Photo courtesy of the BBC
BBC: Sir Elton John has said he would like to see all organised religion banned and accused it of trying to "turn hatred towards gay people".Mark Alexander
Organised religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings", he told the Observer.
But the musician said he loved the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it which he had learned at Sunday school. Sir Elton: Ban organised religion
16 comments:
The photo of Elton is certainly less than flattering. One can only wonder if his thinking is as wacky as his appearance.
I think Elton is being myopic on this issue. No doubt radical Islam and also the extreme fundamentalist Christian groups (the ones that think it's ok to bomb abortion clinics) make the headlines with their vitriol against gays and other things they find offensive.
Most Christians I know, myself included, do not hate gays. They are free to believe whatever they want.
However, if a gay friend were to ASK my opinion of what the Bible said about gays, I would tell them the truth.
There is an old, rather simplistic story to illustrate this:
One of your friends is in a boat for a relaxing, fun ride down the river. Standing on shore you can see that in the distance there is a huge waterfall that will lead to his certain death--would you warn him? If you really loved and cared about the person, you certainly would. Do they trust you enough to believe you--or at least investigate your claims for themselves?
BTW-As a young college student living in Minneapolis I went to a friends apartment. Residents in her apartment building were predominantly gay men. The men I met were openly hostile to us and I could never understand why, since we did nothing to provoke it. I think bigotry works the other way as well.
In Boston talk radio, Elton John also was quoted as saying no one organized demonstrations as in the days of Vietnam.
This years demonstrations over the cartoon in Denmark by the followers of the religion of peace shows Elton John isn't the most up to date in the news.
signed
scary sexy chocolate thing
USIP:
The photo of Elton is certainly less than flattering. One can only wonder if his thinking is as wacky as his appearance.
Unflattering, to put it mildly! His ideas seem to be as whacky as his appearance, as you rightly point out.
Heather:
The Christian Bible (i.e. the New Testament) says surprisingly little about homosexuality. The Old Testament has much more to say on the matter; but much of the Old Testament is not relevant to Christians. Or if everything is, then a lot of people are 'sinning'. Take the eating of shellfish as a case in point. Or tattoos. We cannot cherry-pick the parts we wish to accept and the parts we wish to reject. So it is not 'legit' to quote Leviticus. For as you surely know, were we to follow Leviticus, then we would all be living very, very differently.
Pastorius said last week, on a different thread on this forum, that Paul had something to say about homosexuality in his letter to the Romans.
With due respect to Paul, that is his interpretation. Paul, if I remember correctly, was a convert to Christianity. Wasn't that Saul of Tarsus?
I realize that it is the Pauline Church, and all that; but I would prefer to take what Jesus said on the matter; and he said nothing!
JudahQ:
People like Elton seem totally incapable of achieving any separation between the sin and the sinner. Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Elton cannot differentiate what is good from what is not and so lumps it all together.
I rarely disagree with you about anything much; on this matter, however, I feel I must.
You seem to consider that being a homosexual is a 'sin'. I dislike the use of that word when speaking about homosexuals, for I do not consider homosexuality to be a 'sin'. Now that might surprise you.
As far as I am concerned, homosexuals, in general, are born that way, just as a blue-eyed blond(e) is born that way. Nothing much can be done about it, apart from the homosexual suppressing his/her sexuality; but I hardly think that doing that is very sensible, or healthy.
It is interesting to note that the modern Church has little condemnatory to say on the matter of homosexuality anymore.
I certainly do not accept the concept of Adam eating the forbidden fruit argument. That, to me, is balderdash! It is nothing more than symbolic.
If we accept that there is a god, and that god is God, then He is omnipotent. Wouldn't it be rather sick of Him to create homosexuals in the first place if it is so 'sinful'? After all, if the Creator is omnipotent then it was well within His powers to create humans free of homosexuality. He didn't; so that should tell us something.
To me, homosexuality is neither right nor wrong. It is simply a fact of life. There have always been homosexuals. It was ever thus; and thus it will ever be! What we need to do, as responsible adults, is learn to live with this fact.
Let homosexuals be as they were meant to be! Let them live in peace and harmony in this world. Let them pursue their own happiness. If it really is a sin, then they will be punished for it in the next life; though I dare say that many of them will not subscribe to such a worldview.
Were we to substitute the word 'homosexual' with the word 'black', people would be outraged - and rightfully so - to use the word 'sinful' in such a context. Yet it appears to be 'open season' on homosexuals. I find this very unfair, and somewhat cruel.
I am not trying to condone homosexuality here; I am merely pointing out that it is not so much a lifestyle choice as a state of being. It behoves us not to be so condemnatory, in my opinion, of a state of being that cannot easily be changed.
My original post was not about the whackiness of Sir Elton being homosexual; rather, it was about the whackiness of his idea of banning organised religion. That was the actual point I was trying to make.
By the way, Heather, Paul had quite a few things to say on the treatment of women, as I recall. And many of his ideas on the treatment of women we would totally reject today.
"... I would prefer to take what Jesus said on the matter; and he said nothing!"
I am not a Christian apologist--would that I were!
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
In reading your responses here it seems you have presumptions of your own. I do not believe, as you do, that homosexuals are born that way. There have been many studies to "prove" this, but they have been discredited.
There are scripture references, not attributed to Paul, found in the New Testament condemning all types of sexual sin, including sodomy. (as well as references back to the sin of Sodom and Gomorah.)
