depression et al.
Actually Joe Nicolosi was my therapist for about a year and he told me that my hag was equally “sick” since she craved attention from non-masculine guys and that as I became “less-gay” during treatment I’d find myself and my “hag” growing apart.
“your days with Candice are numbered” he specifically said
And how does Dr. Joe’s prediction compare to the reality, Dan?
(((Actually Joe Nicolosi was my therapist for about a year and he told me that my hag was equally “sick” since she craved attention from non-masculine guys and that as I became “less-gay” during treatment I’d find myself and my “hag” growing apart.
“your days with Candice are numbered” he specifically said)))
So the closest thing you had to a “hetero” relationship (don’t know if you were having sex with her) was “wrong” and “sinful?”
I mean, did he want you to be straight, because if that’s what he *really* wanted, then why would a relationship with a familiar straight woman?
So, let’s see if I have this straight now, because I do tend to get very confused with these “ex-gay” ministry things… Candice was a straight woman, one who is familiar (maybe even sexually to you), a friend as well, but because she was your friend and/or boinked you while you were gay, then she’s part of the “gay lifestyle” you need to avoid?
The logic of these fundies always floors me.
ew no I never had anything even approaching a hetero relationship. Yes, Candice is my hag and continued to be until we graduated from college last aug and she got a job in Santa Cruz I’ve never so much as kissed a girl. Niclolsi believes that once a patient has suitably established a masculine identity they’ll have the desire from within to start dating women. He never encouraged me to date women and was very clear that that’s something his patients chose to do on their own.
{{ew no}}
hahahaha, ::snort::
Lotsa boys who do, as you mentioned in your first post.
I have a question:
If somebody hands me a bible and I take it and then I proceed to tear it up or better yet burn it in front of the person that gave it to me… Is that legal in this country? Can I get in legal trouble for this?
Eager for your answers!!
Dan
If they give it to you, then it is your property to do with what you choose.
Just don’t be threatening or litter. If you tear it up, make sure you hit a trash can.
Actually I recall some AP story about flag burners I’d read a while back (forgive the lack of a source) where some kind of permit is required for “public burnings” and the local authorities nabbed them on that.
More disturbing to me is the fact that this year, Bennett wants to turn the children of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals against their parents. Because of these paragraphs from his press release, I’ve been sending it around the Net with the respectful headline “Hey, hey, kids, Fundie the Clown says your parents are going to hell!”:
> It breaks our hearts not only for homosexual men and women,
but for the
> children now who have tragically been brought into these
unnatural unions –
> children who have been denied the God given right of a mommy
and daddy.
> “Gay” parenting is one of our most tragic social experiments
of all time –
> and the children are the ones who will suffer the
consequences….
We are also having Christian clowns for the children
of homosexuals
> with balloons, children’s Bibles, children’s Bible songs CDs
and a special
> gift bag of goodies for them. Each Bible gift bag for the
children and
> adults costs $7.00 each. What will you do to help make a
difference in the
> life of a homosexual or child of a homosexual??
Jayelle again: Isn’t there a Commandment about respecting one’s parents? Why would these good Christians encourage kids to violate it?
I don’t know who this stephen bennett guy is, but right now you lot are looking more pathetic for treating him with such contempt and ridicule.
Jayelle: I don’t see anything in that paragraph that says the kids are being told their parents are going to hell. It doesn’t look like that’s written on any of the material they’re being given.
Christploitation:
“So, let’s see if I have this straight now, because I do tend to get very confused with these “ex-gay” ministry things… Candice was a straight woman, one who is familiar (maybe even sexually to you), a friend as well, but because she was your friend and/or boinked you while you were gay, then she’s part of the “gay lifestyle” you need to avoid? ”
Christploitation: I can’t understand how this could escape you. I’m guessing the theory here is that some men already have plenty of friendship-level contact with women, and that instead more time spent in loving contact with straight men will be helpful. It’s obvious that men need to be able to see women as more than just their sexual “other”, but for some men these friendships may be preventing from developing that concept at all.
(((Christploitation: I can’t understand how this could escape you. I’m guessing the theory here is that some men already have plenty of friendship-level contact with women, and that instead more time spent in loving contact with straight men will be helpful. It’s obvious that men need to be able to see women as more than just their sexual “other”, but for some men these friendships may be preventing from developing that concept at all.)))
Now I’m really confused.
More and prolonged “loving” contact with men and LESS contact with straight women friends familiar to the gay man?
That sounds pretty gay to me. Er.. it sounds like they are creating gay relationships minus the sex.
So it’s not gay “behavior” as long as sex isn’t involved?
:scratches head:
Yeah, I guess it sounds strange at first.
I think behind the theory is the concept of sexuality in its development. We observe that many boys isolate themselves from girls at a very young age (”boys’ germs”, “girls’ germs”). It may seem paradoxical, then, that these same boys come to find girls attractive at a later time, which is augmented by the kicking in of puberty. Presumably, the idea is that there is an attraction to the exotic, the “other”, rather than to that which is familar. It’s associated with the idea that men with same-sex attractions may be attracted to a manliness (”other”) they don’t see or acknowledge in themselves.
The issue, if this theory were true, is whether the development can be “replayed” with a different result later in life. Is it actually helpful or practical for such a man to seek the affirmation of other men in order to develop his own masculine identity?
In any case, I must respond to this:
“That sounds pretty gay to me. Er.. it sounds like they are creating gay relationships minus the sex.”
From your comments, I think your limited understanding of what constitutes loving is rather unfortunate, and just confirms all that I think is wrong with the brittle shadow of “masculinity” that we have been left with in modern anglo-saxon cultures. No wonder people think David and Jonathan were “gay”.
I’m sorry, on re-reading, that last paragraph sounded a bit rude and condescending. It’s just something that frustrates me, as a “gay” man myself.
Trevize, your honesty and open-mindedness is a refreshing change from the usual tone of the comments found here.
trevize,
We are all attracted to some things that are different (exotic?) to us. For some men, it’s women. For some it’s a different skin color. Myself, I find blonds to be exotic.
But what you’re suggesting is that gay men (yourself?) feel inadequate with their masculinity therefore they seek other men. My own personal experience is the complete opposite. I’m very masculine and I like not-feminine, but “softer” type of guys.
What I sense though is that you feel that there is something wrong with you being “gay” (quotations are yours). There is no point in trying to convince you otherwise; You have to figure things out for yourself, but I will leave you with this:
A family member of mine was just diagnosed a week ago with testicular and stomach cancer. Prognosis is not good.
