Anti-Gay Rant Should Cost Parliamentary Secretary his Job
It’s all very nice that Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski has apologized for the anti-gay rant he went on 17 years ago which has recently been uncovered and made public. In the House yesterday he was on record as saying that such comments "should not be tolerated today [and] they should not have been tolerated in 1991." He described himself in that context as "stupid, thoughtless and insensitive" and said that the anger directed to him from members of the gay and lesbian community in particular "is certainly understandable and justified." While few doubt the sincerity of his apology, as it has been publicly accepted by gay and lesbian organizations as well as opposition MP’s including Bill Siksay and Libby Davies (both homosexual parliamentarians), when a person makes a mistake in either word or action, an apology does not end the matter. There are consequences to both our words and our actions that move beyond the act of professing regret.
Liberal MP Scott Brison (also a homosexual parliamentarian) suggested yesterday that while he does not believe Lukiwski should resign as a Member of Parliament, "it’s not appropriate that he remain as a parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader," and I wonder if anyone disagrees. I certainly don’t disagree. Although he has not given any indication he will do so, I hope that MP Lukiwski will resign on Monday as a parliamentary secretary.
K.
The transcript of the comments that have gotten MP Lukiwski into trouble can be read here or watched here.
I can see why he apoligized. His comments were coarse and abusive. But homosexuality remains a sin condemned in the Old Testament and the New. The public acceptance of homosexuality promotes it, and the legitimization
Comment by Richard — April 5, 2008 @ 11:51 am
for some reason, my comment was cut short.
The legitimization of homosexuality undermines chastity and the family. It is a scourge that is undermining Western society. The homosexual is a troubled person, and must be treated with loving concern, but one aspec of that love is the help him realize that homosexuality is sinful.
Comment by Richard — April 5, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Thanks for the comments.
We dont have to accept a lifestyle that we find contrary to our belief system. However we are talking about basic respect and dignity being offered to all people. Especially in a pluralistic country where there are many that do not share our belief system this seems hardly the way to evangelize.
Think of the woman caught in the act of adultery. By defending her dignity as a human being Jesus was not saying that everything about her was okay. He stood up for her because that was the context of the scenario. Can you imagine Jesus talking like Lukiwski?
I hope religious people opposed to homosexuality are not going to make excuses for this anti-gay rant of Lukiwski.
K.
Comment by K. — April 5, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
To repeat, the challenge of Christians and those who disagree with homosexuality is to articulate their opposition in such a way that the dignity of those they disagree with is still respected.
MP Lukiwski didn’t even come close. His words were, as he himself admitted yesterday “stupid, thoughtless, and insensitive.”
This isn’t a discussion about homosexuality. Its about the rant of one person who would have done everyone a favour by keeping his own mouth shut.
K.
Comment by K. — April 5, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Kelly you’re right it’s a huge challenge for the Church to remain respectful of gays while still fundamentally condemning an aspect of ourselves that you don’t even actually understand.
Actually what’s an even greater challenge, is to look at Scripture, and see of what it’s talking about looks anything like what it means to be gay, realizing it actually doesn’t, and letting go of the heterosexist notion that any of you actually have a right to decide how God views me.
Kelly I know you as a friend, and thus I know that while you disagree you’re at least respectful. Richard, if you ever hope to share Christ’s love with a gay person, go back to the drawing board, because as a gay Christian I’m normally more graceful towards awkward blithering attempts by evangelicals to talk down to me “in love” and but your language makes it very clear that you have a sinfully arrogant attitude towards gays. I suggest you drop it, and stop throwing stones, Jesus doesn’t like it.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 5, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
“I hope religious people opposed to homosexuality are not going to make excuses for this anti-gay rant of Lukiwski.”
Allow me to be the first. Obviously I agree with Richard that the comments should be condemned. However I completely disagree with stoning him and believe excuses should be made. Some would call it putting it in context. The description rant was right. My first thought when I read his incoherent rant was that he was drunk. He is asked shortly after what he is drinking. Both point to his silly comments being made while drinking.
He has repented for the rant so there is no reason to keep stoning him over what appears to be a silly response to being insulted about his age when he was drunk. Have you never said something you later regretted in such circumstances? Is it really just to stone him?
I agree that we have to demonstrate a basic respect and dignity for all people without rejecting God in the process. Thank you Richard and K for bringing that out.
Contrary to Lukiwski’s comments David’s twisting of Richard’s remarks into something they are not sounded completely lucid. David your unjust slandering of Richard’s character just sounds like a disingenous witch hunt. You need to know that you won’t be able to bully everyone into your beliefs with that approach. At worst you will attract an equal and opposite response.
Richard I hope you have a thick hide. However if you are hurting please take a deep breath before responding and don’t be tempted to be uncharitable.
Comment by Josh — April 6, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
If we are to demand Lukiwski’s resignation from his secretarial position, we should also demand that any politician who has at any time said something contemptible resign from any high-up position in government. In this condemnation we are asserting that it is impossible for a person like Lukiwski to change their views - in other words, we are asserting that repentance is impossible. I cannot accept that. However, I do appreciate Kelly’s use of the account of the woman caught in adultery as setting a useful precedent for Christian interaction with homosexuals. That’s one of the most helpful applications of the Gospel to the question of homosexuality that I’ve seen in a long time.
Comment by Theophilus — April 6, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Theophilus I can’t accept it either.
Don’t we as Christians allow for repentence and aren’t we called upon to try to stop the mob from getting the prostitutes blood not to cheer them on?
Jesus told the prostitute to stop sinning expecting her to later repent. Our prostitute has already repented publically stating that his sin was “stupid, thoughtless and insensitive”.
If Jesus was here today would we listen to him or are even Christians more intent on vengeance than the mob he calmed?
Jesus associated with sinners to encourage them to repent. We select some sinners to associate with not to seek repentence but instead so that we can adopt them as our new fathers then once converted we persecute other sinners without compassion because the fathers of this system of things want us to.
Comment by Josh — April 6, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
Well, David, I’m always ready to accept criticism. Please show me where my comments were “sinfully arrogant.” I see no arrogance in recalling that the Bible condemns homosexuality, nor in saying that Christian love requires us to make sure that that is not forgotten. Sin is a poison of the worst sort, a poison that corrupts the soul as well as the body. Love cannot be indifferent to the spectacle of people poisoning themselves, and to a society that has removed the skull and crossbones from the bottle and is feeding its contents to its children. Of course, I’m not talking about ranting and raving, about finger pointing and condemning. I’m talking about maintaining an awareness of this basic moral truth in the culture, about not letting it be suppressed by a vociferous minority that doesn’t want to hear it.
I have no desire, David, to offend you, but I will not allow your taking offense at the moral teachings of the Bible to silence me.