As I've said, I'm not a theologian, and it's been years since I've taught Sunday school.
I will post the references I can find if you'd like, but I really hope judahq will respond. She is much more articulate/eloquent than I.
I've got to run for now, I hope others will join in this discussion.
Heather:
I really don't agree with your assessment, I'm sorry!
"... I would prefer to take what Jesus said on the matter; and he said nothing!"
As far as I know Jesus actually did say NOTHING on homosexuality as such. Please give me the quotations. I am always willing and ready to learn something new.
I am not a Christian apologist--would that I were!
Nobody is accusing you of being one.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
This is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? This proves nothing. If you are going to use this as your amunition, then I certainly hope that you have NO tattoos, that you eat NO shellfish, and that you don't do ANYTHING proscribed in Leviticus, and that you do ALL that is prescribed.
In reading your responses here it seems you have presumptions of your own.
I do not have presumptions of my own at all. It is clear that many, many homosexuals are born that way. Who are we to deny each and everyone the right to pursue happiness? Who are we to persecute? And denying others the right of the pursuit of happiness IS a form of persecution, isn't it?
I do not believe, as you do, that homosexuals are born that way. There have been many studies to "prove" this, but they have been discredited.
Now that's where we differ. All are not born that way, but I think that science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is such a thing as the gay gene.
There are scripture references, not attributed to Paul, found in the New Testament condemning all types of sexual sin, including sodomy. (as well as references back to the sin of Sodom and Gomorah.)
Excuse me! I am not talking about sodomy. I am talking about the phenomenon of homosexual LOVE. I believe that it is possible for two people to love one another without engaging in sodomy. In any case, what people do behind closed doors, as long as it doesn't affect anyne else, is their business, not mine. I am not self-righteous, and I realize that 'sin', if you really want to use that word, comes in many guises and forms.
As I've said, I'm not a theologian, and it's been years since I've taught Sunday school.
No, I am no theologian either, and I have never taught Sunday school; though I went to church frequently enough - three times a day on Sundays for many a year - and was a member of the choir, complete with cassock, surplice, and ruff. I have also read lessons. So I am no duffer in these matters.
I will post the references I can find if you'd like, but I really hope judahq will respond. She is much more articulate/eloquent than I.
Please do so. Yes, I hope that JudahQ will take part in this discussion. She is, indeed, eloquent. She will probably weigh in heavily on me. But I am ready and waiting! My powder is dry!
The problem, it seems to me, is that people are not willing to 'live and let live'. Moreover, there is a great deal of Christian fundamentalism in these arguments of yours. (If you'll excuse me for saying so.)
It's going to be a very sad world if all the Fundies take over, either Christian or Islamic. God help us all, that's all I have got to say.
I'm sorry you took offense at what I said. I don't appreciate the way you tried to characterize me as a "Christian fundie."
"I do not have presumptions of my own at all. It is clear that many, many homosexuals are born that way. Who are we to deny each and everyone the right to pursue happiness? Who are we to persecute? And denying others the right of the pursuit of happiness IS a form of persecution, isn't it?"
I am not denying anyone the right to pursue happiness and I'm certainly not persecuting anyone.
"In any case, what people do behind closed doors, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, is their business, not mine. I am not self-righteous, and I realize that 'sin', if you really want to use that word, comes in many guises and forms."
Exactly right on that--what people do behind closed doors is their business--as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I am not self-righteous as you were implying and sin does come in many forms. We all have sinned.
"The problem, it seems to me, is that people are not willing to 'live and let live'. Moreover, there is a great deal of Christian fundamentalism in these arguments of yours. (If you'll excuse me for saying so.)"
Everyone is entitled to their own belief system. That you don't agree doesn't give you the right to label me as something I'm not.
"It's going to be a very sad world if all the Fundies take over, either Christian or Islamic. God help us all, that's all I have got to say."
I'd be interested in your definition of 'Fundie'
HERE'S SOMETHING FROM MY EARLIER POST YOU MIGHT WANT TO REREAD:
"Most Christians I know, myself included, do not hate gays. They are free to believe whatever they want."
I do not apologize for my faith and am surprised at your response.
Heather:
I'm sorry you took offense at what I said. I don't appreciate the way you tried to characterize me as a "Christian fundie."
I'm sorry that you seem to have taken offence to what I have said, too! I certainly had no intention of offending you; indeed, I go to great lengths not to offend any of my visitors.
But you seem to be of the opinion that I have characterized you as a "Christian fundie". I didn't. I think you have assumed this from the following, which I DID say:
... there is a great deal of Christian fundamentalism in these arguments of yours. (If you'll excuse me for saying so.)"
Saying that you are using fundamentalist arguments to make your case DOES NOT mean that you are a fundamentalist per se. I know you too little to know this. After all, I know you only through the blogosphere, so it would be difficult for me to judge.
However, I can recognize that you are using fundamentalists' arguments when you, or anyone else, writes certain things. And there is no shame in that, by the way. But if you, or anyone else, is going to use such arguments with me, we are going to differ, because even though I consider myself to be a Christian, I would not be at home in a fundamentalist church.
