Ex-Gay Watch

Ben, I see more “church hurt” accusations coming my way, and I will admit nothing annoys me more than someone making light of my personal relationship with God, and trivialize my existance. As much as I do believe in building bridges, it is by no means an easy task when someone like Greg devalues my commitment, and many others, to Christ as who we are.

I absolutely agree with you on that.

As I wrote to Greg: “If you cannot understand that we are far more alike than we are different, then we have no basis for communication. What you have argued is that your holy book and your belief in G say that we are NOT just like you.”

Greg comes here comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, talks down to us IN ALL CAPS, and then apologizes to himsef on our behalf (citing our “church hurt”) for taking offense at his posts.

I would guess that if he isn’t posting here from prison that he probably knows the difference between consensual sex and rape, but he can’t bring himself to see the difference between consensual sex between free adults and child rape and sexual abuse.

I told Greg up-post that he and I did not believe in the same God. I could never believe in a God that was so petty as to be caught up in the anti-gay bigotry and hatred that consumes the lives of so many humans who claim to be religious. The God that I believe in can see into every nuance of every situation. He can see infinite shades of gray between black and white without being afraid of any hue. He can see the prostitute who has been enslaved by her pimp and forced to sell her body on the streets as the victim that she is, rather than the one deserving of punishment.

As I have gotten older (I am in my 40′s), I have been able to see how much more complex some things can be that seemed so black and white when I was a kid. We’ll never reach the maturity and understanding of God, but we at least owe it to ourselves to keep our eyes open and try to learn a little about the lives of others as we make our way through this world.

Hello, again, everyone. I know I last posted that I was done commenting, but it seems my last post caused more animosity than conciliation and closure.

A few last comments…

Ben -
I most directly apologize to you, because it may have seemed like an attack when I said you twisted my response. I was simply saying that you re-stated my definition of my heterosexuality as if I was saying it WASN’T primarily about sex, when I do indeed feel that it is. Of course that in no way precludes you from defining your homosexuality as NOT being primarily about sex.

In truth, yours were the some of the posts I most appreciated because I didn’t feel like you were responding in attack mode (again my apologies for not clearly stating that, and making my only statement to you be one of critique).

I don’t feel that we’re ALL that different. Actually I believe there are vastly more similarities amongst us all, than there are differences – but I am as yet convinced that the subtle difference between those who have accepted the Lorship and salvation of Christ Jesus, and those who haven’t, makes all the “important” difference in the world (and I’m not here to make/lay claim as to who has or who hasn’t done so). Whether or not you still categorize me with your “here today, gone tomorrow, can’t back it up” preacher – is up to you.

Alan -
At this point, I don’t know what to say. I’m convinced that you’ve DECIDED to be offended (and I didn’t realize that all CAPS was condescending, but rather used for emphasis – a comment in response to John, not you). All I was saying was that I refuted a direct statement you made by providing PROOF from an occurence in the passage of scripture that has been so thoroughly analyzed at this point. That full exegesis was simply unnecessary to concede whether or not the identification of sin actually occurred (I’ll never quite understand why people choose to debate facts. We can debate/disagree on the interpretation of them, but the occurrence of the actions is not really something up to debate – either they correctly identified adultery as a sin, or they didn’t… and they DID, where’s the debate, or need for legal determination of their right to condemn, etc. – the question was IDENTIFICATION of sin by someone other than Jesus. Whatever you morphed the question into is something for your own entertainment, or edification, I suppose).

Yuki-
I’m not quite sure where I’ve upset you. You don’t like the fact that in my hypothetical scenario, where I used the example of a man who convinces me that he’s a woman (for fear of wrongly identifying a transexual female or transexual female, I’ll just use this definition) to explore how I could ever see myself romantically in love with another man?

Pardon me, but that seems to me like my getting offended (as a Black man) if a white supremacist were to explain his attempt to understand inter-racial dating by citing a hypothetical situation where he falls in love with a lighter-complexioned woman, only to find out that she’s actually Black (and TRUST me, I know the can of worms I’m opening by casting myself in the analogous role of the “white supremacist” in this explanation – but I figure the “out of context” backlash can’t get any worse than it’s already gotten, so “what the hey”). So I now go off on Mr. KKK because he doesn’t really understand what it is to be Black, or of mixed heritage, or “fill in the blank”. Let’s just say, it would be RIDICULOUS on my part to be offended at such an attempt on his part to tell me something about himself.

But if I’ve truly offended you as a transexual, again I apologize (and I’ll admit that’s not a very strong apology – but perhaps it would be more convincing if I actually knew what I’ve written to offend you, to trivialize your existence and/or to devalue your commitment). I’m also confused as to how the section of my post you quoted after writing, “Oh, in case you again accuse of putting words into your mouth:” – equates to my “condemning your identity and orientation”? Because I said that the framework of my discussion was reconciling intrinsic traits and self identity with God’s will (when and if those two come into conflict)? That’s condemnation? Lastly, what’s this question about slavery you keep trying to get at (perhaps it was stated more clearly in an earlier post – but I don’t want to misinterpret, and answer the wrong question – so what is it about slavery you want me to respond to)?

And we seem to have different ideas about the role of the church/hospital. The Bible clearly states responsibilities of the church to look out for the physical, emotional, spiritual and even financial well being of its members. It also states responsibilities for chastisement, corrective action and accountability – which is where we seem to differ (I can provide scripture if you’d like, but I suspect that you’re familiar with them).

Also, if the “church hurt” explanation doesn’t apply to you – there’s an old saying about shoes that do or don’t fit (not to be coy, but obviously I don’t know any of you intimately, though I’d suspect if we’re completely honest with ourselves, then we can all gain/grow from useful critique, and let what’s not roll off like water off a duck’s back).

John -
I see you’re still holding on to a mis-interpretation of my initial question (which I’ve cleared up multiple times, in saying I didn’t equate homosexuality with pedophilia, polygamy/poly-amory {oddly enough left out by you and others, yet again}, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.). Is that all you have to hold on to – in light of the fact that I mean you, nor anyone else on this forum, any offense?

Needless to say, I’ll continue to pray for you, for myself, and for the prostitutes that, while indeed victims – are ultimately going to be responsible for their own actions, and have to decide at some point that the want to be free from the oppression of the pimp.

By the way, when you wrote, “He can see infinite shades of gray between black and white without being afraid of any hue”, that sounds very poetic and flowery – but just what the heck do you mean? Did I hint that God was afraid of something at some point?

God Bless you all.

I’ll check back to see if anyone has any direct questions, but if not, feel free to accept my apologies where appropriate, trust in my sincerity of intention if you choose to, and I’ll resist the urge to simply comment on anything I deem to be an attack, or misrepresentation of my perspective (I just don’t see how those responses will result in anything productive, but direct questions sans animosity – I’ll happily engage in progressive dialogue).

Be Blessed,
Greg

Greg, here are a few suggestions.

When you join discussions on subjects about which you clearly have little understanding (information yes, but you aren’t displaying much understanding of anything but your own opinion), it helps the others take you more sincerely if you talk less and listen more. Your comments are growing exponentially, and it is impossible for there to be a genuine discussion.

This is not a Christian website. It may look and feel like one at times, and that has been explained, but it is only Christian as far as the involvement of that faith in the ex-gay issues we discuss. We have a Jewish writer, and readers of all sorts of faiths, including those with none at all. Therefore, please be less “preachy.” We are not here to proselytize a single person – many have had their fill of that already.

Mention N*M*B*L* again and you will be banned permanently from participating here.

If you decide to continue participating, slow down, make your comments shorter and address single issues at a time where possible.

Remember once again that this is not a church, not a mission field, not an opportunity to spread the faith, and not a place to say as much scripture as possible thinking it won’t return void, etc, etc. We got it the first time, restating it a dozen other ways will not change it.

Making a case against something which relies only on scripture of any kind is appropriate only to show why you believe something for your own life, not why someone else need follow it — they may not share your faith or even your particular interpretation of the same faith.

Thank you.

“Making a case against something which relies only on scripture of any kind is appropriate only to show why you believe something for your own life, not why someone else need follow it — they may not share your faith or even your particular interpretation of the same faith”

Thank you, David. My point exactly, and far more succinctly.

Greg: thank you for your apology. Accepted.

and this was my point, too, Greg. The assumption that you understand the will of G regarding the subject of homosexuality cannot possibly be based on scripture, because scripture is anything but clear on this subject, as my pastor online demonstrated as clearly as possible. If G was really so against it, he would have said: “Two men, or two women shall not have sex in any way, shape or form. Penis into vagina. That’s it.” That is clarity befitting the Creator of the universe. None of this “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “sleep the sleep of a woman” garbage.