Richard
Comment by Richard — April 8, 2008 @ 6:06 am
The bible’s moral teachings are to be a blessing to everyone. The Bible’s moral teaching is to love God and to love your neighbour. The fact is that if you knew how profoundly hurtful even the simple statements that you make are, you would repent and weep. Gay teens are not 3-7 times more likely to commit suicide because their own conscience weighs down on them, they leave this world behind because they fear people like you. Quite frankly the blood of many rests on the hands of the Church and this may be one of our greatest sins.
The plain reading of Scripture makes it easy enough for even a fool to tell that God loves gay people as they are, 1st Corinthians 1 makes it clear that God accepts that which YOU reject in your arrogance. 1st Timothy 1 states that those involved in cultic worship practices focused around fertility (funny since the anti-gay ones are so focused on birth but it was those who focused on birth that were always against Yahweh) will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but that through those who are the worst of sinner, Christ has shown His infinite mercy!
When you say that the Bible puts you on moral footing above gay people you judge your brothers even if you don’t recognize us as your brothers. Scripture is plain that it is not by works that anyone inherits the Kingdom. And quite frankly, if homosexuality is a sin, how damned convenient for you that you default towards righteousness and wretches like me who simply long to be able to hold the hand of someone who we care about on all levels, are somehow godless and in need of your empty sermons!
The Bible DOES NOT teach against gay relationships, gay relationships didn’t exist in a commonly known fashion in the times Scripture was written. Men would rape men, and that was condemned, men would have sex in fertility cults, that we condemned, men would worship bachus, or have slave boys they would use as objects, that was condemned.
I cried for months after I was outed by my youth pastor because of you. I was terrified of being kicked out of my house because of people like you. I was scared I wouldn’t get my degree because of people like you! What you proclaim to gay people is a bitter sweet salvation that is anything but Christian love. It is worldly legalism, and it is taught by men who are more concerned with their own superiority than the heart of God. So repent.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 8, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
I should also say that I’ve heard worse than this in bible college dorms and Church men’s groups. Actually I think more gay people are hurt by those who honestly believe God hates them, than simply those that don’t respect them.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 8, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
David,
As much as I can apologise on behalf of Christians I would like to apologise if you have heard worse than that in those places. That is extremely offensive behaviour. Bear in mind that not all those in there listen to the Christian message so don’t be hostile toward the religion due to such examples. If you have any doubt that not all in there listen to the Christian message consider your own beliefs on the homosexual relations and the fact that you were in there.
You need to realize that few Christians believe God hates people who engage in homosexual relations. We believe that God loves such people. It is the sin that we have a problem with.
Given the hostility that such people often direct toward Christianity and anyone who considers their sin a sin I anticipate that some Christians might lose sight of it in the heat of the moment but that is the belief. In other words Christians are human. If people engaging in homosexual behaviour want the other side to drop their weapons they will need to do it themselves.
Further the situation is quite complicated and most people don’t understand the difficulties people engaging in homosexual behaviour are going through so they can’t get past the basic religious facts. Such facts might not feel right to someone wearing certain mocassins.
I suspect that I know where you are probably leading and believe that I can understand why.
For the purpose of communication can I ask if you relate more to Pentecostal Christianity or some other form or just totally don’t believe in God.
Comment by Josh — April 8, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
With all due respect, David, all the scenarios to which you limit Biblical condemnation of homosexuals are already covered in other regulations of sexual activity. The Bible already condemns rape, already condemns fertility cults, already condemns worship of other gods like Bacchus, and already condemns sexual relations with slaves (marriage, which ends the condition of slavery, is a prerequisite for all sexual relationships between free people and slaves). Therefore, if Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were solely intended to quash the behaviors you listed, then they are redundant. In light of this, how do you understand the negative Biblical statements about homosexual behavior?
Comment by Theophilus — April 10, 2008 @ 12:13 am
In regards to Josh: Just a bit of background about myself. I know not all Christians hold these views, actually I’m pastoring an emergent Church in Winnipeg that meets upstairs at a gay bar. I’ve got a BA in Church ministries from the same school that Kelly did his undergrad work at. The problem is not that only some Christians hold these views towards gay people. The fact is that they’re never told to shut up by the rest of the Church. In fact since I’ve come out I’ve found that while there are many Churches that will act openly hostile towards gays, all the while saying in word that they care for us. There are many more people who are actually needlessly turned off of those sorts of institutions because they can’t reconcile a bitter oppressive and irrational God with the inward knowledge of God that is inherent in most people.
As for my background, I’m a bit of an ecumenical whore haha. I grew up in a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, then my family moved to a Baptist Church, which under one pastor should have changed their name to Reformed Baptist (for a long while I was a five point Calvinist), I was involved with Inter-Varsity’s high school ministry in Winnipeg in a student leadership capacity. I eventually went back to the Alliance Church until I told the youth pastor I was attracted to other guys (I wasn’t doing anything with it, I was terrified to, but I didn’t want to lie to him about it so I was honest.) Three months later I was kicked out of ministry and most people were able to figure out why, so I just became up front about it. I spent over a month spending most of my days semi catatonic in my dorm room back at school where very few people knew what was going on in my life.
That summer I was still struggling with what my life would look like now that my deepest secret had been exposed. I thought it would be a sin for me to find another man, and I knew I couldn’t take a wife and live a lie. After talking on an online forum (ironically for Relevant Magazine) I met a girl who introduced me to a friend of her’s who was “in the same boat.” Ironically his name was Josh. We talked for a few weeks, and I found that I was developing feelings for him. I was incredibly confused, previous to this I’d never even really had any gay friends, and thought my sexuality was solely related to base desire. Here I was finding out that more than anything what being gay meant was that I longed for someone to share my life with on a much higher level.
One day while talking Josh and I were talking about trying to remain celibate and he said, “What I don’t get is, why I can’t just… have someone to play basketball with, go on trips with, and make breakfast in bed for. I mean I don’t eat shrimp.” I tried writing back an answer, and I couldn’t. Because all I could think about was how badly I wanted him to make breakfast in bed for me. (And I’m not even a big breakfast fan!)
Now, my experience of at least Evangelical Christianity was quite broad, I’d had experience to the Reformed mindset that required logical reasonable Scripture based thought, I was aware of a great deal of how the Bible was put together and translated in light of my studies at Prov, and I’d always had a somewhat charismatic bend to me. (It’s hard not to when you have God start speaking out of your mouth to someone, or keep understanding things about people that you couldn’t possibly know) So I also knew what sin really felt like. Sin was something that kept you away from experiencing God honestly. Sin was something that made your soul low and feel far from Him. I’d always had a fairly close relationship with God, seeing as my first childhood memory was actually drowning and having a vision of Him. So the Spirit and I were pretty tight. Thing was, what I felt for Josh felt nothing like sin. If anything it made me pray more. I suddenly understood what this “love” thing that everyone went on about. I mean sure I’d convinced myself I loved girls before, but this, this blew all of that out of the water, and besides, I was actually attracted to this guy!
