 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 7:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | O.K. this chat board has gotten really boring since Shine had to leave so I though I’d try to spice it up a bit. Like the good Doc said this board is about ideas not people so I want to through out an idea that I am genuinely considering but haven’t fully developed or adopted yet.
An argument for tolerance of homosexuality within the evangelical church.
There are three basic positions that I see someone being able to take on this issue. First we could endorse the homosexual lifestyle completely from within the evangelical church. Second we could tolerate it without endorsing it. And third we could reject it completely. I believe that the majority of evangelicals take the third position. This doesn’t mean that they are unloving or bigoted towards homosexuals, it simply means that before a homosexual person can become a Christian within the evangelical church they must first reject their homosexual practices. I want to argue for the second position of tolerance without endourcement by compairing this issue to ones like it.
I first want to frame the issue. I see this issue to be one of three related issues surrounding the convent of marriage. The other to issues are divorce and polygamy. All of these cases offer a divergent path from Gods ideal of faithful monogamous heterosexual marriage. However the evangelical church has historically reacted inconsistently towards these three cases. All of us can see how the EV church has tolerated divorce WITHOUT indorsing divorce. Most of us have not seen polygamy first hand but the EV church has come around to the position of tolerance on the issue in cultures that are socially and economically dependant on polygamy, at the very least for a few generations. I spent a semester living with a Stone Age tribe on the island of New Guinea that was previously polygamous and wrote six papers (yep count ‘em six) on how EV missionaries encountered and dealt with this cultural phenomenon. It is still up for debate but tolerance of polygamy is a ligament view and is now the majority view within the missionaries in New Guinea, although it didn’t use to be that way. Homosexuality is likewise a cultural phenomenon and one that like polygamy it is hard for most EV Christians to relate to. I believe that the main reason for the clash on this issue is not rooted in a fundamental difference between what scripture teaches and actual sin in practice, rather I see it as two subcultures that have very little in common trying, often unsuccessfully, to interact with one another. Why don’t I believe that it is fundamentally a matter of scripture confronting sin? Consider the issue when put in perspective. Greed is the most preach against sin in the Bible in terms of occurrence (can anyone tell me how often it is mentioned? I’m sorry to whip this post off so quickly but I don’t have time to look it up). Homosexuality, by comparison comes up three times directly and only a handful of times indirectly. If we took the passages about greed as seriously and as strickly as we do about homosexuality than the majority of Americans would have to reject their greed befor being tolerated by the church. This of course is far from the case. Jesus ought to be the center of our theology and it appears that homosexuality was not a central issue for him. If it were why doesn't he address it directly or repetedly?
So this argument is not very well organized or written but oh well you get the point right. All I’m trying to say is that we should be consistent in how we interact with sin and cultural manifestations of sin and I don’t believe that is being done in the EV church in regards to homosexuality. I am not saying that we should legalize or perform gay marriages within the church. I am simply saying that we should interact with it in a similar way that we do to divorce. The church sometimes shuns people who get divorces but most of us recognize this fact with a sense of shame. Many churches realize how difficult an experience it is and withhold nothing from someone who has had a divorce that they wouldn’t also offer someone who has never been divorced. The same can not be said for homosexuality. Anyway let me know what you think. I’m hoping for a guest appearance by Shine but who knows.
–Wislawa
writerdad
03/02/01 10:19 AM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick note: First, a good book to read on the subject is Straight And Narrow by Thomas Schimdt, who argues that the Bible actually has much to say about homosexuality than we realize because much of it gets lost in the translating. Second, your argument depends quite a bit on how one defines tolerance. I tolerate all sinners just like I tolerate myself, because I am a sinner. But I would not tolerate a person, in church, who believed it was okay to lie or greed or to spread rumors. Each of these is a sin and should be condemned. The issue to me in the church today is not the acceptance of homosexuals (which we should) but the acceptance of the sin. There is a movement within the church to portary homosexuals as somehow persecuted openly by christians and, therefore, we should accept not only them but their sins as well. I believe there are many homosexuals working through this and we should be there to love and help them. But we would be in error if allowed them somehow to think that sex with the same sex is somehow okay in God's eyes. Yes, homosexuals have been neglected by church and, in many cases, abused by the church. But regardless, that does not make the sin right. We preach the gospel because God loves us and because we warn people that their sins could keep them from God forever. If we do speak the truth, we do not truly love. John 17:3 Harold
RevivalTheology
03/02/01 10:39 AM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, let me get this straight...your stand basically is because the Church (whatever that is) doesn't hold its members to compliance on all issues of righteousness it shouldn't worry about this one?
