Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[Lidless]

I'm not being vindictive, hal. I am really trying to understand the position of a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. De facto this must come from the Bible, and yet there are equally other things in the Bible that are ignored by them.

I just don't understand in this day and age why homosexuality isn't on that list. I don't get the thought process behind it and it bugs me. I'm not looking for conversion myself, nor for them to convince me I'm wrong and vica versa, merely to properly understand their position.

I am not trying to convert anyone. My position is one of faith too. But when someone uses the Bible as an expert witness, I feel free to cross-examine it and their relation to it.

yov, re Christians studying the matter: the food problem is obviated by Acts 10 - God tells Peter it's OK to eat such stuff now. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing in any Christian scripture anywhere that says that sex during menstruation is not a sin anymore.

Yet I see no complaints from anyone about this. That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one "abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.

There’s a lot of debate among Christians — and it’s not a new debate — over how much of the Old Testament should be followed and how much can be ignored. Many complex theological arguments are offered for this or that position, but much of the time what I tend to see is: follow "God's Directives" (as Cerin calls them) we like and that reinforce our prejudices but ignore the ones that are difficult for personal, social, or political reasons.




On a separate note, the nature-vs-nurture side of this debate has been focusing on homosexuality. I would suggest there is also a nature-vs-nurture debate about homophobia.

On the nature side on a very, very basic level animals stay with their own kind (scent, markings etc) in the main, and shun those that are different. Having said that, that's mainly about preserving their own genes. Homosexuality is rarely passed on through the genes and it's not exactly a disease that can be caught. Therefore it isn't really a threat to the group, though one wonders how many do not understand that and still perceive them as a threat to their own way of life. It's not like they have a version of Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on every door. "You look fabulous! Do you have a few minutes so I can interest you in homosexuality?"

But also on the nature side a group tends to exclude from the group what they consider a weak member, for the betterment of the group as a whole, for example one that is near death or diseased.

Perhaps at some deep level there is a natural aversion to homosexuality? To label it as a sin makes it easier to ostracize them and to hopefully reduce the occurance of such a thing.

However, homosexuality was accepted by many cultures in history, notably Greek, Roman, pre-Imperial Japan, Renaissance Italy and most Native American civilizations. In the Native American civilizations, the homosexual was a third gender, a 'two-spirit', that was deemed to have great power. In Indonesia, they had five different genders. Most raised in those cultures considered it just another part of life.

Conversely, most raised in the 'Bible Belt' consider homosexuality to be abhorrent because, well, they were brought up to believe it. Some label it as straight supremicism.

Maybe for the majority of people, their views on homosexuality merely come from what they were brought up to believe. Like religion itself.

Just a thought.

[axordil]

Lidless--I remember a poster and mod (Lutheran minister, MO synod) back on TORC saying that he thought all of Leviticus was still in force except the bits (dietary restriction and sacrifice) that had been specifically superseded by the NT. So some people are consistent...in a kind of scary way.

Back in my believing days I was always pretty sure that the vision Peter had was a broader metaphoric message, since it was in the context of the first gentiles who wanted to become Christians.

[Pearly Di]

Gandalf's Mother is a Lutheran minister? Really?

I thought that was The Grey Pilgrim. I remember him. I don't think he's posted on TORC for years ...

[Windfola]

Thank you for the kind comments everyone.


Hi Cerin.

I will just make a quick post to say that many of the ideas in your response seem to either misunderstand the ideas I was trying to communicate, or in some cases attribute ideas to me which I did not intend to communicate.

If it is because of my inability to write as clearly and precisely as I would have liked, I apologize. We both know that I can't hold a candle to you when it comes to writing precisely.

I was tempted to respond point by point, but don't think that would be productive.

I think the basis of our disagreement is in how one views the bible and the truth that it communicates to us. My point was that those who use their own understandings of the biblical text as some sort of unassailable backstop which communicates a clear meaning, or perfectly conveys god's "directives" to us, are subject to the very same limitations that stem from incomplete human understandings as those who are trying to apply their limited understanding of the love that is written on their hearts. We're all interpreting from the confines of our limited human perspective. We're all in the same boat, in my view. Though I accept that many who rely on the bible as an ultimate backstop do not understand their relationship to the bible in this way.


