pacigoth13

I would also like to throw in, if I may, the suggestion of reading: NT Wright, The Challenge of Jesus

Since this topic has been brought, and to avoid any potential misunderstandings from anyone, here is my personal conclusions on the matter, none of which I believe are "final" or "absolute"... 1. Genesis 1-11, as the intro to the Bible, is prehistorical mythology written as a subversion of pagan mythology. There are two creation accounts and several other stories told to give us spiritual truth... 1. All that is is from God 2. Creation is still in process, God sustains it 3. Creation is initially good, including people 4. We have a purpose, an eschatology, we are NOT here by chance, this is NOT all a mistake 5. Along the way things got ruined, we all live 'east of eden' in a state of existential estrangement 6. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel are stories that did not literally happen, but they are stories which repeat themselves everyday 7. Noah's flood was written to give providence out of a historical flood which damaged most of the ancient earth 8. the tower of babel teaches us about how it is human nature to become prideful and raise ourselves up and follow the life that 'leads to death'--and yet God subverts our pride through humility, we are cast down but not cast away. 2. The bulk of the Old Testament is history metaphoricized. It seems as though history is being told, though even as such it is being reinterpreted theologically. This allows for a hybrid of historical and theological truth to run throughout. Also, it shows us a dialoging of sorts between God and Israel. It shows us both the revelation of God as holy, merciful, good and forgiving and Israel's wrong perceptions at times, failings, and fallings. This "blessings and curses" theme is found also in the wisdom literature. 3. We have misunderstood prophecy, both old testament and new. The major and minor prophets, along with John, speak not of time as in "chronos" but of time as in "kairos". They felt the ethos of God and very often lived with the burdens of sin. We see in them prototypes of what the messiah may look like--both a messiah of peace and a messiah of vengeance (remind yourself of Jesus' editing of the Isaiah scroll). 4. Jesus the Jew came and lived, said what he said, did what he did, and then was crucified. The idea of Q gives us an idea of what the historical Jesus was to the common people. First and foremost, he was the Jewish messiah (the word messiah does NOT mean divinity). He taught the way of peace, not the way of vengeance. He was the messiah, but not the one people wanted. He proclaimed the kingdom of God, became a living symbol of Israel, retelling the story of Daniel 7.13. When seen with Jewish eyes, as a sacrifice of love, it makes perfect sense to say "Jesus died for our sins". I do believe Jesus saw his vocation as being the one through whom God would act, and that in a very real way, he chose to die for the world--though not in the way later "atonement theology" would project back onto him. Mark was the first gospel, and his good news was that the messiah had come. I do think Jesus healed people and cured them, both physically and psychologically. He was more than a man, as such, "God was in Christ" and thus he acted out the way of God, with the power of God. He was God incarnate, though not in a mythological deistic understanding of 'god'. He was crucified, primarily because he was a threat to Rome, but also because he was not the messiah his people wanted. As someone who was fully human, Jesus died. 5. Matthew and Luke retell the historical Jesus, though with obvious interpretive lenses. They are not lying, rather they are interpretting the "post easter Jesus" to their own communities. Thus, some symbolism is obvious: the shepherds portray that Jesus was for the marginalized, the story of the wise men show a subversion of conventional wisdom in the Lordship of Jesus. Matthew and Luke testify to virginal conception, not to tell us about his birth, but rather to point out (whether it be taken literally or metaphorically) that Jesus really is of one spirituality with God. Myths about virgin births were told about holy men in the ancient world, and Matthew and Luke may be using the same tactic--with a theological twist. Likewise, some sayings and deeds of Jesus become, at this point, "more than literal". 6. Resurrection does not mean recuscitation. What became of Jesus' body is irrelevant for the truth of resurrection, we miss the point when we engage in the age old "case of the missing tomb" type debates. Nevertheless, the resurrection is true, it happened. It is the only way to correctly explain and understand early Christianity. God did raise Jesus into a new being, which I believe was a physical and yet perfected bodily being. I think people saw him, touched him, experienced him, etc. And I think the resurrection itself and itself only explains the transformation of Saul to Paul. The resurrection made clear that Jesus was the climax of eschatology, the church was there for all people to live in. Jesus did for Israel/the Church what she could not do for herself--now we must love the world and all people in that same way. John's gospel is this good news, that 1. Jesus is Lord and 2. God raised him from the dead. In doing so, he created a spiritual gospel, which was very much NOT historical. The shift is no longer on the 'Jesus of history' but on the 'Christ of faith'. This allows John to have Jesus say things he never said--that Jesus nonetheless lived out every day of his life: Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, the resurrection, the light, the vine, etc. etc. This also allows John to make up stories with metaphorical truth--the wedding at Cana and Nicodemus are both very good examples. 7. The rest of the New Testament is about interpretting the post-easter Jesus to their generation and the generation to come. In doing so, they point the direction forward--Jesus is the Lord, whom God raised from the dead--and yet living this out and following Jesus means something for every different person in every different time. If Paul were to have been "just like Jesus" he would have claimed himself, not Jesus, as the messiah. None of them taught timeless ethics. Also, we have to remember that each of them were real people, with their own faith journeys. Paul's theology clearly shifts throughout his life. NT Wright once said, "Jesus is Lord of all or he isn't Lord at all". The church's vocation, as a community, is to make Jesus Lord of all, through the means of peace and tolerance given to us by Jesus himself. This is the Christian life, the Church. In Christ there is no distinction of class, race, caste system, gender, sex, orientation... In Christ there is neither gay nor straight, neither born nor unborn, neither liberal nor conservative, and neither orthodox nor heretic. The reality of Jesus' resurrection, as hope, gives us true hope for the future: resurrection of all in a new, saved, recreated world. It is us who will come to Jesus--not Jesus to us.

