The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Nick Park

riveratom wrote: »

Yes exactly! So you agree that my subjective interpretation of what is right or wrong is not what applies here. What applies is what the law of the land says (you mention the Gardai there I see). So even if my children have no food and I 'justify stealing between myself and God', it still doesn't make it right by say, the Bible or God?

So why then, is having gay relations a matter of someone's personal conscience and what they feel is ok between that person and God? Are there exceptions or something?

Having gay relations is nothing to do with breaking the law of the land.

If someone's child was starving I would not condemn them for stealing food.

You seem to think that condemning others is somehow integral to Christianity. Sorry, I don't see it that way.

This is not about you dictating to others or making judgments, it's about what the Bible says and the commonly accepted interpretation of the various rules therein. You've already defended Leviticus and other passages which are clearly against homosexual relations, to the hilt. We can go back several pages right now, to where you were saying that it was absolutely certain that the relevant passages in the Bible forbid homosexual relations.

Everyone can see that the Bible says that homosexual relations are wrong. Why are you saying something other than what the Bible says, that it is a 'matter of personal conscience', i.e. your own subjective interpretation? Do you want to change your position? If so, then that Christian gay man can simply have those sexual relations, provided he deems it ok in accordance with his own personal conscience - could you confirm this is the case?

You want to talk about Leviticus again? OK. You are confusing two very different concepts here, namely exegesis and hermeneutics.

Exegesis is basically what the Bible meant to its original readers. 'There and then.'

Hermeneutics is what the Bible means to us today and how we apply it in our lives. 'Here and now.'

I discussed the exegesis of Leviticus because someone was engaging in a bit of anti-intellectual tomfoolery. I pointed out that virtually every scholar with knowledge of Hebrew would see the verse as being a prohibition of homosexuality to the Jews over 3000 years ago. That was, I believe, good sound exegesis.

I also pointed out, at least twice, that Christian behaviour and morality should primarily be informed by the New Testament. If we obeyed everything in Leviticus then we should be circumcised, avoid eating shellfish as an abomination, and should sacrifice goats. In pointing that out I am engaging in hermeneutics.

Now, I think the Bible, and most importantly the New Testament, does portray homosexual acts as wrong. But other Christians, including good people whom I respect, see it differently. I might disagree with their biblical interpretation, but it's not my job to condemn them. And I certainly am not going to start saying they are not therefore Christians.

I have to say, I find it strange that a guy who was defending and explaining Leviticus a few pages back is now all free and easy and saying 'well it's up to you really, what you think is ok or not'.

Will the real Nick Park please stand up?

The real Nick Park is standing up. A normal human being with views that are sometimes nuanced and complex. Not the cardboard cut-out stereotype that you want me to be. Why can't you accept that?

Wow, 'couldn't give a rat's ass' - you really sound like the local pastor now..

Maybe you don't know many pastors? We speak normal English, not King James Version preachy talk.

You seem to think this is all about you - it's not. I am not looking for you to condemn others, all I / we want is for you to have the courage to come out and say what you really believe based on what the Bible clearly says - rather than hiding behind the whole 'oh I'm not a judgey-dude' faux persona that has emerged over the past few pages.

No, this shouldn't be about me. But you are attempting to make it so by hijacking a discussion about Christianity and Homosexuality to try to put words in my mouth that don't reflect my beliefs.

The bold-faced words are basically saying that you refuse to accept my statements about what I feel and believe, and would rather accuse me of lying. That, to be honest, seems to harrassment rather than discussion.

If I were to ask you a question about what you believe, then I would accept the answer you gave me. That is how reasonable people discuss things on a site like this.

riveratom

Nick Park wrote: »

Having gay relations is nothing to do with breaking the law of the land.

If someone's child was starving I would not condemn them for stealing food.

Again, you are talking about you condemning / judging someone for doing something, even after I spent that time explaining that I couldn't care less about what you would condemn someone for - it's not about you! I am interested in what the 'right' thing is, i.e. objective rather than subjective morality.

I would have thought that was fairly clear from my last post, but somehow you think I'm the one who is confused.

Forget judgment or condemnation - all I am interested in is what the Bible says. If we go down the road of objective morality then sure whatever someone says is ok is ok!