It’s what one believes going into the discussion that counts here. A personal story. I used to believe that the bible condemned homosexuality– not that I cared because I’m not a believer, though I was, once. But when I actually started to research the subject, all of the scholarship boiled down to this: “This is what we have always believed, and since we don’t approve of homosexuality, we see no reason not to continue to believe it.” That is neither scholarship, nor understanding. It is highly circular reasoning, though.

David, I hope I am OK mentioning N*M*B*L* here.

Greg, this is one of the more subtle reasons why your mention of N*M*B*L* was so offensive– quite apart from the obvious. It is an entirely hypocritical (I’m not calling you that), though common (you’re not the first), and unexamined comparison.You say there is no difference between a polygamist marrying a 10 year old and a man having sex with a boy. Polygamy is and has always been a heterosexual institution in history and in the world today. The man who marries a 10 year old does so with the full belief that it is OK with G, and with the full blessing of his church (if he belongs to one of those who sanction this), or with the full blessing of his mosque and imams, if he is a Muslim. It does no good to say “well, they aren’t REAL Christians” or “they’re not even Christians.” and therefore don’t speak with the blessing of G.

they think they do, and they have as much claim to speak with the full authority of G behind them as you do. And they have the scripture to back them up, as do you.

From my point of view, in both cases, the amount of that authority is “none at all.” And this is what I think Jesus meant when he admonished people not to judge others for their sins. Such people have authority over themselves only. They are not able to judge the actions of others. That doesn’t mean they should not look at a situation and protect themselves– child abusers, murders, and thieves come to mind. But my homosexuality affects no one but myself, and certainly harms no one.

Ben, I’ve masked it somewhat. I need to do something that will do that automatically on a few terms that really are poison for corporate filters. Some of it is inescapable, but not that.

I simply see no point in having a discussion with someone who uses this sentence to describe me…

Greg said:

a man who convinces me that he’s a woman

And has this to say about my relationship with God…

Greg:

I shudder to think of who it is you pray to/believe in, if not the one, true God

I think David Roberts hit the nail on bullseye when he told Greg this:

you clearly have little understanding (information yes, but you aren’t displaying much understanding of anything but your own opinion),

Is Greg going realise? I strongly doubt it. But as I rest my case, I pray that he will one day see the truth about homosexuals and transsexuals not limited to what he perceives from the Bible.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I think the overall theme of the Haggard story is about how one deals with their sexuality and their religious beliefs. As an Orthodox Christian living in a society that never had gay role models, where the guy who threw the pie on Anita Bryant’s face was considered the most evil of all evils, I think it is hard for anyone of faith to bring their sexuality and their faith into one umbrella. I think most of us have had those struggles or are continuing to have them.

We all work them out differently – some of us join places of worship that are more open, some of us no longer attend any sort of religious organization, some of us continue to believe in a Divine Being and some of us doubt or deny the existence of one. The path we take is our decision, but what Haggard’s story reminds me of is that we have to be aware of others and not just ourselves. And also that there are harmful ways of dealing with dealing with our sexuality and our faith – mainly – denial.

I guess Greg has disappeared. Tood bad.

Hi Ben -
No, I haven’t disappeared, just trying to stay true to my statement that I wouldn’t engage in pointless back and forth banter that doesn’t lead to any further understanding, or revelation of truth (whether relative or absolute).

I stated that I would answer direct questions, but not try to correct misrepresentations of my statements, taken out of context or otherwise (and – YUKI – if you honestly think those comments were directed to, and describing, you – then I truly apologize for the misunderstanding {and I’d rather conclude that it is indeed a genuine misunderstanding due to our less than ideal medium, rather than an insistence on finding something to complain about}).

Lastly – David, while I would never presume to state that I understand, to the point of being an authority, what it is to be gay, to deal with how that might conflict/resolve with my faith, or any other aspect of someone’s life that I hadn’t experienced…

I do understand that many people of faith (on “my side of the aisle” and others) come with an attitude of – “This is what I want/like/feel/etc. and I’m going to believe in a God that allows/supports/encourages just that” (whether “that” is anything from excusing personal pecadillos because God “knows my heart” or a pathological need to judge/condemn/criticize others to make one’s self feel better/righteous/bigger and/or anything in between).

I don’t know many who would admit, however, to effectively “making God in my own image”, rather than the other way around.

But that’s been my point all along – just because something’s inherent in someone’s makeup, doesn’t make it automatically “sanctioned by God”. If the Bible doesn’t hold any authority for you, then fine – but for those of us (me, possibly Ted Haggard, maybe even some of you) that it does, we need to be ever cautious of picking and choosing the parts we like, and dismissing the parts we don’t (not to say that there aren’t “hard parts” to deal with, even for the most genuine of believers). There’s been enough of that from the oppressive/dominant/exploitative parties in society – and the response of the oppressed/maginalized/etc. must not be to return the favor (and as I wrote above, if the Bible/Christianity/Jesus holds NO sway for you, then please don’t be offended by what’s happening in “the club across the street, and how they handle their membership by-laws”, if you will).

Alas, again I’ve written too much. Once again – I’ll be happy to answer direct questions, and I’ll sit/watch idly at the other conversation – whether it pertains to my comments or not.

Be Blessed,
Greg

if the Bible/Christianity/Jesus holds NO sway for you, then please don’t be offended by what’s happening in “the club across the street, and how they handle their membership by-laws”, if you will

Are you kidding?

David -
Insofar as they (we) don’t try to impose their (our) standards on those of you who make no claim to be members of the club (Bible-believing Christians) – no I’m not kidding.

Now, of course, I’m aware that we DON’T always keep our imposition of standards only “in the club” – which is almost certainly foolishness on our part (we shouldn’t expect the secular world to follow Christian standards – Jesus, Paul, John and others make it abundantly clear that there IS a difference between believers and the world). So it’s an honest critique that we need to do a better job of being “set apart”, it that’s what we claim to believe.

But as far as Bible-believing Christians, who are making an honest attempt to submit to the will of God, as they (we) believe it to be revealed and contained in the Bible – who is anyone from the outside (be it Oprah, or anyone else) to tell a Ted Haggard – “No, your problem isn’t further making your flesh succumb to the will of God – your problem is you need to change your God to be approving of whatever you currently think He wants you to change” ?

The true mark of hypocrisy is NOT if you find MY actions to be in conflict with YOUR beliefs, but rather if MY actions contradict MY stated beliefs.

Be Blessed,
Greg

P.S. Though brief – I thought that was a direct question.

…except that not everyone is a Christian in the same way. And every Christian thinks they have the correct way of looking at things. Or the correct version of scripture. or that their way is the “literal truth” and NOT an “interpretation.” So when people talk about “membership in a club,” we’re not talking about a single club, no matter how many ways certain self-identified Christians try to make it seem like they have the only “correct” password.

Hence the reason why, even on “your” side of the fence, there is dissonance and conflict.

But these problems aren’t new; they’ve been around since the first century and have yet to be resolved.

Greg accuses others of picking and choosing what they will follow or accept from the Bible, while he claims to live their own life in complete accordance with the Bible.

Everyone picks and chooses. That is how we make judgements about how best to live our lives.

It’s either an eye for an eye or turning the other other cheek. You are going to kill the disobediant child or welcome back the prodigal son. You either think that slavery is acceptable or you think it is the ultimate violation of treating others as you wish to be treated. These are just a few examples of situations where you must make a moral choice on your own. Your options are mutually exclusive.

And I am not aware of a single hateful Bible beating Christian who quotes Leviticus with regard to a man lying with another man who actually lives by the code of Leviticus. Yet, these bigots want to impose one particular section of Leviticus on others.

I don’t have any particular problem with people deciding to live their lives in accordance with whatever particular lines or interpretations they derive from the Bible (as long as they don’t use it as a license to assault or kill others). But don’t try to tell me that they aren’t picking and choosing. It is impossible not to pick and choose when it comes to the Bible.

Now, of course, I’m aware that we DON’T always keep our imposition of standards only “in the club” – which is almost certainly foolishness on our part (we shouldn’t expect the secular world to follow Christian standards – Jesus, Paul, John and others make it abundantly clear that there IS a difference between believers and the world). So it’s an honest critique that we need to do a better job of being “set apart”, it that’s what we claim to believe.

