"Being Gay is a Gift from God"

[Witch9]

hmm . . . I never considered being gay as an addiction

 

[Meishere]

hmm . . . I never considered being gay as an addiction

Does obsession work better for ya?

 

[Witch9]

Does obsession work better for ya?

not in the least :rainbow1:

 

[darkendless]

So why does society condemn addicts and give homosexuals a free pass when they have a genetic tendency to be one from birth as well?

Homosexuality is genetic. Drug addiction is people who are just fundamentally useless.

 

[Skwim]

Christian directive serves only the purpose of pointing the common life toward God. That's why one "renders to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why the shift took place when Xy moved to the Gentile world. The Gentile Xians were not under the Mosaic Law -- they didn't have to be circumcised -- didn't fit their cultural life.

Hey, if you can't answer my questions just say so. No need to bother posting irrelevancies.

 

[sojourner]

Hey, if you can't answer my questions just say so. No need to bother posting irrelevancies.

??? You asked:

So what's the criterion for deciding a Biblical directive, commandment, law, or whatever is no longer justified? Does the validity of religious laws and such stand at the whim of cultural norms?

My answer was that Christian directives are only useful inasmuch as they point our common life toward God. If a directive doesn't serve the cultural expression, it is no good.

How isn't that an answer??? How is that irrelevant???

 

[Skwim]

??? You asked:

My answer was that Christian directives are only useful inasmuch as they point our common life toward God. If a directive doesn't serve the cultural expression, it is no good.

How isn't that an answer???

Perhaps it's your wording. In any case, I still fail to see how your "Christian directive serves only the purpose of pointing the common life toward God" relates to the approval of slave ownership. Does owning slaves and being a slave point the common life toward God? If so, why should this change just because a culture no longer condones slavery?

Moreover, the fact remains that the Bible approved of a social construct that is now regarded as inhumane. We look on all slavery, not just that taking place in relatively recent years, but slavery at any time in history as a violation of basic human rights. It's wrong now and it was wrong back then. Was it necessary to enslave people just to point the common life toward God?

How is that irrelevant???

Your

" That's why one "renders to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why the shift took place when Xy moved to the Gentile world. The Gentile Xians were not under the Mosaic Law -- they didn't have to be circumcised -- didn't fit their cultural life."

​

doesn't address any points I brought up.

 

[*Anne*]

So why does society condemn addicts and give homosexuals a free pass when they have a genetic tendency to be one from birth as well?

This assumes being gay is equivalent to being a drug addict.

Being gay is a sexual preference that does absolutely no harm, just like heterosexuality is a sexual preference that does no harm.

Neither of these compare well to being a drug addict. Unless, of course, one stubbornly believes that being gay is a lifestyle choice.

 

[gnomon]

So why does society condemn addicts and give homosexuals a free pass when they have a genetic tendency to be one from birth as well?

Since when have homosexuals been given a free pass for anything? There are still some societies that will kill you for being homosexual.

Neither homosexuality or addiction are genetic as commonly understood by the term. There is no gay gene or addiction gene. Human sexuality is most likely determined by hormonal development as early as in utero development and possibly genetic factors.

Addiction. It's largely a self-diagnosed condition. The term addiction didn't originate with a negative connotation. It was only as alcohol prohibition started that addiction became a "disease".

edit: I see no valid comparison between human sexual development and addiction.

 

[sojourner]

[Perhaps it's your wording. In any case, I still fail to see how your "Christian directive serves only the purpose of pointing the common life toward God" relates to the approval of slave ownership. Does owning slaves and being a slave point the common life toward God? If so, why should this change just because a culture no longer condones slavery?

Moreover, the fact remains that the Bible approved of a social construct that is now regarded as inhumane. We look on all slavery, not just that taking place in relatively recent years, but slavery at any time in history as a violation of basic human rights. It's wrong now and it was wrong back then. Was it necessary to enslave people just to point the common life toward God? /QUOTE]
Yes, it was wrong, but we have to look at two things: First of all, religious directive is as much a construct of humanity as it is Divinity. At least in the Judeo-Xian tradition, Divinity works through humanity -- not beyond it. Second, in that particular society, slavery was a "necessary evil," in that the wealthy owned slaves and so could provide for the daily needs for which the slaves were unequipped to provide for themselves. And a slave then wasn't the same thing as a slave in 18th-19th century America. Slavery was more commonly debt-slavery. In repayment of their debt, they went to work for the lender for a proscribed length of time. And upon being freed, the owner had to give them food and stuff enough to live on.

So, the social construct wasn't nearly as inhumane as you're making it out to be. In our society, we don't have debt-slaves. And everyone is better equipped to make it on their own. Since we don't have slaves, any implied condoning of such slavery is no longer necessary. In a society where slavery is prevalent, the Biblical directives mitigate the slavery by imposing humane standards for their treatment, thus turning the societal act toward God.

Your

" That's why one "renders to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why the shift took place when Xy moved to the Gentile world. The Gentile Xians were not under the Mosaic Law -- they didn't have to be circumcised -- didn't fit their cultural life."

​

doesn't address any points I brought up.

Of course it does. You asked about the relevance of Biblical directive. An example of Biblical directive being relevant is the directive for circumcision. In a culture where circumcision is not socially-relevant, the directive no longer applies. As is also the case with directives against homosexuality. Since those directives are part of the purity code (which does not apply in this society), they also do not apply here as they did in ancient Israel.

 

[darkendless]

Since when have homosexuals been given a free pass for anything? There are still some societies that will kill you for being homosexual.

Funnily its usually the more religious a society is, the more of a threat you're under being a homosexual. Quite scary really that in this day and age people have to fear for their safety because of religious influence.