He is 28 years old!
Enjoy life. Don’t punish yourself. And no, you will NOT go to hell.
Dan
Hey Dan.
I’m certainly not saying that everyone’s experience will follow that pattern. For example, I have trouble with the “weak-father” theory because I’ve always thought I got on well with my Dad. But I do understand the peer-envy aspects of these theories. I’m not a psychologist, but your attractions could be an example of some kind of transference.
The question for me is not whether or not I will go to hell, but whether or not my actions are good in God’s eyes. I do intend to enjoy life, but I don’t think that’s the main purpose of it. I appreciate your advice though.
I used the quotes because I don’t really like that label. It has too many connotations and associations.
Trevze
Most modern theories on sexuality think that sexuality is fixed very early in development(like before school age) and some even put that development before birth. My own view towards why gay men and women get along so well is because gay men don’t find woman attractive. The whole sexual tension found in straight friendships does not exist or not exist to the same extent. It is kinda hard to be just friends with someone when they are checking you out or is viewed as a potential mate and if the guy is effeminate then they may share some interests.
The trouble with a lot of the ex-gay mentality is they equate masculinity (if you are a guy) with being straight and they confuse attractions (finds men attractive) with actions (hasn’t slept with a guy or is married to a woman). If only the men would be more masculine or more in touch with their masculine they wouldn’t be gay. Having a friendship with a straight man might get you more in touch with your masculine nature, but don’t expect it to change the set of things you find attractive.
I have known quite a few effeminate straight guys and I have known gay guys show as much machismo as anyone else. The trouble is, an effeminate guy (straight or gay) is often picked on for doing, being, or acting outside socailly assigned gender roles and trust me just because a person is homosexual doesn’t mean they are more open minded about acting outside gender roles.
I find it so funny that when the religious right harks back to earlier ages they never seem to mention the things that don’t fit in with our current concept of masculinity. Wearing wigs, makeup, and patting oneself down with perfume are all things men did in the 1700. Why don’t men do them now? Or even in our times the colored men’s underwear market used to be for gay men now straight guys (or their girl friends) buy them. Are those guys less masculine? What they fail to accept is that definitions of masculinity and femininity are not quite as universal and time tested, as they would like to believe.
Yes there are differences between men and woman and those differences are found right down to the wiring in the brain. Those differences may explain why men prefer to do certain actives and woman others. However those differences are for the general population not for a particular individual. Just because woman are better with language does not mean that there are no great male teachers, speakers, and authors. Just because she is a woman don’t assume she will better handling children than any man, When you look at a person, you are not doing a detailed look at the wiring of that person’s brain and there are more differences between individuals than between genders.
Hey Jason,
I’m interested in what you said about gender stereotypes (eg. what was happening in the 1700s). I think this has a lot to do with the whole thing.
“The trouble with a lot of the ex-gay mentality is they equate masculinity (if you are a guy) with being straight and they confuse attractions (finds men attractive) with actions (hasn’t slept with a guy or is married to a woman). If only the men would be more masculine or more in touch with their masculine they wouldn’t be gay.”
I certainly don’t confuse attractions with actions, although it’s clear that one will tend to lead to the other unless conscious restraint is there.
As for confusing masculinity with “being straight”, that’s not exactly what’s going on. The idea is more that the self-image of an individual may affect their attractions. So, in a society where gender stereotypes are NOT as rigid and overbearing, a young boy is less likely to consider himself “unmanly” for having gender-nonconforming traits or attributes and for being sensitive. Whereas, in a society which, for example, elevates football stars over male ballet dancers in terms of masculinity, he may begin to see men, and/or other boys, as the “other”.
The point is not whether or not he’s RIGHT in thinking himself un-masculine, but whether or not he FEELS he’s right at the time. Later in life, he will probably reject those stereotypes, but by that time his attractions are already in place. I hope that makes sense.
So you’re right in saying that everyone is different. Unfortunately, at a young age we usually don’t have the necessary logic and open-mindedness to see that. Instead, we want to fit in, and the dominant gender stereotype WILL have an affect on us - our body-image, our self-image and our image of our femininity or masculinity.
Yes, some straight guys are “effeminate” by current cultural standards, and that is a joyous thing. The model described above would not necessarily apply to all, since there are differences in the child (personality, sensitivity, etc.) and in the parenting.
trevize,
“The question for me is not whether or not I will go to hell, but whether or not my actions are good in God’s eyes”
I was raised in a Jewish family. According to evangelical Christians (and others), my family and I will be going to hell for not following Jesus regardless of any other actions.
The point is, these people are full of shit and I will never consider what God wants or does not want us to do based upon any religious doctrine. Religions are man-made inventions that have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe and the deity.
Getting back to our topic, such actions by these ministries are intended to upset gay people and gay families, regardless of how they present it.
Imagine an opposite situation, a children’s religious day camp where people push christian bashing literature to kids and their parents in that setting. Would that be OK?
Dan
I do agree that self image can affect behavior i.e. choosing destructive behavior. I do not think that self-image affects attraction i.e. suddenly knowing what the heck straight guys see in woman. Lots of people have low self image and they all do not turn out gay and I have know lots of gay people who seem to have a good self image. While working on self-image might be good, don’t expect to be straightened out by it.
There are two camps. The ex-gay camp figures that homosexuality is somehow learned (or fixable) and therefore with proper treatment can be unlearned (or changed). The gay friendly camp figures that homosexuality is just a part of nature a part of a person’s being and trying to unlearn it is like trying to stop the tides.
Honestly no one knows what causes homosexuality and trying to fix it when you don’t know the cause does just does not seem productive. At the moment biological causes are strongly suspected and so any theory that suspects self image as the cause of homosexuality is outside of the main stream at least. As for the weak/absent father or domineering mother there is lots of evidence to debunk that theory and that theory has done quite a lot of harm to the relationships of homosexuals and their families (i.e. it’s the parent’s fault).
My own view is that the ex-gay moment is grasping at straws trying to undo the effects of new knowledge into sexuality (i.e. Homosexuality might be a part of nature and doesn’t appear to be something that needs fixing). As for if your actions are right by God that is something only you can answer. My own view is that the scriptures that people are using to condemn the action are being taken out of context and the reason why people are cling to scripture is because there is a great fear of homosexuality (No one knows what causes. Is it good or bad? What about the people I care about?). The bible has lots of scriptures that were used to support lots of things both good and bad.
Dan,
I can’t say that I see beliefs the same way you do. I believe there is a truth about our universe and our purpose as human beings, and some people may be closer to it than others. So to put all beliefs in a box and say they’re all wrong seems rather naive to me.
