The Atheist Challenge

After the dominance and arrogance of the religious Right in the political sphere, are we surprised to see this kind of non-theistic response?

I say let the extremes of both sides duke it out in strongly worded, condescending rhetoric and publications, and once they've exhausted the public's tolerance for it, the tolerance of progressives and moderates from both the religious and non-religious spheres will find itself in high demand.

Maybe we should lock them in a room and see who walks out?

Seriously, I don't consider the two to be all that different. The religions may be different (I do consider atheism to be a form of religion), and even as Christianity has progressives and fundamentalists- I'm not at all surprised to read about fundamentalist atheists.

Indeed, fundamentalism seems to have infected most of the world's religions.

I've read some interesting comments about how fundamentalism comes about- one was that the, shall we say, less rich realize the system isn't working for them and they turn to fundamentalism, while the wealthy turn to different forms of excessive spirituality.

Hi Bob

The fundamentalist mindset is self righteousness, be it religious or atheist. In that sense it is just a reprise of the spiritual ailment Christ railed against--Pharisaism.

your friend
Keith

If you actually read these people (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett) what you will hear, as much as anything, is desperation and anxiety. Harris has said publicly that if something doesn't change, religious tribalism is going to unmake our world. He believes it.

Somewhere around 00.5% of Americans call themselves atheist. Somewhere around 40-50% take the Bible as the literally perfect word of God, deny the basic principles that govern the physical world around us, and seem to be indifferent to the core moral issues that most affect the suffering or well-being of their fellow humans. Yet many Christians spend their time fretting about the dangers of secularism.

I see it as a failing of the New Reformation that people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been driven to their dramatic rhetoric. If you read carefully, Harris's polemic, at least, is not actually a repudiation of faith but of beliefs without evidentiary basis. Lone voices within Christianity have said virtually the same thing (e.g. Rev. John Shelby Spong: Why Christianity Must Change or Die). But where are all the thoughtful Christians who are willing to speak passionately against fundamentalist teachings that so clearly violate the core attributes of Goodness and Truth?

If scholarly Christians would call bibliolatry what it is . . . if they were willing to state publicly and fiercely that Christianity isn't about personal exemption from some eternal torture that God has slated for the rest of the human race . . . , if they were willing to expose received superstitions for what they are and to denounce the pop culture narcissism that characterises Evangelicalism . . . , people like Dawkins and Harris would be quietly puttering in the genetics and neuroscience laboratories from which they have emerged.

Wow, Valerie! I don't remember your being here before but I sure do like what you have to say. My hard drive crashed on 12/23/06 and I just got back on line a few days ago so that's why I haven't been reading or posting anything for several weeks.

I read Sam Harris's book titled The End of Faith and I agree with him on at least one point. Harris asserts that religious fundamentalism from all quarters must end for the world to continue, to progress and to prevent humanity from anihilating itself. On the other hand, I disagree totally when Harris states that all wars are basically religious ones.

Note to Bob Bowers: Bob, please go to the site dioswva.org, click on Council, then on Processes and Programs, then on Saturday at Council, then on Workshops so you can look at the offerings. I'm taking the afternoon program #14 on Native Americans in the Episcopal Church. Here in the diocese we have a thriving mission to the native Monacan tribe and as I mentioned a few months ago, the first Monachan priest was ordained here last fall.

I just tried to post here and the site said, "DONE" but the post didn't appear. I'm trying again so what you see below may be a duplicate.

Here's what I believe I wrote:

Wow, Valerie! I don't remember seeing you here before but I like what you have to say. My hard drive crashed on 12/23/06 and I just came back on line a few days ago so that's why I haven't been reading or posting anything for the last few weeks.

I read Sam Harris's book titled The End of Faith and I agree with him on one point: religious fundamentalism from all quarters must end for the human race to continue, to progress and to prevent humanity from anihilating itself. On the other hand, I disagree totatally with Harris's assertion that all wars are basically religious ones.

Note to Bob Bowers: Bob, please go to the site dioswva.org and click on Council. Next Click on Processes and Programs, then on Saturday at Council and finally on Workshops. I'm taking afternoon offering #14 on Native Americans in the Episcopal Church. Our diocses has a thriving mission to the native Monacan people in Southwestern Virginia and as I mentioned a few months ago, the first Monacan priest was ordained here last fall.

Do Atheists Deny The Existence Of The Divine?
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-atheists-deny-existence-of-divine.html

Valerie,

What is Christianity about?
What happens to people when they die?

"Harris asserts that religious fundamentalism from all quarters must end for the world to continue, to progress and to prevent humanity from anihilating itself."

But what about his own aethistic fundamentalism?

"If scholarly Christians would call bibliolatry what it is . . . if they were willing to state publicly and fiercely that Christianity isn't about personal exemption from some eternal torture that God has slated for the rest of the human race . . . , if they were willing to expose received superstitions for what they are and to denounce the pop culture narcissism that characterises Evangelicalism . . . , people like Dawkins and Harris would be quietly puttering in the genetics and neuroscience laboratories from which they have emerged."

A lot of scholarly Christians and scholars of Christianity do these things, or similar things. But many don't do it particularly vocally, or are only now starting to really vocalize this and connect with others to create a stronger, more widespread message. I think that culturally, scholarly Christians and scholars of Christianity have simply been broadsided by funadmentalism as a popular movement, much as evolutionary biologists have been. To the experts and scholars, the critical flaws of fundamentalism are so apparent, its hard to take the movement seriously, and so the need to speak against it earlier was not apparent.

Hi valerie

I appreciate your comments, but I have a couple of quibbles with them. I thank you in advance for letting me respond.

YOU WROTE:
Somewhere around 00.5% of Americans call themselves atheist. Somewhere around 40-50% take the Bible as the literally perfect word of God, deny the basic principles that govern the physical world around us, and seem to be indifferent to the core moral issues that most affect the suffering or well-being of their fellow humans.

KEITH: I think you might be stereotyping a bit here. I don't think you are right that Biblical literalists deny the basis principles that govern the physical world around us. They (some of such folks) deny Darwinian Evolution, some deny the Big Bang, but they do not generally deny the basic laws of physics. They just deny that the impossibility of divine miraculous intervention IS one of the basic principles that govern the physical world, and they believe that scientists who ignore God's intervention have mistakenly interpreted the data to support (erroniously they say) evolutionary biology. I don't agree with then about evolution, but they are right that science cannot show divine miracles are impossible or even unlikely. You mention the need for evidence; I'll comment on that later.

And about the supposed moral indifference of the bible literalists? That's completely unfair. I know all kinds of conservative Christians--conservative both theologically and politically--who spend much of their time helping their neighbors in need, at homeless shelters, at Habitat for Humanity home sites, they are there for their neighbors who have suffered tragedies etc.

YOU CONTINUE:...IIf you read carefully, Harris's polemic, at least, is not actually a repudiation of faith but of beliefs without evidentiary basis...

KEITH: I think the disagreement is about the limited view some atheists have as to what COUNTS as evidence. Most people see the universe itself as evidence of God, those atheists don't agree. A Christian can see the way Christ has changed his life as evidence for Christianity. I am a Quaker and I consider my experience during prayer and worship as evidence for Christianity, but since it's not scientific evidence those atheists would object. The thing those atheists fail to recognize is that the way evidence is INTERPRETED is logically prior to the evidence itself, and it depends entirely on the pre-evidential suppositions one holds. The militant atheists seem rather self-righteous about their own presuppositions, very much like the CHRISTIAN fundamentalists are. They are identical twins who can't see their own faces.

YOU WROTE: Lone voices within Christianity have said virtually the same thing (e.g. Rev. John Shelby Spong: Why Christianity Must Change or Die). But where are all the thoughtful Christians who are willing to speak passionately against fundamentalist teachings that so clearly violate the core attributes of Goodness and Truth?

KEITH: I can name several. Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Jimmy Carter, RIck Warren, Gregory A Boyd, Billy Graham. I could go on and on. Lot's of people on this very website are on the rather long list of Christians who speak out against hateful misinterpretations of the gospel of Christ.

YOU WROTE: If scholarly Christians would call bibliolatry what it is . . . if they were willing to state publicly and fiercely that Christianity isn't about personal exemption from some eternal torture that God has slated for the rest of the human race . . . , if they were willing to expose received superstitions for what they are and to denounce the pop culture narcissism that characterises Evangelicalism . . . , people like Dawkins and Harris would be quietly puttering in the genetics and neuroscience laboratories from which they have emerged.

