Christians and Gays

[Ren]

It has come to my attention that there are Christians everywhere. (Call me stupid if you like) There are also homophobes everywhere. Have you noticed?

My Blog on the matter: http://nerdfighters.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-world-is-full-of

We all know Christianity exists in the majority (in the U.S. at least). Is the majority homophobic too?
How does that make you feel?
Are you gay or Christian?

EDIT: I don't have a problem with Christians. I don't have a problem with gays. I don't support generalizations. Not all of anything is something. I am not implying any hate towards any group. And last but not least, I am not saying that Christianity and homophobia come hand-in-hand, but if you want to take it to that level, go ahead.
THIS TOPIC IS OPEN FOR WIDE RESPONSES. That's why I was a bit vague. And I dunno where you all live, but I have lived in a lot of places and seen a lot of homophobia and I am still subjected to it.

[Ado]

oh gear dod someone must get on that NOW

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

"My mind is extremely homonormative... like, you know how sometimes you just see a guy and girl together and assume they're dating? I do that with same-sex couples. >.>'' But I think if Jonathon was a woman, then we wouldn't be having a discussion on whether their love was platonic or not. We just wouldn't. Because that's not the way you think. But it's the way I think, OK?"

It's fine if your mind is homonormative, but making that kind of inference about the ANE just shows that you don't understand the culture they are comming from. Kissing was not nessecarly a sign of romantic love back then, and it was not a sign of romantic love to say that David loved Johnanthan more than a woman. Just because you have a homonormative mind does not excuse the fact that the culture you are dealing with is not your own.

"Homosexuality =/= sodomy (as in: I'm a lesbian, nobody's taking anybody from behind. still amoral?) And clearly since you're typing this, you haven't given all your money away and gone off to follow Jesus, so why are you so insistent on this other moral thing he made a vague reference to, when you aren't even living your life by Jesus' teachings?"

Jesus does not say to people to sell all their possessions and give their money to the poor. He tells people to give sacrifically. If you do such a thing, you will not be very useful to anyone. Jesus says that what is good is not determined by how much we give, but that we give. The incident you are refering to (the one where the rich man is told to go and sell everything and give it to the poor) is told to make a point. That when you allow yourself to be rich, you learn to keep hold of your money, which is wrong, and that you should give sacrifically. Also, Soddomy is not what is refferenced. See Paul on this point.

[Jim]

OK, so here's what Paul has to say in Romans 1.

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

The language of "natural" and "unnatural" is key. Paul presumes that men and women have desires for the opposite sex, which they set aside when they commit shameful acts, i.e. sin. He's arguing based on his view of the created order, which apparently does not include homosexuality as we know it today, which for many people can make same-sex desire more natural than opposite-sex desire.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

No, Paul isn't talking about what "feels" natural. He's talking very simply about what is and is not. IE what existed in the original created order.

[Jim]

I can understand wanting to make the leap from "worldview held by biblical authors" to "original created order," but there is no reason to believe that the overlap must be complete. The Bible might be sufficient to its purpose, but that purpose (framework of salvation) is limited and allows for growth and change. That principle is evident in the narrative of the Bible itself - the New Testament reveals and revises some of the Old. In large part, those changes had to do with the inclusion of the non-Jewish world in the scheme of salvation. With that shift, certain things which had been a matter of religion - e.g. circumcision, food laws, things which had been terribly important when Israel was in the wilderness - became merely cultural. How do you think further revelation along these lines would occur in the modern world? Visions, direct communications from God: we have more than enough of these reports already, and they don't do much to change things. Personally, I wonder about science, particularly because it tells Christians things they don't want to hear.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Actually, if you look in the OT, you see that the Bible makes it very clear, that the purity laws you refer to were not what saved people from their sins. They were nessecary when living in the wilderness, as you mention, but God explains that these things will not, themselves, save them. The changes you mention arn't changes that were new and evolving, but ones that were known from the begining.

I don't think Science tells Christians anything they don't want to hear. What do you mean by that exactly?

[Jim]

Well, what I claimed was that they were tied in with the religion of Israel, which became Judaism, in which they still play a role today. In my opinion, their main purpose was to help form the identity of the nation of Israel, who play the main characters in the first stage of God's redemption. That identity does indeed evolve when Jesus includes the Gentiles, and in its wake the purity laws actually don't go away. They survive as cultural markers, preferences.

As for science, think of all the ways that it's forced Christian conversations to change and accommodate over the years. Where do you think that's going to end? With unencroachable, separate spheres of influence? Basically, what I think science does is insist on things "making sense" in order to be true, not just textually astute. Following somewhat (somewhat) in the tradition of recognizing the "book of nature" to be "general revelation," I'd say that what science finds does have the power to change what we need to believe vis a vis Christianity. TOPIC AT HAND: what science is finding is that there really isn't anything wrong with gay people.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

what science is finding is that there really isn't anything wrong with gay people.

I'm not sure exactly how science would have any comment to make on the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. Science also says nothing on the morality of adultury, the morality of theft. These questions are not scientific in nature, so I don't see why science would have anything to say about them.

Well, what I claimed was that they were tied in with the religion of Israel, which became Judaism, in which they still play a role today. In my opinion, their main purpose was to help form the identity of the nation of Israel, who play the main characters in the first stage of God's redemption. That identity does indeed evolve when Jesus includes the Gentiles, and in its wake the purity laws actually don't go away. They survive as cultural markers, preferences.

The idea that salvation was open beyond the borders of Israel goes back WAY before Jesus. Look at Ruth, for a very good example. She wasn't an Israelite, and yet she is one of Jesus's direct line ancestors. I'm not sure what the point you're making here is. There is no change in the policy from the very begining. God made it clear that the Purity laws were not the key to salvation. As far as I can see, you were arguing that the fact that Jesus made changes means we can make changes two. There are two problems with that.

1. There wern't any changes. God had made it clear as such.
2. Even if there had been, we don't have the authority to make it clear that we know as best as God does, where as Jesus, being God, did.

[Kenny]

I'm not sure exactly how science would have any comment to make on the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. Science also says nothing on the morality of adultury, the morality of theft. These questions are not scientific in nature, so I don't see why science would have anything to say about them.

I think what he meant was mentally/physically wrong.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I realise that, and I was correcting him on the point. IE the physical/mental health or otherwise isn't relevent, and therefore Science has nothing to say on this point.