Sexism Is Bad, Liberal Sexism Is Bad And Stupid...

[jamesAMDG]

Humblest apologies to Ms. Rivers and the illustrious des, my ears are now quite full. (and to carl who I also overlooked)

 

AltheiaRivers:

 

I wouldn't argue that a woman is more capable than a man, any more than I would argue that a man is more capable than a woman, to lead a church.

 

I would argue that women and men have EQUAL capability.

 

An equal capability and an equal role are different things. A great number of people are as capable of for example, being police officers, politicians, doctors, etc. But they are called to something else. Just because someone is called to do something doesn't give them less human dignity (the only equality that really matters; ie: we all have an immortal soul which we are responsible for and which will be judged... thats real equality)

 

Even the passage where he says women are not to speak in church needs to be interpreted in light of the situation in that particular congregation.

 

How do you come the conclusion that his instructions here were to be understood only for that particular congregation?

 

From Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthinians 14:31-35

 

31 For you may all prophesy one by one; that all may learn, and all may be exhorted: 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. 35 But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

 

In the verse directly preceeding his instruction on women he teaches in all the churches that God is not a

God of dissension but rather of peace.

 

Nice to have you back, you cranky ole Catholic you. wink.gif

 

Nice to be back thanks.

 

des:

 

Since the "rule of thumb" was common place (ie "don't hit your wife with anything bigger than the width of your thumb"),

 

Sorry but there is no reliable evidence for the origin story of a "rule of thumb" See here http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/ruleofthumb.html or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

 

The celebration over the first women leader of the Episcopal church doesn't imply that that we would now be upset if a man were to be elected next!! In many of our views it is a milestone, more similar to the first woman astronaut or something like that. It doesn't mean we wouldn't want any more male astronauts.

 

Perhaps, and perhaps I'm reading more into it than I should. But it feels an awful lot like a consolatio prize for not being able to get a woman elected as Pope.

 

James, I wish you would not attack certain members, I happen to feel that one you attacked is not really in a good place about the church and her own feelings on it, due to past experiences.

 

If this is referring to what I said about Beach, it wasn't intended to be an attack on her, but rather a refrecne to a historical event.

 

...

 

 

I think Viking games are more interesting than debatign you.

 

 

Now now, be nice. After all, you are free not to comment if I have become so irksome as all that.

 

 

carl:

 

I am not offended by that text at all. I recognize it for what it is, a piece of writing from a given person, to a given audience in a given culture, at a given time.

 

Just because St. Paul says those things - does not mean that they are necesairly to be followed to the letter today.

 

I am not offended by this text because I understand and view it through its historical and cultural context. I would be offended if a person used these texts to justify gender discrimination today.

 

This confuses me greatly. How can something be ok in the past but in the present it is sinful (discrimnation being a sin)?

 

Also - As pointed out above - I don't feel that woman are MORE qualified to lead a church than a man is.

I feel both genders are EQUALLY qualified to follow the call of God in their lives, including calls to ministerial leadership. As noted above, St. Paul did commend many woman church leaders of his day.

 

There isn't really any place where Saint Paul says women are called to the official and priestly role. They were certainly called to other roles within the Early Church, not least among them prophetesses. Besides though, people minister in many different ways, music ministry, parish councils, as teachers, etc. Having women in these roles in no way opens the door to an office which has only ever been held by men (In the case of a nearly 2000 years tradition as Chirstians and the 4000 or so preceeding years of Jewish history there were no women priestesses)

 

This is a fundamental mistake I often see made by people who think women can/should be ordained as priests. They don't acknowledge that it is not a person who chooses the priesthood for themselves, but rather, it is something that God calls them to do (after which they must decide if they will follow Him and His call). This is as true now as it was during the time of the Old Testament. God called His priests exclusively from the Tribe of Levi, was He discriminating against the other Tribes? If so God is a sinner which denies His divinity. When someone who is not/cannot be a priest like Core (Numbers 16.1-50) tries to do so without God's approval there are dire consequences.

 

dave:

 

Paul became the first to write of Jesus. Some of what he wrote is inspiring to me, but not sacred because other of what he wrote like, homosexuality is caused by incorrect worship of birds and creeping things,etc. just is not true.

 

While I'm not as bibilically literate as I should be, where does Saint Paul say this?

Edited July 12, 2006 by jamesAMDG

[MOW]

Woah, woah, woah... You might want to familiarize yourself with Point 6: "By calling ourselves progressive,we mean that we are Christians who find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers."

Of course it's meant to be taken literally -- in the sense that the author intended. In this case, he's using physical circumcision as a figure of speech to convey total dedication to God. Like being a seemingly-paradoxical "living sacrifice".

 

Well that really isn't "literally" anyway that's metaphorically. Don't always assume that it is so obvious. It is said that the early church father Origen castrated himself, to fulfill the scripture about becoming a "eunuch for the lord ". We do know that there are Christians who carry around snakes in their services, because they believe the Bible tells them to do so.