Why not uphold the biblical standard - true Christians are those who "do the will of My Father" and those who aren't, whether they be homosexuals, liars, greedy, covetous, gossipers, adulterers, fornicators, etc., are not going to inherent the kingdom of God unless they repent?
In the Lamb
MrIndifference
03/02/01 1:33 PM
What do we do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is actually a very touchy subject for me, and one that I have put much thought into over the past couple years. Until a couple years ago, I was what seemed to be happily married. That all ended when my wife (at the time) confronted me and told me of her decision to be a lesbian. Of course that threw my life into a downward spiral. At first I thought to myself that we could somehow work things out, but soon realized that that was but wishful thinking. I could go into all the gory details, but I will save you from that. Looking back on it, it was a nightmarish time of my life, but through it, I started my search for God. I consider it a blessing from God. Not for the pain, but for the chance to know Him through it.
Through this ordeal, I gained a severe hatred for my ex-, severe homo-phobic tendencies, and a hatred towards the whole world in general. I ended up quitting Gateway just to keep myself semi-sane.
I remember one day, it was as if God asked me “With the state of your relationship with your ex-wife, could you witness to her and does it even have a chance of being semi- effective?” Of course my answer was no, but that was when I learned my greatest lesson on forgiveness. How can the world see God through us when there is not a basic trust? There really can’t be.
Now to get back to the subject at hand… We are to love the sinner, but not the sin. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike should be allowed into the church if they are truly seeking the face of God, but if they are just there to cause trouble and/or are using the church as a “Meat-Market” then I believe it is our obligation as a body to confront them and if need be reject them. Of course the reasons for doing this should not be limited to dealings with homosexuals and we need to keep ourselves in check to make sure that we are not throwing them aside simply to get them out of our hair.
ModesofThought
03/02/01 2:06 PM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, hot topic! I ain't gonna touch it, but I will say, check out a article written recently (last year?) by Walter Wink (you'll have to do a periodicals search by name, I forgot both the title and the journal!) on this issue. I am not saying his position is my position. I am just saying it should be a part of the converation.
Wislawa, I bring this up primarily for you since you seem to have an acedemic interest in the topic with some papers to your credit. Perhaps Wink will provide an interesting sounding board for you if you should decide to pull those papers together for a publishable article. I'e encourage you to do that (publish an article, that is) since you have so much work done on it already.
Wislawa
03/02/01 11:05 PM
RE: RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reference. Like I said I’m just wading into the issue pretty fresh so I don’t really know what all the Bible or scholarship has to say on it. Perhaps much of it is lost in translation, but even if we could see it all do you think that it corresponds to the level of conviction and attention Christians give it? I want to major in the majors and minor in the minors and it seems that on this issue we’ve been majoring on a minor.
You said: Second, your argument depends quite a bit on how one defines tolerance. I tolerate all sinners just like I tolerate myself, because I am a sinner. But I would not tolerate a person, in church, who believed it was okay to lie or greed or to spread rumors. Each of these is a sin and should be condemned. The issue to me in the church today is not the acceptance of homosexuals (which we should) but the acceptance of the sin.
Me again: I agree completely. The key for me, however, is consistency. Divorce too is not God’s ideal and therefore in missing this mark it can be included in other mark missing categories. Yet divorce is a sad reality that we cannot ignore. Should, according to your logic, those who get divorces be condemned? I hope not. Divorce itself might be condemnable but the people? I realize that these are all sensitive topics for some and I am trying to deal with them in a sensitive way. Please let me know if I could do better on this at any point.