Since neither of us appears to have the stomach for getting into the details, I'll not comment any futher on your post or any subsequent responses from you. :) (and we'll see how good my willpower is)

[nerdanel]

There is a difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual one; the heterosexual union represents the reproductive model. There is nothing bigoted about believing that that difference is significant within the context of the committed union. What a day it will be, when people can be labeled bigots for simply valuing the concept of reproduction within a committed union.

Cerin,

I did not mention and was not thinking about the tired, trite marriage debate when I wrote that post.

When I wrote, "...religion that espouses inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals..." I was referring to the religious belief that homosexuality is somehow a sinful practice while heterosexuality is a revered and sacred one. I firmly believe this belief to be bigoted and hateful even if the person holding it does not believe themselves to be practicing hatred towards homosexuals. That is, I think that a good and loving person can mistakenly (in my view) adopt, by virtue of their religion's erring, a misguided and hateful view. I think the same thing of many people in the past - who I really don't think were "bad" people - who came to believe discriminatory things about women, about racial minorities, etc, by virtue of what their religion taught them from a young age, including how their religion taught them to read their Holy Book.

This is how yov can conclude that he is dealing with people who don't "hate" him - of course not! Of course they see him, me, and everyone else as valuable human beings and embrace this, while believing that behaviors towards which we are predisposed to engage in - and do engage in - are wrong. In fact, many of these people admit that - were they to use their God-given mental potential themselves figure the matter out, they themselves would not come to the discriminatory conclusion. But, they say, they are bound by the teachings of an ancient book written thousands of years ago by other human beings, and thus they must follow its conclusions, on the faith that those conclusions are what God wants...even if their own sense of right and wrong (God-given) would tell them otherwise in the absence of the book.

This is where faith has - hear me out - great potential for evil. This is why I fear it. God is not here, sitting down with each of us today in tangible form, telling us what to believe. (Indeed, some would say that goes against free will.) If God created us, then God's manifestation in our lives is through our own rational intellect. To allow one particular reading of a book thousands of years old, written for people of a different time...written with different motivations in mind, to govern our lives today when it trumps our sense of reason is not de facto evil, but has the potential for evil. Why? Because that book can, has, and will again be construed to support prejudice, hatred, discrimination, torture, and murder. As we speak it is the main reason that a group I belong to faces legal, government-sanctioned discrimination of one sort or another in every single state in this country.

It fills me with anger - and explains my months long absence from this thread - that anyone, anyone!, could view the love, or the physical expression of the love, of two deeply committed, devoted, caring men or women as sinful. I have seen so many couples who espouse that love. I would be dishonest and disloyal to them if I failed to say: It is not a sin. It is not something for them to be loved despite. It is not wrong. It is not evil. It is not disgusting. It is not lesser than the love of a man and a woman. It is not something that this country needs "protection" against. It is not something that children needed to be shielded against. It is not something that teenagers should have to grow up fearing in themselves.

And, you know what the thing is? Virtually everyone who has seen it, realizes it. Including people who previously had "religious" beliefs about its immorality and sinfulness. Grasping for straws, these individuals say that even though they don't, they CAN'T see anything wrong with it...they have to believe it was wrong because "God" said so.

Enter the great potential for evil. To use your own words, "Some people value what the Bible says above their own understanding of what is right and desirable." One's own sense of right and wrong is subjugated to one's understanding of a book written by humans. The painful irony is that the grand star of that book is the last individual who has ever lived who would ever have advocated such a thing. The lead character encouraged his disciples to ignore the religious law in the face of...well, contrary logic...in much the same way as Jesus said, "Man was not made for Shabbat, but Shabbat for man," we might say today, "Man was not made for the Bible, but the Bible for man." It's not the first time I've felt that I would surely be a follower of Jesus if it was not for the religion that grew up around him (Gandhi, that makes two of us.)

