Christian Mud is Still Mud

That poor Episcopalian guy that wants to be a bishop is learning the hard way how loving and Christian churchgoers can be. His nomination has been stalled at the last minute after an allegation surfaced that sometime back he "inappropriately" touched a guy who had heretofore not mentioned it. Further, it is claimed that he put a porno link on a youth-group website, again a new allegation from those who turn the other cheek. Remember, gay guys, God will get you for it!

I personally support keeping this guy from becoming a Bishop IF these allegations are true. I believe all religious organizations need to clean up their act and expose religious leaders who misuse their positions.

However, if these allegations prove to be false, I hope the accusers are kicked out of the church and proper legal charges brought against them.

Unfortunately, if the guy is innocent, there are some that will always believe the untruth. I also feel sorry that his daughter is in attendance at the conference and experiencing this trama in real-time. It must be difficult for her. x(

Although it's true that Gene Robinson wants to be the Suffragan Bishop of New Hampshire, he didn't exactly put himself forward for the job. He was elected; once elected by the diocese of New Hampshire, he has to be confirmed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church before he can be consecrated. The Convention does its business bicamerally. The House of Deputies is composed of representatives elected by each diocese; like the Congressional House of Representatives, the number of delegates from a particular diocese reflects the number of communicants in that diocese; both laypeople and clergy may be elected. The House of Bishops is composed of all the consecrated bishops. Both houses must ratify the election. The House of Deputies has ratified Robinson; it had already passed the measure on to the House of Bishops when Lewis, a man in Vermont, made his allegations. The House of Bishops interrupted its business until the investigation is completed.

Naturally, whether the allegations are specious or not, there must be an investigation. Surely, the bishops had no other choice.

It's no secret where I stand on the matter of Christianity and homosexuality. But I take exception to Lucky's notion that all Christians are somehow mindless idiots who take great pleasure in bashing other people. They don't. Although I do not stand with those who oppose the confirmation of Canon Robinson's election, I can see that they have perfectly valid arguments based on the way they interpret their sources. In any case, if the "Christians" are the bad guys in this situation, what do you call the good guys? I think they'd like to be called Christians, too.

For the straight (pardon the metaphor) scoop, use the following URLs, which will take you directly to the official website of the General Convention now in progress. Anything else, regardless of its source, is hearsay:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/gcnews/index_18074_ENG_HTML.htm

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/gcnews/index_18075_ENG_HTML.htm

I reached these through the website of INTEGRITY, which is the organization within the Episcopal Church for gay men, lesbians, and anybody else who wants to be included: http://www.integrityusa.org

"It's no secret where I stand on the matter of Christianity and homosexuality. But I take exception to Lucky's notion that all Christians are somehow mindless idiots "

Boy, Will if this is how you conduct discourse on campus, I feel sorry for your students.

>"It's no secret where I stand on the matter of Christianity

>and homosexuality. But I take exception to Lucky's notion that

>all Christians are somehow mindless idiots "

>

>Boy, Will if this is how you conduct discourse on campus, I

>feel sorry for your students.

Where did Lucky say that all Christians are mindless idiots? Had Lucky said that a good majority of CHristians are mindless idiots, that would be a true statement. That's why people such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al are so successful at what they do. Were there any people who possessed independent thought and questioned what they do, they would have no followers. Sounds like the Republicans... Oh, wait, it IS the Republicans. Never mind.

>Had Lucky said that a good majority of CHristians are mindless

>idiots, that would be a true statement. That's why people

>such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al are so successful

>at what they do.

What an incredibly stupid, bigoted statement this. There are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world of all different types, beliefs and backgrounds. American evangelical Christians are a small minority of Christians.

Some of America's leading educational institutions were founded by, are run by, and are affiliated with Christians and Christianity. Many of the most important discoveries, innovations, and advancements in the last 10 years, the last 100 years, the last 1,000 years in all fields (medicine, philosophy, physics, etc. etc.), are the by-product of the work of those who are followers of Christ.

And yet, this imbecile - this Nick virus - has the audacity to come here and say that a "good majority" of the adherents to this 2000 year-old religion are "midless idiots."

Any doubt about who the "mindless idiot" is should be forever erased by this most profoundly bigoted and uninformed post.

You're quite right, Lucky. You did not say that Christians are mindless idiots. Certainly not in that post. I was probably incorrectly remembering something you'd said on other occasions when the matter of religion and homosexuality came up. I remember still that you have a rather consistently negative view of religious folks, and particularly when they fight with each other. I apologize.

While I don't agree with your summation of BON, I do agree that his branding of the majority of Christians as mindless idiots was inaccurate. After all, there are many "mindless idiots" in all religions, how else could all the Islamic terrorists who blow themselves and others up be explained?

As you state, a lot of the discoveries and advances in all fields over the last 1000+ years can be attributed to those of the Christian faith, but the same can be said of those of the Judaic, Islamic, Hindu and Budhist faiths and those who were agnostic.

IMO, BON, whose political views I really identify with, was letting the current Republican administration's reliance on the Christian right ala Pat Robertson et al to influence his comments. I believe his comments were directed more towards politics than religion.

The sad thing about religion, is that humans are in charge of interpreting and preaching the word of the founders of the various religions and as such corrupt the teachings to advance their own personal agendas. I believe if you read the Koran, the Bible and the writings of Confucious, Buddha, Zoroaster, et al, that you would find that the basic teachings and tenets have very much in common. I doubt if Mohammed, Jesus, Confucious, Zoroaster, Buddha, et al would approve of the way their preachings of love and peace and tolerance and charity have been usurped and corrupted by humans and used to justify the hatred, intolerance, violence and massacre of humans toward their fellow humans. Inquistions, genocides, jihads, crusades, et al are in total violation of the prophets and founders of the associated religions.

Just my point of view.