 

What people take literally,what they take symbolically, and what they simply ignore from the Bible seems a matter of personal preference sometimes. Some conservatives might march against a gay pride rally , but won't say a word about Wal -Mart having their stores open on the "Sabbath". Know one really seriously believes that we should forbid menstruating women from being seen in public or that we should free all prisoners fron jail and forgive all debts every seven years even though the certain books in the Bible say we should.

 

The incident at the church where I played was hilarious. For all we know God simply caused that to happen so we would all have a good laugh that Sunday. Sydney Harris of the Chicago Sun Times used to complain about people taking religion so seriously, and not ever seeing God's divine sense of humour. Such things as the duckbilled platypus ,the frog, the gekko, the sloth ,and the kangaroo seem to be manifestations of this.

 

 

MOW

[des]

James:

RE "the rule of thumb"

Whether there ever was a "literal" rule of thumb, I wouldn't argue that. There has historically been

a tacit one though. Think about the treatment of women in nondeveloped parts of the world (although

perhaps it is WORSE than the "rule of thumb"). Since I think more metaphorically than you do-- hence

our beliefs, it stands to reason that I may not think that the "rule of thumb" has ever been literally written or stated somewhere. Basically the idea was that women had historically been "allowed" to be beaten if it didnt' cause too much damage (and even to damage or death). It sadly goes on all over the world. So my comment stands: what Paul said about caring for your wife was a more humane view than the prevailing one since we assume that the ancient societies of the time did not have

enlightened views about women. Paul's view would be relatively enlightened, but not exactly feminist. :-)

Nevertheless your links were interesting. I never knew where that all came from etiologically speaking.

 

>>The celebration over the first women leader of the Episcopal church doesn't imply that that we would now be upset if a man were to be elected next!! In many of our views it is a milestone, more similar to the first woman astronaut or something like that. It doesn't mean we wouldn't want any more male astronauts.

 

>Perhaps, and perhaps I'm reading more into it than I should. But it feels an awful lot like a consolatio prize for not being able to get a woman elected as Pope.

 

Maybe, but I tend to think that there will be more male heads of the Episcopal church and no one will be

upset. But that one wouldn't automatically not consider a woman now that one has already done it (much as there are male and female astronauts).

 

>Now now, be nice. After all, you are free not to comment if I have become so irksome as all that.

 

A fair comment. Though I think AR makes a lovely Viking. :-)

 

Mow:

Funny thing, btw, about the term "literally". It is often meant to mean metaphorically.

For example, consider the phrase, often heard: "I literally was climbing the walls".

Now unless you would be my late Siamese cat :-) , she LITERALLY climbed the walls,

you would mean you felt edgy or something of that sort. This sort of thing drives the

English teacher in me crazy. OTOH, maybe the word itself is transmuting. The linguist

in me gets that sort of thing, so I am torn.

 

But I think it varies with different progressives. Some progressives take more things more literally.

I tend to be one who sees things quite metaphorically, as I think even the concept of God is

a metaphor for the transcendent that is not really expressed well in verbal language. It is

like the Buddhist saying about the finger pointing, though I can't recall it. (A 50s moment

brought to you by our sponsor. :-))

 

--des

[MOW]

Hi des:

Those were really good points about the word"literally".

 

Just for the fun of it I did a little research about the "snake handlers". They take as their text Mark 16: 17-18

 

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons: they will speak in tonques ; they will pick up snakes in their hands and if they drink any deadly thing ,it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick ,and they will recover." (NRSV)

 

Those churches were founded around 1909 and called Church of God with Signs Following. The picking up of snakes is voluntary . In addition to picking up snakes ,they also drink various poisons to test their faith. I wouldn't worry about taking those verses literally. Most scholars regard the verses after verse 8 in the 16th chapter of Mark to be forgeries and additions anyway.

 

btw Flow if you're reading this ,I have played ,as a musician, behind snake dancers and fire eaters.

 

MOW

[des]

Mow, though IF one truly takes the Bible literally then what do you do with those verses?

Fortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT take them literally.

 

--des

[davestelzer]

dave:

While I'm not as bibilically literate as I should be, where does Saint Paul say this?

 

james

 

Romans 1:23ff (Amplified Ver.)

 

23 And by them [gays] the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images [statues], resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

 

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [gay activity],

 

25 Because they [gays] exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever!

 

 

It seems paul is saying he is 'holier than thou' (sanctimony) because he practices correct worship. I think this passage is quietly the unspoken huge fear of fundamentalists among themselves. Why can not literalists acknowlege that paul was wrong on this one? I think a caution is due the fundamentalists not to worship 'words' more than truth...

 

Dave

[loveapple]

St Paul was entitled to his opinions just as we all are. But being a mere mortal the same as the rest of us he wasn't infallible and I disagree with a lot of what he had to say. It is terrible that his views have been used as an excuse to repress women and condemn homosexuals!

[flowperson]

MOW:

Despite your mild-mannered online deportment, I always knew that you were a wild and crazy guy.