Nick Park wrote: »

You seem to think that condemning others is somehow integral to Christianity. Sorry, I don't see it that way.

See above...

Nick Park wrote: »

You want to talk about Leviticus again? OK. You are confusing two very different concepts here, namely exegesis and hermeneutics.

Exegesis is basically what the Bible meant to its original readers. 'There and then.'

Hermeneutics is what the Bible means to us today and how we apply it in our lives. 'Here and now.'

I discussed the exegesis of Leviticus because someone was engaging in a bit of anti-intellectual tomfoolery. I pointed out that virtually every scholar with knowledge of Hebrew would see the verse as being a prohibition of homosexuality to the Jews over 3000 years ago. That was, I believe, good sound exegesis.

I also pointed out, at least twice, that Christian behaviour and morality should primarily be informed by the New Testament. If we obeyed everything in Leviticus then we should be circumcised, avoid eating shellfish as an abomination, and should sacrifice goats. In pointing that out I am engaging in hermeneutics.

Now, I think the Bible, and most importantly the New Testament, does portray homosexual acts as wrong. But other Christians, including good people whom I respect, see it differently. I might disagree with their biblical interpretation, but it's not my job to condemn them. And I certainly am not going to start saying they are not therefore Christians.

Ok, so you do believe that they are wrong (remember it is not about condemnation, but about what the Bible actually says).

Do you see where the difficulty lies? Not everyone can be right. Either homosexual acts are ok, or they are not. You seem to be saying that it differs based on how people interpret the Bible. So back to my point - a gay Christian man can therefore have sexual relations if he interprets the Bible in terms of those relations being ok?

If that's the case, then it's news to me as it would seem to fly in the face of what the Catholic Church and practically all other churches say about homosexuality.

Nick Park wrote: »

The real Nick Park is standing up. A normal human being with views that are sometimes nuanced and complex. Not the cardboard cut-out stereotype that you want me to be. Why can't you accept that?

Maybe you don't know many pastors? We speak normal English, not King James Version preachy talk.

No, this shouldn't be about me. But you are attempting to make it so by hijacking a discussion about Christianity and Homosexuality to try to put words in my mouth that don't reflect my beliefs.

The bold-faced words are basically saying that you refuse to accept my statements about what I feel and believe, and would rather accuse me of lying. That, to be honest, seems to harrassment rather than discussion.

If I were to ask you a question about what you believe, then I would accept the answer you gave me. That is how reasonable people discuss things on a site like this.

I am definitely not about harassing anybody, not my style. It may be how it comes across in parts, but think of it like a presenter challenging politicians on one of the late night news show - it's not about them personally, but about the topic at hand.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

Can you explain why ?

Briefly.

If our sexuality is determined and driven by our genetics, then all aspects of humanity are. We have no free will and are just dominated by our instincts or whatever our genes pre-program us to do. (It's not child molesters fault that they are attracted to children: it's in their genes...same for murders, rapists batterers, thieves etc) This approach has already been used in US Courtrooms.

The spiritual conundrum has already been touched on.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

Briefly.

If our sexuality is determined and driven by our genetics, then all aspects of humanity are. We have no free will and are just dominated by our instincts or whatever our genes pre-program us to do. (It's not child molesters fault that they are attracted to children: it's in their genes...same for murders, rapists batterers, thieves etc) This approach has already been used in US Courtrooms.

The spiritual conundrum has already been touched on.

Citation needed.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Briefly.

If our sexuality is determined and driven by our genetics, then all aspects of humanity are. We have no free will and are just dominated by our instincts or whatever our genes pre-program us to do. (It's not child molesters fault that they are attracted to children: it's in their genes...same for murders, rapists batterers, thieves etc) This approach has already been used in US Courtrooms.

The spiritual conundrum has already been touched on.

How does that negate free will ? Also are you working backwards ? i.e. if you thinks that genetics negates freewill, by definition as your beliefs call for free will genetics must be wrong ?

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

Citation needed.

Lazybones et al (2014)

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

How does that negate free will ? Also are you working backwards ? i.e. if you thinks that genetics negates freewill, by definition as your beliefs call for free will genetics must be wrong ?