You asked me what I consider a fundamentlist to be. Well, to me, a fundamentalist is someone who takes the Bible literally, one who doesn't see the symbolic nature of much that is in it, one who is generally rigid in his or her beliefs, one who believes that Lot's wife (just to take an example) was actually turned into a pillar of salt (and other such symbolic stories), one who believes that we are awaiting the Second Coming (and that it is imminent), and one who tries to interpret each and every turn of events by referring to the Scriptures. There are other signs of fundamentalism, but I think this gives you the picture. I would consider Ted Haggard to be a fundamentalist (though he obviously didn't live up to what he preached), and I think there is more than a whiff of fundamantalist about President Bush, too, since he has stated that he feels to be guided by God. I'm sure you get the picture.
I am not denying anyone the right to pursue happiness and I'm certainly not persecuting anyone.
I don't think I actually stated that you are trying to deny anyone the right to pursue happiness, and nor do I think that you, personally, are persecuting anyone. But what I was trying to say - though I might not have done a very good job of it , judging by the offence you seem to have taken - is that to keep pointing out where gays are going wrong according to the Scriptures, etc, and talking of 'sin' is unhelpful (and smacks of fundamentalism). I, personally, do not consider being gay a sin. I think that the behaviour of many gays is reprehensible, especially when they dress ridiculously and go demonstrating in the streets, and I think that when gays go sleeping around, etc, they are behaving in a most unbecoming, lewd, and debauched manner. But I am not talking about these things. I am talking about the actual phenomenon of a man being irresistibly attracted to another man. That, to me, comes not from choice, but rather from something in the person's make-up.
If a person is born in such a way, then we cannot comfortably talk of that make-up being inherently sinful, in my humble opinion.
JudahQ said that a Christian is enjoined to love the sinner but hate the sin. Well, that's one way, and a good way, I have no doubt. The problem is that gays are then still characterized as sinners. Many of them would take exception to that, since some of them will surely not believe in the existence of God. Talk of 'sin' presupposes belief in the existence of God.
Exactly right on that--what people do behind closed doors is their business--as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I am not self-righteous as you were implying and sin does come in many forms. We all have sinned.
The problem I have in all of people's talk about homosexuality is that so many people are so unenlightened about it. Now please don't jump to conclusions. I am not suggesting that you are unenlightened! But many are. Homosexuality is like the last taboo, yet the phenomenon is as old as Methuselah, and older!
Take gays in Iran. Many are punished severely. Indeed, they are put to death. Do you think that they would engage in such behaviour, knowing that they can be put to death for such behaviour, if they could do something about their urges? Somehow, I doubt it.
In my opinion, it is high time for people to start taking a far more enlightened approach to this problem. And it is, for many, a very big problem.
In matters of homosexuality, I am pleased to be able to say that Europe leads the way. The USA, whilst it started off the gay liberation movement some decades ago, has fallen far behind.
I hope you don't mind my saying this, and I hope you don't think I am knocking America. I certainly am not. I have great affection for America and Americans, and I spend a lot of time there each year. But I do discern that Americans, in general, have far more problems coming to terms with 'gayness' than do Europeans. I believe that this stems from the Americans' inherent commitment to religion. As you know, Europe is, in many ways, a post-Christian continent. I hope that Christianity will be resurrected here, as you know from reading my book. But one positive aspect of this development is that many people have a very much more open outlook on such matters as homosexuality, even allowing for the appointment of gay government ministers, etc. I see this generally lacking in the States.
What I observe in the States is this: It depends GREATLY on which state one finds oneself in. This goes not just for gayness, but also for many things. In California, for example, as you well know, one can walk down a street in San Francisco and see two men holdiing hands and kissing each other in the open!!! On the other hand, when one travels to some inland states, gays are not welcome at all!
There was a time when women didn't have rights in society. There was a time when blacks didn't have rights, either. Indeed, many were enslaved. Few would argue for such ways of dealing with women and blacks today. But for some reason, gays can be laughed at and scorned and ridiculed. I find it all very sad.
Everyone is entitled to their own belief system. That you don't agree doesn't give you the right to label me as something I'm not.
I don't think I labelled you, Heather. I really don't. I think you are being overly sensitive here. I am one given to robust debate. In fact, I love it. I think you might be one who does not appreciate the cut and thrust of robust debate. I shall have to exercise more caution in future, for it is not my intention to hurt you in any way.
"It's going to be a very sad world if all the Fundies take over, either Christian or Islamic. God help us all, that's all I have got to say."
I stick by this, for it will be a sad world. It will usher in a period of great intolerance. I have seen it all in Saudi Arabia.
I'd be interested in your definition of 'Fundie'
I have already answered this question.
HERE'S SOMETHING FROM MY EARLIER POST YOU MIGHT WANT TO REREAD:
"Most Christians I know, myself included, do not hate gays. They are free to believe whatever they want."
I do not apologize for my faith and am surprised at your response.
I do not want you to apologize for your faith at all. It's funny, though, that we profess the SAME faith; yet we have a very different take on this matter of homosexuality. Now that is strange. And it really does boil down to fundamentals, doesn't it?
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
This is from your previous comment; but I should like to return to it.
If we are to take this literally, then we must all start taking the Torah rather more seriously. The fact remains that we don't. How many people today, women and men, sport piercings, for example? They are totally against 'God's injunctions'. Though these people either don't know or don't care.
In reading your responses here it seems you have presumptions of your own. I do not believe, as you do, that homosexuals are born that way. There have been many studies to "prove" this, but they have been discredited.
I would like to know which studies "prove" this. Can you cite them?
