Ted Haggard appears with his wife on Oprah today. This show was scheduled with others to promote his upcoming HBO special, The Trials of Ted Haggard and taped prior to the latest revelations about his relationship with young church volunteer Grant Haas. The HBO special was also taped before these latest allegations though they are sure to increase scrutiny of the documentary. Haggard spoke briefly to this point in a subsequent letter to Oprah.
“Oprah, I did not reveal the relationship on your show out of privacy concerns—even though there was never any physical contact. I have regretted my irresponsible behavior. I apologized to Grant, my family and the church two years ago. I now ask him again for his forgiveness as well as the people of the church.”
Whatever else he may be, he is a man, probably gay, confused and experiencing a lot of pain and, one would think, incredible condemnation. He’s made some bad choices and hurt a lot of people, but I hope those around him are considering the risk that he may attempt harm to himself before this is over.
Perhaps I am just naive, but when I look at Haggard, sometimes I see a 50+ year old, worn out “Bobby,” still unable to break free of the ex-gay myth that has been imposed upon him so powerfully.
Those who are able to watch are invited back to discuss their impressions.
Update: Excerpt from the show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xgg_bUiF-Y
At about 1:40 is the part I was watching when I wrote this comment. From the sound of it, Gayle could probably help Ted most by pulling back on that input — we know where it so often leads. There are some things that follow from Ted that still sound a bit misdirected, but considering how much he is having to parse through, I’m rather surprised. Just realizing that his attractions are a part of him and not demons is a big step to which I’m sure many here can attest.
I have nothing to go on but a hunch, but I just don’t believe the story about one of his father’s workers sexually abusing him. He phrased it in a way that no one should be surprised if they didn’t know who he was, he left soon, never heard from him again. But such an incident would be just what ex-gay counselors would want to find and I think early on Ted obliged and probably doesn’t know now if it’s truth or fantasy.
When I see Haggard I see what I probably would have become if I hadn’t come out 25 years ago. It is a sad story and I don’t find any pleasure in watching his very public downfall. Yes, he was (still is) a hypocrite, but we’re all hypocritcal in our own unique way.
I wish there were different people around him to help him put his life back together.
when I look at Haggard, sometimes I see a 50+ year old, worn out “Bobby,” still unable to break free of the ex-gay myth that has been imposed upon him so powerfully.
couldn’t have said it better.
Wow, Haggard’s wife just went through the “every human being has a choice of how to react to thoughts, it doesn’t have to be your identity, yadda, yadda” that we have heard so many times. The shocker? Haggard countered her and said, “to a point…, you can’t make yourself be taller, shorter, etc, so there is a part that is intrinsic.”
Way to go, Ted.
Update: I’ve added this clip to the post above, at about 1:40/
uh oh. someone is going to get any tonight!
because we all know what a raving lustful heterosexual Ted is.
If Ted Haggard’s problem is his identity, then what does that make all of us? What does that make Oprah? Her weight, is that all there is to Oprah?
Perhaps that was the point 😉
I would disagree with your premise. Who said his problem was his identity?
His problem is coming clean with himself and dealing with his sexuality. He obviously struggles with it, and even though he can’t “morally” support that gays are who they are, he seems to have all but admitted it a couple of times (carefully retracting afterwards.)
Emily said:
I would agree with that and add that … His problem is coming clean with himself, dealing with his sexuality, and trying to find a way to reconcile his sexuality with his religious beliefs.
It is clear he believes G-d hates gays and that gays cannot truly love G-d. He loves G-d, therefore, in his way of thinking, he can’t be gay. He believes G-d loves him also, so again, he can’t be gay. It must be, aparently in his way of thinking, that the devil, in the guise of the men he has encountered, is trying to destroy his relationship with G-d. In the end, he comes out innocent and everybody else is at fault. And if he commits a sin by engaging in some type of homosexual act, it is not because he is gay (according to his way of thinking), but rather he fell into temptation. As a result, G-d can forgive him and others should do so as well.
It’s a great way for him (so he and others like him think) to never admit the truth, and they play out the fantasy in their head all the while destroying lives and ruining families, all in the name of religion, and all done with the conviction that he is a saint who just made a little boo-boo.
I think Oprah, as much as I like her journalistic savvy, missed some very important questions like; ‘do you think you are bisexual, had you had gay thoughts as a child and feel gay growing up, do you feel your heterosexuality may be peer based, who initiated the sex with the friend of the fathers’? And to his wife, ‘what would you do if Ted had sex with a man again’? You know. Those eeeez questions.
He was quite open with the fact he didn’t have a bad or negative time with the “abuser” and never felt abused. He seemed to light up about it in a positive way which I found telling. My hit is he liked it.
My “hunch” is he is bisexual and an opportunist who will do what he wants when he wants when things get better financially, and he will dive again and need to do more dealing with his real self vs his “ideal” Christian self. Oh the great divide. (the real self seems still barely visible) He’s in a multi media and financial pressure cooker, but when things lighten up and the cats away . . .
The wife (whom I liked) will have to take another look at herself if and when it happens, and how she glazed over his mentioning his gay attractions at the beginning of their marriage and whether she wants to stay in the marriage. I think this journey for both of them is faaaar from over.
He hasn’t really stated what his goal is with this new media hype, less I missed it. Anyone heard? Whatever it is, it’s good grade C drama.
Leno just made reference to Haggard being on Oprah and how his Ted’s doc will focus on his wife. He smiled and said,”They’re calling it, ‘He’s just not that into you’ “.
Notice how much distance there is between his wife and him. They look like there is nothing there–a huge gap.
I watched the Haggard Family’s appearance on Oprah.
My conclusions, Ted is a Manipulating and Calculating Creep. He’s a lost man without his church/ministry where he’s the center of attention to dictate everyone around him. The wife seems to be along for the ride, 30 years with him and being mom for their 5 kids has kept her busy. The 2 Adult Children raised in this circus came across as being the most stable. Ted said he wanted his wife to initiate a Divorce, perhaps to eventually put the blame on her in order to allow him to be free to pursue his homosexual tendencies.
Alan: I think you ust gave me some of the best insight into the fundamentalist mindset that I have ever read. Thanks.
look.. I’m not even sure what.. you guys or even Oprah means by “he needs to be true to himself”. Ultimately it’s about choice.. . whether he’s gay.. or bi.. or whatever. He’s chosen to be with his wife. he’s made a commitment. It felt like Oprah was asking “why not accept it.. go full on gay”. and it’s like- look, I’m married.. but I am still sexually attracted to other women. it’s in me.. that’s a part of who I am. But it’s my CHOICE to not act on the desires.. my ability to deny myself that sets man apart from beast. Wether I’m gay.. or bi.. or straight.
All I can say is that the Haggard household must be a very interesting place when all the cameras are off.
Ben – to say that Alan gave you some of the best insight to the fundamentalist mindset that you’ve ever read is quite disconcerting. I didn’t see the whole show, but at no point did I see Haggard even “hint” that God hates homosexuals.
As a matter of fact I remember an exchange he had with Oprah where he specifically stated that God still loved him in the midst of his sin, deceit, hypocrisy, etc. And he pointed out that God loves/accepts us as we are, then works on/through us to make us better.
Oprah seemed to vehemently disagree with him when it came/comes to homosexuality (and he even seemed to be “on the fence” when rebutting his wife’s comments about “acting on your urges”).
I’m not a homosexual, and won’t pretend to fully (or even partially) understand all that goes through the head/heart/soul of someone torn between that and faith/belief that God would have them to be heterosexual – but I’m curious (for those who simply dismiss the “I have to submit my will to God’s will, even though I have a NATURAL inclination/compulsion/etc. to a particular lifestyle” – when it comes to homosexuality) if a person has, as a part of their self-identity, an attraction/need to have sex with children, or an attraction/need to be polygamous, a proclivity towards alcoholism, narcotics, etc. – then do we similarly say “That’s a part of their self-identity, and it should be accepted/celebrated as OK”?
Greg– other people can deal with your questions at length. They’re not original with you. but assuming you are actually asking real questions, and not just playing gotcha, I’ll ask you some in return. Maybe you’ll find your own answers.
Why is it that heterosexuals have lives, but gay people have a lifestyle?
Can you tell the difference between having sex with a consenting adult and having sex with a child?
Can you understand that the very questions you ask seem to assume that being gay is just about having sex? Would you assume that being hetero is about having sex?
Would you compare heterosexuality to alcoholism? Why do you compare homosexuality to alcoholism?
Greg-
The difference with natural inclinations toward alcoholism or criminal behavior is that these are inherently harmful, destructive behaviors.
A person can live as a homosexual and have a totally healthy, productive life, without harming self or other people.
In this case, it’s the denial and self-loathing involved trying to suppress one’s true feelings that leads to destructive behavior–as Ted Haggard has demonstrated so well.
Greg, I’m surprised that you wouldn’t already know what the answers to your questions would be. I’m not trying to belittle you or anything, it’s just that it is a very common argument, one that I have seen answered many times. As for my answer, Nick sums it up pretty well.
I just don’t understand why we see such a fundamental difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Yes, there’s the blatantly obvious difference of genders involved, but there is no difference in what we want to get out of various hetero/homo relationships, there really isn’t, so why does it make a person so much different?
I love my girlfriend, and I have the same wants for my relationships as a straight girl might for her relationship with a man. We’ve been together for a long time, I am committed to her and I would love for this to last, to go on and get married, to have a family together, ect… My wants do not put other people in harm, as many of the things you listed would, such as criminal behavior and pedophilia. I have the same goals here as a straight girl would, except they are directed towards another girl, so I don’t understand why that makes me so different. My point is that I see way more similarities between myself and any other heterosexual, then I do between myself and a pedophile/criminal!
We have more similarities as human beings then difference between men and women.
What I see as more important here is what that I love someone and that I have these dreams for us, and even if it didn’t work out then I still have these dreams for myself. Personally, I don’t think the most important thing here is that all of this is directed at a girl. It is what I want for myself, I want a loving relationship just like many people, gay or straight, and I find that I fall in love with women, so I’ll allow myself to be happy and be with the person that I fall in love with.
You may think otherwise, and that’s okay, but the whole point I’m trying to get across here is that my inclination is not hurting anyone, and in my opinion, is the same as many many other people’s inclinations, albeit it is directed at the wrong gender (though still at another, consenting, adult), and is seen as harmful.
I might add that I’ve never heard of anybody with a natural inclination toward polygamy – the marriage of more than two people. Maybe people can be considered naturally promiscuous, but I’ve yet to hear a case for naturally polygamous.
additionally, I see relationships between people as being sustainable and “healthy” so long as they’re equal. Two adults. Two teenagers. Two human beings. Two friends. Two partners.
“-philias” define sexual attraction alone. A homosexual, like a heterosexual, is capable of all-encompassing love for the person of their desire. A pedophile wants sexual relations with a child. Even if it were legal for an adult to marry a child, it wouldn’t be possible to maintain the relationship – because the child would grow up and no longer be a child – and the pedophile is only attracted to children.
People often bring up bestiality. Well, I have nothing to say about that except that I think it’s a form of animal cruelty.
That argument always has been a Red Herring, but it works for some who wish to debase the pro-gay side in a quick sound bite. To me, the right to same-sex marriage for those who are attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex, simply establishes parity. If one is heterosexual, there is a current solution to your desire to make your bond with another official. Ideally, married couples are supported by society in numerous ways in order to provide stability, a conduit to the liberty and pursuit of happiness we all cherish and are guaranteed, and a safe home for children should they be desired.
Right now, in most places, those who find love and a lasting bond with another of the same sex do not have a way to access the above. Allowing same-sex marriages would equalize the situation. There is no provision for those who want multiple marriage partners, heterosexual or homosexual, in this country. It is an entirely different matter, one of quantity, not equality. Equality would only enter the equation if we indeed did allow polygamist heterosexual marriage, and denied it to homosexuals. I don’t see that happening myself, but it’s a different matter entirely, which is my point.
Greg said:
We really need to write this out and point to it each time someone makes this statement. Few here have a problem with an individual making the decision to be celibate (in the case of a homosexual) or concentrate on their opposite-sex attractions (if they are bi-sexual) if they believe in their heart that God expects this of them. To me, that is a personal decision and not mine to make for another (just as the opposite is true). I do not a agree with it, but it comes under “none of my business.”
The real problem comes when organizations such as Exodus concentrate on the prospect of change, change of orientation, and set up heterosexuality as a coveted goal. Of late their language has been retooled to avoid making that impression to the public, but their participation in the anti-gay Love Won Out conferences is available on CD — you can listen for yourself. This is something which has caused many a great deal of pain and suffering, and it is counter to any genuine data — even that of their own research team.
That is the reason for this web site, to inform, not to bully someone into something against their will. For that you will need to attend an ex-gay program.
To find out how nonsensical that statement of comparisons is, replace homosexuality in it with “Christianity” and tell me what your answer would be to that proposition. What would you say if it were asked of you in that way?
