<p>Hanna,</p>
<p>Please. Give it a rest.</p>
<p>I drew pictograms in post #135 for the self-righteously and verbally challenged. It has nothing to do with the pastor being gay (as I doubt he is “gay”). He is a morally challenged pervert, IMO. Not Gay.</p>
<p>Clear?</p>
<p>“Most Christians believe that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and look to the New Testament teaching on homosexuality, condemning the behavior on that basis–specifically, Romans 1:24-28 & I Corinthians 6:9-10.”</p>
<p>Paul didn’t like gay folks. Jesus had it in for bankers. All early Christians (first 300 years) believed that “Christian soldiers” were “like dogs who eat their own vomit.” (ref. First Council of Nicaea.)</p>
<p>Anyway, he says he has had this “problem” his entire adult life, so he is a prime candidate for “conversion therapy”.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>mini - the vast majority of the early (first) Christians were Hebrews by birth. The Hebrew culture frowned on any transgression of the Law…you stood a good chance of being mob executed for such behavior. Paul was a highly educated man for his day; his views reflected learned thought of the time.</p>
<p>There were many incorrect teachings among early Christians, which is what a large part of the New Testament addresses. I find it difficult to believe that if God disapproves of Christian soldiers, He would so often use military metaphors in His Word (I Cor. 9:7; Eph. 6:11-17; Phil. 2:25; 2 Tim. 2:3-4), besides the clear statement of Rom. 13:4. </p>
<p>Jesus condemns predatory lenders & thieves, but how do you support your statement that He “had it in for bankers”?</p>
<p>okay, going out on a limb here, but how do we know the bible is the word of god, and how do we know, really what early christians really believed?</p>
<p>much was purged so that the teachings would “match” “current” practices</p>
<p>when you have a book written by men, edited by men, translated by men, men decide what it should say. yet it is a book of “god”…just cause some men told us so?</p>
<p>So why are you a converted Catholic (prior Baptist I believe you’ve said) cgm? There doesn’t seem to be much about Christianity that makes you happy, afterall–most especially its fundamental tenants of compassion and forgiveness. ;)</p>
<p>re: post #145</p>
<p>Ah….the secular ‘religious-fundamentalist’ CGM.</p>
<p>In what sense does, say, CGM or mini’s view of biblical hermeneutics bear upon the belief systems of a quaint group of people (of which they are no part) in Colorado…or Bangladesh? </p>
<p>Whose calling who a fundamentalist?!</p>
<p>[…by the by, I simply adore Mini’s misreading of the “like dogs who eat their own vomit” canard–way to go, shorty.]</p>
<p>In any case, I thought that Drosselmeier, through a series of posts, dealt well with this issue of cultural sensitivity, to the degree that even the intolerant atheist must get it. The issue is, at the very least, normative belief systems within the mainstream of the Western tradition; not the ultimate metaphysical truth of the universe (though most yearn for that truth…even fundamentalist-secularists–‘human rights’ anyone?! …even ‘animal “rights”…plants are people too, I hear.).</p>
<p>……………………………….</p>
<p>HH,</p>
<p>I myself was once so confounded by the mischievous CGM (ditto, mini); I believe our lady is a closeted atheist—and more’s the pity that “she can’t be who she is,” openly and freely, in this oppressive moral gulag we call AmeriKa.</p>
<p>CGM,
There are probably better websites that address this issue, but here is a brief explanation of why Christians believe the Bible is the word of God. </p>
<p><a href=“http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/quest_gods_word.html[/url]”>http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/quest_gods_word.html</a></p>
<p>If you are genuinely interested in exploring the topic further, there are a multitude of books that have been written on the subject, including Inerrancy by Norman Geisler.</p>
<p>Paul-nice guy, pretty smart; still a product of his times. He said some kind of dismissive things about women, too. If you wanted to interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-12 literally, I’d lose my job. But, on the other hand, the earliest Christian society had many women who were leaders–Like Lydia, Phoebe and Priscilla. And of course, Jesus (slightly higher authority than Paul) treated women as co-equals, and he was silent on the “issue” of homosexuality.</p>
<p>Paul’s own words were aimed at something more like Haggard’s (admittedly)out of control behavior, not at committed gay relationships (which were not something really known or able to exist at that time.) Paul equally had a problem with out of control passion of a heterosexual nature. </p>