After that I really started to look hard at the Scripture. Before that I’d actually had a theological rats nest that had kept me from ever doing more than longly watching coming out films and telling people they should be nice to gay people. It was actually the best conservative theology I’ve ever heard against gay relations. Thing was, when you fall in love that can all easily come crashing down. Now I knew being gay wasn’t just sex. Actually sex is an incredibly small part of it. Do I plan on having sex with my husband? Of course I do. But I also plan on holding his hand as I walk down the street, writing him e-mails to remind him that I care about him. And inviting single friends out so they can feel like a third wheel. I currently have a bit of a crush on a guy, who frankly right now I don’t even really want to have sex with, simply because he’s a really nice guy and I just want to spend more time with him.
After that summer, I reread Romans 1, and after studying about the sort of things that actually happened in the Roman world, I became convinced that I couldn’t actually condemn a gay relationship because I had massive doubts that that was what Romans 1 was talking about. Eventually those doubts were confirmed as I found God never lead me to feel uncomfortable about that assertion. Eventually I had to come to terms with the fact that God would probably be OK if I took someone who I could love on all levels too.
That fall I went back to School, and I challenged every class mate I could. And I progressively realized, all these people who had told me it was wrong for me to be gay, I was a fool to trust. They couldn’t understand what it even meant to be gay. How on earth could I trust the their theological convictions on something I had to explain to them. I eventually realized that a heathy gay relationship was like a beautiful song that they had no taste for. There is a lot of music that friends share with me that does not really appeal to me. But the thing is, I can’t tell my friends that their music is wrong, simply not what I am drawn towards. One of the reasons for this, is I’m not a musician, I am not necessarily going to appreciate what they offer me. In the same way I realized, most of my friends simply had no frame of reference for gay people. Most had the devil horned painted versions they’d been taught in Sunday school.
My good friends Shannon at a recent Church meeting said, “I was always told it was wrong to be gay, but when Dave came out, it was tough to feel that way. How could gay people be these awful sinners, when the first one I met wouldn’t shut up about Jesus?”
You asked about my experience of the Church? I am a Church kid of Church kids. I was in every Christmas play, and every friday night youth event. I used to go to Wednesday night prayer meetings more frequently than the Elders did, at both Churches I attended. I was practically unpaid staff once, and I was the student leader at a high school Christian group that had it’s attendance jump from 4 people to 20 by the end of the year. I have approximately 370 albums, nearly all of them are by Christian recording artists (Though I prefer the indie stuff).
And I’m not that big of an anomaly. My friend Jacob was raised as an Old Colony Mennonite, and is a Menno of Mennos (But he’s not that cheap.) My friend Mike is still annoyingly conservative and evangelical. Melody attends three different Churches on Sunday mornings because she can’t get enough of God. My friend Andrew is the quintessential anglican. He uses Church buildings as land marks.
So… that’s who I am. I am not simply a “homosexual” I am not your enemy. I am your brother in Christ, and I wish the Church would start treating me as such.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 10, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Theophilus how many times have you heard the cliché “The Bible is not a rule book.” Contrary to Fundamentalist readings of Scripture, the Bible is not interested in providing an exhaustive list of what is and isn’t sin. Frankly a suitable answer to the question of what is sin, can be answered when you ask what is righteousness? Righteousness is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. Scripture says that the greatest is love and against such there is no law. If there is no law against love (agape) then what about gay relationships that express agape? Those who have compete and selfless, godlike love for their spouse? I promise you this exists, and honest reading of Scripture makes it clear that God can not have a problem with this and still be the God of the pages of Scripture (who I believe Him to be, I hope you do as well). So if this is true, and the natural out come of this sort of love in other relationships between opposite sex people is sexual intercourse that reflect their love for each other. If the same love exists between same sex people why is that somehow immoral.
Certainly sex is far more than utilitarian impregnation, as we encourage it between the barren and sterile. Sex can’t be all about birthing since it’s not wrong to give oral sex, it’s not wrong to nibble on your partner’s ear, it’s not wrong to kiss their neck, and quite frankly if sex is just about birthing, why are straight guys so obsessed with breasts?
If Scripture seeks to give specific lists of what is right and wrong, then why is Pedophilia never mentioned as sin? What of prostitution I’m sure you assume it’s a sin but the Bible never really clearly states that as far as I remember? What about your probable assumption that men should remain virgins till marriage? The ancient understanding of male virginity, is that men aren’t virgins, ever, virginity is something exclusively for women. Kinda sexist eh?
The fact is your assumption that it’s wrong to be gay, comes far more out of a cultural construct, than it does out of the Bible. The Bible has nothing to say to me about my sexuality aside from what it has to say to you about your sexuality. The Bible says to use sexuality wisely, to live a life honourable to God. It doesn’t exalt vaginal penetration by a penis, it values a spouse who loves their mate as Christ loved His Church.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 10, 2008 @ 10:27 am
I don’t believe Mr Lukiwski should step down. He has apologised, leave it at that. We have all said stupid things in our lives, done stupid things, and regretted things said and done……. doesn’t matter what group he was speaking about. It could be any group at all. I would be more concerned if he had said those things Yesterday, or the Day Before…… Let it go. Is there any one of us who would not be ashamed of some word or deed in our past, if it were brought to light now? There but for the grace of God, go all of us……..Kate
Comment by Kate — April 10, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
David,
Thank you for your unique interesting and entertaining Testimony. It would probably come as no surprise if I said that I have seen many testimonies but not like that. That Josh thing sure caught my eye. My aim was to draw on my own experience to communicate something to you but I don’t see any doors there. I thought I could talk about how I feel now and give some type of road map and hope that I would seem less of an enemy and you might consider my theological beliefs on the topic but I am not now confident that has a reasonable prospect of happening. You have given a number of reasons that make me expect you will be set in your ways theologically. I wasn’t a church kid ironically and didn’t have any unusual expectations about relationships outside of marriage so the idea of a loving gay relationship doesn’t have the same effect on me as you. As a kid I was essentially gay, as far as you can say that about kids, and raised by atheist parents. Now I’m straight and Christian. Given mainstream Christian belief on the topic ain’t that ironic when you compare us? So much for a good ‘ol fashioned Christian upbringing. How are your parents with things?
Having also of course read your comments to Theophilus I note that I agree that there is no prohibition on love but with the proviso that there is a prohibition on homosexual sex. I suspect that heterosexual men would embrace stronger love for other heterosexual men but for a fear of being considered ‘gay’. Historically there seemed to be more openness to that type of thing. Since the ‘born that way’ myth has been pushed recently noone dares and same sex friendships risk being stilted as a result. You seem to consider love and sex inseparable but God teaches us that there is a special place for sex.
“The Bible says to use sexuality wisely, to live a life honourable to God. It doesn’t exalt vaginal penetration by a penis, it values a spouse who loves their mate as Christ loved His Church.”