This is the problem, Greg. The entire, bizarre “value voter” movement that came out of the Moral Majority and other movements fostered by Falwell and others — they exist for nothing if not to force the “club rules” as you put it, on everyone. And Exodus (though they are running away from this image as fast as they can publicly), Southern Baptists, the entire coalition that proposed and fought for Prop 8, AFA, FRC, CWFA, Liberty Counsel, and any number of other groups all continue to lobby for those club rules to be civil law, even if it involves only what happens behind the closed doors of one’s own bedroom.

You can’t dismiss this as “oh, well we have that little issue and it’s a problem but we are working on it.” That’s not credible. And as Emily just said, even among those of us “in the club” there is diversity of interpretation and understanding on much bigger issues. There would be no Protestant Church today if not for such disagreements and those who were willing to challenge the status quo.

This issue, homosexuality as a part of human existence, is first a social prejudice, and then a religious rallying cry. As society begins to heal as it has begun to heal over racial prejudice, the aforementioned work to whip up the hatred and prejudice — they don’t want that wound to heal because they have incorporated this prejudice into their own “club rules.” How on earth can you expect anyone of conscience, in the club or out, to respect, or even put up with, that?

David -
I don’t dismiss it as a “little issue”. I see it as a flaw and error on “our” part. I’ve never voted against gay marriage, for example, though I don’t agree with it as a Christian. I know the difference between being free to pursue God’s perfect will (as I believe it to be recorded in the Bible) and trying to enforce that will on others.

As an American, I’ve got to come down on the side of “freedom” moreso than forcing people to do what’s “right” by legislating (I suppose abortion might seem to be where I falter on that – but I’m opposed to abortion because I don’t think people should be free to kill children, which seems to be a consensus once “out of the womb”, not because of my religious beliefs).

So, no, I don’t dismiss what we’ve done to try to make the world conform as some small matter – it’s one we need to correct (not to say anyone shouldn’t vote their conscience – just that moral issues that are VERY appropriately addressable in the context of “the club”/chuch, have NO business being legislated upon when they don’t hinder the freedom of others).

As you stated, many of these issues ARE simply a matter of prejudice and bigotry, which are then dressed up as religion in order to try to legitimize them.

I’m of the belief that if the professed believers were consistent with our beliefs, and not regularly guilty of hypocrisy and trying to “making God in our own image”, then those prejudices and bigotries would more readily come to light and be corrected, rather than perpetuated.

So I wouldn’t blame religion/faith/Christianity – rather it’s those of us who impose our agendas/biases/etc. on religion, instead of letting God transform us to conform to His Word – that are to blame.

All that being said – I still don’t believe that those transgressions committed by some (however many or few) of “us”, invalidates our ability and right to address what is and is not appropriate for the members who desire to adhere to what we believe to be the Word of God (and as for there being a multitude of interpretations of the contents of that “Word” – Emily is correct, but at least an agreement to submit to the authority of that “Word” allows for the possibility of agreement – while agreement between “the church” and “the world” is an impossibility that it’s a waste of time to even pursue).

I don’t think I can find anything in this last comment with which I disagree. I personally believe that those denominations that do not move to accept a believer’s own understanding of what God wants for his or her life with respect to who they love and with whom they remain faithful, will become irrelevant. But there is no shortage of denominations and Christian sects, so let them do as they will.

Unfortunately, I still think you are underestimating the force and tenaciousness of the “theocracy” point of view held by many in those pews. To one degree or another, many of them do think they have the duty to make everyone follow the club rules.

John -
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you on the NECESSITY of picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. As I stated before, I’m not a word-for-word, literal interpretation type of guy. I agree with Paul in II Corinthians when he wrote (or dictated) that the letter (of the law/word) kills, but the spirit gives life. That’s to say, I try to find the spirit, or the principle being illustrated, when I read the Bible. So there are no parts (Old or New Testament) that I dismiss/ignore out of hand. I simply try to find the current day application of the principle in my life.

It’s funny that some of the “mutually exclusive” parts that you mentioned are also mentioned by Christ in His “Sermon on the Mount” (intentional on your part, I’m sure). Do you think that Jesus (or Matthew, or whoever) saw themselves as “picking and choosing” as He pointed out these differences (the author’s done a HORRIBLE job of “covering up” vast contradictions if they were)? Rather, wouldn’t it make more sense that Jesus was giving a BETTER, more appropriate explanation of these OT scriptures.

Similar to His statement that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The intent was never to give us (or the Jews) a list of things that they could look for to have an excuse to stone each other to death (ahh ahh ahh, you did some work on the Sabbath – now I get to kill you). Wouldn’t it make more sense that this (and many other punishable offenses) were given as a means of self-regulation (I shouldn’t harm anyone’s eye, because they’d have the right to take mine out. I shouldn’t be a disobedient child, I could be beat to death. And so on). Of course this doesn’t apply to EVERYTHING in the OT, but I’m convinced that Christ was trying to correct misinterpretations of the law – even in saying “Love God… and Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two… hang all the law and the prophets”.

So everything in the OT has to be interpreted through the lens of the two love commandments (according to Jesus – and I’m inclined to take His interpretation as an authoriative one), not dismissed.

So, to reiterate – I have to patently disagree with you that one has to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they’ll believe in and follow. But then, I for one, don’t find the Bible to be contradictory in spirit and principle (though if you go by the “letter”, you’re bound to misinterpret and contradict).

You’re not the first person to mention slavery to me on this forum. As a Black man, I’m particularly (umm, I won’t say “sensitive”, let’s say) concerned about said topic. I won’t pretend to have memorized the entire Bible – so is there some passage where God encourages/approves of/celebrates slavery? I’m aware that there IS slavery in the Bible, but so is polygamy (I’ve already put out the challenge for someone to find the pro-multiple wife scripture), divorce, and a slew of other things that God is clearly NOT in favor of (Jesus even says Moses made provisions for divorce, but it was never God’s will that it occur – from the beginning he made Adam and Eve to be together no matter what). So again – I’m at a loss for the need to pick and choose.

Be Blessed,
Greg

David -

I don’t deny the fervor that exists for a “theocracy”, but I will admit to being somewhat confused by it.
Why there is so much emphasis on trying to get the world to conform to “our” way, in the face of the abundance of scriptures that state how the world will hate us, to befriend the world is to be an enemy of God, the world cannot receive the Spirit of truth, the god of this world is the Devil, we should not be “of the world”, etc. – I don’t know (unless, at the risk of sounding superstitious, it’s a trick of the devil – getting us to waste time and effort brewing strife, rather than doing something productive).

Honestly, I think if we spent more time trying to set a righteous, holy, LOVING example to draw others to our side of their own free will, instead of trying to enforce morality through legislation – we would have a much more effective witness in the world (and fulfill the responsibility of spreading the Gospel more effectively).

And honestly, I believe it is OUR responsibility to hold our (often self-appointed) leaders (or should I say “public figures”) responsible for the standard of scriptural love, rather than being silently torn between (“well, Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell/etc. does so much good, in preaching the Gospel and in outreach ministries” AND “oh my goodness, Bill Maher makes SO much more sense than Robertson/Fallwell when he blamed 9/11 on homosexuals, or suggested assassinating Hugo Chavez, etc.”) and saying nothing.

Be Blessed,
Greg

Greg,

You can read through Leviticus and see how slaves are to be treated. Having rules fo the treatment of slaves without simply banning the practice of slavery is a tacit acceptance if not an endorsement of the practice. It is really quite shocking to think that wearing cloth of certain origins is absoutely prohibited, yet the denial of another human being the most basic rights and freedoms over their own life and body doesn’t seem to rise to the level of grave offense against God and man.

As to your response to me, you are clearly picking and choosing. You are picking passages, and choosing to apply or modify your interpretation of those passages based on your world view. I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I do think there is something wrong with accusing others of picking and choosing as if it is something wrong.

Actually Greg, you’re not quite correct when you say that “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24) will deter someone from harming another because the “letter” says he will then have to recieve that reciprocal punishment. Because the Torah says that seeking vengance is wrong – so a vengeful punishment is wrong. This wikipedia excerpt does a wonderful job explaining how. In fact, the Oral Torah – which was handed down to Moses when the written scriptures were delivered to the Israelites, and which Jews have used to interpret the “letter” in order to understand its “spirit” since his days – tells us that this refers to monetary compensation, and that a punishment must fit the crime.