You value procreative potential. Very well. Suffice it to say that I do not. I am not exaggerating when I say that the lack of procreative potential - the unity of two without the possibility of addition - is to me one of the most beautiful parts of a same-sex relationship. I would say that it would be pretty bigoted for either of us to draw invidious distinctions between people's relationships based on their potential for a development that is at best subjectively valued. It would be especially hateful (since you allude to the marriage debate) for either of us to support treating couples differently, legally, based on our preferred model.

And as for subjectively, rather than legally: I think Windy has the best of it with:

"Is it not possible that a spiritual union occurs when homosexual partners share the trust and intimacy of a sexual relationship - allowing them to create something which transcends themselves? It seems a long journey in the wrong direction to start from a simple acknowledgement that there is, afterall, a difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex, and end up at the finish line concluding that homosexual sex is somehow sinful."

This is especially subjectively true because it is difficult to know WHAT message to take from the Bible about marriage. One could look to the story of Jacob, Leah, and Rebecca for some pretty problematic ideas regarding how to conduct one's bigamous relationships. To David, for how to go about getting a wife when you have some, want another, and she's already married. To Solomon, on a "How many wives is too many?" theory. (I could go on with this all day.) If it really comes down to it, one might suggest looking to the Bible for all the ways in which NOT to have a relationship, rather than as purveyor of a one true model. Or, to Jesus...who despite the apparently crucial importance to God of having a particular (opposite-sex) type of marriage prevail...didn't marry.

I mean, it's mindboggling. After giving a series of confusing, ritualistic laws to follow in the so-called Old Testament, God communicates definitively on a largescale basis with the human world through Jesus for the last time that is recognized (AFAIK) by most Christians. And he has NOTHING to say on this incredibly important issue? Nothing to say about the importance of procreation in marriage. Nothing to say about homosexuals. Nothing to say about homosexuality. Nothing to say about "Marriage is between man and a woman." A whole lot to say about love, though. I really have to wonder what Jesus would prefer. Gay couples who are joining together to raise children, both biological and adopted, and to live their lives as peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Or the straight people who are lobbying day and night around the country to ensure that gay relationships are not awarded the equal dignity (both in the public and private sectors, which includes places of worship) and objective rights that they need to make their lives, and their children's lives, financially and emotionally smoother.

This issue has me wishing for the first time that Christianity is true insofar as a second coming of Christ. It's just...if there's one person who ever lived who I feel would be on the side of the hated minority on this one, it's Jesus. I almost want to start a religion that follows Jesus. "What?" you say. "There's already one of those." Nah. Not a religion that follows "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as brought to you by Paul and company." Just Jesus. The human being who lived, died, and taught some pretty profound things in between. None of which had anything to do with the importance of the procreative model or the inferiority of gay relationships.

[axordil]

Gandalf's Mother is a Lutheran minister? Really?

I thought that was The Grey Pilgrim. I remember him. I don't think he's posted on TORC for years ...

Go ahead, make me doubt myself. I will amend to reflect my uncertainty, since I don't want to say something borderline inflammatory about the wrong person.

[halplm]

There's a fundamental problem with this discussion that I think makes it very difficult for everyone to understand each other.

I think we're dealing with three separate definitions of "right and wrong." There's the Law, ancient or modern, its a legal system that defines punishment for breaking it. There is Sin, a spiritual concept of what separates us from God. And there is morality, which is what most people think of when they think of what is "right and wrong."

The three things are not the same. Many MANY people, try and create a system where all three concepts work the same way. If something is a Sin, it must be Immoral, and therefore it should be against the Law. And all the permutations there might be there. This is what a lot of people want because it is SIMPLE, and easy to understand.

Unfortunately we do not live in a simple world. Both the Law and Morality come from humanity and our society.

(Granted, if you beleive the Bible is the Word of God, then the ancient Law came from God, and the debate about wether or not it still appies to us today is what some would like to clarify, but given all that Jesus said, i don't think it's what our attention shoudl be focused on.)