KEITH: I have to ask: do you think Christ really did rise from the grave, who we all desparately need for salvation from our sin? Is that one of the supposed superstitions you rail against? I am not being critical of you for believeing whatever it is that you believe, I just want to make sure I'm not attacking a strawman. I disagree strongly that such is superstition, and I disagree that believing such things leads to any kind of cultural narcissism. It seems to me that if all our deepest values are nothing more than chemistry, then making sure we feel good ourselves, the rest of the world be damned, is the highest possible value.

your friend
Keith

I'm surprised to find some agreement with anyone on here as I do with Keith in this recent post--I appreciate much that he said and how he said it.

I am one of those who presupposes the creation and ID scientists are correct in some of their interpretations of findings --in their skepticism of orthodox darwinian interpretations. They presuppose creation by a Divine Creator/Designer and they see evidence everywhere. The orthodox atheistic Evolution believers interpret the same evidence and their speculation about the evidence, with an awe and wonder for scientific processes--rather than with awe at what God has done. my husband, the MD who excelled in genetics in med school, says evolution without a controlling designer is impossible --too many nucleic acid reactions interdependent on each other--mutations are almost always bad, not good, in result.

Be that as it may, there ARE SOME obnoxious fundamentalists --and smug ones --and some who don't follow in the footsteps of the Rabbi Jesus very well at all --in obedience regarding love for enemies or unbelievers of any kind, in the church or in the world.

But there are people who detest ALL fundamentalists and are just as smug against them for their beliefs. And they do malign them as haters, when they are not.

Let us never forget that Jesus Himself was hated by the powers that be (were) of his day and suffered the ultimate rejection and punishment. Let us not assume GOOD fundamentalists will all be popular like Billy Graham and Rick Warren. Popularity is not the usual result of discipleship. But compassion is the earmark.

Actually, I don't think you'll find either of those two ministers legitimating homosexual acts as anything but sin to repent of. Yes, homosexuals deserve compassion for a mindset imposed upon them by others, by cultural influence, teaching or lack thereof, etc --but not the sort of hate- mongering of a few fundamentalist pastors and churches. The ones who would picket funerals are in a tiny minority, I assure you.

We had a transitioning transexual man and his wife attending our church for awhile and our approach was compassionate. He came as a guy some days and as a woman on others. Someone did point out our unisex bathroom (before he used any) used by the minister and staff near their offices --for the sake of women who would see him as a man in their bathroom. But in counseling, i believe he came to the conclusion that our church really believed God wanted him to identify with his body as a man --it was causing a terrible ruckus in the family--the wife was ennabling, taking and posting pictures of him in their home in teen cheerleader attire. Her kids were intolerant. His kids were intolerant. He learned in counseling at our church that we would try to get him to forsake the fixation on the sexuality issue to follow Christ first of all and openly seek what God intended him to do and be in his sexuality; he had normal chromosomes. He was already a husband and father several times over. Little doubt in my mind that being a woman was not going to make him happy or help his family relationships. But he did not leave us sensing we had no compassion for him; we just did not agree that escaping his male body was going to help him. he could tell our church would not condone that if that was what he was looking for.

We don't really know what Jesus would say to this man --except to "leave your parents and cleave to your wife." The reasonable assumption for people of faith is that men are men for reasons consistent with their bodies --and women, likewise with theirs. We tend to think that whenever the body is discordant with the mindset, the mind is sinning before the body. The Bible says to "be ye transformed by the renewal of your minds." Now that IS a miracle when it happens.
And many testify that this has happened for them.

What they hated about Jesus was what they perceived as HIS arrogance --HIS claims --His surety in His claims.

Those on a Christian forum who do or don't claim to identify with Christ while hating and maligning evangelicals/fundamentalists/creationists, etc. --are NO LESS guilty of arrogance and smug surety --Phariseeism--than the ones they condemn.

As Paul said, "judge not --because you do the very same things." However, labeling sin as sin, and warning others so out of compassion and by Biblical belief (not Bibliolatry), is not "judging." It's teaching the nature of right and wrong. Both sides can become or seem smug --but just disagreeing is NOT hate.

OOPS --I wrote "The orthodox atheistic Evolution believers interpret the same evidence and their speculation about the evidence, with an awe and wonder for scientific processes--rather than with awe at what God has done."

"Speculation about the [evolution's] evidence" is what the creationists bring to the table. The evolution believers are not skeptical of the evidence they cite.

Hi, Cathy- glad to see you back (after I waded past the fundies). I'll check that link you suggested out!

As you probably noticed, we've gained at least one new troll since the crash. I'm getting a bit sick of them myself- I don't go to fundamentalist sites and argue with them, and I don't like them coming here. Of course, their goal is destroying our freedom and ability to share, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

(I can relate to the computer crash- I also had a computer crash last semester, and have to buy a new one- processor and memory went out and the system is too slow to run my newer software anyway!)

Hi Bob

I assume that the new "troll" you are complaining about is Barb. I guess I don't see the problem. Barb was very respectful of us and it seems to me that part of the purpose of this website is to counter the kind of Christianity that is so quick to condemn those who think different. In my opinion, civil discussions between people on different sides of an issue is a good way to practice the change in tone we are working for, and it is a good Christian witness to show people we can disagree while still showing Christian love.

your friend
Keith

Hi Barb

About "labeling sin as sin, and warning others so out of compassion and by Biblical belief...":

You have to be really careful about that. When Jesus told us to take care of the big log in our own eye before we worry about the tiny splinter in our neighbor's eye, he pointed out that we will not be able to help our neighbor with is sin until we've dealt with our own. There are a lot of sins in the world but it seems to me that the Christians who speak so stridently about homosexuality are much more charitable toward gluttony, usury, insensitivity toward the poor and powerless. The inconsistency seems to me to come from ignoring Jesus' wise observation.

your friend
Keith

I, too, must complain about the "new troll" who has put in an appearance or two earlier & to support as much good then as now [read: not at all]. The notions about "i.d." are clearly out of kelter with the Dover, PA decision that Judge Jones so rightly & forcefully made. Any popularity that the antique Argument from Design may have among the uniniated [read: laymen & uneducated] is superficial at best but also quite dangerous which can lead to something as noxious as the National Park Service employees encroachments by stelth & outright lies at the Grand Canyon: characterless mitigated with gall to support 'new creationism' in tour remarks for recent appearance of the Grand Canyon. That fundamentalists would so act in the public vein only warns us of their under-the-radar activities with public disclosure never: why? Because their position is unscientific & more rotten than Hamlet's mess in Denmark! No wonder religion gets such a bad name if religionists are so vile.

As for one's [as bad as the troll's] quietistic & pietistic assertions that fundamentalists may not be as 'Good' as that of Billy Graham or Rick Warren, note that that was countered forcefully a while back in postings under a B.G.'s mellowing in his old age. I myself find friends like those worse than enemies, and if you really want to engage the EVIL of a B.G., just note his placing his drunkard & druggie son Franklin in charge of his Billy Graham Enterprises without ANY recantation or giving up the ominious headship of Samaritan's Purse, rightly censored by our State Dept. for dropping Arabic N.T.s over Gaza & Palestine & also totally out of character in the aftermath of the tsunami 2 yrs ago [read: proselytizing along with food handouts] & asked to leave by the Indonesian government. With friends like those, how do we ever have a chance with an educated public? Or is Fundamentalism deserving to be 'Christian' at all? Please look up my earlier post rather than my harking up more rebuttal here. FunDAMentalism is No damn good. And with Evolution Sunday coming up February 11, 2007, keep your ears open for pronouncements and rancor thereof. Trouble is: by their fruits do we indeed know them: sometime one has to say 'no' to a lot of stuff that circulates under a general banner such as 'Christian.'

As for the shear sentamentalism within the story about bisexuality within a family in a church, it will always have a belated loss, but as to the 'change of orientation' business, we know all too much about "changing" such surrounding the Ted Haggard mess. Honesty & openness would go a long way & certainly prevent many a tragedy later, but "open & welcoming" is yet few & far between among christian groups: lot of work to be done.

"i.d." has been silenced with the Jones' decision. Let's not mitigate it or its good will with certain fundamentalist fraternisings. The educational demands of Christianity will never sink to uneducated anti-intellectualism or the anti-intellectuals who peddle pious piffles.

Hi Arden

I must take issue with you here. You wrote:

"...Any popularity that the antique Argument from Design may have among the uniniated [read: laymen & uneducated] is superficial at best but also quite dangerous which can lead to something as noxious as the National Park Service employees encroachments by stelth & outright lies at the Grand Canyon: characterless mitigated with gall to support 'new creationism' in tour remarks for recent appearance of the Grand Canyon..."