There are several issues involved here. Here is one that I struggle with. One the one hand the Bible certainly takes sin VERY seriously and I think that we should strive to take it on the same level. One the other hand there is a level where we want people to be confident enough to be real with one another. We want to be able to say that it is O.K. to be real and part of that reality is that we are sinners. This is in a way saying sin is ok in a second hand way. (See especially Bonhoffer's treatment of this in the last chapter of “Life Together.” it’s excellent.) The danger of overemphasizing the okness with reality is that it might sound that sin is not that big of a deal. But if we are not at least comfortable enough with our sin to overcome shame than all the sin which is there and is real will remain hidden and fester. How do we say on one level you are a sinner and that’s real and realness is ok and on another level say that we are sinners and that is not ok? We need to say both but this is hard to communicate without sounding wrong half the time.
Here is another issue. I believe that God must compromise in order to be in any sort of relationship with us since we are sinners and He is holy. Now I don’t mean by this that He in any way compromises His holiness or is compromising in every way. I only mean that if he were uncompromising in every way than He could have no contact with us at all. I believe that God maintains an uncompromising passion on some levels but on others he is willing to temporarily tolerate things which are not His ideal. I think that homosexuality is a good candidate for one of the places where He might compromise because He appears to do so on other points in relationship to the marriage covenant. Polygamy is not God’s ideal but he tolerated it in the Old Testament. Divorce is not God’s ideal but he tolerates it both then and now for the sake of preserving that which He remains uncompromising about. Again the issue is consistency. If God in the Bible, and we in the Church, are willing to compromise on related topics around the marriage covenant, then we should not arbitrarily single out homosexuality as a point at which to be uncompromising.
Let me know what you think.
–Wislawa
Wislawa
03/02/01 11:20 PM
Hypothetically, if the Bible were silent...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opss here is another argument that I forgot to add that may strengthen my hypothetical position. This argument will really only appeal to those of you who are egalitarians with regards to women’s role within the Church.
One argument that I have often heard in support for egalitarianism is this: Hypothetically speaking if the Bible was completely silent on the issue of womanhood and manhood is there anything intuitive that would suggest that men should be in a position of lordship over women? If not than perhaps we are interacting with a cultural fluke. After all if the Bible were completely silent about murder I would have some serious intuitions that murder is still wrong.
So hypothetically speaking if the Bible were completely silent on the issue of homosexuality is there anything intuitive that would suggest it to be sinful? Some people will probably answer yes and some no. As for my take if the Bible were completely silent on the issue I have a hard time imagining Christians defending the view on intuition alone that it is sinful.
Of course the Bible is NOT silent on the issue of homosexuality and I am not trying to avoid the scripture as I have seen some do on this position. The only way that I can accept a view of tolerance is if I can meat these verses head on and deal with them squarely. But once again the issue is consistency. There is nothing wrong with trying to be consistent in ones theology. If some of us at least are willing to accept this argument in support for egalitarianism we should also be willing to accept it here. The Bible is not silent about women’s issues but I believe egalitarianism has been able to confront these verses head on and deal with them faithfully. I’ll be the first to admit that it is much harder to do this with homosexuality but I still think its worth a try.
–Wislawa
writerdad
03/03/01 12:08 AM
RE: Hypothetically, if the Bible were silent...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: Ithink you are bringing up some great points, particularly the one of balance. Personally, I have a sister who leans towards being gay (she is not, but because of the effect my father had on her, she does not like men) and I have had a lot of contact with gay women. By and large I find them to be much more open and honest about their lives than most church folk I meet and I know that I would not be very open with many of the christians I know about my struggles in different areas with sin. The church, let's face it, in its want to be holy and its fear of certain sins (homosexuality being one, and most sexual sins in general) has many times left grace and acceptance in the dirt and advocated a "you can't come in here unless you measure up to my standards approach." So it is something that the church, when it is honest with itself, struggles with. How to allow its members to be open, honest and accepting, mirroring God in grace and, at the same time, mirroring God's refusal to accept sin as a substitute for holy living. I think it is hard, but I think it starts with christians being honest with themselves and their shortcoming. Until we are honest with ourselves we certainly cannot be honest with those who have not found Jesus.
