matt67

I don't believe we have a choice. Does anyone hear really decide to love someone of their own sex or is it a natural tendency? I never had to think about my preference. That would mean that things like incest and pedophilia are innate too. I don't think so. These are results of trauma. Some Christians think that we are inclined to and are incapable of making a moral choice, but I disagree. Basically they think humans are nothing but animals, which is ironic, because they align themselves unwittingly with the "evolutionists" they claim to oppose.

I love Philip Yancey's writing. I don't necessarily see him as PC, but he is definitely taking the right road in terms of bringing diverse Christians together.

If anyone is interested in challenging themselves with a diversity of Christian writings I suggest googling Christianity Today Book Awards, which have been given since 1999. There are so many compelling works that are offered as being the best of each year in a range of subjects - apologetics, christian life, spirituality, history, etc. For me, it's been a way to see the diversity of Christian thought which cannot be dismissed if you consider yourself a reasoning and tolerant person. There are books that will make your blood boil, but ones that will make you say "Aha, is that what Reformed theology is about, too?"

Glint study bibles provide a good context for putting some passages in perspective. For example, the story in the John with the adulterous woman. I believe the RSV has a comment that says that this story is not found in some of the earliest manuscripts and that it may have been added. I was shocked to hear this for the first time. I also find study bibles incredibly helpful (I have about three of them which deal with different views - conservative, moderate and liberal) in cross referencing scripture. When Jesus talks about something, it can be cross referenced to something in the OT which is relevant. It also shows something that I think people tend to forget - namely that Jesus preached the gospel, which essentially is the OT. This is the "bible" he knew and preached. Him being the one who fulfilled it he showed us how to go beyond the yoke of the old law. To me, anyway, the rest of the NT is commentary on the four gospels. To me, Paul and the other writers, as well as every theologian for the past 2000 is commentary on the commentary the human attempt to understand Jesus and the new creation is our feeble, human terms.

Angel

I think it also depends on who you talk to.

Some Christians argue that you shouldn't engage in interfaith practices (with Muslims for instance). Some have this notion that contemplative prayer is an influence of Eastern meditation. Some think that Roman Catholicism is syncretic and like celebrating Christmas and Easter are syncretic. Some evangelicals believe that if you are a follower of Christ and you gather in a Church, then you are engaging in a syncretistic practice that blends Christian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman paganism (like priestly classes, preaching from a pulpit, the garb that priests don). For me, I wonder too much maybe about the influence of Greek Philosophy in scripture and the notion of God. Then again, I have a hard time conceiving of God in Hebraic terms. Maybe I think too much.

I try and keep my faith as simple as possible and try to balance the need for symbols (not idols) in my worship.

Wayseeker: On the other hand, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that pedophiliacs, rapists, those who commit incest, and sadomasicists will be seeking to join religious communities any time soon.

You mean openly as a rapist and a pederast, or openly committing incest? I have no doubt that there are rapists, pederasts, and those who commit incest in the church all ready. The question is, if a sin is exposed, we don't say, hey, that's okay, to each his own because God loves you. We love them as God sees them and hopefully they will see their own sins for what they are and repent.

As far as homosexuality, I am skeptical about the Biblical "laws" against it. I don't believe the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality, since I am not an ancient Israelite under the yoke of the old covenant, I don't believe in stoning anyone, and, well, I have to not take Paul in saying that homosexuality is unnatural, as what he saw isn't what I see in most relationships homosexuals (or heterosexuals) have in their relationships, though he hits the mark in saying that we can relate unnaturally to one another. I once listened to a debate in which a reformed conservative used as part of his argument against gay marriage what amounted to a social Darwinist theory that gay men and women are truly abominations of natural, even in the Darwinian sense. Okay, I thought. That's a first. I find it terrible that we need to even have this discussion because no one seems to care about the sexual proclivities of heterosexual (adultery, divorce, extramarital and premarital sex) in the church. I might be more accepting of their argument if they demonized people who decided to be celibate (which they don't encourage, mind you) and not get marriage and have little Christian souls to save.

It's is also terrible that we cannot tell the different between, as you say, GeorgeW, the difference between sexual orientation and psychological pathologies. Why must people bring up incest when gay marriage is discussed? There is more significant damage and confusion caused by incest than gay marriage.

All that said, I do wonder though if we are on a downward spiral too, in thinking that we don't sin in any way when it comes to sexual immorality as we do not really know what the repercussions of our desires are.

