The Old Testament as Source

[BOSSHOG]

One could call me an enemy of today's Christian Evangelicals in America. I find their disdain of our constitution appalling but I do have a serious question which so far I haven't gotten an explanation. Christians cite the old testament to justify their "hate" of homosexuals so why don't they stone people to death who work on the sabbath which they are instructed to do so in the Old Testament? To me this is blatant hypocrisy. Christians just pick and choose in the bible the passages which justify their beliefs and ignore those that might be a little messy?? And I do not accept the notion that they hate the sin, love the sinner. That is trite garbage and if that were true why would they attempt to codify their "hate?"

Today's "christians" have run me out of the church. I was born Catholic, was an Altar Boy and contemplated the Priesthood along time ago. But I quit going to mass years ago because all I heard from the pulpit was what group I was supposed to hate that week.

I know there are caring, loving, real life Christians out there but they aren't the squeaky wheel, they just quietly go about their lives doing what Jesus would do.

[dsc]

1. They also cite Paul

and do so more often. Clearly they are hypocritical to cite Leviticus at all, since Jesus makes clear that it no longer applies but to be fair the Pauline texts also are fairly clearly anti gay as they have been translated.

[BOSSHOG]

3. But Paul

does not refer to homosexuality as an "abomination." The word that fires up the loins of the congregations.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. as they are translated and interpreted

I checked out one whole chapter in Corinthians after an anti-gay Christian quoted one verse to "prove" that homosexuality was wrong. Interestingly enough, the whole chapter was about sex in general, and how focusing on matters of a sexual nature took your thoughts away from God. There were more references to prostitutes than anything else, and the one verse the person cited, when taken in contex, appeared to me to be talking about any form of sexuality.

I get the idea that many of the anti-gay Christians don't really study the Bible carefully on their own, but simply take the words of their ministers, especially when those words reinforce prejudices.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. the beauty about their hypocricy is their ability to pick and choose the parts

they want to follow.

I proudly count myself as an enemy of the ultra-evangelicals. I think what they do to their kids constitutes child abuse. By training them to ignore rational thinking and rely only on faith, they destroy their futures in the formative ages. But, that is their stated goal, when you think about it.

Did you see the video of the cut out of the president, and hundreds of kids praying to him? Those folks are self-delusional to a degree that I find scary.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Do evangelicals

have a handy-dandy response to my query about picking and choosing? The fews times I've approached anyone on the subject they start gibberish nonsense, which, as you say is irrational.

When I was in the Navy I couldn't pick and choose in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to maintain good order and discipline. Wow, that makes sense huh?

[LiberalFighter]

5. Apparently bushwad could pick and choose when he was in the NG

[BOSSHOG]

6. Yeah

If you guys are gonna start testing us Jet Pilots for drug abuse I'll just take my legacy and disappear.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. As near as I've been able to determine, the usual response is....

something that translates to..."Well, that particular rule doesn't apply anymore because Jesus freed us from the old levitical rules....unless of course it's something I find personally distasteful or I am a bigot about, then that rule is strictly upheld".

[The Blue Flower]

7. Dear Dr. Laura (oldie but goodie)

Don't know who wrote this, but I've been saving it:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1 ). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21 . In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[BOSSHOG]

10. I recall a West Wing Episode

where the president went ballistic with some evangelicals in the white house asking similar questions. This would not be a significant issue if they did not wield a modicum of power over some of our politicians.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Ever count up how many times the Bible mentions homosexuality?

Anyone ever count up how many times the Bible mentions homosexuality against, say... how many times Jesus mentions the poor?

The last time you heard a Christian going ballistic over an issue, was it over gays, or was it over poverty?

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi

Happy Easter, everyone.