Even if the law were meant to be taken literally, it would be quite flawed. What if a blind man were to be the one that forcefully injured another’s eye? (it might sound silly or unlikely, but we Jews do our best to cover every possible situation.) Then the punishment of “eye for eye” would not be fair. The human body is fragile; ethics could be violated all too easily: what if the person being blinded as punishment were also to die? The the situation would end up being eye for eye/life, which is grossly unequal. Babylonian Talmud Bava Kamma 84a explains that since Exodus 21:36 – which happens only a few verses later – uses the “[noun] for [noun]” expression (in this case, “ox for ox”) in reference to monetary compensation, so too must the previous verse be interpreted.

Honestly, I think if we spent more time trying to set a righteous, holy, LOVING example to draw others to our side of their own free will, instead of trying to enforce morality through legislation – we would have a much more effective witness in the world (and fulfill the responsibility of spreading the Gospel more effectively).

So go do it already

In the mean time, the main purpose of XGW is to (mostly) keep track of a certain segment, ex-gay ministries and/organizations. I have no doubt that they are more accountable today because of such efforts on the part of many. The Church certainly hasn’t held them accountable — quite the opposite.

Emily -

I don’t see where we’re in disagreement (except for your incorrectly seeming to imply that I was stating any benefits from adhering to “the letter of the law” – quite the contrary). I was saying that in the examples from Christ’s sermon on the mount – Jesus was explaining that those laws were more prohibitive than punitive (what I should avoid doing, rather than how do I get to justify poking somebody’s eye out, knocking their tooth out, ooh, ooh – can I stone an adulteress) in that “Love God and Love you neighbor” circumscribes the whole of the Law (again stressing not harming others, rather than stressing who I get to punish once they’ve done wrong). So maybe I mispoke when implying that the sole motivation for not committing the initial offense is the fear of the reciprocal punishment – but moreso that I shouldn’t commit the initial offense PERIOD (as love would motivate me to know to treat others as I would have them treat me – and poking out my eye, knocking out my tooth, sleeping with my wife, etc. are all things I would NOT be in favor of). So, again – I am NOT in favor of adhering to the “letter of the law”, but in learning/applying the “spirit of the law”.

John -
I already gave the examples of divorce and polygamy as things that God allowed, while being against (and even providing guidelines by which – divorce at least – they would be carried out, though He never wanted them to occur). So, did God accept slavery? No argument there, sure He did. Did He endorse it – a much harder point to prove (and I’m of the belief that He did NOT endorse it – and on an almost complete tangent, it might go without saying that slavery in ancient Israel, and in most of the world’s history, was vastly different from that “peculiar institution” called American chattel slavery). As for which offenses are/were bigger or smaller in the eyes of God – “His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts” is all I can say to that.

Finally – How am I picking and choosing, by stating that the entire Bible speaks the TRUTH, and that I seek the spirit of each passage of scripture (OT and NT) for practial application in my life, and to be shared in fellowsip with other believers? I’m not “modifying [my] interpretation of… passages based on [my] world view”. I’m interpreting the Bible as a whole, based on the teaching/explanation/interpretation of Jesus.

I’ve been very careful to remove myself from my preconceived notions, and simply receive the truth (and I’ve had plenty of my assumptions, sacred cows and personal worldview prejudices dashed against the rocks in light of what I’ve learned from scripture).

If I may, it sounds like you’re projecting – and twisting anything I might say into “picking and choosing”. Kinda like the person who doesn’t believe anyone can do anything selflessly – then denies the selfless acts of others by saying, “oh, well you really saved that person’s life so you could feel better about yourself – and thus you received some benefit and it wasn’t selfless”.

You’re fine with picking and choosing – I’m not (and don’t approve of picking and choosing – not that you’re seeking my approval). I believe the whole Bible, and interpret it in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, without dismissing any of it.

Be Blessed,
Greg

P.S. In deference to David and the TRUE purpose of this website, I’m hesitant to carry on this Biblical study/belief discussion (as he said – this is NOT a Christian website) and make such gratuitous mis-use of the generously supplied bandwidth. So I’ll try to fade into the background yet again (or at least keep my response much more brief).

By the way, David – YES SIR!! I’m right on top of the job.

Greg:

You’re fine with picking and choosing – I’m not (and don’t approve of picking and choosing – not that you’re seeking my approval). I believe the whole Bible, and interpret it in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, without dismissing any of it.

Christianity is all about picking and choosing Scripture. First, we picked and chose which books would be included in the canon of Scripture and which were to be eliminated. The mere fact that there are a variety of Christian communities with different canons proves that.

For those of us of the Orthodox faith, we adhere to the Greek Septuagint list of the Jewish Scriptures. There are also those of us who include the First and Epistle of St. Clement, the Didache, and other texts in the Christian canon.

We also “pick and choose” from Scripture because of our starting point in faith. If I believe, as I do, that G-d is love, and that Christ is G-d and man, then, like the early church, I see the Jewish Scriptures not as a Jew would see them, but as a prologue (so to speak) to the coming of Jesus. The writers of the four Gospels “picked and chose” the texts from the Jewish Scriptures to prove something about Jesus, his words, actions, and events in life.

It doesn’t mean I can’t read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would, nor does it mean I would immiediately write off their interpretations or consider them secondary, but as far as my faith is concerned I would see them in a different light.

St. Paul, in his epistles, “picked and chose” what Christians were to adhere to in the “Old Law” and what was no longer binding. The Early Church Fathers did the same, and the Church has been doing this since her birth.

The Orthodox faith also reads St. Paul and the other Epistles and the Apocalypse in the light of the Gospel of Christ. Our faith is based on Christ, not the Bible, so it is the words, deeds, and teachings of Christ that have the ultimate decision, not a passage in Scripture. Scripture was made for us to understand our faith, a faith based on G-d, a Divine Being, not a book.

The Bible is NOT a catechism. It is not a list of beliefs. Each book or letter has its own unique style, vision, and purpose.

What the LGBT community has done with regard to Scriptures is to re-examine those passages that have been “picked and chosen” to comdemn us to determine whether or not they truly do comdemn us. We are doing nothing more or less than what the Church as a whole (Jews included) in regard to approaching the Sacred Texts.

Alan -

OK, now I’m convinced that you’re projecting (perhaps in order to legitimize your own practice of “picking and choosing”). Statements like “Christianity is all about picking and choosing Scripture”, and “the Church has been doing this since her birth” are vast generalizations that gloss over the need to have SOMEthing that represents orthodox canon (not a mere practice in “picking and choosing” what was liked/comfortable vs. what was disliked/difficult – but as a result of serious scholarship – though admittedly not 100 percent agenda-free) belies an argument springing from a pre-made conclusion (how can I present data that supports my “pick and choose” conclusion), rather than an argument that leads to a conclusion (given all the available data, do I come to a “pick and choose” conclusion?).

Then accusing Paul of “picking and choosing”, and to call the Gospel authors pointing out how Jesus was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies from Jewish scripture (please allow me to refer to it as the OT) “picking and choosing” is like saying to a child, “You’re just like your father”, and pointing out ten similarities – and the child responding, “oh, you’re just ‘picking and choosing’ the things about him that most stand out about our similarities – I’m sure he had hundreds of character traits, and if you don’t list ALL of them, then you’re just ‘picking and choosing’ “.

I, for one, and glad that the NT authors didn’t feel the need to re-state the entirety of the OT in every letter they wrote to mostly Jewish readers (converts to “the way”, but Jewish nevertheless) who were already familiar with the contents of the “Law and Prophets”.

I suppose Calculus books “pick and choose” what parts of Algebra they “believe in”, by not re-stating ALL of the principles of Algebra when figuring out the sample problems. Which is only fair, because Algebra books “pick and choose” what parts of Arithmetic they “believe in”. Eureka – you’ve uncovered a vast scholastic practice of “picking and choosing” when progressing academically (and thus refuting any parts of the antecedent disciplines that are not directly cited in the subsequent courses).

How about we just agree to disagree – rather than you trying to convince me that I’m engaging in the same practice as you. As I stated in an earlier post – it’s probably more important that people adhere to their own professed beliefs, and avoid hypocrisy, than it is to convince others to believe the same as them.

My only goal here, from the beginning, was to understand the viewpoints of others (hence my initially asking questions) and my being sought to be understood. I’m more confident that my perspective is understood by many on the board, and I feel I’ve come to understand the perspectives of others (and I appreciate the enlightenment).

Agreement, however, was never really my goal (and I don’t think it’s a realistic one). Personally I think mutual understanding (even without agreement) is quite an accomplishment. So let’s just agree to disagree, and appreciate any deeper understanding of divergent perspectives that may have been gleaned from the entire experience.