If I you will allow me to remove the rhetorical effect (because the genitalia bit is quite distracting) by translating to:
“The Bible says to use sexuality wisely, to live a life honourable to God. It doesn’t exalt male and women having sex, it values a spouse who loves their mate as Christ loved His Church.”
And one of the ways we are supposed to use our sexuality wisely surely is not having sex outside of marriage. Only men and women could be spouses at that time and arguably can be. The idea that same sex marriages can happen wasn’t even thought of until recent decades and is still very controversial. In the circumstances I don’t see how the spouse thing supports your argument.
“Those who have compete and selfless, godlike love for their spouse?”
Would that include helping them avoid sin?
Your testimony makes it easy to empathise but that doesn’t mean people like me will agree with you. I can think of a way to reciprocate so that perhaps you might empathise.
Hopefully you won’t find it too antagonistic but what do you think when some adulterous person considering themselves a Christian entrenched in adultery expresses how they feel about adultery? “It must be alright with God because it feels right. This is the person that I love”.
If you are like me you view it with some cynicism. Guess how your inadvertently analogous testimony sounds?
Speaking of feelings but otherwise changing the topic, what about the validating feeling of feeling different to what you would consider ‘heterosexual’ males? Did you get that as a kid and do you occasionally get that now like I do?
Comment by Josh — April 10, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
Don’t worry Josh, you’re obviously not the one for me, he was raised as a good Pastor’s Kid
I’m thankful for the lack of hostility which is good. As to how I feel about someone in other sexual practices that are also sin? Well people will rationalize lots of sins, for example the sin of condemning gay people’s actions. See, the problem with saying, “Well other people can say wrong things are right too.” Is just as easily countered with, “Other people can say right things are wrong too.”
The reason why i don’t accept testimony against gay relations from straight Christians, is because the vast majority of them (by and far) have not given much if any effort to understand what it means to be gay. Most of the ones I’ve met who condemned me had no clue what it was like to be gay. My own mother is still getting over the idea that I’m not going to die in a gutter after having been used for a week long orgy.
As for the Bible clearly prohibiting homosexual acts. I heard a very brilliant woman who worked at Princeton at one point mention that she knew of the President of a very large Seminary that would admit in private that he knew that the Bible didn’t actually condemn gay people, but that he wasn’t going to challenge it because his school would loose too much money.
The fact is, clear and honest study of Scripture leads to a pro-gay reading of the Bible, not an anti-gay one. There are several points in Scripture where Jesus reaches out to those on the fringes of society. The Ethiopian Eunuch couldn’t have actually held his position if he been “physically” a Eunuch (read that the men didn’t have to worry about him with the women if you know what I mean.) But he was the first gentile convert to Christianity. The Centurion’s “son” or “servant” is actually properly translated his “boy”. Not that I think Jesus was saying that what the Centurion was doing was right, but either way He was willing to heal the man’s boy.
The problem with an anti-gay reading of Scripture, is that it pretends God cares a whole lot more than he actually does about who you’re having sex with. Does God care about that? Of course, but not as proportionally as you do. In the Evangelical Church people have treated sexual attraction as if it were lust, and have made the laws so broad and encompassing than anyone who isn’t married becomes the most self loathing sinner on the planet simply cause they’re horny sometimes. The level that it’s gotten to is entirely absurd, and not at all biblical. (Again the idea of male virginity doesn’t exist in the Bible.) Not that I’m saying we should be having meaningless sex all the time. But what I am saying is that our 21st Century North American sexual ethic can not be read back onto the Bible without slapping God in the face. And yes I really do think that the way many of us read Scripture is entirely insulting and in some cases repulsive to God.
The fact is when i fell in love, I felt a strong need to figure things out. I genuinely wanted to have my previous theological assumptions affirmed, because I actually knew what I was doing when it came to not having sex. I was really really good at that. And if I knew God required it of me, sure I might have to kill myself to make it happen, but that was more favourable to turning my back on God. (Actually it sucked cause I thought it was wrong to be gay, and to kill myself, so really not fun.)
Thing was though, after I researched everything, it became progressively clear that Leviticus really couldn’t have any rule over a Christian either way (Though even then I don’t think gays were actually prohibited in Israel by God though they might have been by the culture.) Romans 1 seemed to be talking about the ancient equivalent of a bath house. (Actually I had a customer come in the other day and after talking about his girl friend for a few minutes invited me to go to a bath house with him, that to me sounds a lot more like exchanging natural relations for unnatural.) And of course the two Pauline passages that apparently say I’m an awful sinner, actually say that those who won’t enter the Kingdom are the soft and the man-bedders. now granted I could loose a few pounds, but I’m not a male prostitute in a cultic shrine… and frankly I’m already in the Kingdom. The Spirit of God is active in my life, I regularly experience Him, engage with Him, I express the fruit of the spirit as well as most people you might say “I know that person’s a Christian.” So if gays won’t inherit the Kingdom of God, then either I’m not gay, or Paul’s wrong… I don’t think Paul’s wrong, so I don’t think I’m what Paul’s talking about. It’s simple really, if the Bible is true, then the Bible can’t be talking about gays.
Now this isn’t me saying I don’t want the Bible to talk about that. I’m saying by using the same sort of tests we would test anything in the Church by, being gay can’t be wrong. If being gay can’t be wrong, then the Bible has to be talking about something else. Because I believe Scripture is true. So what is it talking about?
Well in Romans 1 Paul talks about a bunch of people worshiping an idol, then the evangelical Church says they BECOME gay, now did you or I become gay? Personally I’ve always been a lil queer, I had a crush on my best friend when i was growing up (not that I knew it was such) and I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. I hadn’t worshiped any idols, but this is how the Church says Paul says people become gay. Isn’t it? You worship an idol. Then the natural outcome according to Romans 1 is murder. People go on to start killing others. Now that sounds… lovely?
Thing is that’s not how gays work. We might go get drunk, have sex, and then do drugs. I mean if you wanna look at the worst ones. Personally I go on a few dates, and really that’s as far as I’ve gotten. Haven’t gotten to the kill people point yet. And I don’t think I’m going to, because I’m not what Paul is talking about.
I can understand how if you haven’t taken any biblical studies courses some of this stuff can be tough to understand. Which is also why the majority of the Church is so annoying anti-gay. But I promise you, There are things about me that God genuinely doesn’t like. The fact that I’m gay isn’t one of them. And I don’t just use this to justify what I “want to do.” There are lots of things, even sexually that I’d really LIKE to do, and those would still be sin. But when I find someone to spend time with, fall in love with, get married, and raise a family with. That will not be sin.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 11, 2008 @ 9:54 am
David,
I never said the Bible contained an exhaustive list of sins, and that isn’t insinuated in my question. I’m asking how you understand the apparent redundancy regarding Biblical comments disapproving of homosexual activity. I agree that Biblical principles can be used to declare that something like pedophilia, which is never explicitly addressed in the Bible, is sinful. But since the Bible does explicitly mention homosexuality, and does so on uniformly negative terms, I do need some sound explanations regarding these mentions before I can come around to your position. I do appreciate Biblical scholarship, and Biblical arguments have been known to change my positions on various issues in the past, so I’d be eager to hear an explanation from you.