Yes and I struggle with that in my own walk. For example, should I accept the notion of God that is grounded in Platonic thought, or is my faith, like all spiritual disciplines, an evolution in humanity?

All I am saying is that people need to know their traditions before abandoning them. I personally try to accept everyone on their own terms, not tolerate them.

God loves the world. It may be beyond to realize this in our lives, but God still loves the world. We as Christians are supposed to follow our God. Those who commit heinous crimes are those who have been and are denied love in this world.

People can read whatever they want, but to some extent, yes. I read alot of Christian books from all types - liberal and conservative. When conservatives - I have one person in mind - Ravi Zacharias - who I don't agree with on what he says most of the time - talk about how a Hindu or Buddhist converted to Christianity. In one story, he mentions the conversation he had with a Hindu woman about the idea of nm"sacrifice" in the Bhagavad Gita as opposed to the idea of sacrifice Jesus makes. He claims that the woman did not know where the sacrifice is in the Gita. If I trust him, then it seems that the woman might have been ignorant for sacrifice does exist in the Hindu tradition. It is very different that the idea of sacrifice on Christian thought. It seems that Hinduism failed this woman to some extent. Also, look at the actions of St. Theresa in Bombay. She makes accounts of people who convert to Christianity due to her actions. Did Hinduism fail these people? Were they ignorant of the truth in their own tradition? Similarly, when people leave Christianity is is because they were never told the truth of it? I think so. I'm not saying one religion is right and one is wrong. Even the Dalai Lama tells Christians to be good Christians and not necessarily become Buddhists.

If I wanted to become a Buddhist, I would want to read every type of Buddhist thought before deciding what type of Buddhist I wanted to be. Tibetan Buddhism is very different than Zen. Some Buddhists believe in God, some don't. Which one is true? If if doesn't matter, then why doesn't it?

I am all for religious pluralism. God manifests itself in all traditions, but unfortunately, syncretism doesn't work, in my opinion.

I recommend Stephen Prothero's All Religions Are Not One.

Also I don't like the word "tolerance" because it implies that I have to allow something I don't like. I don't hate other religions. I try to read up on them but spend most of my time on Christian books because I'm a Christian. Most people of other religions are as Christian or more Christian than myself. I think there is truth in all religions, but the differences are what really matter. I think it is dangerous and disrespectful to say that all religions are one. Not saying anyone thinks that here. But similarities among them don't mean that they differ greatly about ideas of salvation, sin, etc. and we can't say that all their differences are not true and that only what they have in common are true.

But we're supposed to be able to love those who are deemed to be unlovable. That's doesn't mean that we will. But Jesus loves us for our failings, numerous as they are. I don't think there is a spectrum of what sin is worse than another. Every sin is an offense to God - no matter if we think it is a sin or not, no matter how minor we think it is.

JenellYB you write "I can love a person that may have engaged in such behavior and action, but not "as" a defining element of who they are." I agree, I think. Saying that I love someone who commits a violent crime doesn't mean I think that they did was okay and that they should be released from prison. I don't think, though that anyone deserves the death penalty.

I think what Jesus does is to challenge how vulnerable to others we are willing to be. If we see the sin as he sees it, what choice do we have? Compassion and forgiveness or condemnation? Which does God choose? I think forgiveness. Even for those who are supposedly going to hell, there's God right there, pouring out His mercy (or wrath) on them until they are cleansed. If God forgives everyone, maybe we need to try to. God knows that it's tough or downright impossible for us to, but if we really allow the Holy Spirit to infiltrate our souls to conform us, then, I don't know, maybe it will be possible for us to forgive and love.

How radical is God's love in that He can forgive us for the sins we commit to other people, though, as I think, all sins are offenses to God.

Would a sin by any other name be as rancid?

I think we're all in the same boat, when it comes to our relationship with God. In Christ, there is no male or female...and I think that includes no straight or gay. I am less interesting in who someone chooses to love in committed relationship than what their relationship with God is. I think that we walk the razor's edge when we worry too much about what we are in the flesh than what we REALLY are in the spirit. Sexual immorality is not gender exclusive. Gay men and women can love and be committed and guess what they're normal too! They can also be given over to unnatural desires which separate them from God.

But frankly, I don't care about who you choose to love, so long as you love the way God made you to.