As you know, I stated the following in my book:
"Jesus informed us that the Christian religion may be summed up accurately in the following two great commandments:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Though shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22, 37-40"
To return to the matter of judging homosexuals, we must all, as Christians, bear this in mind from Matthew 7, 1-5:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Now how about that for a bit of theology? :-)
Mark,
This post was much nicer to read, I didn't feel as if I was being attacked.
"JudahQ said that a Christian is enjoined to love the sinner but hate the sin. Well, that's one way, and a good way, I have no doubt. The problem is that gays are then still characterized as sinners. Many of them would take exception to that, since some of them will surely not believe in the existence of God. Talk of 'sin' presupposes belief in the existence of God."
If I didn't believe the earth was round, it wouldn't change the fact that it is. I am free to believe whatever I choose. I think there is an implied misconception that God would single out homosexuality above any other sin. He doesn't of course. I think the sin God hates above all else is pride. There are several references to this in Proverbs. I found an interesting post about the "individualism" of belief last night.
Don't Tell Me What I Should Believe!
"There was a time when blacks didn't have rights, either. Indeed, many were enslaved."
Many blacks are outraged when gays use this analogy. It is not the same and I think it is offensive to say so.
"Jesus said in Matthew 5:17,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
"This is from your previous comment; but I should like to return to it."
"If we are to take this literally, then we must all start taking the Torah rather more seriously. The fact remains that we don't. How many people today, women and men, sport piercings, for example? They are totally against 'God's injunctions'. Though these people either don't know or don't care."
The way I've always interpreted this scripture is that the Law refers to the 10 Commandments given to Moses.
The other laws you refer to were given to the Israelites. The Israelites were bound by statutes of the law as a means of their salvation.
In fact, you answered this yourself by quoting this scripture in your book,
The Dawning of a New Dark Age.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Though shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22, 37-40"
There Jesus is referring to the Law and Prophets again. It does a nice job of summing up God's will in a concise way.
"To return to the matter of judging homosexuals, we must all, as Christians, bear this in mind from Matthew 7, 1-5:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Now how about that for a bit of theology? :-)"
Amen!
Heather:
Mark,
This post was much nicer to read, I didn't feel as if I was being attacked.
Rest assured, I would never attack you! I have too much respect for you than to do that. I might disagree with you; but I would not attack you.
If I didn't believe the earth was round, it wouldn't change the fact that it is. I am free to believe whatever I choose. I think there is an implied misconception that God would single out homosexuality above any other sin. He doesn't of course. I think the sin God hates above all else is pride. There are several references to this in Proverbs. I found an interesting post about the "individualism" of belief last night. Don't Tell Me What I Should Believe!
This is an interesting link, and I have bookmarked it for future reference.
I agree with what you have said here. We are all 'sinners' in one way or another.
You might be under the misconception that I condone homosexuality. I do not. But I consider it a 'deviation from the norm', rather than a 'sin'. We all deviate from the norm in some way or another. What is 'normal' anyway?
I basically feel strongly that homosexuals should enjoy equal rights under the law. (Though I do not believe the word 'marriage' should be used for a gay partnership, since it debases the sanctity of marriage) After all, our laws are man-made.
If anyone commits a 'sin', then it is for God to judge, and for God alone. Presumably, if one is a Christian, then one will be punished in the Hereafter. There is no need to punish people here on earth for such things, as long as the relationship is conducted between two consenting adults.
"There was a time when blacks didn't have rights, either. Indeed, many were enslaved."
Many blacks are outraged when gays use this analogy. It is not the same and I think it is offensive to say so.
I don't think it is at all offensive. It is a fact, after all. I am not in any way comparing homosexuality with being black. I am merely pointing out how attitudes to certain things change over time. If I am not mistaken, slavery is condoned in certain parts of the Bible. But no sane person would condone slavery today (unless one is a Muslim, of course). So please don't misunderstand what I am saying here.
"Jesus said in Matthew 5:17,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
"This is from your previous comment; but I should like to return to it."
"If we are to take this literally, then we must all start taking the Torah rather more seriously. The fact remains that we don't. How many people today, women and men, sport piercings, for example? They are totally against 'God's injunctions'. Though these people either don't know or don't care."
The way I've always interpreted this scripture is that the Law refers to the 10 Commandments given to Moses. The other laws you refer to were given to the Israelites. The Israelites were bound by statutes of the law as a means of their salvation.
I can understand you distinction here. But if you are making this distinction, then why do people cherry pick certain things to be unacceptable, and yet others not? So many Christians quote Leviticus when damning homosexuality.
In fact, you answered this yourself by quoting this scripture in your book,
The Dawning of a New Dark Age.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Though shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22, 37-40"
Yes, that is why I re-quoted it this morning.
There Jesus is referring to the Law and Prophets again. It does a nice job of summing up God's will in a concise way.
It certainly does. I think that many Christians get bogged down in the minutae of details in the Bible, when these few sentences sum it all up perfectly.
"To return to the matter of judging homosexuals, we must all, as Christians, bear this in mind from Matthew 7, 1-5:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Now how about that for a bit of theology? :-)"
Amen!
Amen indeed!
PS: I wonder where JudahQ is. She loves discussions like this. We could do with her help and sound knowledge, couldn't we? Though I'm afraid she might chew me out for my liberal opinions on this most controversial of matters!