OK – there are a lot of responses for me to respond to. Oddly enough NOBODY answered my question – other than to respond with “it’s ridiculous”, “it’s a red herring”, “others can respond”, etc. I have a friend who’s fond of pointing out the impotence, and lack of intellectual integrity that is exposed by responding to someone’s question by casting the question as absurd – and never giving it a legitimate response. It’s nice to know that it’s not a tool exclusively used by Fox News and right-wing conservatives. Ah well.
So – as a 1st response, it was a GENUINE question on my part, and I meant no offense in (and it was not my intention of) lumping homosexuality in with pedophilia, polygamy (or poly-amory, promiscuity, etc. – the LEAST offensive of the analogies, I suppose, because NOBODY addressed it, rather than to make a distinction between promiscuity and polygamy, yet another example of intellectual integrity being in short supply), alcoholism, etc. I was merely stating those things as aspects that can genuinely be a part of someone’s genetic predisposition, self-identity, etc. And yet, I don’t hear a clamor for legitimizing them on THAT basis (the basis that it’s an intrinsic part of their makeup). I don’t hear ANY arguments AGAINST someone receiving counseling, prayer, etc. for suppressing, and/or ridding themselves of those inclinations.
Ben –
I wouldn’t categorically differentiate homosexual and heterosexual “lifestyles” (not to the point of saying one group has lifestyles and the others “lives”). I would say that I live a heterosexual lifestyle. I apologize if I ever gave you or anyone some other impression (though I’m not sure there’s anything other than a semantics argument in the question, anyway).
Sure I can tell the difference between having sex with an adult and having sex with a child. That doesn’t stop NAMBLA from existing, and from someone saying (and believing, and maybe even being correct in believing), “I am only sexually attracted to young boys, and to deny it is to deny a significant, intrinsic part of my self-identity”. But, as a Bible-believing Christian, I’ve prayed and sought deliverance from these desires, or at least the strength to not be compelled to pursue them.
No, I don’t see how asking about things like alcohol addiction and drug addiction (in addition to the other examples I used) equate being gay to being just about having sex. I will admit that I believe the “gay” part of one’s life is largely about sex (given that my only point of reference is being a heterosexual, and my heterosexuality is ALL about my sexual attraction to, desire for, and romantic feelings/love towards a woman). Does my heterosexuality define all aspects of my life, no – but that’s the core/basis/definition of my heterosexuality.
The comparison to alcoholism, I think I’ve already explained, but to be certain I’ve done all I can to be understood – I was merely mentioning it as another aspect of a person that can be seen as intrinsically a part of who they are, even to the point of being crucial to their self-identity (and trust me, I’ve known alcoholics – it is a DEFINING trait in their lives).
Nick –
I agree with you, that alcoholism is inherently harmful, but that makes it no less an intrinsic part of a person’s identity. That being said, I can accept that as a genuine differentiation in response to my question (not that you’re sitting aroud waiting for me to acknowledge your legitimacy).
That’s a part of why I used more than one example (not just alcoholism). How about the “I’m only attracted to young boys/girls, and I believe a 15 year old CAN consent – citing the ancient Greeks” or some other argument? Or, “I gotta have sex with multiple women – it’s just WHO I AM. But as a Christian, I’m told I need to commit to just one woman, and submit my body to her”?
Do those two (if they’re suppressed/cured/resisted) get as much argument AGAINST, even though they can result in the same amount of “denial and self-loathing involved trying to suppress one’s true feelings that leads to destructive behavior”?
Eva –
The major fundamental difference I see between heterosexuals and homosexuals is the obvious. I’m not trying to demonize homosexuals (just as I wouldn’t demonize anyone who engages in sin – myself included. And I apologize if anyone’s offended by my calling homosexuality {or more appropriately, homosexual acts} a sin, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I think it’s appropriate language for this forum).
Honestly, the closest I’ve come to understanding homosexuality came from listening to NPR one day, when Seth Rogen was on. He mentioned an episode of Freaks and Geeks where a girl his character dated turned out to be a transexual (or something similar). And I struggled with myself to imagine how I would proceed if I fell madly in love with a young lady only to find out that she was indeed a man (biologically) either pre- or post-op. I concluded that, even in light of the betrayal, I’d still be in love with her (err, him), and that’s the ONLY way I could ever see myself being romantically in love with another man – because it wasn’t her/his genitals I’d fallen in love with, but the person her/him-self. Yet and still, as a Christian – that relationship would have to end (MAYBE we could be friends – given that with God’s help, I could forgive the person). And while my love would be genuine, and it wouldn’t be easy – I’d have to move on. But in truth, I don’t see that as MUCH more different than having been in love with an ACTUAL woman (hope that doesn’t sound too bad), and coming to the conclusion that we weren’t right for each other. I still loved her (even after the breakup), and looking back – the sex was GREAT. God’s grace has helped me heal after the heartbreak, more than once. And I move on, recommitted to doing things the right way in future relationships (as His admonishments against crossing certain boundaries outside of marriage are NOT about cutting down on my/our fun, but for our own protection – I believe).
Longer tangent (or maybe relevant example) than I intended. Now maybe some of you are led to conclude that I’m into self-delusion and other “Ted Haggard” issues because I’m not still with every woman I’ve ever genuinely loved – ehh, what can I say.
So, Eva – since the ONLY example you didn’t address from my question was the one of polygamy (ok – promiscuous polyamory) – am I to assume that if the 3 or more adults in that scenario were all consenting, then it’s perfectly fine as well.
And not to get LOST in any of this discussion, I don’t think it serves the topic/forum very well to divorce ourselves from the framework that we’re trying to reconcile these lifestyles/choices/intrinsic identities with faith in God, doing what is RIGHT in His eyes, even when our natural inclination might be different (there’s plenty that I’d otherwise LIKE to do, that thanks to my relationship with God – I don’t do. And where it may have been a struggle in the past, I’ve been transformed to the point where it’s less so – if at all – anymore, to resist). And to be specific, with regards to Haggard and myself, that’s God’s will as revealed in the Bible.
Emily –
I think I’ve already addressed (multiple times) the semantic difference (in light of this discussion) between the polygamy/promiscuity/poly-amory compulsion/inclination/identity. Thanks for the clarification.
Your distinction between “-philias” and “sexualities” notwithstanding – would you care to address the poly-amorous (all members of the group 3, 4, 10, 20) being equal – does that make such arrangements healthy? And more to the point, would those relationships be Godly, holy, faithful?
Greg, you received some direct, and from all appearances, reasonable responses to your questions. Most people here have heard the same questions in various forms for years, and have answered them as many times, so this gets old. Still, some good answers were given. Just because you ignored them does not mean they are not there.
In the process, at least a couple of people, including myself, have put reasonable questions to you. Perhaps you can answer those before going further to keep this a debate or discussion and not a monologue.
David –
You wrote “To me, the right to same-sex marriage for those who are attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex, simply establishes parity.” Now the only argument I can find for re-defining marriage as NOT being between one man and one woman, to being between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender/sex – is that the distinction of one man & one woman is an arbitrary distinction that shouldn’t preclude the changing of the definition, because man/woman vs. man/man and woman/woman doesn’t change the fundamental basis of what a marriage is.
Well, how do you then argue that, if the gender is merely an arbitrary distinction, then why wouldn’t number be just as arbitrary. How about parity for those men who desire to make their bond with ten women official, and a safe home for the children that are naturally produced by that bond (those bonds). I don’t see it as ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Not at all.
And for Christian institutions, heterosexuality is the coveted goal. It is the ideal (moving on to your 2nd post since my 1st). Just as the naturally promiscuous would be pursuing a goal of committed monogamy, the alcoholic a goal of being free from that compulsion, the pedophile similary, the liar to the goal of dealing in truth, the unscrupulous businessman/woman to the goal of being fair dealing, even though they may have enjoyed TREMENDOUS success from doing nothing illegal in pursuing their riches. The examples are endless – of things that are and are NOT acceptable to society as a whole, but they run contrary to Christian faith/morals/ideals. So the goal in those communities is to correct those things – not because SOCIETY says they’re wrong or right, but because we are to be set apart, to deny ourselves and pursue His way (Luke 9:23).
So (hopefully) obviously – this is NOT (from my standpoint) some argument AGAINST homosexuality in particular, but rather an acknowledgement that there are a LOT of things in life that my flesh would like to do, and live hedonistically – but, having answered a higher, non-worldly calling, my life is not all about pleasing me.
The easiest difference I see is between Psychologists Freud and Akbar. Both pretty much slice us up into three parts (id, ego, superego according to Freud – lust, romance, love OR male, boy, man according to Akbar).
Freud’s conclusion – The ego’s (rational mind) job is to pursue the satisfaction of the id (hedonism, sense pleasure, self-pleasing) without offending the superego (higher self, transcendence, good for good’s sake, do right because it’s right).
Akbar’s conclusion – Become a MAN (disciplined adult, committed to a higher calling, use logic, rational mind to pursue ideals, while not ignoring natural desires, and finding the right place for them as they’ll always be a part of you – not just sexual desire, but hunger, thirst, desire for entertainment, etc. ALL OF WHICH are to be submitted to the greater good – we control THEM, not the other way around). Operate in LOVE (selfless, unconditional caring), while romance and lust have a place SUBMITTED to the primacy of love.
Lastly – I don’t know if I even need to address your last statement about my quesiton being “nonsensical”. Reductio ad absurdum is truly the last refuge of the intellectually lazy. Since Christianity isn’t an intrinsic, genetic predisposition, but a learned, chosen identity – then I’m sure you’re not ready to exchange homosexuality and Christianity under any circumstances (especially since our book tells us to expect, and even celebrate the persecutions we’ll undergo due to our faith).
Sad, that some people still do not apply consistent rules when they talked about sexuality – be-it gay or straight.
In Ted’s case, it’s quite obvious that he is a homosexual. It is also correct that it is a choice because it became a choice when he had a wife and family and had a commitment before God and Men. It’s a terrible place to be in to deny your intrinsic sexuality, but that is what religion and the church has put many gay christians in, into positions of intolerable guilt, oppression and pain.
However, when breakup’s do occur, and I have seen a few, it’s best to keep quiet because there is so much pain, and bitterness. A Church Elder friend of mine, lost everything, his house, his children when they found out he was gay and was having a boyfriend as a mistress. In a way he had committed adultery, but is it fair for him to live in such internal conflict for decades. No one should be subjected to such torture of the soul and mind. He should have made the right choice many years ago, not to be married and to accept who he was.
So, the moral is to make the right choice to accept ourselves, otherwise we may end up living a lie and be a hypocrite, and having no other choice but to stay in the marriage.
David –
I just got finished answering EVERY question posed to me (perhaps in your eagerness to debate, and WIN, rather than engage in genuine dialogue with someone who’s genuinely asking questions – NOT to convince anybody that I’m right and they’re wrong, but trying to understand the perspectives of others – you posted too quickly, and didn’t read my responses).
You said I received “direct, … resonable responses” to my questions. Hmm, for the most part, I saw the responses as people taking offense to the particular examples I used (yourself included) and NOT addressing the fundamental question I asked (perhaps I should have left examples out). How does something being intrinsically a part of one’s self identity necessarily make it right, and NOT something that, if it runs afoul of the ideal of someone’s faith, should be pursued to have lessened, if not removed, from their makeup.
You may (and it seems that many of you do) question whether one’s sexual orientation should be one of the things that falls under “non-ideal” or “desire to change”, but my argument is that just because it (whatever IT is) is a part of my intrinsic (even genetic) makeup – doesn’t make it alright, ok, and appropriate (especially in God’s eyes – as much as we can know God’s will – not really concerned with society’s conventions, because American society is perfectly fine with killing babies in the womb – while Christianity is not (as one example).
I always find it amusing when a heterosexual decides to lecture me about how to live my life when he or she has no understanding of me at all. Also when I hear some of them go on and on it is clear to me we do not believe in the same God. I would suggest they work on their own lives and leave me alone. That should keep them busy for rest of their lives.
If I am not mistaken Jesus told a crowd the same thing in his own time. So this isn’t a new problem.
John –
I’m curious as to whether that post was directed or referring to me, and anything I’ve posted over the last couple of days.
On second thought – you must not have been referring to me, because at no point have I lectured anyone about how they SHOULD live their lives (rather, I’ve merely posted questions, and tried to provide the specific context out of which the questions were birthed).
Suffice it to say, I’ll assume that at least you and I believe in the same God (since you invoked the name/example of Jesus). And that would be a God that loves everyone exactly as they are, and yet expects (if not demands) that we mature, grow, become more perfected and transfomed through submission to His will, righteousness and grace, and our own repentance and turning away from sin (anything contrary to His will). As Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, followed up with, “neither do I condemn you, now go forth and SIN NO MORE”. Because I’m sure you’re not one of those buffet believers (I like “this part” of Jesus, but I’ll dismiss “this other part” of Jesus because it doesn’t agree with me). Glad to know we’re on the same side.
