Ex-Gay Watch

David, my point is that you can’t teach children to follow any big traditional religion and shield them from the religious idea that they risk hell if they don’t get it just right, and who amongst us (especially children) expects perfection from themselves? I don’t take it you’re agreeing with the implication I was trying to make that children should not be exposed to religion.

Randi,
This really is so off-topic….but….since I have children, and, like David, I’m a Christian, I’ll quickly tell you how we deal with that.

Yes, there are those within my church who have put the notion in my boys’ head that you should be Christian to escape hell. It’s only been a big issue for one of them…the more sensitive, creative one. And yes, it does upset me when he comes home from Bible class asking questions revealing that someone’s taught him something which has evoked that sort of fear in him.

We just refute this line of thinking point blank and talk to him about it. We are not teaching him to follow a religion…we’re teaching him to follow Christ. You’re right, religion is faulty. Oh well. I got past it and I know my children will be able to as well.

The fact that children inherently understand the golden rule from a very young age points me to belief in a creator who instilled this in his creation. It doesn’t do that for you. Okay.

I sound hostile. I don’t mean to. Just my thoughts.

grace

See for me Grace the fact that children know the golden rule from a very young age points to us being evolved to cooperate with each other instinctively to enhance the overall survivability of the group. And gays being evolved for the same purpose even though they may not personally have offspring. I wish I could be true to myself without differing with you, but to me following Christ is religion. A public discussion is fine, but if you’d prefer to differ in private (in detail please) you can email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net

Nope. I’m done.
grace

It can be very confusing when so many people claim the mantle of “Christianity” and yet demonstrate such different attitudes. Fortunately, Christ told us how to identify his followers: they showed love for others. Let me use examples from this thread to show the difference in a “Christian” who follows Christ and one who, well, doesn’t quite meet the criterion:

grace at March 17, 2006 07:52 PM:

“…like David, I’m a Christian…”

Showing respect for another’s identity as Christian.

Christinewjc at March 16, 2006 12:56 PM:

“Yours tends toward the secular-humanistic, morally relativistic realm while mine is geared towards the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible”

An, um, slightly different approach.

grace at March 17, 2006 07:52 PM:

“It doesn’t do that for you. Okay.

I sound hostile. I don’t mean to. Just my thoughts.”

Showing humility, courtesy, and grace.

Christinewjc at March 17, 2006 11:21 AM:

“…far worse things were often said to and about me. It comes with the territory. Jesus told his followers to expect it!”

Showing, um, something else.

While both Grace and Christine (the anti-gay one) probably are in closer agreement over the interpretation and application of certain scriptures than either are with me, it seems to me that they are worlds apart when it comes to applying the message of love and grace brought by Christ.

While I don’t wish to judge as to whether either or both are truly followers of Christ, I will say that in applying Christ’s rules about determining who speaks in His name, I will be far more accepting of what Grace may have to say than I would Christine’s admonitions.

Christine (the anti-gay one)

“One cannot be released from the bondage of any sin until he/she realizes that what they are doing is sin.”

You are making an assumption that is in error and which discounts your entire position. You make no distinction between being a gay person and the performance of certain sexual activities. You simply classify everything as “sin”. Let’s separate the pieces and perhaps you will have a better understanding:

A gay person. Homosexual. Same-sex attracted. Generally this refers to someone who finds someone of the same sex to be emotionally and sexually appealing. There is debate as to whether the origins of attraction (and the sex to which it is directed) are pre-birth or have a basis that occurs after birth, yet all credible sources agree that this is not resulting from a conscious decision – it’s not originally a choice. There is no scripture that supports the condition of being attracted to the same sex as sinful.

Sexually active. The gay community does not have a term that distinguishes between gay people that are sexually active and those that are not. Nor is there a term that distinguishes between heterosexuals. However, let’s break this down further:

Married. This term raises problems for some conservative Christians. If sexual activity is forbidden “outside marriage”, then for them to condemn monogamous sexual activity within a covenanted relationship the anti-gay position has to be to reject marriage between persons of the same sex as “not true marriage”, regardless whether it is legal. To do so, Christians can claim that though it may be marriage in the eyes of the state, it is not marriage in the eyes of God.