I tend to agree with Schimdt's (mispell, sorry, its late) view that even if the Bible was silent on homosexuality, the uniqueness of the marriage convenant and God's emphasis on it condemns any other sexual relationship. He makes a very strong case...John 17:3 Harold
Oh, I agree with you, I do think God must compromise (though the word itself makes me feel uncomfortable when speaking of God) in dealing with us. Philip Yancey makes this point about slavery and other issues In The Bible that Jesus Read, in talking about certain things God allows, because he usually works in the culture of the times. And, of course, to even communitcate with us he has to stoop very low. So I suppose one could make the point that he allows many wives, why not other relationships other than woman to man. But it would seem to me that many wives is still a certain relationship (hetro) whereas changing to same sex would be changing the entire scenery so to speak.
BBBCanada
03/03/01 10:57 AM
A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love this discussion on homosexuality. This is a huge one! So much can be said. Craig Keener talks about this very issue (polygamy) in his book on the history of the New Testament. I myself am coming to believe that this is a cultural issue. It is more of an assault on our cultural sensibilities than our moral ones. There is another question related to this. What about common law marriages? Should we make our peace with common law marriages? In other words, should living together be considered or recognized as legitimate marriages by society? There are two angles to look at this issue from. One is homosexuality and the church and the other is homosexuality and society. How should Christians respond to both questions? I have the book that Writerdad refers to. But I would also ask that you consider these links *carefully* before making up your mind. Look up the scriptures that are referenced. Try to understand the approach that Brow makes. For me this question also falls back into the WWJD thread. That is, the difference between moral absolutes and the *application* of those absolutes. This is where much of the problem lies when it comes to these questions of moral absolutes.
Brandon
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9tb/9tb050.html
http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/SodomyLev.html
http://www.brow.on.ca/Letters/WelcomeGays.html
http://www.brow.on.ca/Letters/Homos.htm
http://www.brow.on.ca/Letters/HomoSin.htm
http://www.brow.on.ca/Books/Adultery/AdulteryContents.html
SteveHarris
03/08/01 7:47 AM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am probably with the Second approach: that we could tolerate homosexuality without endorsing it. And even that, I'm unsure of. I'm currently reading Garry Wills' "Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit", and am unimpressed with his contextual reading (and explaining away) of the various biblical passages condemning homosexuality. On the other hand, I know homosexuals who have a great hunger for Christ. One I know paints Icons and knows the Bible inside out. How, as a Christian, do I react to this? My heart says that this person is my brother. I suppose I could even be leaning toward # 1, except for the loaded word "lifestyle." Great post Wislawa. This is the best Christian board I've run across.
Mephi2K
03/08/01 11:30 AM
Simple Question, NO Simple Answer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to get too into this, being honest. I'm with Modes. But I will ask the following...
Is homosexuality a SIN?
Toleration of a "sin" only goes so far. I try to imagine a church tolerating unrepentant compulsive liars, theives, etc, who on one hand say that they love Jesus, but on the other hand, advocate "toleration" of their sin to the point of CONTINUED, UNRESTRAINED FELLOWSHIP. See folx, the bottom line is this. Is homosexuality SIN or is it something else? A sickness or human maladjustment, perhaps. Why do I say that? For some, it is FAR easier to tolerate a kleptomaniac who has legitimate issues with stealing that he/she is trying to work on or cope with...than it is to tolerate some people who WILLFULLY doesn't want to change and demands full acceptance in the Church. Do you see what I'm saying? I couldn't, in good conscience, chastise a kleptomanic for his stealing in the same way I could chastise a flagrant unrepentant thief who is comfortable with his/her ways.
So my simple question stands. Who will answer? Is homosexuality a sin? This is all the correspondence I will place on this thread, because frankly, I've tired of this subject as I've dealt with it heavily in other circles before now. By the way, I personally find that the exegetical acrobatics with this topic are just as sickening to me as the "women in ministry" subject. And I mean on BOTH sides of each issue. But that's just me...