Greg wrote:
My memory of this story is that there was Jesus, the woman and the crowd. It is one thing for Jesus to determine what is sin and what he would like for someone not to do in the future. It is highly presumptuous for members of the crowd to take it upon themselves to now speak for Jesus.
As for your second point about the God I believe in and whether I am a “buffet believer,” I made it clear already that you and I do not believe in the same God and I would extend that to telling you that you have no right to try and define my belief structure for me. I am perfectly capable of doing that for myself, thank you.
Greg, I didn’t say poly-anything was healthy. I don’t have enough knowledge on the subject to make a declaration either way.
However, I think it’s clear in the example of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah that a polygamous marriage can INDEED be “G-dly.” King Solomon, the wisest of all kings, had numerous wives and concubines. And G-d only punished him when he fraternized with women outside of his religion – but not because he had multiple lovers. This is assuming, of course, that we’re going by clear Biblical standards.
John –
Oh, so you WERE addressing me in your last post. So you say, “It is highly presumptuous for members of the crowd to take it upon themselves to now speak for Jesus”. My only response to that is, what SIN was Jesus referring to that she should do NO MORE? The obvious (and correct) answer – the sin of adultery (that the CROWD said she was caught in the very act of). They based such an assessment (that it was a sin) on the scriptures (Word of God), and at no point to Jesus contradict the oh so presumptuous crowd in their assessment of what was indeed sin, just that they were in no position to condemn her, being sinners themselves. But make no mistake – their assessment of what was INDEED SIN was never corrected, challenged, refuted by God.
And, silly me for thinking we were on the “same side” when it comes to God (as for believing in different ones – I’m pretty sure there’s only one – so I shudder to think of who it is you pray to/believe in, if not the one, true God). I was fooled by your referring to Jesus and content from the Bible – so I was simply using a Biblical standard for common ground. Far be it from me to “define your belied structure” for you – I simply (wrongly) assumed that you believed in the God of the Bible (again, due to your references), and that we spoke the same language (if you’re in a foreign land and hear someone speaking English words, your first assumption is that they speak English and you can hold a conversation – not always true, but I hope you can understand/forgive the assumption).
Emily –
I’m glad you brought up the polygamous examples from the Old Testament. I’ve had fellow believers state that God must have been ok with polygamy then, since so many OT figures indulged in it. I challenged them (as I do you) to show me ONE example of where God approved of such arrangements. Every example I’ve studied makes mention of the stress and strife such an arrangement had on the man of God, his household and his children – be it Sarah and Haggai (not both wives, but I think it suffices for this argument), the aforementioned Rachel and Leah and their “battles”, Solomon (again forementioned), David (for “additional” reasons as well), etc. At what point did God state approval, or give prophecy, or in any way endorse polygamy – rather than simply ALLOWING it (as he did with divorce as well, which Jesus explains was NEVER a part of His divine plan). I’m not saying there are NO examples, I’m genuinely curious to see someone make a logical, evidentiary argument for God’s approval of Old Testament polygamy.
Caught in the act? What happened to the man? What was the proof? Were you there? Women in much of the world have little to no power over their own lives today. I understand that it was worse in Biblical times.
In countries were women are executed for adultery, rape victims are executed. Sometimes they come forward to report the rape, and are then executed. Other times a rape-pregnancy seals their fate.
Jesus could see into the heart of the woman and those in the blood thirsty crowd. He was the only one who could truely judge her, and he intervened to save her life. Are there other examples in the Bible of Jesus intervening to same someone from being executed?
Morals policemen have a long and sorry history of causing tremendous injustice and suffering. Unless some act demonstrably harms another, I think it would be far better to let the person face their God who can know their complete heart and life and judge them fairly.
Greg- I don’t have much time to write today. I have a lot of work to do. But I will respond briefly. You wrote:
“I will admit that I believe the “gay” part of one’s life is largely about sex (given that my only point of reference is being a heterosexual, and my heterosexuality is ALL about my sexual attraction to, desire for, and romantic feelings/love towards a woman). Does my heterosexuality define all aspects of my life, no – but that’s the core/basis/definition of my heterosexuality.”
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. My homosexuality is EXACTLY like your heterosexuality– not largely about sex, but about love, sex, romance, and sharing my life, and building a life. Your heterosexuality does not define all aspects of your life, but it is inextricably woven into your life. You would not be you without it. If I passed a law saying YOU must be homosexual, could you do it? Would you be anything but miserable?
Six months ago, I married the man I love and share my life with to the acclaim and pleasure of our families and friends. Paul and I have known each other for seven years, and have been married in all but name for the past six. Both of us are contributing, tax-paying, law-abiding, and productive members of our community. We live active, healthy, and positive lives. We are well thought of by family, friends, and colleagues, and live in peace with our neighbors. Despite all this, some people think that the fact that we are both men is the only thing of importance, and that this invalidates our love, our commitment, and especially, our claim to equality before the law. Some will even go so far as to call us a threat to family, children, and faith.
Our being gay harms no one, affects no one but ourselves, except positively. Our lives, and the lives of our friends and families, are enriched by our being together. This has nothing in common with alcoholism, child molestation, or any other negative you have listed. It is not comparable in any way unless you define it as a negative, and proceed backwards in your reasoning form there. It is how we are made. Just like you. I love one adult human being, you love one adult human being. Neither of us are broken, wrong, or destructive. We are neither of us talking about marrying our sisters or brothers (eeeww), our pet goats, or ten other people. If you cannot understand that we are far more alike than we are different, then we have no basis for communication.
What you have argued is that your holy book and your belief in G say that we are NOT just like you. Whatever you believe your book says on the subject is in fact highly highly questionable for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that we are talking about copies of translations of copies of interpretations unto the seventh generation. Whether it is talking about what we know as homosexuality is questionable– unless you already KNOW what it says. And therein lies the problem.
Some months ago, I had an online conversation with a pastor on these very pages. He claimed that the bible was quite clear on the subject and that Jesus himself condemned the sin of Sodom, which was homosexuality. How did he know this? Because he could cite a passage where Jesus condemned the sin of Sodom, and it was “well known at the time” that the sin of Sodom was was homosexuality. But he didn’t know this from the bible, because Jesus NEVER MENTIONED THIS OH SO IMPORTANT subject. It turns out that some other non-biblical writer said it was. Well, so much for biblical authority if you must go to other books that are not the authoritative bible in order to prove biblical authority.
And so it goes for a good deal of what passes for authority on moral matters from those who would cite their bibles as proof that their beliefs are the incontrovertible truth. Those who would condemn gay people, claiming that they speak for G when they only speak for themselves, used to burn witches with exactly the same moral certainty. But we no longer burn witches, because we know that they do not exist. But the bible says they do, and they should not be suffered to live.
So which way do you want to go? Do you want to continue on this path of talking about other people’s sins, as if you know something about it– let alone knowing the mind of G– or do you want to do what Jesus suggested for you: Judge not lest ye be judged, look not for the speck, etc. Jesus telling the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more has absolutely nothing to do with his admonishment to the would be stoners– let he among you, etc.
Are you the stoner, or are you the stonee?
Greg,
You mentioned earlier about transsexuals, and I am curious. Just to make sure I am getting your thoughts right: 1) You believe that transsexuals are the same with gays, in fact, something like a more extreme version. 2) Transsexual females are “men” in every way (since you bracketed the word biological), and there is NO WAY a transwomen could be biologically a women. And 3) You are basing what is “sin” and what is not on the basis the the english Bible says so.
Do I get it correct? And a question I would like to ask you. – Do you believe in truth as in the reality in the world today, or trust as in what you read from only the Bible, and how do you reconsile the contradictions eg God says thou shalt not murder but then God commands the murder of stubborn children, adulters, people who work on Sundays?
Yuki, the common argument for Christians against those laws is that Jesus “fulfilled” them (whatever that means) and therefor don’t apply to “Believers.” but that since paul and jesus said “one-man-one-woman marriage is idea” or whatever that’s where they get their idea of sin from.
The mention of the prostitute being throw at Christ’s feet is an interesting one because it is not a story of never sinning again, but rather a story of hypocracy. (Emily help me out with this because I am not as versed in Jewish tradition as you). From what I understand in studying Jewish tradition, in order to accuse someone there must be at least one witness to the crime. The one being accussed must be “caught in the act” and there must be someone not involved in the act but a witness just the same. Now, if that were the case, then at least one of the men in the crowd would have had to have been her client. Most likely the “witness” was the next guy waiting his turn.
The men in this telling in the Gospel tradition want Jesus to carry out the Mosaic law “buffet style” as I think Greg made a reference to such a phrase. But to admit to being with the prostitute would mean both the woman and the one caught with her would have to be BOTH condemned. Since no one was willing to accuse her openly and honestly, Christ did not condemn her as well, following the Mosaic custom of law and judgement.
I see this as a classic example of Mr. Haggard. In his mind, he is the prostitute in this story, but I see him more in the role of one of the men accusing others. He has, for most of his carear, accussed homsexuals of sin, of doing evil, ever ready to cast the first stone, and yet, when he is finally exposed for who is really is, he backs down because he knows (even if he doesn’t admit it) that if homosexuality is condemned then he is condemned with it.
A side comment: I remember a priest once saying – If a Church does not have poor people in its pews, hungry people, sinners, unwanteds, outcasts, then it is just a Country Club with stale bread and bad tasting wine. I think Haggard’s old church New Life could learn from those words.
Hi, Greg. I thought I’d jump in here and add a few thoughts.
First, let me state that it seems clear you’re asking sincere questions, and so I hope my response comes across as similarly sincere.
As to your original question, I’d say that we should not allow, accept, or encourage the other things that you listed, even though someone may feel that they are innate qualities of their person. Why? Here are my specific reasons for each one:
1. “An attraction/need to have sex with children” — no, because children cannot give informed consent. It’s not a mututally consenting and beneficial relationship.
2. “An attraction/need to be polygamous” — no, although this is one that is least clear to me. I can imagine ways in which polygamy might answer the traditional moral objections and I could only fall back on objections such as “at least straight people can marry 1 person, why can’t gays marry at all?” (to put it quickly and inelegantly). However, it seems to me that the majority of polygamous relationships we see are those with some weird old-timer with a beard convincing a 13 year-old to become his 30th bride. These clearly are a bad idea, because I think the children in those communities are coerced into something against their will and they can’t give true consent (see #1 above). So, this is one area where a debate could potentially be had, although I suspect I’d still come down on the side of “no.” But please note, these are separate issues. If we allow gay people to get married, it doesn’t automatically mean that polygamy would also need to become legal. It’s a separate question, and one that we should be able to debate openly.
3. “A proclivity towards alcoholism, narcotics, etc.” — no, because these are harmful to self and others.
What you may not realize is that being gay is good (for those born that way, obviously). I struggled for a long time trying to understand my sexuality. When I accepted that I was gay (well, bi-, technically, but just barely, heh) I immediately felt closer to God, because I had stopped judging Him. One of my biggest fears had always been getting to heaven and then imagining Him saying to me, “I created you perfectly just as I wanted you to be, who were you to judge Me and tell Me I was wrong?”
The other thing I found out was that immediately after accepting myself, I saw good things flowing from it. I had peace, acceptance, and happiness. You shall know them by the fruits they bear, and my accepting of the truth had only positive things flow forward. Contrast that with what happens when gay people deny their true selves, where you get depression, unhealthy actions, etc.
So, we should accept positive things, and reject negative things. (I understand that it’s hard for a straight person to see being gay as positive.)
Anyway, I hope those you see those as reasonable attempts to answer your questions, even if you don’t agree with them.
Thanks!
Ken
Actually Emily, when I asked that question I was trying to understand which God Greg claimed to believe in when he replied to John. He said, in a very condescending manner:
I stand corrected, but he seemed to be claiming God all for himself and whoever does not have his frame of thinking should consider which God they are believing in. He may justify, as you said, that God “fulfilled” whatever with Christ, but the crux of the matter is it IS the SAME God before and after Christ. Another thing I would wish him to look into is the reason why slavery is supposed to be the trend until the end times based on the book “Revelations”, but the command for enslavement of people is not practised now. Of course, all in all, I would expect him to not listen to what people has to say to him, or accuse people of being “intellectually lazy” when the answers are already fed right into this mouth.
Alan, according to HaLakha, in order for a sinner to be legally stoned, 1) two people would need to have witnessed the sin (and there are strict guidelines for who would constitute a legally acceptable “witness”). 2) those same two legal witnesses would have to say “don’t commit the sin.” 3) the sinner would have had to have committed the sin in front those same two people.
Then I believe it would be taken to a court while it was in session.
Additionally, the practice of “stoning” wasn’t as you think. It involved taking the criminal to a high place, having them fall, and dropping a large stone onto them. If that didn’t kill them, then the more common image of stoning would occur with surrounding people.
Jews at the time questioned the morality of such a punishment, with Rabban Gamleil going so far as to say that a court that executed more than 1 person every 70 years is a “bloody court.”