>What an incredibly stupid, bigoted statement this. There are

>hundreds of millions of Christians in the world of all

>different types, beliefs and backgrounds. American

>evangelical Christians are a small minority of Christians.

Small minority? Surely you jest, FFF. It is that mindless majority that is currently running the GOP. In fact, the most mindless of them all is the Current Occupant of the White House.

>Some of America's leading educational institutions were

>founded by, are run by, and are affiliated with Christians and

>Christianity. Many of the most important discoveries,

>innovations, and advancements in the last 10 years, the last

>100 years, the last 1,000 years in all fields (medicine,

>philosophy, physics, etc. etc.), are the by-product of the

>work of those who are followers of Christ.

And those discoveries and advancements were? The fact that discoveries and advancements WERE made would be proof that those who made them are not mindless Christians or devotees of Fox News.

>And yet, this imbecile - this Nick virus - has the audacity to

>come here and say that a "good majority" of the

>adherents to this 2000 year-old religion are "midless idiots."

Really, FFF, to post outright lies here is just abominable. I have not now nor have I ever called someone a midless idiot. What does that mean anyway?

>Any doubt about who the "mindless idiot" is should be forever

>erased by this most profoundly bigoted and uninformed post.

Says the poster hiding behind two separate identities. For shame.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

hehehe... Apology accepted!!

I think one could classify me as a cynic about religion, but some of my best friends are religious, even my mom!

>Small minority? Surely you jest, FFF. It is that mindless

>majority that is currently running the GOP. In fact, the most

>mindless of them all is the Current Occupant of the White

>House.

You said that a "good majority" of Christians are "mindless idiots." That means you called hundreds of millions of human beings "mindless idiots" due to their religious beliefs.

One of your great heroes, Bill Clinton, is a Christian, as were most of the other liberal icons worshipped by the propagandized left, including John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, Rev. Martin Luther King, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and on and on and on.

Most of the Founding Fathers of this country, who created one of the most complex, stable and brilliant political systems ever devised - the one that allows you the freedom to be a complete imbecile and still live a relatively free, prosperous life - were Christians.

For you to say that the "good majority" of Christians in the world are "mindless idiots" is really too stupid to bother with further.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

Well, I'm not sure a census has been conducted, but it's clear that there are at least TENS of millions of "Christians" who could be considered "mindless idiots," because there are at least that many Southern Baptists, members of other fundamentalist/literalist denominations, and others, like the so-called leaders of the supposedly intolerant Anglican provinces in the developing world.

Some of what comes out of the debate on homosexuality is actually more than "mindless." It's deliberately thought out and evil. While I don't expect the average believer on the run-of-the-mill street to be an expert theologian, I do expect at least a modicum of knowledge and intellectual honesty from people who are supposed to be spiritual leaders. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in the anti-gay "Christian" camp. Instead of examining the issue carefully, and helping enlighten their flocks by teaching and urging careful reflection, the evil-doers just rant and promote hatred. I am convinced they know what they're doing.

An example of the dishonesty and evil is the sudden insistence that homosexual behavior, above all other practices the Bible seems to disapprove of, has become THE cardinal sin. In fact, it isn't. By Jewish reckoning, there are more than 600 specific commandments in the Bible, and the proscriptions that are taken to prohibit homosexual behavior are exactly two of those. (It's actually the same proscription repeated twice, once in Leviticus and once in Deuteronomy.) Nowhere in the Jewish or Christian Bibles are those proscriptions surrounded by flashing neon lights emphasizing "hey, everybody, this is the worst no-no of all!" In fact, it's notable that the proscriptions are just two among many, and aren't included in the Ten Commandments, which are considered by Jews and Christians to embody the most important of the Commandments. In case anyone's forgotten, the Ten Commandments DO address a specifically heterosexual sin: coveting one's neighbor's wife, or adultery, in other words. So there actually IS a sexual sin that is highlighted in the Scriptures, yet where do you hear the self-proclaimed guardians of morals threatening doom and schims and worse because the Churches accept adulterers in positions of authority?

As for other commandments addressing sexual issues, the proscriptions against fornication and having sexual relations with a woman during and immediately after her menstrual period are equally strong as those against same-sex behavior, yet you don't hear anyone threatening to walk out of the Church because someone violated those commandments! So why is there suddenly so much heat and light over same-sex issues? Can you spell H-O-M-O-P-H-O-B-I-A?

Somehow, the Churches have fallen down in their ability to teach about the Scriptures, at least as it pertains to sexual sins. The story of Onan, in Genesis, was long taught as making masturbation sinful, even though a reading of the literal story demonstrates that Onan's sin was failing to have intercourse with his childless deceased brother's wife, as was expected in early Middle Eastern society to ensure heirs and continuity of the family. The story has nothing to do with masturbation, even read literally.

The Sodom story has similarly been perverted. A reading of the literal story makes clear that Sodom was destroyed not because of homosexual behavior in general, but because of the Sodomites lack of hospitality towards strangers in their midst (another cardinal sin in the ancient Middle East) and their actual animosity towards them, as demonstrated by their intention to humiliate and subjugate the angelic visitors by raping them. The angelic messengers were in male guise, but even if they had been female the Sodomites would have done the same thing, because their goal was to attack and humiliate the strangers within their gates. So the Sodom story, like the story of Onan, has been used to mislead ignorant believers who haven't actually read the text for themselves.