The "antigue" argument from design is hardly exclusive to the uneducated, and it has nothing to do with creationism. There are quite a few prominent philosophers who respect it, there are respected scientists--even non-creationists--who seein our universe evidence of God's hand. I am unimpressed with the modern ID movement, but it is philosophically naive to think that science has undercut the argument from design.

YOU CONTINUE: That fundamentalists would so act in the public vein only warns us of their under-the-radar activities with public disclosure never: why? Because their position is unscientific & more rotten than Hamlet's mess in Denmark! No wonder religion gets such a bad name if religionists are so vile.

KEITH: Most Christians--even Christians who disbelieve evolution--do not involve themselves in the kind of dishonesty you complain about, and yet you seem to justify tarring them with the same brush. Such tarring is bigotry pure and simple and I would think that the people who support CAP's mission would oppose all bigotry with the same strong voice as we oppose the bigotry of the Pat Robertson faction.

And your calling Franklin Graham a "drunkard & druggie" is appalling. Did he use drugs and get drunk in the past? So did I and I thank God for his forgiveness of the sins I committed when I was yuonger (and for his continuing to forgive me now). Is he NOW using drugs and getting drunk? Yuo have evidence for that? if so then he needs our compassion, not hate. I don't know if you are a Christian, that's between you and God, but what i would say to a brother in Christ is: when we judge others we make ourselves hypocrites.

your friend
Keith

Again, Keith, i appreciate any defense of those on the Religious Right because so many of the criticisms leveled at them/us are not valid.

I wrote: About "...labeling sin as sin, and warning others so, out of compassion and by Biblical belief...":

Keith, you wrote: "You have to be really careful about that. When Jesus told us to take care of the big log in our own eye before we worry about the tiny splinter in our neighbor's eye, he pointed out that we will not be able to help our neighbor with his sin until we've dealt with our own. There are a lot of sins in the world but it seems to me that the Christians who speak so stridently about homosexuality are much more charitable toward gluttony, usury, insensitivity toward the poor and powerless. The inconsistency seems to me to come from ignoring Jesus' wise observation."

There is a difference. Not that we should sound strident. Society is not being pushed to APPROVE gluttony, usury, insensitivity toward the poor and powerless. We aren't being asked to say these things are not sins. And we who maintain the Biblical definition of homosex as sin are not approving those other sins--nor are we saying we ourselves are sinless and have no struggles to be morally pure when we say we believe the Bible on this topic. Among Biblically defined sins, homosexuality is unique in homosexuals' request that we view it as not only sinless, but God's will for them--because it would be such a struggle otherwise.

In teaching about the mote and the beam, did Jesus mean that NO ONE could remonstrate or teach or warn people about unconfessed sin and its consequences --both temporal and eternal? that no one could tell people what God had called sins --for which we need to repent --for which Christ died? that as long as no one is perfectly sinless, no one can teach the children and youth what God has prohibited and labeled as sin?
To teach what the Bible says regarding sexual morality to anyone else, a person must be sinless?

I would agree that the teacher/preacher/witness about biblical content and definitions of sin and righteousness -- should be morally upright as befits all Christians. But if he must be absolutely without motes then no one can teach or preach or write to people, telling them it is RIGHT to be generous to the poor, to work for social justice, to refrain from murder and theft, to remain faithful to one's spouse, to be kind, unselfish and forgiving or morally upright --since everyone has a mote in his eye of some sort.

I don't think Jesus meant that. He said remove the BEAM from your eye. In Romans 1, Paul added to the admonition against judging (after he himself spelled out that homosexual acts were sin in Romans 1)--he said in Romans 2, "don't judge because you do the very same things."

Haggard had the beam in his eye as he preached against beams in others' eyes. This would be an example of hypocrisey --but that doesn't mean we are to throw stones at him --but he rightfully cannot fill the pulpit after such egregious example of a beam in his eye.

Reminds me of my dear friend, a certifiably neglectful mother who called children's services on her neighbor whom SHE considered neglectful. Like a needy family I know who condemned their neighbors for wastefully putting their charity overhaul in their back yard --when she herself had the same tendency. Like "controlling" church workers who condemn other church workers for being "too controlling." Like family members who quibble over money, demanding repayment for anything they do or give --while condemning other family members for being the same way. (Not my family incidentally, but one I work with.) Or people complain that their relatives waste money on things they don't need when they have bills and people they owe --but do likewise themselves. (same family.) There are numerous examples of pots calling the kettle black and the beam and mote teaching which fit the scripture exactly. I believe that's what Jesus meant. He did not mean we could not teach or preach what the Bible says about activities being sin unless we ourselves were completely sinless.

Of course He wants us to be humble in our teaching --honest about the fact that we, too, need the grace of God and the atonement of our Savior. "There is none righteous, no not one."

Hi Barb:

YOU WROTE: "I believe that's what Jesus meant. He did not mean we could not teach or preach what the Bible says about activities being sin unless we ourselves were completely sinless."

Maybe so, but still the risk of being UNABLE to help our brothers because of the beam in our own eye is quite big. I think we are most effective when we tell people WHO we all need to be SAVED from our sin.

your friend
keith

I agree completely--as I put it in my last statement. However, when dealing with the issue of homosexuality, it doesn't matter that we who believe the Bible acknowledge our own beams and motes and our own need to repent and be saved --they want these activities re-defined as God's will and not sin. And the disagreement angers the homosexual. As long as the Reverend Haggard, e.g., admits to the sin of homosexuality --instead of saying he sees the light that he was born that way and the church is wrong, I doubt he'll find much sympathy in the gay community.

Arden, GOOD to see you pop up again!

It's sad that the trolls cannot see themselves as others (God included) see them. They don't recognize the evil and wickedness in their very actions here.

Their "calling" is in opposition to God. So we know where it really comes from.

I've decided that if a person is fundamentalist, they are a lost cause. Their goals are to force "Jesus" down everyone's throat until that person gets sick to their stomach- and then they think they are being persecuted for the Gospel's sake when the person rebels. They don't realize that their version of Christ is not correct, and that their actions are not Christ-like!

Funny thing is that fundamentalists think that atheism is the "enemy" of Christianity- but they don't see that since most atheists become that way in reaction to fundamentalism, the REAL enemy of Christianity (and religion in general) is fundamentalism.

I agree with Thomas Paine
I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." -- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

Great quote, Monte!

I myself am sick of people who think they have some sort of right to tell me how to believe. That is completely the opposite of sharing experiences or sharing what we believe- and there has been too much of the "telling" going on here- from our resident trolls.

If they don't like the way we believe, they can leave.

Trolls, eh? under the bridge to terrorize? and Hate?

Referring to the Thomas Paine quote above: .... I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." -- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

When you imply clearly that I am a "troll" on this forum, you are saying I am not entitled to state my opinion on this forum? Therefore aren't you the slaves to your present opinions, in that you do not want to REASON with others about THEIR opinions in order to find error on either side?

"come now let us reason together...." would I be right to assume that you who are homosexuals on this forum believe it is your inevitable, possibly God-ordained or genetic sexuality --that you never had a choice --that you simply found yourself attracted romantically and sexually to same- sex people and turned off by the opposite sex? And you deny that parents or culture could influence children so that they find they ARE attracted to the opposite sex? You deny that there were influences in your youth that inclined you toward your own sex?

Just where does the repugnance for intimacy with the opposite sex originate with you? I'm betting that in almost every case, you are much closer to Mom than to a distant or disrespected Father --or you have been molested/seduced into the lifestyle in youth ---or both. Someone didn't make you proud to be a male with the traditional expectations for the male role. and possibly some of you didn't feel feminine as girls or masculine as men because you were not stereotypically girly or macho --and not helped to feel so by peers and parents, etc.

Is it a choice --or an irresitable inclination that just came to you at puberty or before?

I think reasonable homosexual people should ponder these questions and look for cause for their orientation. Because it is not in society's best interests to have more and more children identifying as homosexual --nor to have spouses leaving hetero relationships and children in order to pursue homo relationships. Nor to have married men sneaking around to gay bars --nor to have the open relationships of so many gay partnerships with the disease risk that entails -- I've heard many homosexuals say they never would CHOOSE to be homosexual. That it was imposed upon them from outside, they know not from where- if not God or genes.

The lifestyle tends to be more promiscuous in numbers than with heteros according to research stats. I never heard of straight bath houses that had multiple hook ups going on as in a gay bath house. Did I hear wrong? The disease risk is higher in the gay community than in the straight --with exception of IV drug users and prostitutes and women with men "on the down low" --as in admitted African-american recreational bisexuality among the men starting in youth. AIDS did enter the U.S. via Africa to Haiti to the U.S. through the promiscuous gay community from our major cities traveling to Haiti and then home to the blood recipients, hetero wives of bisexual men, infected mother to child, IV drug users and prostitutes and unfaithful spouses/partners of both sexes in the USA.