Some general thoughts... I would point out, like Borg, that there is a difference in what needs to be 'literal' to be true and what does not. When we approach Scripture, we need to see it for what it is, and not what we want it to be. Of course, it is a collection of books and letters, written by many different people over many different years. These different people had different views, different styles, methods, etc. If Inspiration is understood to mean that these people really did have experiences of God, were led to write about them in their own way and that overall the Bible itself tells a "holy history" of sorts--then yes, I believe in inspiration. The notion of inerrancy, even in the original manuscripts, is problematic, and I do not wish to enter into that discussion at this point. Scripture uses, many times, apocalyptic metaphor, which should NEVER be literalized or made absolute. People (Jesus himself) often tell parables--stories that though literally untrue are actually so true metaphorically that they are, in a way, more true than would-be historical accounts. Similar things could be said about myths, stories, legends, etc. Then, of course, there are some historical passages. The Bible is true, and some of it happened. It was not deceiving of them to use myths (etc) for they were not yet confined to the either/or literal-factual prison of the modern era. But here the problem emerges... the lines are blurred, we are removed; and the honest truth is that sometimes we simply DONT KNOW whether the author was intending to give us history or mythology. Yet the solution is simple--meaning is what matters. Very often the literalist and the contextualist are actually believing the same meaning, they just find it expressed differently. We can all have our own opinions on what happened and what did not, but, if offered as part of learning to follow Jesus, we focus first on meaning and unity--then together we can begin to work out accurate portraits through the lenses of history and faith.

If anyone is ever in the Canton/Akron area of Ohio, consider visiting St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Akron. I felt like a conservative when I visited there with my Episcopalian deacon friend. The sermon given on the day I was there was all about endorsing gay marriage, for an example. I also picked up a tape series while there that were recorded last year during a special seminar series delivered by John Dominic Crossan. Their church library has everything from Robert Funk to John Shelby Spong to Zen literature. They even have a sunday school about being a pluralistic Christian. I'm not sure how other Episcopal churches compare, though...

