Jeff

Iconoclast. I was looking at that thread you provided the link to. I don't have time to read it all, but this piece, by you, is probably sufficient to start with:

Iconoclast

Homosexuality:

Here the Church REALLY needs to roll up its sleeves, quit judging, and do some actual homework. (side note: isn’t judging convenient? You don’t really have to do any work – and for a moment – it feels like you actually accomplish something) Nobody is confused that the ‘bath houses’ of the 70’s resulted in excruciating, horrendous pain for a lot of folks. Nobody is confused that homosexual pedophilia is a major problem – huge enormous pain for all involved. What everyone is confused about is what is the most helpful situation for someone who is born gay? Is it possible for those desires to change? What is the data? What are the facts? Is it ever helpful for a gay person to use the “go for it” strategy of marrying someone of the opposite sex hoping that that will change their desires? Does it ever work? What is the probability? What is the cost? What are the success rates of gay marriages? What are the results when gay couples raise children? Are the children more likely to be gay? Or is there no material difference in any category of health and well-being? If gay marriages end in divorce more than heterosexual marriages is that because society does not support them? If so, would changing societal norms, while improving gay divorce rates, cause more people to choose that lifestyle? Is it even possible for a heterosexual person to choose that lifestyle? Or does it have nothing to do with a choice at all? What is the data? What are the facts? What are people’s real experiences? How do we help the real people in front of us?

Jeff

I think it's pertinent that you start off saying that certain judgments made by people are not confused. But when you get into those other questions about what consequences are better or worse in the harder areas, I don't see that as a difficulty for the idea of judging.

I can still make a purely intellectual judgment. It could be wrong. Just like many inductions of human beings are wrong. But I don't necessarily treat people different because of my judgment. If I know a person is homosexual, why would I treat him/her different so long as they don't intentionally try to affect my sensibilities?

Granted, if they profess to be Christian, the issue of disassociating becomes relevant. But as far as dealing with homosexuals in a secular situation, my intellectual judgment has no impact on how I treat a homosexual until their orientation becomes part and parcel of our interaction. And even then, it will vary depending on the circumstances.

I just don't know how to make sense of completely "not judging." To think is to judge. To affirm a predicate of a subject is to judge. Help me understand what you're saying about not judging.
 

Jeff

I just don't know how to make sense of completely "not judging." To think is to judge. To affirm a predicate of a subject is to judge. Help me understand what you're saying about not judging.

Iconoclast

Let me suggest that there are two kinds of “judgment”. One is condemnation / separation and the other is always action. Jesus said, “judge not lest ye be judged” and Paul said that we should “judge all things”.

Jesus came not to condemn the world (judgment) but rather to save the world (action).

So, “judge” can be used in the very general and “open” sense of a “determination” based on some facts, data and logic and it can be used in the very “final” sense of condemnation / separation.

Notice when we judge someone in the condemning sense then we separate from them. But notice that we separate from them not in order to help them but because we are considering ourselves to be superior – at least we are not like that. What is actually happening in this case is that we are gaining “life” / “well-being” at the expense of another person. Notice that when we condemn someone we no longer feel any obligation to help them – we see them as responsible for their own problems and we can now wash our hands.

And this is, in my view, exactly what the church does today with people who are homosexual. The church judges / condemns homosexual people - that they cannot be Christians / saved.
 

Jeff

Granted, if they profess to be Christian, the issue of disassociating becomes relevant.

Iconoclast

Why does it become relevant? Are you disassociating because you have made the final judgment / condemnation that no homosexual can really be a Christian / be saved? Or do you believe that by disassociating this will be an effective action to help that person in some way?

You see, judgment/condemnation takes on a very final character – it is like a simple formula:  If homosexual and professes to be Christian then condemn and separate.