Ken –
Thank you for pushing past (or is it passed) any defensiveness on your part, to address my questions in sincerity and truth. Thank you also for sharing your personal “testimony” (if you will) about your relationship with God.
As you mentioned, I wouldn’t automatically equate being gay with being positive. And that’s from a Christian/Biblical perspective, not from a social/legal/ethical perspective. From a secular viewpoint, this is supposed to be a “free” country, where it’s not necessary for me to approve of someone’s choices/actions/etc. in order for me to accept them (and even work/fight to defend their right to continue said “disapproved” actions).
Now I sincerely hope that your experience was/is genuinely divine. That being said, I sincerely hope that “all shall be saved”, including historical figures like Malcolm X and Ghandi. Unfortunately, I can’t allow rationalizing like “a loving, good God wouldn’t do that” to override the ACTUAL will of God (which I believe to be revealed in the Bible).
Many a day, I hope I’ve missed something, something that allows for salvation even for those who don’t accept Jesus as Lord (master of their life) and Savior, being saved from death and Hell in this life and the next by accepting His sacrifice, and by no merits of our own (no matter how “good” I think the person is). But as long as I take the Bible as it says, then as the “honest atheist” says – “I don’t believe in all this Jesus mumbo jumbo, but understanding what you Christians believe, I’d be OFFENDED if you truly thought I was on my way to Hell and you DIDN’T try to share your Gospel with me – what a soul-less, sadistic, hypocritical Christian you would be if you didn’t”
That being said, I hope and pray that God blesses you with all that you stand in need of, and prospers you. That same prayer goes for everyone else on this forum, though the discourse has NOT been quite as sincere and genuine for the most part (I don’t want to make a blanket statement on ALL the responses I’ve received, and I sincerely apologize for any and all contributions my “tone” has made to the “air of hostility”).
Rather than respond post by post as I did before, I’ll simply make some closing remarks. It’s already clear to me that many on this board are NOT interested in open and honest dialogue, but rather in WINNING some debate that I was never interested in entering.
Emily already answered a question from Yuki on my behalf, and they’ve proceeded to tear apart and ridicule answer (the one I never gave) and the thinking that would go along with it – and I’m sure they’re celebrating their triumph over the straw man they concocted with no help from me.
Alan has gone off on a tangent on the “let he who is without sin” passage of scripture that is totally unneccessary. I was merely responding to his SPECIFIC statement that only Jesus could point out sinful acts by showing how the identification of the sin in that passage was NOT made by Jesus, but by the hypocritical crowd (at no point have I disagreed that they were hypocrites, and haven’t disagreed with the illuminating back story, and lesson Jewish tradition that has followed). It would kind of be like me quoting something from Joseph’s story in Genesis with the goal of verifying that the leader of Egypt was referred to as Pharaoh, and getting a response that that section of scripture really has to do with fulfillment of Joseph’s prophetic dreams, and the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, etc. (ok, that’s nice, but I was only making the point that they guy was called Pharaoh – notwithstanding all the EXTRA).
By the way, no I don’t claim God “all for myself”. He’s too big for me to contain (and I have no interest in doing so, anyway).
Even Ben twisted my response, then said he saw a contradiction (well, there is a contradiction between what he STATED my answer was, and what it really was). I was saying that my heterosexuality IS primarily about sex (at least sexual attraction and romantic love, and ultimately SEX with the object of that attraction and romance).
I think I understand where a lot of the animosity is coming from, though. And I hope I’m forgiven for playing “armchair psychologist”, and by no means do I mean to be condescending or patronizing with my remarks.
My current pastor has spoken in the past about “church hurt”, and how people have been devastatingly hurt by “the church” before. This hurt may have come through being judged, condemned, gossiped (sp?) about, or just by witnessing rank hypocrisy amongst “so-called” Christians. He talks about how people can get permanently turned off from Jesus/church/religion due to this hurt, which runs so deep, because one would think (initially) that the church is the one place you could come, if you’re already hurting, or seeking, or in need – and be greeted with love, warmth and acceptance.
I have a friend that says church is supposed to be a “hospital for sinners”, not a “museum for saints”. If you can’t bring your imperfections into the church and get some “medicine” and care and help, then what good is that “hospital”.
All that to say – it REALLY seems like there has been a lot of “church hurt” on this board, and that may account for the animosity, defensiveness, deflections and lack of sincere dialogue that I’ve witnessed. And it takes some genuine healing (perhaps as Ken has experienced) to be able to be forgiving – if you think you’re being attacked or you feel like you’re hearing the “same old hypocrisy”, even if you’re not.
So I’ll wrap up with this. I am SORRY for any hurt that has been caused towards any of you, especially “in the name of Jesus”, and particularly by anything that I have written. I also want to let everyone know that I harbor no ill will, even in my critique of the tactics that I’ve analyzed (right or wrong in my assessment). I honestly do love you all, and I pray for you all to come into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and for an intimate relationship with almighty God to blossom (as I do for myself as well).
Be Blessed everyone,
Greg
Yuki –
OK, I know I said I was done, but you asked some specific questions, and I didn’t want to completely ignore you…
As for transexuals being the same as gays? I guess I never really thought about that. I mentioned a transexual, merely as a backdrop for how I could see MYSELF ever being in love with someone of the same sex (in an attempt to understand homosexuality for myself, not the other person in the scenario who would have happened to be transexual).
Are transexual females “men” in every way? Do you mean men who have surgery to become women, or women who have surgery to become men? Either way, I’m curious as to where you were going with this line of questioning.
Do I base sin on what the English Bible says? I guess if you’re asking whether I’m fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and have read originals – no I’m not, and no I haven’t. I am familiar with many of the Greek and Hebrew words that have been translated into English, to make up the King James Version of the Bible (as well as other versions). Again – curious as to where you’re going with this question as well (not to get into any kind debate, just genuinely curious as what you’re setting up).
I will admit, I’m not a traditional literalist (I’m much more interested in the “Spirit of the Word” than the “Letter of the Word” insomuch as every individual word is inerrant). In fact, I believe one of the reasons there are four Gospel accounts (with some LITERAL contradictions, but absolutely consistent in their illustrations of principle) is so that we (believers) DON’T get caught up into adhering to every word (especially since the italicized words in the KJV are printed thus to let us know that they were NOT in the original manuscripts).
Lastly – I guess I don’t see the conflict between “truth as in the reality in the world today” and “what you read from only the Bible”. In fact, I’m often fascinated at how accurately the Bible depicts the 21st century human condition so accurately.
OK – that’s it. I promise. I’m really done this time.
Be Blessed,
Greg
Greg:
I don’t appreciate your arrogant attitude Greg. If you are apologizing for the whole Christian Church on the harm it has done to the gay community, start with yourself on apologizing to others whom you dismiss right off the bat because their comments or ideas do not fit with your master plan. If my comments are not appropriate, I believe it is the monitor of this blog’s responsiblity to call that to my attention, not you.
If you are willing to have a free and open discussion, that’s one thing. But to dismiss my comments as “going on a tangent” and being “unnecessary” is rude. I may disagree with you, Greg, but I would not need to debase myself into rudeness to do so.
Emily-
Thanks for clearing that up. I knew that witnesses needed to be present for a crime and that they had to be almost immaculate (at last for the crime in question). And that is what disqualified them from accusing the prostitute of her “crime.” That is how I saw it equate to Ted Haggard as many closeted gays and ex-gays tend to accuse us of everything under the sun, yet they act like just like the men accusing the woman of prostitution, and of course, they are not innocent as well.
“Even Ben twisted my response, then said he saw a contradiction (well, there is a contradiction between what he STATED my answer was, and what it really was). ”
Greg, i don’t think I twisted your response. Maybe contradiction was the wrong word. Anomaly, perhaps? You wrote: “I was saying that my heterosexuality IS primarily about sex (at least sexual attraction and romantic love, and ultimately SEX with the object of that attraction and romance).”
What I was saying, for myself, was that my homosexuality is not primarily about sex, though that is certainly an aspect of it. I could have sex every day for the rest of my life with a woman, or 10 women (I wish!!!, except for the women part and my husband)
and that would never make me heterosexual. Just like Haggard and others of his kind, it would just make me a homosexual having hetero sex…without joy, without love, without fulfillment, and probably, without interest.
I don’t suffer from church hurt, other than the hurt caused by cherry-picked religious beliefs to which I do not subscribe being forced upon my by people who know nothing about me, or what their book allegedly says. but they are perfectly happy to imprison me, vilify me, attack my marriage, and degrade my life.
I responded without any animosity towards what you have had to say. i have tried to point out our areas of commonality, your apparent ignorance, and the confusion of a social prejudice with the alleged word of G.
Basically, you have chosen not to address what I had to say. totally your right. But it reminds me again of that debate i had online with the pastor a few months ago. “Well, I can’t really answer what you have to say, but i know i’m right and you are not. So, I’m gone.”
and so he was.
I already mentioned “transsexual females”. Yet you seem to be unable to determine which transsexual I am talking about. You went along and say that the mention of transsexuals is “an attempt to understand homosexuality” which (with all due respect), is ridiculous for me, a transsexual female who is celibate.
The rest of your answers can be bundled up in this statement:
A lot of us will be saved based on the Christ we are worshiping, it is the same right? The one who died on the cross for our sins?
Because you already said:
We Christians are believing in the one true God.
In this matter, what is your point of continuously trying to prove your version of “God” is the ultimate supreme and that you “shudder” to think which God we are worshipping? Who are you to determine that?
You already made a tremendous error in placing us in the same field as alchoholics and paedophiles. And you admitted you are heterosexual. So on what ability do you define that there is something wrong with us?
Of course you would cite the Bible all you want, and you even parroted proudly that the Bible predicted people in the 21st century. Then where is the blatant references to slavery? Are you sure the Bible says so? When Paul is writing a letter to Timothy, is Paul God? Or is he inspired of God just as all of us who will have a place in the Book Of Life?
Pardon me, but the most ridiculous of your actions is your condemnation of our identity and orientation which you totally do not know nothing about, and went on to parrot rubbish about lifestyle/choices. Oh, in case you again accuse of putting words into your mouth:
Just admit it. You believe homosexuality is “unnatural”. It is no use for you to use manipulative words to attack us and say tacitly “Oh I am sorry, I did not mean to be this and to be that. And OH your reaction. It is just because of the church hurt. However I love you. And I am sure you need help from the church”, as you said yourself again:
The “hospital”‘s role mind you, is never, ever to cure people. IT IS TO BUILD EVERY BELIEVER’S PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST JESUS. Whatever is needed God will add unto us. It is not your place to judge what we need. We responded not because of “church hurt”. We responded to allegations wrapped in a sweet cake that we do not exist, that we are just a “lifestyle/choices”. Just how much is my lifestyle/choices so different from you, anyway? I would like to address that if you do not mind.
I am a transsexual female, and you used a person like me to explain your understanding of homosexuality on your side, without even knowing what is a transsexual female. And you still wish to acknowledge your “intellect” that we do not have the ability to think for ourselves? Heck, by not knowing who I am and still speak, that is not “authority”? That is absurdity.
Well, yuki, I was trying to be less forceful, or more conciliatory, than you. (That is not in any way a criticism). I was hoping that Greg was at least open to someone pointing out the error in his thinking by pointing out communality But we are basically saying the same things.
Ben, I see more “church hurt” accusations coming my way, and I will admit nothing annoys me more than someone making light of my personal relationship with God, and trivialize my existance. As much as I do believe in building bridges, it is by no means an easy task when someone like Greg devalues my commitment, and many others, to Christ as who we are.
I absolutely agree with you on that.
As I wrote to Greg: “If you cannot understand that we are far more alike than we are different, then we have no basis for communication. What you have argued is that your holy book and your belief in G say that we are NOT just like you.”
Greg comes here comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, talks down to us IN ALL CAPS, and then apologizes to himsef on our behalf (citing our “church hurt”) for taking offense at his posts.
I would guess that if he isn’t posting here from prison that he probably knows the difference between consensual sex and rape, but he can’t bring himself to see the difference between consensual sex between free adults and child rape and sexual abuse.
I told Greg up-post that he and I did not believe in the same God. I could never believe in a God that was so petty as to be caught up in the anti-gay bigotry and hatred that consumes the lives of so many humans who claim to be religious. The God that I believe in can see into every nuance of every situation. He can see infinite shades of gray between black and white without being afraid of any hue. He can see the prostitute who has been enslaved by her pimp and forced to sell her body on the streets as the victim that she is, rather than the one deserving of punishment.
As I have gotten older (I am in my 40’s), I have been able to see how much more complex some things can be that seemed so black and white when I was a kid. We’ll never reach the maturity and understanding of God, but we at least owe it to ourselves to keep our eyes open and try to learn a little about the lives of others as we make our way through this world.
Hello, again, everyone. I know I last posted that I was done commenting, but it seems my last post caused more animosity than conciliation and closure.