That is a good point. Sometimes we fail to recognise the subversive wisdom of Jesus. Being Christian is about saying "Jesus is Lord", or in our case "Jesus is our president". Not George Bush, but Jesus. His wisdom subverts much of the "Republican" wisdom...

Perhaps my biggest complaint against fundamentalism is their "view" on the Armageddon/2nd Coming. Like other issues, we often fail to look at it historically and faithfully... Both are important. First, a historical look at the notion of a "2nd coming". The entire hypothetical second coming notion was first invented by the early church, then cherished, then projected back onto Jesus and then abandoned when they realised it wasn't going to happen (to assimilate a quote from NT Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 185). What did Jesus really say? When he is reported of speaking on the 'second coming' in places like Mark 13, we have to put it in context. He was speaking on the Mount of Olives, looking down at Jerusalem, and making bizarre prophecies about the future of Jerusalem since they knew not the way of peace. Interestingly enough everything he said came true about Jerusalem. In this context, he quotes Daniel 7.13 in his retelling of a story about the vindication of the 'Son of Man'. "You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven" denotes the arrival to the Ancient of Days, being present and vindicated to God. Jesus, persecuted by the evils of his world, was ultimately presented to God and vindicated as the true messiah. The apocalyptic metaphor of 'coming on the clouds' denotes exaltation--not return. We follow in Christ's footsteps. We come to God, not the other way around. In Mark, this is evident, especially in the context of 1st century Judaism. Matthew and Luke report the sayings, though both show that their interpretation of it is beginning to shift. At the beginning of Paul's ministry he seems to think he will be alive to see it, at the end of his life he is realising that he won't. Revelation has 95% to do with making a commentary on the evils of the Roman domination system and 5% to do with anything futuristic. Now, faith. I do not believe in a 'god' that has in mind the destruction of most of the world someday in a bizarre horror of display. I do believe in God, as seen in Jesus, that will "make all things new". I believe God's dream for the planet will come true, that all will be what is meant to be. In this context, Jesus will be present as king. So yes, 'he will come again in glory' but no, it is not the "second coming" of religious fundamentalism.

It must either be something about where I live or something about me... but the thing that ALWAYS ends up getting argued about is the whole apocalyptic "end of the world" hysteria. I always end up in arguments with people who think that everything that happens is a sign that they and their friends are getting raptured in a few weeks. I must have "critic" stamped on my forehead or something because it seems as though people always start the conversation with me as if they already knew that for me eschatology was de-mythologised a long time ago. Strangly enough, I almost think that "fundies" these days are more concerned with whether or not you are ready to be raptured than whether or not you follow Jesus. Then it always happens, I end up in so many words letting on that I believe that the entire futuristic/ "end of the world" scheme was invented by the early Church, projected back onto Jesus and then abandoned it when the literal "end" and "second coming" failed to happen as they expected. In other words, I don't really believe any of it... Though it never ceases to amaze me just how cruel people can be with people who don't believe what they believe.

Oh wow, that survey was nuts. What I found to be specifically amazing is their assertion that there is a correct answer (i.e. "strongly agree" over "tend to agree" for an example) for each of their questions. I scored out overall as a 'secular humanist worldview' type thinker--which is amazing because they got that simply from my lack of agreement with fundamentalism, the religious right and the republican party. I got 50 points on the "religion" section and came out as a "moderate biblical thinker" type. Heh, I don't get it. I take such surveys from "Christian" polls and come out as some uber-secularist and I take such surveys from "secular" polls and come out as some fundamentalist who reads left behind daily. I think it must have something to do with my endorsement of "religionless Christianity"...

