-
@Mrs. Jacks: Embracing sin would be accepting sin as okay. Yep, I sin all the time, but in those times I'm aware that it's not okay & while not always being so humble, I really try to set my "how I was was fine" pride aside & let my heart/ways/thoughts line more up with God's instruction in His Word remembering that it was sin, my sin, that ultimately killed the savior that I say I love.
-
@mrs. bird: I certainly am not the authority on this at all! So I will just say this. I think it will either answer your questions or make some of them moot. Yes, humans were created in the likeness of God. The bible speaks plainly in regards to sin and sexuality. It is for that reason that I cannot believe that people are born homosexual. God is never wrong. He does not make mistakes.
I also believe that outside of belief and surrender to Christ, no action (marrying someone of the opposite sex) saves you.
I worry that my responses on this will elicit some remarks that aren't pleasant simply because my personal beliefs go against the grain of the majority. I would just also like to add that I believe with my whole heart in the love of Christ. Regardless of some ones sexual orientation I should hope that at the end of the day His love is what is reflected in my interaction with people. Even though I may not agree, I do still feel called to show love, mercy, grace, etc to all.
There really isn't more that I would like to add to the topic but appreciate the questions !
-
Totally fine, when I talk to her I always keep it gender neutral, who every you marry, if you and your partner
DH thinks I'm crazy for doing this since LO is only a year old but I dont want to influence her or think we're not supportive if she decides to be with someone of the same sex
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: my answer is similar to those of @runsyellowlites: and @coacheswife123: mentioned above.
The way I treat my child would not change because of this - homosexuality is a sin as are many other sins - none of them require abandonment from a parent in my opinion.
Concerning weddings and church services specifically, if faced with that situation today I would decline. The reason: my basis for being against homosexuality is Biblical and weddings and church services are key demonstrations of a Christian life lived out. To show support to a religion in direct opposition to my beliefs would be a poor testimony on my part and would not be the true reflection of my heart. I have no problem going to dinner or other celebrations with homosexuals (family or otherwise), but where it concerns a biblical covenant such as marriage or an opportunity for biblical preaching/teaching such as a church service, I prefer to make a clear stance.
Yes, I would still invite them over - they would be very much family! And I would expected to be invited over as well! Yes, I would seek justice for them if they were harassed - for sure! Yes, definitely I would bury them. Where it pertains to "treatment", I don't believe in any complete effectual treatment for any real or perceived illness apart from sanctification through God's Word. As I said earlier, I see homosexuality as a sexually immoral lifestyle, as is fornication, adultery, etc and believe those can be changed when one's heart is changed by God. So as would be my parental duty, I would continue to share the Gospel with my child and his/her partner and continue a relationship which lets them know they are loved by me regardless. And the primary reason for me continuing to show them love is because I too am a sinner - and displease God daily - yet He continually forgives me of my sins through Christ and loves me unconditionally. Who am I then to not extend the same to another, especially my own child?
-
@runsyellowlites: I disagree. I think we are all imperfect and make imperfect choices daily. Is a gay person "embracing" a sin any more than you are? Really?
-
@Mrs. Jacks: Well, I think there's a big difference in doing something wrong b/c you just made a bad choice in a moment, or struggle with doing otherwise, than thinking what one did is actually okay to do. It's what makes repenting what it is, if you think you were in the "right" then you can't biblically "turn away from". But, I also think it's your right to disagree.
-
I love my daughter infinitely, unequivocally and unconditionally. I will support her no matter what. All I want is for her to be happy and for her to feel that she can live her truth, and if her truth involves being gay that is 100% okay with both my husband and me.
Some of the responses in this thread make my heart hurt. To claim that being gay is a choice, a sin and/or something for which one should feel shame....*sigh* I don't even have the words to respond.
-
@winniebee: I believe a few of those who said they would not be okay with their child being gay said they believe people are born gay rather than it being a choice, which is more confusing to me since that would mean they were born 'wrong' and that it's a sin that isn't within control of the individual, though the idea that it's a choice is also one that I just don't understand.