I would suggest further investigating just why you have chosen to engage in “pick and choose”, or “buffet-style” Christianity, as I stated way back near the beginning – because the whole “it’s simply a continuance of necessary Christian ‘pick and choose’ tradition” doesn’t really hold water.

Maybe you’re guilty of returning God the favor by “making Him in your own image”, so you don’t have to face hard changes that you’d have to make if you accepted the whole Bible (in whatever canon you’ve accepted – with or without Apocrypha), maybe you had your mind made up when you came to the Bible, and have decided to eschew whatever you don’t already agree with, maybe you’ve legitimately identifiied parts of scripture that DON’T belong in the canon through years of research and scholarship – who knows?

Be Blessed,
Greg

Greg,

I wasn’t going to come back into this, but your last response to Alan is just insulting. You talk about agreeing to disagree, then you turn around and accuse him of “picking and choosing” and being a “buffet style” Christian while absolving yourself of doing the same thing. Incidentally, he was making the point that we all make choices about what to follow and not follow in the Bible. He wasn’t trying to paint himself better or worse than you for engaging in the same practice.

You write that the NT just restated things from the OT. That just isn’t true. How is “accept back the prodigal son” a restatement of “kill the disobediant child”? How is “turn the other cheek” a restatement of “an eye for an eye”?

You have your definition of hypocrite. I think someone who insults others by calling them a “buffet style” Christian while engaging in the same practice more than deserves the label.

Greg said:

Maybe you’re guilty of returning God the favor by “making Him in your own image”, so you don’t have to face hard changes that you’d have to make if you accepted the whole Bible (in whatever canon you’ve accepted – with or without Apocrypha), maybe you had your mind made up when you came to the Bible, and have decided to eschew whatever you don’t already agree with, maybe you’ve legitimately identifiied parts of scripture that DON’T belong in the canon through years of research and scholarship – who knows?

Alan’s comment was a reasonable statement of his point of view with examples. None of it was crafted as personal jabs as your statement above and other bits in your last statement does. The discussion was quite civil to that point. This is an example of where the line is, please try to avoid it.

Greg, what well researched counsel decided that divorced and remarried people could remain as part of the church?

John -
I didn’t “accuse” Alan of “picking and choosing”, he admits it proudly. My point of contention with him was that it is NOT something that all Christians do, nor is it something that is even necessary for Christians to do. So I fail to see where the insult is in saying – “you do what you’ve chosen to do with regard to the Bible, I do something different, and I don’t agree with your approach, not that my disapproval should cause you to change in any way”.

I also didn’t write that the “NT just restated things from the OT”. In one post I explained that Jesus gave us a better understanding of the OT mandates as being prohibitive rather than punitive (so that we, in accordance with “love your neighbor as yourself”, wouldn’t do the initial offense – not to give believers free license to carry out the punishment mentioned as the result of the offense… hence “don’t be a disobedient child” is/was the goal, not “great, I get to kill my child if they’re disobedient”). In this light, there’s not need to DROP the OT scriptures, simply understand them, and avoid committing the offenses against parents, neighbor’s wife, tooth, eye, etc. Again – not picking and choosing, but holding to the comprehensive whole.

In another post I DID say that NT authors restated prophecies from the OT that Jesus fulfilled (not in those exact words, but the only other place I could guess you got the “NT just restated…” argument from).

David -

I will admit to poking a little fun in my analogies in the post you mentioned, but I didn’t see anything I wrote as a personal attack (so, my apologies Alan, if you feel you’ve been attacked). I was simply trying to state that his glossed over argument – Christianity’s all about picking and choosing of scripture as a correct and necessary practice, followed by lumping anyone who quotes ANY scripture into the “picking and choosing” crowd (presumably because they didn’t quote ALL scripture at every recitation of something from the OT) – was fallacious in both its construct and its content.

I closed with a suggestion that he investigate just why it is he adheres to the “picking and choosing” doctrine so vehemently – and perhaps if I had suggested “years of research and scholarship” on Alan’s part as the 1st possible reason, instead of the last, then it would have come across as less offensive. Of course I don’t know WHAT his motivation is for “picking and choosing”, and perhaps I should keep speculation as to his motives to myself (I can respect that) – but my goal was not to insult, nor to convince him that he should see the Bible like I do.

With respect to divorced and remarried people remaining as a part of the church – while sins (both having some clearly outlined Biblical exceptions), ours is a faith marked by love, forgiveness and God’s obvious respect for free will. I guess I’m not aware of where the Bible says the divorced and remarried shouldn’t be a part of the church – if nobody who commits sin is allowed in the church, then all I see are tumbleweeds blowing up and down the pews. Perhaps you can help me out with your question.

And, honestly – I apologize for any offenses I’ve committed (particularly to Alan in this case) and I can admit to being a smart a$$ in my last post to him. Please forgive me.

Greg:
I am not offended by your statements. But to say that not all Christians pick and choose from Scripture runs contrary to the reality of the Christian experience. Not only do we as Christians pick and choose our canon, but we also pick and choose which translation we wish to use. Go to a book store and you will see a variety of translations in English. How do you know which translation to pick? How can you rely on the translators to be accurate in their translation?

Again, going back to homosexuality mentioned in the Bible, that is a legitimate question asked by many modern scholars who question the validity of translations made that use the word “homosexual” in such renderings as St. Paul’s list of those who will not enter heaven. Translators have to pick and choose their words carefully to render the Scriptures understandable and yet true to the original texts.

To give a simple example is the first part of the Angelical Salutation. The Greek rendering is “kecharitomene” which literaly means “filled to perfection with grace.” It is also used in place of Mary’s name which, Biblically speaking, a name change indicates a change in function. (Simon’s name was changed to Peter, for example). So the Latin term “gratia plena” and the English translation “full of grace” are the best renderings of this Greek word, and yet, modern translations have used the term, “Highly favored.” Clearly, there is a difference from being full of grace in a Christian sense versus just being a “favorite” person. By chosing “highly favored” versus “full of grace,” the translation is missing the original Greek meaning of the word.

I suppose Calculus books “pick and choose” what parts of Algebra they “believe in”, by not re-stating ALL of the principles of Algebra when figuring out the sample problems. Which is only fair, because Algebra books “pick and choose” what parts of Arithmetic they “believe in”.

A Calculus book will normally contain most, but not all the things necessary to explain and understand Calculus. Most likely one would need a teacher to explain the book, give examples, and expand upon what the book lacks. The book may be an excellent one at that, but I would need to learn how to read Calculus in order for it to make sense to me. I would need to have some background in mathematics in order to understand it. And I would need experiences outside the book of Calculus in order for it to make sense to me.

I would hope that whoever wrote the Calculus book (or edited it) picked and chose wisely what is needed in a Calculus book in order to understand it, and I am sure that new editions would appear of that Calculus book that would modified and improve anything it lacks or needs to clarify and explain better.

Also, I most likely will have a focal point about mathematics, perhaps something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. And would base my knowledge of Calculus on that simple fact and build on it.

(I apologize for the length of this reply.)

What a nonsensical analogy.

(is there a term for a false analogy/argument based on remembering that totally confusing topic from high school level and throwing around a few words for public effect?)

I have never encountered a calculus text book that “chooses” which parts of algebra to “believe in”. (for my sins, and career path, I’ve alas encountered a great number).

An understanding of algebra is essential before tackling calculus. If a calculus text book chooses not to include at length each and every foundation for algebra there is a simple reason for that: your earlier algebra text book has already done so, and you already know the subject. Mathematics is not a democracy and your ‘opinion’ is irrelevant.

Mathematicians do not “choose” what part of mathematics to “believe in”. They accept all of it, and none of it can be (or is) contradictory. If it is, one or both are demonstrably wrong.

They do argue over the most elegant way to derive a solution in the same way people argue in the car over which is the most scenic route home. Heh.

What was the topic again? Oh yeah… Ted Haggard… still not trustworthy.

(Pondering: when was the last time mathematics professors burst out of their cells and ran around burning “the heretics”???)

Alan -
I’m glad I didn’t offend you, as that was truly not my aim.

I still don’t understand why you insist on saying that “picking and choosing” of scriptures is a necessary part of the reality of being a Christian, when I’ve consistently given you my personal testimony that I, for one (and I know countless others who), don’t pick and choose. Your example of Bible translations only bolsters my point. If I was someone who says there is only one legitimate translation, and all the rest contain blasphemy – then you’d be right. But, in actuality, I own (or have owned, or read from) KJV, NKJV, Amplified, NIV, ASV, NAB, and the Living Bible.