 

I understand fire eating ( did you play something from Handel's water music to counter the effects ?), but the snake dancer thing baffles me. Was it like the stuff the replicant babe did in Ridley Scott's film, Blade Runner? Or was it at some strip bar in Calumet City or Cicero? Is there mongoose music to fit the situation? Or did you play something from the asian subcontinent ?

 

I'm really looking forward to your answers. I have to live with vicarious thrills much of the time these days.

 

flow....

[MOW]

MOW:

Despite your mild-mannered online deportment, I always knew that you were a wild and crazy guy.

 

I understand fire eating ( did you play something from Handel's water music to counter the effects ?), but the snake dancer thing baffles me. Was it like the stuff the replicant babe did in Ridley Scott's film, Blade Runner? Or was it at some strip bar in Calumet City or Cicero? Is there mongoose music to fit the situation? Or did you play something from the asian subcontinent ?

 

I'm really looking forward to your answers. I have to live with vicarious thrills much of the time these days.

 

flow....

 

Hello Flow:

Fire dancing involves them stepping in fire and rubbing the fire on their bodies as well as eating the fire. I actually play conga drums and various percussions for this. Snake dancers do fire dancing and then will dance with a live snake around their shoulders. These performances were done on stages and in nightclubs. I played for these more when I was in my 30s and 40s but on occasion I still do.

 

 

 

MOW

[Carl]

carl:

This confuses me greatly. How can something be ok in the past but in the present it is sinful (discrimnation being a sin)?

 

James - I did not say that gender discrimination was "OK", I said that the texts needed to be understood in their cultural contexts.

Humanity is in the process of growing. Norms and values are changing as we grow. What used to be unacceptable is now acceptable, because we have evolved, grown and progressed. People are much more enlightened today, than they were 1500 years ago.

 

Recognizing that the Bible contains many instances of bias or descrimination is NOT to say that discrimiation was/is a good thing. It is to say however, that it was a reality because at that point (during the life of St. Paul for example) largely because humanity had not progressed far enough to recognize the reality of gender equality. That is a part of reality.

 

Think of it as looking at a map of the world from the 1700s.....It may be the best map that a cartographer of that era was capeable of drawing... but today, we have progressed more, and can draw better maps. That doesn't mean that we are offended by the old map, rather it means that we respect it for what it was, and we continue to progress.

 

I use the Scriptures, together with Tradition, Reason and Experience to discern how God would have me live.

Reason and Experience are filters which help remove some of the cultural bias of the text from the formation of modern dogma.

 

You also say this:

This is a fundamental mistake I often see made by people who think women can/should be ordained as priests. They don't acknowledge that it is not a person who chooses the priesthood for themselves, but rather, it is something that God calls them to do \

 

I would say that God calls people BY equiping them. We have different understandings of what it means to be "called by God", therefore we will not be able to come to an agreement about WHO is called.

[MOW]

Mow, though IF one truly takes the Bible literally then what do you do with those verses?

Fortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT take them literally.

 

--des

 

Des , I honestly don't know what fundmentalists and Biblical literalists do with Mark 16: 17-18. Perhaps (and I'm guessing here) "picking up snakes and drinking poison" could be euphemisms for surviving a dangerous or deadly situation in life.

 

It just seems to me that Mark should properly end at chapter 16: 8 with the empty tomb. The verses following that are IMO just additions by a later writer to provide some after ressurection stories in Mark . The post ressurection stories in Matthew, Luke and especially John, just seem more meaningful, regardless if one sees them as mythological or not.

 

MOW

[flowperson]

Hello Flow:

Fire dancing involves them stepping in fire and rubbing the fire on their bodies as well as eating the fire. I actually play conga drums and various percussions for this. Snake dancers do fire dancing and then will dance with a live snake around their shoulders. These performances were done on stages and in nightclubs. I played for these more when I was in my 30s and 40s but on occasion I still do.

 

 

 

MOW

 

 

Groovy !!!

 

flow....

[jamesAMDG]

Dave:

 

Let's look at wat Saint Paul said in a a larger context of the verses surrounding it, without all the aplifications in square brackets.

 

Saint Paul's First Letter to the Romans 1:16-30

 

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. 17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [...]

 

 

It becomes clear that their homosexuality was not CAUSED by their paganism and sins against God by denying Him justice in worship and reverence, but rather, because of these sins, God withdrew His grace from them (something that happens to everyone who commits a mortal sin). In this state of sinfulness they did not resist their disordered temptations and fell into these sins.

 

This is a lesson to everyone, if we deny God that which is His by right (worship and love) we separate ourselves from Him and lose the special help and strength which is His grace. Thankfully of course, we can choose to be made whole by believing, repenting, making a good confession and making our penance with a firm intention to live a better life (either from fear of Hell - imperfect contrition or from pure love of God - perfect contrition; we should always strive/pray for perfect contrition).

 

It si important to remember that God never causes us to sin, but if we choose to sin we have, by our own acts, told God to buzz off. The Lord loves and respects us so He will not force Himself onto us and will leave us if we so desire. Without His strength given to us through grace, our tainted natures do tend towards sin so yes, we may start to commit these terrible acts.