But I agree that there’s something wrong with “religions”, in the sense of people trying to *earn* salvation/nirvana/enlightenment/peace with God through doing all the “right” things. As a Christian, I should want to do the right things because of my relationship with a God who loves me, not because I’m afraid of going to hell.
“Getting back to our topic, such actions by these ministries are intended to upset gay people and gay families, regardless of how they present it.”
So you think their purpose here is to upset people? Are you sure you’re not paranoid? Regardless of what happens, I don’t think their purpose is to make people upset.
“Imagine an opposite situation, a children’s religious day camp where people push christian bashing literature to kids and their parents in that setting. Would that be OK?”
Yeah, I think literature that “bashes” people would be wrong. But the way some people think, to claim that someone might be wrong, or doing wrong things, is to “bash” them. I don’t believe that.
But again, I don’t see any gay-bashing material in what was given to the kids. I can’t guess at what the parents received. I’m not saying I approve of what this guy did anyway. I just think you guys are over-reacting and condemning.
Jason,
“I do not think that self-image affects attraction i.e. suddenly knowing what the heck straight guys see in woman.”
Possibly, but that would depend on what is the root of the attractions. As I said previously, the theory may possibly be correct about the original development of attractions in many men, but that doesn’t mean you can become a kid again and develop a different way.
“Lots of people have low self image and they all do not turn out gay”
Yes. Be careful not to fall for the logical fallacy that a model must work identically in all cases to be correct in any cases. For example, one boy might deal with low gender self-image by trying to earn the respect of his peers through power/money/daring/chasing after chicks in a beefed-up car. Another might find himself trying to “own” the other boys through attractions, which become sexual. It will depend on experiences and on the personality of the individual (which might be the most that biology affects attraction).
“My own view is that the ex-gay moment is grasping at straws trying to undo the effects of new knowledge into sexuality (i.e. Homosexuality might be a part of nature and doesn’t appear to be something that needs fixing).”
Exactly what do you mean by a “part of nature”? That seems very vague. Are we talking about genetics? Hormones? You propose avoiding the study of non-biological causes because there’s evidence that there’s a link between some biological traits and homosexuality? It’s obvious that biology affects sensitivity and gender-nonconforming traits, so why rule out the possibility that learned experience also has a large influence?
And, in any case, even if homosexually turned out to be TOTALLY pre-programmed before the human grows larger than one cell, don’t you think the “ex-gay” people would just declare that it’s still a negative thing, like hereditary deafness or colour-blindness?
I feel that a lot of the research in this area is being done by VERY non-objective researchers, on both sides.
“My own view is that the scriptures that people are using to condemn the action are being taken out of context and the reason why people are cling to scripture is because there is a great fear of homosexuality”
I agree that some of the scriptures are being taken out of context. I also agree that some people cling to scriptures out of prejudice and fear. And I definitely agree that people have used scripture to support lots of dodgy things in the past. So, that’s it, there must be nothing to it! We can lump them all into a nice neat box of fundamentalists and bigots!
Personally, I used to be “pro-gay” in my belief, but I was challenged to rethink it one more time, and I realised I had a lot of pride that was making me lash out at anyone who disagreed with me on this issue.
I won’t launch into a scriptural discussion, but just say that I think the Bible says heaps about sex and gender, in many different parts, far beyond the few verses that people associate with this issue.
Besides the scriptural stuff, it also occurred to me that the idea that someone’s life experiences of gender and sex will NOT affect their attractions growing up, that each person’s feelings were pre-programmed from conception, is ridiculous. It just seems so simplistic and deterministic! We’re talking about human beings here.
trevize,
First of all, I must say that you are obviously a thinking person and I enjoy having a chance to engage with you at this level. Unlike adversarial encounters, I believe we can both get something out of this.
To your latest response:
“I can’t say that I see beliefs the same way you do. I believe there is a truth about our universe and our purpose as human beings, and some people may be closer to it than others. So to put all beliefs in a box and say they’re all wrong seems rather naive to me.”
You did not understand me. when I said that these Christians are full of shit, I did not mean to say that all they believe is wrong. For example, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder” I’m not for a second claiming that the Bible is wrong there.
In addition to the universal truisms in the bible. It is filled with promotions of racism (Ezra 10), slavery, polygamy, women ownership, etc. All these things make me realize that the truth is out there but the Bible is not the vehicle for getting closer to it.
“As a Christian, I should want to do the right things because of my relationship with a God who loves me, not because I’m afraid of going to hell.”
I’d like to challenge you here. Why are you convinced that you need to be a Christian? Would you have been a Christian if you were born in Bangaladesh, or in Yemen? Why do you believe there is a God, rather then consciousness in all things like some eastern philosophes claim?
“So you think their purpose here is to upset people? Are you sure you’re not paranoid? Regardless of what happens, I don’t think their purpose is to make people upset.”
History is a testament of how the Bible was used to oppress gays, jews and others. Thankfully at this point in Christian history, the Jews are not viewed as evil people (Titus 1:10-14) or Christ killers, therwise the jews would have been facing another inquisition. This is not paranoia. History as well as current events show clearly the nature of the human race when religion goes unchecked.
I know some of these people go around thinking that they’re only doing good. That is just rhethoric believed by the naive. Others know exactly what they’re doing and what their true purpose is. Similar reasonings were used in the past to keep the social order of black slavery, punish interacial relationships (Numbers 25, Numbers 36), and to limit other basic freedoms. It was always to “protect” families, to “save” people, “for the children”
“But again, I don’t see any gay-bashing material in what was given to the kids. I can’t guess at what the parents received. I’m not saying I approve of what this guy did anyway. I just think you guys are over-reacting and condemning.”
The Bible to me is without a doubt gay-bashing. Leviticus 8:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:18-29. Giving that to a gay person is no different than giving a jew a VHS of the Eternal Jew.
Dan
trevize,
A few comments regarding your response to Jason…
I don’t have an issue with “Ex-gays”, straights, or whoever, ponder the possibility that homosexuality is a defect of some sort either physically or psychologically.
As for the whole nature part, I don’t believe any genetic evolution is without it’s intended purpose.
The first monkeys with no tail could have been considered to be defective by an objective observer.
The first wild dogs to seek human companionship could have been considered to be defective by an objective observer.
The first birds to lose their ability to fly could have been considered to be defective by an objective observer.
There is a greater inteligence here and I’m sure homosexuality has it’s purpose as well.