Obviously the words in each are not identical (otherwise they wouldn’t be different translations) – and some even have entire verses (e.g. I John 5:7 of KJV not being in NIV), or books (e.g. I & II Maccabees) different – but I haven’t found the spirit of the principles of God to be different as illustrated amongst any of them (not that I’ve done an exhaustive study, mind you).

So if I choose to study primarily from the KJV, that is not “picking and choosing” as I’ve stated it (in that my “choosing” the one doesn’t mean I’m rejecting any others). I believe the contents of all 66 (or 73) books of the Bible to be true, and don’t “pick” only the parts I like – as a matter of fact, I try to spend more time trying to understand and conform to the principles that challenge me to change and relinquish my personal desires and will – because it’s more important for God’s will to reign, than for me to have my own way.

Be Blessed,
Greg

Greg:

I still don’t understand why you insist on saying that “picking and choosing” of scriptures is a necessary part of the reality of being a Christian, when I’ve consistently given you my personal testimony that I, for one (and I know countless others who), don’t pick and choose.

I guess it is because I have never seen nor heard of any Christian who has not done it. Also because I do not see it as wrong or damaging to Scriptures. On the contrary, it allows us to dive into the Scriptures and study their meaning rather than just reading them at the surface. If the terms offend you, we can use “select and decifer” but I don’t think “pick and choose” demeans the action of searching the Scriptures and contemplating their meaning.

As an Orthodox Christian, I do not view all Scripture as equal. The Four Gospels are at the higest level (which is why the Gospels are carried to the altar and are part of the procession), followed by the Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The Jewish Scriptures follow, and even they are categorized in importance: the Psalms would be the highest on the list, followed by the Prophecies of Isaias, the other Prophets, etc. (For Jewish, of course, the order would be totally different – the Torah is the highest part of the Jewish Scriptures, followed by the other writings).

Greg, if you say you do not pick and choose scriptures then for you that is how you see it. But how you perceive what you do and what I perceive you do is not in agreement.

The accusations of “picking and choosing” and having a “buffett Christianity” does not take away from the fact that Christians are called to look and examine the Scriptures, and that we may have new insight into passages that were once obscure or not fully understood. That we do this with the passages that were used to condemn homosexuality does not make us Christians of convenience. We reconcile our faith and sexuality because the reconciliation was already there; the stumbling block was the misunderstanding of key passages by those who took the passages out of context and isolated them without viewing the whole picture.

Grantdale:

(Pondering: when was the last time mathematics professors burst out of their cells and ran around burning “the heretics”???)

I fell off my chair laughing. Your post made my day, thanks!

As for the topic being about Ted Haggard…hmmm I guess a holier than thou preacher who has sex with prostitutes and parishioners is just old news.

Alan -

Finally, I think we’re getting close to understanding each other.

You wrote…

“Greg, if you say you do not pick and choose scriptures then for you that is how you see it. But how you perceive what you do and what I perceive you do is not in agreement.”

That was A major point of what I was trying to say – you “pick and choose”, but I don’t, and our approaches don’t agree with one another.

The only thing that confuses me now is that after your categorization of the hierarchy of scriptures – which parts of scripture have you chosen to ignore?

Because my initial (and ongoing) accusation/understanding of the term “pick and choose” was that some (many) Christians have books/passages of scripture that they/we do believe and adhere to – while any passages/books/verses that they/we don’t (say for example I don’t WANT to love my enemies, don’t want to esteem others above myself, don’t want to avoid fornication, etc.) get dismissed as anachronistic, or “man wrote that, not God”, or some other excuse for not conforming their/our will to the will of God.

That’s what the whole metaphor of the “buffet” conjures for me – I’ll pile up on meat and dessert, but leave the salad and vegetables for others to eat. So, in light of that definition, do I see that as harmful, or lacking in genuine submitted faith to God, and obedience to His Word – I sure do (and if we disagree about this, that’s ok… the hypocrisy would be in MY dismissing any scripture).

Your last post, however, implies that you don’t just throw away passages that you disagree with (or that make you uncomfortable) – but rather that you search deeper for the true meaning of the “hard” scriptures (e.g. the ones most often used to declare homosexuality a sin). If that’s true, then that wouldn’t be “picking and choosing” at all (by my definition), and we ARE in agreement (which would make me feel silly that we’ve been going back and forth all this time, thinking we were at odds due to semantics) that all of scripture is Holy (even if not equal).

Hmmph – go figure.

Be Blessed,
Greg

grantdale -

It’s funny that you called my math example a “nonsensical analogy”, then when you went on to explain why Calculus books don’t include the entirety of Algebra (and by extension, why Algebra books don’t include the entirety of Arithmetic) – the fact that the expectation of the author is that the reader is already thoroughly familiar with the prior material – you made/elaborated my point for me.

I was saying that the NT authors didn’t have to quote the entirety of the OT whenever they were writing something that referenced messianic prophecies, or “the Law”, for example. Why? Because the readers of their letters/epistles were already “thoroughly familiar with the prior material”.

I’m going to resist the urge for sarcasm here, and ask – HOW is that a nonsensical analogy (as I’ve framed it above – PLEASE don’t go off on some distracting tangent … I’ve defined above the parameters by which I was making the analogy, and it seems rather DIRECT, instead of nonsensical, so please help me see the error of my ways, or concede that you may have been in error).

Given that you further explained that…

“Mathematicians do not “choose” what part of mathematics to “believe in”. They accept all of it, and none of it can be (or is) contradictory. If it is, one or both are demonstrably wrong.”

I was stating that…

NT authors didn’t “choose” what part of the OT to believe in. They accepted all of it, and none of it is contradictory. As the basis for the NT, if it and the OT are in contradiction, then both are demonstrably wrong.

Yeah, still not seeing the “nonsensical-ness” of the analogy.

Now, can you find differences between the subject of Math and Scripture? Of course – that’s why I used ANALOGY, as opposed to saying the two are EXACTLY the same – and I believe I’ve demonstrated (with your “oh so able” assistance – thank you) the parameters under which the analogy is appropriate, relevant and accurate.

Be Blessed,
Greg

it’s more important for God’s will to reign, than for me to have my own way

I count (at least) three examples of “picking and choosing” in that statement alone.

It’s “ExGayWatch.com”

Not “MyVersionOfGodWatch.com”

(Politely…) You boys want to take this outside?

————-

Alan, my pleasure, but you need a more secure chair… although the very idea of my (prob. long dead) mathematics professors taking up arms against trigonometry heretical people is, well, amusing in a droll sort of way. You need to get out more No. Really.

Sheesh, imagine being such a loser as to be burnt at the stake by people wearing beige cardigans that their wife knitted. Or being forced to recant by people with leather patches on their elbows. Or being dunked unto drowning at the whim of a chick who thinks a high and tight perm and tweed skirts are ‘dead sexy’.

(I’m just grateful 99.99% of professional mathematicians are 100% autistic and are therefore — sorry, Q.E.D. — 100% unaware of the insults thrown at them.)

Greg,

It’s nonsensical because 1+1 always = 2. To anyone. And who cares what some “believe”. That cannot be said about religion, or even Christianity.

Also, people don’t kill one another over what S/Paul the Mathematician said. These days.

They don’t need to, because his view would be easily tested.

Your fault is comparing “what God said” to mathematics.

Before you’re let off resisting the urge to be sacastic — what level of maths did you take? Sorry, and pass?

If qualified, you have my permission to be sarcastic and draw a comparison. If not, stop being a pretender.

Greg:

The only thing that confuses me now is that after your categorization of the hierarchy of scriptures – which parts of scripture have you chosen to ignore?

I don’t ignore any of them. I understand them in their context. I understand them in their historical setting, the audience to whom it was addressed, and their purpose. I also understand them according to Gospel of Christ.

So, for example, I would “love my enemy” as Christ commanded me to do instead of cutting off his head and displaying it to a crowd as Judith did …

And when she had drawn it out, she took him by the hair of his head, and said: Strengthen me, O Lord God, at this hour. And she struck twice upon his neck, and out off his head, and took off his canopy from the pillars, and rolled away his headless body.
- Judith 13:9,10

or cut off someone’s ear as Peter did …

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus. (HGJC St. John 18:10)

I believe the Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. So when I read the passages that mention Christ’s brothers, I understand that the Aramic and Hebraic words for brother encompass more than just a male person from the same womb .. they can imply step brothers or cousins. I don’t ignore the passages that seem to imply she was not a virgin afterwards, I understand them in their context.