As for the Levitical injunction (repeated in Deuteronomy) that men should not lie with men, AS WITH A WOMAN, the text bears close examination, because it is odd. If the intention of the text were to ban any and all sexual contacts between men, it would have been possible to say that in Hebrew directly: Men shall not have sexual relations with other men. Instead, the text is roundabout and adds that "as with a woman" phrase. This suggests that the text can be understood in other ways than as a general proscription against male-male sexual relations. It may very well mean that sexual relations between males as a substitute for relations with a female is what was being prohibited. Even in the ancient Middle East, it was known that men whose ordinary preference was for the opposite sex would sometimes engage in same sex relations when heterosexual opportunities were unavailable (for example, between men who were isolated because of their work, like shepherds, or who were imprisoned, or among unmarried males who would not have had access to women for sexual relations outside of marriage). So the proscription may have been against heterosexual men acting against their true natures, being silent on such relations between men whose true preference/orientation was for the same sex. (Of course, there was no such word as "heterosexual" in ancient times, but that doesn't mean that our ancestors were necessarily unaware of differences in sexual orientations). Another interpretation of the proscription might just be that it bans anal intercourse between men, without necessarily proscribing other same-sex behaviors. Completely ignored in the current discussion is the fact that "lying with a man, as with a woman" was termed an ABOMINATION. In ancient Hebrew, that term has a specific technical meaning, i.e., a practice that is associated with the worship of idols or heathen gods. It is well known that homosexual sacred prostitution was a feature of worship of various ancient Middle Eastern deities. (Less well known is that it may also have been a feature of worship at the Jewish Temple, at least for a time in its early history, before it was ended by the Prophets.) The proscription may have been directed at homosexual sacred prostitution. Therefore, a close look at the Biblical text shows that there could be readings of the Levitical proscriptions that do not result in a sweeping condemnation of all same-sex sexual relations.

And that, folks, is about all that the Scriptures have to say about same-sex sexual relations. There are ambiguous references elsewhere to the possibility of homosexual sacred prostitution as part of the early Temple rite. The Scriptures go on to extol and celebrate the love of David for Jonathan, in terms that imply that their relationship had a sexual component. Of course, you don't hear the H-O-M-O-P-H-O-B-E-S mentioning those passages, do you?

The Hebrew Bible (or the Christian Old Testament) was compiled and canonized into its present form more than two thousand years ago. Since that time, there has been a couple of thousand years of Jewish study, analysis and explication of the text, as embodied in the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. Interestingly, there are hardly any references to this topic. Possibly it's attributable to the laughingly naïve (or deliberately obtuse) attitude that it wasn't necessary to talk about the subject because Jews didn't do such things. (Hah!) But it's notable that over an extremely long period of time this just doesn't seem to have been an important topic at all for the people who brought us these texts in the first place!

In the Christian Scriptures (or the New Testament) it's also notable that there is almost complete silence on the topic. Jesus never said a word about it. There are some oblique references by Paul. And that's it! So how, one has to ask, does something that barely figures in the Scriptures get blown into the gigantic tempest it has become today? And, more importantly, why? A big part of the answer, IMHO, has to do with the spelling lesson above.

Another notable point is that the Scriptures are entirely silent on the matter of same-sex sexual relations involving women. So presumably it isn't an issue at all, and there can be no Scriptural argument against them, or against lesbian marriages.

With respect to the current debate in the Episcopalian/Anglican communion, the discourse against the election of a gay bishop or the blessing of same-sex couples strikes me as extremely devious and evil, because it's supposedly based on the "the clear teaching of the Scriptures." Well, we've just seen that's not what the Scriptures teach. Anglicanism isn't a fundamentalist denomination, and does not teach that the Bible must be understood literally, so the statements from the opponents to gays in the Church about Scripture are, if nothing else, profoundly ignorant or deliberately misleading. (Or both.) However, in the case of the texts cited against homosexual behavior, the Sodom story on its face is about something else than same-sex relations, and the Levitical proscription, with its odd and indirect construction, can be read and understood in a number of ways that don't generally proscribe all same-sex behavior.

So, if there isn't anywhere as much support for the proscription of same-sex relations as it's virulent opponents would have us believe, what other lessons can we draw from the Scriptures? For one, many practices besides some homosexual relations were proscribed because they were associated with idol worship, including eating kid seethed in its mother's milk (the origin of the requirement in kashrut of not eating milk and meat products at the same meal). Other things are prohibited by the Scriptures in terms every bit as dramatic, like eating pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes with mixed fabrics, or working on the Sabbath. Yet where is the outrage against believers who violate those commandments?

As we have seen, the proscriptions claimed to forbid same-sex relations are contained in the ancient Hebrew legal code. Christians believe that Jesus is the seal of the Law, and that acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah frees them not only of sin, but also of the requirement to observe the ancient Law. (That's one reason why Christians don't require circumcision, because that commandment was considered repealed along with all the others.) So if Christians don't have to follow the ancient Law and commandments because they have been released from that obligation as a result of their acceptance of Jesus as Savior, how is it that suddenly ONE small aspect of that ancient, repealed Law has suddenly become such a focus of attention and conflict by certain "Christians"? Is anyone aware of some fine print or asterisk in the Christian Scriptures that repeals all of the ancient law except for these specific provisions? If there is one, please let us all know where it's found!!!

What else can we learn from Scripture? We know that G-d created all existence, and found it GOOD. At least for gay men, our sexual orientations are inherent, not a matter of lifestyle choice (I mean, who among us woke up one day and decided "Gosh, I'm sick and tired of my heterosexual lifestyle, I think I'll turn gay today?"). If our sexual orientations are inherent, then they are a part of the creation that G-d found to be good. Since we know that homosexual behavior is found in all times and in all societies (and even in many other species) the evidence that our behavior is part of G-d's creation is reinforced. And if G-d created it, according to the Scriptures, our behavior and we ourselves are inherently good. If that's the case, then we have an equal claim to G-d's love and blessing, even if we are a minority in G-d's creation. That's why we're entitled to being treated as a neighbor by our heterosexual neighbors, and why our relationships are equally valid and blessed as theirs, because we are ALL part of the same creation.

And it being late, here endeth the lesson. . .

