Dear Kate

I would like to make just two observations in response to the many issues which you’ve raised - one is to do with the use of analogies and comparisons, and the other is to do with the attitude of Christians who believe that the Bible prohibits homosexual behaviour.

On the first, analogies and comparisons always have their limitations.  Jason rightly points out to you that his Star Wars analogy was “trivial”, and that your criticism of it was inaccurate because you took him to be saying more than he was saying by the use of that analogy.

In a similar vein, Angus Johnson sought to distance himself from those who compare homosexuality with rape and paedophilia - again, understandably, because there are undoubtedly dimensions of both of these which they do not share with homosexual conduct between two consenting adults (except, perhaps, where they are in a significantly unequal power relationship - but that would equally be true of consenting heterosexual adults).  But that does not mean there are no points of comparison between these behaviours, any more than there might be some points of comparison or even a single point of comparison between homosexual behaviour and a whole range of other acts which Christians believe to be wrong (theft, lying, gluttony, drunkenness, etc.).

To reject an anlogy or comparison, you need to be clear on the specific point being made, and show why that point is not valid.  Otherwise you’re really comparing apples with turnips.

On the second issue - and here is one of the limitations of discussion forums - except where we know one another more personally, none of us know the hearts of those with whom we are engaged in discussion.  In this regard I can say that I have at least one person within the circle of those closest to me who identifies himself as homosexual.  He is someone I love, for whom I believe I would give my life if need be.  I believe that homosexual conduct is displeasing to God, indeed that it is evil, because he has told me so in his Word (just as he has also told me in his Word that when I lose my temper with my children and shout at them, it is evil).  So I do not condone the homosexual activity of the person to whom I refer, and he knows that.  But it has no bearing on my love for him, nor do I think him to be more evil than anyone else I know.

The point I am making, and that I hope you can understand, is this:  Christians have undoubtedly been guilty over the years of many mistakes, excesses, insensitivities, and cruel words and actions (and we will undoubtedly continue to be guilty of such things).  This notwithstanding, many of us have firends, neighbours, family members who are practising homosexuals, whom we love deeply.  Please be aware of that when you chastise us for views which you feel unable to accept.

Regards,

Bob

Hi Kate,

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 05:10 PM

Jason has made it clear that his assertion that homosexuality causes damage is drawn from his personal experience .  It is hardly fair to ask me to comment on evidence which he acknowledged is not available to me.

This is going to sound vague because it needs to be for other people’s sake. I have friends that have flirted with homosexuality and some who are homosexuals. And I’ve witnessed the effects of their lifestyle on their self-esteem among other things. I’ve listened to them tell me about their experiences in detail.

I’m afraid I’m not willing to say much more than that.

Its all to do with contraception. if you make pleasure the prime purpose of sex, and procreation an optional extra , the door is open to homosexuality, which is the ultimate sterility. This was one of the warnings given by Bishop Gore when the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 approved contraception, having previously condemned it. How prophetic.

{snip - double post}

Mark Tough - 24 June 2008 04:40 PM

Tim, are you seriously telling us that this hairdresser did a marvellous job of styling your hair? If that’s the case then anyone with a pair of clippers can be a marvellous stylist. ;)

ROFL!!!

My hair was, once upon a time, longer than the sub-centimetre style I currently employ.

Tim Allen - 25 June 2008 12:25 PM

My hair was, once upon a time, longer than the sub-centimetre style I currently employ.

Is that ‘new-speak’ for either a No. 2 or No. 3 crew cut ?

No. 0.5, baby!

Timbo

Kate, (and i suppose everyone else given this is an open thread)

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 03:25 PM

1.  Most of the posters use inflammatory, loaded and misleading language:
...
- Adrian Kriening [31 May 2008 1:42am] refers to homosexuality as a “reprehensible act”

In my defence I do not think I referred to homosexuality as a reprehensible act. My intent there was to refute a previous arguement by another poster that homosexuality could be grouped and discussed with incest and polygamy, referring to those acts as ‘reprehensible’.