 

What a terrible thing to be in a state of sin, for whatever reason.

[October's Autumn]

Regarding Ephesians:

 

We must realize that two things to understand what it is saying. First, the divisions were not in the original documents. THEWRITERSWROTELIKETHISINALLCAPITALLETTERSWITHNOPUNCTUATIONORSPACEBETWEENTHEENDS

OFSENTENCESORPARAGRAPHSORANYSUCKTHINGSWEFINDINMODERNTRANSLATIONSOREVENGREEKBIBLES

.

 

So, by content what it begins with is: Submit one to another. So the first thing the writer of the passage is saying is that hubands and wives are to submit to each other. You have to back up a verse and keep the content together.

 

The second problem we have with this particular section of Ephesians is that it has years of biblical interpretation and sermons built on it. We need to view it with fresh eyes. Note that the writer does NOT tell women to love their husbands. Does that mean that women are not supposed to love their husbands? I can't imagine anyone believing that is true. For whatever reason to this particular audience, the writer felt a need to tell those who were receiving the letter that (a) they needed to submit to each other. Then goes on to tell them specifically that men needed to love their wives and women needed to submit to their husbands. It doesn't mean that women are NOT to love their wives nor does it mean that husbands are NOT to submit to their wives.

[October's Autumn]

Mow, though IF one truly takes the Bible literally then what do you do with those verses?

Fortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT take them literally.

 

--des

 

Growing up in a church that took things literally I feel confident in saying people who say they take everything the bible says literally and believe every word are only fooling themselves.

 

There is nothing in the New Testament to undo the law of the Hebrew Bible which states that you are not to mix two different kinds of fibers when making clothing. I have yet to see a church or person who follows that law.

 

When my mom said she took everything the bible said literally and nothing was culture I asked her when she started wearing a head covering.

 

I also wonder how many people who say they take everything literally and believe it all do with people who are overweight. Gluttony is a huge sin and gluttons are condemned in the same breath as male prostitues and pedophiles (which are often confused in Englislh translations with "homosexuals.") But I don't see people running around to funerals damning those who are overweight. Of course you can also be a glutton by having too much money. And we know what Jesus said about a rich man -- can't get in. The needle and camel thing is literal, by the way. I'd been told there is a gate going into Jerusalem that was called the eye of the needed and a camel had to get on its knees, blah, blah, blah. I went , there is no such place. Jesus is actually saying that rich people will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Well, it turns out people pick and choose what they believe, literally. Of course you have to deal with the contradictions to. Are women not to speak in church or are they not to speak unless their heads are covered? Do they need to wear a head covering or is their hair their covering? ARe women not to braid their hair? Were humans created first as in the 2nd account of creation or were they created last, with women as the crowinging glory as in the 1st account of creation.

 

So many things to believe, literally, makes one's head spin, doesn't it?

 

 

Woah, woah, woah... You might want to familiarize yourself with Point 6: "By calling ourselves progressive,we mean that we are Christians who find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers."

Of course it's meant to be taken literally -- in the sense that the author intended. In this case, he's using physical circumcision as a figure of speech to convey total dedication to God. Like being a seemingly-paradoxical "living sacrifice".

 

 

ahhh, thus the problem with claiming literal interpretation. And this was an easy one. Not all of them are so easy, like the creation story. Never intended to be science or taken literally. It is poetry. For Hebrew poetry one is too look for the point: God (in whatever name taken in the Hebrew) is THE God. I suspect the creation stories that exist are all for the purpose of which groups god is THE god. So of course, the Hebrews had to have their own story to show that their god was THE god.

 

I would say that God calls people BY equiping them. We have different understandings of what it means to be "called by God", therefore we will not be able to come to an agreement about WHO is called.

 

 

Well, to some people that means they had to be "equipped" with a ######. Interesting requirement for becoming a leader.

[MOW]

Great post October !!

 

If I may add a little humour , I remember another incident in scripture reading at the same church. It was Heritage Sunday at the UMC church where I was playing. This sunday honors the day when John Wesley said "his heart was strangely warmed". To commemorate this , they decided to read the passage in Acts where Saul/Paul is struck blind by the light on his way to Demascus. Since it was Heritage Sunday, they read everything in the Old King James Version . The problem was that in that passage (in the KJV) Jesus says to Paul" I am Jesus who thou persecuteth. It is a hard thing for thee to kick against the pricks."

 

The woman who was to read that passage was the oldest member of the congregation; a woman in her mid eighties. I knew that passage was coming and I was wondering what would happen. When she got to the phrase "kick against the pricks" her voice dropped to an almost inaudible level and she paused ,kind of stunned and then rushed to the end of the scripture. She was an excellent reader ,so I imagine she had not read the scripture before going into the pulpit.

 

BTW " kick against the pricks" is a euphemism which (I think) means to go against your own nature ,or to fight against the inevitable. The image is of a horse being stuck with a sharp object to make it go faster,and the horse kicking back at the sharp instrument (pricks) making the situation worse.