[StoryTeller]

11. Evangelicals and the Old Testament

I'm theologically an evangelical, which does not have much to do with my political leanings, which are quite liberal. That said, I've been raised in an evangelical environment and understand the culture very well. The evangelical attitude toward homosexuality troubles me deeply. From a scripture standpoint, (which, as an evangelical, still matters greatly to me) I don't yet have an answer I'm comfortable with that deals with the scant verses that talk about homosexuality. So I'm not responding directly to that.

But, to answer your question about how evangelicals decide which parts of the Torah are "applicable" to us today, the majority of evangelical Christians view the OT laws as moral guidance. In other words, the idea behind all the laws that talk about sex is basically "avoid sexual immorality." Jesus himself set this tone when he said that all the laws and the prophets could be summed up by "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself." So the focus is on the moral concept behind the law, and not the penalty for breaking that particular law. That's why when you use the West Wing rant, evangelicals will look at you as if you're really weird. NORMAL evangelicals (I'm not talking about the crazy fundies) don't believe that homosexuals should be killed or that adulterers should be stoned, etc. But they do believe that the moral principles behind those laws should still be honored and acted on.

The other consideration that a lot of non-evangelicals don't understand is that evangelicals distinguish between laws that uphold ritual purity and laws that are there to uphold moral conduct. Ritual purity deals with things like dietary laws, isolating menstruating women or others who are bleeding or have a discharge, wearing two different kinds of fabrics, etc. All those things had meaning in the Hebrew cultic worship and rituals. These are the things that you see early Christian leaders wrestling with in the New Testament--whether or not Gentiles (or even Jews) who were followers of Christ needed to follow these laws. Eventually, the consensus became no for Gentiles, and the door was left open for Jews to disregard as well. But the New Testament leaders still uphold the moral principles behind the laws as being transcendent of time and culture.

You CAN find certain groups of evangelicals who DO try to follow all the OT laws--though not necessarily all the punishments associated with breaking the laws. But this is not the mainstream.

I think that this particular charge of hypocrisy toward evangelicals is really weak and shows that the person lacks an understanding of Christian theology. There are a lot of stronger, better arguments you can use to confront evangelicals on their attitudes toward homosexuality.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Thanks for sharing the evangelical viewpoint

I'm curious as to what arguments you would use to confront evangelicals on their attitudes towards homosexuality.

[StoryTeller]

15. Arguments I'd use

Well, it depends on what particular attitude it is. I try not to get into theological debates because like I said in my other post, I still haven't read or heard anything on either side that fully addresses my own concerns about how those scriptures are being interpreted and how they fit into the larger Biblical ethic.

An author I recently read postulated that one of the reason the evangelical community has made homosexuality one of its big issues is because in their minds, it's a "sin" that can be pointed to outside their own community. Obviously, that's not reality, but it's how a lot of evangelicals would prefer to view their community. Railing about the evils of homosexuality, then, means they don't have to confront the issues in their own community. Things like divorce, affairs, addictions to pornography, and other behaviors that Christian theology or ethics would say is wrong. This is why you get the attitude from evangelicals that somehow homosexuality is the absolute worst sin a person could commit. It makes their own lives look a bit cleaner.

A good response to this is that if homosexuality is a sin, it is a sexual sin just like having sex outside marriage. It's just the same as having an affair, as far as its level of "sinfulness." Jesus even said that if a guy looks lustfully at another person, it's the same to God as if he had sex with her. I'd go so far as saying it's the same to God as if he'd raped her, since she had no choice in the matter. So the person sitting next to you in church, or even the evangelical you're arguing with--chances are quite good they've had lustful thoughts about someone or have at some point in time looked at pornography or something. According to Jesus, that is the same as actually having sex, because God looks at heart attitudes. So what difference, according to Jesus, is there between a homosexual and a straight deacon who has lustful thoughts about the young woman in the choir?