-
@Mrs. Jacks: just curious if you have read any of the many scholarly (religious and academic scholar) articles on just how muddled and unclear the "clear" passages on homosexuality in the Bible are, coupled with the on-going debate over the correct translation of the Greek words which we now translate to/as "homosexual"? It seems like something that might be right up your liberal, intellectual alley, if you haven't! I find them fascinating!
-
For the life of me, I can't figure out why people think God cares who we love. If you look at the commandments, at basically all instruction from God/Jesus/the Bible-- it is aimed at shaping morality to be a good person. Don't steal. Don't harm people. Don't be thoughtless or vengeful or angry. Love your neighbor. Take care of each other. Value your family. Value your community. Be honest.
Christian or not, I think that the vast majority of people would agree that the vast majority of our instructions as Christians basically boil down to: be a good person.
So why do we think God cares if you have a loving relationship with someone of the same sex rather than with someone of the opposite sex? It doesn't hurt anyone. It has nothing to do with being a good person.
Yes, I know it is in the Bible. But the Bible says lots of things we ignore like how women should wear skirts all the time and get out of the house when she has her period and how we shouldn't wear clothes of mixed fibers. Or getting tattoos.
I believe that there are a subset of rules in the Bible that were the cultural norms of the day that have no application to life in the 21st century. My personal relationship with God leads me to believe that I should take the spirit of his Word in the Bible (the "be a good person" bits) and ignore the parts that make no sense. He gave me a damn fine brain and I think he wants me to use it, personally.
-
@yoursilverlining: I actually took one quick foray into that realm a while ago. Totally fascinating stuff!!!
I shoul figure out where you live at some point because if I'm ever there for business, I want to have coffee or dinner with you!
-
@Mae: I pretty much
everything you said.
-
@mrs. bird: I personally believe it is a mix of the two, not one or the other. I believe that we were created in God's image but then Adam and Eve brought sin into the world and since then we have been born with sinful tendencies and what you do from there with that is choice.
-
@Mae: I agree with this.
There are many biblical statements that are just no longer applicable in our society. I see religion as a way to be the best person you can be with no hatred or resent towards anyone. If things were not taken so literal, we would have less hate it the world. I believe showing resentment towards another human being is completely contradictory to what religion is supposed to teach us.IMO Accept others for who they are, the 'choices' they make and support those who need it most. If it doesnt affect your life directly, than leave it alone.
-
@Lindsay05: . "I believe showing resentment towards another human being is completely contradictory to what religion is supposed to teach us."
And this is is exactly where things have gone so wrong. If you (speaking as a general you) are a Christian you should not be hateful or resentful towards anyone! From a Christian perspective a resentful or hateful Christian is more in the wrong than a homosexual!
-
@cyndistar3: that is what I hear a lot of Christians say but their actions show otherwise. But that is what I see, and I am not saying anyone here is like that
-
@Mrs. Jacks: Aw, thanks!!
I'm in the far reaches of northern New England, but if you're ever in Boston or north of - I'd love to get together!!
-
@yoursilverlining: Coming to Boston in November!
-
I got several questions in response to my last post, so I am going to try to answer them all in one shot. This will invariably be kind of long, because I'm kind of verbose.
Also, I'm going to quote C.S. Lewis on the subject of sex, which I realize has a faint whiff of talking to your grandpa about the birds and the bees. (Shudder.) But anyhow, here goes:To boil this down to its essence, I understand that the view that someone who is gay should not have sex with another person of the same sex is highly problematic to many people. Christians who express this unpopular view seem to be generally looked upon as gravely misinformed, or worse. It does not seem fair under modern notions of justice that anyone should be denied a sexual relationship with a person they love. What I think is missing from many discussions like this is an understanding that, in Christianity, everyone is supposed to be chaste. It is a universal virtue and it applies to married heterosexual couples too. I think it is important to understand that Christianity does not single out people who are gay in this respect. Christianity has a lot of teachings that are really hard for modern man to follow, but just because something is hard does not mean it isn't the right thing to do.