 

 

MOW

[davestelzer]

Dave:

 

Let's look at wat Saint Paul said in a a larger context of the verses surrounding it, without all the aplifications in square brackets.

 

Saint Paul's First Letter to the Romans 1:16-30

 

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. 17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [...]

 

 

It becomes clear that their homosexuality was not CAUSED by their paganism and sins against God by denying Him justice in worship and reverence, but rather, because of these sins, God withdrew His grace from them (something that happens to everyone who commits a mortal sin). In this state of sinfulness they did not resist their disordered temptations and fell into these sins.

 

This is a lesson to everyone, if we deny God that which is His by right (worship and love) we separate ourselves from Him and lose the special help and strength which is His grace. Thankfully of course, we can choose to be made whole by believing, repenting, making a good confession and making our penance with a firm intention to live a better life (either from fear of Hell - imperfect contrition or from pure love of God - perfect contrition; we should always strive/pray for perfect contrition).

 

It si important to remember that God never causes us to sin, but if we choose to sin we have, by our own acts, told God to buzz off. The Lord loves and respects us so He will not force Himself onto us and will leave us if we so desire. Without His strength given to us through grace, our tainted natures do tend towards sin so yes, we may start to commit these terrible acts.

 

What a terrible thing to be in a state of sin, for whatever reason.

 

 

 

James,

 

You have obscured my point and changed the subject to make a plug for your biblical ideology.

 

First your ideology:

 

You are welcome to believe in a God that expects obedience and worship. It is good that you want to be a good person in true union with God. It is good that you want to avoid sin... you probably won't break any laws that way.

 

We are different though in our paradigms which support our belief systems and ideology. But God can handle this difference easily. God has indeed allowed for such a difference.

 

In my paradigm, God doesn't need the bible to be God. God doesn't need to order the earth or the people. God is not a divine parent who sweeps down to rescue mankind and then return up to her home in the sky.

 

It is then left up to us to order ourselves. The bible did not drop out of the sky. It was formed over a period of 1000 years. Even though many believe the bible to be complete it does not solve all our moral dilemmas like abortion; stem cell research; and same sex marriage. I have boldly stepped outside the shell of the bible to examine other evidence and resources for knowledge. If you examine gay people themselves you will find that they are not indulgent sinners depraved of grace and truth. They are law abiding people when they have the reasonable option to be. Many of them want monogamous marriages and validation that they are loving, caring, people with the right to enjoy the privileges of civil marriage... just like you and me.

 

If you don't examine other resources than the bible you will be living in a shell of ignorance.

 

The bible can inspire us but it is just a helping guide. We cannot depend on it for every answer. Modern technology and society call for other more advanced resources like the internet or possibly J. S. Spong's book, The Sins of Scripture. We must not live in the cocoon of the Dark Ages. Even the bible says "knowledge will increase". Let us accept the modern world and let knowledge increase. Let us be citizens of the modern international globally complex world. Let the wisdom of the past be replaced by the wisdom of the present.

 

Now, my point:

 

It is not true that incorrect worship causes homosexuality even if the biblical ideology in the context is your paradigm: no scholar or scientist or psychologist believes that. We say that homosexuality is probably caused by brain formations in the gestational period before birth and is something that one wakes up to like being left handed. It used to be held that left handed people were sinister but not any more. We have become advanced in our understanding of left handedness and also our understanding of what causes homosexualty. It is not caused by incorrect worship of statues of mortal men, birds, beasts, or reptiles. That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.

 

Regarding that, please do not reduce the world and science down to the trivial solution of the bible's limited scope.

 

Will you please agree with my point?

 

Dave

[DavidD]

Oh I like that analogy to left-handedness. I haven't heard that before.

 

Has anyone ever encountered a Bible-believing Christian, who believes homosexuality is a sin based on Leviticus and many of Paul's writings, change his or her mind based on evidence that homosexuality is natural, not a choice except in the sense of exactly what gays and lesbians do about their attraction to the same sex? I can't say I have. Yet I've seen this same exchange many times. Elsewhere I shared my personal experience of a boy who grew up with my daughters. All the parents knew he was gay very early on. He didn't. He dated girls for a while. In fact my older daughter was the last girl he dated, before coming out of the closet at about age 17. Wow, what a safe boyfriend he was. He was more respectful to me than any other of my daughters' dates. I liked him a lot, yet I was certain this was not going to last. So this well-behaved, mild-mannered young man was estranged from God? No, I think it makes much more sense that Paul was wrong.

 

The Bible is wrong in many places, you know. Genesis has the creation of life in an order that science knows to be wrong, even if somehow the absolute scale of the timeline science has it wrong, which it doesn't. The Bible says that sin causes disease. Medicine has found many causes of disease. None of them are the direct consequences of sin. I think as many patients as have been treated now by modern medicine, it would have been found by now if there was some unknown cause of disease in a large number of patients compared to the biological ones that are known. There is no such gap to be explained by sin.