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>Well, I'm not sure a census has been conducted, but it's

>clear that there are at least TENS of millions of "Christians"

>who could be considered "mindless idiots," because there are

>at least that many Southern Baptists, members of other

>fundamentalist/literalist denominations, and others, like the

>so-called leaders of the supposedly intolerant Anglican

>provinces in the developing world.

Truer words were never spoken. Now where's Doug69/FFF to bring the Faux News Spin?

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>Well, I'm not sure a census has been conducted, but it's

>clear that there are at least TENS of millions of "Christians"

>who could be considered "mindless idiots," because there are

>at least that many Southern Baptists, members of other

>fundamentalist/literalist denominations, and others, like the

>so-called leaders of the supposedly intolerant Anglican

>provinces in the developing world.

Yeah, okay - all Southern Baptists and any members of fundamentalist/literalist demoninations, not to mention anyone opposed to the anointing of a gay Anglican Bishop - are, for that reason alone, "mindless idiots."

And all practicing homosexuals are immoral perverts who shove gerbils up their ass and spread AIDS.

And all practicing Jews are heathen Christ-killers who are going to hell forever for rejecting the true Lord, and are also all "mindless idiots" for living their lives according to some pitiful book that was written thousands of years ago and which is claimed to be "the Word of God," and violation of this book results in "punishment."

Why, these people even chop off part of their babies' dicks all because someone told them that doing so is part of an agreement with God where they get to keep barren desert land in exchange for perpetrating this primitive, violent mutiliation on their babies!! Talk about "mindless idiots"!

And all right-wingers are violent fascists who secretely want to erect gas chambers.

And all liberals are sicko communists who want to hang capitalists from lamp posts and sieze all national assets and build gulags for their political opponents.

And all those who are pro-choice are vicious baby-killers who get off on slaughtering human life.

Wow - I learned so much from your post - your type of thinking really is is great fun. Which groups that we don't agree with can we malign and tar next?

Amazing how every single fucking tactic that gay people have screamed and complained about for the last 30 years is here on this Board in great abundance - only now, these tactics are all fine and dandy, because instead of being applied against homsoexuals, they are now being applied by homosexuals against their enemies.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>An example of the dishonesty and evil is the sudden insistence

>that homosexual behavior, above all other practices the Bible

>seems to disapprove of, has become THE cardinal sin.

I would be the last person to disagree that at least some of those who oppose homosexuality on the grounds of the Biblical injunction are mighty selective in the way they read the Bible. I don't see members of any Christian denomination mobilizing to criminalize adultery or prohibit no-fault divorce, for example, although Leviticus denounces adultery and Jesus had some harsh words about divorce. But by the same token I don't know of any Christian leader who has called homosexual behavior THE cardinal sin. Many seem far more concerned about abortion. In the past three years there have been major controversies about legalizing abortion in majority Catholic countries such as Ireland and Poland. That hasn't gotten much coverage in the media here.

>There are some oblique

>references by Paul.

If I recall correctly, it was in one of his epistles to the Romans that Paul compared homosexuality to criminal behavior of various kinds. If that isn't just an "oblique" reference when Rick Santorum says it, why is it "oblique" when Paul says it?

>And that's it! So how, one has to ask,

>does something that barely figures in the Scriptures get blown

>into the gigantic tempest it has become today? And, more

>importantly, why?

I think it might have something to do with the fact that gay men today are asking for more than just tolerance. When we ask for laws that increase the penalty for a violent assault if it was motivated by the attacker's hatred of gays, for laws preventing job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and for laws recognizing gay marriages we're asking for an affirmative indication of approval, not tolerance. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a doctrine of tolerance -- as long as you keep it out of our sight, we won't do anything about it, is the meaning of that doctrine. Sanctioning gay marriage or admitting openly gay men to the military is quite different.

>the Levitical proscription, with

>its odd and indirect construction, can be read and understood

>in a number of ways that don't generally proscribe all

>same-sex behavior.

That is an extremely weak point. I don't see how that language can be compatible with the behavior of a man like Gene Robinson who has a committed emotional and sexual relationship with another man.

>Christians believe that Jesus is the seal of the Law, and that

>acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah frees them not only of sin,

>but also of the requirement to observe the ancient Law.

I've often wondered how they reconcile that notion with the fact that in his Sermon on the Mount Jesus specifically stated that his mission was to uphold Scriptural law rather than to change it. Which would mean, of course, that he meant to uphold the prohibition on homosexual behavior along with the rest.

>What else can we learn from Scripture? We know that G-d

>created all existence, and found it GOOD. At least for gay

>men, our sexual orientations are inherent, not a matter of

>lifestyle choice (I mean, who among us woke up one day and

>decided "Gosh, I'm sick and tired of my heterosexual

>lifestyle, I think I'll turn gay today?"). If our sexual

>orientations are inherent, then they are a part of the

>creation that G-d found to be good.

I can't go along with that rather sloppy reasoning. The fact that many people are aware of their sexual orientation from childhood may simply mean that this, like many other aspects of behavior, is something learned in childhood. I don't know that men who become wifebeaters make a conscious choice to do this, for example, nor do I know that they possess a gene that makes them do it. The fact that many if not all come from homes where such abuse occurred may simply indicate that it is a learned behavior.

I think people on the other side of this argument have a point when they say that whether sexual desire is a conscious choice or not, acting on sexual desire is a conscious choice. Everyone has sexual fantasies, and many are such that people choose not to act them out. The fact is that Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is a religion based on denial of the self and its desires, not on self-actualization. Those who argue that whatever people want to do is good because God created those desires are denying the most fundamental tenet of all three religions. That is the point that many who argue in favor of a more liberal interpretation of Scripture seem to miss.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

Well, you're kind of overreacting. I was being SLIGHTLY facetious in my posting, but not much. I do consider the followers of the fundamentalist/literalist denominations to be "mindless" because they just want to be led, having someone tell them what they're supposed to do in life. They don't want to have to think much. Claiming that the Bible is G-d's literal word is a way to avoid having to use their brains to try to analyze, understand and apply the Biblical texts. Especially the difficult and ambiguous parts! On the other hand, it doesn't look they want to read much at all, because if they read the plain text of the Sodom story, for example, it would be evident that it's about something much different than a general proscription against same-sex relations. Just as it's plain on its face that the Onan story is not about masturbation!