So too with the passages concerning homosexuality. I do not ignore them, I understand them in their context. St. Paul is concerned with temple worshipping practices in his Epistle to the Romans, whereas the list of those not eligible for heaven concern itself with male prostitution and those who are vain about their appearances (deduced from the Latin terms “masculorum concubitores”and “molles.”)

I do not ignore any part of Scripture, but rather understand the different books and letters and versus and stories in the light of the Gospel of Christ. So that the premise of my faith in G-d is “G-d is love,” from which Orthodox Christianity basis its faith upon, it is from there that I can understand which parts of Scripture still aply and which are no longer applicable to the Christian experience in general.

Grantdale:

Sheesh, imagine being such a loser as to be burnt at the stake by people wearing beige cardigans that their wife knitted. Or being forced to recant by people with leather patches on their elbows. Or being dunked unto drowning at the whim of a chick who thinks a high and tight perm and tweed skirts are ‘dead sexy’.

If Calculus was a religion that wouldn’t be a far fetched reality. Unfortunately Christianity has spent a vast amount of energy trying to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong, who’s in and who’s out while disregarding the true Gospel message.

I guess it is easier to burn heretics than to try to accept there are more than one way to interpret something. I guess it is easier to blame the Jews for Christ’s crucifixion than blame ourselves for it. But then, it’s hard to think outside the box when you’re trapped inside it.

I hope and pray that Haggard comes to a realization of who he is, what he is, and why he is that way whether it be that he is gay, bi, or whatever. And that he finds a way to reconcile who and what he is with his faith. I think he needs to seek forgiveness from the LGBT community for the harm he has caused while he was in ministry and what is going on in his life in the present. Also, that he seeks forgiveness to those with whom he directly harmed including himself. But that he seek it, and NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXPECT TO RECEIVE IT as he is still under the assumption (in my eyes) that his actions do not require any compensation or penance on his part.

Alan -

Well, it turns out that we’re a LOT closer in our treatment of scripture than it seemed at the beginning (of this conversation). Our biggest disagreement seems to be in the definition of what “picking and choosing” is (we certainly took the “40 years in the wilderness” circuitous route to get to that, hunh?).

I’m sure we don’t hold identical interpretations of each and every passage of scripture (e.g. I think Peter was wrong for cutting off Malchus’s ear even in the time/context that it occurred, not only something that doesn’t apply in a modern context – and I don’t find any reason to believe that Joseph and Mary were married after the birth of Jesus, and they continued to not have sex… that’s one I’ve often been curious about. Why do some Christians insist on her dying a virgin {and where does the “Assumption” come from} when there’s nothing sinful about having sex with your husband… ok, I’m going tangential now – apologies), but I’m glad to know we’re MUCH closer to understanding each other (or at least I can speak for myself – I understand YOUR perspective much more than I did prior to your last couple of posts… silly me for not making sure we meant the same thing by “picking and choosing” from the beginning) – and the closer agreement is just icing on the cake.

grantdale -

No sir (forgive the gender assumption) – I don’t want to take this outside and I didn’t mean any harm and I didn’t want to cause any trouble and I won’t make any more comments and I’ll be outta cyberspace by high noon and yes my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.

Have fun.

Be Blessed,
Greg

Greg:

I’m sure we don’t hold identical interpretations of each and every passage of scripture … Why do some Christians insist on her [the Virgin Mary] dying a virgin {and where does the “Assumption” come from} when there’s nothing sinful about having sex with your husband.

Believing that Mary was a perpetual virgin has nothing to do with determining whether sex between a married couple is sinful or not. The Orthodox faith never based its belief on that premise. I can give you an explanation of the Orthodox Christian understanding of her virginity in a private email as it would completely veer off the topic at hand.

But in that vein, I have no problem with someone not believing in her perpetual virginity and making such a conclusion from Sacred Scripture. I don’t think anyone has lost their job because they don’t believe it. I don’t believe anyone was denied housing, or adopting children, or been denied the right to marry the person they love because of it. At least not in the U.S. But I do have a problem when certain passages of Scripture are misinterpreted and used against a group of people, such as the passages in the HGJC according to St. John where Christians have used them to imply that Jews are Christ-killers and to justify their prejudices against them. The same applies to the passages that are used against the LGBT community. Anytime Scripture is used to go against the teachings of Christ, I have a problem with that.

grantdale (I didn’t see your 10:16 am response before now) -

I’m pretty sure I made it clear by what parameters I was making an analogy between the structure of Math courses and how NT authors cited OT content to make more than enough sense, even though they’re vastly different topics (similar to “my love is like a red, red rose” isn’t nonsensical because of the analogy between a vegetable and an emotion).

I didn’t realize I needed to be “qualified” to draw legitimate analogies, and be accused of being a “pretender” – but does a Master’s in Electrical Engineering (including 3 semesters in Calculus, 1 semester in Differential Equations, 1 semester in Discrete Math, whatever the course was where we studied LaPlace Transforms, Fourier Transforms and Graphical Convolution, with a blowoff Matrix Algebra class) and Summa Cum Laude from the University of Michigan qualify me to be able to construct an analogy and differentiate between the limits of said analogy, without needing the compared subjects to be identical in every aspect.

Calculus is to Algebra as the NT is to the OT with regard to… in both comparisons – the 1st item is subsequent to the 2nd, someone writing the 1st item assumes their audience has mastered the 2nd (necessitating a less than full re-stating of the earlier “2nd” item when stating/deriving new information even though it’s based on the “2nd” item – being either Algebra or the OT).

Hmm, it seems it may have been more appropriate to ask me what levels of English, Logic or Rhetoric I took (and passed) – since obviously it takes formal University training to be able to form an original thought (from some people’s perspectives).

Classic!

Be Blessed,
Greg

P.S. Thank God I’m intimately familiar with Schrodinger’s Equation, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity – I might want to comment about using computers for web-surfing one day, and I’d hate be lacking in qualifications to do so (and if you’re familiar with how those concepts play into the development of Silicon technology for computers – you might even get a chuckle from that bit of sarcasm, but OH what a geek you’d have to be).

No Greg, you needed to be qualified before threatening to be sarcastic with me; not before you draw analogies. You’ve been rude enough to the good people here to (surely) satisfy at least one of your goals, so accept you’ll need to avoid being rude with me. I don’t have their tolerance levels.

You’re obviously quite ready to invent and use analogies, that much I do accept. It’s Debate Class 101 technique when one has nothing solid to support mere opinion. Ignoring the opportunity to point that out, I simply said it was a rubbish analogy: mathematicians don’t pick and choose what they “believe” about their field. It’s maths, not metaphysics.

It’s a particularly unimpressive analogy because you also attempted to use it to insult people who, unlike you, actually gave real examples to support their understandings.

That said, I’d be oh so impressed with all the rest of the bumf … ‘cept I don’t “believe” you. On that I’m being led not by the letter but the spirit. Annoying as that may be. I suppose it’s a bit like being on a roller-coaster with one arm tied behind your back and spitting into the breeze, to coin a pointless analogy or three.

(Not believe, not least because of your continuous use of highly irregular CaPiTaLiSaTiOn and very odd phrasing).

FYI, I am Blessed — you may stop addressing me as if I’m not. Actually, just stop.

ps: I’m guessing, from much, that you’re involved in a (largely?) black (largely?) pentacostal faith. In reply to some earlier ‘picking and choosing’ you did on slavery eg: 1) ‘accepted’, but not ‘approved’ 2) ‘Israelite slavery’ not same as ‘American slavery’ I would also guess that Genesis 9 and it’s historic interpretation is something you have either left unsaid and/or utterly rejected.

It’s too long and long convaluted for here, but ‘The Curse of Ham’ was a foundation biblical justification for enslavement of Africans. That Ham+ was dark-skinned, and cursed, was an accepted ‘belief’ for most of Christian history. Shamefully, it poisoned LDS thinking until as late as 1978 when (miracle of miracles) they were saved by a divine revelation.

I thought that “belief” was rubbish in 1977, of course, but then again I also told dear old Effie the Syrian he was a fool to include it in the first place. He didn’t listen to me, but unfortunately others did. And look where that took us all.

This go around with Greg is pointless. His examples are bogus and the real elephant in the room is being ignored.

In Algebra X time 1=X. In Calculus X times 1=X. Absolutely the same. No change. No conflict.

Kill the disobediant child and an eye for an eye are exact and complete opposites to accepting back the prodigal son and turning the other cheek. No similarity at all.