As others have said, with posts it is hard to understand ‘the hearts’ of the poster. So to put my heart out there into the debate:

I identify myself as Gay. I have gay friends, i have gay ex-boyfriends. That in Australia we do not have legal recognition for gay/lesbian relationships outrages me and I think is pure discrimination. We should have defacto and civil celebrations of those relationships at law. I dont think ‘marriage’ is a useful term for the debate as I see it more as a religious than civil function.

I also identify myself as Christian and within that as Anglican. Obviously, having those two elements to myself, the topic of homosexuality and religion has occupied a fairly large chunk of my thought over 9 years since I first came out. Before the arguement can be made i have not been brainwashed into my current position. It is a position that is mine based on counsel and discussions with several ministers from various backgrounds (including an RC priest who i’m sure is gay), self study and prayer.

At the end of the day I cannot see where homosexual acts is compatible with scripture. I’m not going to give the ‘there are lots of verses’ arguement because frankly, most of the arguements can be thrown out. For me it is a case that I cannot in good conscience read Romans other than to imply that homosexual acts are not what God wants. There are some people in the church that come at the topic from a different viewpoint and conclude that it is okay. I can see where they are coming from and am probably left-of-centre for Sydney in that I will engage in that debate a bit more open mindedly.

To go back to your original post:

What a strange world you people inhabit!  You seem to genuinely believe that homosexuality is evil and wrong; that homosexual people are depressed, distressed, frightened and ashamed; that ‘coming out’ is horrific, and there is only one way to be ‘normal’.

As I said, I do think it is wrong, but I dont think that that makes it a strange world. It comes from having a belief in something bigger than yourself. It comes from having a relationship with God and wanting to live your life in response to that. Also, there are lots of ‘genuine’ beliefs out there that define how people see and react to the world, e.g. someone brought up in a strong trade unionist family could have the genuine belief that unions must be strong and that capital (from big to small business) is against the worker…

Coming out for some people can be a horrific experience...my own was about 90% good and 10% not so good but compared to some people I know I count myself lucky. I’ll agree with you that the attitude to how homosexuals ‘must’ feel (depressed etc) is backward and only slowly changing.

From that first post and the ones that have followed, I think that alot of the ‘problems’ and generalisations that are made arise from most people having a limited experience base from which to determine what they think. Some genuinely dont encounter homosexuality other than as a theoretical debate, for some it is simply their gay hairdresser or colleague, and for a minority there has been a need to actually engage the topic and think it through. The church is starting to engage people who don’t fit the predominant mold of normality, and hopefully the minority grows and will one day be the majority, but then to a certain extent like all other gay people out there i just want to get on with my life…

As much as I would love to engage all the things that have been brought up I need sleep…

Adrian

Thank you for your post Adrian. Bravo.

Yes thank you Adrian.

I’ve just read this thread (Ok I skipped some bits)...and Adrian I find your commitment to being ruled by God as he expresses himself in his word to be an enormously encouraging model of discipleship and I appreciate your willingness to share something of it in this forum.

Adrian, thanks for your openness. And thanks for your well thought-out post.

Well, Adrian, I hope you have repented of your former boyfriends and in fact all sexual activity.  Furthermore, you can never again have a sexual relationship because it displeases God, ok.

So congratulations for living a life of constriction and self-denial that seems to me to be totally contrary to the gospel, which was brought to *set us free* from the sentence and judgment of the law.  We live according to the spirit, and the spirit can be found wherever there is human flourishing.  Try meditating more deeply on your bibles.  See what Paul’s attitude to legalistic prohibition is.

I am sick of saying on this site that Paul only condemned homosexuality because he thought it was an abuse of freedom, ***being contrary to the natural order **** (see Romans 1).  Now we KNOW that this is not the case.  See the latest findings in New Scientist (as of perhaps a week ago) that really confirm a biological basis for homosexuality.  I say this especially to Janice Money, who earlier on brought out a truckload of pseudo-science drawn from fundamentalist websites.

When I put my head above the parapet before in this thread to say these things, Tim Allen and Dannii started saying that homosexuality, though natural, is part of fallen nature.  Now I’ve read quite a bit of theology, and nature is created “good” in Christianity.  Humans, with free will, are subject to death and temptation, but they are nevertheless created good.  So I fail to see how it is contrary to the natural order (Rom 1) for two people who love each other to have sex. 