JudahQ:
Contrary to what you think, Mark, I don't like discussions which keep covering the same ground repeatedly with the same people - unless something new turns up. You and I have discussed these issues previously, and I see here that while you would like my input (sound knowledge, you called it) you actually disregard that sound knowledge.
I detect more than a whiff of tetchiness in this comment. I'll leave it at that. Just to say, however, that I have well-formed, well-thought-out opinions on this subject, so you, too, would have to come up with something new to convince me.
If you feel I disregard your opinion on this matter, it is simply because I don't agree with you on the matter. I am allowed to disagree with you, aren't I?
I was going to leave this post alone once I read the ongoing comments, but because I do have a knowledge of Christian apologia - and there may be others who read what is written here - I will add one further post.
I'm sorry that I made you feel as though you had to. That was not my intention.
Well-informed Christians do not "cherry pick" from Leviticus as you imagine they do. Without knowledge of the different categories of the laws revealed to early Israel, it is easy to lump them all together and assume a single purpose for them. This only causes confusion and gives rise to misunderstandings such as the one that you espouse.
I have seen/heard many Christians refer to Leviticus, including men of the cloth, and refer to the 'sin' of homosexuality, then they go on and eat shellfish, or have members of their family with piercings in the congregation. And they see nothing wrong with it. That's what I mean by 'cherry-picking'.
If we are to cite Leviticus as the basis for the argument that homosexuality is 'sinful', then surely we must accept all of the things that Leviticus proscribes.
Personally, I think it is more appropriate to refer to the New Testament when deciding what is allowed and what is disallowed for Christians.
Speaking of cherry-picking, Jesus also told His followers “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24). However, that verse is often ignored by those who attempt to silence Christians with the passage you have quoted from Matthew. Also, those who use the Matthew passage for that purpose (to accuse Christians of being "judgemental" when they speak of sin) appear to see nothing wrong in taking the words of Jesus right out of context.
So I have taken them out of context, have I?
In the Matthew passage Jesus was warning His followers not to be hypocritical and self-righteous in their judgement of others.
Indeed. And that is exactly what I try not to be: judgmental.
Jesus does speak of sexual immorality. At the time there was no such word as "homosexual" as the concept of such was not understood then as it is today.
I would disagree with this statement. The word might not have existed, but the concept was most definitely understood. Homosexuals have existed since the beginning of time.
The Jews understood that lust for another, of either gender by either gender, and sexual behaviour that followed on from that outside of marriage was sin covered by the term "sexual immorality".
I accept that. But you speak here of sex outside of marriage. In today's world, so, so many people - and I speak here of heterosexuals - have sex outside of marriage. Hell is going to have to have a lot of space for them all!
If we are to speak of sexual immorality, then we must not single out one form of sexual immorality. So it is not appropriate for me, you, or anyone else to judge other's lusts when we have not, perhaps, lived up to the Scriptures ourselves.
This was their knowledge and understanding, and this umbrella term included a range of forbidden behaviour including incest and bestiality.
I think it is most inappropriate to lump homosexuality with incest and bestiality!!! It is also most insulting to homosexuals. It would be good if a homosexual or two were to come onto this forum and tackle you on this matter. I feel too ill-equpped to do so. But I feel sure homosexuals would be highly displeased to be lumped together with those disgusting people who engage in incest or bestiality!
Jesus does not single out those either, but surely you are not going to test your argument by saying that through not naming them He did not regard them as sin?
Personally, I find it interesting that He didn't make it quite, quite clear that homosexuality is a grave sin. After all, He clearly could have made much more of this 'sin'.
There is no sin in loving one another. That includes love for someone of the same gender as oneself. But love and lust must be distinguished from each other, and the difference between them applies to all relationships that we have with each other regardless of gender. Love is beautifully defined in that classic passage of Scripture, 1 Corinthians 13. That we should all love one another in that way is indeed God's Will for us!
I can find nothing in this paragraph that I can disagree with.
There is no "gay gene" as such discovered.
You speak with such authority! Maybe you know something that I don't. But on the basis of my reading and my knowledge - and I do have more than a little on this subject - I would say that there is a gay gene, or at least something in the make-up of a person from birth to make him, or her, gay. This is surely proven by the animal kingdom. Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Animals are surely not influenced by the liberal 'chattering classes'!
The jury is still out regarding the aetiology of same-sex attraction.
I trust that you are not using the word 'aetiology' in the sense of 'disease'. I presume that you are using it is the less pejorative sense. At least I hope you are.
Human psycho-sexual development is known to be highly complex, to go through identifiable phases, and is considered "multi-factorial" as regards the influences upon it.
Highly complex, too! One cannot over-emphasize the influence of the child's environment upon this most complex phenomenon.
The comparison with skin colour is a fallacious one since that is clearly a matter of genetic inheritance.
No, Judah, that's where I believe you are wrong. Many homosexuals are born that way. That has surely been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I unashamedly confess to holding a Christian worldview in which we are all held to be sinners, every single one of us. This worldview claims that God did not originally create us "that way" and neither did He create us as robots.
That's your interpretation of Christianity. I, too, consider myself to be a Christian. I was raised that way, and I have never left it, for I have found no better way to live. My interpretation of Chrsitianity is, however, different in some respects than yours. That's why, I suppose, there are so many different churches. Each church has its own interpretation.