Dan
Hey Dan,
“It is filled with promotions of racism (Ezra 10), slavery, polygamy, women ownership, etc.”
Man, talk about throwing a heap of elephants into the room. I wouldn’t have the space in a book to write a detailed response to all of these points.
I’d say that the Ezra passage is a pretty weak passage to support the general practice of racism, particularly as it is understood in its modern context.
The issue of slavery is even more complex. From what I’ve read, the kind practiced in Ancient times is very different from what we usually imagine (New World slavery), and it may have been more suitable in a society which was yet to establish the kind of civil support, education and workplace systems we now have. I understand that many Bronze Age cultures in the Near East, like the Israelite society, were extremely fragile - hence some penalties that we would consider harsh, and practices that we now consider abhorrent.
Polygamy, I’m not sure if I ever see that as promoted as the preferred situation, merely reported.
Women ownership - I have read that this is a largely misunderstood issue, but there are so many passages it would be difficult to address each one. However, I think the fact that God’s image is described as created male and female sets the tone of equal essential value right from the start.
“Would you have been a Christian if you were born in Bangaladesh, or in Yemen?”
Possibly. Having read the name “Yeshua” might not be necessary. I think it is actually quite difficult to be a true Christian in so-called “Christian” nations. You guys would be the first to agree that such nations are often full of hypocrites and charlatans pretending to be righteous.
“Why do you believe there is a God, rather then consciousness in all things like some eastern philosophes claim?”
To be honest, I haven’t read the Vedhas or the various “Tao”s or many of Confucius’ writings. I am still on this journey, but right now, I find the creator God to be consistent with a universe which has a beginning, and with a community of persons who have the ability to split atoms and ask questions about the first microseconds of the universe, but who also have a spiritual hunger. I am attracted by the idea of grace, not earned, but given. I am amazed by the impact on society brought about by the life, and death, of Jesus.
Your discourse on history is true in many ways. I disagree with Hitler (who was anything but a Christian, according to his writings) just as I disagree with people in modern times who abused nations of people and used them for slave labour, then tried to use scripture to justify it. Being black is something out of your control. Being a woman is also something out of your control.
Having same-sex attractions, while you may or may not be born with them, is also something out of your control. What you do with them, if we believe in free will, is something that IS in your control.
“The Bible to me is without a doubt gay-bashing. Leviticus 8:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:18-29. Giving that to a gay person is no different than giving a jew a VHS of the Eternal Jew.”
There is much to say about reading things out of context, so, yes there is a danger in just giving someone a book and expecting them to just get the right message first time.
I think the Bible says nothing of orientation or the gay “identity”. As such, it bashes no person with same-sex attractions, though it does condemn some behaviours (and quite harshly in Leviticus, though this also condemns a lot of things which I no longer believe are to be condemned in our society).
The problem, as I see it, is people’s inability to separate the actions from the person. Gay-haters do it, when they send hate mail against people made in God’s image, and pro-gay people do it when they refuse to accept love without the additional approval of their actions.
If I could say this, I was a Christian for a long time before I started to believe that having sex with men was not God’s best plan for me. Do I believe God hated me at that time? That he wanted to send me to hell? No. Do I believe he hated me BEFORE I began to take Christ seriously? That he wanted to send me to hell then? No. One of the lynchpins of Christianity is that God so LOVED the world…
Imagine I smoke, and I am a Christian (I am not equating same-sex sex with nicotine). Does this mean I’m not saved? Does it mean that God hates me? Should people at “church” avoid me and send me hate mail? No, but I believe it means that God still has to bring me to the point where I can lay down something that is against His will for my life. I believe also that my brothers and sisters in Christ are charged with the duty to love me regardless, to encourage me, and to rebuke me if that is the right thing to do at the time.
trevize,
“From what I’ve read, the kind practiced in Ancient times is very different from what we usually imagine (New World slavery), and it may have been more suitable in a society which was yet to establish the kind of civil support, education and workplace systems we now have.”
There are plenty apologetic excuses for what is in the Bible. How about this one? Exodus 21:20-21
“Polygamy, I’m not sure if I ever see that as promoted as the preferred situation, merely reported.”
This sounds like promotion to me: 2 Samuel 12:8
“You guys would be the first to agree that such nations are often full of hypocrites and charlatans pretending to be righteous.”
Absolutely! when have you last heard of Christians actively looking to deny the rights of adulterers, divorcees, those who don’t keep the fourth commandment (keeping the Sabbath Holy)?
“To be honest, I haven’t read the Vedhas or the various “Tao”s or many of Confucius’ writings. I am still on this journey…”
Be careful, such freedom of choice might be deadly: Deuteronomy 13:6-9
“I think the Bible says nothing of orientation or the gay “identity”. As such, it bashes no person with same-sex attractions, though it does condemn some behaviours (and quite harshly in Leviticus, though this also condemns a lot of things which I no longer believe are to be condemned in our society). ”
So which parts of Leviticus do you discard? Why do you accept that you should not have a fullfiling sexual relationship with another man, yet you eat shellfish? (I assume)
“I believe also that my brothers and sisters in Christ are charged with the duty to love me regardless, to encourage me, and to rebuke me if that is the right thing to do at the time.”
I’ve been with my partner in a loving monogamous relationship for over 10 years. If any Christians attempt to rebuke me. I will rebuke them right back. If any Christians try to force their selective morality on me, I will expose their hypocracy loudly and clearly. If any Christians tries to fix the laws of the land to deny me equal rights, I will fight them using all means neccessary.
Dan
Dan,
I can see that you’re some kind of well-versed scripture debater, and I am not a well-versed apologist, so I think you’re going to be out of my league in this case. I suggest you find a good apologetics site if you want some better answers to your questions. I’m a little wierded out that you use the KJV though!
“There are plenty apologetic excuses for what is in the Bible. How about this one? Exodus 21:20-21″
This discussion mentions: “Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word ‘property’ might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…”
I said before that I think a kind of “slavery” might have been suitable or even appropriate for the society at the time. It is probably unsuitable now given what we have done in social security and other protections.
“This sounds like promotion to me: 2 Samuel 12:8″
Um… exactly what do you think would have happened in this society to these wives without a husband to take care of them? Many societies (like tribes in Papua New Guinea) still have polygamy because of so many male deaths in tribal wars and the advantages in protecting the status and dignity of the extra women. The question is, is this the IDEAL situation?