As I re-read my post, it may have come across harsher than I intended... In many ways, your site makes a LOT of great points regarding the notion of the "religius right" and the Republican party being necessarily "Christian". This is why we end up with presidents and senators who feel it is necessary (even Christian?) to bomb the hell out of the middle-east. I see a lot of potential for disaster with this kind of thinking as it tends to be dangerous. I'm just not sure that going to the other extreme solves the problem. I'm sorry, I should have commended you for your focus on tolerance and peace and love and Christian ethics before stating what I disagreed with. I still think very much, tho, that we have to transcend liberalism and conservatism. To be sure, Jesus was a radical and I maintain that the way of life which Jesus called us to follow is highly radical and mows over both conservative and liberal sacred cows.

Well, what if I'm neither liberal nor conservative? What if I'm neither "right wing" nor "left wing"? What if I'm just a broken hearted misfit? Do I still have hope of being "like Christ"? "'Liberal' can be applied to a range of Christians from those with a strong sense of the reality of God and a deep commitment to the Christian tradition to advocates of a nontheistic Christianity for whom "tradition" is a negative term. Thus, "conservative" and "liberal" don't tell us very much... Moreover, there is much about the emerging way of being Christian that is conservative and traditional..." --Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 2. Harper Collins, 2003.

ELCA= Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and/or Evangelical Liberal Church of America depending on who you ask.

"Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord..." Romans 14.5-6a Oh my gosh, I cannot even begin to explain the difficulties that I have had in trying to find a church to be part of. I moved around from one church to the other growing up and have been to (and become a member of) virtually every kind of church from Pentecostal/Charismatic to Roman Catholic to United Methodist to Presbyterian to Evangelical/Non Denominational. With very little exception, I am not welcomed nor I do belong. Condemned and betrayed. For a long time, I just gave up. I did not attend church for a long time. Then, of course, you get labeled as a heretic for not going to church. But I disagree. I don't think weekly church service is mandated. I don't necessarily believe that there is a "Sabbath day". I think Christ is the Sabbath and that the Sabbath is fulfilled by living in Christ. I don't think Christians "have to go to church". I don't even think the individual places should be called churches. I think the Church is the assembly of all Christians. I don't see why services would be a mandated experience. I'm sorry if this calculation sounds too categorical and labeled; but my experience with mainline places is that their liturgies are in the morning when I'm 90% asleep and boring while nondenom/evangelical/etc. places may be later or even at night with more upbeat services (which is more appealing) but at the same time you get bombarded with fundamentalism. Although I am still part of an ELCA church, I can understand why Kierkegaard eventually abandoned taking part in any "formal church". Honestly, I'm primarily disgusted with the overall "church" situation. Many times the past few years, I've been really close to joining Spong's "Church Alumni" group. Now, don't misunderstand. I do believe in fellowship, and community, and worship. These are all important elements and are all necessary for Christians, these things reach what the Church is. But this does not necessarily imply services, a "sabbath day" etc. etc. We "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" when we remember the Christ occurrence. And yet, I'm still unwanted in fellowship, community and worship. I'm not really a liberal, but I'm not a conservative either. The fundamentalists would eat me alive for my views and yet I don't think I share all the views of progressives. What it just really boils down to is that I am unwanted, unloved and forgotten by the church. If we can really call it "the church" anymore.

I think the distinction must be made between "evangelisation" and "proselytisation". People have been given the wrong idea about the meaning of "evangelical" because for many "evangelical" churches what they mean is that they will actively go out and proselytise you and seek to convert you to their own personal worldview. This really is not what "evangelical" means. It is just simply good news. An evangelical is a bearer or witness of good news. It is, perhaps, an offering of sorts to others. To evangelise is to tell people good news (i.e. Jesus died for you) but does not seek to control the response. What is offencive to people is not so much that somebody would say "I am a Christian, I believe Jesus died for you and this is the good news that because of Jesus you can be saved". Unless someone has already been effectively turned off because of proselytisation, such a statement (even if someone totally disagrees) would not be offencive because it would be received merely as someone trying to share good news. However, when people use scare tactics, threats of hellfire and other "you will become a Christian (and my understanding of a Christian at that) or else" type claims the good news no longer becomes good news because all you are saying to someone is that you or someone else or for that matter God is going to do something horrible to them. No wonder people get turned off.