I find it very interesting to note, however, that the established church in the United Kingdom, the Church of England, has little condemnatory to say about homosexuality anymore. Indeed, the American branch, the Episcopal Church, as you well know, even goes as far as ordaining gays! Indeed, the churches of the world are full of them! Even monasteries have their share.
Now I am not really in agreement with the ordination of gays; so please don't jump to any conclusions here. I am not as liberal as you seem to think. I am merely pointing out that it is very difficult to be judgmental about gayness.
And if one is looking for a more evangelical example, look at Ted Haggard. He preached to his congregation how 'sinful' homosexuality is, yet he was engaging in it himself! How hypocritical is that?
We may as well blame God for all misfortune that falls upon us, including children born damaged.
I don't see it as a matter of 'blaming' God for anything; rather, I see it as a matter of 'accepting' the 'hand' that God has dealt us, and getting on and making the best and doing the best one can with that 'hand'. Some are born beautiful, some pretty, some intelligent, some with scientific abilities, some with inherent business acumen, etc. It behoves us all to do the best that we can with our talents and opportunities and try our best to overcome our weaknesses. Some can, some cannot. That, as far as I can see, is the only framework we can live within.
I hope and trust that you do not think that I believe that being gay is the right way to be. I do not. I see it as a fact of life for some people. In many ways it is surely a burden. You seem to view it as a matter of choice.
Societal attitudes to homosexuality have changed greatly in my relatively short lifetime. As a child, the subject was taboo. It dare not be raised in polite society. Indeed, homosexuals were jailed in the UK up until about 1964! I feel sure that the medical profession must surely have brought some pressure to bear on the lawmakers to change that; it surely wasn't just the pressure from the gay lobby. Discoveries were made about that sexual preference.
Regardless of the sin, any sin is offensive to our holy and righteous Father God. As humans we may put sin into hierachies and consider some worse than others - for instance, murder worse than telling a lie - but in fact, all sin is a blot on our souls and not one of us is without it.
This is precisely why I do not like to cast aspersions on others. I am painfully aware of my own shortcomings. We all have shortcomings in one form or another.
Today's heavy focus on homosexuality has been brought about by the very active and powerful political lobbying of that group.
Yes and no. There have been other reasons why homosexuality has become more acceptable in society. As I stated earlier. The medical profession has surely brought its own pressure to bear. So I don't think it's as simple as that.
The spiritually mature Christian does not regard that particular expression of sexuality as any more or less sinful than any other sexual relationship outside of marriage. Sin is the breaking of God's law - disobedience to Him and His will for us. It is God who defines what that is by the revelation of His law. You may dislike the application of that word to whatever breakage of His law that you choose, but your view will count as nothing in the eyes of God who is the one who calls the shots. That is the Christian position - that God defines (and reveals to us) what is sin, and He has done so already in His written word, the Bible.
I have no objection to the word 'sin' as log as it isn't bandied about too often, and as long as the person using it is aware of his own sinfulness. You seem to be; many are not.
We each have a choice to make regarding our beliefs. We will each be held accountable to God for those choices. It is not for any Christian to impose a certain belief upon another. I am not doing so to anyone here.
No, and I am not trying to impose my beliefs on others either. That is clearly not for us to do.
I note that you disparage Paul and clearly have a different attitude towards the Bible than do I.
No, Judah, it is not my intention to "disparage" Paul. I was merely pointing out that it should be the church of Jesus Christ rather than the Pauline church. Though I have every respect for him.
It is unfortunate that the term "fundamentalist" has become a pejorative in the mouths of liberals as we all have fundamental beliefs from which our thoughts and behaviours arise.
Perhaps the fundamentalists are themselves to blame for this. They do tend to go over the top, don't they? Take Ted Haggard again as an example. Perhaps if he hadn't condemned others so much, then others might have been less ready to condemn him.
As I stated to Heather, fundamentalism has a bad reputation because there are literalists out there who believe every single word in the Bible as fact. I don't know. Personally, I do not. Much that is in the Bible, as far as I am concerned, is symbolic. Yes, there are many facts in it too. But it is by no means all to be taken literally. I used the example of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt in the early part of my discussion with Heather, I believe.
I strive towards a right understanding of Scripture, and that will by necessity involve a reasoned combination of literal and figurative (symbolic) meanings aided by appropriate scholarly knowledge, intelligently integrated, with a spiritual discernment of God's wisdom.
The Church is crying out for people like you, Judah. Have you ever thought of making it your second career?
You may by all means disagree with me but I will leave it at that.
There are some things I disagree with you on, yet other things I don't.
One thing I can assure you of: I do not fear the 'Day of Judgment'. I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable on matters of Christian theology as you are; but I know enough to satisfy myself. I have more knowledge than many, but not half as much as some. I get by. You, by contrast, appear to have made a study of it. Whilst I respect your knowledge, I don't necessarily agree with all your views. I hope that you can respect that, too.
JudahQ:
Thank you for this excellent comment.
I do not wish to respond to it in full right now, since it is Sunday morning and I have not yet had my breakfast. But I will return to it in the coming days. I would like to say this, however, since I have clicked over to the link on the 'gay gene'.
First of all, when I used that term for the first time, I didn't realize that you would take me so literally. I have already said that I consider that there is something in some gay people's make-up that makes them so. It is not necessarily a gene. It could be chemicals in the brain as far as I know. I am not a scientist. But I do know enough about medicine to know that doctors and medical researchers don't know everything, and they have much yet to discover about the human body.