 

Still some people idolize the Bible. Does God? Wow that would ruin my relationship with Him if He did. But He knows He didn't dictate the Bible. Those who gets close enough to Him can ask Him themselves. I don't know what else will help this, unfortunately.

[DCJ]

Still some people idolize the Bible. Does God? Wow that would ruin my relationship with Him if He did. But He knows He didn't dictate the Bible. Those who gets close enough to Him can ask Him themselves.

What if I did ask God, and He seemed to confirm that He did superintend the Bible?

 

That's the problem with only relying on private revelation, isn't it... It's very difficult to really discern what God may be trying to tell us if all we have is our subjective experience to guide us. One person's encounter can't carry any more authority than someone else's because there's nothing objective to which they can appeal. Personal revelation doesn't seem like an adequate vehicle to communicate propositional truth about God around which believers can form communities.

 

Now, the Bible may be difficult in places to interpret, but in God's providence, he's given us a source of knowledge that is accessible by anyone. Jesus believed the Scriptures to be God's word, and that's a powerful motivator for me to as well.

[jamesAMDG]

davidseltzer:

 

It is not true that incorrect worship causes homosexuality even if the biblical ideology in the context is your paradigm: no scholar or scientist or psychologist believes that.

 

You are twisting my words and Saint Paul's. I clearly explained (when you were accsuing me obfuscating) that when we sin (by whatever means, the people in question exchanged worship fo the Creator for the creature) and without the grace God gives us we are much less apt to commit these sins. You would do well to note that Saint Paul never says paganism causes homosexuality, but rather that after falling into paganism the people in question were given over to their desires which have been pre-existing. No serious Christian could say that a desire for homosexuality is sinful. Dwelling on it, entertaining it and acting on those desires certainly is. But not the temptation. If temptation were sin it would be meaningless to fight temptations and grow in virtue.

 

As an aside... why does it matter to me what scholars, scientists, and psychologists think about God and His Revelation. None of those groups even come close to claiming infallibility. The scholars fo the Jesus Seminar (including your hero Spong) vote on what truth might be with coloured marbles, they vote... is this a serious method for determining truth, whether a bunch of people think it might be true? If God's Revelation were up for vote, or something we could determin ourselves there would be no need for That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.Revelation, it would be self-defeating. Scientists, good scientists anyway, know that the scientific method is used for testing hypothesis and formulating theories. These are changeable, and often are changed when better data comes along. And psychologists? We end up in the area of your voting scholars again. The APA defined homosexuality as a mental disorder until they voted to change it. Which time were they right?

 

I have boldly stepped outside the shell of the bible to examine other evidence and resources for knowledge. [...] Modern technology and society call for other more advanced resources like the internet or possibly J. S. Spong's book, The Sins of Scripture.

 

So bold, you know better than all the Patriarchs, Saints, Martyrs and Doctors of the Church do you? You can call this bold I suppose, but I think most honest people would call it pride.

 

If I understand you correctly, the Bible, that book that inspired the Saints, Martyrs and Doctors is not good, but a book written by one man, in one very specific place at one very specific time (IE: the post-Christian Anglican Church of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries) should be my universal guide?

 

That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.

 

Regarding that, please do not reduce the world and science down to the trivial solution of the bible's limited scope.

 

The fiction of [saint] Paul? Can you please tell me then, for the sake of clarity, how you know which of Saint Paul's letters are fictional and which aren't? Or maybe how a simple man like myself can know this difference without leaving you a post everytime I'm uncertain?

 

Please do not reduce the Bible (or the rest of Existence) down to the tiny narrow little window which science acknowledges as its domain?

[DavidD]

That's the problem with only relying on private revelation, isn't it...

 

Who said anything about relying only on private revelation?

 

I mentioned some evidence that the Bible has errors. There's a lot more. Atheists have websites devoted to going through the Bible from cover to cover listing every contradiction or other problem someone could compile about that. As someone who knows that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Savior by charismatic gift, I can't imagine why I would want to spend my time looking at all that. Yet there are some points, such as with homosexuality, where it matters whether the Bible is inerrant or not.

 

How does one address that? My first point was to say that in my experience, Bible-believing Christians don't budge at all to any review of why homosexuality should be seen as a biological trait, not the explanation Paul gives in the first chapter of Romans. I've heard many who speak of the Bible as you do, DCJ. It doesn't sound right to me. I don't see how Jesus could have endorsed a New Testament that hadn't been written yet at the time of His ministry. So much of what people say on this topic, whether it's defending the Bible or arguing against inerrancy, is just argument to excuse a position someone has already committed to, an idolatry as I see it, either an idolatry of the Bible or an idolatry of belief against the Bible. If you make your mind up on your own, an adversary has got you either way, doesn't he?