This helps confront the attitude that homosexuality is somehow "worse" than other things the church considers wrong. And you won't get hardly any evangelical man to protest that he's never lusted. The church assumes that if you're male, you can't help but lust. So this is a strong argument for this particular attitude because it exposes the lie that they're fighting against an evil that's outside the community. And you might go so far as to suggest that if evangelicals are so concerned about moral behavior, they clean up their own house first before pointing fingers elsewhere.

I know this isn't particularly helpful if you want to argue that homosexuality is not wrong. But you can't even get to that debate until you dismantle some of these other barriers. Evangelicals need to be taught to view homosexuals as PEOPLE first, not some scourge on moral society. And they need to be reminded that they need to "take out the log in their own eye before trying to remove the speck" in the other person's eye.

This is where I'd start, anyway.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. And an excellent argument it is,

especially equating homosexuality with other sins about sex. Because, I believe, an argument could be made that Paul was railing against all forms of sexual activity that kept the believer's mind off spiritual matters in that infamous chapter in Corintheans.

And you are spot on when you speak of shortcomings in the Christian community in regards to divorce, addictions, etc. When I was growing up, divorce was really frowned upon, as was smoking and drinking; in my mother's youth, they didn't play with cards (though a Rook deck was ok), and didn't go to dances either. For a woman to wear a pants suit was considered bad, as well. When one realizes how many of the churces now don't have problems with social drinking, playing cards, etc--no wonder they would like to look elsewhere when they talk about the changing morality in this nation!

[StoryTeller]

20. Thanks

I think that one of the major errors that the evangelical community has made--and that then gets perpetuated in how others view the community--is to believe that morality is tied primarily to behavior. And that if we get the behavior right, that this will somehow make us moral people.

That's where you get the prohibitions against dancing, drinking, wearing certain clothing styles, etc. Ironically, it's the same problem Jesus confronted in his own society. Jesus taught that morality starts and ends in the heart. And while these matters of the heart do affect a person's behaviors and choices, you can't create morality simply by enforcing certain behavior.

The other thing I wish evangelicals would remember is that morality grows out of a concern for others and love for God and humanity. I wouldn't cheat on my husband--I would consider that terribly immoral. But the reason I won't do it isn't because I don't want to "sin." The reason I won't do it is because it would hurt someone I love more than my own life. And when you peel back the moral ethics in the Bible, you will always find that they are based on love and God's desire for people to treat each other in ways that are kind, beneficial, and not harmful--either to themselves or each other.

[dsc]

17. This isn't meant to be a flippant question

If you had a kid who turned out to be gay would you take him or her to be cured? It seems that is the logical extention of believing being gay is a sin.

[StoryTeller]

18. Me, personally?

No. I wouldn't. I'm not convinced those programs do much good, and I strongly suspect there's a lot of harm done. I can't say for certain what I WOULD do, other than keep on being the most loving mom I know how to be, but my focus would be on how I could best support and care for my daughter and not on trying to cure her of something our church community finds distasteful.

[dsc]

19. Then wouldn't you be condemning her soul?

I don't see how anyone who honestly believes homosexuality is a sin can possibly not want to prevent one's child from that life.

[StoryTeller]

21. No one can condemn another person's soul.

Honestly, when it comes to homosexuality, I can't say at this point whether or not I consider it to be a sin. I don't know. I do know that because it's not something that is a factor in my own life, I don't feel a huge drive to come to a conclusion about it. My decision doesn't really matter. What will I do once I decide whether or not I think it's a sin? Tell someone else? And they'll care what I think...why? :)

If it is a sin, just simply a matter of personal choice, then the Christian faith already has a solution to that. We don't need special programs--there are no such things as "special sins." :)

If it's, as some evangelicals say, a result of other emotional or psychological problems, then why not identify those problems and work through them to help the person become healthy and not worry about whether or not the sexual orientation changes? If this theory is right, then sexual orientation should change on its own as a result of the counseling. If not, then the theory is wrong, but at least now the person is hopefully emotionally healthier, even if they are still gay. Either way, we already have counselors and therapists. We don't need a special program.