If we are ruled by our genes, then everything we do is a result of our genes/nature. Like animals. We make no conscious decision but only act as our genes dictate.

I'm inclined to think that the importance given to genetics is over-emphasised. Our genes do play some part but I firmly hold that the mind is the more important of the two.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

If we are ruled by our genes, then everything we do is a result of our genes/nature. Like animals. We make no conscious decision but only act as our genes dictate.

I'm inclined to think that the importance given to genetics is over-emphasised. Our genes do play some part but I firmly hold that the mind is the more important of the two.

How does any of that negate free will ?

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Briefly.

If our sexuality is determined and driven by our genetics, then all aspects of humanity are. We have no free will and are just dominated by our instincts or whatever our genes pre-program us to do. (It's not child molesters fault that they are attracted to children: it's in their genes...same for murders, rapists batterers, thieves etc) This approach has already been used in US Courtrooms.

The spiritual conundrum has already been touched on.

You are discussing issues of consent and harming people, be it physical or psychological. So bares no real relation. We do have the ability to make decisions.

I don't care about if homosexuality is genetic or not. It harms nobody so the only people who are causing harm in relation to homosexuality are those who condemn,mock or take a moral stance on the fact a person is attracted to the same sex. The fact is that they're attracted to the same sex, it is not possible to change this and even if it was,it shouldn't matter. There is no harm in consensual relationships between adults.

Mrs OBumble

mezuzaj wrote: »

Some people find it hard to live a life with nobody to share it with and I can understand and respect that, everyone needs a companion.

But according to current Catholic teaching, people whose primary sexual attraction is to people of the same gender are intrinsically disordered, and therefore not eligible to have a companion.

Voluntary celibacy is a great gift, and it's likely that people from all ends of the sexual attraction spectrum will be called to it.

But involuntary celibacy is not a gift.

robp

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The Catholic church has changed its mind on issues before, and doubtless will again.

The world being flat is well known. The acceptability of keeping slaves is less well known, but I'd say far more on a par with the issues being discussed here.

Sooner or later, Catholic theology will admit that same-gender sexual attraction is an intrinsic part of how some people are, and that people who are born this way have rights to intimate relationships in the same way that people who have opposite-gender sexual attraction do.

Catholic theology does not deny same sex attractions exists as you imply. It is simply the view that (well backed by many studies) this life style is not a path to fulfilment and happiness.

gaynorvader

lazybones32 wrote: »

Briefly.

If our sexualitygender is determined and driven by our genetics, then all aspects of humanity are. We have no free will and are just dominated by our instincts or whatever our genes pre-program us to do. (It's not child molesters fault that they are attracted to children: it's in their genes...same for murders, rapists batterers, thieves etc) This approach has already been used in US Courtrooms.

The spiritual conundrum has already been touched on.

Just to highlight the logical misstep you made there. Just because one man has brown hair does not mean all men have brown hair and no men are bald or can dye their hair.

lazybones32

My apologies: I didn't realise people were seeking response - I unfollow most threads so Inbox won't be full.

@marienbad: If we are ruled by our genes, we are ruled by our natural instincts. Like animals. I'll elaborate below.

@Corkfeen: Maybe re-read what I wrote? What I wrote is that arguing in favour of a person being genetically disposed towards certain activities has been used in US Courtrooms, in order to free a client from responsibility for their actions. If there is a gene that influences/promotes/dominates anger and a person's response to it, then it stands to reason there are other genes which influence the other human passions, desires and motivations. Therefore, we have diminished responsibility and are unduly influenced by our genes to the point where we cannot make decisions freely.

@gaynorvader: Gender is not sexuality. Hair colour cannot be changed; it can be dyed to 'pretend' it is a certain colour but new hair will grow 'true to type' (the natural colour). Maybe you could highlight the mis-step I made plainly?

pconn062

robp wrote: »

Catholic theology does not deny same sex attractions exists as you imply. It is simply the view that (well backed by many studies) this life style is not a path to fulfilment and happiness.

Not trying to derail the thread, but just a small thing here. It's not a lifestyle, the same way your natural hair colour or your height is not a lifestyle choice. There is no "choosing" involved with the issue.