The child-bearing rate is zero among gay (male) couples, obviously. And the family instability and poverty for the lesbian mothers who started out making babies with men is probably as great as for the straight single mothers. With the exception of Rosie O., the lesbians with kids I hear about have much instability in relationships. My lesbian cousin has had 3 partners so far that I know of --more than her straight relatives.

The Chicago sex study in the 90's found that the average hetero male had 6 sexual partners in a life time; the average female, 3, and the average homosexual male had the highest number --WAY higher. Don't recall exactly what the number was.
But earlier stats during AIDS influx found that it was not unusual for gay men to have stranger encounters in high numbers annually --a partner or 2 per week, if I recall correctly.

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong in the numbers.

and don't say I'm hateful--just because what I write here makes you angry.

I'm trying to be reasonable and I'm not talking about morality or religion here.

I admit, i wouldn't have wanted any of my kids to turn out homosexual. I want them to have the blessings of being married parents in the normal way --which has been a blessing in my own life -- And I believe --my opinion is--that HE wants us all to have such blessing because of the way he designed our bodies for hetero instead of homosex --because He would want us to avoid the problems that come with multiple hook-ups, break-ups and diseases. He would want us to know the joys of nuclear family life and the security and joys of having caring children and grandchildren in our old age. It's a social experiment on kids to see if adoption by gay and lesbian couples can give them the same benefits that child-bearing and adoption give to married hetero couples.

This reasoning should not make you hateful toward me --any more than my reasoning makes me hateful toward you. I do not hate homosexuals. I just think they are wrong --in the same way you think I am wrong. So why does it make YOU angry instead of ME?? Because, I suspect --it is my opinion--that down in your souls you KNOW you are wrong and of course, don't want to hear it.

The Bible does say that we do KNOW in our hearts right from wrong --even if we are foolish enough to say in our hearts that 'there is no God." As the bible puts it, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

It's typical and easy for homosexuals with Christian belief to say our Saviour doesn't condemn homosexuality as sin --but the Bible says He will judge us re: unconfessed sin --so the question rightly is, "Are homosexual acts sin?" I think that neither secular reason nor the Bible can completely exonerate homosexual activity and relationships.

The acts are described and condemned in the Bible -and there are good common sensical reasons to discourage and disparage homosexuality in any culture. We should be looking at cause and figuring out how to help our children and adults be straight. Promoting homosexuality may make homosexuals feel better --but it's not helpful to children and youth who are questioning their sexual identity and orientation because of influences on them. To question is to search and to search is to experiment sexually --which is dangerous to life and both emotional and physical health--and definitely counter to the Bible's teaching on moral and sexual purity before marriage.

I believe that NO homosexual will confirm his homosexuality without trying it out --there would be no "virginity until marriage" ideal in the gay community. Look at how the state-sponsored conference of Boston sex educators approached sex ed --providing condoms and dental dams, etc. for all and teaching methods of "safer sex" and homosex to unmarried youth. This does not sync with the Biblical ideal of sexual purity before marriage.

See if you can state your counter-opinions now without name-calling and bigotry toward me and people who think as I do. I know it's an emotional issue for you --heart-breaking --and I believe there is deliverance. It starts with acknowledging God and asking Him for revelation.

Of course, some of you would say the same back to me, that I need the revelation. But I have laid out a reason-based opinion --not vitriolic hatred or mere religious intolerance for "differences" in opinion and lifestyle.

Barb

"Barb"- do not contact me again. Do not reply to any of my posts. I want NO communications from you, in ANY form.

My previous post was not directed to Bob Bowers as he thought --except perhaps for the troll remark. I referred to "you on this forum who consider yourselves homosexuals." So any, "YOU" thereafter was not to Bob.

Who, I understand is married to Sue, of native American descent, and possibly "poor" by his word --I stumbled accidentally --or by God's leading-- into another discussion thinking it was one I had participated in and THINK I noticed Bob had said these things about himself.

So, I'm not sure if he's offended because he thinks I called him gay --or more likely because he just doesn't like what I said TO homosexuals on this forum. But I learned from the other forum thread that he feels generally disgruntled about a lot of issues --churches, charismatics in churches, conservatives in churches, prejudice toward the financially poor and native Americans which both describe him, I believe --and the indifference of the church toward such people--and from his anger at me, I guess he feels I am so wrong on the homosexuality issue that he is justified in shunning me.

So much for fruitful dialogue. Digressing from the thread above:

Bob if I met you, if you came into my church, I would be kind --I might even be helpful.

My husband and I are modestly well-off --good cash flow --in and then OUT -- because he has always worked REALLY hard from high school on up and still works the hours of 3 men. He had tremendous drive and focus, grit and determination. He had a good memory but he didn't find school easy --EVER. Was never a writer/speller/verbal. His elem. principal told his teacher mother that this young boy would never make his goal of being an M.D. --that it was an unrealistic goal. But he did make it and has a thriving practice.

My sons who are plenty intelligent will never be as wealthy and are trying to get into careers that will support a family modestly. They don't want his lifestyle --have both worked in his office and see it as WAY too demanding. Many of their peers in their 20's and early 30's have had trouble finding a career niche--even with college degrees.

To me, how some people get wealthy and some always struggle is a mystery. I know an engineer, very smart guy on paper, who, once he lost his job, never found another in that field that he could hold. He's a very respected but not at all wealthy man in our church --who holds leadership positions because of his character, dignity and attitude. He and his wife both have low paying jobs that suffice--and their kids were smart and got scholarships. My brother with a business degree had the drive to be a restaurant owner --started small and also did well on stock market --People like my brother mystify us, the knack to risk, to buy and sell, to multiply and build wealth --though he lost tons in the Clinton market crash.

My husband doesn't have the time, and neither of us has the savvy or the courage to risk, to move our money around in that way. and we don't trust others to do it for us without soaking us. So our retirement isn't building up very fast. The more you have, the more you spend just maintaining and paying the utilities and taxes on what you have --the more you help your kids with school, cars, etc., the more you hire services done, so we could end up with a pittance at this rate.

I do hope social security holds --but wouldn't have any of my own if not for him.

I could have taught and did for awhile and would have a steady income that way. Getting education for a specific career is still the best path --but so many don't find themselves equipped? for the career or able to find an opening.

And a lot of people you see as wealthy, just have good credit and huge debt.

I don't think my church looks down on poor people at all --we have a lot of them --and help a lot --but there is lack of sympathy for people who chronically make poor decisions --like my friend who would get paid, need to pay a phone bill or the rent, but would go out to eat, then to the movies, and buy the pop and popcorn there --for herself and the kids --or buy an entertainment center from a rental-to-own agency --and then wonder why the phone was cut off --or the eviction notice came. But she was sort of mathematically deprived --I have not cut her off from MY compassion--but I am not able to get the church to help her as much as I wish they would. I would rather we could help the needy tax-deductibly through the church--I think that's better stewardship.

Best wishes to you.
Barb

Barb,

First off I must say that I like that you are making an attempt at taking a calmer, more rational approach to some of these issues. I may disagree with you vociferously (and I do) on many of your opinions, but it appears to me that you are at least making an attempt at civility, and I applaude you for it.

Now, to the matter at hand. Once again the discussion has turned to homosexuality (sigh). It's just that this subject has been beaten to death here, but I suppose that is inevitable. Let me once again throw in my two cents worth.

In the first place you will find no one more willing to admit (and shout out loud) that a great MANY gay men are living a lifestyle that (as you have so rightly suggested) is not pleasing to God. Of course, the same exact thing can be said for a great MANY heterosexuals, and not just regarding their sexual practices (for there are in this world today huge numbers of heterosexuals that are cheating on their spouses, and living promiscuous lives), but also regarding issues like the practice of usury, apathy toward the poor, war-mongering, prejudice, mean-spiritednes, idolatry, worship of Mammon, etc. These and many other sins are engaged in by people of various sexual orientations, religions, and philosophies. Yes, the promiscuous lifestyle many gay men choose should be labeled for what it is-- whoring-- but we should preach against this behaviour when practiced by anyone and everyone. The suggestion (however subtle) that homosexual orientation automatically makes one promiscuous is not only naive, it is unkind and is as blatantly rediculous as those who suggest that AIDS is a punishment against homosexuals from God. In point of fact, one of the lowest risk groups for AIDS is lesbian women (considerably lower than for heterosexuals). Does God love lesbians more than straight people? And of course on the African continent AIDS has always been and continues to be a largely heterosexual disease. There are a significant number of committed gay and lesbian couples out there who do not "live the lifestyle", just as there are a significant number of straight people out there who resist the temptation to divorce or commit adultery.