Yes, and here is the sad statistic... if every church in America were to take care of two (2!) families on welfare, no one in America would be on welfare. Jesus loved people regardless of who they were or what they did. The religious pharisees objected to his inclusion of sinners and prostitutes in the Kingdom. Things are the same way today. The Christian thing to do is to love people and take care of them regardless. I am a fan of Campola's teachings. I guess I may fall into the "progressive evangelical neo-orthodoxy" category, though not exactly. Campola's son and I are also friends. I have learned a lot from the Campola family over the years. In fact, I remember when I felt like Bart Campola was the only Christian who really accepted me as a person. Then I started reading Travelling Mercies by Anne Lamott and then Marcus Borg. Etc, etc.

Norman Whybry's "Introduction to the Pentateuch" Abraham Heschel's "The Prophets" Marcus Borg's "Reading the Bible Again for the First time" NT Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" Paul Anderson's "The Christology of the Fourth Gospel" Rudolf Bultmann's "Jesus Christ and Mythology" RC Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus" (not kidding) Robert Jewett's "Jesus Against the Rapture" and _anything_ by Bruce Manning Metzger

Well, here is my perspective: I've thought through everything I belive and my worldview is coherent and logical. I know what I believe, I'm not ashamed of it, and I really don't care if someone disagrees (whether they be a conservative or a liberal, I tend to be neither, I live in no man's land). With that said, it is not my place to judge anyone. Nor ethnocentrism right, nor the forcing of any belief. Tolerance and acceptance do not equate with endorsement. The problem is not that people disagree or debate or voice their worldviews, but the problem rears its familiar ugly head when any view is forced (hence the true difference between a conservative and a fundamentalist). I consider myself to be an "Evangelical Liberal". Although I thoroughly view "evangelical" as an appropriate attribute of the Christian Church, I do not necessarily define"evangelical" the same way that other evangelicals do. It is simply the Greek euangelion, or Good News. It doesn't innately have anything to do with proselytisation. Nor is proselytising really appropriate. The euangelion is the only thing that really matters. As a fellow conserva-liberal put it: "Love God, Love Others, Nothing Else Matters" (Bart Campola, son of Tony Campola). Cultural relativism exists within the frame of an overarching wirklichkeit and is a valid concept. The Christ occurence, as Bultmann called it, is the only necessary existential truth. I teach and I write in every capacity that I can. These are the things I want to do in life.

Here is my question about this and war... How is it possible that God is always on everyone's side? Regardless of whether or not the tyranny is courtesy of radical Muslims, Nazi Germans or fundamentalist Americans? The entire scenerio is logical nonsene.