But this issue is not universally accepted – indeed, some churches recognize marriage that is between persons of the same sex to be covenantal, with or without state recognition. Some theologians find sex within such a marriage to be in accordance with God’s plan, others do not. Yet both base their position on Scripture. To claim that those who disagree with you are “secular humanists” is to misunderstand the meaning of the words “secular” and “humanist”.

It can be debated at length as to whether this sexual activity within marriage is sinful – but (without being offensive) I don’t think you have anything original to contribute to that debate.

(On an indirect note, the notion of marriage “in the eyes of God” raises more problems when applied politically. Some Mormons believe that marriage not performed in the Temple is not marriage in the eyes of God. Some Catholics think marriage between divorced people is not marriage in the eyes of God. Many churches believe that mixed-faith marriage is not marriage in the eyes of God. It is truly inconsistent to deny civil recognition of gay marriage based on this standard.)

Promiscuity. I think most Christians would agree that a sexually promiscuous life is outside God’s ideal plan, regardless of the sex of the persons involved. Yet a Christian that condemns sex between persons of the same sex more than persons of opposite sex is demonstrating a bias not supported by Scripture. It’s fine to say “they’re both sin” but if you only post your objection to same-sex activity and never seem to post about opposite sex activity, you are inconsistent and are demonstrating that it is not the sin that you find offensive but rather the nature of the sinner. Though you may claim that both sins are equal, it’s clear that you don’t think both sinners are equal.

Lesbian. This is difficult for anti-gay Christians. Other than an indirect reference about certain women going against their nature, there is no reference to sexuality between women in the Bible. There certainly isn’t a direct prohibition against such activity. So any application to lesbians is only by extension and that’s not a very strong basis to apply such strong condemnation.

Ex-Gay. There seems to be two camps of this particular group:

Reoriented Ex-Gays. These are people who were once homosexual in orientation and are now are heterosexual in orientation. Yet sin does not seem to come into the equation. There is no scripture that supports any differentiation in regards to sin between a gay person and an ex-gay person in regards to whom they are attracted to.

Political Ex-Gays. These are people who have no change in attraction, but choose to leave a “homosexual lifestyle”.

Homosexual Lifestyle. This term is found exclusively in anti-gay language and does not seem to have an equivalent term inside either the gay community or the common community. It seems to be determined solely by whether or not one believes that gay persons should have equal treatment under law and whether or not one seeks either a relationship with someone of the same sex. Yet it is consistently described in terms of promiscuity. It is a bit confused.

It seems to be, as best as can be determined, as an attitude, an acceptance of a position, and is not in any way related to whether or not one engages in sexual activity. For example, a person that considers himself to be gay and has some sort of gay social setting but who is waiting to marry Mr. Right before sex (or chooses to live celibate) would still be considered to be living a “homosexual lifestyle”. And within the anti-gay ex-gay community, this “homosexual lifestyle” is the “burden of sin” that is overcome. Yet there is no Scripture that condemns such an attitude, person, or activity (to the extent it is non-sexual).

Even within the condemnation of sexual activity, only certain sexual acts are condemned while others are not. So to apply the term “sin” to activity that is not forbidden seems to be arbitrary. For example, there is not Scripture that forbids oral sex between persons of the same sex.

So, Christine, when you say that “One cannot be released from the bondage of any sin until he/she realizes that what they are doing is sin.”, what exactly are you talking about?

Specifically, is a monogamous couple living in covenant of their church “doing” sin?

Is a promiscuous lesbian “doing” sin?

Is oral sex “doing” sin? How about oral sex between married heterosexuals?

Is a celibate gay man or woman “doing” sin?

Christine, your position is not well thought out (or at least not well articulated) and it is, frankly, arrogant to come to this site assuming that the position of the people here is somehow based on ignorance about sin. It is your position that is based on ignorance and fuzzy thinking. I’m quite certain that nearly everyone here has spent far more time on this issue than you.