What is or is not Sin comes from God. It is not something we can really understand, and not something we need to understand on a case by case basis. All we need to understand is that It's what makes us different than God. It separates us from him.

So what am I getting at? Well, Homosexual acts are not Illegal, I'd argue in our society they are not Immoral... are they Sinful? As Cerin said (I think), the Bible defines sexual acts that are not Sinful in a very narrow range, so just as sex is sinful for a man and a woman out of marriage, so it would be between two men or two women.

The thing is, we've muddled the whole concept of marriage, tying it in with the law, so that makes things even more compicated.

The point is... discussing if any of this is Sinful is completely irrelivant. Nel believes it's bigotry to think it is sinful. I find that difficult to understand. It is hypocritical if you don't also believe most sex is sinful, but it's only bigotry if you attatch a person to their sin and judge them for it. Many do, of course, and that's sad.

Cerin finds it quite easy to understand when and where and with whom the Bible says sex is appropriate, and wishes she could have that view without being labled a bigot.

Personally, I think we as individuals, and as a society, put far too much emphesis on Sex in general. We all want to be good people, and also want to have lots of sex... so most people want to define sex as good and right in as many ways as possible .

Is this wrong? Heh, well, it depends on what "wrong" you're talking about .

If sex is a product of love, then it seems like it is a good thing... but that doesn't mean it isn't sinful. The thing is, that's ok. Anyone who calls another a sinner and therefore "less" than themselves, is a hypocrite and a bigot in that sense... but thinking any particular act is sinful, shouldn't make one a bigot.

I myself have probalby sinned multiple times today, in fact I know I have... my brain wonders off in thought and is all kinds of sinful before I even know it...

I hope I'm making sense...

[Cerin]

It doesn't seem likely that there are two Gandalf's Mothers. I believe the one I am familiar with is a young physician (of rather progressive thinking).

I will just make a quick post to say that many of the ideas in your response seem to either misunderstand the ideas I was trying to communicate, or in some cases attribute ideas to me which I did not intend to communicate.

Sorry for any misattributions and misunderstandings!

My point was that those who use their own understandings of the biblical text as some sort of unassailable backstop which communicates a clear meaning, or perfectly conveys god's "directives" to us, are subject to the very same limitations that stem from incomplete human understandings as those who are trying to apply their limited understanding of the love that is written on their hearts.

I think I understand what you're saying. I was pointing out that in the one case the person is applying to a truth outside himself, whereas in the other case he is looking within himself. I agree that the same limited understanding applies in both cases.

We're all interpreting from the confines of our limited human perspective. We're all in the same boat, in my view.

Yes. I was referring to the idea, for example, that a Christian believing in hell is ascribing limited human ideas to God. I think someone defining acceptable boundaries of conduct based on their understanding of the concept of love is also ascribing limited human ideas to God, only from a different source. I had seen that notion ascribed in the first instance, but it seems not to be similarly recognized in the second. (But I could certainly be wrong about that.)

I did not mention and was not thinking about the tired, trite marriage debate when I wrote that post.

I wasn't meaning to suggest you were, nel. That was the direction my thoughts took based on your comments about equality and bigotry. I view homosexual relationships as different in a fundamental sense from heterosexual ones, therefore they are not equal, therefore I am a bigot.

that homosexuality is somehow a sinful practice while heterosexuality is a revered and sacred one.

If I may express that slightly differently, I don't consider homosexuality or heterosexuality a practice. You are no more sinful in being homosexual than I am in being heterosexual. Yes, there is a context in which sexual activity is sanctioned by the Bible between persons of opposite sex, there doesn't seem to be a context in which it is sanctioned between persons of same sex.

You value procreative potential. Very well. Suffice it to say that I do not.

It is not a question of potential. You may not value the concept of procreation but you can hardly deny it's significance, for without it you would not exist. Now perhaps you might say you didn't ask to exist or even that you would rather not exist; nevertheless, you do exist. And I defy anyone to contend that that fact is insignificant.

eta: cross-posted with hal

[nerdanel]

There is Sin, a spiritual concept of what separates us from God. And there is morality, which is what most people think of when they think of what is "right and wrong."