I agree with some of the tenants of historical criticism in the search for the historical Jesus. However I much prefer _academic_ theology like Marcus Borg, NT Wright and Rudolf Bultmann than Spong's constant appeals to emotion. I think Spong's idea about midrash holds no water and I doubt he knows what midrash really is. I accept the Q document as having a hypothetical existence. I don't think Q was ever composed and written as a document. However, we can feel free to call the original sayings of Jesus "Q" since they occured orally in Arabic. Thus, all of Jesus' sayings began as oral tradition and believers passed them on to each other. The need for writing came later. I don't think that the writings of Paul so much "created" Jesus stories as they were written in light of the common knowledge people had regarding the Jesus of history. Paul's letters were written because they were just that, epistles (Deutero-Paul is another issue altogether). The existence of persecution (Domition and Nero) created the realistic possibility that the first century Christian movement could be obliterated. The entire generation that had witnessed Jesus in the flesh could die and future generations would be left without oral accounts. Therefore, it became necessary to write down accounts of Jesus' life and teachings. Why 4 gospel accounts? The creation of the codex, necessary to bind 4 documents together explains why. In this case, 4 was the perfect number. Not to underestimate its relationship to the 4 living creatures of Ezekial (taken to apply to the Gospel accounts, not some weird eschatological phenomenon). The synoptic gospels were Mark, Matthew and Luke. John's approach was radically different as it supplied a prophetic-ethereal account that embodied the logos of the Jesus experience. However, by nature the logos is abstract and people are not always ready to embrace the logos. The muthos can serve as a stepping stone (here, muthos refers not to falsehood but to stories and narratives that tap into the overarching logos). Thus, the synoptic gospels take a more mythological approach than does John's. The first of the synoptics to be written was Mark's. Here, the mythological element most apparent is the redundant use of the Greek "euthos" meaning that everything is said to happen immediately. One gets a fast, action-packed story telling of the life of Jesus similar to how a movie is today. Obviously, Mark used this for impact, to leave an impression on the reader. Mark's account most closely resembled the Q source. Matthew and Luke both elaborated on Mark's style, taking more time and filling in more details. However, they wrote to two different audiences, so their personal takes on things were different. In some cases, there seems to be more than one possibility in minute detail. For example, the reported death of Judas. Did he hang himself or sword himself or both? Perhaps there were two initial oral traditions and one writer used one and the other the other to show that the important element was that Judas comitted suicide, not how he did it. Luke's account really should not be separated from Acts, as Luke-Acts serves a cohesive account of the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith respectively. In conclusion, I agree most with NT Wright's pincer approach; using the historical context as source, the gospels themselves as sources and early Church history/tradition to get back to an accurate account of what happened. And no, I'm not a "fundamentalist" for this approach. If I were a fundamentalist, I would (like CS Lewis did) be claiming that the entire realm of historical criticism and/or search for the historical Jesus was totally a ploy of the Devil to detract from faith. The unexamined life is never worth living.

well, I'm not against a Christian participating in jury duty. However, I would probably end up informing the justice system that I am a pacifist and that I would not approve the death penalty for any reason. The result would most likely be that they would not let me in. I think these kinds of things have a way of working themselves out... flower power to the people make love, not war f*** war, ban the army

"From across the Pond, British writer Michael Northcott thinks that the U.S. is both the most religious country in the Western world and the most violent." I agree, that's the point I was trying to make in my futurism/preterism post. I really see the connection as coming from a distorted eschatology. For example, if the "warlike" and "violent" images in Revelation were originally intended to apply to the current persecution of Christians under Domition and Nero then there is only a description of violence and war not a prescription thereof. However, in the futuristic fundamentalist dispensationalist grid they become prescriptions for H'armageddon which in turn get applied to something like the current war on "terrorists". Therefore, extreme violence to the point of including nuclear war on behalf of America not only becomes a viable option but also what we should do. This kind of connection between Revelation and politics has been openly admitted by people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Even Billy Graham seems to espouse a type of "left behind" theology. This explains why America would do something like fully support Israel, even when they do terrorist things. It's not that I'm trying to be hypervigilant in my theology of Revelation, it just happens to be that immature understandings of it are causing a lot more problems than ecumenical disagreements and denominational divisions. It's not really even a conservative-liberal issue anymore. It's an academic vs folklore thing. Even conservative academics like RC Sproul and NT Wright insist on a preterist understanding of Revelation. I realise some of us may be far removed from the dispensational scene. But the overwhelming majority of American Christians let people like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye spoon feed them hysteria. It is our responsible to help people understand the truth in this area, if not for theological correctness, then for the sake of peace and pacifism.

Yes, well, in this case I agree 100% with the preterism of NT Wright and others. I'm reassured that the Missouri Synod opposes futurism as being non-Biblical seeing as though they are really conservative compared to the ELCA of which I am a part. It's sad, because there really is a lot of truth in Revelation and a lot that all can learn from in it (interpreted in its historical context). Unfortunately, it now becomes an excuse for fundamentalist agendas. Sad.