<p>I think it’s very easy to interpret his writings out of context to get the desired condemnation. Personally, I stick to Jesus’ words; not what was added on since.</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>
So effectively we are saying here that the Church has it all wrong, that the popes are all wrong, and that the Rabbis, and theologians, Protestant and Catholic, throughout the ages, are all wrong and that modern interpretations by gay theologians have set them right. The fact is, whether “forbidden” as you say, or an “abomination”, homosexuality is still denied by God even by your own reckoning.</p>
<p>I don’t exactly think conservative Christians are being ridiculous even here. When we view this shellfish objection from their perspective, for example, we see forbidden foods were later allowed by the purification made possible by the blood sacrifice of Christ (Acts 11:1-9). This effectively abolished ceremonial strictures such as those affecting diet and the mixture of dissimilar items like Jews and Gentiles. To further support their position, we see that directly after God told Peter to eat of the formerly “unclean animals”, He also sent Gentiles immediately to Peter to have them inducted into the Jewish Christian church (Acts 11:10-18). There apparently was some argument as to whether God would allow “unclean” Gentiles into the Jewish Christian Church. This episode put the question to rest. Unlike the injunction against foods, the injunction against homosexuality was not ended here because it was not merely a ceremonial issue. It was a moral one. The evidence for this is that the condemnation of homosexuality was continued from the Old Testament into the New Testament. In St. Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rom. 1:26-28), for example, we see clearly where homosexuality is despised. In 1 Cor. 6:9–10 the Bible even declares that homosexuals will not see heaven.</p>
<p>We might hate folks who believe as the evangelicals do on homosexuality, but clearly we can understand how they come to their beliefs. They are not the crazy people we try to make them. I am convinced they are not picking and choosing anything, but are in fact reading the text within a system of belief that is remarkably consistent. I do not think such consistency exists within the gay approach. Many gays, for example, in effect claim that when the bible speaks against homosexuality, it speaks against heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts, not against committed homosexuals. That is simply a speculation that cannot be supported by Jewish or Christian history. Neither can the scriptural texts support it. Neither of these authorities ever make the distinctions gays are claiming. When gay people like Boswell made their defense, the defense you yourself have used here with the Hebrew word “tovah” (“abomination”), for example, they allowed their homosexuality to blind them to serious errors. That exact word is also used to condemn incest, adultery, and bestiality, right along with homosexuality. Surely we cannot suggest that the Bible only winks at these too, as it winks at homosexuality. Some gays maintain that the word only applies to ritualistic practices. But this is also an obvious error because it is clearly used to condemn non ritualistic things like haughtiness, lying, and people who like to see mischief.</p>
<p>It is very clear to me that the Bible condemns homosexuality and not because of a “quirk in translation”. The Catholic Church condemns it, and so do very many Protestant Churches. It is quite obvious to me why they do. My own church seems to deal with this issue by not dealing with it, but I think if I were to ask, I would find the leadership unanimous in the belief that homosexuality is a sin. How does a man like Haggard remain faithful to the Church’s teachings without offending gays? I believe such a thing is impossible and that the real issue we have with him is that he wished to promote the historical Christian view against homosexuality. Many of us are pleased to kick him now because his failure seems to justify it. I do not think it does. His failure warrants our pity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Garland,</p>
<p>Overall, I subscribe to the sentiments you express in the third quote above: If we stop there. They bear directly on the issue at hand.</p>
<p>But then, these are OUR sentiments. Perhaps soon to be our laws, relying on the consensus of the American people [ah la Greenday and John Kerry, the “Stupid American”…. “Ugly American”… “American Idiot”]–one would hope–not judicial fiat.</p>