In Christ,
Mephi2K
MrIndifference
03/08/01 1:28 PM
Not so simple answer...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truthfully, yes I would consider homosexuallity a sin. It ranks up there with every other sin that man does. Personally the question that I would ask is: What is the heart behind the sinner? Have they accepted the lie that they are homosexual and there is nothing that they can do about it, or do they have a heart of repentance and want to change? Salvation is not what you do or how you do it, but instead the heart behind it.
Mr. Indifference
whasssuuuppp
03/08/01 3:57 PM
RE: homosexuality and genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is such a touchy subject, and I REALLY don't want to step on any toes, but I need to spout off a little here--
I have not read about the genetic basis of homosexuality (I know there is a book out there written to debunk it), but I strongly suspect that there IS a genetic basis.
Digression here---Keep in mind that I said "basis." With all the new genetic research out there, people are inclined to think that if you have the gene for something, you are destined to express the trait associated with it. This is sometimes the case, such as with (both dominant and recessive) diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and others. However, TONS of other conditions are multifactorial, meaning that having the gene for something predisposes you to the condition, but that it alone is not sufficient (nature and nuture are both important). Examples include autoimmune diseases (diabetes, myasthenia gravis, lupus, others), alcoholism, left- and right-handedness, obesity, depression, personality types, what kind of food you like, the list could go on and on. My point--we're discovering that there is a genetic basis to almost everything.
So back to homosexuality. I regret that most of the examples I used above refer to diseases, and now I'm going back to homosexuality. I don't mean to group it with diseases. But I really suspect, based on what we know about genetics so far, that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Environment of course plays a role too, in terms of why some people choose a homosexual lifestyle. I don't doubt that there are many people who are homosexual more because of NURTURE and not NATURE. One of my roommates has a friend who desperately WANTS to be heterosexual. He has said many times that he would do anything to be different. He hates the stigma of being homosexual. But the bottom line is that he is NOT heterosexual. So what do you do with that??? Here is someone who WANTS to change.
There are so many things we are "predisposed" to be, thanks to our genetics, that lead to works of the flesh. Men, thanks to testosterone, are predisposed to aggression and fighting. But do we use this as a defense for a man on trial for murder? Some are predisposed to being alcoholics. Do we use this to excuse their behavior? Not really. It does allow us to understand WHY someone might struggle with alcoholism, and it can be valuable information to help someone conquer alcoholism, but it doesn't excuse behavior. Might the same thing be true with homosexuality? I don't know.
This is such a hard topic. On a gut level, it seems unfair (someone is going to come back and tell me that God doesn't care about fairness, but I'm just saying how I feel, ok?) that a Christian homosexual would have to declare war on something like this. What about Christian homosexuals who aren't engaging in sexual behavior? Okay, now I'm rambing. To finish up--I wholeheartedly believe that God's design is for heterosexual marriage, but wonder if Wislawa is onto something. I don't know, I'm in process.
peace, ms. wassup
(Mr indifference--I know this sounds like I'm spouting off at what you said, but this isn't directed at you really. Just throwing some ideas out there.)
MrIndifference
03/08/01 4:34 PM
RE: RE: homosexuality and genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Wassup
When it comes to this subject, I have delt with many different aspects of it. My touchiness mostly comes in my trying to safeguard against homophobic tendencies. Trying to keep these tendencies in line, I have been known to take (more or less) innocent comments as gay-bashing. It is just one of those things I have to work on. The old happy-medium thing.
When it comes to the whole "Genetic" thing, is it possible that at most it is a genetic predisposition?
I am not sure what I believe when it comes to generational curses, but is it possible that Sin can manifest itself as a genetic predisposition that can be passed down from generation to generation? When you look at the whole sin of man episode, you will notice that though Eve was the first one that ate of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the sin nature actually was carried down in the male bloodline. That is why Christ was born of a virgin birth. Going on this thought, the sin nature could have become a genetic trait.
Lets look at alcoholism for a minute. You can have a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic, but if you never have a drink, you will never become an alcoholic. That is where free will comes in. Of course this is not taking into account all the other aspects involved like environment.
RevivalTheology
03/09/01 5:24 AM
RE: RE: homosexuality and genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What consideration does the recent discovery that the actual genetic code for human beings is about a third as complex as once thought bring to this discussion?