Of course, I'd say that the existence of difficult/ambiguous texts pulls the rug out from under the know-nothings theology of biblical inerrancy and literalism, because it must mean that G-d is stupid, which is an impossibility (at least in my own belief system). After all, if G-d wanted to be clear, don't you suppose G-d's capable of expressing a rule or commandment directly and unambiguously? But G-d didn't do that in all cases, so evidently G-d wanted us to use our own brains to try to figure out for ourselves what She meant. (Of course, I don't believe that the Scriptures are G-d's literal words. They're a record of thousands of years of oral traditions and teachings, selected and edited to summarize the consensus beliefs of Middle Eastern Hebrews more than 2000 years ago. Is G-d's inspiration evident in the text? Yes, I believe so. Is everything in the text accurate or inspired by G-d? No, because it was compiled and written by fallible humans.)

Meanwhile, getting back to the conservative Anglicans who are ranting about the Church going against Scripture and who want to establish a seperate, homo-free orthodox Anglican province: I'm dying to know what other Scriptural proscriptions they intend to adopt, because to be consistent with their faithfulness to literal Scriptural teaching they can't just focus on only one Biblical stricture to the exclusion of all others! Do they also plan to end divorce? Start keeping kosher? Stone adulterers and fornicators to death? Go back to observing the Biblical Sabbath? Temporarily exile menstruating women from the body of the community? Stop wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics? Revive animal sacrifice? And so on and on? Because all of those are Scriptural proscriptions, too, and each of them is equally important if you take the view that the Bible is G-d's literal exact word and inerrant! This isn't a situation where some commandments are more important than others (and, of course, none are marked "optional" in the text). Every single one, from a Scriptural standpoint, is one of G-d's direct commandments and therefore must be fully observed by the faithful. (This is what Orthodox Jews try to do, by the way, although they are neither fundamentalists or literalists.)

So exactly where do the ranting Anglicans intend to stop? If they plan to split away from the main body of Anglicanism just over this one single issue their future is pretty bleak, because a Church whose only distinguishing feature and central dogma is its hatred of homosexuals isn't likely to have a very long lifespan!

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>The fact is that Christianity,

>like Judaism and Islam, is a religion based on denial of the

>self and its desires, not on self-actualization. Those who

>argue that whatever people want to do is good because God

>created those desires are denying the most fundamental tenet

>of all three religions. That is the point that many who argue

>in favor of a more liberal interpretation of Scripture seem to

>miss.

Actually, Judaism is NOT based on denial of the self or its desires. In fact, Judaism explicitly encourages people to actualize themselves and live to their full potential, within the strictures of the Commandments. Judaism believes that whatever isn't prohibited is permitted, and in spite of there being 613 Commandments (both positive and negative ones) covering many areas of life and human interactions, there's a lot about which the Scriptural text is silent. In which case, people are free to do what they wish. Although I'm not an expert on Islam, it is also a faith built on legal interpretation, and the result of such interpretations by Islamic scholars is very often identical to the conclusions reached by Jewish ones. I'd be willing to bet that Islam's position is similar to Judaism's, i.e. that whatever isn't prohibited by the Koran is permitted.

Also, I don't think anyone is arguing here that whatever people want to do is good because G-d created those desires. People have desires to steal or murder or commit adultery, but there are explicit, unambiguous commandments against carrying out such desires. The Levitical passage traditionally assumed to prohibit sexual relations between men is not that explicit. It's oddly constructed, as mentioned previously, and incorporates terminology used in prohibitions against the worship of idols or heathen gods. Far more learned scholars than myself have come to the conclusion that it isn't a blanket condemnation of all sexual relations between men.

Beyond the odd text itself is the fact that the Scriptures are entirely silent about same-gender sexual relations involving women. If the thing that is "wrong" is sex between people of the same gender, G-d (assuming you literally believe S/He actually dictated the commandments to Moses) is capable of saying, in Hebrew, "Men shall not have sexual relations with other men, nor shall women have sexual relations with other women." But that's not what's in the Scriptures, and if you believe that the Scriptures contain G-d's teachings about proper human conduct, then it's necessary to figure out what G-d DID mean!

I'm also not the world expert on the Christian Scriptures, but my understanding is that the reference in Paul's epistle IS oblique, not referring specifically to same-gender sex. Rather, some interpreters have inferred from the text that he was talking about same-gender sex. Furthermore, there's a translation issue, I understand. Different versions of that passage have been translated differently, and at least some of the translations were more explicit about same-gender sex than the original Greek text. But even if Paul explicitly came out (in Greek) against same-gender sex that's an awfully slim reed for a Church to build a foundation on! Last I noticed, the entire enteprise is still called Christianity, not Paulianity. After all, Paul had an extremely low regard for sex, period, including marriage, but that didn't become the normative belief in Christianity. Most importantly, Jesus himself said absolutely nothing about same-gender sex. Or if he did, the writers of the Gospels didn't think it was important enough to mention! From a conservative Christian religious standpoint, that would seem to be important in understanding what G-d wants, or in answering the question "what would Jesus do?" As for the question of whether acceptance of Jesus as Savior releases one from the obligation to follow the ancient Law, it's my understanding that in other Scriptural passages Jesus essentially says that the summation of the Law is loving one's neighbor as oneself, together with the Golden Rule, and that's all anybody needs to do. So in that sense, I suppose, Jesus could have said he was upholding the Law even as he was revoking all of its details.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>>The fact is that Christianity,

>>like Judaism and Islam, is a religion based on denial of the

>>self and its desires, not on self-actualization. Those who

>>argue that whatever people want to do is good because God

>>created those desires are denying the most fundamental tenet

>>of all three religions. That is the point that many who

>argue

>>in favor of a more liberal interpretation of Scripture seem

>to

>>miss.