A few last comments…
Ben –
I most directly apologize to you, because it may have seemed like an attack when I said you twisted my response. I was simply saying that you re-stated my definition of my heterosexuality as if I was saying it WASN’T primarily about sex, when I do indeed feel that it is. Of course that in no way precludes you from defining your homosexuality as NOT being primarily about sex.
In truth, yours were the some of the posts I most appreciated because I didn’t feel like you were responding in attack mode (again my apologies for not clearly stating that, and making my only statement to you be one of critique).
I don’t feel that we’re ALL that different. Actually I believe there are vastly more similarities amongst us all, than there are differences – but I am as yet convinced that the subtle difference between those who have accepted the Lorship and salvation of Christ Jesus, and those who haven’t, makes all the “important” difference in the world (and I’m not here to make/lay claim as to who has or who hasn’t done so). Whether or not you still categorize me with your “here today, gone tomorrow, can’t back it up” preacher – is up to you.
Alan –
At this point, I don’t know what to say. I’m convinced that you’ve DECIDED to be offended (and I didn’t realize that all CAPS was condescending, but rather used for emphasis – a comment in response to John, not you). All I was saying was that I refuted a direct statement you made by providing PROOF from an occurence in the passage of scripture that has been so thoroughly analyzed at this point. That full exegesis was simply unnecessary to concede whether or not the identification of sin actually occurred (I’ll never quite understand why people choose to debate facts. We can debate/disagree on the interpretation of them, but the occurrence of the actions is not really something up to debate – either they correctly identified adultery as a sin, or they didn’t… and they DID, where’s the debate, or need for legal determination of their right to condemn, etc. – the question was IDENTIFICATION of sin by someone other than Jesus. Whatever you morphed the question into is something for your own entertainment, or edification, I suppose).
Yuki-
I’m not quite sure where I’ve upset you. You don’t like the fact that in my hypothetical scenario, where I used the example of a man who convinces me that he’s a woman (for fear of wrongly identifying a transexual female or transexual female, I’ll just use this definition) to explore how I could ever see myself romantically in love with another man?
Pardon me, but that seems to me like my getting offended (as a Black man) if a white supremacist were to explain his attempt to understand inter-racial dating by citing a hypothetical situation where he falls in love with a lighter-complexioned woman, only to find out that she’s actually Black (and TRUST me, I know the can of worms I’m opening by casting myself in the analogous role of the “white supremacist” in this explanation – but I figure the “out of context” backlash can’t get any worse than it’s already gotten, so “what the hey”). So I now go off on Mr. KKK because he doesn’t really understand what it is to be Black, or of mixed heritage, or “fill in the blank”. Let’s just say, it would be RIDICULOUS on my part to be offended at such an attempt on his part to tell me something about himself.
But if I’ve truly offended you as a transexual, again I apologize (and I’ll admit that’s not a very strong apology – but perhaps it would be more convincing if I actually knew what I’ve written to offend you, to trivialize your existence and/or to devalue your commitment). I’m also confused as to how the section of my post you quoted after writing, “Oh, in case you again accuse of putting words into your mouth:” – equates to my “condemning your identity and orientation”? Because I said that the framework of my discussion was reconciling intrinsic traits and self identity with God’s will (when and if those two come into conflict)? That’s condemnation? Lastly, what’s this question about slavery you keep trying to get at (perhaps it was stated more clearly in an earlier post – but I don’t want to misinterpret, and answer the wrong question – so what is it about slavery you want me to respond to)?
And we seem to have different ideas about the role of the church/hospital. The Bible clearly states responsibilities of the church to look out for the physical, emotional, spiritual and even financial well being of its members. It also states responsibilities for chastisement, corrective action and accountability – which is where we seem to differ (I can provide scripture if you’d like, but I suspect that you’re familiar with them).
Also, if the “church hurt” explanation doesn’t apply to you – there’s an old saying about shoes that do or don’t fit (not to be coy, but obviously I don’t know any of you intimately, though I’d suspect if we’re completely honest with ourselves, then we can all gain/grow from useful critique, and let what’s not roll off like water off a duck’s back).
John –
I see you’re still holding on to a mis-interpretation of my initial question (which I’ve cleared up multiple times, in saying I didn’t equate homosexuality with pedophilia, polygamy/poly-amory {oddly enough left out by you and others, yet again}, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.). Is that all you have to hold on to – in light of the fact that I mean you, nor anyone else on this forum, any offense?
Needless to say, I’ll continue to pray for you, for myself, and for the prostitutes that, while indeed victims – are ultimately going to be responsible for their own actions, and have to decide at some point that the want to be free from the oppression of the pimp.
By the way, when you wrote, “He can see infinite shades of gray between black and white without being afraid of any hue”, that sounds very poetic and flowery – but just what the heck do you mean? Did I hint that God was afraid of something at some point?
God Bless you all.
I’ll check back to see if anyone has any direct questions, but if not, feel free to accept my apologies where appropriate, trust in my sincerity of intention if you choose to, and I’ll resist the urge to simply comment on anything I deem to be an attack, or misrepresentation of my perspective (I just don’t see how those responses will result in anything productive, but direct questions sans animosity – I’ll happily engage in progressive dialogue).
Be Blessed,
Greg
Greg, here are a few suggestions.
When you join discussions on subjects about which you clearly have little understanding (information yes, but you aren’t displaying much understanding of anything but your own opinion), it helps the others take you more sincerely if you talk less and listen more. Your comments are growing exponentially, and it is impossible for there to be a genuine discussion.
This is not a Christian website. It may look and feel like one at times, and that has been explained, but it is only Christian as far as the involvement of that faith in the ex-gay issues we discuss. We have a Jewish writer, and readers of all sorts of faiths, including those with none at all. Therefore, please be less “preachy.” We are not here to proselytize a single person – many have had their fill of that already.
Mention N*M*B*L* again and you will be banned permanently from participating here.
If you decide to continue participating, slow down, make your comments shorter and address single issues at a time where possible.
Remember once again that this is not a church, not a mission field, not an opportunity to spread the faith, and not a place to say as much scripture as possible thinking it won’t return void, etc, etc. We got it the first time, restating it a dozen other ways will not change it.
Making a case against something which relies only on scripture of any kind is appropriate only to show why you believe something for your own life, not why someone else need follow it — they may not share your faith or even your particular interpretation of the same faith.
Thank you.
“Making a case against something which relies only on scripture of any kind is appropriate only to show why you believe something for your own life, not why someone else need follow it — they may not share your faith or even your particular interpretation of the same faith”
Thank you, David. My point exactly, and far more succinctly.
Greg: thank you for your apology. Accepted.
and this was my point, too, Greg. The assumption that you understand the will of G regarding the subject of homosexuality cannot possibly be based on scripture, because scripture is anything but clear on this subject, as my pastor online demonstrated as clearly as possible. If G was really so against it, he would have said: “Two men, or two women shall not have sex in any way, shape or form. Penis into vagina. That’s it.” That is clarity befitting the Creator of the universe. None of this “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “sleep the sleep of a woman” garbage.
It’s what one believes going into the discussion that counts here. A personal story. I used to believe that the bible condemned homosexuality– not that I cared because I’m not a believer, though I was, once. But when I actually started to research the subject, all of the scholarship boiled down to this: “This is what we have always believed, and since we don’t approve of homosexuality, we see no reason not to continue to believe it.” That is neither scholarship, nor understanding. It is highly circular reasoning, though.
David, I hope I am OK mentioning N*M*B*L* here.
Greg, this is one of the more subtle reasons why your mention of N*M*B*L* was so offensive– quite apart from the obvious. It is an entirely hypocritical (I’m not calling you that), though common (you’re not the first), and unexamined comparison.You say there is no difference between a polygamist marrying a 10 year old and a man having sex with a boy. Polygamy is and has always been a heterosexual institution in history and in the world today. The man who marries a 10 year old does so with the full belief that it is OK with G, and with the full blessing of his church (if he belongs to one of those who sanction this), or with the full blessing of his mosque and imams, if he is a Muslim. It does no good to say “well, they aren’t REAL Christians” or “they’re not even Christians.” and therefore don’t speak with the blessing of G.
they think they do, and they have as much claim to speak with the full authority of G behind them as you do. And they have the scripture to back them up, as do you.
From my point of view, in both cases, the amount of that authority is “none at all.” And this is what I think Jesus meant when he admonished people not to judge others for their sins. Such people have authority over themselves only. They are not able to judge the actions of others. That doesn’t mean they should not look at a situation and protect themselves– child abusers, murders, and thieves come to mind. But my homosexuality affects no one but myself, and certainly harms no one.
Ben, I’ve masked it somewhat. I need to do something that will do that automatically on a few terms that really are poison for corporate filters. Some of it is inescapable, but not that.
I simply see no point in having a discussion with someone who uses this sentence to describe me…
Greg said:
And has this to say about my relationship with God…
Greg:
I think David Roberts hit the nail on bullseye when he told Greg this:
Is Greg going realise? I strongly doubt it. But as I rest my case, I pray that he will one day see the truth about homosexuals and transsexuals not limited to what he perceives from the Bible.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I think the overall theme of the Haggard story is about how one deals with their sexuality and their religious beliefs. As an Orthodox Christian living in a society that never had gay role models, where the guy who threw the pie on Anita Bryant’s face was considered the most evil of all evils, I think it is hard for anyone of faith to bring their sexuality and their faith into one umbrella. I think most of us have had those struggles or are continuing to have them.
We all work them out differently – some of us join places of worship that are more open, some of us no longer attend any sort of religious organization, some of us continue to believe in a Divine Being and some of us doubt or deny the existence of one. The path we take is our decision, but what Haggard’s story reminds me of is that we have to be aware of others and not just ourselves. And also that there are harmful ways of dealing with dealing with our sexuality and our faith – mainly – denial.
I guess Greg has disappeared. Tood bad.
Hi Ben –
No, I haven’t disappeared, just trying to stay true to my statement that I wouldn’t engage in pointless back and forth banter that doesn’t lead to any further understanding, or revelation of truth (whether relative or absolute).
I stated that I would answer direct questions, but not try to correct misrepresentations of my statements, taken out of context or otherwise (and – YUKI – if you honestly think those comments were directed to, and describing, you – then I truly apologize for the misunderstanding {and I’d rather conclude that it is indeed a genuine misunderstanding due to our less than ideal medium, rather than an insistence on finding something to complain about}).
Lastly – David, while I would never presume to state that I understand, to the point of being an authority, what it is to be gay, to deal with how that might conflict/resolve with my faith, or any other aspect of someone’s life that I hadn’t experienced…
I do understand that many people of faith (on “my side of the aisle” and others) come with an attitude of – “This is what I want/like/feel/etc. and I’m going to believe in a God that allows/supports/encourages just that” (whether “that” is anything from excusing personal pecadillos because God “knows my heart” or a pathological need to judge/condemn/criticize others to make one’s self feel better/righteous/bigger and/or anything in between).
I don’t know many who would admit, however, to effectively “making God in my own image”, rather than the other way around.
But that’s been my point all along – just because something’s inherent in someone’s makeup, doesn’t make it automatically “sanctioned by God”. If the Bible doesn’t hold any authority for you, then fine – but for those of us (me, possibly Ted Haggard, maybe even some of you) that it does, we need to be ever cautious of picking and choosing the parts we like, and dismissing the parts we don’t (not to say that there aren’t “hard parts” to deal with, even for the most genuine of believers). There’s been enough of that from the oppressive/dominant/exploitative parties in society – and the response of the oppressed/maginalized/etc. must not be to return the favor (and as I wrote above, if the Bible/Christianity/Jesus holds NO sway for you, then please don’t be offended by what’s happening in “the club across the street, and how they handle their membership by-laws”, if you will).
Alas, again I’ve written too much. Once again – I’ll be happy to answer direct questions, and I’ll sit/watch idly at the other conversation – whether it pertains to my comments or not.
Be Blessed,
Greg
Are you kidding?
David –
Insofar as they (we) don’t try to impose their (our) standards on those of you who make no claim to be members of the club (Bible-believing Christians) – no I’m not kidding.
Now, of course, I’m aware that we DON’T always keep our imposition of standards only “in the club” – which is almost certainly foolishness on our part (we shouldn’t expect the secular world to follow Christian standards – Jesus, Paul, John and others make it abundantly clear that there IS a difference between believers and the world). So it’s an honest critique that we need to do a better job of being “set apart”, it that’s what we claim to believe.
But as far as Bible-believing Christians, who are making an honest attempt to submit to the will of God, as they (we) believe it to be revealed and contained in the Bible – who is anyone from the outside (be it Oprah, or anyone else) to tell a Ted Haggard – “No, your problem isn’t further making your flesh succumb to the will of God – your problem is you need to change your God to be approving of whatever you currently think He wants you to change” ?
The true mark of hypocrisy is NOT if you find MY actions to be in conflict with YOUR beliefs, but rather if MY actions contradict MY stated beliefs.
Be Blessed,
Greg
P.S. Though brief – I thought that was a direct question.