Quite honestly, from what I've read, the whole effort to trace personality and/or behavoral patterns to genetics is going to blow up big time from this.
In the Lamb
BBBCanada
03/09/01 1:54 PM
A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes said:
"Wow, hot topic! I ain't gonna touch it, but I will say, check out a article written recently (last year?) by Walter Wink (you'll have to do a periodicals search by name, I forgot both the title and the journal!) on this issue."
You can see it at www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm
Brandon
ModesofThought
03/09/01 2:00 PM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon, you are THE online research dude!
Thanks!
springs
03/09/01 6:20 PM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
greetings all,
I have met many gay men. I have had a few for friends. I have ministered to a few. They were all wonderful sensitive people. EVERY story I heard about their childhoods held really screwed up family systems or out and out abuse.
I would put nurture over nature as to the cause.
springs
MrIndifference
03/09/01 8:02 PM
RE: RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I was saying about the possibility of genetic predisposition of homosexuallity was not an attempt to put nature over nurture. I have seen how much peer pressure, how someone is brought up, their surroundings, etc. has an effect and people and how they see things and the choices that they make. What I was trying to state was that some may have natural leanings towards homosexuallity, alchoholism, what ever it may be, and the tendencies could have a genetic base. My view is that free will is largely at the core of everything. How we live our lives, the choices that we make, our influences, how we view the world as a whole, etc. can either enhance or negate these tendencies. When you look at genetics, some things like hair color and eye color are pretty well set in stone. On the other hand some things are not. For example: I am a Male with Tourettes Syndrome. Statistics show that being a male with tourettes, any male offspring that I have has a 100% chance of having it. That sounds like there is no hope for him, but is that the case? My son could start showing symptoms when he is 5, when he hits puberty, or possibly never. Alot of it can be environmental. There is a form of tourettes called corprolalia. It is the one that most people remember. Corprolalia is where people spontaneously start swearing. Supposedly studies have shown that people with tourettes that were brought up in an environment where vulgarities were not used tended not to exibit corprolalia.
Don't forget. None of this is set in stone. They are probably just ramblings of a madman. Thoughts... Hallucenations... Voices saying things pretty well incomprehensible to anyone but me. Yahahahahaaaaaaaaaa.
Mr. Indifference
writerdad
03/09/01 8:09 PM
RE: RE: homosexuality and genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My two cents; regardless of whether it is nature or nuture, it is still an action one is responsible for. If a person were born with a want to rape, we would not excuse that. We would try and find some way to help that person deal with it. But we wouldn't excuse it...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: homosexuality and genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
amen to that.
whasssuuuppp
03/09/01 10:38 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: homosexuality and genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, about homosexuality and genetics, go back to my first post on this. I never stated that I think homosexuality is something (like sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and so on) that has ONE gene which destines you to display a trait. I was careful to point out that I do believe there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality (similar to things like autoimmune diseases, right- and left-handedness, and so on). I don't discount environment and nurture as playing a role (possibly a big role, again, see my first post), but I also don't want to discount the role of genetics.
Someone mentioned the recent discovery that the genetic code isn't as complex as once thought. I am slightly familiar with what you are saying, but from what I've studied recently it hasn't had a major effect on the field. Perhaps this will shift the pendulum from a "nature-sided" approach to a more "nuture-sided" opinion, but "nature" isn't going to drop out of the picture any time soon.
The weird thing is this--people tend to have this rather exotic view of genetics and genes, but it's all just about proteins. Each gene encodes amino acids, which join to form a protein, which then carries out some function or another. It blows me away that these tiny globs of amino acids all folded together do EVERYTHING! How crazy.
peace out, ms. wassup
BBBCanada
03/10/01 7:09 AM
A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes said:
"Brandon, you are THE online research dude! Thanks!"
I am aren't I? I would like to thank dogpile.com for all their help in this project. My manager, my mom for loving me, my children! I couldn't have done it without them! My dog...
Brandon
BBBCanada
03/10/01 11:09 AM
Simple Question, NO Simple Answer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph Man asks:
Is homosexuality a SIN?