>Actually, Judaism is NOT based on denial of the self or its

>desires.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Like the other two religions, Judaism is based on the notion that certain desires should not be acted upon but denied, because the deity instructs us that denying them is better than acting upon them. What are the Ten Commandments? They're primarily a series of instructions to deny and put aside certain desires. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't have relations with someone else's wife. Don't bear false witness. Don't be covetous. Don't worship other gods. The most basic principle of all three religions is that some personal desires are not acceptable to the deity and thus should be denied rather than indulged. Take that away and what's left?

>The Levitical passage traditionally assumed

>to prohibit sexual relations between men is not that explicit.

Seems pretty explicit to me. Is it necessary for the Bible to spell out all of the specific sex acts one is not supposed to perform with a man in order for us to conclude homosexual sex is disapproved? Wouldn't that be like saying there isn't a blanket condemnation of killing unless the Bible lists all of the methods of killing one isn't allowed to use -- you're not allowed to kill with a sword, or a knife, or by hanging, or by drowning, etc., etc.?

>Beyond the odd text itself is the fact that the Scriptures are

>entirely silent about same-gender sexual relations involving

>women.

So? Because the text doesn't say anything about sex between women we are supposed to assume that what it says about men should be ignored? I really don't see the reasoning there.

>if you

>believe that the Scriptures contain G-d's teachings about

>proper human conduct, then it's necessary to figure out what

>G-d DID mean!

Well, that's where prophets come in. All three religions have prophets, that is, people who are believed to have direct communication with God, and it's their job to tell us what God wants us to do. The word "Koran," for example, means "recitation." It's called that because it is believed that the prophet Mohammed wrote down the contents of the book as it was recited to him by an angel.

Given the divine origin of what prophets tell us, there is a certain risk involved in trying to interpret their words, especially when, as is the case here, we're doing it because we don't happen to like what appears to be the plain meaning of the words. Why not just take the words at their face value? If we are honest, we have to admit that the question of interpretation arises NOT because there is anything about the words that is hard to understand. The question arises because we don't want to obey the simplest and most obvious interpretation of the words. Right?

>But even if Paul explicitly came out

>(in Greek) against same-gender sex that's an awfully slim reed

>for a Church to build a foundation on!

It is? I guess it depends on whether you believe Paul was an apostle who received the revelation of Christ directly from the source, as he claimed, or on the other hand that he was just a guy who wrote a lot of letters. If you believe the former, there's no need to go any farther. If the latter, then there's no reason to pay any more attention to his writings than to the writings of Dear Abby.

>in other Scriptural passages Jesus

>essentially says that the summation of the Law is loving one's

>neighbor as oneself, together with the Golden Rule, and that's

>all anybody needs to do. So in that sense, I suppose, Jesus

>could have said he was upholding the Law even as he was

>revoking all of its details.

Once again, why the need for all these convoluted interpretations? When Jesus said in the Sermon that "not one word" of Scriptural law should be changed, why not just accept that? All of this argument about the meaning of these words proceeds from one cause: we don't want to accept the simplest, plainest interpretation of the words because then we would have to stop doing something we want to do. Right?

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

And Doug69 is also FFF. Don't forget that one.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>>Actually, Judaism is NOT based on denial of the self or its

>>desires.

>

>Yes, as a matter of fact it is.

Sorry, it's not. Judaism is not based on the denial of self or of human desires. It's not a religion of abnegation and submission, either. Judaism is about accepting the belief that there is only one, undivided, omnipotent and omnipresent Deity, and about honoring the Covenant entered into at Sinai with that Deity, which includes observing the Law handed down there, as well. Certainly all religions teach certain behaviors, but in Judaism it's quite clear that humans are free to choose to do what they will. There may, of course, be consequences to making bad choices, but there's certainly much more to Judaism than ritual observance or living in fear of a vengeful G-d.

>

>

>>The Levitical passage traditionally assumed

>>to prohibit sexual relations between men is not that

>explicit.

>

>Seems pretty explicit to me. Is it necessary for the Bible to

>spell out all of the specific sex acts one is not supposed to

>perform with a man in order for us to conclude homosexual sex

>is disapproved?

No it isn't necessary. But the formulation I provided doesn't go into a list. It was a blanket prohibition against all same-gender sex acts. The point you seem to have missed is that G-d isn't stupid (be definition) and therefore must mean what S/He says. It also follows that G-d would be explicit. Commandments like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal" are clear, blanket prohibitions. So we know that G-d doesn't make mistakes or do things unintentionally. If the commandment some people insist bans all gay sex isn't explicit, nor a blanket prohibition, and the Levitical proscription doesn't seem to be either, then it must mean something else. And one of the clues as to what it might mean is the word "abomination," having to do with idol worship, which as you may recall is a matter that greatly concerned G-d at the time the Law was given to the Israelites!

>>Beyond the odd text itself is the fact that the Scriptures

>are

>>entirely silent about same-gender sexual relations involving

>>women.

>

>So? Because the text doesn't say anything about sex between

>women we are supposed to assume that what it says about men

>should be ignored? I really don't see the reasoning there.

I didn't say it should be ignored. I said we need to try to understand what it means. But if sex between women isn't prohibited, too, then it's reasonable to infer or deduce that the commandment isn't a blanket prohibition about same-gender sexual relations. Inferenece is a common and legitimate way of making sense of ambiguous texts.

>>if you

>>believe that the Scriptures contain G-d's teachings about

>>proper human conduct, then it's necessary to figure out what

>>G-d DID mean!

>

>Well, that's where prophets come in.