.............

What is or is not Sin comes from God. It is not something we can really understand, and not something we need to understand on a case by case basis. All we need to understand is that It's what makes us different than God. It separates us from him.

So what am I getting at? Well, Homosexual acts are not Illegal, I'd argue in our society they are not Immoral... are they Sinful? As Cerin said (I think), the Bible defines sexual acts that are not Sinful in a very narrow range, so just as sex is sinful for a man and a woman out of marriage, so it would be between two men or two women.

...........

The point is... discussing if any of this is Sinful is completely irrelivant. Nel believes it's bigotry to think it is sinful. I find that difficult to understand. It is hypocritical if you don't also believe most sex is sinful, but it's only bigotry if you attatch a person to their sin and judge them for it. Many do, of course, and that's sad.

Cerin finds it quite easy to understand when and where and with whom the Bible says sex is appropriate, and wishes she could have that view without being labled a bigot.

hal, I've explained this before and this is the last time I'm going to do it.

Quite simply, let's review your post:

Heterosexual couples: are joined together in loving committed union in marriage. Following this, their physical coupling is sanctioned, legal, moral, not sinful - and brings them closer to God. (you didn't say quite that much in this post, but IIRC, you've said as much in the past. Correct me if this is wrong.)

Homosexual couples: cannot be married (now I'm doing something rare for me and talking about marriage in the religious sense). They can have a loving, committed union that, according to you, is both legal and probably moral. However, their physical coupling is sinful, which in your very words "separates [them] from God."

In my mind, that view is absolutely reflective of obstinate prejudice. The expression (within a committed, monogamous partnership or marriage?) of the physical love of two men or two women separates them from God? It is not a view mandated by the Bible - and if it was it would nonetheless be reprehensible (just as many positions expressed in the Bible are now thoroughly discredited as such and not adhered to as valid beliefs by mainstream Jews or Christians.) Nor is it a view remotely suggested or alluded to by Jesus.

I wish there was some way you could know and understand the pain that this obstinate and intolerant view causes gays and lesbians who feel bound and trapped by this view. The people who express it may not feel hate in their hearts, but the view itself is hateful, and the immense pain it causes good and moral people, more so.

ETA cross posted with Cerin

[Cerin]

It is not hateful to observe a difference that one perceives as fundamental and profoundly significant.

I suppose one could argue that it is hateful to consider the procreative aspect of committed human relationships as profoundly significant, but I would not spend time arguing that point.


eta: Lots of people think lots of things in the Bible are horrible, and therefore feel that people who subscribe to them must be morally deficient. I guess that's just something we have to accept, as it comes with the territory.


nel, I'm mindful of the anguish this discussion seems to cause for you, so I will try not say anything further on the subject.

[halplm]

Well first, I never said any type of sex brings people closer to God (or if I did in the past, I don't think so now). I don't think there is any "act" that brings people closer to God. He's already here, we can't get "closer."

I may have used "separates us from God" but I'm not sure I meant it like you're saying I meant it. All sin does this, not any specific sins.

I do believe I understand how much pain this (what I would call) misunderstanding causes gays and lesbians, as I've discussed it with you and others a lot recently.

I don't understand the idea that this is a predjudice in any way. I don't understand how it is obstinant or intolerant.

In fact, I might say that I think that the idea that believing sex is sinful outside of marriage is bigoted, is itself a predjudiced idea. you are basically saying that Christians can't believe something is wrong without being bigots.

Maybe this is a result of the formation of a community of people that identify themselves by an activity (sex with the same gender) and that opens a can of worms because some view that activity as sinful. If we divided ourselves into "adulturers" and everyone else, would it be predjudice to think that group of people were sinning? The only difference is "adulterers" don't identify themselves as a group separate from everyone else.