El_Duderino 09

robp wrote: »

Catholic theology does not deny same sex attractions exists as you imply. It is simply the view that (well backed by many studies) this life style is not a path to fulfilment and happiness.

I have to ask, what kind of studies and have you read them or do you have any links?


Thanks

gaynorvader

lazybones32 wrote: »

@gaynorvader: Gender is not sexuality. Hair colour cannot be changed; it can be dyed to 'pretend' it is a certain colour but new hair will grow 'true to type' (the natural colour). Maybe you could highlight the mis-step I made plainly?

Apologies, I obviously was not clear enough. Saying one behaviour is determined by genetics therefore all behaviours are determined by genetics, therefore all behaviours are acceptable is a logical fallacy. It is in fact a classic fallacy called the association fallacy. A similar example would be "John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists."

riveratom

robp wrote: »

Catholic theology does not deny same sex attractions exists as you imply. It is simply the view that (well backed by many studies) this life style is not a path to fulfilment and happiness.

Also, on the part in bold, what does it say about what people who have same sex attractions should do? Abstain from all expressions of love?

tommy2bad

riveratom wrote: »

Also, on the part in bold, what does it say about what people who have same sex attractions should do? Abstain from all expressions of love?

I think they can send cards and flowers as long as they keep their pants on it's all OK.

riveratom

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think they can send cards and flowers as long as they keep their pants on it's all OK.

It's interesting how there is complete radio silence from both Nick Park and robp on this question.

leeenfield

Newsflash : No matter how people try to spin it, twist it, or straw man their way out of it, Christianity does not condone sex outside marriage or homosexual acts.

marienbad

leeenfield wrote: »

Newsflash : No matter how people try to spin it, twist it, or straw man their way out of it, Christianity does not condone sex outside marriage or homosexual acts.

Well it has been able to change its mind on many issues before so there is still hope it will catch up on this one .

leeenfield

marienbad wrote: »

Well it has been able to change its mind on many issues before so there is still hope it will catch up on this one .

Spin/Strawman fail No. 1

marienbad

leeenfield wrote: »

Spin/Strawman fail No. 1

Well its been a while since they burnt any witches or massacred any Cathars
or forced conversions of any Jews , so it is just the facts son, just the facts.

The spin comes in trying to explain it away .

tommy2bad

riveratom wrote: »

It's interesting how there is complete radio silence from both Nick Park and robp on this question.

Can't speak for robp but I imagine Nic, like me, would be loath to suggest any course of action based on the Bible other than celibacy. It would be an argument from silence as their is no guidance on this.
I would however say that no matter how clear the anti homosexual passages are, they are specific to a time and culture, they are also much more about lust than love and like prohibitions on sex for hetro couples are about respect for the other party involved. Theirs room for movement in this from the church but as an organisation that sees it following dwindle in the west might be more concerned with the cultural attitude in it's growing market which is not pro gay in anyway. Most we can hope for is a softening of tone (don't want to alienate the richest congregation completely)Unfortunately realpolitik is as much a factor as theology.
Or am I too cynical?

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think they can send cards and flowers as long as they keep their pants on it's all OK.

Hi Tommy, haven't been on the site here for a few days due to real life commitments.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding here about the nature of Biblical revelation and Christian morality.

We seem to have this inbuilt tendency to construct a rule book. We call that 'legalism' and the chief exponents of it in the New Testament were the Pharisees. Almost inevitably that leads to a preoccupation with judging the actions of others, rather than looking at our own shortcomings.

But Christianity isn't about keeping rules. It's about a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. And healthy relationships don't work very well if conducted by rulebooks.

So, for example, my relationship with my wife involves a monogamous relationship. Imagine if I took the approach of saying to myself, "OK, I'll be monogamous, but what's the maximum I can get away with without breaking the monogamy rule?"

I might flirt with other women, hold hands or kiss, but feel that I was doing OK as a husband because I wasn't breaking the monogamy rule by engaging in actual intercourse. To be honest, that would make me an extremely bad (and stupid) husband. Healthy relationships involve doing stuff, and refraining from other stuff, because we want to please the person we love.