…except that not everyone is a Christian in the same way. And every Christian thinks they have the correct way of looking at things. Or the correct version of scripture. or that their way is the “literal truth” and NOT an “interpretation.” So when people talk about “membership in a club,” we’re not talking about a single club, no matter how many ways certain self-identified Christians try to make it seem like they have the only “correct” password.
Hence the reason why, even on “your” side of the fence, there is dissonance and conflict.
But these problems aren’t new; they’ve been around since the first century and have yet to be resolved.
Greg accuses others of picking and choosing what they will follow or accept from the Bible, while he claims to live their own life in complete accordance with the Bible.
Everyone picks and chooses. That is how we make judgements about how best to live our lives.
It’s either an eye for an eye or turning the other other cheek. You are going to kill the disobediant child or welcome back the prodigal son. You either think that slavery is acceptable or you think it is the ultimate violation of treating others as you wish to be treated. These are just a few examples of situations where you must make a moral choice on your own. Your options are mutually exclusive.
And I am not aware of a single hateful Bible beating Christian who quotes Leviticus with regard to a man lying with another man who actually lives by the code of Leviticus. Yet, these bigots want to impose one particular section of Leviticus on others.
I don’t have any particular problem with people deciding to live their lives in accordance with whatever particular lines or interpretations they derive from the Bible (as long as they don’t use it as a license to assault or kill others). But don’t try to tell me that they aren’t picking and choosing. It is impossible not to pick and choose when it comes to the Bible.
This is the problem, Greg. The entire, bizarre “value voter” movement that came out of the Moral Majority and other movements fostered by Falwell and others — they exist for nothing if not to force the “club rules” as you put it, on everyone. And Exodus (though they are running away from this image as fast as they can publicly), Southern Baptists, the entire coalition that proposed and fought for Prop 8, AFA, FRC, CWFA, Liberty Counsel, and any number of other groups all continue to lobby for those club rules to be civil law, even if it involves only what happens behind the closed doors of one’s own bedroom.
You can’t dismiss this as “oh, well we have that little issue and it’s a problem but we are working on it.” That’s not credible. And as Emily just said, even among those of us “in the club” there is diversity of interpretation and understanding on much bigger issues. There would be no Protestant Church today if not for such disagreements and those who were willing to challenge the status quo.
This issue, homosexuality as a part of human existence, is first a social prejudice, and then a religious rallying cry. As society begins to heal as it has begun to heal over racial prejudice, the aforementioned work to whip up the hatred and prejudice — they don’t want that wound to heal because they have incorporated this prejudice into their own “club rules.” How on earth can you expect anyone of conscience, in the club or out, to respect, or even put up with, that?
David –
I don’t dismiss it as a “little issue”. I see it as a flaw and error on “our” part. I’ve never voted against gay marriage, for example, though I don’t agree with it as a Christian. I know the difference between being free to pursue God’s perfect will (as I believe it to be recorded in the Bible) and trying to enforce that will on others.
As an American, I’ve got to come down on the side of “freedom” moreso than forcing people to do what’s “right” by legislating (I suppose abortion might seem to be where I falter on that – but I’m opposed to abortion because I don’t think people should be free to kill children, which seems to be a consensus once “out of the womb”, not because of my religious beliefs).
So, no, I don’t dismiss what we’ve done to try to make the world conform as some small matter – it’s one we need to correct (not to say anyone shouldn’t vote their conscience – just that moral issues that are VERY appropriately addressable in the context of “the club”/chuch, have NO business being legislated upon when they don’t hinder the freedom of others).
As you stated, many of these issues ARE simply a matter of prejudice and bigotry, which are then dressed up as religion in order to try to legitimize them.
I’m of the belief that if the professed believers were consistent with our beliefs, and not regularly guilty of hypocrisy and trying to “making God in our own image”, then those prejudices and bigotries would more readily come to light and be corrected, rather than perpetuated.
So I wouldn’t blame religion/faith/Christianity – rather it’s those of us who impose our agendas/biases/etc. on religion, instead of letting God transform us to conform to His Word – that are to blame.
All that being said – I still don’t believe that those transgressions committed by some (however many or few) of “us”, invalidates our ability and right to address what is and is not appropriate for the members who desire to adhere to what we believe to be the Word of God (and as for there being a multitude of interpretations of the contents of that “Word” – Emily is correct, but at least an agreement to submit to the authority of that “Word” allows for the possibility of agreement – while agreement between “the church” and “the world” is an impossibility that it’s a waste of time to even pursue).
I don’t think I can find anything in this last comment with which I disagree. I personally believe that those denominations that do not move to accept a believer’s own understanding of what God wants for his or her life with respect to who they love and with whom they remain faithful, will become irrelevant. But there is no shortage of denominations and Christian sects, so let them do as they will.
Unfortunately, I still think you are underestimating the force and tenaciousness of the “theocracy” point of view held by many in those pews. To one degree or another, many of them do think they have the duty to make everyone follow the club rules.
John –
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you on the NECESSITY of picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. As I stated before, I’m not a word-for-word, literal interpretation type of guy. I agree with Paul in II Corinthians when he wrote (or dictated) that the letter (of the law/word) kills, but the spirit gives life. That’s to say, I try to find the spirit, or the principle being illustrated, when I read the Bible. So there are no parts (Old or New Testament) that I dismiss/ignore out of hand. I simply try to find the current day application of the principle in my life.
It’s funny that some of the “mutually exclusive” parts that you mentioned are also mentioned by Christ in His “Sermon on the Mount” (intentional on your part, I’m sure). Do you think that Jesus (or Matthew, or whoever) saw themselves as “picking and choosing” as He pointed out these differences (the author’s done a HORRIBLE job of “covering up” vast contradictions if they were)? Rather, wouldn’t it make more sense that Jesus was giving a BETTER, more appropriate explanation of these OT scriptures.
Similar to His statement that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The intent was never to give us (or the Jews) a list of things that they could look for to have an excuse to stone each other to death (ahh ahh ahh, you did some work on the Sabbath – now I get to kill you). Wouldn’t it make more sense that this (and many other punishable offenses) were given as a means of self-regulation (I shouldn’t harm anyone’s eye, because they’d have the right to take mine out. I shouldn’t be a disobedient child, I could be beat to death. And so on). Of course this doesn’t apply to EVERYTHING in the OT, but I’m convinced that Christ was trying to correct misinterpretations of the law – even in saying “Love God… and Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two… hang all the law and the prophets”.
So everything in the OT has to be interpreted through the lens of the two love commandments (according to Jesus – and I’m inclined to take His interpretation as an authoriative one), not dismissed.
So, to reiterate – I have to patently disagree with you that one has to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they’ll believe in and follow. But then, I for one, don’t find the Bible to be contradictory in spirit and principle (though if you go by the “letter”, you’re bound to misinterpret and contradict).
You’re not the first person to mention slavery to me on this forum. As a Black man, I’m particularly (umm, I won’t say “sensitive”, let’s say) concerned about said topic. I won’t pretend to have memorized the entire Bible – so is there some passage where God encourages/approves of/celebrates slavery? I’m aware that there IS slavery in the Bible, but so is polygamy (I’ve already put out the challenge for someone to find the pro-multiple wife scripture), divorce, and a slew of other things that God is clearly NOT in favor of (Jesus even says Moses made provisions for divorce, but it was never God’s will that it occur – from the beginning he made Adam and Eve to be together no matter what). So again – I’m at a loss for the need to pick and choose.
Be Blessed,
Greg
David –
I don’t deny the fervor that exists for a “theocracy”, but I will admit to being somewhat confused by it.
Why there is so much emphasis on trying to get the world to conform to “our” way, in the face of the abundance of scriptures that state how the world will hate us, to befriend the world is to be an enemy of God, the world cannot receive the Spirit of truth, the god of this world is the Devil, we should not be “of the world”, etc. – I don’t know (unless, at the risk of sounding superstitious, it’s a trick of the devil – getting us to waste time and effort brewing strife, rather than doing something productive).
Honestly, I think if we spent more time trying to set a righteous, holy, LOVING example to draw others to our side of their own free will, instead of trying to enforce morality through legislation – we would have a much more effective witness in the world (and fulfill the responsibility of spreading the Gospel more effectively).
And honestly, I believe it is OUR responsibility to hold our (often self-appointed) leaders (or should I say “public figures”) responsible for the standard of scriptural love, rather than being silently torn between (“well, Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell/etc. does so much good, in preaching the Gospel and in outreach ministries” AND “oh my goodness, Bill Maher makes SO much more sense than Robertson/Fallwell when he blamed 9/11 on homosexuals, or suggested assassinating Hugo Chavez, etc.”) and saying nothing.
Be Blessed,
Greg
Greg,
You can read through Leviticus and see how slaves are to be treated. Having rules fo the treatment of slaves without simply banning the practice of slavery is a tacit acceptance if not an endorsement of the practice. It is really quite shocking to think that wearing cloth of certain origins is absoutely prohibited, yet the denial of another human being the most basic rights and freedoms over their own life and body doesn’t seem to rise to the level of grave offense against God and man.
As to your response to me, you are clearly picking and choosing. You are picking passages, and choosing to apply or modify your interpretation of those passages based on your world view. I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I do think there is something wrong with accusing others of picking and choosing as if it is something wrong.
Actually Greg, you’re not quite correct when you say that “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24) will deter someone from harming another because the “letter” says he will then have to recieve that reciprocal punishment. Because the Torah says that seeking vengance is wrong – so a vengeful punishment is wrong. This wikipedia excerpt does a wonderful job explaining how. In fact, the Oral Torah – which was handed down to Moses when the written scriptures were delivered to the Israelites, and which Jews have used to interpret the “letter” in order to understand its “spirit” since his days – tells us that this refers to monetary compensation, and that a punishment must fit the crime.
Even if the law were meant to be taken literally, it would be quite flawed. What if a blind man were to be the one that forcefully injured another’s eye? (it might sound silly or unlikely, but we Jews do our best to cover every possible situation.) Then the punishment of “eye for eye” would not be fair. The human body is fragile; ethics could be violated all too easily: what if the person being blinded as punishment were also to die? The the situation would end up being eye for eye/life, which is grossly unequal. Babylonian Talmud Bava Kamma 84a explains that since Exodus 21:36 – which happens only a few verses later – uses the “[noun] for [noun]” expression (in this case, “ox for ox”) in reference to monetary compensation, so too must the previous verse be interpreted.
So go do it already 😉
In the mean time, the main purpose of XGW is to (mostly) keep track of a certain segment, ex-gay ministries and/organizations. I have no doubt that they are more accountable today because of such efforts on the part of many. The Church certainly hasn’t held them accountable — quite the opposite.
Emily –
I don’t see where we’re in disagreement (except for your incorrectly seeming to imply that I was stating any benefits from adhering to “the letter of the law” – quite the contrary). I was saying that in the examples from Christ’s sermon on the mount – Jesus was explaining that those laws were more prohibitive than punitive (what I should avoid doing, rather than how do I get to justify poking somebody’s eye out, knocking their tooth out, ooh, ooh – can I stone an adulteress) in that “Love God and Love you neighbor” circumscribes the whole of the Law (again stressing not harming others, rather than stressing who I get to punish once they’ve done wrong). So maybe I mispoke when implying that the sole motivation for not committing the initial offense is the fear of the reciprocal punishment – but moreso that I shouldn’t commit the initial offense PERIOD (as love would motivate me to know to treat others as I would have them treat me – and poking out my eye, knocking out my tooth, sleeping with my wife, etc. are all things I would NOT be in favor of). So, again – I am NOT in favor of adhering to the “letter of the law”, but in learning/applying the “spirit of the law”.
John –
I already gave the examples of divorce and polygamy as things that God allowed, while being against (and even providing guidelines by which – divorce at least – they would be carried out, though He never wanted them to occur). So, did God accept slavery? No argument there, sure He did. Did He endorse it – a much harder point to prove (and I’m of the belief that He did NOT endorse it – and on an almost complete tangent, it might go without saying that slavery in ancient Israel, and in most of the world’s history, was vastly different from that “peculiar institution” called American chattel slavery). As for which offenses are/were bigger or smaller in the eyes of God – “His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts” is all I can say to that.
Finally – How am I picking and choosing, by stating that the entire Bible speaks the TRUTH, and that I seek the spirit of each passage of scripture (OT and NT) for practial application in my life, and to be shared in fellowsip with other believers? I’m not “modifying [my] interpretation of… passages based on [my] world view”. I’m interpreting the Bible as a whole, based on the teaching/explanation/interpretation of Jesus.
I’ve been very careful to remove myself from my preconceived notions, and simply receive the truth (and I’ve had plenty of my assumptions, sacred cows and personal worldview prejudices dashed against the rocks in light of what I’ve learned from scripture).
If I may, it sounds like you’re projecting – and twisting anything I might say into “picking and choosing”. Kinda like the person who doesn’t believe anyone can do anything selflessly – then denies the selfless acts of others by saying, “oh, well you really saved that person’s life so you could feel better about yourself – and thus you received some benefit and it wasn’t selfless”.