By this, I do not in any way mean to imply that nurture has nothing to do with the 'nature' of many gays. It is my opinion that people are gay for various reasons. The 'nature versus nurture' debate has gone on for a very long time, and not only when referring to homosexuality, either. In my opinion, nature and nurture are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and we shouldn't view them as being so.
It is perfectly possible for some gays to be born that way, and for others to have been inclined that way by their upbringing. Moreover, it is possible that some gays have been born that way, and their nature has been reinforced the gayness by the way they were raised. Even a given name can be a factor. Further, some mothers are too domineering, and some fathers are, too. I believe that both can be detrimental to the child's development, as can be the way a child is treated by the parents and even by his peers.
But whatever the causes are in any particular instance, that person can hardly be to blame for the way he is. It becomes his 'nature' whether it is inborn or whether his upbringing has made him that way.
I would like you to know that I am in no way condoning homosexuality; rather, I am merely trying to understand it. I also make a distinction between what is acceptable in the eyes of God and what is acceptable in the eyes of man. In a democracy, laws have to be passed for all people, whether religious or not. That's what makes the distinction between a democracy and a theocracy. In a democracy, if a person practices homosexuality, and that is against God's will as you say, then that person will be punished in the next life. It is not for the lawmakers to punish him/her for behaviour which devout Christians or devout Muslims find abhorrent.
As you know, three forms of love have been distinguished: eros (hence erotic love); philos (love based on friendship); and agape (unconditional love). Are we referring to the same form of love, I wonder?
As a slight digression, it is interesting for readers of this thread to note the following: "Psychologist Zick Rubin proposed that romantic love is made up of three elements: attachment, caring, and intimacy. Attachment is the need to receive care, approval, and physical contact with the other person. Caring involves valuing the other persons needs and happiness as much as your own. Intimacy refers to the sharing of thoughts, desires, and feelings with the other person." - [Source: About.com]
Judah, when I refer to homosexual beaviour, I am not viewing it through God's 'eyes'; rather, I am viewing it through the eyes of a social scientist, as economics and political science were my study.
Love it or loathe it, we live in secular democracies. We do not live in a 'Christian democracy'. Indeed, no such form of democracy can exist. The very term is an oxymoron. And for the same reason that an Islamic democracy cannot exist, for that term is an oxymoron, too. Naturally, if a country is peopled by Christians, then Christianity is going to have a strong influence on the constitution and the passing of laws. But it can still not be called a 'Christian democracy'. Ditto, an 'Islamic democracy'.
In a secular democracy, it is my opinion that homosexuals should be given rights, even though, as you say, such behaviour is abhorrent to God. I would suggest that this is one of the main reasons why our democracies have evolved the way they have: incresingly, they have tried to be fair to all people, regardless of religion or lack of it, or sexual orientation, etc.
JudahQ:
It is true that I have adopted a traditional exegesis of Scripture - and so I will present a Biblical Christianity based on that traditional exegesis. That naturally puts me at odds with liberal and revisionist theologies, and with the incursion of cultural components of today's postmodern thinking. Just a few further comments...
Yes it surely does put you at odds with liberal and revisionist theologies, and with post-modern thinking, too.
I think of myself as neither revisionist nor liberal nor postmodernist. Yet we are at odds on this topic. :-)
Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees on this same matter. They did not care for distinctions between laws, ...
Are you implying that there is something of the Pharisee about me? :-) It had never occurred to me before you mentioned it! :-)
... but Jesus pointed out in his response to them how it is the transgression of the moral laws that make a person "unclean" rather than that of other (constitutional/ritual) laws. Matthew 15: 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’
Who can argue with that? I would suggest, however, that there are probably good reasons why certain foods were proscribed. As I have mentioned to you before, I was in the States last year and whilst watching a religious broadcast there, I heard the topic of the eating of shellfish being discussed and explained. The preacher, a well-known one in the States but whose name I now forget, said that shellfish tend to be "bottom-feeders", and being bottom-feeders they tend to eat all the garbage on the sea bed. Apparently, this makes them unsuitable for human consumption. It is interesting to note that many people pick up food poisoning from shellfish. Perhaps there is a lot in this preacher's theory. Tattoos are also proscribed, as are piercings. Both cannot be particularly good for the health. I once read in the paper that a woman in the UK who had had many, many piercings died from some form of metal poisoning, and I can't believe that nature intended for man to inject himself with ink, which is what tattoos are, either. So perhaps we shouldn't be as selective as we are.
What Jesus said about our uncleanliness stemming from the heart is true, of course. But I believe that He was trying to make a point that the Pharisees were carrying things to extremes in their hidebound adherence to rituals. Correct me if I am wrong. But it doesn't follow on from what Jesus said that man should eat shellfish, and so on. I believe He was merely saying that abiding by such rules and rituals don't make the man "clean" and pure of heart.
Mark wrote: Indeed. And that is exactly what I try not to be: judgmental.
Perhaps you are speaking of hypocrisy when you say "judgemental" ?
I suppose I am, really, since we all have failings and shortcomings, so it behoves us not to cast aspersions on others when we have plenty in our own lives to correct first. Many people are not so aware of their own shortcomings, and they rush to judge others when they would do better to correct their own behaviour first.
Yes, the blanket term "sexual immorality" as known in both Old and New Testaments refers to all sex outside of marriage. So you are quite right in that it includes heterosexual extramarital affairs, etc. Our society has become accustomed to sexual freedoms but that is a cultural, not a Biblical, endorsement.