Interestingly enough, Jesus didn't tend to water down he moral stuff in the Old Testament law. Often he took it a step further, to a point that any good Jew would see as OTT. So, for example, it's not enough to refrain from the physical act of adultery while doing everything short of the act itself (rule book theology) we are encouraged to avoid even looking at a married woman lustfully (relationship theology). The same principle applies to how we treat our enemies, forgiving them rather than insisting on an eye for an eye.

In a relationship this approach applies to even trivial matters. I do stuff that makes my wife happy even when I see no good reason for it. For example, when I make breakfast each morning she likes the toast cut in two and put on the plate beside her poached egg. I still can't see the reason for that - as far as I'm concerned it's far more sensible to put a whole slice of toast under the poached egg to soak up the runny yolk! But guess what? I prepare her breakfast the way she likes it, not because it's a rule, but because I love making this wonderful woman happy. And I have other, equally baffling, preferences and quirks of my own.

And that's why I don't see a problem in the Bible telling me that something displeases God, even if I don't understand the reason why. If I was trying to live by a rulebook, then that would be a problem. But it isn't a problem in a relationship.

So, for me, the New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality help me to know what pleases this God with whom I have a relationship. The same applies to how I conduct myself in my one and only heterosexual romantic relationship. Based on this information I try to live a life that relects the relationship I have with Christ.

And that's why I am singularly uninterested in setting rules for other people who might see things differently from me. Because relationship theology, properly carried out, should lead to personal repentance and make me a kinder and more gentle person. Rule book theology, however, leads me to spend my time fretting over what other people are doing. I've been there in the past, and I never want to go back there again.

tommy2bad

Nick, we are of one mind on this, no matter how it seems. Like you I see this as a matter of relationship. In fact most of my posts on this board have been about how the bible is not a set of rules or a history but a story of the relationship between God and His people.
And your right, Jesus never removed any of the penalties due in the OT for various transgressions, He just made them impossible to implement. Remember the woman He was asked to judge for adultery, He didn't say she should not be stoned, He said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

If we have any disagreement it as to the exactitude of what is prohibited by the bible as far as homosexuality is concerned. You think it's all acts and I think it's just acts contrary to showing love.
How ever claiming that you don't really care to impose your values on others is a dodge, the bible and those who intrepid it the way you do, do exactly that, impose limits and restrictions on people who are gay. Not based on their sins but on the mechanics of how they express love.
Our relationship with God is demonstrated by our relationship with the people we deal with here and now, we don't get to mistreat them in the name furthering our relationship with God, that was the point Jesus made in the case of the adulteress.

riveratom

Nick Park wrote: »

Hi Tommy, haven't been on the site here for a few days due to real life commitments.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding here about the nature of Biblical revelation and Christian morality.

We seem to have this inbuilt tendency to construct a rule book. We call that 'legalism' and the chief exponents of it in the New Testament were the Pharisees. Almost inevitably that leads to a preoccupation with judging the actions of others, rather than looking at our own shortcomings.

But Christianity isn't about keeping rules. It's about a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. And healthy relationships don't work very well if conducted by rulebooks.

So, for example, my relationship with my wife involves a monogamous relationship. Imagine if I took the approach of saying to myself, "OK, I'll be monogamous, but what's the maximum I can get away with without breaking the monogamy rule?"

I might flirt with other women, hold hands or kiss, but feel that I was doing OK as a husband because I wasn't breaking the monogamy rule by engaging in actual intercourse. To be honest, that would make me an extremely bad (and stupid) husband. Healthy relationships involve doing stuff, and refraining from other stuff, because we want to please the person we love.

Interestingly enough, Jesus didn't tend to water down he moral stuff in the Old Testament law. Often he took it a step further, to a point that any good Jew would see as OTT. So, for example, it's not enough to refrain from the physical act of adultery while doing everything short of the act itself (rule book theology) we are encouraged to avoid even looking at a married woman lustfully (relationship theology). The same principle applies to how we treat our enemies, forgiving them rather than insisting on an eye for an eye.