I want to be very clear that what we're talking about is sex, not a relationship. This thread's question, as I understand it, essentially asks whether you would be bothered by your child being in a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner.
What Christianity tries to teach is a way to live that puts you in a disposition to be unified with God because that is the only true happiness. The problem that confronts humans is that we are not purely spiritual beings, we are also physical ones, and sexuality is a deep part of that aspect of humans. At a basic level, sex is necessary for reproduction.
Where our society gets caught up is that we take for granted that the ultimate happiness is essentially material. But for the spiritual life, the ultimate happiness is to be in union with God. Indulge me for a second while I quote from C.S. Lewis: "The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water."
Christianity does not teach that sexuality is bad. It is fundamental to creation, and it has an important role to play in the bond between man and woman, which is a relationship that Christianity sanctifies in the sacrament of marriage. The risk with sexuality, as with all worldly things, is that you might begin to believe that it is the ultimate source of happiness. Every Christian is called to avoid such traps. The traps may not look the same for everyone.
Christianity does not say that a gay person needs to deny who they are and live life pretending that they aren't gay. But that person's path to true happiness is going to look different than that of a heterosexual married woman. More Lewis, because I think he makes a very good point here: "For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and 'nature', but between Christian principles and other principles in control of 'nature'. For 'nature' (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards obeying the others." I bolded that part because if you read nothing else in this post, I want you to read that.
I think it's important to note that sins of the flesh, while certainly damaging to one's soul, seem to be among the least bad of all sins. To be sure, Christianity talks about sins of the flesh and counsels that they are to be avoided, but they are far from the sole, or even principal, emphasis with respect to sin. I think they get a lot of attention because they tend to be bright-line rules. However, Christian history is replete with saints who committed sins of the flesh (among other sins) and still managed to set themselves on the right path. It is critical to remember in these discussions that the defining characteristic of God is His capacity for forgiveness. Critics of the Christian point of view on gay marriage like to point out that the Bible doesn't even mention homosexual activity all that often. But what is often missing in that point is that when it is mentioned, it's mentioned in conjunction with--and on equal footing as--sins that are committed by heterosexuals as well. The point here is that the Bible does not spend a lot of time counseling Christians on who they can and cannot have sex with because it has a much broader message than that.
I want to strongly recommend Lewis's "Mere Christianity" to anyone who is interested in a more thorough discussion of what Christians believe. He has a chapter on sexual morality that is worth checking out in relation to this thread, but I like all of his lectures because they are readable and concise without being reductionist. That book is where all the Lewis quotes came from. I'll give you some links to it at the end.
What I want to end with, though, is a point he makes that I think is important for everyone to understand: "[T]he Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in ... dismay ... and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay." I know what it is like to be deeply uncomfortable with the teachings of Christianity, and, to borrow Lewis's opening analogy, to be waiting in the hall, trying to figure out which door to knock on. Christianity necessarily puts us in an uncomfortable position, it doesn't fit well with many ideas or precepts that we've been taught by modern society, and it often isn't a simple matter to follow. Even Christians who believe fervently stumble frequently. But that does not mean that Christianity does not offer the truth.
To answer the question the post asks: I see no conflict at all between being gay and being truly happy.
Now, quit reading me and go read Lewis, please.
1) Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926
2) Full text online (although OCRed...): http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt
-
So if sex is for reproductive purposes and marriage is between men and women in order to procreate and God does not make mistakes, where does that leave married couples (couples being a man and a woman) who can not reproduce? Are they to remain celibate and not seek medical intervention? What about couples that use birth control and aim to remain child free?
I realize this is not the topic of the thread, but it is certainly related and I've tried to get answers to this before but ended up killing the thread.
-
@looch: You haven't gotten answers to that question before because there aren't any easy defensible answers . . . the logic just doesn't track. However, I too would be interested in seeing someone take a crack at that.