Maybe in some cases, but the Prophets actually didn't have anything to say about homosexual behavior (except that at least one of them, I don't remember which, seems to have abolished the practice of homosexual ritual prostitution as an adjunct to the Temple service). As I've noted before, the Scriptures are remarkably skimpy about this subject, and the Prophets are no exception.

>The question arises

>because we don't want to obey the simplest and most obvious

>interpretation of the words. Right?

No, the question arises because the words are neither simple nor obvious. That's why there has been more than two thousand years of rabbinical exegisis of the Biblical texts, and nearly 1300 years of scholarly exegisis of the Koran. The people who brought you those texts (so to speak) don't consider them to be simple or obvious in the least!

>>But even if Paul explicitly came out

>>(in Greek) against same-gender sex that's an awfully slim

>reed

>>for a Church to build a foundation on!

>

>It is? I guess it depends on whether you believe Paul was an

>apostle who received the revelation of Christ directly from

>the source, as he claimed, or on the other hand that he was

>just a guy who wrote a lot of letters.

Well, we don't know, do we? After all, Paul didn't write one of the Gospels. And we can't assume that everything Paul wrote necessarily was what Jesus would have said or taught. We DO know that Paul was very anti-sexual, whereas there's nothing that indicates that Jesus felt the same way. Since Jesus was a Jew, it would be surprising if he did feel that sex was intrinsically evil, because that's diametrically opposed to normative Jewish belief. Sexual expression is regulated in Judaism and Jewish law, but it has never been considered to be evil or sinful of itself, nor has sexual desire. (Of course, this difference in understanding also may have to do with the fact that Judaism doesn't have a doctrine of Original Sin and therefore doesn't believe that humans are inherently sinful or evil unless they've been "saved.")

> So in that sense, I suppose,

>Jesus

>>could have said he was upholding the Law even as he was

>>revoking all of its details.

>

>Once again, why the need for all these convoluted

>interpretations? When Jesus said in the Sermon that "not one

>word" of Scriptural law should be changed, why not just accept

>that? All of this argument about the meaning of these words

>proceeds from one cause: we don't want to accept the

>simplest, plainest interpretation of the words because then we

>would have to stop doing something we want to do. Right?

Wrong. I was just trying to help you out on this one, because of the apparent contradiction between what Jesus said and normative Christian belief about Jesus being the "seal of the Law" whose coming revoked the ancient Law. So I tried to point out how Jesus could say what he did without contradicting himself. As for accepting the "simplest, plainest interpretation," that's why we've ended up having different religions and denominations, because we DON'T all see the same simple and plain interpretations in the text. In the case of homosexuality, interpretation and analysis ARE issues, because there's a need to reconcile one of the facts of creation, which is that homosexual desires exist and seem to be part of the creation, with an oddly worded proscription that seems (at least superficially) to deny that reality. At least in Jewish belief we don't find G-d denying Her own creation. To the contrary, we accept G-d's unambiguous declaration that creation is good! So if homosexual desire is part of G-d's creation, by definition it must be good. As with other sexual desires, some expressions of them are proscribed. But they're never prohibited altogether. (Normative Judaism doesn't condone asceticism and renunciation of sex as a means of pleasing G-d, nor do many Christian denominations.) So, again, given a supposed proscription that doesn't appear to be a blanket one, and knowing that the Law was intended to regulate, but not altogether suppress the expressions of such desires, one has to try to figure out exactly what that less than crystal clear passage really means. And the discussion in earlier posts above indicates what at least some thinkers believe that real meaning might be. And no, the "simplest" interpretation of the text isn't necessarily the correct one. But in this case, the text isn't simple. Except perhaps to the simple-minded. . .

RE: Meanwhile, In Relatively Unhysterical Canada. . .

The following is a link to a discussion on the topic within the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, the United Church: http://www.uccan.org/jpc/humanrights/030516.shtm

Just when you think there's no hope for Christians, another voice of sanity, reason and love is heard!

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

>Sorry, it's not. Judaism is not based on the denial of self

>or of human desires.

I must be missing something. Aren't most of the Ten Commandments about putting aside your personal desires?

>in Judaism it's quite clear that humans are

>free to choose to do what they will.

Right. But what was it the prophets were talking about if not the standards of behavior that God wants people to meet? Which means, of course, putting aside any desires that conflict with those standards. So the actual situation is one in which you have an all-powerful deity saying, "Do what you want, but I am telling you exactly how I want you to behave." That's not quite the same as saying people are free to do what they will.

>No it isn't necessary. But the formulation I provided doesn't

>go into a list. It was a blanket prohibition against all

>same-gender sex acts. The point you seem to have missed is

>that G-d isn't stupid (be definition) and therefore must mean

>what S/He says.

Okay.

> It also follows that G-d would be explicit.

It does?

>Commandments like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not

>steal" are clear, blanket prohibitions. So we know that G-d

>doesn't make mistakes or do things unintentionally.

Right.

> If the

>commandment some people insist bans all gay sex isn't

>explicit, nor a blanket prohibition, and the Levitical

>proscription doesn't seem to be either,

I guess I don't see in what way Leviticus isn't explicit and isn't a blanket prohibition. "Thou shalt not lie with man as with woman." What's missing?

>And one of the clues as to what it might mean

>is the word "abomination," having to do with idol worship,

The language seems to me so clear that no clues are needed. But is the word "abomination" used only in connection with idol worship?

>>>Beyond the odd text itself

Again, I see nothing odd in it.

>is the fact that the Scriptures

>>are entirely silent about same-gender sexual relations

>involving women.

>>So? Because the text doesn't say anything about sex between

>>women we are supposed to assume that what it says about men

>>should be ignored? I really don't see the reasoning there.