 

Who is not an idol? Why God! And who is God? Well you can start with what the Bible says. You can start with what philosophy says. If you've been given faith, then who God is is part of that faith, I would think. Somewhere out there is God. And most of us believe that anyone can try praying to Him with a chance of being heard. So one can pray for understanding, for direction, for strength, for comfort, for all sorts of things. To have one's prayer answered is not what I'd call a private revelation. Maybe it is. It's your phrase. But if an answer to prayer is what you call "private revelation", I'll take it. You know, it seems to me a lot of people I admire had private revelations, like Jesus, Paul, even if Paul was wrong about homosexuality. They certainly didn't get their ideas from following a crowd. I don't, but I don't trust any one thing either. I trust God, and I trust the integration of many things to know what God is saying to me. It works for me.

 

What doesn't work is this impasse between Bible-believing Christians and others who have all kinds of evidence how the Bible is wrong. Do you think the Bible is right every single time? I wonder what the odds of that would be? Whatever it is, it would be a miracle if the Bible were right and science and other experience is wrong. Yet no one can say that it's one way or the other with absolute authority but God. That thought has driven me to prayer many times. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that.

Edited July 26, 2006 by DavidD

[davestelzer]

davidseltzer:

You are twisting my words and Saint Paul's. I clearly explained (when you were accsuing me obfuscating) that when we sin (by whatever means, the people in question exchanged worship fo the Creator for the creature) and without the grace God gives us we are much less apt to commit these sins. You would do well to note that Saint Paul never says paganism causes homosexuality, but rather that after falling into paganism the people in question were given over to their desires which have been pre-existing. No serious Christian could say that a desire for homosexuality is sinful. Dwelling on it, entertaining it and acting on those desires certainly is. But not the temptation. If temptation were sin it would be meaningless to fight temptations and grow in virtue.

 

As an aside... why does it matter to me what scholars, scientists, and psychologists think about God and His Revelation. None of those groups even come close to claiming infallibility. The scholars fo the Jesus Seminar (including your hero Spong) vote on what truth might be with coloured marbles, they vote... is this a serious method for determining truth, whether a bunch of people think it might be true? If God's Revelation were up for vote, or something we could determin ourselves there would be no need for That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.Revelation, it would be self-defeating. Scientists, good scientists anyway, know that the scientific method is used for testing hypothesis and formulating theories. These are changeable, and often are changed when better data comes along. And psychologists? We end up in the area of your voting scholars again. The APA defined homosexuality as a mental disorder until they voted to change it. Which time were they right?

So bold, you know better than all the Patriarchs, Saints, Martyrs and Doctors of the Church do you? You can call this bold I suppose, but I think most honest people would call it pride.

 

If I understand you correctly, the Bible, that book that inspired the Saints, Martyrs and Doctors is not good, but a book written by one man, in one very specific place at one very specific time (IE: the post-Christian Anglican Church of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries) should be my universal guide?

The fiction of [saint] Paul? Can you please tell me then, for the sake of clarity, how you know which of Saint Paul's letters are fictional and which aren't? Or maybe how a simple man like myself can know this difference without leaving you a post everytime I'm uncertain?

 

Please do not reduce the Bible (or the rest of Existence) down to the tiny narrow little window which science acknowledges as its domain?

 

 

 

James,

 

Psalm 100:5 (Amplified version)

 

5. For the Lord is good; His mercy and lovingkindness are everlasting, His faithfulness and truth endure to all generations.

 

 

Here is a lesson in mercy: His mercy is everlasting! How big is that? Infinitely so. His mercy is infinite. That means to me that God forgives sin. How much? Infinitely much. God's mercy is greater than our ability to sin. God has mercy on me and you.. greater than our capability to sin. Our sin is bound by our mortality but God's mercy is greater than all of mortality. God's mercy is huuuuuuge!

 

I am liberated to know that whether my sin is small, or great, God has mercy on me. I believe that means that my venial sins are forgiven and my mortal sins are forgiven. But I have to believe it... there is no certainty. The bible promises everlasting mercy, but I have to believe it... there is no certainty.

 

Mercy is a fundamental concept that I continually draw upon in order to survive my mistakes. The concept of infinite mercy continues even if all the bibles are burned and we have to start all over again with revelation from the beginning. My bible returns to dust but the concept survives. I don't worship the bible I worship the concept of God's mercy everlasting.

 

Now consider the concept of unconditional love. For examples: God loves me whether I meet the condition of Christian or Pagan. And, God loves me whether or not I meet the condition of mortal sin against my soul or venial sins only or even sinless . My bible does not reveal unconditional love. The greatest statement of my bible is found in 1 Jn 4: God is love. So the bible is limited here. Unconditional love is greater than my bible. I believe a god that does not measure up to unconditional love is not a true God. I believe God's love is greater than the bible. The bible starts with a very wrathful punishing God and progresses to the revelation that God is love but then stops. Yet God is the source of unconditional love not spoken of in the bible. Is God limited from unconditional love or is God greater than the bible?

 

My point is that I believe God is greater than the bible. The bible is a guide but not the lexicon of knowledge.

My certainty is that God is a source of love and a source of life and the ground of being. But this certainty will be replaced by revelations to the next generation apart from the bible. There really is no certainty and I have come to accept that.