Oh, I agree with you entirely here.
The fact that we are all liable to sin does not make it inappropriate to make righteous judgements since that is what Jesus tells us we must do.
Would you kindly explain the difference for me, please. I don't think I am at all sure what you mean when you say we must make "righteous judgements". When does criticizing others, and judging them, become "righteous"?
However, it is one thing to say that something is wrong by God's moral laws and quite another to hate and persecute those who break those laws.
Precisely. I couldn't agree with you more. This is what the Muslims do in the Middle East, for example. They persecute homosexuals, and people who commit adultery, especially the women, and in doing so they show no compassion or mercy.
We are to hate the sin, but to love (care deeply about) the sinner. 1 Corinthians 13 is the classic description of what is this kind of love. It is how we are commanded by Jesus to love each other, either gender by either gender, and so to love deeply in this manner is far from wrong.
I can't argue with this, either.
Mark wrote: I think it is most inappropriate to lump homosexuality with incest and bestiality!!! It is also most insulting to homosexuals. It would be good if a homosexual or two were to come onto this forum and tackle you on this matter. I feel too ill-equpped to do so. But I feel sure homosexuals would be highly displeased to be lumped together with those disgusting people who engage in incest or bestiality!
Sin is the breaking of God's law. It is humans who rank sin as to how "bad" it is, but all sin is offensive to God's holy and righteous character. It is a matter of our human state - we are all sinners no matter whether it was a seemingly inconsequential tiny lie, or a rape and murder that was committed. As with pregnancy, a woman cannot be "just a little bit pregnant" - she is either pregnant, or she is not. The tiny lie is as much a sin as is the rape and murder. This is no less comfortable to me than it is to you, Mark. It is Biblical Christianity and I did not invent it. Of course it is displeasing to those practising homosexuality but even a thousand of them coming to tackle me wont change God's moral law. Either they believe His word, or they don't, but at the expense of their own destinies. Salvation is available to all who believe in Christ as the Son of God and His death to redeem us for our sins. Tackling me changes nothing.
I have to chuckle here. You are proving yourself to be a feisty opponent. :-)
But I must say that I am uncomfortable with the concept of all sins, great and small, being equally abhorrent in God's eyes. I hardly think that a white lie is in the same league of sin as murder, or homosexuality as incest, etc. It might say so in the Bible, but it doesn't satisfy me as a human being. It also clearly doesn't satisfy the courts; otherwise they wouldn't have varying sentences for different levels of wrong-doing and criminality. Clearly some wrongs are worse than others. Also, it has to be said that some 'sins' (to use your word) affect others, whereas others do not.
Mark wrote: Personally, I find it interesting that He didn't make it quite, quite clear that homosexuality is a grave sin. After all, He clearly could have made much more of this 'sin'.
I have been told (by a theologian and Bible scholar) that homosexual behaviour occurred far less among the Jews of the time of Jesus than it did among the Gentiles to whom the Apostle Paul brought the Christian message. It was already outlawed in the Torah which the Jews had been subject to for centuries, but the more libertine Greek culture had not discouraged it thus it was more prevalent. Do you think that may have some bearing on the different emphasis given the matter by Jesus compared with Paul?
This is a very interesting and plausible point.
The Jews knew it as a sin - the Gentiles did not. Given that it was more acceptable to the Greeks and Romans whereas not so in Jewish culture, there was a greater need to enlighten them about it.
This could well be true, of course. But it still leads back to the 'nature' of the man; otherwise, why else would it have been so prevalent among the Greeks and Gentiles? Could it all have had to do with the mores of the day?
The revisionist liberal theology of the past half century has attempted to erode traditional Biblical Christianity of the past 19 centuries since Christ's coming. Those who follow those liberal teachings have moved away from orthodoxy and their doctrine is no longer rooted in the traditional exegesis of Scripture. God's moral law is unchanging. As you say yourself, Mark - God is the judge. These people walk their own path at their own risk.
That's what I have been saying. People must be free to make their own choices. There is no virtue in enforced virtue.
Mark wrote: Societal attitudes to homosexuality have changed greatly in my relatively short lifetime. As a child, the subject was taboo. It dare not be raised in polite society. Indeed, homosexuals were jailed in the UK up until about 1964! I feel sure that the medical profession must surely have brought some pressure to bear on the lawmakers to change that; it surely wasn't just the pressure from the gay lobby. Discoveries were made about that sexual preference.
In response, I quote the following:
In 1952, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official catalogue of mental disorders used by mental health professionals, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the revised DSM II reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. But in the midst of the sexual revolution, homosexual protestors began picketing the APA's annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality not be identified as pathology. In 1973, under enormous pressure from homosexual activists, the APA remove homosexuality from its the DSM III edition to the dismay of about 40 percent of psychiatrists -- particularly those who specialized in treating homosexuals.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes: "The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."
Source
I don't go along with the theory that homosexuality is any form sociopathology or disease. To me that is a dangerous and wrong classification. It is simply a deviation from the norm. At least in my opinion. Furthermore, I believe that it is one which the person himself can do very little about, short of doing without any form of relationship to another person; and it seems a bit hard to me to expect that of anyone. That is why I dislike so much the word 'sin' associated with it. But I respect your right to use that word if you so wish.
Post a Comment