Sometimes wrong ideas and misunderstandings are not dangerous. Sometimes they are. What I refer to may be related to Bush's "dangerous religion" but it is not exactly the same thing... I'm reffering to the ever ongoing obsession with Left Behind Series, Tribulation, Omega Code, etc. How have beliefs in a rapture, a tribulation, a literal antichrist, a literal millennium, and the general "end of the world" hysteria affected the Church and our country for that matter? Perhaps you progressives are not as exposed to this type of thing as some people. However, within the world of fundamentalism, conservatism and evangelicalism--these have basically become cardinal doctrines and according to some you have to believe in them to be Christian. I disagree, obviously. My hermeneutic on the issue is preterism. However, what concerns me is not a difference in belief or interpretation; but in where such things could lead. I would argue that they are leading in a bad direction. For example, if one really believes that the book of Revelation predicts that America will bomb the heck out of the Middle East in an Apocalyptic war--how will such a belief affect the actions of someone like Bush and other admitted fundamentalists engaged in politics? For crying out loud, people's misunderstandings of Revelation could lead to a nuclear war. I am the only Christian concerned about such eschatological hysteria?

Well, the way I see it is that one has to carefully look at the psychological data and carefully look at the Biblical data--then a synthesis or "Christian position" can be deduced. Although psychology is not my field of expertise, systematic theology is. However, my fiance is a psychologist and thanks to her I have had access to valuable information regarding homosexuality. Some general conclusions from psychology (anyone feel free to add to this or edit this if you know more than I know)... 1. The terms "gay" and "straight" are not necessarily polar opposites, but apply to different places on the spectrum. In other words, an individual is not either gay or straight, but probably inbetween. Some people are apparently completely gay, some are completely straight, some are completely bi-sexual and others fall at different places. This is the oberservation of orientation, desires, feelings, etc. Thus, when polled, a distinction has to be made between those who practise homosexuality and those who have ever had gay feelings/desires. 2. Orientation is "natural" in the sense that a person does not necessarily have control over how they feel, i.e. who they are. This can be interpreted in one of two ways: A. Any existence of homosexual tendency is not only part of the person but is also a positive attribute (compare with how some people are naturally inclined towards math, philosophy, etc.) or B. It is defective, but nonetheless inherent. This would not be to say that it is because of the person's sin but rather is a "natural" outcome of the fallen world--they were affected by sin. In this case, it is a negative attribute (compare with how some people are naturally inclined to be alcoholics, violent, etc.) In either case, what can be said is that the homosexual is not gay of their own doing, choice or sin. Again, there is a spectrum, just like how one philosopher could have a higher IQ than other and how one alcoholic could drink more than another. These things are said to establish the data and show what is and is not a logical interpretation (I'm not endorsing either view at this point). 3. Thus, homosexual orientation is something that an individual has regardless of the choices they make. What they do choose is what to do with their tendencies, feelings, desires, etc. There is nothing a gay person can do to "ungay" themselves. Psychological attempts have been shown to be futile in actually "de-gaying" a person. Thus, the aim of psychological counseling should not be to change gays, but to guide them in such a way that respond to their feelings appropriately and ethically (what this means in terms of ethics is yet to be examined). 4. There _could_ be a gay gene, additional proof that gay people really are gay. This has not been either proved or disproved. However, an observation from animals (a good example is my fiance's male cat who goes for other male cats) does solidify the view that homosexuality could be genetic, or otherwise occuring in a person due to "nature" (not nurture). 5. With that said, nurture is not without influence. Sometimes straight people believe they are gay (and even act accordingly) because of nurture. Sometimes culture and environment does lead to a type of homosexuality. Likewise, this has also caused gay people to not be able to admit they are gay (hence the whole coming out of the closet phenomena). Perception and reality do not always mesh. There are also transvestites who are not gay, cross dressers, men trapped in women's bodies, etc. etc. This enters the world of gender studies which is related but not exactly the same thing. For a good example of both gended dissonance and homosexual feelings, see the movie Boys Don't Cry. 6. It has been claimed that gays do change. That God uses miracles to change people and that groups (like Exodus International) can help de-gay someone. There are really two things going on here. One is manipulation of evidence and evangelical hypervigilance. People are not able to "cure" gay people (not the individual gay or a priest, etc.) However, sometimes counseling and Christian groups do help people to understand themselves and do help people to become actualised as who they are. In other words, straight people who are straight do sometimes need help to get beyond how they were raised and/or nurtured and will eventually realise they are not gay. This is great, but it is not an argument that counseling can "cure" gays. Regarding miracles, they happen. If God wants to change someone from a gay orientation to a straight orientation God will do that very thing. It is a totally logical possibility. Whether or not this happens will be discussed later (its base is theological not psychological). 7. As Tony Campola once said, "it is one thing to repent of what you do--it is another to repent of who you are". To be continued...