-
@MsLipGloss: Ditto
-
@looch: I think there is a big difference between to the new and old testament. DH always reminds me the old testament God destroyed the earth several times because He was mad. HEe required sacrifices and unleashed plagues on people he despised. The New Testament embodiment of God, everyone's friend Christ, is accepting and sought society's outcasts and throwaways. I think there are just so many mixed messages within the text. Certainly you can be gay and created in God's image yet in the same book we read gay is unholy.
I wonder about the God makes no mistakes concept when we see monsters walk the Earth hurting, killing and exploiting others. Why would He create these people? Faithful friends will tell me its the devil at work. Then, I am lost again.
-
@looch: @MsLipGloss: Are you both starting from the position that God exists? I have no intention of that question being inflammatory, so please don't take offense--I just want to understand what common ground we have to start from. I wrote that dissertation above because I feel that having discussions about this sort of issue in isolation from the rest of Christianity is not very fruitful. Christianity is highly logical when taken as a whole, but I find it problematic when we try to pull 'rules' out of that context. Also, the theology of the body is rather complex (Exhibit A: JPII's book on the subject, which runs 768 pages!). I'm happy to try to explain things as I understand them, but 1) I'll probably need a few days because I've got other stuff to attend to, and 2) I want to locate some texts that you might find interesting. Sound like a deal?
-
@honeybear: For me, I don't believe in god. And your posts have created the same sort of inconsistent response others have presented in this (and similar) threads. For one example, you have stated that it is "problematic" to try to pull rules out of Christianity "in isolation from the rest of Christianity" (a loose paraphrase of your most recent response . . . for whatever that means), yet you stated in an earlier post that "Christianity talks about sins of the flesh and counsels that they are to be avoided . . . I think they get a lot of attention because they tend to be bright-line rules." So, it's either "problematic" to pull rules from the Bible regarding sins of the flesh or the Bible presents "bright line rules" regarding sins of the flesh. It can't be both.
The circular logic presented in this (and other threads) is breathtaking.
-
@MsLipGloss: Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)I wouldn't call a contradiction "circular logic," however.
And I don't really think I contradicted myself, either. I made the offer to explain in good faith. If you are genuinely curious as to what Christians believe, then I am willing to assist to the extent I am able.
-
@honeybear: It is circular to the extent that you start where you want to end up, i.e., in one instance, Christianity provides bright line rules regarding sins of the flesh, and in another instance, it is problematic to pull rules of out Christianity. That is--by definition--circular logic. It also contradictory. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Frankly, I am not interested as to what "Christians" believe because I don't think there is a consensus in that regard (Christian is a vague label to place on a large group of people). If you would like to share your view of what the Bible says with regard to homosexuality, I am all ears (or, in this case, eyes).
-
@MsLipGloss: There is no inherent contradiction in the posts you reference.
It often occurs that we take individual parts out of a whole and talk about them in that outside context. Sometimes that makes sense to do. I said in the case of certain rules that I thought that practice lead to confusion sometimes. There is certainly no contradiction between that position and the statement that I would rather consider a topic as part of its original context. Specifically, I would rather consider the Christian perspective on a specific issue in the context of a more universal Christian worldview. There is no contradiction in that in this case or even more generally.
For example, just because you can identify different parts of a system doesn't mean that those parts do not form a whole and that although you might study the parts separately someone might reasonably state they are more profitably studied in the context of the whole. We distinguish organs in the body. There is no problem with saying "In this instance, I prefer to study the human brain as it is connected with the body, rather than severed, but I still want to study the brain."
It could very well be the case that to interpret correctly a bright-line rule, you must refer to its relationship to a whole. This is true in every intellectual discipline, including math, science, and the law. Very often a proper understanding of a part is only reached through a full consideration of its relationship in connection to the whole which embodies that part.
I am afraid that I have written a lot because I don't have time to write a short response.
-
@honeybear: that sounds fine, I am interested to hear what you have to report on the topic.