“Be careful, such freedom of choice might be deadly: Deuteronomy 13:6-9″
To me, this verse seems to be talking about SERVING other gods. While it was directed in a specific sense to the nation of Israel at the time, I think it does have relevance today. Such happens in a less literal sense when I worship at the altar of IKEA furniture or Nike sportswear, or perhaps if I bowed down before a many-armed Vishnu, having known the living God, though that would depend on what Vishnu represented to me. I notice most of your quotes are from the Pentateuch, but I presume you’ve heard the full story (you might call it an “excuse”) regarding the relationship between the original Israelite covenant and the covenant of grace in Christ.
“So which parts of Leviticus do you discard? Why do you accept that you should not have a fullfiling sexual relationship with another man, yet you eat shellfish? (I assume)”
I’m more convinced by the verses in Romans, etc, and Christ’s teachings (”a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife”) among others. I don’t *discard* any of Leviticus since I believe the Law can be useful in telling us about God’s heart, but I do try to see it all in light of the new covenant. For example, Christ declared at one point that he did not come to abolish the law, and Paul regards it very highly, yet both seemed to declare that avoiding eating different foods like shellfish is not the POINT, not in the spirit of the Law, and most gentile Christians seemed free to do this.
The Law is not a topic I’ve studied a great deal. I understand that there are moral laws which are seen to have a universal value and purity laws which are more specific to the nation of Israel at the time.
I don’t treat Leviticus as a rulebook that prevents me from having sex with another man, although it may form part of my understanding of how God sees men and women, and sex. I am interested in the purpose behind such strictures for Ancient Israel, if those strictures were inspired by, or came from, God.
“I’ve been with my partner in a loving monogamous relationship for over 10 years. If any Christians attempt to rebuke me. I will rebuke them right back.”
That’s your prerogative I guess. I would hope that love would be the first priority, though sadly it isn’t for many people who want to change the world.
“If any Christians try to force their selective morality on me, I will expose their hypocracy loudly and clearly.”
That sounds good actually! As long as they are truly being hypocritical.
I like what you said about adulterers and divorcees. Many people calling themselves Christians seem to have double standards, seeing homosexuality as the ultimate sin, while ignoring the over-sexed, anything-goes culture that “straight” persons have wrought. I too would like to say: “First see the plank in your own eye”. Who can campaign against “Queer eye for the straight guy” when there are shows like “Temptation Island”, when billboards and advertisements make beautiful people into objects of lust for the purpose of making money?It’s ridiculous.
“If any Christians tries to fix the laws of the land to deny me equal rights, I will fight them using all means neccessary.”
Yeah, I’m opposed to these laws too. Dubya is definitely not my hero.
trevize,
Ah I do not propose the abandonment of the study of all non-biological causes of homosexuality but then again I wouldn’t rank non-biological causes equally with biological causes. There is much too much evidence pointing at biological causes as being very strong causes of homosexuality to be discounted. It is more a case of they strongly suspect biological causes but they just do not have the smoking gun. When I say homosexuality is a part of nature, I mean it is found in just about every animal on earth. It may just be a variation of being human like being left-handed. In humans it may have offered evolutionary advantages to the species as a whole or just be a case of evolutionary imperfection (like the blind spot every person on earth has due to the way eyes work). It appears to pop up too much be to have been a big disadvantage to the species.
They have done studies between homosexuals and straight people concerning things like background and personality traits and found no real differences between gay and straight. A person who has no father is no more likely to be gay than a person who’s father is in the household. Nor do things like molestation seem to be a major factor in homosexuality. A molested person may act out inappropriately but homosexuals as a whole are no more likely to have been molested than heterosexuals as a whole so it doesn’t appear that sexual molestation is a leading cause of homosexuality. It seems that a molested person is just as likely to act out heterosexually or homosexually. There are some weak links between homosexuality and birth order but that is just about it. As for homosexuality and self-esteem I really do not see how wanting to have a relationship that is not supported by the society would fix a self-esteem issue. I can see how sex and self esteem could be tied together (i.e. people with low self esteem may be more promiscuous) but I don’t see it affecting attraction (i.e. You are just as likely to heterosexual and promiscuous as homosexually promiscuous as to do anything else)
I like psychology as a science but like many sciences psychology has it’s dark moments. A good example may be asthma. My grandmother was once told by a teacher not to give in to my mom’s asthma attacks because there was a well accepted psychological theory that stated that asthma could be considered psychological whenever all allgerins were removed.( I.e. if you get rid of the horsehair couch and the child has an asthma attack then it is psychological. ) Well now we know enough about immunology to know that getting rid of all possible allergins is impossible and you may even become allergic to things you were not previously allergic to. Lucky my grandma didn’t buy it. Image the amount of guilt and wasted time that theory based on inadequate knowledge caused. Yes there is a psychological component to asthma as there is to many diseases. You might be more likely to have an attack when you are feeling down but don’t expect that being happy rules out having an attack.
You are right the bible says nothing about orientation because the idea is a 19th century idea and that is why the King James Version does not contain the word homosexual (it had not been invented yet). It appears that before that time homosexuality was a bit more like adultery or drunkenness something anyone could be given to do not just some special group of people. I.e. everyone has about equal chance to break the rule. In fact that is what is causing the church a moral problem. The writers of the bible didn’t foresee that. You can’t exactly condemn someone for doing something they are attracted to or praise someone for not doing something they are not attracted to and the offer of a monogamous heterosexual relationship is not appealing(or perhaps even a good idea) to the supposedly sinning party. What to do? Ask them to change? Ask them not to do it? Or treat them the same as heterosexuals accepting some of their relationships but not all.
There are different Christian views of homosexuality. One view is that being homosexual in and of it self is not wrong but having homosexual sex is. I.e. thinking a guy is cute is just fine but doing anything with the guy is wrong. Only trouble with this view is that capacity for celibacy seems to be rather rare. Most people want a relationship and not just for sex. Last time I checked falling in love is a leading cause of people leaving the priesthood.
Another view is just thinking a guy is cute may land you in hell if you don’t repent the sin and promise not to repeat it. The only trouble with this view is if you are homosexual you are going to be thinking guys are cute (and perhaps doing more) often and promising to sin no more might be an empty promise. This view is too unrealistic and controlling.
A some what more liberal views are that homosexuality is a sin it might not be a great one. The only trouble with that view is if it is not a great one then are we permitting minor sins? How far should we allow it? Should the church congratulate you and your partner on your anniversary or should they give silent condemnation?
A liberal view is that what happened in the bible (i.e. homosexual sex acts in religious worship, prostitution, and rape) is not what is going on today(two loving commited partners). In which the question becomes which homosexual relationships to accept and which not to accept. I take this view.