Firstly, let's look at the issue from a purely logical approach. Is homosexuality something one "chooses" or is it an orientation that the homosexual is born with? Well, the American Psychiatric Association certainly made a statement on that in the early 70s, when they totally removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses/neurosis. Their position was at that time and continues to be that homosexuality (unlike the perversions many conservative Christians like to compare homosexuality to--i.e. pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.) is in no way a mental abberation, and is in fact an innate orientation. Comparing homosexuality to these actual illnesses, by the way, is a completely futile exercise, in that if you combine all of the child molesters (the MAJORITY of whom are adult men abusing little girls, NOT little boys--does that mean that within the heart of every heterosexual man is a burning desire to molest underage girls?), practitioners of bestiality, necrophilia, mass murderers, etc., the number of homosexual individuals surpasses such a number by a hundred times or more. Or put it this way, virtually EVERY family has a gay relative in it, while there are a great many that do not have pedophiles or mass murderers. In fact, the sheer number of people with a homosexual orientation negates any possibility that it is in any way "unnatural". Add to that the fact that any gay or lesbian person will tell you that they didn't "choose" their orientation (was never sure how that would work anyway), and it is pretty clear that this is an innate, human condition just as being left-handed or hating cottage cheese is.

Now as for the biblical injunctions, that comes down to whether you accept Jesus Christ in TOTALITY, or you merely use him, as many do, as a figurehead for something you label as Christianity but in fact isn't. Jesus gave us a NEW Covenant, completely replacing the Old. St. Paul himself says that if the Old Covenant had been "without flaw" there would have been no need of a new one. And indeed we see in The Gospels Jesus demonstrating these flaws, as He repeatedly rejects things that had been declared as being "God's Will". Stoning people to death for a variety of crimes (part of the same Levitical Law that conservative Christians quote regarding homosexual acts), shunning lepers, engaging in elaborate hand-washing rituals before meals, not allowing grain to be picked on the sabbath, not healing on the sabbath...all of these things Jesus made clear were "doctrines of men", and were not from God. Yes, Jesus refers to the Old Testament, and when He does He almost always refers to the prophesies which pointed to His arrival and life on Earth, or to The Ten Commandments. In other words, the Old Covenant's real purpose was an arrow pointing to the ACTUAL, Incarnate Word of God, which is Jesus Himself. He urges those who would follow Him to go "beyond the righteousness of the Pharisees", who He said were hypocrites, stealing from widows and orphans on the one hand and displaying their piety on street corners on the other (sound familiar?). Jesus DOES condemn many things in The Gospels, as part of His New Covenant, among them wealth-hoarding/worship of Mammon, public displays of piety, apathy and neglect of the poor and the sick, idolatry, divorce (which He claims God sanctions ONLY if there has been adultery--and conservative Christians have one of the HIGHEST divorce rates of ANY group in the U.S.), war-mongering, prejudice, lust for power, usury, and lack of forgiveness. Jesus does not address the issue of homosexuality (in four Gospels), but rather concentrates on the "essentials" of leading a TRULY Godly life as opposed to "sham" Christianity, what one might term "The Christian Pharisee". In fact, in their violent tirades against homosexuality, the anti-gay camp has driven countless numbers of gay people away from Christianity, believing as they do that since they are going to burn in Hell for simply being what they are, that there is nothing for them in Jesus Christ. The Master said that for those who would drive His children away from Him, it would be better if they had a millstone tied around their neck and that they were thrown into the sea...So did St. Paul appear to condemn homosexuality? Yes, but then he also encouraged EVERYONE to refrain from sex entirely. St. Paul was human, as he himself reminded people, and he had opinions on some issues, one of them being homosexuality, but these opinions were sometimes not based on anything that Jesus had actually taught. St. Paul also appears to not have approved of women being priests (and that they should be "silent in church"). Was he right about that? Do you think Jesus would have agreed with him on that issue? And does the Old Testament condemn homosexuality as a sin? Yes, absolutely, and it also condemns eating pork, eating shellfish, and wearing certain types of fabrics with others. And what of the "Sin of Sodom"? Well, according to Ezekial Chapter 16, the Sin of Sodom was in their hoarding of wealth and neglect of the poor. How often do the same Christians who so quickly condemn homosexuals preach against the TRUE Sin of Sodom, against hoarding of wealth, or against usury (condemned no less than 10 times in The Old Testament alone)? Could these be the same ones who so easily divorce one another? The same ones who have supported war? The same ones who have supported idolatry (which is what the Flag Amendment is)? The same ones who complain about welfare to the poor, but are notably silent on subsidies and tax breaks for the rich and for the corporations? We must consider carefully the splinter which is in our own eye before we attempt to comment on the log which is in our brother's or sister's eye.

Peace and Blessings,

Brother Damien

im disappointed by the lack of conversational basis founded on actual Scriptures. there are many wordy opinions on here that are very intellectual and philosophical, but at the end of the day Scripture holds the final authority. Perhaps most of our issue is the dependence on our human intellect and not the Word of God.

Consider Hosea 4:6 - "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."

Steve,

A lot depends on your view of "scripture" and how it should be applied. Reading my last post you will see that I make reference to a number of things which are in scripture, mostly from the New Testament, a few from the Old. The problem that has arisen (and one that is continuing to schism Christianity) is one's perception of Jesus of Nazareth, and whether one accepts that it is HE who is The Incarnate Word of God (that He Himself is literally The Word), and He alone who is the final authority, or whether the rest of The Bible is equal to His teachings. So, what do you mean when you say that "scripture" has the final authority? If you are suggesting that The Old Testament, the letters of St. Paul, or Revelation have the "final authority" then I would have to say flat out that you are as wrong as you can possibly be. Only Jesus Christ has the final authority. Suggesting that the entire Bible is equal to the teachings of God Incarnate is to raise The Bible to the status of actually BEING God, and so is (literally) a form of idolatry. We see this in people who believe that quoting scripture chapter and verse, without any acknowledgement of context or its relation to what Jesus actually taught, is more important than the instructions we are given as part of The New Covenant. The Pharisees did precisely the same sort of thing, and that is why Jesus said that they understood The Letter of The Law, but had no concept whatsoever of its Spirit (as well as calling them "a generation of vipers"). Yes, Jesus read from The Torah, and He definitely quoted from it, but He also rejected parts of The Old Covenant as NOT being the Will of God, and gave us a New Covenant and a better one which replaces the old.

Peace and Blessings,

Brother Damien

Brother Damian, you wrote: "In fact, the sheer number of people with a homosexual orientation negates any possibility that it is in any way "unnatural". Add to that the fact that any gay or lesbian person will tell you that they didn't "choose" their orientation (was never sure how that would work anyway), and it is pretty clear that this is an innate, human condition just as being left-handed or hating cottage cheese is."

Well, I respectfully suggest to you that there are MANY, MANY "orientations" or "predilictions" and behaviors that appear in most every family--"natural" in the way that original sin and the sin nature are natural. Two per cent gay or 10 per cent, the number of gays is probably growing due to our culture --and due to lack of parental presence of the father or both parents --and in homes where the father-child and/or mother-child relationship is dysfunctional.

I definitely have a lesbian relative who wasn't turned off to men but just got into the life with a college friend --and some suspect she was first inducted by a lady teacher in the teacher's home --both artists --She and her friend both became scornful and mocking of traditional morality --and were both open to a college-inspired idea that homosexual acts and pre-marital sex were morally neutral; college culture said so --so in the absence of any comfort level in normal dating --and barely any dating opportunities due to shyness, She said to me, "I just try to find some happiness." She was a very feminine child with a father who doted on her but was chronically berating and belittling his wife. She became more mannish in dress, mannerisms, etc. in older age as her identification as homosexual grew--sort of like Rosie's coming out seemed to change her from the Queen of Nice to the obnoxious shrew she is today. (And Trump is no better.)

Another two self-professed gays I know --both actors who make a wonderful father or husband figure on stage --become very effeminate, flaming, in their social discourse. Why? The fun of acting, in part? attention seeking? They surely have a choice in how to present themselves --as men or as flaming caricatures of women. Imitating mom is immature; acting as a man is quieter, mature, grown-up. So many gay men seem to CHOOSE to act like lost boys of Neverland with the affected voices and mannerisms --which are not inevitable as they don't do it all the time to such extremes.