>I didn't say it should be ignored. I said we need to try to

>understand what it means. But if sex between women isn't

>prohibited, too, then it's reasonable to infer or deduce that

>the commandment isn't a blanket prohibition about same-gender

>sexual relations. Inferenece is a common and legitimate way

>of making sense of ambiguous texts.

But again, the language of Leviticus is in no way ambiguous. It doesn't say anything about lesbianism. It does say something about the sexual practices of men. Where is the ambiguity?

>Maybe in some cases, but the Prophets actually didn't have

>anything to say about homosexual behavior

But Paul did.

>No, the question arises because the words are neither simple

>nor obvious.

Once again, I don't see the problem with the language of Leviticus. It may pose a problem for those who try to interpret it as applying to female sexual behavior as well as male, but I'm not trying to do that.

>>It is? I guess it depends on whether you believe Paul was

>an

>>apostle who received the revelation of Christ directly from

>>the source, as he claimed, or on the other hand that he was

>>just a guy who wrote a lot of letters.

>Well, we don't know, do we?

No more than we know whether the gospel authors were telling the truth when they wrote that Jesus rose from the dead. Or that Moses got the stone tablets from God rather than making them himself.

>And we can't assume that everything Paul

>wrote necessarily was what Jesus would have said or taught.

If he was, as he claimed, an apostle, then we do indeed know that.

>All of this argument about the meaning of these words

>>proceeds from one cause: we don't want to accept the

>>simplest, plainest interpretation of the words because then

>we

>>would have to stop doing something we want to do. Right?

>Wrong. I was just trying to help you out on this one, because

>of the apparent contradiction between what Jesus said and

>normative Christian belief about Jesus being the "seal of the

>Law" whose coming revoked the ancient Law.

Excuse me, but you're not helping me, since I never said I subscribe to that belief. You seem to be having a discussion with me and with someone whose positions are different from mine at the same time. Who's the other guy?

>So I tried to

>point out how Jesus could say what he did without

>contradicting himself.

In what way did Jesus contradict himself? Did he ever tell people that it was time to forget about Scriptural law?

>As for accepting the "simplest,

>plainest interpretation," that's why we've ended up having

>different religions and denominations, because we DON'T all

>see the same simple and plain interpretations in the text.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm more inclined to believe that these differing interpretations come about because people don't want to live with the simplest possible interpretation rather than the other way around.

> In

>the case of homosexuality, interpretation and analysis ARE

>issues, because there's a need to reconcile one of the facts

>of creation, which is that homosexual desires exist and seem

>to be part of the creation, with an oddly worded proscription

>that seems (at least superficially) to deny that reality. At

>least in Jewish belief we don't find G-d denying Her own

>creation. To the contrary, we accept G-d's unambiguous

>declaration that creation is good! So if homosexual desire is

>part of G-d's creation, by definition it must be good.

But covetous feelings are also part of God's creation, since just about everyone has them at one time or another. But the Commandments prohibit them. We're not just instructed not to steal, we're also instructed not to entertain the desire to possess what belongs to another. Is that a contradiction?

>As

>with other sexual desires, some expressions of them are

>proscribed. But they're never prohibited altogether.

I'd agree that the desire itself is not prohibited, merely the action.

>So, again, given a supposed proscription that

>doesn't appear to be a blanket one,

It does seem to be a blanket proscription of certain actions by men. Why the need to read anything else into it?

>and knowing that the Law

>was intended to regulate, but not altogether suppress the

>expressions of such desires,

I'm not sure where you get the above.

>one has to try to figure out

>exactly what that less than crystal clear passage really

>means.

Again, since it clearly prohibits man-man intercourse, what else could it mean?

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

HAAAAAAAA!!!!WHAT A FUCKING LAFF RIOT.A BUNCH OF FAGS DISCUSSING "RELIGION"(and other myths)ON A SITE DEVOTED TO MALE ESCORTS !!!WHAT MACAROONS!

First you get down on your knees,

Fiddle with your rosaries,

Bow your head with great respect,

And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want if

You have cleared them with the Pontiff.

Everybody say his own

Kyrie eleison,

Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,

Step into that small confessional.

There the guy who's got religion'll

Tell you if your sin's original.

If it is, try playin' it safer,

Drink the wine and chew the wafer,

Two, four, six, eight,

Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,

Fiddle with your rosaries,

Bow your head with great respect,

And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,

When in Rome do like a Roman;

Ave Maria,

Gee, it's good to see ya.

Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'

Doin' the Vatican

Rag!

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

By the way,for those who might not know-the above lyrics are by Tom Lehrer.

RE: Christian Mud is Mad

Obviously, many of the Ten Commandments (and the other 600-odd ones) require putting aside personal desires if they're to be observed. My point, however, is that Judaism, at least, is about much more than self-abnegation and legal proscriptions. All religions have rules and standards of conduct for leading what is generally regarded a moral and ethical life. However, in most faiths that's only PART and not the whole of their beliefs.

As for Leviticus "being clear to you," fine. I've explained in a number of ways why it ISN'T clear to me or to many other people, and why many people (including myself) believe it isn't an unequivocal prohibition. Unfortunately, the discussion is becoming circular. I mean, just because the meaning of the passage is clear in your mind doesn't make it so in the mind of others, no matter how many times you proclaim its clarity to you! You're entitled to your beliefs, though, and the way you read the text, which I gather must be quite similar to Jerry Falwell's or Pat Robertson's. Or Popie Jopie's. (I'm referring to their method of reading and understanding the text, not just their actual interpretation of this particular verse.)

BTW, the answer is "yes" to whether "abomination" in ancient Hebrew always refers to practices involving idol worship. It's a technical term. It's only in modern times that the word (in English) has come to mean something like "generally revolting/disgusting." But that's not what it meant in Hebrew at the time the commandments were received or when the Biblical text was written down.

And yes, Big Guy, I know the Vatican Rag and know that it was written by Tom Lehrer! Who also wrote any number of other incredibly witty parodies and topical songs.