Nel, you know I don't have a problem with people being gay. I hope everyone here knows I don't have any problems with anyone being gay or doing whatever they want to do. I've even said here I don't know if Homosexuality is sinful or not and I don't CARE. Even if it IS, it doesn't matter, it would just be another sin in the very large list.

What I do have a problem with, is Christians being labeled as bigoted or predjudiced, or anythign like that for having that belief. GRANTED, having that belief CAN and DOES lead to many peopel being bigoted and predjudiced, but it is not the belief ITSELF that is bigoted or predjudiced.

To label Christians like that reverses the problem, and can create non-Christians who are bigoted and predjudiced against Christians (I would argue this already happens with great frequency).

In the end, it really is about love and acceptance, and not about who did what wrong when with whom... or who thought what about somethign someone did... or wanted to do...

[nerdanel]

Cerin,

By all means, observe away! Here, I'll join with you and we can both observe:

Heterosexual couples have the potential to reproduce in theory. Many couples may not be able to reproduce in fact because of a medical condition, advanced age, voluntary surgical sterilization, or other condition that means they cannot and will not ever reproduce. However, heterosexual practices are the only biological/natural means we share with the rest of the animal kingdom for reproduction. Homosexual couples do not have the potential to reproduce in theory, and will never be able to have a child that is biologically related to both of them barring future advances in medical technology.

There. We have observed. Together. Neutrally and non-hatefully.

While observing, you have possibly thought how fortunate the heterosexual couples are to have this significant aspect to their union. I have thought how fortunate the homosexual couples are to lack that aspect. Both things are neither here nor there.

You are free to continue to celebrate every day of your life that heterosexual couples have this potential to reproduce and I will never call you a bigot for it. You are free to proclaim that in your estimation, heterosexual couples are more fortunate than homosexual couples because they have the ability to birth a child that is an expression of their physical love, and I will never call you a bigot for it. In both cases, you will be observing a factually true condition, and deeming it to be a positive in your subjective opinion, and you are entitled to do so.

You are free to see the two unions as different to - and, okay, as unequal - because of this reproductive difference. Point, counterpoint - I can get behind "different and unequal" but I would see it the other way. We're both entitled to do so.

It is the view that same-sex committed couples cannot express their love physically without sinning, thereby increasing their level of separation from God, that I find bigoted and hateful. What part of that are you reading to say that you are not permitted to find reproduction significant?

The only time that I have applied the word "bigot" to the reproductive distinction is to the extent you have suggested in previous discussions that because you personally value reproductive potential, unions with that "potential" should be awarded a different label under the law (even though many of the unions you would label as such are in fact not label of reproduction, as I mention earlier.) I could tell you that I think that view is perfectly unprejudiced - especially when so neatly construed to include the infertile, the aged, the intersexed, the transgendered - and only to exclude the homosexual, despite the lack of natural reproductive capacity of all the above groups. But I would be lying to you if I did so.

Nonetheless, that is not what I was getting at here. The view that a committed gay couple sins by expressing their love in analogous fashion to a committed heterosexual couple is a VERY different view than "Procreation is significant." So don't attribute my comments on one view to the other view.

And, just in case anyone missed the memo, let us all together again observe:

Some heterosexual couples can reproduce naturally. Homosexual couples by definition cannot.

No one is a bigot simply for making a statement of fact.

EDIT this time crossposted with hal - and I'm out.

Two seconds:

In fact, I might say that I think that the idea that believing sex is sinful outside of marriage is bigoted, is itself a predjudiced idea. you are basically saying that Christians can't believe something is wrong without being bigots.

Well, it depends on what the idea is. At some level, there are ideas that no one can believe without being a bigot. To use an example from earlier in this thread, for a long time, many Christians believed that interracial couples were sinning. This was a bigoted view. Christians could NOT and cannot hold this belief without being bigoted. Nor can anyone else. I am not being prejudiced myself in stating forcefully that that is not an acceptable view. I submit that although race and sexual orientation are not analogous, that Christian-sanctioned prejudice against homosexuals will one day in the near future be shown up in similar fashion.