I'm wondering... would it be appropriate to conduct a Hebrew/Greek study on the Bible and homosexuality in a number of posts here? You're right, the original readings/contexts of Scripture are much more complex and the search for Biblical truth here must go beyond simply stating that "...no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven..." (1 Cor. 6.9 supposedly) I researched this topic extensively for my hermeneutics paper, and there is a lot more to it. I also know people who are gay and Christian (some practise some don't). And also, for some of us, the door swings both ways... as was evidenced in the Kinsey reports. For clarification, I do not really agree with either the conservative or the liberal view on homosexuality. However, I have found that when researching it via the Scriptures and through psychology (integrating the two appropriately) that an entirely different and distinct view emerges. I am all into talking about it and looking at the issues here, but I know that it is imperative to be sensitive, as an issue like this involves real people with real feelings and emotions. There's always the risk of people getting angry/ruthless/judgmental/hurt etc. and I don't want to see any of that.

1. Yes. I definately consider myself "progressive". I would not have refered to myself as either a "liberal" or a "conservative" but progressive nonetheless. I feel that I am a progressive Christian because I am a Christian with a gothic/existential interpretive lens. Furthermore, the majority of conservatives think that I am a flaming liberal; so I am in the progressive/moderate/liberal category by default. 2. I live in a studio apartment in Canton, Ohio (yippie). 3. I'm not really making enough to making a living right now. Hmm... I am going to Bible college and I am cleaning tables as a "job". My major is Biblical studies. I have taken: Old Testament Survey, Pentateuch, The Historical Books, The Prophetic Books, New Testament Survey, The Gospels, The Epistles of Paul, Revelation, History of Christian Thought 1 and 2, Hermeneutics, Contemporary Theology, Spiritual Formation, Greek 1, 2 and 3, Faith and Personal Ethics, Creative Bible teaching, Philosophy of Religion, Models of Christian ministry, Sports Youth and Family Ministry, Homiletics, and a few others... In my spare time, I enjoy writing. I am working on my own book right now, actually. I also enjoy reading (Barth, Bonhoeffer, Borg, Brueggerman, Campola, Lamott, Metzger, Moltmann, Pannenberg, Sproul, and Wright). I enjoy European gothic music (Apoptgyma Berzerk, Beborn Beton, Covenant, Echo Image, Funker Vogt, Icon Of Coil, Juno Reactor, Project Pitchfork, Ravenous, Regenerator, Sanctum, Saviour Machine, and VNV Nation). 4. I found this board one day when I was poking around on the TCPC page which I found doing a search for Marcus Borg. 5. Hmm... possibly friendship and acceptance, maybe even critical dialogue if I am lucky. 6. What the is it? It must be a face within a mask. 7. Hmm... I really like talking about philosophy and/or systematic theology. Hint Hint. Oh yeah, I am also a pacifist and I think that if Clinton was impeached for lying about sex then Bush should be impeached for lying about murder.