You’re fine with picking and choosing – I’m not (and don’t approve of picking and choosing – not that you’re seeking my approval). I believe the whole Bible, and interpret it in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, without dismissing any of it.
Be Blessed,
Greg
P.S. In deference to David and the TRUE purpose of this website, I’m hesitant to carry on this Biblical study/belief discussion (as he said – this is NOT a Christian website) and make such gratuitous mis-use of the generously supplied bandwidth. So I’ll try to fade into the background yet again (or at least keep my response much more brief).
By the way, David – YES SIR!! I’m right on top of the job.
Greg:
Christianity is all about picking and choosing Scripture. First, we picked and chose which books would be included in the canon of Scripture and which were to be eliminated. The mere fact that there are a variety of Christian communities with different canons proves that.
For those of us of the Orthodox faith, we adhere to the Greek Septuagint list of the Jewish Scriptures. There are also those of us who include the First and Epistle of St. Clement, the Didache, and other texts in the Christian canon.
We also “pick and choose” from Scripture because of our starting point in faith. If I believe, as I do, that G-d is love, and that Christ is G-d and man, then, like the early church, I see the Jewish Scriptures not as a Jew would see them, but as a prologue (so to speak) to the coming of Jesus. The writers of the four Gospels “picked and chose” the texts from the Jewish Scriptures to prove something about Jesus, his words, actions, and events in life.
It doesn’t mean I can’t read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would, nor does it mean I would immiediately write off their interpretations or consider them secondary, but as far as my faith is concerned I would see them in a different light.
St. Paul, in his epistles, “picked and chose” what Christians were to adhere to in the “Old Law” and what was no longer binding. The Early Church Fathers did the same, and the Church has been doing this since her birth.
The Orthodox faith also reads St. Paul and the other Epistles and the Apocalypse in the light of the Gospel of Christ. Our faith is based on Christ, not the Bible, so it is the words, deeds, and teachings of Christ that have the ultimate decision, not a passage in Scripture. Scripture was made for us to understand our faith, a faith based on G-d, a Divine Being, not a book.
The Bible is NOT a catechism. It is not a list of beliefs. Each book or letter has its own unique style, vision, and purpose.
What the LGBT community has done with regard to Scriptures is to re-examine those passages that have been “picked and chosen” to comdemn us to determine whether or not they truly do comdemn us. We are doing nothing more or less than what the Church as a whole (Jews included) in regard to approaching the Sacred Texts.
Alan –
OK, now I’m convinced that you’re projecting (perhaps in order to legitimize your own practice of “picking and choosing”). Statements like “Christianity is all about picking and choosing Scripture”, and “the Church has been doing this since her birth” are vast generalizations that gloss over the need to have SOMEthing that represents orthodox canon (not a mere practice in “picking and choosing” what was liked/comfortable vs. what was disliked/difficult – but as a result of serious scholarship – though admittedly not 100 percent agenda-free) belies an argument springing from a pre-made conclusion (how can I present data that supports my “pick and choose” conclusion), rather than an argument that leads to a conclusion (given all the available data, do I come to a “pick and choose” conclusion?).
Then accusing Paul of “picking and choosing”, and to call the Gospel authors pointing out how Jesus was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies from Jewish scripture (please allow me to refer to it as the OT) “picking and choosing” is like saying to a child, “You’re just like your father”, and pointing out ten similarities – and the child responding, “oh, you’re just ‘picking and choosing’ the things about him that most stand out about our similarities – I’m sure he had hundreds of character traits, and if you don’t list ALL of them, then you’re just ‘picking and choosing’ “.
I, for one, and glad that the NT authors didn’t feel the need to re-state the entirety of the OT in every letter they wrote to mostly Jewish readers (converts to “the way”, but Jewish nevertheless) who were already familiar with the contents of the “Law and Prophets”.
I suppose Calculus books “pick and choose” what parts of Algebra they “believe in”, by not re-stating ALL of the principles of Algebra when figuring out the sample problems. Which is only fair, because Algebra books “pick and choose” what parts of Arithmetic they “believe in”. Eureka – you’ve uncovered a vast scholastic practice of “picking and choosing” when progressing academically (and thus refuting any parts of the antecedent disciplines that are not directly cited in the subsequent courses).
How about we just agree to disagree – rather than you trying to convince me that I’m engaging in the same practice as you. As I stated in an earlier post – it’s probably more important that people adhere to their own professed beliefs, and avoid hypocrisy, than it is to convince others to believe the same as them.
My only goal here, from the beginning, was to understand the viewpoints of others (hence my initially asking questions) and my being sought to be understood. I’m more confident that my perspective is understood by many on the board, and I feel I’ve come to understand the perspectives of others (and I appreciate the enlightenment).
Agreement, however, was never really my goal (and I don’t think it’s a realistic one). Personally I think mutual understanding (even without agreement) is quite an accomplishment. So let’s just agree to disagree, and appreciate any deeper understanding of divergent perspectives that may have been gleaned from the entire experience.
I would suggest further investigating just why you have chosen to engage in “pick and choose”, or “buffet-style” Christianity, as I stated way back near the beginning – because the whole “it’s simply a continuance of necessary Christian ‘pick and choose’ tradition” doesn’t really hold water.
Maybe you’re guilty of returning God the favor by “making Him in your own image”, so you don’t have to face hard changes that you’d have to make if you accepted the whole Bible (in whatever canon you’ve accepted – with or without Apocrypha), maybe you had your mind made up when you came to the Bible, and have decided to eschew whatever you don’t already agree with, maybe you’ve legitimately identifiied parts of scripture that DON’T belong in the canon through years of research and scholarship – who knows?
Be Blessed,
Greg
Greg,
I wasn’t going to come back into this, but your last response to Alan is just insulting. You talk about agreeing to disagree, then you turn around and accuse him of “picking and choosing” and being a “buffet style” Christian while absolving yourself of doing the same thing. Incidentally, he was making the point that we all make choices about what to follow and not follow in the Bible. He wasn’t trying to paint himself better or worse than you for engaging in the same practice.
You write that the NT just restated things from the OT. That just isn’t true. How is “accept back the prodigal son” a restatement of “kill the disobediant child”? How is “turn the other cheek” a restatement of “an eye for an eye”?
You have your definition of hypocrite. I think someone who insults others by calling them a “buffet style” Christian while engaging in the same practice more than deserves the label.
Greg said:
Alan’s comment was a reasonable statement of his point of view with examples. None of it was crafted as personal jabs as your statement above and other bits in your last statement does. The discussion was quite civil to that point. This is an example of where the line is, please try to avoid it.
Greg, what well researched counsel decided that divorced and remarried people could remain as part of the church?
John –
I didn’t “accuse” Alan of “picking and choosing”, he admits it proudly. My point of contention with him was that it is NOT something that all Christians do, nor is it something that is even necessary for Christians to do. So I fail to see where the insult is in saying – “you do what you’ve chosen to do with regard to the Bible, I do something different, and I don’t agree with your approach, not that my disapproval should cause you to change in any way”.
I also didn’t write that the “NT just restated things from the OT”. In one post I explained that Jesus gave us a better understanding of the OT mandates as being prohibitive rather than punitive (so that we, in accordance with “love your neighbor as yourself”, wouldn’t do the initial offense – not to give believers free license to carry out the punishment mentioned as the result of the offense… hence “don’t be a disobedient child” is/was the goal, not “great, I get to kill my child if they’re disobedient”). In this light, there’s not need to DROP the OT scriptures, simply understand them, and avoid committing the offenses against parents, neighbor’s wife, tooth, eye, etc. Again – not picking and choosing, but holding to the comprehensive whole.
In another post I DID say that NT authors restated prophecies from the OT that Jesus fulfilled (not in those exact words, but the only other place I could guess you got the “NT just restated…” argument from).
David –
I will admit to poking a little fun in my analogies in the post you mentioned, but I didn’t see anything I wrote as a personal attack (so, my apologies Alan, if you feel you’ve been attacked). I was simply trying to state that his glossed over argument – Christianity’s all about picking and choosing of scripture as a correct and necessary practice, followed by lumping anyone who quotes ANY scripture into the “picking and choosing” crowd (presumably because they didn’t quote ALL scripture at every recitation of something from the OT) – was fallacious in both its construct and its content.
I closed with a suggestion that he investigate just why it is he adheres to the “picking and choosing” doctrine so vehemently – and perhaps if I had suggested “years of research and scholarship” on Alan’s part as the 1st possible reason, instead of the last, then it would have come across as less offensive. Of course I don’t know WHAT his motivation is for “picking and choosing”, and perhaps I should keep speculation as to his motives to myself (I can respect that) – but my goal was not to insult, nor to convince him that he should see the Bible like I do.
With respect to divorced and remarried people remaining as a part of the church – while sins (both having some clearly outlined Biblical exceptions), ours is a faith marked by love, forgiveness and God’s obvious respect for free will. I guess I’m not aware of where the Bible says the divorced and remarried shouldn’t be a part of the church – if nobody who commits sin is allowed in the church, then all I see are tumbleweeds blowing up and down the pews. Perhaps you can help me out with your question.
And, honestly – I apologize for any offenses I’ve committed (particularly to Alan in this case) and I can admit to being a smart a$$ in my last post to him. Please forgive me.
Greg:
I am not offended by your statements. But to say that not all Christians pick and choose from Scripture runs contrary to the reality of the Christian experience. Not only do we as Christians pick and choose our canon, but we also pick and choose which translation we wish to use. Go to a book store and you will see a variety of translations in English. How do you know which translation to pick? How can you rely on the translators to be accurate in their translation?
Again, going back to homosexuality mentioned in the Bible, that is a legitimate question asked by many modern scholars who question the validity of translations made that use the word “homosexual” in such renderings as St. Paul’s list of those who will not enter heaven. Translators have to pick and choose their words carefully to render the Scriptures understandable and yet true to the original texts.
To give a simple example is the first part of the Angelical Salutation. The Greek rendering is “kecharitomene” which literaly means “filled to perfection with grace.” It is also used in place of Mary’s name which, Biblically speaking, a name change indicates a change in function. (Simon’s name was changed to Peter, for example). So the Latin term “gratia plena” and the English translation “full of grace” are the best renderings of this Greek word, and yet, modern translations have used the term, “Highly favored.” Clearly, there is a difference from being full of grace in a Christian sense versus just being a “favorite” person. By chosing “highly favored” versus “full of grace,” the translation is missing the original Greek meaning of the word.
A Calculus book will normally contain most, but not all the things necessary to explain and understand Calculus. Most likely one would need a teacher to explain the book, give examples, and expand upon what the book lacks. The book may be an excellent one at that, but I would need to learn how to read Calculus in order for it to make sense to me. I would need to have some background in mathematics in order to understand it. And I would need experiences outside the book of Calculus in order for it to make sense to me.
I would hope that whoever wrote the Calculus book (or edited it) picked and chose wisely what is needed in a Calculus book in order to understand it, and I am sure that new editions would appear of that Calculus book that would modified and improve anything it lacks or needs to clarify and explain better.
Also, I most likely will have a focal point about mathematics, perhaps something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. And would base my knowledge of Calculus on that simple fact and build on it.
(I apologize for the length of this reply.)
What a nonsensical analogy.
(is there a term for a false analogy/argument based on remembering that totally confusing topic from high school level and throwing around a few words for public effect?)
I have never encountered a calculus text book that “chooses” which parts of algebra to “believe in”. (for my sins, and career path, I’ve alas encountered a great number).
An understanding of algebra is essential before tackling calculus. If a calculus text book chooses not to include at length each and every foundation for algebra there is a simple reason for that: your earlier algebra text book has already done so, and you already know the subject. Mathematics is not a democracy and your ‘opinion’ is irrelevant.
Mathematicians do not “choose” what part of mathematics to “believe in”. They accept all of it, and none of it can be (or is) contradictory. If it is, one or both are demonstrably wrong.
They do argue over the most elegant way to derive a solution in the same way people argue in the car over which is the most scenic route home. Heh.
What was the topic again? Oh yeah… Ted Haggard… still not trustworthy.
(Pondering: when was the last time mathematics professors burst out of their cells and ran around burning “the heretics”???)
Alan –
I’m glad I didn’t offend you, as that was truly not my aim.
I still don’t understand why you insist on saying that “picking and choosing” of scriptures is a necessary part of the reality of being a Christian, when I’ve consistently given you my personal testimony that I, for one (and I know countless others who), don’t pick and choose. Your example of Bible translations only bolsters my point. If I was someone who says there is only one legitimate translation, and all the rest contain blasphemy – then you’d be right. But, in actuality, I own (or have owned, or read from) KJV, NKJV, Amplified, NIV, ASV, NAB, and the Living Bible.
Obviously the words in each are not identical (otherwise they wouldn’t be different translations) – and some even have entire verses (e.g. I John 5:7 of KJV not being in NIV), or books (e.g. I & II Maccabees) different – but I haven’t found the spirit of the principles of God to be different as illustrated amongst any of them (not that I’ve done an exhaustive study, mind you).