A family may have a member with uncontrollable appetite --or rage --or the compulsion to lie (now said by one study to be more common to those with less gray matter in the brain)--extreme self-conscious shyness or paranoia --laziness--addictions of all sorts which could have been avoided if they just had not started the first drink, drug, cigarette --or illicit, immoral sex act. No question that orgasms and how you first get them with others could become addictive. No question that to long for ANY sexual release --and also for same sex acceptance and closeness could make one vulnerable to tempting erotic opportunities with the same sex --though the NATURAL or NORMAL response to same sex opportunity is to shun it as demeaning to one's self-esteem and threatening to one's self-image as male or female. For most, that translates to repugnant and unthinkable --but the gay agenda is to remove that stigma -and they are getting lots of help from organizations like Christian Alliance and the Episopalian church --media, educators, etc.

Seems to me that mere PREVALENCE of homosexual orientation definitely does NOT indicate a biological, congenital, genetic CAUSE. We don't excuse criminals whose prediliction toward crime seems to have caused a high rate of people to be incarcerated --though they may lack gray matter,also and have learning disabilities, etc. and frontal lobes deficient for good judgment and self-restraint. We don't assume that genes are to blame --or that criminal behavior is innate --no matter what. We believe the knowledge of right vs. wrong makes us responsible for our actions--that choice IS a factor even in those with genetic or brain vulnerabilities.

The sins of the parents are visited upon the 3rd and 4th generations --and so on. And I believe all aberrant behavior is more about parenting than any other single factor. As a parent, did I let jr. think his choices and inclinations were all important --such that I never curbed him? such that he was pretty autonomous in all ways? nor taught him about God and His standards --nor taught him that he was a boy or she a girl for God's purposes to make them fathers and mothers some day? and that this was a good and joyful thing? Did I baby him because he was so bright and creative? and make him think he was so special and different that he became a lover of self over other considerations? a worshipper of the creature and the self more than the Creator and His righteousness? Did I fail to teach them that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and that God wanted us to fear sinning --and to "flee temptation." Did I fail to teach them that they were boys so they could someday be husbands and dads --and point out positive males for them to identify with ---or did I always complain about men and put them down? Did we parents make our sons hate women and crave men? or identify with women and crave men that way? or did we fail to recognize the predators in their lives --like the molesting priests that affected thousands of children?

Do parents today raise children to think that tempting thoughts may be indulged and viewed as "my right" --such that they either reject scripture all together or do verbal gymnastics with Biblical interpretation to justify what they do?

Granted, young people rebel despite the best efforts of parents. Adam and Eve did --they thought they lacked knowledge and needed more from a diabolical source that told them so --and it got them kicked out of paradise.'

Today, youth get the message that to be really sophisticated and modern and educated --is to be OPEN-minded, TOLERANT of all ways to be, sexually.

And that thought can lead to experiementing --to explore one's sexuality --which You, Damian, would probably agree is immoral and dangerous.

I certainly admired the ideal folks of my own sex --all girls do -they all long to be beautiful and sexy --like other girls who ARE. And I longed for popularity with people of my own sex. Can that get a girl in trouble today --especially if she finds opposite sex relationships awkward --finds she is NOT attractive to the opposite sex? I think it can. I was also always looking for my Prince --played with dollies --was doted on by MY father --and knew what was right and expected of me, and the idea of preferring one's own sex was so unheard of in my youth, that NONE of us ended up homosexual--out of my h.s. class.

I DO think we have choice as to how we think --and what we do. And that we can be "transformed by the renewing of our minds" as Scripture says --transformed to conform to the norm--i.e. a "righteous" standard --whether it is the "norm" or not.

I do feel GREAT compassion for people who are oriented this way --who wish they were not --who feel pained by the stigma and disapproval but feel the orientation just WAS --and not something they opened themselves up to. I observe a very effeminate child right now --who is not well received by peers --who surely is having self-image questions. I KNOW his mother both smothered and babied him --and father seems to have his own issues --so nothing is happening to him to help him feel like a normal guy --because other parents have even kept their boy away from him, identifying him as a sissy --which is so wrong.

Too many parents think they do NOT need help and they don't see what they are doing right under their noses that inclines kids toward gay identity --that makes their kids oddballs first of all such that peer acceptance is lacking.

The best thing we can do is teach kids the Word of God, the Compassion and Salvation of God, as well as the fact that wisdom comes from hearing and heeding His admonitions in every area --including sexuality.

The next best thing is to consciously raise our kids to be little men and little women --who identify with and AS their own sex --glad to be what God made them to be --with all the implications for the future --to marry and become parents. A good relationship with the same sex parent --and with the opposite sex parent --and between the parents --will help that occur.

but the little varmints also need to be humbled --and not think they can be and do whatever they please without regard to their Creator.

Steve, I often post without the controversial scriptures because the persons who believe homosexuality is OK with Jesus --like Damian here --have already ruled out the validity of the Bible on that topic and are well aware of the scriptures on the subject. The position of this website is that the scriptures against homosexuality are nullifed by reinterpretation of the passages in their original language, by jesus' lack of specificity on the subject --He didn't mention it per se-- and by comparison to other prohibitions that did not survive after the Old Testament era --rabbinical laws that may have had a practical use in the Jewish community surrounded by violent and lawless pagans, but are no longer observed. They see the prohibition against homosexuality as one we should drop --like the one against eating shellfish, etc.

I'm not sure which side of the issue you are on--I would assume you take the Bible at face value on this subject --as I do.

As for Christ, Damian, Jesus DID say He came to fulfill the Law --not abolish it. Which I am told meant He had not come to re-interpret the Law and give it new meaning --such that sins were no longer sinful.

Instead, He put teeth into the Law --by saying it was not enough to be hearers only --but doers --and not enough to DO what's right, but we need to THINK what's right --for "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he." Eye for an eye was a standard of fairness in the Jewish community --in the midst of lawless pagans all around them who took a theft ----or any injustice --as an excuse to return the same pain many-fold. If somebody stole a pagan's cow, a pagan might retaliate by murdering the thief's family--so the Jews were given a standard of equivalent justice --"eye for an eye." They had judges and this was a standard of fairness.

But Jesus called us to be more than fair --to be merciful. So did the law get abolished? NO. Eye for an eye is still 'fair'. But Mercy and Love are BETTER than fair --they are the paths to peace. As long as we practice eye for an eye justice, we continually seek revenge, seek to "get even." With Jesus' "new commandment" --we forgive. We return good for evil. We try to restore, rather than destroy further.

There is a place for both in the modern world --Jesus never meant that bad actions wouldn't receive just penalties --in fact, somewhere He says to "set free the captives and liberate the oppressed," as in Iraq and Afghanistan --He says those who harm the little ones will receive a worse penalty than having a millstone placed around their necks and being cast into the sea. Jesus says the goats will be separated by Him from the sheep for eternity --that the goats will be in everlasting fire.

Who are the sheep? the ones who repent, believe in Christ as Savior and Lord, and follow Him.

As for homosexuality, Jesus said, "A man should leave his parents and cleave to His wife." He didn't suggest there were any other legitimate options. Paul, His apostle, clarified clearly that idolatry --worshiping creature (self? people? animals or men as gods) more than Creator
and being a "lover of self" --and thus, self-indulgent in any way --had a potential consequence of vile affections --which he spells out as homosexual behavior and lust.

This was no worse, of course, than other sins named in Romans 1 --sin is sin --all of it must be confessed to God, repented of, and put under His blood --in order to justify us before the Father, Our Creator.

Homosexuality is unique today among Biblically defined sins --in that we are trying to "re-classify it" as righteous --as "natural" --and we are trying to redefine homosexuals as a legitimate minority class with a handicap or disability that should be favored and accomodated by law --rather than a sin to be discouraged.

Homosexuals, while saying they can't help their orientation, nevertheless do not seem to want to consider that we might be able to parent and teach children so that they would not experience homosexual orientation. Activist gays (males) often indicate that almost anyone could be "turned" into homosexuals and are, in fact, closet gays --that the experience of the men, especially, is such that they could make other men crave what they crave.

Barb,

Actually, you present your argument quite well. Since you do it in (what I would term) a very respectful way, I can in turn respect it (see, there can be a peaceful way to approach these debates!). I do have to disagree with you, most strongly, for all of the reasons I have given, and still more, and I hope that you will in turn respectfully at least consider them (which, I take it, you are).