The other typical response I got was that in being critical of scripture I am putting myself outside of evangelicalism.  Hello!  Theological colleges have been engaging critically with scripture since maybe 1848 with the publication of David Strauss’ Lieben Jesu, and certainly since Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1868 (I think).  How does Moore college operate?!!  Is it education or indoctrination?  I’d like to know.

Wow, big claims by Christopher there. First, he thinks that he knows what’s best for Adrian better than Adrian. Second, he claims the voice of God.
It’s of course ironic that Christopher thinks that freedom and life by the Spirit is the ultimate good, and yet when Adrian thinks that living by the Spirit means freedom from the bondage of his former life, Christopher wants to enslave him once again in it.
I probably haven’t read as much theology as Christopher has or mediated on my Bible as much as he has. But I’m not sure how I can reconcile what he is saying with Phil 2 or 1 Cor 10:23-11:1. For Christopher the ultimate good is freedom for himself. But for Christ and for Paul, the ultimate good is in fact slavery for the good of others. Living by the Spirit, as I read the Scirptures, is in fact a life of love, which involves self control, self denial in order to pursue the good of others, which is the truest life of freedom. This is of course beyond those who do not have the Spirit of God.

Christopher Tyack - 27 June 2008 05:22 PM

Well, Adrian, I hope you have repented of your former boyfriends and in fact all sexual activity.  Furthermore, you can never again have a sexual relationship because it displeases God, ok.

So congratulations for living a life of constriction and self-denial that seems to me to be totally contrary to the gospel, which was brought to *set us free* from the sentence and judgment of the law.

Christopher
When Adrian had the courage to write in an open forum that, contrary to the popular ‘wisdom’ of the day, he has chosen self-denial with regard to his sexual desires, I figured he’d draw some flack.  I really don’t see how your sarcasm is either necessary or consistent with your proclamation of the life according to the spirit.  By all means express your views - but don’t demean those who disagree with you, and especially those who have chosen a difficult course of action because that is what they believe is pleasing to God.

And on that, no one has suggested that sexual relationships are displeasing to God, only that God has made us for a particular kind of sexual relationship, and has made it clear to us in his Word what the boundaries are for that kind of relationship.

Try meditating more deeply on your bibles.

Are you really suggesting that all the people who disagree with you have only meditated on their Bibles in a shallow way?  That really is the worse kind of argument.  Again, express your belief that we who disagree with you are wrong to your heart’s content; but don’t elevate yourself above your opponents by suggesting that they haven’t done the hard yards that you have.

I am sick of saying on this site that Paul only condemned homosexuality because he thought it was an abuse of freedom . . .

Well, I guess we all get sick of having the same arguments over and over again, but I’m not sure what it adds to the debate saying so.

Now we KNOW that this is not the case.  See the latest findings in New Scientist (as of perhaps a week ago) that really confirm a biological basis for homosexuality.

As I understand it, there is plenty of research that disputes this claim.  And to write off the research which disagrees with your view as ‘fundamentalist’ is just too easy.  Has it occurred to you that the research which supports your view is possibly driven by a theological / philosophical agenda?

But in any case, even if your case was proven, so what?  There may be a whole range of inclinations and behaviours that have a biological basis which we would still reject as unacceptable.  Perhaps gluttony has a biological basis - does that make it a natual desire which no one has the right to tell me to suppress?  The claim, even if accepted, doesn’t deal with the issue, which for the follower of Jesus is “What does his Word tell me?”.

The other typical response I got was that in being critical of scripture I am putting myself outside of evangelicalism.  Hello!  Theological colleges have been engaging critically with scripture since maybe 1848 with the publication of David Strauss’ Lieben Jesu, and certainly since Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1868 (I think).  How does Moore college operate?!!  Is it education or indoctrination?  I’d like to know.

Moore College does indeed engage critically (in the proper academic sense of that word) with Scripture.  The trouble is, because Moore also upholds a high view of Scripture, opponents ignore the rigorous academic standard that is applied there, and which is world class.

In all this, Christopher, I hope I have not been guilty of the very things I am pointing out to you.  If I have, I apologise.  But I do encourage you to show respect to those who differ with you, as I trust I have done here, no matter how strongly we hold our opinions.

In Christ,

Bob