 

Having no certainty has transformed my thinking and forced me to change my security system from a bible believing fundamentalist to a progressive Christian and perhaps to agnostic and even non-theist. I believe more in an eternal rest then an afterlife. With my pattern of mistakes (which I try to learn from) I am growing more in sin (and grace) than in virtue. My virtue if any is to avoid repeating my mistakes.

 

Do you believe the desire for homosexuality is any more serious than the desire for heterosexuality? I do not.

 

regards, Dave

[AslansTraveller]

If I may, let me jump in here. Not that I have much to offer in the terms of substantive debate, I don't. But this whole issue of homosexuality is one that I'm dealing with as I go through a paradigm shift which seems to be taking the social/political expression of my faith from a conservative place to a more liberal one.

 

First, a resource suggestion: The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert Gagnon, a New Testament scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary. His arguments deal with Scriptural, social and cultural issues. No matter what side you are on, if you are not aware of his work and this book, you are out of touch with the present debate. He also has an excellent website of articles (don't have the address onhand, you could google it)

 

Now my problem: I know all the arguments on both sides backwards and forwards (I was hip deep in the debate in the Episcopal Church in 2003). I saw excellent reasons to object to approving of homosexuality, both Scriptural and social. Now . . . I'm having doubts.

 

Why? Because someone came in with some great arguments? No. Because I am beginning to feel the pain of the gays and lesbians in our society and am wondering if it is justified. Is this what being a Christian is about: holding up rules that are only causing pain and suffering? Holding to a line on homosexuality that, in practice, the church doesn't hold for so many other things (war, greed, lust, hey, look at the statistics for how Christians really live). Is this what Christ would want? Does it really matter to Him? Should it really matter to me?

 

The social question of "How should we treat homosexuals?" is easy (even though I overlooked this key for so long):

 

Do Unto Others What You Would Have Others Do Unto You.

 

D'uhh, right? If I want freedom, I must give it. If I want people to stay out of my sex life, I must stay out of others. If I don't want to be hurt or discriminated against on issues that are irrelevant (what does sexuality matter in 99% of jobs?) then I can't do that to others. Simple . . . now.

 

As to the religious issue, I keep thinking of the story of the woman taken in adultery (somewhere in John). The crowd wanted to stone her, Jesus said "He who is without sin . . . ". She lived, uncondemned. Now get this: the crowd was right, Jesus was wrong!. By all measures of Law and society (what does it do to society to let sinners run around free?) they were right and he was wrong. They had logic, Law, society, etc. on their side. What did He have?

 

1) Compassion

 

2) He's the Son of God

 

That story sticks with me. Yes the conservatives can wield all these laws, traditions, Scriptural authority, etc. What have I got to hold up to that? My heart and the example of my rabbi and . . . maybe the Holy Spirit (who's always blowing wither He will, darn it)

 

See where I'm at? I don't need the rules and arguments and debates, I know all of them and got the scars. Maybe too many scars have made my heart hard. Maybe I jumped on board a certain side out of a love of debate and argument and logic and authority and not enough compassion, love and empathy.

[October's Autumn]

Most of what conservatives/fundamentalists think are admonitions against homosexuality are not. They are against rape (Sodom & Gomorrah), prostitution, and pedophila.

 

Also keep in mind that there was no such thing as being in a monogamous relationship between two males at this time. You married a woman to have children with and had a social/sexual relationship with a male (the Greek trend). I'm not clear if all men did this or if it was only men who were gay or bisexual (by today's standards) who took on a male lover. From what study I've done on it I'm under the impression it was more of a status symbol -- much like driving and SUV or having a big house. Life spans were also realitively short and were primarily about reproduction.

 

The bible has really nothing to say about women because there was no ###### wasted. As long as you can identify the father of her child no one particularly cared if she was sexual with another woman. Sex is all about paternity. Can you really believe that Solomon was able to satisfy all his wives and concubines? How do you think they had their sexual needs met?

 

The bible has nothing to say about same sex marriage because no such thing existed at that time. Just as it has nothing to say about computers, cell phones, cars, etc. We can only determine our beliefs (if we choose the bible as a guide for them) based on principles. Like: Do unto others. Love your neighbor. Judge not. etc.

[MOW]

Good points October.

 

One of my favorite books is "The Harlot at the side of the Road" by Jonathan Kirsch. Its a book by a Jewish writer that deals with the so-called "dirty" stories found in the Old Testament. In the chapter on "Sodom and Gommorah" he retells the whole story from the point of view of Lot's daughters. When Lot goes to the door and attempts to placate the mob by offering his own daughters to be gang raped ,he doesn't come off as righteous, in this version.

 

It's interesting that conservatives/fundamentalists who are so outraged by the men of Sodom's actions don't seem as bothered by Lot's incest with his daughters. Joanathan Kirsch concludes the chapter with the image of Lot ,blind drunk, in sexual intercourse with the very daughters he had offered to the mob.

 

 

MOW