Whereas judgment that is a determination based on facts, data and logic is always open ended. It always asks the question: what is the most helpful action I can take in this particular circumstance with this particular person? It is open-ended both because particular circumstances are always unique and because we constantly learn new things about our world. It is also radically different from judgment / condemnation because the goal is always to seek to take helpful action versus seeking to feel better about ourselves by being “good”.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Iconoclast: Why does it become relevant? Are you disassociating because you have made the final judgment / condemnation that no homosexual can really be a Christian / be saved? Or do you believe that by disassociating this will be an effective action to help that person in some way?

You see, judgment/condemnation takes on a very final character – it is like a simple formula:  If homosexual and professes to be Christian then condemn and separate.

AND....

Notice when we judge someone in the condemning sense then we separate from them. But notice that we separate from them not in order to help them but because we are considering ourselves to be superior – at least we are not like that.

Jeff: I think you're completely misreading the text. Paul says clearly what the reason for disassociating is--A little leaven leavens the whole lump. So, far from Paul advocating such a disassociation because it makes him feel superior, as you presumptuously claim of him, he actually advocates it because he sees himself (and US) as vulnerable to negative influence. IOW, we should consider ourselves lest we be tempted. The same thought is scattered throughout Paul's writings, like where he says "evil communications corrupts good morals."

And yes, he does hold out the hope and possibility that such disassociation might restore them to fellowship if they feel any shame, but he doesn't argue that such a thing is guaranteed. There can be no absolute maxim, "Love begets love," because people have free-will.

So the bottom line is, the disassociation Paul (and Christ said something quite similar) advocates has nothing to do with superiority OR finality.

I'm going out of town for a week, Iconoclast, and won't be able to post after today. So I wanted to throw out what I think is problematic for your approach. You say we should base our views only on evidence. Here's what I understand to be the evidence about homosexuality.

The twin studies thus far have not demonstrated a compelling case that homosexuality, per se, is genetic. In fact, the approximately 50% correlation is actually indicative that homosexuality, per se, is NOT genetic. I read a Science News article that said they found, in one twin study, that one twin sibling might be homosexual, whereas the other sibling might be heterosexual, but practice what would normally be considered very aberrant heterosexual practices. This led him to think what the evidence really indicates is that some people have a need for more diverse sexual stimulation than other people--not that there is a gene for homosexuality, per se.

This is about where we are at to this day with respect to the twin study evidence, to my knowledge. A few months ago, 60 minutes had an article on the issue, and the "expert" being interviewed admitted that the twin studies have effectually ruled out any clear evidence for a "homosexual" gene. He did say, though, that it is known that some fetuses don't develop properly in the womb, and this affects what psychological "gender" such a person may have.

This condition, then, would be a kind of bi-gender state like those people who are born with both male and female genitals. But a bi-gender person can not be said to be a true homosexual. Because a bi-gender is a unique case. So, I know of no evidence that there is any such thing as a person who is genetically homosexual. I have no problem believing that certain genetic factors play a role in people's sexual practices. But this is true whether the practice is a sexual act, a sexual object, or a tendency toward promiscuity.

Indeed, I suspect that promiscuity, pedophilia, homosexuality, fetishes, S&M, dominance/subordination, etc. all have genetic factors that play a role. But that's exactly why it is fallacious to argue that behaviors are morally neutral if they are genetically influenced. ALL PERSONAL behavior is genetically influenced to some extent. And the scripture is clear that sanctification involves self-discipline that involves personal suffering. In short, an argument that proves too much proves nothing.

Consequently, I have no evidence whatsoever that Paul is wrong about homosexuality or about leaven leavening the lump. Moreover, disassocation, per Paul, was never intended to be occasioned by the unremorseful practice of only one form of sexual impropriety, but by all such impropriety.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/18/2007 12:02:23 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff, it seems to me that you are more interested in debating about homosexuality than you are about dialoguing about the nature of judgement. If so, then I posted a whole set of arguments regarding what the bible actually has to say about homosexuality and how the church treats homosexuals versus divorced and remarried people some time ago. I have no energy to re-hash all that out again but would be more than willing to respond to objections to specific arguments that I posted earlier.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Iconoclast: Jeff, it seems to me that you are more interested in debating about homosexuality than you are about dialoguing about the nature of judgement.