And, PS, drop the analogy to adultery. Homosexuality is not adultery. There is no third (or third and fourth) person hurt by homosexuality. There is no betrayal of vows. There are simply people who want to join together in primary, initial committed relationships with people to whom they are actually attracted - and who have grouped together as a community to contend with debilitating discrimination, hatred, violence, and (in other countries) legalized execution, simply for being who they are. I cannot believe you would compare that to adultery or the nonexistence of an "adulterers community."

[halplm]

And I would argue that someone believing interratial couples were sinning does NOT make them a bigot. I think they would be wrong and stupid, but their beliefs about what is or is not sin is not bigotry.

They very well may be bigoted, many people are, over many things, but I'm not sure I've ever been able to make clear how much it hurts ME to be throwing around statements about Christianity that I find not only wrong but highly predjudiced.

But then again, some think it's ok to be predjudiced against Christians... after all, they believe different things...

ETA: I was not comparing Homosexuality to Adultery. I was trying to illistrate what I consider the absurdity of calling Christians bigots for believing something is a sin. If all it takes is everyoen with a specific sin claiming to be a group to make Christians bigots, then everyone is a bigot who has ever thoguh anythign was sinful, wrong or immoral.

[yovargas]

And I would argue that someone believing interratial couples were sinning does NOT make them a bigot. I think they would be wrong and stupid, but their beliefs about what is or is not sin is not bigotry.

Agreed.

Ideas aren't bigotted, people are.

[nerdanel]

Semantics? Bigotry means "acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot."

A bigoted idea can most certainly exist.

[Windfola]

Cerin wrote:

I was pointing out that in the one case the person is applying to a truth outside himself, whereas in the other case he is looking within himself.

:D:D Oy vey . . . .

I was exerting my willpower steadfastly until I read this. But actually, I think it helps our discussion because this defines even more narrowly the crux of our disagreement.

I don't agree with your statement here. I don't recognize that difference at all. And that was a major point from my original post.

Rather, I think that in both cases the persons are appealing to a truth outside of themselves, while at the same time looking within themselves to interpret and then apply their limited understanding of that truth to their lives.

Same exact boat.

[halplm]

Semantics? Bigotry means "acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot."

A bigoted idea can most certainly exist.

But how do you define Bigot, then? It's "Someone who hates or is intollerant of a group," is it not?

There are people that HATE Christians because of the idea that Christianity is responsible for many wars throughout history. They are bigots. The idea is characteristic of the group that hates Christians.

So is the idea bigoted? Or is it simply an idea that many have, but is also characteristic of bigots as well?

I'm not sure where we're going here. If you want to think me a bigot, I of course can't stop you. I'm sure many others have that opinion of me because they think all Christians are bigots... but I'll still argue the point. I dislike hatred of Christians as much as I dislike hatred of Homosexuals. Yes, I said as much, not more or less.

If a bigot comes a long and starts saying All Homosexuals are going to hell because they sin by being together, I will be right next to you calling them a fool and a bigot. But I don't think it's fair to equate that person to someone who is as tolerant and accepting of Homosexuals as you can be while still thinking they are sinning.

Another point you brought up that I think is important... you switched language from "separating them from God" to "keeping them MORE separated from God" or somethign like that... This suggest a continuum I personally don't think exists. There is separated and not-separated, not more or less... anyway, I think that's important...

[yovargas]

Semantics? Bigotry means "acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot."

A bigoted idea can most certainly exist.

I don't think it's semantics. I think it's a pretty important idea, generally speaking.

Bigots hold Idea A.
Person X holds Idea A.
Therefore, Person X is a bigot.

Bad logic.

[Lidless]

Suppose 50 years down the line science provides a method where two women can have a child together. Would it still be a sin then, Cerin?

[MithLuin]

Yikes! The waters got choppy....

Let's talk about what love is, shall we?