If it's a biological facet of a person's being, then why even attempt to change it? And in that case, it makes no sense to say that God considers it a sin. Obviously, in this case, a program is not only useless but irrelevant.

I lean toward one of the last two scenarios--or a combination of them. But I don't know. And I figure that it really isn't my particular business to try to issue some final word on the matter. It doesn't change a thing about how I intend to love and show respect and kindness to people who enter my life.

But with sin in general, I can't prevent my children from doing things that are wrong. Heck, I can't always keep myself from doing things I know are wrong! :) If my daughters were involved in self-destructive behavior, I'd certainly do everything I could to prevent them from continuing to hurt themselves. And though as a Christian, I believe that sin is harmful--even if you don't see the harmful effects--I also can distinguish between something that is imminently dangerous (such as drinking and driving) and something that is not (such as premarital sex). So no--I don't try to "keep" my kids from sinning. And I don't believe that letting them live their lives and make their own mistakes is condemning their souls.

I see my job as a parent to be teaching them, loving them, guiding them, protecting them, and doing what I can to equip them emotionally, mentally, and spiritually to be healthy, functioning adults who can accomplish whatever they decide to do in life. But as a Christian parent, I also believe that ultimately who they are and what they do with their lives is between them and God. So the other big part of my job is to hold them with an open hand and remember that God loves them ever so much more than even I do.

[dsc]

22. that is a fair answer

I can see your point on that. I actually considered one of those cure programs when I was in college but my insurance wouldn't pay for it. Instead they paid for counseling which helped my alot.

[StoryTeller]

23. Thanks.

There's a special author appearance at a local bookstore in my city April 12--Wayne Besen, author of ANYTHING BUT STRAIGHT: UNMASKING THE SCANDALS AND LIES BEHIND THE EX-GAY MYTH. I'm thinking of attending because I'm interested in what he has to say on the subject. His appearance coincides with a Focus-on-the-Family ex-gay conference or something that's coming here to Omaha around the same time. I have no interest in attending that or listening to it, because I have no respect or admiration or trust for Dobson and his organization. I would like to hear the other side of the story, though.

I know a couple of Christians who have been through what I suppose are either "ex-gay" programs or a variant thereof. Both these people have spouses and seem to be very content in a heterosexual existence. I'm only close friends with one of them, and I'm hesitant to ask her too much about all that because even though she doesn't act like it's a big secret, I just don't want to pry into something that personal. But I do wish I could find out what her opinion is. The one time I did ask a little bit, she didn't say a lot about her own experience. Just gave me a stack of Christian ex-gay books that she owns. I didn't know what to think about that.

[BOSSHOG]

24. Maybe an understanding of christian theology

has absolutely nothing to do with the hypocrisy of evangelicals. We read the bible and hate homosexuals because of it. We also read other stuff in the bible and totally ignore that stuff. Weak argument?

I'm also amazed this Easter Weekend at men having themselves tied to crosses. Tied? Why not nailed? I ask again why do christians not stone to death people who work on the sabbath and yet continue to preach that homosexuality is an abomination? Its black and white, in the old testament. What am I failing to understand?

Actually I could not possibly care less what evangelicals think but when they want to start altering our constitution with their beliefs that's when they catch my attention.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. In my confirmation class

we were told that Jesus brought a New Covenant, and so Christians were not subject to the laws of Moses and the Old Testament--only the Two Commandments of Jesus. Later, when I read a history of the early church in a book called "Those Incredible Christians" I found that there was a controversy in the early church as to what laws were to be followed-the followers of James, I believe, felt that the Jewish laws were to be observed, while Paul said no, thus opening the sect up to pagan converts. It seems that the interpretation of what it means to be a Christian has varied, depending upon the ideas of the leaders of different groups, since the time of the founding of the religion.

And you're right about real life Christians. Somehow you don't have to ask them if they are a believer--their actions and their Light tells you.