<p>But knowing you to be an intelligent, non-judgmental lady, I have to ask, do you believe it is the business of you and me to interpret theology for other sinners deeply and sincerely involved in another faith, church or theology? Where would that business stop? Should we then go on to tell Hindus they believe in false gods, or should we draw the line at Christian-Nincompoops and American Idiots and no further?</p>
<p>Apparently, many Christians believe the public–sexual–expression of homosexuality is outside their moral framework. Moreover, most have believed this for a very long time; whether as an eternal truth in fact or simple biological inclination.</p>
<p>Do we then mitigate their theology by objecting to their fundamentalist reading…with our own fundamentalist reading in scripture? As in
I do not presume to do so, such things are far to ephemeral and personal for the dogma of the cookie cutter. I would be surprised to find that you do. I suppose that is why you qualified your statement above with “personally.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want to comment on anyone else’s faith – that’s their own business. But I do object when someone mischaracterizes the faith that I follow. CGM, the kinds of comments you make about religion are just the antithesis of the teachings of the Catholic Church in many areas. Catholics most definitely DO believe that the Bible is the word of God – not just a collection of stories by different men. You can, and should, have the right to your own beliefs. But I feel free to mention, that they are not Catholic beliefs in many areas.</p>
<p>When I was considering Christianity as a college student, I started attending a Bible-teaching church but had a major disagreement with what the Bible taught on a particular subject. I looked at many different ways to try to square the passages that clearly spoke on that topic with what I believed. I could do it through semantic gymnastics, but I finally decided that if I accepted the Bible to be the Word of God, I needed to genuinely try to understand what it says rather than trying to accommodate it to my opinions. If I didn’t believe that it was true, I was free to throw it out and decide for myself what I believed to be right or wrong. That was over 20 years ago, and I eventually became a Christian and now understand the Biblical perspective on the topic that I was so sure that I was right about before.</p>
<p>Nope, FS, I don’t believe we need to interpret theology for any Citizens or in the context of any laws. That above was just for the fellow believers. I think laws concerning homosexuals should be based on solely civil libertarian concerns.</p>
<p>Logo–all reading of the Bible is interpretation. There is no such thing as “literal” reading. When you read that Jesus said that there is no salvation except through him, do you interpret that as a flesh body with a hole in it that you walk through, or do you read it a bit more wholistically, perhaps metaphorically? And if you do, you are interpreting. I for one, don’t see in that quote a requirement to be a believer to saved (another word i think has a lot more than one meaning.) Someone else might see that requirement. We are both interpreting.</p>
<p>After reading ALL the posts I have a different take on certain items:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It’s not that Haggard was preaching this or that…anti gay etc, the fact is that he, like all religious right leaders were trying to get all of their congregations to vote Republican and they used any fear tactic and hot button that would work to lead to sheep to that mindset. It’s all about the fear and you can see, just by the posts that differences and topics like this make people very very afraid and angry. This administration and their religious puppets are master craftsman of using fear to get the "mass"es out to vote the "right’ way. The democrats are not going to be giving lots of government money to religions the way that this crew has. Loss of money, loss of power means they had to keep the neo-cons in power.</p></li>
<li><p>Haggard and his group have always said the being gay is “curable” and you should hide and suppress your desires. Well, we have just seen what happens. It leaves a wife and 5 children without a father. He just couldn’t hide it any more. Another theory shot to “hell”.</p></li>