It is one of those words that I find annoyingly confusing. I'm not sure why - it's one of the coolest words ever, after all. I think my frustration stems from my high school boyfriend, who insisted that he loved me and told me so...even though I had no way of reciprocating the gesture. The poor guy had to wait 2 years for me to say the same thing to him....because I wasn't really convinced that what he was talking about was "love" - I didn't think he had a clue, really.

While he may still be clueless , he is now happily married, and I'm sure he and his wife have a much better understanding of love than he did at the time - and they will probably grow in that understanding as the years march on.

But back to me and my confusion. I knew that love wasn't just a feeling - it wasn't warm fuzzys and butterflies in my stomach. But at the same time...I knew that love was something that made you happy, put a smile on your face, so that you'd be radiantly glowing when you stepped into a room. I didn't think that people who loved could really be miserable - it didn't match. But love is also what makes you scared to lose people, or upset when they get hurt.

As one of the soldiers in Iraq said, "the opposite of fear isn't courage - it's love." Love is what's gonna make you run into a rain of bullets to fetch the body of a fallen comrade, who may or may not still be alive.

So, I started to put it all together. I realized that love is (duh!) based on your relationships with other people - it's about caring for them. And the stronger your love is, the more you focus on that person. You do not lose your awareness of self, but you are looking at them. The more you love someone, the more you do for them. Of course, mothers are the best example of this. They change your diaper, make your lunches, ask you how your day was, gush over your artwork, clean your clothes and your room and your cuts....and never expect you to do any of these things for them (until maybe they are old, and you are an adult). Love can cause a lot of pain, but that isn't the same thing as fear.

So, I kinda figured out that loving is giving. The more I am willing to give of myself to other people, the more I am able to love them. But this is too clinical - love isn't just about handing out food baskets, any more than it's just about warm-fuzzies. Then I realized that love has an aspect of respect and trust to it. When I showed my high school ex the scars on my arm from where I had slashed it, I told him I would not do it again. He told me he knew that; he trusted me. Granted, I had given the guy plenty of reasons to distrust me (not a clean breakup by any stretch). Now, clinicly, it's a bad idea to trust people who say things like that...I wouldn't recommend it! But...I was telling the truth, and somehow, he knew that. By loving someone, we acknowledge their human worth and dignity. We let them know that, well, they are worth trusting and being deferred to. Not on everything! You can love a 2 year old without giving them more candy . But you can still respect that 2 year old because you love them, and not treat them as chattel or as someone to be put up with (hehe, can you tell I did plenty of babysitting?)

Of course, I've figured out what love isn't, too. Love is not dishonest. You cannot lie to people or deceive them and claim to love them. You can keep your mouth shut, particularly in public...but you have to be honest.
Love is not into maipulations. You don't pull puppet strings and manuever people if you love them. You can't expect anything good to come of that. Helping them out, giving a nudge, sure - but that's for their sake. Manipulation is for my sake - it's self-serving.
Love doesn't pit people against each other, seek to destroy frienships, play favorites, or in any other way seek out disharmony. Yes, sometimes it hurts to be overlooked, and jealousy is a perfectly natural reaction - but it isn't loving.

So, there you have it. The not-yet-wisdom of Mith . Obviously, I have a lot to learn about love. I am the sort of person who is easily loved...but I don't find it so easy to love others. Seriously, it's made for a great life, but I feel that it's taken me a long time to learn obvious lessons, in some cases. And yes, it leads to ex-boyfriends, not a husband . But I hope I will never stop learning how to love people more deeply, more truly, more honestly....

And here is what St. Paul had to say about it:

• If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
  
  And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
  
  Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
  Love never fails.

My parents do marriage prep (talk to couples before they get married). At the end, they give the couples a copy of this passage (starting with "love is patient...") but instead, they entitle the piece "Love" and then substitute the word "I" ("I am patient, I am kind...") I think that is a good reminder of how to live (for anyone!)


It is true that Jesus superceded the Law with love. We aren't supposed to focus on lists of what is (or isn't) right - we're supposed to focus on how to love other people. But that doesn't mean that 'anything goes' - love is much more strict than the law ever was!