Personally, I am not sure if I believe in God, or a god, but for these purposes, let's assume that God exists.
-
@looch: Okay, I'll be back (a lot later, I've seriously got to go now!).
-
@honeybear: The fact that you don't see the disconnect is the problem. I have asked you to reconcile sins of the flesh (the *brain* if you will) within the context of Christianity (the *body*) to clear up the contradiction you presented (by and through your earlier posts) so as to determine your actual stance. Currently, it appears that you don't really have one.
More plainly, I am asking you whether you believe (1) that Christianity provides bright line rules for sins of the flesh, or (2) that Christianity doesn't provide bright line rules for sins of the flesh. It's that simple and straight forward.
"It could very well be the case that to interpret correctly a bright-line rule, you must refer to its relationship to a whole . . ." Bright line rules are just that - rules. They can be exceptions to that whole, or they can be tenets of the whole. Anyone who regularly works with bright line rules would recognize that.
My only problem with your position is that it is no position . . . fluidity is a great way to hedge your bet in the face of opposition.
-
@MsLipGloss: I have a major girl crush on you right now.
I'm very torn/undecided on the front of God / Religion and the way you are explaining your views and the questions you are asking of those that are set in stone on 'god's word' are exactly the types of questions I'd ask.
I do not agree at all that it's okay to say people aren't born Gay but that it's the act of being Gay that's the sin....seriously? That's just the same as expecting them to pretend the rest of their lives to be something they are not.
I agree that if there is a God it is not one that damns those that are different. The idea is that God created all of man kind....and that God makes no mistakes....therefore, Gay men/women are not wrong for who they are. They were created with love by the one you call God.
You can't have it both ways. It can't be a sin and then also be a loving and all knowing God that makes no mistakes. -
@Glitter: Based on your comment about attending the marriage of a homosexual child, I was wondering if you would or have ever attended a marriage of an atheist or someone of a different religion. I don't see a difference between the two.
-
@TemperanceBrennan: yes I attended a Hindu wedding once and speak from experience. It was uncomfortable for me and unfair to the bride and groom because I truly did not agree with the proceedings. I told DH right after (who opted not to attend) that I didn't wish to experience that again.
-
@Glitter: Ok, that helps. So I assume you would politely decline an invitation to another wedding of someone of a different faith since it made you so uncomfortable?
I really don't mean to pry, so please don't answer if you don't want to, but how do you feel about attending a Christian wedding of a heterosexual couple in the United Church or Christ Church? The teachings of UCC Christianity seems in stark contrast to your beliefs.
-
@TemperanceBrennan: I believe I would and most people who would invite me to a wedding (close friends and family) know my beliefs and would understand my choice. I have sat out other events like certain bachelorette parties etc for similar reasons so by now my stance is pretty much known.
I'm not sure if it is due to my geographic location (I live in the Caribbean) but I have never heard of UCC. I will have to research that. But to answer your question on limited knowledge, even if a person or religion falls under the umbrella of "Christianity", if their practices do not line up with God's word I would not consider us of the same faith.
-
@honeybear: And as an aside, if you're going to quote Whitman (do I contradict myself . . . I contain multitudes), you should properly credit him.
-
@Glitter: I guess I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line. You seem consistent and really applaud you for that, even though I very much disagree with how you interpret following God's word.
-
@Glitter: or maybe better to say YOUR interpretation of God's word... as many, many other Christians interpret "God's word" differently than you and your cohort do. Who is to say which interpretation is more "correct", I wonder? Is someone else's relationship with the Christian God less valid because the interpretation provided by their Christian leaders is different than yours?
Also I wanted to add some Christian voices on interpretation around passages discussing homosexuality:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-homosexuality-many-christians-get-the-bible-wrong/2013/02/13/2443d062-761f-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_blog.htmlhttp://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/
-
@honeybear: @MsLipGloss: BTW, for the record, Walt Whitman was gay
everything you said.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
244 comments