First off, Jesus did indeed maintain that he had come to FULFILL The Law. Absolutely. BUT Jesus does not mean that He will not abolish or dismiss laws that are unjust or not from God (as many of the Levitical Laws were). The Law Jesus refers to is certainly NOT the Old Covenant Laws, because (as St.Paul himself tells us)if the Old Covenant had been "without flaw", there would have been no need of a new one. Since Jesus IS God (literally), Jesus is born into incarnate form in order to bring a New Covenant, which indeed does replace the Old. For instance, in the Old Covenant slavery was most certainly considered acceptable. But would Jesus have upheld this view? Jesus had no problems dismissing a number of unjust or rediculous parts of the Old Covenant/Laws, and we find these accounts recorded in The Gospels, and there is nothing in The Gospels to suggest that He would have upheld the prohibition against homosexuality IF it was indeed "natural". So the question comes down to this: IS homosexuality natural? Well, certainly it does exist in the animal kingdom outside of the Human Race. This has been well documented. Additionally, although I do think that some people who are bisexual may "choose" to live as homosexuals, those who are born as either heterosexual or homosexual cannot actually "choose" to be sexually attracted to one sex or the other. The religious "reprogramming" ministries actually tend to back this up, as the overwhelming majority of those who go through such programs "revert" to their homosexual natures. And then you get into the whole area of what "God intended". God quite obviously "intended" for men to have facial hair, and yet a great many conservative Christians shave their faces daily. Is this not going against what God planned? If God had intended us to fly (the argument goes) would He not have given us wings? Is Invitro fertilization going against what is "natural"? The list of things we do, culturally, that seem to go against what God intended would fill many pages.

Barb, I actually DO understand how Christians who want to believe the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Old Covenant Laws and in the letters of St. Paul are valid view this. If you look at gay pride parades, and the way that many gay people choose to conduct themselves, then certainly it is easy to come to the conclusion that this is clearly a sinful thing that these people have somehow "chosen" to engage in. But there are many, MANY heterosexual people who live extremely hedonistic, selfish lives. There are MANY heterosexual people who engage in a veritable smorgasboard of sins that Jesus actually DID rail against. Sins that He DID address. The Sheep will indeed be separated from The Goats, and the measuring stick used to determine which is which is, according to The Master, how we care for the poor and the sick, and how we love our neighbors as ourselves. I suppose I am more concerned with having a homosexual person living a decent life, caring about people, hopefully feeding and clothing the poor, taking care of the sick, visiting those in prison, and showing love and forgiveness to their neighbor....as opposed to a homosexual person that has been drive away from Christ with an exclusive message that I do not feel is justified by The Gospels or The New Covenant. I have seen this happen too many times. The message you suggest tears lives apart, divides families and friends, and brings heartache, because these people end up with an attraction to those of the same sex that to them seems perfectly natural and correct, even if those who are not homosexual cannot begin to understand this attraction. And let us remember that what we are discussing here is ONLY the legitimacy of sexual relations between consenting adults (on that, I think, we can both heartily agree).

As I have said before, I could have more sympathy for the anti-gay crowd if I saw some evidence that they really did "walk the walk" (and perhaps you are one of the very few who do-- I would like to think so), but what I see instead are people who throw stones at homosexuals with the one hand, while with the other putting a stamp of approval on all manner of blasphemies, including wealth-hoarding, usury, idolatry, war-mongering, wicked tongues, prejudice, etc. As I said, I will concede that many people who believe homosexuality to still be a "legitimate" sin may in fact be doing so with honest hearts, but what I would say to them is that (whether they intend to or not) they are driving countless numbers of homosexual persons away from Christ's Church and into paganism and all manner of New Age beliefs with their message. Christ's children are being driven from Him, and we have both agreed that there can be no debate about how He feels about that.

Peace and Blessings,

Brother Damien (and it is Damien with an "e", not an "a", after Blessed Damien of Molokai)

I've come to think of the way in which Jesus fulfills the law, as similar to the way in which the butterfly fulfills the caterpillar.

The butterfly is the caterpillar's goal. It is what the caterpillar is meant to prepare for and make the way toward. The caterpillar is on an arc, a progression, toward the butterfly. But when the caterpillar is transformed, the butterfly replaces it and completes its purpose. The good and promising parts of the caterpillar are perfected; the awkward and no-longer-useful parts pass away.

This isn't to disparage the caterpillar in its place and time; on the contrary, in its place and time, and for its purpose (to prepare for the butterfly's arrival), the caterpillar is the right vehicle. And when the butterfly arrives, the caterpillar is not abolished or annulled, as if in negation of its value or in denial of its role. But it is to recognize that the butterfly does not fulfill the caterpillar by recapitulating it in all its points, but by revealing and perfecting from it what is best, while shedding from it what has outworn its purpose.

I can think of no other explanation for how Jesus can be said to fulfill, not abolish the law; yet at the same time do so many things in conflict with its letter: from expanding it into inward heart attitudes with respect to anger, lust, etc, to crossing it with respect to retaliation, diet and work. I see no firm scriptural evidence with respect to where Jesus places homosexuality (or, more particularly, monogamous loving same-sex unions). But I do see what all his departures from the law have in common, both the ones that expand the law and the ones that cross it: love and charity. This should tell us something, I would think.

Scott

This is slightly tangential.

There is too much sweeping generalisation by Western commentators (both Atheist and Christian). There is an assumption that what applies to the West applies to the entire world.

Atheism has more to do with the welfare state and affluence of the West than any "free thinking". It is affluent, intelligent people who live in societies where merit is recognised that tend to be atheist. I wonder why atheism has failed to take root amongst intelligent people in less economically advantaged regions of the World.

The same applies to commentators like Spong and a good number of Western theologians. Their ideas have little bearing with reality.(I.e if you define reality as the existence of 80% of the World and not the 20% that lives in affluence in the West).

In other words, I don't listen to men who live in a bubble.

I am an African, I have lived in the West and Africa. Much of what Harris, Spong and Dennett talk about is useless in the African, Asian and South American context. It is based on prevailing conditions in the West.

How useful will these elegant theories be when the welfare state finally collapses?

Interesting conversation. Too bad it got sidetracked by the trolling on homosexuality. Above the poster asks:

I wonder why atheism has failed to take root amongst intelligent people in less economically advantaged regions of the World.

I think this suffers too from the same stereotypes it seeks to reply to. For one thing, lots of people in LDCs ARE atheists of one sort or another -- communists, buddhists, etc. For another, people in LDCs suffer from the same lack of access to scientific knowledge that people in the west did prior to the 16th century. When I was in Kenya with the Peace Corps at my high school none of the teachers knew a thing about science, nor did any of the students or parents. All universally rejected the idea of evolution ("C'mon, Michael, we came from monkeys?"). Remember, the west was once an LDC too.....one need only look at the large skeptical community in India, for example, to see what happens as scientific thinking disseminates among a population.

I am unimpressed with the modern ID movement, but it is philosophically naive to think that science has undercut the argument from design.

Science has totally destroyed the argument from Design; no one who has a good understanding of evolution and selection processes argues for Design. Most of the (few) people in the scientific community who argue for design are molecular biologists, physicists, and engineers, and the like.

I am a Quaker and I consider my experience during prayer and worship as evidence for Christianity, but since it's not scientific evidence those atheists would object.

None of the objections to subjective experience lie in its alleged "unscientificness" (subjectivity is quite open to scientific research, like everything else). Rather, atheists are likely to note that subjective experience is culturally interpreted (if you had been born in India you'd be telling me about how you commune with Shiva, and if you had been Chinese or Thai it might be the Buddha you interact with....), and that cognitive and neurological sciences provide robust explanations for the inner experience (which Christians progressive and fundy alike studiously ignore).

It's funny to read Christians stereotyping atheists while complaining about atheist stereotyping of Christians. One thing I've found as an active participant on both Christian and atheist boards, is that atheists have a much better understanding of the views of the religious than the religious do about atheism.

The thing those atheists fail to recognize is that the way evidence is INTERPRETED is logically prior to the evidence itself, and it depends entirely on the pre-evidential suppositions one holds.

"Evidence" is data that has been analyzed using a methodology and assembled in an interpretive framework/model/theory; presuppositions -- such as they are -- are confined to the methodologies, not the "evidence" which is a product of methodological analysis.

The a priori-ness of suppositions is a favorite argument of Christians -- who think like Christians when they think about science -- but as Giere pointed out in a wonderful passage on evolutionary naturalism in _Explaining Science_, the beauty of science is that it is not a house built on presuppositions (unlike religion) but a series of positive feedback loops in which the presuppositions are confirmed, adjusted, and elaborated by constant testing. The difference is that at each iteration of the testing process, we know more than we did in the previous iteration. That is why scientific interpretation, unlike religious interpretation, is a loop, not a circle.