Greg claims that killing the disobediant child and accepting the prodigal son back are the same and not in conflict. I’m wondering what you do first. Do you kill the child and then accept them back for burial, or do you accept them back and then when they are close enough and relaxed, plunge in the dagger. You can go through the same exercise with turning the other cheek and plucking out the offender’s eye.

The real issue is Greg’s Orwellian newspeak. Just because he chooses to proclaim that killing the disobediant child is the same as accepting back the prodigal son doesn’t make it true. It is demonstrably false.

I suppose next we will be hearing more Lies from the Ministry of Truth about the War that is being conducted by the Ministry of Peace against the Eternal Enemy who was our Ally last week.

I’m getting off this merry-go-round, because I’ve already read this book. I know how it ends.

John and grantdale -

Congratulations. You’ve both successfully devolved the conversation back to the clueless, idiotic practice of taking my comments out of context (or just out and out making up arguments from me out of whole cloth), building an easily refutable position that I’ve never held, then crowing at your success at how the strawman burns so easily.

I’d like to think it’s a lack of literacy, or inability to think critically on your part (especially when someone presents ideas that you disagree with), then at least you wouldn’t be guilty of Fox News/MSNBC style “spin” – but I’m convinced that’s exactly what’s happening.

If it was just ignorance, then that would be relatively easily curable (not for us to come to agreement, but at least understanding) – you would just need some information (and maybe some training on reading comprehension).

John, I’m sure you know how the book ends, since you’ve authored both sides of the conversation out of whole cloth.

Grantdale, what is a Black Pentacostal Faith (uh oh, there I go capitalizing again)? And for that matter – what don’t you believe (if I’m going to be accused of being a liar, I’d at least like to know what for)? If it’s my credentials, not only am I not interested in impressing you, I probably shouldn’t have stated them in the 1st place – since they were completely immaterial to the discussion in the first place (besides, I didn’t mean to make you jealous… are you one of those guys/gals that couldn’t get in to U of M? If it makes you feel any better, just blame it on Affirmative Action – ugghh, there goes that capitalization again – it seems to soothe the egoes of the under-qualified… Go Blue!!).

By the way, yes I’m quite familiar with the white supremacist twisting of scripture to justify slavery (not just the Ham/Cush story, but other passages). What of it? And differentiating Israelite slavery with American slavery qualifies as “picking and choosing”? Wow – and I thought Alan and I weren’t on the same page with the definition of that phrase.

To those of you who have been interested in engaging in genuine dialogue (even after suffering through some contentious language on my part) – I say thank you. I feel like I have a better understanding of homosexual issues in general (though you’re clearly not a monolithic group) and issues that arise when trying to reconcile homosexuality with Christian faith. I’m sure it comes as no surprise that we’re still not on the same page, but I am motivated to search the scriptures and pray with the goal of more clearly knowing God’s TRUTH in this regard (for what it’s worth).

I’m also walking away with a renewed interest in holding “us” (as far as that pronoun can go in describing “mainstream” Christianity) accountable to focusing more on winning others through our exemplary behavior and adhering to the tenets of the faith, of their own free will, rather than lobbying to legislate enforcement of our standards on others. And working against the ever-present hypocrisy among those of us in the faith who show more zeal for engaging in Pharisee-ical condemnation of others, rather than in transformative, edifying love of others.

At the risk of being “rude” and having grantdale say that my closing is an accusation that you are all among the UN-blessed…

Be Blessed,
Greg

P.S. John and grantdale – I would suggest you actually ask me what I meant by my statements and analogies, rather than make up the meanings and do “chat-battle” with yourselves… but I’m sure you’re not really interested in responding to my ACTUAL statements, it would only interfere with your cyber-intellectual-auto erotica.

Just when I thought I had calmed everyone down

Looking back, I think I’ve learned that the discussion of religion, and more so that of doctrine, is probably best attenuated after a certain point. I wish I was skilled enough to know exactly where that point lies in each discussion, but it’s somewhere before where this one ended up.

I’m not going to point out what I think went wrong specifically with that last exchange, because whatever grantdale/John might have done, Greg matched with his reply. If you really want to participate again, Greg, I suggest perhaps wading around in less intense conversation before you dive in the deep water. You may become more familiar and understand, for instance, why people generally don’t end each comment with a signature, even when they aren’t blessing anyone.

It’s easier to be taken correctly (and to take others correctly) when you have been around under less tense circumstances first. There is certainly no reason why you should not remain involved if you like.

Greg, please also excersize care when using the word “Pharisee.” David Roberts, this note from me may become tiring for you. But in my eyes, it’s as necessary as telling someone to please not use the phrase “That’s so gay” – even though it has been largely accepted as a way to describe something “lame” or “stupid.”

Let me also add that if anybody who comes here is looking for a good amount of the people participating to come to their side of “T”ruth, they’re not going to be very successful if that truth includes letting go of genuine, incredible person-to-person romantic love when it occurs between the same sex.

Greg:

I’m also walking away with a renewed interest in holding “us” (as far as that pronoun can go in describing “mainstream” Christianity) accountable to focusing more on winning others through our exemplary behavior and adhering to the tenets of the faith, of their own free will, rather than lobbying to legislate enforcement of our standards on others.

With all do respect, “mainstream” Christianity would have to be considered either Roman Catholic or a combination of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox by sheer numbers. There are more Catholics in the world than Bible-only Based Christian congregations. Add the Coptics, the Syrians, and other Orthodox faith communities (as well as the Angelican communities) and it is even more. Perhaps there are more Bible-only Based Christians in the United States, but that does not make it “mainstream.”

Second, as many are “won over” by exemplary behavior that Christians in general may possess, there are more who are turned away from the behaviors of those in the various Church communities (Catholics and Orthodox included). Ted Haggard is the example of bad behavior talked about here in this blog.

Third, we Christians have lobbied to legislate enforcement of our standards on others since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman state. In Texas, thanks to the Baptists, you can’t buy liquior in certain counties. They used to have a blue law where you couldn’t buy certain things on Sunday. (I remember in El Paso going to a store and having certain isles blocked off because they contained the “forbidden items.”)

Also, seeking legistlation to protect the rights of others or ourselves is not wrong. We are still on earth. We’re not in heaven yet. And we are called by Christ to seek peace and justice in this world for ALL people, not just those who dance to the same drum.

I don’t eat meat on Fridays the whole year, but I don’t want a law passed that says everybody can’t eat meat on Fridays because my religious freedom would somehow be violated. And yet, there were civil laws in Europe forbidding the sale and consumption of meat on Fridays. Why? Because of religion. So laws based soley for religious reasons are best kept in the proper religious group. Government should not inact laws to restrict my freedom (for example, force all Americans to eat hamburgers on Friday or face jail time), but by the same token my religious practice and beliefs should not hinder you from enjoying a nice, big, juicy steak for Friday dinner.

David:

Looking back, I think I’ve learned that the discussion of religion, and more so that of doctrine, is probably best attenuated after a certain point. I wish I was skilled enough to know exactly where that point lies in each discussion, but it’s somewhere before where this one ended up.

I guess because of Ted Haggard and his religious affiliation that many things were discussed that tended to veer away from the principle subject. Because his old church was so rigiid in its view on homosexuality, and its treatment of the whole Haggard scandal, in some ways its good to understand the religious philosophy behind it. We just had a meeting for the LGBT group at my church and someone mentioned a book written by a professor (I’ll have to get the info later) and how churches are categorized according to their beliefs and how that affects their acceptance or rejection of LGBT’s in their communities. What I have noticed is that LGBT’s of an Evangelical background tend to have a harder time of acceptance than those of us of an Orthodox one (although that might be changing with the new pope). So while some things may have been better left unsaid in this blog, I think a lot of it was enlightening.

David -
Duly noted. I’ll do a better job in the future of adhering to my stated goal of responding to and engaging in genuine questions and dialogue, and not allow myself to get baited into (and hopefully not inciting) a “flame” war.

Emily -
My apologies on the “Pharisee” remark. That definitely came from a NT perspective where theyve become synonymous with the hypocritical, self-righteous religious that exist in every faith, without consideration that that wouldn’t be a universal perspective of the group (reminds me of the joke about the “Great, British patriot – Benedict Arnold”).

Please forgive my comment as an ignorant, narrow-sighted mis-statement, that won’t be repeated.

And yeah, by no means did I expect anything I wrote to be so compelling that people would start denouncing their homosexuality and declaring me the “Great Emancipator”. As I’ve written – if we can reach mutual understanding, then I think that’s a tremendous accomplishment (but quite achievable), while “agreement” would be almost impossible (unless someone DID abandon their previously held “truths”).

No signature