Then again I have completely fogotten about people who are just plain homophobes. Well thats just sad. They're probably closet gays who are too scared to admit it.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, it was wrong, but we have to look at two things: First of all, religious directive is as much a construct of humanity as it is Divinity. At least in the Judeo-Xian tradition, Divinity works through humanity -- not beyond it.

I don't know what stock you put in the Bible, but most Christians regard it as inspired, if not written, by god, and comes with his imprimatur. Therefore I suspect they're disinclined to regard it as the notions of mere men. So while I think I understand what you're saying, I don't believe it's at all representative of many Christians.

Second, in that particular society, slavery was a "necessary evil," in that the wealthy owned slaves and so could provide for the daily needs for which the slaves were unequipped to provide for themselves.

B.S.

And a slave then wasn't the same thing as a slave in 18th-19th century America. Slavery was more commonly debt-slavery. In repayment of their debt, they went to work for the lender for a proscribed length of time. And upon being freed, the owner had to give them food and stuff enough to live on.

While there are certainly different forms of slavery, the truth is, a slave is a slave is a slave. But go ahead and prevaricate all you want.

So, the social construct wasn't nearly as inhumane as you're making it out to be.

I didn't make it out to be anything other than that: Inhumane.

In our society, we don't have debt-slaves. And everyone is better equipped to make it on their own.
Since we don't have slaves, any implied condoning of such slavery is no longer necessary.

Irrelevant. Irrelevant.

In a society where slavery is prevalent, the Biblical directives mitigate the slavery by imposing humane standards for their treatment, thus turning the societal act toward God.

Jees! Apologetics like this are down right nauserating .

You asked about the relevance of Biblical directive.

No. I questioned the relevance of your remarks:

"That's why one "renders to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why the shift took place when Xy moved to the Gentile world. The Gentile Xians were not under the Mosaic Law -- they didn't have to be circumcised -- didn't fit their cultural life."

​

I've had about enough of our dialog here, so have the last word if you wish.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know what stock you put in the Bible, but most Christians regard it as inspired, if not written, by god, and comes with his imprimatur. Therefore I suspect they're disinclined to regard it as the notions of mere men. So while I think I understand what you're saying, I don't believe it's at all representative of many Christians.

More than you may think! Nonetheless, it is what it is, regardless of what even most believe it to be. Just because most people thought the earth was flat at one time didn't mean it was flat...

B.S.

B.S. yourself. What makes you an expert in ancient Judaic culture?

While there are certainly different forms of slavery, the truth is, a slave is a slave is a slave. But go ahead and prevaricate all you want.

You try to come off as if you're so liberal and worldly. Yet you see things in black and white. The world just don't work that way. You'd do well to shed your idealism and see the world the way it is -- with lots of shades of grey. A slave is not a slave is not a slave is not a slave. There is a WORLDE of difference between the plight of an ancient debt-slave and a 19th-century American slave. And a difference between that and a modern white slave.

I didn't make it out to be anything other than that: Inhumane.

To what degree? And is that inhumanity worse than the inhumanity of starving a family to death? I'd be willing to bet that you'd have kept Terri Shiavo alive, too.

Irrelevant. Irrelevant.

Hey, you're the one who brought up slavery in a gay thread. Where's the relevance there?

Jees! Apologetics like this are down right nauserating .

Watching you barf might be entertaining.

I've had about enough of our dialog here, so have the last word if you wish.

Fine, Popeye.

 

[waitasec]

i must interject sojourner,
you claim a slave then isn't the same as in 'a more commonly debt-slavery'...but what about the human trafficking that was involved? the selling of a slaves children and the fact non jewish slaves were slaves for life?

 

[blackout]

How about this approach?

"God created EVERYONE to Love and be Loved."
GLBT Welcomed in our congregation, as you are."

Much more wordy though.

 

[sojourner]

i must interject sojourner,
you claim a slave then isn't the same as in 'a more commonly debt-slavery'...but what about the human trafficking that was involved? the selling of a slaves children and the fact non jewish slaves were slaves for life?

That doesn't change the fact that at least the biblical directives are mitigatory and not punitive. It also doesn't change the fact that the acceptance of slavery as a cultural norm is not the same as the condemnation of homosexuality as a cultural abberation. It also doesn't change the fact that the two have nothing to do with each other. Nor does it change the fact that those directives that are no longer culturally relevant are dismissed.

 

[gnomon]

How about this approach?

"God created EVERYONE to Love and be Loved."
GLBT Welcomed in our congregation, as you are."

Much more wordy though.

It's better but there's a major flaw.

It doesn't leave an out to scapegoat a particular group when things are not going you're way. Of course, the majority of Americans live great lives but we still find something to whine about and blame it on certain groups. Pat Robertson lives like a prince yet finds time to blame a hurricane or two on a two men touching each others penis.

 

[waitasec]

That doesn't change the fact that at least the biblical directives are mitigatory and not punitive. It also doesn't change the fact that the acceptance of slavery as a cultural norm is not the same as the condemnation of homosexuality as a cultural abberation. It also doesn't change the fact that the two have nothing to do with each other. Nor does it change the fact that those directives that are no longer culturally relevant are dismissed.

hold on, i didn't say anything about homosexuality.

human trafficking was condoned...meaning human life was based on monetary compensation and the god of the OT thought that to be acceptable...that, or he was too afraid to object to the cultural norm .



edit:
i just realized this was derailing the thread...you can PM me...

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

well as i said before homosexuality is a sin from a christian point of view,

so you dont necessarily expect anyone to agree with you or believe in this if they are not christians. am i reading that right?

 

[waitasec]

so you dont necessarily expect anyone to agree with you or believe in this if they are not christians. am i reading that right?

but that won't stop him from infringing on the inalienable rights of those that do not adhere to christian theocracy...