The militant atheists seem rather self-righteous about their own presuppositions, very much like the CHRISTIAN fundamentalists are. They are identical twins who can't see their own faces.

Thank god you're the one sane voice in a mad world, eh?

Michael

Whoops! I see the HTML coding got wiped out. Again, with feeling and the proper quoting.

Interesting conversation. Too bad it got sidetracked by the trolling on homosexuality. Above the poster asks:

++++++
I wonder why atheism has failed to take root amongst intelligent people in less economically advantaged regions of the World.
++++++

I think this suffers too from the same stereotypes it seeks to reply to. For one thing, lots of people in LDCs ARE atheists of one sort or another -- communists, buddhists, etc. For another, people in LDCs suffer from the same lack of access to scientific knowledge that people in the west did prior to the 16th century. When I was in Kenya with the Peace Corps at my high school none of the teachers knew a thing about science, nor did any of the students or parents. All universally rejected the idea of evolution ("C'mon, Michael, we came from monkeys?"). Remember, the west was once an LDC too.....one need only look at the large skeptical community in India, for example, to see what happens as scientific thinking disseminates among a population.

++++++
I am unimpressed with the modern ID movement, but it is philosophically naive to think that science has undercut the argument from design.
++++++

Science has totally destroyed the argument from Design; no one who has a good understanding of evolution and selection processes argues for Design. Most of the (few) people in the scientific community who argue for design are molecular biologists, physicists, and engineers, and the like.

++++++
I am a Quaker and I consider my experience during prayer and worship as evidence for Christianity, but since it's not scientific evidence those atheists would object.
++++++

None of the objections to subjective experience lie in its alleged "unscientificness" (subjectivity is quite open to scientific research, like everything else). Rather, atheists are likely to note that subjective experience is culturally interpreted (if you had been born in India you'd be telling me about how you commune with Shiva, and if you had been Chinese or Thai it might be the Buddha you interact with....), and that cognitive and neurological sciences provide robust explanations for the inner experience (which Christians progressive and fundy alike studiously ignore).

It's funny to read Christians stereotyping atheists while complaining about atheist stereotyping of Christians. One thing I've found as an active participant on both Christian and atheist boards, is that atheists have a much better understanding of the views of the religious than the religious do about atheism.

++++++
The thing those atheists fail to recognize is that the way evidence is INTERPRETED is logically prior to the evidence itself, and it depends entirely on the pre-evidential suppositions one holds.
++++++

"Evidence" is data that has been analyzed using a methodology and assembled in an interpretive framework/model/theory; presuppositions -- such as they are -- are confined to the methodologies, not the "evidence" which is a product of methodological analysis.

And you can't seriously say that people who are scientifically-minded don't think about how facts are constructed.

The a priori-ness of suppositions is a favorite argument of Christians -- who think like Christians when they think about science -- but as Giere pointed out in a wonderful passage on evolutionary naturalism in _Explaining Science_, the beauty of science is that it is not a house built on presuppositions (unlike religion) but a series of positive feedback loops in which the presuppositions are confirmed, adjusted, and elaborated by constant testing. The difference is that at each iteration of the testing process, we know more than we did in the previous iteration. That is why scientific interpretation, unlike religious interpretation, is a loop, not a circle.

++++++
The militant atheists seem rather self-righteous about their own presuppositions, very much like the CHRISTIAN fundamentalists are. They are identical twins who can't see their own faces.
++++++

Thank god you're the one sane voice in a mad world, eh?

Michael

Hi Michael

I didn't see your response until just now (1-29) and I am not sure you'll be checking to see if anyone answers you. But I think I'll comment in hope anyway:-)

I disagree with some of your responses to me. I'll address them one at a time:

1. KEITH SAID: I am unimpressed with the modern ID movement, but it is philosophically naive to think that science has undercut the argument from design.
++++++

MT SAID: Science has totally destroyed the argument from Design; no one who has a good understanding of evolution and selection processes argues for Design. Most of the (few) people in the scientific community who argue for design are molecular biologists, physicists, and engineers, and the like.

MY RESPONSE: The argument from design argues that there are characteristics of the universe that are best explained by an intelligent designer. One such characteristic would be that the universe displays lawful behavior, that it is intelligible. Biological evolution by natural selection has nothing to say about that argument as far as I can see--natural selection depends on such lawful behavior in order to occur. It;s not evolution that brings about the laws of the universe, it's the other way around.

KEITH:I am a Quaker and I consider my experience during prayer and worship as evidence for Christianity, but since it's not scientific evidence those atheists would object.

MICHAEL: None of the objections to subjective experience lie in its alleged "unscientificness" (subjectivity is quite open to scientific research, like everything else). Rather, atheists are likely to note that subjective experience is culturally interpreted (if you had been born in India you'd be telling me about how you commune with Shiva, and if you had been Chinese or Thai it might be the Buddha you interact with....),...

KEITH: I challenge you to provide evidence of what *I* would do if I lived in a non-Christian culture. A lot of atheists grew up in Christian cultures, but they aren't Christians. For all I know, had I grown up in India I would have denied that any deities existed. I used to be an atheist in the *US* culture.

MICHAEL: and that cognitive and neurological sciences provide robust explanations for the inner experience (which Christians progressive and fundy alike studiously ignore).

KEITH: It is simply not possible for neuroscience to show that a particular person's religious experience is unlikely to be an authentic encounter with the divine. There is an analogy with scientists studying the biology of the eye when a person is looking at something. The scientist could show that your visual experience is just an interaction between photons and the cells in your eye, but that in no way means that the experience wasn't *caused* by an authentic seeing of something.

KEITH PREVIOUS: The thing those atheists fail to recognize is that the way evidence is INTERPRETED is logically prior to the evidence itself, and it depends entirely on the pre-evidential suppositions one holds.

MICHAEL: "Evidence" is data that has been analyzed using a methodology and assembled in an interpretive framework/model/theory;...

KEITH: Being picky, I would claim it was evidence even before it was analyzed, but letting that go, I would not agree that you have accurately stated what makes something evidence. I would say that a fact is evidence of a claim so long as the claim is more probable GIVEN the fact than it is without the fact. I would claim my Quaker religious experience is evidence for Christianity because it is more likely that Christianity is true given my experience than if I had not had my experiences.

MICHAEL:...presuppositions -- such as they are -- are confined to the methodologies, not the "evidence" which is a product of methodological analysis.

KEITH: The presupposition is that your methodology yields correct answers to the questions you use it to answer.

MICHAEL: And you can't seriously say that people who are scientifically-minded don't think about how facts are constructed.

KEITH: When *did* I say that? I said that those *atheist fundamentalists* don't think about the nature of evidence--there's lots of non fundamentalist atheists or even scientifically minded theists who think a lot about such epistemological issues.

MICHAEL: The a priori-ness of suppositions is a favorite argument of Christians -- who think like Christians when they think about science -- but as Giere pointed out in a wonderful passage on evolutionary naturalism in _Explaining Science_, the beauty of science is that it is not a house built on presuppositions (unlike religion) but a series of positive feedback loops in which the presuppositions are confirmed, adjusted, and elaborated by constant testing. The difference is that at each iteration of the testing process, we know more than we did in the previous iteration.

KEITH: The confirmation you cite is exactly where the presuppositions of a particular science hides. The gaining religious knowledge is exactly analogous to the process you state above, the difference is in what counts as confirmation.

MICHAEL: It's funny to read Christians stereotyping atheists while complaining about atheist stereotyping of Christians. One thing I've found as an active participant on both Christian and atheist boards, is that atheists have a much better understanding of the views of the religious than the religious do about atheism.

KEITH: I haven't found that at all. Many of the atheists I have encountered on the web present such an caricature of Christian doctrine that it's ridiculous. I haven't done anything like that about atheism and I have seen a lot of theists--even very theologically conservative ones--who have a clear understanding of atheism.

KEITH'S PREVIOUS: The militant atheists seem rather self-righteous about their own presuppositions, very much like the CHRISTIAN fundamentalists are. They are identical twins who can't see their own faces.

MICHAEL: Thank god you're the one sane voice in a mad world, eh?

KEITH; I am hardly the only one; the fundamentalists (both theist and atheist) are the minority. The huge majority have a much more balanced view.

your friend
Keith

imrcnvuk qdapwqhf http://uyhzgnfo.com lctgfiqo toocyryo [URL=http://lzrxipmj.com]xxpnvttn[/URL]