The problem as I see it is this. Scripture is:
1. A human book. We have in our understanding of scripture over-emphasized the inspiration of scripture to the expense of *how human* the bible really is. There are so many problems, historical and otherwise with “The Book.” As Rev Greg Neal Ph.D says,
“The books and letters which comprise the Holy Bible were written by human beings, in human situations, and therefore they, quite often, reflect the attitudes, prejudices, and misconceptions of the authors. The fact that the authors were inspired by God does not change the fact that they also had their own agenda and opinions which colored their writing.”
Exacto mundo. This is why I have a problem with some theologians who in their pursuit to prove the Bible is “inerrant,” go to extremes to “harmonize” certain texts, which in the end “strain” the Scripture. I mean what is at stake here, Scripture or our evangelical political correctness? I can hardly blame the atheists over there at www.infidels.org for agreeing with certain Christians for trying to prove that if Scripture is not “inerrant” than the whole of Christianity falls. Ugh…Actually, those guys over there at that “Atheism is really a religion” site, are criticizing the wrong argument. Hey guys! I’m a Christian who can live with errors in the Bible! It doesn’t affect God’s Word *that* much!
Therefore, based on that, how does this inform our understanding of homosexuality? Well, Walter Wink says:
“The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, *is not simply homosexuality*, but how Scripture informs our lives today.”
and
“The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females.”
So then the problem becomes or moves over into a question of authority. Aaaand as Wink says:
“What is our principle of selection?”
This was the problem that I had with Rev Greg Neal Ph.D where we ended off on a sour note. He has a legitimate beef though when it seems that the issue boils down to not so much a question of scripture but hermeneutics. Even coming with a strong argument (the strongest IMO) from 1Cor 6:9-11, it seems to be a question of picking and choosing scripture that may in fact reflect our personal biases and agendas over scripture itself.
So when Meph Man says:
"Toleration of a "sin" only goes so far. I try to imagine a church tolerating unrepentant compulsive liars, theives, etc, who on one hand say that they love Jesus, but on the other hand, advocate "toleration" of their sin to the point of CONTINUED, UNRESTRAINED FELLOWSHIP. See folx, the bottom line is this. Is homosexuality SIN or is it something else? A sickness or human maladjustment, perhaps. Why do I say that? For some, it is FAR easier to tolerate a kleptomaniac who has legitimate issues with stealing that he/she is trying to work on or cope with...than it is to tolerate some people who WILLFULLY doesn't want to change and demands full acceptance in the Church. Do you see what I'm saying? I couldn't, in good conscience, chastise a kleptomanic for his stealing in the same way I could chastise a flagrant unrepentant thief who is comfortable with his/her ways."
I say you may be begging the question. You are looking at it from the stand point that it is a sin. I may be more inclined to see it along the same lines as Tony Campolo when he says,
“As a matter of fact, I would argue that, from my evangelical, conservative position, I'm going to argue that what we really need to do as a church is to provide a framework to help brothers and sister who want to remain celibate, to do so. We need to pray for them. We need to encourage them. We need to support them. We need to stand by them. I hope we get to the place where we can at least be as generous to people who are homosexuals as we have been to alcoholics. There was a time when the alcoholic couldn't get accepted into the church unless he stood up and said, I am no longer an alcoholic. Now, the alcoholic stands up and says, without shame, this is who I am. I struggle with this problem everyday, you see. And I wouldn't be able to do it unless, unless I was honest and open and had the support of other people.”
and from there deduce whether I should or not accept their “unrepentant sin.”
In closing, I want to put two quotes together from the different authors. One is Campolo on Noll. He said:
“Mark Knoll of Wheaton College, who I think is one of the most sophisticated interpreters of social reality, says that evangelicalism has never defined itself in terms of theology, in terms of beliefs, but always in terms of politics. Indeed, what it meant to be an evangelical fundamentalist, back in the Civil War days, was that you were opposed to slavery. And most fundamentalists were so anti slave that they pulled out of mainline denominations because mainline denominations were afraid to take a strong stand against slavery.”
And the other is by Wink. He says:
“In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop and interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.”
I think this last quote should be the basis for the first one.