Comment by Theophilus — April 12, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Theophilus,
I’ll actually argue that the Bible isn’t at all redundant on the subject. There are five passages that address same sex relations (which are different than homosexuality or being gay.)
So first let’s define some terms.
Same sex intercourse: is when a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, engage in sexual relations, be they heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or not something we can clearly identify.
Homosexual: sex that is driven by attraction of both parties to a person of the same sex. A straight individual who receives oral sex from a man because he’s just really horny, is not gay. Nor is he homosexual. I’d argue that the sex isn’t even homosexual, on the part of the gay person, it may be homosexual, but not on the part of the straight person.
Gay: Gay is a rather recent term, believe it came out of France. (Like other good things like Pierre… Kelly knows who I’m talking about
) reading back on ancient stories where two men or two women fall in love with each other and engage in sex acts, we can not rightly call them gay. They are simply homosexual.
So, now let’s examine Scripture:
First mention comes in Leviticus, now I’ll argue that what they’re talking about isn’t actually homosexuality. Homosexual individuals would have been a part of these rituals likely, but not everyone involved would have been homosexual. Most authors I’ve read will agree that given it’s place within the text the passages in leviticus are actually concerned with same sex relations in the context of worship. The idea is you’d go to Asherah’s temple (or another earth, mother goddess) and you’d “top” a temple prostitute, and this was supposed to make you and your house more fertile. In a sense, this is actually the “Focus on the Family” of the time. The cults were concerned with fertility and the expansion of one’s house.
It’s place in the text makes it clear that the Levitical author is not interested in giving God’s view of sex, but rather is interested in practices of the nations around that are not satisfactory in the worship of YHWH. This is why it’s between passages of how to make clothing, and how to plant crops. All of those were part of fertility cults. This is also why right after the author says not to sacrifice your children to Molech. If we set the text in it’s proper setting it’s entirely clear that that is what the author is talking about. There’s a reason no new testament author later references these passages. Paul talks a great deal about sex, and he never cautions for men to abstain from sex with other men. Does he mention men having sex with other men? Yes, but not in his passages on sexual morality. Romans 1 is not about sexual morality. But I’ll get to that later.
Leviticus is actually one of the most difficult for a lot of people, the nice thing is that Peter receives a vision that basically says, Leviticus is not for the gentles. Some argue it is still for the Jews, some argue it’s been entirely repealed. It still has value, but we are not bound to live our lives by it’s commands.
So really Leviticus becomes for the Christian a non issue. If it was why would we not hear sermons about how to plant crops? (or perhaps we’re all just apostate wrenches, but I don’t think so.)
Next on the list of course has never been recognized by anyone who knew what they were talking about, as being about the sex. But I’ll address it anyway. Sodom and Gomorah. Rabbis, Scholars, just about everyone agrees (I think even Kelly knows
) this story is about inhospitality. This is why later in Judges the story of the Levite and the Concubine is patterned after this story. In Sodom if the men were gay, it would be foolish for Lot to offer his daughters to them. A naked woman to an individual who is primarily homosexual is entirely similar to offering a naked man to you. Odds are you’re not gonna wanna rape him, and neither would the men of Sodom want to rape a woman if they were homosexual.
Add to this the fact that homosexuality has never been experienced as the dominant sexuality in any given culture. For the men of Sodom and Gomorrah to actually be all gay, is just something that doesn’t happen. You may get large “gay villages” in some large urban centres, but we are always the ones that are the minority.
So what were the men of Sodom into? Rape. Pure and simple, if we understand the classic ancient near eastern approach to sex, the man had power, the woman was subjugated. The man was the aggressor, the person in a place of power. When this translated over to same sex, sexual relations, this meant that the “top” was the “man” and the “bottom” was the “woman.” For a man to take on the place of a woman was unthinkable, for another man to force another man to do such a thing (because who would do it willingly?) was a crime against that man’s, manness. The ancient Hebrews would have had nearly no concepts of loving sex between two men. So if they have no notion of it, how are they supposed to be expected to make a cavet. “And the men of Sodom demanded they bring out the men so they might know them, but keep in mind everyone they were wanting to rape them, normally they had sex with women, not like those two nice fellows that share a tent.” It’s not a fair expectation to have from the biblical writers. If they’re not writing about gay people, why put in a disclaimer that they’re not writing about gay people? (Again they didn’t know about gay people, in a sense we didn’t exist yet.)
The crime of Sodom was that they didn’t want to care for the traveller in need, a HUGE theme in the ancient near east. They instead wanted to rape them, to hurt those who were already vulnerable. To take away their “manness” and shame them. Honour is a huge theme in Scriptures so I’m sure you can now understand what this passage is about. (And then be in agreement with the Rabbis and Scholars.)
Now moving on to the new testament. 1st Tim 1, and 1st Cor 6 (yes I’m skipping over Romans 1) There are two words that we translate as homosexual, or homosexual offender. Which is impressive since there’s no greek word for homosexual. Of course translating it as “Soft” well, that doesn’t let you try and get laws made that allow for doing injustice to your neighbour. The words were always debated, since soft was pretty clear, or at least incredibly vague but at least it was a real word. The other one is a combination of two words that nobody ever really agreed on what it meant. The only other places you find it in greek lit, is when people are arguing about what Paul meant. The words are man, and bed. So the idea is man bedders. Now given the androcentric nature of the Bible, we can assume that this is talking about guys bedding other guys, which makes sense. But is Paul talking about homosexuals? Well, that would be really funny since there were lots of heterosexuals banging other guys in the Roman wold.
So the question is what does man bedders look like? Well, for that let’s flip over to Romans 1. The time line that Paul gives starts with a group of people worshiping an idol. Then they start having sex with each other, guys with guys, girls with girls, big ol classical greek/roman orgy. (Paul regularly condemns heterosexual orgies soon, so even without the idol worship Paul’s not gonna like this either.) Then they start killing people.
Now I always had trouble when I was trying to “not be gay” when I was a kid, because well, Paul doesn’t sound like he’s talking to me. I’ve never worshiped an idol, and I’ve never killed anyone. I do think some guys are nice to cuddle with though. So where does that put me? Answer entirely outside of Romans 1.
When I was doing my research that summer after I fell in love, I borrowed a book from a friend of mine who’s a linguist, I asked her for her best book on Roman sexuality. Flipping through it, most of what the Romans were doing was hetero. But I finally found a section about a cult that existed before Paul, which started out as an all female group, but eventually a priestess inducted her sons, who would then induct other young men, by bringing them into a room in the temple behind where a choir would chat, and they’d rape the young men. Eventually the cult grew quite large, and the young men would drag other men off into caves and rape them, they were also involved in forgery and some general take down the government stuff. Eventually the government came down heavy and killed everyone.