Hey jason,
Thanks for stating your case. I’ve probably held all the views you espoused there at some time or another.
“There is much too much evidence pointing at biological causes as being very strong causes of homosexuality to be discounted.”
Yes, I would not discount that biology plays a part, though how much?
“When I say homosexuality is a part of nature, I mean it is found in just about every animal on earth.”
Now hang on a minute. This would depend greatly on how you define homosexuality. If you define it as emotional as well as physical, then I think you’ll have trouble showing it happening in animals. I think animals learn to repeat pleasurable experiences and are often “confused” about what their instincts are telling them to do. They also do things to express dominance or to diffuse tension. I would not define this as “homosexuality”, the 19th century concept you’re talking about. I see big problems with applying the behaviours of animals to the psycho-social experiences of humans.
“They have done studies between homosexuals and straight people concerning things like background and personality traits and found no real differences between gay and straight.”
I’ve already said that the response to life experiences will depend on the personality and other inborn traits of the individual being affected. We’re talking about complex interactions between the experiences and the personality.
“I can see how sex and self esteem could be tied together (i.e. people with low self esteem may be more promiscuous) but I don’t see it affecting attraction (i.e. You are just as likely to heterosexual and promiscuous as homosexually promiscuous as to do anything else)”
I guess that’s where we differ. You seem to see attraction as some genetic switch, which once set will come out that way regardless of experiences. I don’t. We know from fetishes that physical erotic reactions can grow from all sorts of things.
Recently we have seen the emotional side of this issue, that many men desire a deeply emotional relationship with another man, besides the sex. Indeed, this emotional craving may be the fuel behind the physical one. (By this I mean that without the emotional craving, the physical one might be indistinguishable from an inconvenient fetish). I believe it may be possible for those emotional needs to be met.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the Asthma thing. I’m not talking about current psychological trauma vs disease, but events which took place during development of sexuality.
“The writers of the bible didn’t foresee that. You can’t exactly condemn someone for doing something they are attracted to or praise someone for not doing something they are not attracted to and the offer of a monogamous heterosexual relationship is not appealing(or perhaps even a good idea) to the supposedly sinning party.”
I agree that you can’t condemn the person. As for their actions, I’m not sure if that’s the case. Take someone who has a propensity to gambling, whether genetic or otherwise. Are you saying I can’t criticise their actions and try to help them to change them?
I agree that the offer of marriage to a woman is, for the most part, unappealing to me, but I don’t think the Bible declares that all must marry. Paul even suggested that singleness could be a better alternative in one of his letters. Why should we feel that we must get everything our feelings drive us to?
“One view is that being homosexual in and of it self is not wrong but having homosexual sex is.”
I guess I probably hold to this view.
“Only trouble with this view is that capacity for celibacy seems to be rather rare. Most people want a relationship and not just for sex.”
This is where I get a little frustrated. What’s with this cookie-cutter mould that everyone has to find that “special someone” and live happily ever after? Frankly I don’t see that in the life of Christ, Paul, or indeed many of the New Testament figures. Yet the modern church promotes it like EVERYONE has to do it.
It’s like we’re saying it’s impossible to have intimate and satisfying relationships with friends, and without romance and sex. Too bad for the people crippled below the waist huh?
The problem I see here is disintegration of a loving community. Since the early 20th century we’ve had this idea that a couple gets married and goes off to make a nice nuclear family behind a white picket fence. And if you don’t fit the mould, you just replace the wife/husband with a same-sex partner. Frankly, I don’t think this is how human community is meant to be.
Also arguing from what people want has problems. A lot of people would want more than one sexual relationship at a time if they felt it was right to do so. They would say, “Hey I’m programmed this way, to spread my seed”. Does that mean we give them the go-ahead?
“Another view is just thinking a guy is cute may land you in hell if you don’t repent the sin and promise not to repeat it.”
I probably wouldn’t agree with this view as it is defined here.
“A liberal view is that what happened in the bible (i.e. homosexual sex acts in religious worship, prostitution, and rape) is not what is going on today(two loving commited partners). In which the question becomes which homosexual relationships to accept and which not to accept. I take this view. ”
From this, I assume that you take the interpretation of Romans 1 as referring only to religious prostitution. Personally, I think that’s stretching it a bit, but I know that some well-known theologians argue this.
Paul lived in Ancient Greece and Rome. I really think he would have seen same-sex partners who, besides having sex, probably loved eachother. I think his issue is that seeing all this conflicted greatly with his mindset, where YHWH created an order and purpose for the universe and for male and female. I’m not talking about legalism here, but an underlying concept of gender, its sacredness and how it reflects God.
So yes, a same-sex couple who love and care for eachother has more good, in my mind, than a same-sex couple who are just doing it for the sex. But that doesn’t make it right.
trevize,
“I can see that you’re some kind of well-versed scripture debater, and I am not a well-versed apologist, so I think you’re going to be out of my league in this case. I suggest you find a good apologetics site if you want some better answers to your questions. I’m a little wierded out that you use the KJV though!”
I am learning as I go and yes I do debate apologists on other sites. As for using KJV, it actually serves a purpose, to demonstrate that scriptures can not be trusted as they have been perverted(?) to serve different people ideas, prejudices and interests. How can you trust the gospel (given orally for many decades before being written) to be accurate?
“This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word ‘property’ might mean in such a context!”
I hope that other readers of this discussion will read Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV Version, KJV Version) and judge for themself. Questioning what propery means reminds me a little bit of Bill Clinton questioning what the meaning of “is” is.
“Um… exactly what do you think would have happened in this society to these wives without a husband to take care of them?”
Atleast we agree that the scriptures do not condemn Polygamy (right?). Christians are the ones to throw polygamy at our face as the next step in a slippery slope of immorality. Evil people these Christians are!
“I’m more convinced by the verses in Romans, etc, and Christ’s teachings (”a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife”) among others. I don’t *discard* any of Leviticus since I believe the Law can be useful in telling us about God’s heart”
Romans 1:18-29, does not preclude you from having a loving moral sexual relationship with another man! …as long as you don’t “degrade your body”, have “shameful lusts”, be “inflamed with lust”, do “indecent acts”, or get “filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity”
After all, all these things are true for straight people as well. Don’t you think?
“I do try to see it all in light of the new covenant. For example, Christ declared at one point that he did not come to abolish the law, and Paul regards it very highly, yet both seemed to declare that avoiding eating different foods like shellfish is not the POINT, not in the spirit of the Law”
This is Christian double-talk. So did he or didn’t he abolish the law? Do you keep the Sabbath holy?? Or is the Fourth Commandment just for the Jews?