Brandon
BeckiMadvig
04/30/01 12:00 AM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Wislawa I understand where you are coming from with the little scriptural references. I don't know them either off hand, but I know that somewhere it talks about how a man should not lay down with another man and the same for women. But anyways to the tolerance issue. I think that we should deal with the person as a spirit and then deal with the lifestyle. I do not promote homosexuality in any way shape or form, but I do beleive that everyone deserves to be loved as God loves the world. Christians need to reach out to everyone as people, and not label them homosexuals or heterosexuals, but children of God who need to hear about God's love. I do believe that a person can be saved before they deal with their sinful lifestyle because even people who already call themselves Christians do not live perfect lives, I know that I am far from it. I have things that I'm sure I do that I don't even realize that I'm doing but they are sins. We are not perfect, we are humans, that is why we need God's grace in order to be forgiven. So, we need to stop judging people for what they do and love them as Christ loves the world, and reach out to their spiritual aspect in order to bring them into the family of Christ. I hope that this helps you somewhat.
In Him-
Becki
Crowe150
04/30/01 2:37 AM
Homosexuality and genetics- so what if it is genetic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the possibility of homosexual tendencies being genetic make it any less of a sin, if indeed it is one? (I believe the Bible makes it clear that it is a sin) Because a man has a condition in his genes that makes him more susceptible to rage (ie. a short-tempered man), does that excuse him for murdering someone in a fit of passion?
Looking forward to your responses.
Crowe
ps. I am not referring to mental disorders, like schizophrenia, that could be caused by genetics, just a personality tendency. If it is caused by a genuine disease the person has no control over, that could make it a different issue entirely!
AJtica
04/30/01 2:49 PM
RE: Homosexuality and genetics- so what if it is genetic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crowe Asked:
How does the possibility of homosexual tendencies being genetic make it any less of a sin, if indeed it is one? (I believe the Bible makes it clear that it is a sin)
I don't think that the issue here is whether or not homosexual tendencies being genetic makes homosexuality less of a sin. The issue is, if being a homosexual is genetic, should we be more tolerant of it in the church, as we are of alcoholics? On the other hand, would being tolerant of this send the message that homosexuality is not a sin?
In response to this, I think that it all depends on the individual. If someone is trying to change their sinful ways, of course we as a church should love them through this. However, if someone is blatantly disregarding what scripture has to say on this issue, that is entirely another matter. But how can we KNOW where a person's heart is, and whether they are legitimately trying to change or not?! The more I write and think about this, the fewer answers it seems I can come up with. I look forward to reading more thoughts.
Peace!
trosie
04/30/01 5:39 PM
RE: RE: Homosexuality and genetics- so what if it is genetic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AJtica said: "...how can we KNOW where a person's heart is, and whether they are legitimately trying to change or not?!"
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I also liked the comparison of alcoholism with homosexuality. Whether they both are genetic or not doesn't take away what the bible has to say regarding the topic. I personally believe that Christians need to be less interested in pointing out what other people are doing (right or wrong) and focus up toward heaven and seek after becoming more and more like the person of Jesus.
boydreamer101
05/06/01 3:10 AM
RE: A plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality-we can get into this whole big huge discussion, which is good. But my feeling, which is being developed is this...some think its cool, some don't, some feel this, some feel that...can we really know? Should we know? There are different feelings on that as well...there are feelings about what i am posting right now...it seems to me that this shows one thing...one clear thing...we need to love people regardless, reserve the judging for god...this is not to be too pragmatic but rather to assert that only "god knows" we have to see through a glass darkly on some things don't we?!
Some say nurture, some say nature...let's just treat homosexuals with love...anything else..regarding our feelings on this subject may take form, but only through that lens. Articles or not...love and let love...sounds ideal doesn't it? Our own sin is the only thing that stands in the way of doing it, but we can ey?! So this discussion is good, but lets be real about this, what can we know and what can't we know regarding this and how should it affect our evangelis to a homosexual? Does it? Let christ lead us in loving...sincerely a wishful thinker...a boydreamer101....peace-adam
(check out my subjectivity and faith, duty and christ posting i'd like some input!)
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|