October's Autumn Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 On another forum, I have posed the question of how this dichotomy arose within human belief. Why is diversity and variability in genotype viewed as a "disorder" by some of us, and conversely, why do many of us see this variability as a "normal" feature of natural differences among people ? In true Psychology/Psychiatry disorder is recognized when it limits a persons ability to function. For example: someone might be afraid to go out into public places but it isn't really a disorder until they are unable to leave home at all. Doesn't mean that they may not choose to get help to be less anxious when they do go out. Normal is a range. Disorder is what makes one miserable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corinthian Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 (edited) I'm a little uncomfortable with that analogy. Comparing homosexual orientation to alcoholism, macular degeneration, or diabetes susceptibility seems to imply that homosexual orientation is akin to an inherent problem in life that some people suffer from. While I do think that science is teaching us that some of us are "naturally" homosexual, it seems that a better way to understand these lessons is to embrace a person's sexual orientation as a part of God's design for that person in creation. I do not believe that homosexuality should be viewed as an affliction, but rather embraced as a part of a person's divinely created identity. Just as God has made some of us male and some of us female, some of us with light skin and some of us with dark skin, some of us tall and some of us short, God also made some of us to be attracted to people of the same gender, Hello folks, I'm just seeing this thread. I can tell by many of the comments regarding Southern Baptists that there is lot of tolerance and inclusion being demonstrated here! Plus I am sensing a completely nonjudgmental attitude towards them! It sounds like a real lovefest towards the Southern Baptist! LOL! ;-) But regarding the above quote, what about the poor adulterers and pedophiles? Are we going to exclude them from Communion and full acceptance in Bishop Schiori's (SP?) church, or anybody else's? Does the adulterer come by his/her urgings naturally, and is it a part of that person's divinely created identity? Or is it that a person can be a fully functional normal heterosexual one day, but then decides "I think I'm going to change into a pedophile" the next day? Thus up and changing their sexual orientation "because they didn't come by it naturally? Because it's not part of their "de-divinely created identity"? Or are they born with their evil desires the same way the homosexual is? If a homosexual has no choice in these matters of orientation, why do we assume the adulterer or pedophile does? Or do we? If God "made some of us to be attracted to people of the same gender", did he also design some of us to be sexually attracted to children, or perhaps just to have an uncontrollable desire for a large number of sexual partners other than our spouses? 2 Timothy 4 1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version) 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Timothy 2 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Just some food for thought! Corinthian Edited November 6, 2006 by corinthian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) In regards to the new S. Baptist head and being more gentle, I love the quote he gave the press. When asked he said something to the effect that "I love Jesus and believe in the bible...I am just not mad about it". As for Schori....it will be interesting. She is just the frosting on the cake for conservatives. The Episcopal Church is headed for a split. What is hoped is that the Archbishop/Lambeth crowd will downgrade the Epsicopal Church USA to "associate" status within the Worldwide Anglican Comunion and then recongize the faithful coalition of conservative Churches as "the Anglican Church" in the USA. The ArchBishop apparently favors associate status for ECUSA but there is pressure just to maybe go ahead and recognize the conservative coalition but give ECUSA the left foot of fellowship rather than associate status. The global South (Akinola and others) are pretty frosted with the US Epsicopal Church and what they see as arrogance (of course a few years ago Spong's practically racist statement about global South Bishops did not make anyone feel warm and fuzzy). Anyway, it bodes to be interesting. You also have groups of moderate Episcopalians who are neither rabid liberals or rabid conservatives (Via Media) and want the Epsiscopal way of moderation and tolerance practiced. North Edited November 8, 2006 by North Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corinthian Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Anyway, it bodes to be interesting. You also have groups of moderate Episcopalians who are neither rabid liberals or rabid conservatives (Via Media) and want the Epsiscopal way of moderation and tolerance practiced. North You mean there is actually such a thing as a rabidly conservative Episcopalian? I might well be rabidly conservative, but it's hard to picture any of my Episcopalian friends/family or -- or any Episcopalians that I have ever met -- as being anything like me regarding beliefs about Jesus or the Bible. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 You mean there is actually such a thing as a rabidly conservative Episcopalian? I might well be rabidly conservative, but it's hard to picture any of my Episcopalian friends/family or -- or any Episcopalians that I have ever met -- as being anything like me regarding beliefs about Jesus or the Bible. Bill As a card carrying Episcopalian, I can assure you that we come in many forms. What keeps us together (up until now, anyway) has been a belief that we can share communion despite divergent and varying views. That said, I suspect that the larger part of the Episcopal Church in the USA is fairly liberal. Some of us are extremely so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corinthian Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 That said, I suspect that the larger part of the Episcopal Church in the USA is fairly liberal. Some of us are extremely so. Yes, that would jive with my observations also. Although, that will be better determined after the likely split occurs, and then we can see which group has the larger numbers. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.