Now, fun story and it actually sounds EXACTLY like what Paul was talking about. They worshiped other gods, CHECK, they got drunk, YUP, they exchanged what was natural or customary, YUP, and then they killed people. YUP!
I should also mention that the word abomination does not mean REALLY BAD, it means “not good for worship’ or “not customary.” It’s certainly negative, but it’s more like how we’d talk about groups that talk in tongues without an interpreter. Or a televangelist telling people to give him money to fight the faggots. That’s an abomination as far as the Bible is concerned.
Now then I did all this reach in the summer. What was my conclusion? Well I cried a lot. I wanted to be normal, and I wanted to be able to fit into the Churches I grew up in. I desperately wanted people to just be happy with me. And now I knew that if someone asked me if I thought it was wrong for me to be gay, the most negative thing I could say was, I don’t know. And if I had a gay friend, how could I tell him it was wrong for him to love someone, when I couldn’t be sure of it. It seemed a lot less cut and dry than I thought.
As I said, I went and talked about it with a lot of people, and nobody actually argued well against me.
But I had one friend that asked me, if it’s OK to be gay, why aren’t there more gay characters in the Bible? My answer is, if it’s OK to be a woman how come there’s so many more male important people? The fact is the bible is geared towards straight, men. Anyone else is second class. Homosexuals even more than women.
Personally I think Jeremiah was a homo, but that’s probably just cause I identify so heavily with him. And the poetry thing’s kinda gay. But beyond my theories about Jeremiah:
What about some gay positive readings? First, what is a eunuch? Answer is someone without testicles right? A man without a sex drive. Well, Jesus is asked at one point about those who are born eunuchs? Jesus says, let them stay as they were born. Now do you think there were that many men born without balls in Jesus day? A good way to ask it, “What about guys who don’t like girls?” Jesus says, we shouldn’t try and change. If we shouldn’t try and change what should we be doing? We can fall in love with each other, isn’t it reasonable that we share our lives with each other, and have others leave us to decide what that means for ourselves? I think so.
Now then Isaiah, says that there is a special name for Eunuchs in God’s temple that is better than Children. So, God actually even in the Old Testament is pretty loving to the fags. And if you’re arguing the word isn’t clear, then why argue that it’s clear when it’s not clear but you’re reading it in a negative light towards gays? Ooooo.
Lastly, the lone person who’s clearly a homo in the Bible. The first gentile convert to Christianity. The Ethiopian Eunuch. This is a man who held a very high position, now I’ll let someone else put it to you, this is a quick summary I found through google, since I’m tired of typing:
A. PHILIP IS SENT TO THE EUNUCH - Ac 8:26-29
1. An angel of the Lord tells Philip to go toward Gaza - Ac 8:26
2. On the way there is a man sitting in his chariot - Ac 8:27-28
a. A eunuch of Ethiopia, in charge of the treasury of Queen
Candace
b. Returning home from having gone to worship in Jerusalem
c. Reading from the prophet Isaiah
3. The Spirit tells Philip to overtake the chariot - Ac 8:29
B. PHILIP PREACHES JESUS TO HIM - Ac 8:30-35
1. Hearing the eunuch reading Isaiah, Philip asks if he
understands - Ac 8:30
2. The eunuch asks Philip to help him - Ac 8:31-34
a. He expresses a need for someone to guide him, and invites
Philip to sit with him
b. The scripture under consideration is Isa 53:7-8
1) Which speaks of one led as a sheep to the slaughter
2) Which describes one whose life is taken from the earth
c. The eunuch asks if Isaiah was speaking of himself, or of
someone else
3. Beginning with that Scripture, Philip preaches Jesus to him
- Ac 8:35
C. THE EUNUCH IS BAPTIZED - Ac 8:36-40
1. The eunuch expresses a desire to be baptized - Ac 8:36-37
a. Seeing some water along the way, he wonders what would
hinder him from being baptized
b. Philip replies that if he believes with all his heart, he
may
c. The eunuch confesses his faith in Jesus as the Son of God
2. Philip baptizes the eunuch - Ac 8:38-40
a. Stopping the chariot, both Philip and the eunuch go down
into the water
b. Philip then baptizes him
c. When they come up out of the water, the Spirit catches
Philip away
d. Though seeing Philip no more, the eunuch goes on his way
rejoicing
e. Philip is found at Azotus, and continues preaching in the
cities until he arrives at Caesarea
Sooo, God sends Philip to this man who’s not attracted to women. Now you’re saying that he probably just didn’t have testicles right? Wrong
Apparently, we know that with his high position, he couldn’t have held that office if he had a physical defect. He was a eunuch from birth. Actually he was probably painted up much like a drag queen. You should read a bit about him. Philip never tells him to like girls, he tells him to believe on Christ and be baptized. And that should be the message of the Church to gay people today.
Comment by David Malcolm — April 13, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
David,
You confuse me. You claim that Biblical statements condemning homosexual behavior are not redundant, then set about proving that they are.
I agree that you’ve established that the Bible does not condemn same-sex attraction. But I have issues with some of your exegesis. For starters, the context in which you read the Levitical statements regarding homosexual behavior is very small. The two prohibitions on same-sex sexual behavior are contained in Leviticus 18 and 20, both of which are for the most part concerned with sexual ethics. Both chapters are primarily devoted to prohibiting incest, adultery, bestiality, and homosexual sex. It is therefore the reference to the Molech cult which is surprising and out of context, not the reference to homosexual behavior.
The account of Sodom and the parallel Judges account of the Gibeahites are, as you say, more about power than condemning homosexual activity; they are essentially mute on that topic, saying nothing one way or the other.
There is no indication in the New Testament that any of the Old Testament standards of sexual conduct have been relaxed. Jesus never condones any violation of OT sex rules, and when encountering the woman caught in adultery and saving her from the crowd and Pharisees admonishes her to “go and sin no more.” Accordingly, the Council of Jerusalem released Gentiles from obligations to obey the law, except for a few dietary regulations and the sex rules. Paul later rescinds the dietary restrictions, which are themselves undermined by Jesus in Mark 7:18-19. If the Levitical sex rules are a non-issue for Christians, then we should also accept and condone bestiality, incest and adultery for the same reasons. Accepting homosexual behavior while rejecting the aforementioned actions is a selective reading of Scripture.
Regarding the New Testament references, I’d suggest the burden of proof rests on the revisionists to propose an alternate reading of the word “soft”. Regarding “arsenokotai” (man-bed), I don’t believe it’s appropriate to be hard on Paul for bringing new terms into the lexicon. If you do, you’ll need to treat Jesus the same way for using the word “hypocrite” outside the context of the theatre and using it in its current meaning. Prior to the Gospels, the term “hypocrite” simply meant “actor” and did not carry its present meaning.