In a relationship this approach applies to even trivial matters. I do stuff that makes my wife happy even when I see no good reason for it. For example, when I make breakfast each morning she likes the toast cut in two and put on the plate beside her poached egg. I still can't see the reason for that - as far as I'm concerned it's far more sensible to put a whole slice of toast under the poached egg to soak up the runny yolk! But guess what? I prepare her breakfast the way she likes it, not because it's a rule, but because I love making this wonderful woman happy. And I have other, equally baffling, preferences and quirks of my own.

And that's why I don't see a problem in the Bible telling me that something displeases God, even if I don't understand the reason why. If I was trying to live by a rulebook, then that would be a problem. But it isn't a problem in a relationship.

So, for me, the New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality help me to know what pleases this God with whom I have a relationship. The same applies to how I conduct myself in my one and only heterosexual romantic relationship. Based on this information I try to live a life that relects the relationship I have with Christ.

And that's why I am singularly uninterested in setting rules for other people who might see things differently from me. Because relationship theology, properly carried out, should lead to personal repentance and make me a kinder and more gentle person. Rule book theology, however, leads me to spend my time fretting over what other people are doing. I've been there in the past, and I never want to go back there again.

Hi Nick,

I am bewildered as to what this has to do with Tommy's quoted post (which was a response to my post). It all sounds very nice indeed, but what has it got to do with the question that has been running along for pages now - how are homosexual couples to express their love for one another?

It would be super fantastic if you addressed that specific point. I (and presumably Tommy and many others) would be genuinely interested in your response. By response I mean just a literal, actual response to the scenario as opposed to a more theoretical or philosophical reflection.

Nick Park

riveratom wrote: »

Hi Nick,

I am bewildered as to what this has to do with Tommy's quoted post (which was a response to my post). It all sounds very nice indeed, but what has it got to do with the question that has been running along for pages now - how are homosexual couples to express their love for one another?

It would be super fantastic if you addressed that specific point. I (and presumably Tommy and many others) would be genuinely interested in your response. By response I mean just a literal, actual response to the scenario as opposed to a more theoretical or philosophical reflection.

For a response from one Christian to another in the Christianity forum it was relevant. And Tommy hardly seems to be bewildered by it.

If I thought that you were genuinely interested in a discussion and discovering what other people think, rather than putting words into other people's mouths to suit your stereotypes, then I would be glad to explain.

riveratom

Nick Park wrote: »

For a response from one Christian to another in the Christianity forum it was relevant. And Tommy hardly seems to be bewildered by it.

How would you know that? I wouldn't presume that just because he hasn't replied (yet).

Nick Park wrote: »

If I thought that you were genuinely interested in a discussion and discovering what other people think, rather than putting words into other people's mouths to suit your stereotypes, then I would be glad to explain.

I am interested in a discussion. That's why I'm on a discussion forum, discussing, discussing for pages, looking for answers, wondering when people will say what they really think instead of trying to carefully 'pitch' themselves in a certain light or avoid appearing a certain way.

I have no interest in putting words in your mouth, I am simply interested in hearing your answers to question. And that question is:

How do you think homosexual people should express their love for one another?

That's the one and only question I would love you to answer.

It's not about stereotyping. It's just about what your response to that specific question and (real) issue might be.

tommy2bad

I'm not bewildered actually, Nick is simply presenting the biblical word as written. He can't give biblical guidance on what they should do as their isn't any. Beyond 'stop that' the bible is silent on what gay people should do. Presumable the assumption is that they would get married to a person of the opposite sex and procreate. In fact I think the writers assumed they were already married and treated homosexual acts as another worse kind of adultery as they couldn't understand it and saw no benefit in sex that didn't at least end in some more people being born.
By the way the asumption that actual sex is the only way to express love is somewhat an exaggeration. But I know what you mean. Bear in mind that sex for all people, gay and straight, is only one way to express love. One of the important ones mind you.

In fact this argument is more about whether the love homosexuals feel should be recognized as valid more than anything to do with bumping uglys. If it were just the act itself then that's a sin and no one should do it would be enough. But this is more about how we treat and respect others, either we see them as equal and their choices as valid or we see them as somehow different and separate in which case we not only say that's a sin but imply they are sinful in themselves. And yeah I know were all sinners and sinful but this is a definite prejudice as it not based on behavior but nature.