“The Law is not a topic I’ve studied a great deal. I understand that there are moral laws which are seen to have a universal value and purity laws which are more specific to the nation of Israel at the time.”
We have all these interpretations by so-called bible scholars that supposedly tell us what things mean (moral laws vs. purity laws). Does the Bible tell us to keep such distinctions? Or is it the bible “scholars” ideas? Jewish Bible scholars have “explained” the Bible for thousands of years and came up with a twisted work of hate called the Talmud. The same book Neo-Nazis and other Jew-haters use to “expose” the evil of Jews.
“That’s your prerogative I guess. I would hope that love would be the first priority, though sadly it isn’t for many people who want to change the world.”
No matter what I do, it will be with more love than religions, religious people and religious texts have shown to those opposing them.
“That sounds good actually! As long as they are truly being hypocritical.”
Show me a Christian who protests gay rights who isn’t hypocritical!
It is sad that you chose to give up on having a fullfilling relationship with a man for some questionable religious doctrine. It is your life. I hope for your sake that you will never wake up one day and wish that you have lived your life differently.
Dan
Trevize:
I do try to see it all in light of the new covenant. For example, Christ declared at one point that he did not come to abolish the law, and Paul regards it very highly, yet both seemed to declare that avoiding eating different foods like shellfish is not the POINT, not in the spirit of the Law
Trev, you’re right that Christ has stated that he is there to fufill the law, but that hardly implies that He hasn’t changed the law. Paul in Galatians 5:14, states that what mostly matters to God is that you love and respect yourself as well as your comrades. If you deny and disrespect your nature, that is your sexual orienation, then how can you abide to the law? How does loving and caring for someone of the same sex be disrespectful to yourself? And yes, having sex can be an act of caring and love for another. It’s sad that you even see loving, Christian, same-sex relationships as an act against God despite their intentions. I certainly hope you find fulfillment in your solitude, but do realize that your choice of path is as selfish as the other.
Where do all of these anti-gay people get the idea that gays and lesbians are inherently unhappy?
“Recently we have seen the emotional side of this issue, that many men desire a deeply emotional relationship with another man, besides the sex. Indeed, this emotional craving may be the fuel behind the physical one. (By this I mean that without the emotional craving, the physical one might be indistinguishable from an inconvenient fetish). I believe it may be possible for those emotional needs to be met.”
I agree with you that the emotional needs might be meet, but not the sexual ones. My first relationship was with a girl. Well, I loved her. Liked being with her and had absolutely no desire to do much more than hold hands. Most gay guys who were married to a woman have a very similar experience of being in love with the person but not wanting/enjoying the intimacy with them. I don’t think I ever kissed her in a romantic way or even wanted to kiss her in a romantic way. I have had to restrain myself from the guys. I didn’t have to restrain myself from her.
The trouble with a relationship is that most people expect relationships attempt to fill both a physical craving and an emotional craving. You can certainly find a woman to fulfill your emotional needs but there is the physical problem. If your wife is not attractive to you then you are not going to be inclined to fulfill her desires. You also might feel that your sexual desires are not being met. Instead of an expression of love and intimacy sex that helps strengthen the relationship, it may become a chore if it is done at all.
This might not be a bad situation if both parties are not expecting much in the way of sex in the relationship. Marriages are built out of more than just sex. However most people expect that their marriage would have a certain amount of sexual intimacy in them and if one party does not find the other attractive then there may be an issue.
The other issue is temptation. I don’t expect that having a commit relationship would remove all temptation. People commit too much adultery for this to be true. However starting a relationship with a woman when honestly you would much rather have sex with a guy sounds like intentionally stranding yourself on Temptation Island. You want something your wife can not provide (i.e. look like a guy) and to be honest to her you can not do the thing that you want (have sex with a guy). It takes more will power to monogamous in a relationship where you do not find the other party attractive than to be monogamous in one where you do. I can certainly manage monogamy with a guy. However monogamy with a woman would be a much harder bargain.
I agree with you that celibacy is an option. I disagree with the idea that it is the only moral option. Like any situation celibacy has it’s advantages and its disadvantages. Some people may find it more appealing than others may. Heck even I have decided not to date for a while from time to time for various reasons. The trouble with mandating life long celibacy for all is well not everyone wants to be celibate or even is able to be celibate. It is sort of a double standard. Heterosexuals can get married if they do not find celibacy appealing or if despite their plans they fall in love. Homosexuals can not. I have yet to see a church kick someone out the church for bringing a heterosexual relationship to the church. However if you are a homosexual you have to debate if you want to bring your relationship to church even if you are not currently having sex.
If someone should want to be celibate I can understand the appeal (it a lot simpler) and I agree I do not think that being in a relationship will make you whole or you will find your other half. However people on average don’t seem very good at staying single. No matter how bad the breakup or even worse divorce most people bounce back and start looking for another mate. No matter how much sense it would make for people to remain celibate, they don’t. I don’t think it is just a sexual thing. People who are crippled bellow the waste have relationships or get married all the time. There is something about human nature that abhors being alone.
As for Romans 1, it seems to state the punishment for unfaithfulness is homosexuality. In other words homosexuality was the punishment not the sin. The sin was unfaithfulness.
21″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. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. ”
Sounds like the people whom Paul is talking about are pagans. Pagans worship images of mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles. In fact the bible forbids making graven images of God or having any graven imagines in the church (Don’t tell the Catholics).
Most homosexuals do not worship images of mortal man, birds, animals, and reptiles. You might have thought a guy was cute but you didn’t go over create a statue of him and call it a god like Hadrian and Antinous.
Here “24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” and here “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts” It sounds like God is punishing them. In other words God gave them homosexual desires for worshipping idols. The sexual desires do not seem to originally come from or belong to the other party and even if they do it does not sound like God is some inactive innocent third party he is allowing something to happen at best and more likely causing it. There were pagan rituals that involved sex acts some of them heterosexual and some of them homosexual in nature. Oh and by the way this is the only part of scripture that even mentions lesbianism (which may be why it is a favorite).
Hey Xeno,
“Paul in Galatians 5:14, states that what mostly matters to God is that you love and respect yourself as well as your comrades.”
Yes, that is what MOSTLY matters to God. Couldn’t agree more. I think this issue is actually quite small next to the million-and-one other things that are wrong with the world. I hinted at that when I talked about what “straight” people have done with the gift of sexuality.
“If you deny and disrespect your nature, that is your sexual orienation, then how can you abide to the law?”