You also pulled a bait-and-switch to eliminate Paul’s negative talk about man-bedders. You justified the “man-bed” references by appealing to Romans 1, which does not contain the term in question. The scenario in Romans 1 certainly fits the definition of “arsenokotai”, but this does not mean that it is the definition of “arsenokotai”. The term most likely refers to any and all man-bedding, in any context, since it is not qualified in any way.
Romans 1 may, in fact, be a string of references to a single cult. This does not mean that the actions it criticizes are only to be criticized in the context of that cult. The Bible is uniformly negative about worshiping other gods, drunkenness, and murder. I do not see why the reference to homosexuality should be limited to context when the others aren’t.
Your explanation of the term abomination is helpful. It makes it clear that the church’s understanding of homosexual behavior is for internal use, and does not need to be imposed on outside society. In fact, it shouldn’t. It also means that if homosexual behavior is an abomination, the church is responsible for addressing it among its own members, with the goal of curtailing the practice.
I identify closely with Jeremiah. I’m straight.
Regarding NT eunuch references, Jesus’ references to eunuchs were regarding them not marrying, regardless of why they were eunuchs. Perhaps some of them were gay. But Jesus commends them for not marrying. Given that Jesus upholds OT sexual norms, and that the bans on fornication and adultery cover all extramarital sex, Jesus is essentially saying that eunuchs don’t have sex and don’t marry, and that this is commendable. It certainly doesn’t cast homosexuals under a cloud, but it also gives no sanction to homosexual behavior.
The account of Philip and the gay “eunuch” is also important. If, as you claim, the eunuch was gay, that is a powerful statement that the Christian faith is open to all, irrespective of sexual orientation. But this doesn’t translate to an endorsement of homosexual behavior. A parallel can be drawn to the second Gentile convert to Christianity, Cornelius the centurion. The conversion of Cornelius, a military man, shows that adherence to God’s commands is not a prerequisite for the faith. If Cornelius was a soldier, he was clearly outside Jesus’ non-violent views. (Having studied at Providence College, I suspect you’ve met Mennonites there, a group which holds that Jesus actually meant what he said about rejecting violence. You’ve made comments to the effect that you also reject violence on this comment board.) The conversion of Cornelius was not an act of sanction of his military lifestyle; it was a sign that somebody’s lifestyle could not prevent them from embracing faith in Jesus. Lifestyle change comes after accepting the faith and the movement of the Holy Spirit in the person. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch demonstrates that homosexuals - people who experience same-sex attraction - are welcome among God’s people, just as soldiers are welcome. It says nothing about whether homosexual behavior is acceptable any more than it condones soldiering. Given that Biblical references to homosexual behavior - not homosexuals - are uniformly negative, the Biblical view that I see emerging from the Bible is to accept homosexuals while discouraging and forbidding homosexual behavior.
Comment by Theophilus — April 14, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
This is the second day I’ve tried unsuccessfully to post so I’ll cut it down and see if that works…
Don’t worry Josh, you’re obviously not the one for me, he was raised as a good Pastor’s Kid
So you are discriminating against people like me. Anyway there it goes again! Christian upbringing. There seems to be a pattern. What do you guys do at your Bible camps? If Dawkins only knew he wouldn’t be complaining about them.
“I’m thankful for the lack of hostility which is good.”
There is no need to be thankful. Just look at circumstances triggering Christian hostility and compare them with your non-hostile approach in recent posts. I believe there is a pattern.
“As to how I feel about someone in other sexual practices that are also sin? Well people will rationalize lots of sins, for example the sin of condemning gay people’s actions. See, the problem with saying, “Well other people can say wrong things are right too.” Is just as easily countered with, “Other people can say right things are wrong too.””
Is it honestly that easy? If Christians as far back as the apostles did the same then is it possible that one side is on firmer ground?
“The reason why i don’t accept testimony against gay relations from straight Christians, is because the vast majority of them (by and far) have not given much if any effort to understand what it means to be gay. Most of the ones I’ve met who condemned me had no clue what it was like to be gay. My own mother is still getting over the idea that I’m not going to die in a gutter after having been used for a week long orgy.”
That makes a lot of sense to me but things are a little difficult right now for both groups. Traditional Christians are trying to batten down the hatches and resist something that they don’t understand. That doesn’t mean their knowledge of scriptures is incorrect. It just makes it hard to know how to deal with things. All of a sudden there is an attempt to overturn the religion and part of this comes from secularized theologians who think they are extremely clever revising people’s understanding of scripture to suit their own perspective of right and wrong. Traditional Christians can stand on the Word of God but many clever people keep telling them it has effectively changed in the sense that it doesn’t mean what it used to mean. On the other hand there are people like you who feel misunderstood and feel like something akin to racial discrimination is occurring. As I said difficult for both groups.
“The fact is, clear and honest study of Scripture leads to a pro-gay reading of the Bible, not an anti-gay one.”
True it leads to a pro-human view of scripture and makes clear our essential worth and God’s love for all of us. God loves “fags”. God loves all of us even though we are all imperfect. However most people engaging in a clear and honest study of scripture for the last two thousand years have taken a different view of what you call “anti-gay” reading so to that extent I disagree.
“The problem with an anti-gay reading of Scripture, is that it pretends God cares a whole lot more than he actually does about who you’re having sex with.”
I once stumbled upon a group calling themselves “Christian swingers” who made similar arguments. I didn’t consider their reading of Scripture correct either but I wasn’t pretending anything.
“Does God care about that? Of course, but not as proportionally as you do.”
As people start trying to turn the religion upside down to suit themselves it has become a big concern for Christians and I believe it would also be extremely concerning for God. In normal circumstances though I’d agree that there would be a different proportionality but that would be true of traditional Christians as well. Indeed if the current interest in homosexuality had been taken 50 years ago with the result of better understanding we wouldn’t have the same problems.
“Again the idea of male virginity doesn’t exist in the Bible.”
Male celibacy is clearly in there and surely it goes without saying that some males are virgins as far back as Adam prior to Eve or as recently as Jesus?
“And yes I really do think that the way many of us read Scripture is entirely insulting and in some cases repulsive to God.”
We can agree on that but with obvious differences.
“The fact is when i fell in love, I felt a strong need to figure things out.”
Have you even wondered if choosing a more level headed time in your life might have been a better time to consider such an important issue?
“I genuinely wanted to have my previous theological assumptions affirmed, because I actually knew what I was doing when it came to not having sex.”
Josh must have felt very rejected. Come on surely you wanted it affirmed as much as people in the heat of love and lust for an extramarital opportunity really want adultery to be sinful.
“And if I knew God required it of me, sure I might have to kill myself to make it happen, but that was more favourable to turning my back on God. (Actually it sucked cause I thought it was wrong to be gay, and to kill myself, so really not fun.)”