<li><p>The fact that Bush spoke to Haggard (and others like him) all the time is exactly the point. The current admin gives money to these groups and the groups deliver the votes. Look at what happened with Ralph Reed, Abramoff’s crony, who is now also out of power. He convinced The Christian right in Texas to come out against gambling. Who was paying for the “get out the vote”??? The Louisiana Indian Tribes who wanted all Texans to come to gamble in Louisiana not Texas. Everything you see is a cover for a political operation. It’s not the religion or God, it’s the fact that these people can manipulate the religious groups to do their dirty work for them. I would think one day religious groups would wake up and stop being manipulated by someone spooking them by saying “gay marriage”, Liberal agenda and judges etc every time an election comes up. How can any child of God, agree to a preemptive war, killing many civilians, the death penalty, not offering health care, keeping innocent people in jail indefinitely? Do not tell me the real Jesus would have ever thought that was right or good or just. Never.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>garland,
I interpret the Bible in much the same way that I interpret the posts on College Confidential. Usually it’s pretty straightforward, but sometimes a word is used or something is referenced that I don’t understand, so I look it up. Sometimes, I interpret what someone writes based on their previous posts because I believe that there will be some consistency in their views over time. Sometimes a post will become clearer in the future when I become more familiar with where someone is coming from. Sometimes a post is just over my head, and I’ll leave it for a later time when I might have more understanding or time to research. I generally believe that I can understand what the poster intends to communicate, or I wouldn’t waste my time reading what they write. I also pray that God will give me understanding as I read the Bible and believe that He does so, though not always immediately. Can’t say that I’ve done that with CC posts, but maybe it would help. ;)</p>
<p>My point is that there is a lot of selective interpretation of bible passages – the phrase “abomination” comes up it the old testament, in Leviticus, which is the same part of the bible with all the dietary prohibitions and a lot of other long since forgotten or ignored provisions. The section of 1 Corinthians that logosprincipal referenced says “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, sodomites and boy prostitutes are the same as “the greedy” – yet I don’t see evangelicals spending much time worrying about them. </p>
<p>I do actually agree with FountainSiren’s observation that Haggard may merely be “a lying deceptive cheater incapable of being devoted or loyal to anybody and most especially those who depend on and love him” - but that’s not much of a defense of the evangelical movement, given the fact that Haggard is not the first lying deceptive cheater to rise to prominence among them. Maybe a little more attention to their own affairs before seeking to impose their religious beliefs on others would be in order.</p>
<p>[…by the by, I simply adore Mini’s misreading of the “like dogs who eat their own vomit” canard–way to go, shorty.]</p>
<p>What is that you don’t understand? That church leaders, those closest to Jesus and his teachings, universally, without a single exception, condemned the use of violence, even in self-defense, even in defense of women and children for more than 300 years? What’s so confusing?</p>
<p>Nothing forces you to accept it, of course. The Big Kahuna (or the Bearded Lady) gave you free will. We just happen to know how those closest to this particular teaching believed (and acted), and we’ve spent 1600 years finding a way around what is in fact a very simple rule of action. That’s okay. Same could be said for the 11 openly gay popes, the gay marriages conducted by the Catholic Church, the gay saints.</p>
<p>Now as to the bankers…(the greedy…)</p>
<p>Of course, Logo, I agree that there is good and bad interpretation–they’re not all equal. Good interpretation relies on study, knowledge, understanding, goodwill, prayer, and a large dose of humility.</p>
<p>My understanding on Jesus and the subject of nonviolence echoes what Mini has posted. And this requires a really large dose of humility, because I know i don’t live up to it. But His intent on this subject seems very, very clear to me, both through His words and His actions, and I need to work on incorporating this into my heart and life.</p>
<p>(Garland-sermon over now.)</p>
<p>Personally, I believe any chruch when they enter the realm of politics for any matter demo or republican should immediately lose their tax exempt status. A minister should not be the lead on political issues and it does seem to violate church and state doctrines.</p>
<p>I mean this either way, so before you demand your political rights of expression via religion and tell me how wrong I am. What if another religion were the dominate one here and they decided our politics. People have forgotten the basic prinicpal of this country… keep religion and politics separate.</p>