And who says this is my nature? Isn’t that what we just said was undecided?
“How does loving and caring for someone of the same sex be disrespectful to yourself? And yes, having sex can be an act of caring and love for another.”
But sex is also more than that. Yes, it can be an act of caring and love. That is so true! But I believe it also represents more, IS more. That is where my problem lies.
“It’s sad that you even see loving, Christian, same-sex relationships as an act against God despite their intentions.”
I think the loving part is awesome. I wish more “straight” guys cared for eachother as much as some same-sex couples do.
Zip,
I don’t remember saying that.
Hey Dan,
I’m concerned here that we’ll probably just end up polarising our own opinions. I must say that I think you come across as having a disdain for that broad group of people which you call “religious”. Something that’s been very big for me in my journey is the importance of humility. It’s actually one of the biggest themes in the Bible (bigger even than homosexuality!!
sarcasm there!). God constantly says how he will uplift the lowly and bring down those who are prideful. And Jesus seems to echo that in his sermon on the mount. Even from Genesis, I see a profound rebuttle to the predominant model of one big man, or men, on top of the heap (like Pharaoh).
Instead of temples to gods and goddesses who created humans to do their dirty work, with idols inside, we have a “temple” being made, part by part, filled with wonders, and finally HUMANS placed inside as His image. Only the flesh image of the Almighty: no representations of metal, wood and stone, are allowed (many Romans thought that the Jews were atheists because there were no idols or statues). He lifts up a nation of slaves, the nothings, the little people, and blesses them that they might be a blessing, and from them will come something amazing and it has. In the NT, this upside-downness becomes even more challenging, as Christ becomes a servant to his disciples, washes their feet.
To be honest, compared with the value of God, and hence of precious human lives, I don’t care much about what sex we’re attracted to. Love matters so much more.
“As for using KJV, it actually serves a purpose, to demonstrate that scriptures can not be trusted as they have been perverted(?) to serve different people ideas, prejudices and interests. How can you trust the gospel (given orally for many decades before being written) to be accurate?”
That’s another question that would take a book to answer. I studied Ancient History in my final two years of high school, and it seemed to me that you can get closer and closer to the truth, even with ancient texts that have an obvious bias (like the writings of Roman historians). By checking them against eachother, and against the known events of the time, and things like archaelogical evidence, you can come up with some idea as to where things are accurate and where things are fanciful fiction. As you know, there’s a broad spectrum of Christian and secular opinion on the early church and on the life of Jesus. I guess it’s not perfect, but at least they’re having a go.
“I hope that other readers of this discussion will read Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV Version, KJV Version) and judge for themself. Questioning what propery means reminds me a little bit of Bill Clinton questioning what the meaning of “is” is.”
Well personally, I would hope people would know that the Bible can’t be read like a newspaper printed yesterday. You can’t just pick out a couple of verses with words that rub us up the wrong way for the shock value of it.
Mr Clinton lives in our culture, is aware of the nuances and context, and what words mean. The article I linked discusses how the word choice of “property” is contextually bound. We think of the word as objectifying, something which demands the EXCLUSION of the person’s humanity. From what I’ve read, I don’t think this is how it was. In the Ancient Near East, people usually became slaves voluntarily (not because of eg. war). I know for sure that Roman slaves could OWN things. Can “property”, as we usually view it, own things?
“Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves.” Seen in this light, it is not a “low” for the Ancient Near East, but an example of an affirmation of the HUMANITY of slaves. The Israelites of all people would have known that.
I know it’s not a perfect situation, and it’s probably a good thing that it grates with our mindset now. Our modern social structures promote the value of individual rights and freedom very highly, but it’s taken a long time to get to this point.
“Atleast we agree that the scriptures do not condemn Polygamy (right?). Christians are the ones to throw polygamy at our face as the next step in a slippery slope of immorality.”
Perhaps not condemn, but I think, like other situations, it’s suggested strongly that it’s not the ideal.
“Romans 1:18-29, does not preclude you from having a loving moral sexual relationship with another man!”
Jason’s post talks about this. I’ll post something in my response to him.
“This is Christian double-talk. So did he or didn’t he abolish the law? Do you keep the Sabbath holy?? Or is the Fourth Commandment just for the Jews?”
Those are good questions. I don’t think he abolished the law, but that would depend on how you view the law - as a rulebook or as an instruction for the community of humans. We sometimes assume, for example, that the 10 commandments were like a modern legal document, brought out and rigidly applied to each case. I think the reality was that there were judges who applied grace and mercy in the treatment of cases. Summaries like the 10 Commandments were useful for instruction on values.
The kind of double-talk you’re talking about wasn’t just introduced with Christ. Isaiah talked about how God wanted justice over sacrifices. Perhaps legalists said to him, “Hey! It says it right here on the papyrus that we’re supposed to do this sacrifice each season! We can’t spend the money on helping the widows and orphans!”
When you ask if I keep the Sabbath holy, do you ask if I prepare toilet paper in single sheets the day before so that I don’t have to tear them on the Sabbath? The answer to that would be no. But I see the value in a day devoted to rest and to God. Jesus got in trouble for healing people on the Sabbath, and he said something that might have shocked, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
It looks like he was saying that we need to get over this concept that God made a bunch of laws and then made some humans to follow them.
“No matter what I do, it will be with more love than religions, religious people and religious texts have shown to those opposing them.”
Honestly, that’s a very worthy goal. Religious people have done bad stuff. There were also monks who healed and cared for enemies of the king during the middle ages. And there are christian aid organisations operating in hostile countries right now. I’m sorry your experience of “religious people” has been so exclusively negative. Honestly I am. I don’t know what else to say.
“I hope for your sake that you will never wake up one day and wish that you have lived your life differently.”
Thanks, I hope you make choices you won’t regret too. I think we’re always going to have things that we’ll look back on and want to change. Already I’m thinking I could have done some things differently when I was younger!
Jason,
“The trouble with a relationship is that most people expect relationships attempt to fill both a physical craving and an emotional craving. You can certainly find a woman to fulfill your emotional needs but there is the physical problem.”
Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying here, but I wasn’t really talking about the kind of needs women can fulfill. In the old days, people had this idea that the “cure” for homosexuality was to find a gorgeous girl and marry her. She’d soon turn you straight! It seems now that people are starting to see that the focus is really on the same sex. So the kind of emotions I’m talking about are the need for affirmation, love, the sharing of joy with other men.
“if one party does not find the other attractive then there may be an issue.”
Absolutely!
&