Understandable. Tragic that you thought those were the only options. The gay rights movement and Christians who have ignored people with same sex attractions have a lot to answer for. I promise you it isn’t like that.
Comment by Josh — April 14, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
(There will be another instalment after this. Ironically the first time I tried to cut it down I got stuck at Sodom.)
“The Spirit of God is active in my life, I regularly experience Him, engage with Him, I express the fruit of the spirit as well as most people you might say “I know that person’s a Christian.” So if gays won’t inherit the Kingdom of God, then either I’m not gay, or Paul’s wrong… I don’t think Paul’s wrong, so I don’t think I’m what Paul’s talking about. It’s simple really, if the Bible is true, then the Bible can’t be talking about gays.”
Seventh Day Adventists consider that we’ll all burn in hell for worshipping on Sundays. Every Christian I know is impressed by their obvious “Christianity” and they are “sooo nice”. Historically their first founder predicted the end of the world at a particular time. It didn’t happen and even he jumped ship. Then someone else took over claiming to have gone to heaven and become party to special knowledge. The rest is history. Somehow I’m skeptical that they are fully in tune with Christianity. Likewise your take on the way God relates to homosexual behavior stands out as problematic. All credit to you for the good bits but I wish you’d see the light on this issue.
“If being gay can’t be wrong, then the Bible has to be talking about something else. Because I believe Scripture is true. So what is it talking about?”
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God … murder etc.”
Yep although the people knew God they didn’t glorify him as God nor gave thanks to him. In this case they went cultic. It was their way of exchanging the truth of God for a lie. What happened? They had shameful lusts. What were the shameful lusts?
You asked “did you or I become gay”. The answer is yes but obviously not in the same way as those cultic dudes. They presumably reached adulthood without any interest in the shameful lusts or any of a number of features that set you or I apart from them as children and then as adults they jumped in and developed an addiction. I have read about cases of male bodybuilders in modern times who are offered big dollars to play gay by lustful would be suitors. They accept and end up changing camp so to speak after developing a similar addiction. Now I wouldn’t presume to suggest that they are the same as someone who went through childhood in the way that we did and maybe it would be easier for them to change back but isn’t it presumptuous to assume that their shameful lusts are sin but others are not? Yep they are distinguishable and they could have (much) more easily avoided the sexual addiction but they are doing and lusting for the same thing.
Paul said that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. He didn’t say that the cultic example was the only way that could happen. Is it reasonable to infer that turning gay was the only thing that could happen if people do that? As I recall people worshipped a Golden Calf without any gay sex whatsoever so God has given another cultic example where they didn’t. I suspect many people actively indulging same sex attractions who had the benefit of a Christian upbringing would have taken that step (exchanging the truth of God for a lie) before they engaged in the behavior and that is across the board. It is one thing to feel a particular way without acting on it and another thing to fall for a Josh and take action.
Now the murder thing required the next step which was to not even consider it worthwhile to retain a knowledge of God. Somehow I don’t think that applies. (I strongly suspect that it wouldn’t be reasonable to assume that everyone who takes that additional step would become murderers.) For the record the liberal media in Western countries won’t report things like this but if you think only heterosexual people do murder:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=3171828
Comment by Josh — April 14, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
“Now I always had trouble when I was trying to “not be gay” when I was a kid, because well, Paul doesn’t sound like he’s talking to me. I’ve never worshiped an idol, and I’ve never killed anyone. I do think some guys are nice to cuddle with though. So where does that put me? Answer entirely outside of Romans 1.”
In spite of my quips about upbringing I believe that some kids with a Christian upbringing aren’t put off by the ugly context in that chapter and are prepared to take it on the chin or at least I’m guessing that they grew into people like this. (I can’t imagine a long term sexually active gay atheist converting to that mindset):
http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/articles/ex_gays_go_missing/
Actually I shrink a little from that as the author of the article hasn’t yet adequately sorted out his issues. Although he has taken the biggest step. Still, people like me are obviously not in too much of a hurry to step into the public domain, so for now those like him are the best example we have in the media.
“just about everyone agrees this story is about inhospitality”
Yep I’d have to agree that homosexual rape is pretty darn inhospitable for apparent heterosexual males but it has two other problems.
“In Sodom if the men were gay, it would be foolish for Lot to offer his daughters to them. A naked woman to an individual who is primarily homosexual is entirely similar to offering a naked man to you. Odds are you’re not gonna wanna rape him, and neither would the men of Sodom want to rape a woman if they were homosexual.”
Um didn’t the men reject the offer? The flip side is that it would be enormously tempting for a heterosexual to accept the offer so you’d have to wonder why they weren’t swayed.
You are correct with the naked man illustration but do you think your average righteous Bible basher would realize that even to this day? On what basis do assume that Lot had that insight?
Okay I have no reason to doubt when you claim that a lot of clever people have considered the focus inhospitability so you are going to consider my questions foolish but here goes:
Doesn’t Lot’s offer of his daughters seem to suggest he had something in particular in mind as their worst sin and motive that wasn’t inhospitability? Otherwise wouldn’t he have more concern for his daughters override his desire to enforce good manners/hospitability?
“So what were the men of Sodom into? Rape. Pure and simple,”
Rape pure and simple or inhospitability?
“The ancient Hebrews would have had nearly no concepts of loving sex between two men.”
Why. Do you think there is something unique about our neopaganism and that gay sex in loving relationships started in the 60s?
“It’s not a fair expectation to have from the biblical writers. If they’re not writing about gay people, why put in a disclaimer that they’re not writing about gay people?”
I am of the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Imagine the confusion that would result if He brought homosexual acts to our attention as negative but didn’t mention the nice fellows sharing a tent. Heck Christians would be all mixed up for 2000 years until some clever folk (coincidentally either gay themselves or who reject most other Christian doctrines in their liberal theology) popped up and sorted us out (shortly after gay folk popped up after “in a sense” not existing).
“Well, Jesus is asked at one point about those who are born eunuchs? Jesus says, let them stay as they were born.”
(with embarrassment) I feel ignorant asking this but can you please point me to the scripture. Thanks.
“Wrong Apparently, we know that with his high position, he couldn’t have held that office if he had a physical defect.”
How do we apparently know that? I recall that they didn’t look favorably on lame lambs for sacrifice but I don’t recall the scripture you are referring to. Sorry for displaying ignorance of the Bible while claiming to be Christian but you’ll have to spell out the book, chapter, and verse.
“He was a eunuch from birth.”
How do we know that?
“Actually he was probably painted up much like a drag queen.”
Why do you say that?
“Philip never tells him to like girls, he tells him to believe on Christ and be baptized. And that should be the message of the Church to gay people today.”
I agree completely. Mind you if they do that today we would need to then give them further guidance. We have people teaching all manner of things as Christianity so we can’t take for granted that they won’t need more guidance.
Comment by Josh — April 14, 2008 @ 5:47 pm