So if I choose to study primarily from the KJV, that is not “picking and choosing” as I’ve stated it (in that my “choosing” the one doesn’t mean I’m rejecting any others). I believe the contents of all 66 (or 73) books of the Bible to be true, and don’t “pick” only the parts I like – as a matter of fact, I try to spend more time trying to understand and conform to the principles that challenge me to change and relinquish my personal desires and will – because it’s more important for God’s will to reign, than for me to have my own way.
Be Blessed,
Greg
Greg:
I guess it is because I have never seen nor heard of any Christian who has not done it. Also because I do not see it as wrong or damaging to Scriptures. On the contrary, it allows us to dive into the Scriptures and study their meaning rather than just reading them at the surface. If the terms offend you, we can use “select and decifer” but I don’t think “pick and choose” demeans the action of searching the Scriptures and contemplating their meaning.
As an Orthodox Christian, I do not view all Scripture as equal. The Four Gospels are at the higest level (which is why the Gospels are carried to the altar and are part of the procession), followed by the Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The Jewish Scriptures follow, and even they are categorized in importance: the Psalms would be the highest on the list, followed by the Prophecies of Isaias, the other Prophets, etc. (For Jewish, of course, the order would be totally different – the Torah is the highest part of the Jewish Scriptures, followed by the other writings).
Greg, if you say you do not pick and choose scriptures then for you that is how you see it. But how you perceive what you do and what I perceive you do is not in agreement.
The accusations of “picking and choosing” and having a “buffett Christianity” does not take away from the fact that Christians are called to look and examine the Scriptures, and that we may have new insight into passages that were once obscure or not fully understood. That we do this with the passages that were used to condemn homosexuality does not make us Christians of convenience. We reconcile our faith and sexuality because the reconciliation was already there; the stumbling block was the misunderstanding of key passages by those who took the passages out of context and isolated them without viewing the whole picture.
Grantdale:
I fell off my chair laughing. Your post made my day, thanks!
As for the topic being about Ted Haggard…hmmm I guess a holier than thou preacher who has sex with prostitutes and parishioners is just old news.
Alan –
Finally, I think we’re getting close to understanding each other.
You wrote…
“Greg, if you say you do not pick and choose scriptures then for you that is how you see it. But how you perceive what you do and what I perceive you do is not in agreement.”
That was A major point of what I was trying to say – you “pick and choose”, but I don’t, and our approaches don’t agree with one another.
The only thing that confuses me now is that after your categorization of the hierarchy of scriptures – which parts of scripture have you chosen to ignore?
Because my initial (and ongoing) accusation/understanding of the term “pick and choose” was that some (many) Christians have books/passages of scripture that they/we do believe and adhere to – while any passages/books/verses that they/we don’t (say for example I don’t WANT to love my enemies, don’t want to esteem others above myself, don’t want to avoid fornication, etc.) get dismissed as anachronistic, or “man wrote that, not God”, or some other excuse for not conforming their/our will to the will of God.
That’s what the whole metaphor of the “buffet” conjures for me – I’ll pile up on meat and dessert, but leave the salad and vegetables for others to eat. So, in light of that definition, do I see that as harmful, or lacking in genuine submitted faith to God, and obedience to His Word – I sure do (and if we disagree about this, that’s ok… the hypocrisy would be in MY dismissing any scripture).
Your last post, however, implies that you don’t just throw away passages that you disagree with (or that make you uncomfortable) – but rather that you search deeper for the true meaning of the “hard” scriptures (e.g. the ones most often used to declare homosexuality a sin). If that’s true, then that wouldn’t be “picking and choosing” at all (by my definition), and we ARE in agreement (which would make me feel silly that we’ve been going back and forth all this time, thinking we were at odds due to semantics) that all of scripture is Holy (even if not equal).
Hmmph – go figure.
Be Blessed,
Greg
grantdale –
It’s funny that you called my math example a “nonsensical analogy”, then when you went on to explain why Calculus books don’t include the entirety of Algebra (and by extension, why Algebra books don’t include the entirety of Arithmetic) – the fact that the expectation of the author is that the reader is already thoroughly familiar with the prior material – you made/elaborated my point for me.
I was saying that the NT authors didn’t have to quote the entirety of the OT whenever they were writing something that referenced messianic prophecies, or “the Law”, for example. Why? Because the readers of their letters/epistles were already “thoroughly familiar with the prior material”.
I’m going to resist the urge for sarcasm here, and ask – HOW is that a nonsensical analogy (as I’ve framed it above – PLEASE don’t go off on some distracting tangent … I’ve defined above the parameters by which I was making the analogy, and it seems rather DIRECT, instead of nonsensical, so please help me see the error of my ways, or concede that you may have been in error).
Given that you further explained that…
“Mathematicians do not “choose” what part of mathematics to “believe in”. They accept all of it, and none of it can be (or is) contradictory. If it is, one or both are demonstrably wrong.”
I was stating that…
NT authors didn’t “choose” what part of the OT to believe in. They accepted all of it, and none of it is contradictory. As the basis for the NT, if it and the OT are in contradiction, then both are demonstrably wrong.
Yeah, still not seeing the “nonsensical-ness” of the analogy.
Now, can you find differences between the subject of Math and Scripture? Of course – that’s why I used ANALOGY, as opposed to saying the two are EXACTLY the same – and I believe I’ve demonstrated (with your “oh so able” assistance – thank you) the parameters under which the analogy is appropriate, relevant and accurate.
Be Blessed,
Greg
it’s more important for God’s will to reign, than for me to have my own way
I count (at least) three examples of “picking and choosing” in that statement alone.
It’s “ExGayWatch.com”
Not “MyVersionOfGodWatch.com”
(Politely…) You boys want to take this outside?
————-
Alan, my pleasure, but you need a more secure chair… although the very idea of my (prob. long dead) mathematics professors taking up arms against trigonometry heretical people is, well, amusing in a droll sort of way. You need to get out more 🙂 No. Really.
Sheesh, imagine being such a loser as to be burnt at the stake by people wearing beige cardigans that their wife knitted. Or being forced to recant by people with leather patches on their elbows. Or being dunked unto drowning at the whim of a chick who thinks a high and tight perm and tweed skirts are ‘dead sexy’.
(I’m just grateful 99.99% of professional mathematicians are 100% autistic and are therefore — sorry, Q.E.D. — 100% unaware of the insults thrown at them.)
Greg,
It’s nonsensical because 1+1 always = 2. To anyone. And who cares what some “believe”. That cannot be said about religion, or even Christianity.
Also, people don’t kill one another over what S/Paul the Mathematician said. These days.
They don’t need to, because his view would be easily tested.
Your fault is comparing “what God said” to mathematics.
Before you’re let off resisting the urge to be sacastic — what level of maths did you take? Sorry, and pass?
If qualified, you have my permission to be sarcastic and draw a comparison. If not, stop being a pretender.
Greg:
I don’t ignore any of them. I understand them in their context. I understand them in their historical setting, the audience to whom it was addressed, and their purpose. I also understand them according to Gospel of Christ.
So, for example, I would “love my enemy” as Christ commanded me to do instead of cutting off his head and displaying it to a crowd as Judith did …
And when she had drawn it out, she took him by the hair of his head, and said: Strengthen me, O Lord God, at this hour. And she struck twice upon his neck, and out off his head, and took off his canopy from the pillars, and rolled away his headless body.
– Judith 13:9,10
or cut off someone’s ear as Peter did …
Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus. (HGJC St. John 18:10)
I believe the Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. So when I read the passages that mention Christ’s brothers, I understand that the Aramic and Hebraic words for brother encompass more than just a male person from the same womb .. they can imply step brothers or cousins. I don’t ignore the passages that seem to imply she was not a virgin afterwards, I understand them in their context.
So too with the passages concerning homosexuality. I do not ignore them, I understand them in their context. St. Paul is concerned with temple worshipping practices in his Epistle to the Romans, whereas the list of those not eligible for heaven concern itself with male prostitution and those who are vain about their appearances (deduced from the Latin terms “masculorum concubitores”and “molles.”)
I do not ignore any part of Scripture, but rather understand the different books and letters and versus and stories in the light of the Gospel of Christ. So that the premise of my faith in G-d is “G-d is love,” from which Orthodox Christianity basis its faith upon, it is from there that I can understand which parts of Scripture still aply and which are no longer applicable to the Christian experience in general.
Grantdale:
If Calculus was a religion that wouldn’t be a far fetched reality. Unfortunately Christianity has spent a vast amount of energy trying to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong, who’s in and who’s out while disregarding the true Gospel message.
I guess it is easier to burn heretics than to try to accept there are more than one way to interpret something. I guess it is easier to blame the Jews for Christ’s crucifixion than blame ourselves for it. But then, it’s hard to think outside the box when you’re trapped inside it.
I hope and pray that Haggard comes to a realization of who he is, what he is, and why he is that way whether it be that he is gay, bi, or whatever. And that he finds a way to reconcile who and what he is with his faith. I think he needs to seek forgiveness from the LGBT community for the harm he has caused while he was in ministry and what is going on in his life in the present. Also, that he seeks forgiveness to those with whom he directly harmed including himself. But that he seek it, and NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXPECT TO RECEIVE IT as he is still under the assumption (in my eyes) that his actions do not require any compensation or penance on his part.
Alan –
Well, it turns out that we’re a LOT closer in our treatment of scripture than it seemed at the beginning (of this conversation). Our biggest disagreement seems to be in the definition of what “picking and choosing” is (we certainly took the “40 years in the wilderness” circuitous route to get to that, hunh?).
I’m sure we don’t hold identical interpretations of each and every passage of scripture (e.g. I think Peter was wrong for cutting off Malchus’s ear even in the time/context that it occurred, not only something that doesn’t apply in a modern context – and I don’t find any reason to believe that Joseph and Mary were married after the birth of Jesus, and they continued to not have sex… that’s one I’ve often been curious about. Why do some Christians insist on her dying a virgin {and where does the “Assumption” come from} when there’s nothing sinful about having sex with your husband… ok, I’m going tangential now – apologies), but I’m glad to know we’re MUCH closer to understanding each other (or at least I can speak for myself – I understand YOUR perspective much more than I did prior to your last couple of posts… silly me for not making sure we meant the same thing by “picking and choosing” from the beginning) – and the closer agreement is just icing on the cake.
grantdale –
No sir (forgive the gender assumption) – I don’t want to take this outside and I didn’t mean any harm and I didn’t want to cause any trouble and I won’t make any more comments and I’ll be outta cyberspace by high noon and yes my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.
Have fun.
Be Blessed,
Greg
Greg:
Believing that Mary was a perpetual virgin has nothing to do with determining whether sex between a married couple is sinful or not. The Orthodox faith never based its belief on that premise. I can give you an explanation of the Orthodox Christian understanding of her virginity in a private email as it would completely veer off the topic at hand.
But in that vein, I have no problem with someone not believing in her perpetual virginity and making such a conclusion from Sacred Scripture. I don’t think anyone has lost their job because they don’t believe it. I don’t believe anyone was denied housing, or adopting children, or been denied the right to marry the person they love because of it. At least not in the U.S. But I do have a problem when certain passages of Scripture are misinterpreted and used against a group of people, such as the passages in the HGJC according to St. John where Christians have used them to imply that Jews are Christ-killers and to justify their prejudices against them. The same applies to the passages that are used against the LGBT community. Anytime Scripture is used to go against the teachings of Christ, I have a problem with that.
grantdale (I didn’t see your 10:16 am response before now) –
I’m pretty sure I made it clear by what parameters I was making an analogy between the structure of Math courses and how NT authors cited OT content to make more than enough sense, even though they’re vastly different topics (similar to “my love is like a red, red rose” isn’t nonsensical because of the analogy between a vegetable and an emotion).
I didn’t realize I needed to be “qualified” to draw legitimate analogies, and be accused of being a “pretender” – but does a Master’s in Electrical Engineering (including 3 semesters in Calculus, 1 semester in Differential Equations, 1 semester in Discrete Math, whatever the course was where we studied LaPlace Transforms, Fourier Transforms and Graphical Convolution, with a blowoff Matrix Algebra class) and Summa Cum Laude from the University of Michigan qualify me to be able to construct an analogy and differentiate between the limits of said analogy, without needing the compared subjects to be identical in every aspect.
Calculus is to Algebra as the NT is to the OT with regard to… in both comparisons – the 1st item is subsequent to the 2nd, someone writing the 1st item assumes their audience has mastered the 2nd (necessitating a less than full re-stating of the earlier “2nd” item when stating/deriving new information even though it’s based on the “2nd” item – being either Algebra or the OT).
Hmm, it seems it may have been more appropriate to ask me what levels of English, Logic or Rhetoric I took (and passed) – since obviously it takes formal University training to be able to form an original thought (from some people’s perspectives).
Classic!
Be Blessed,
Greg
P.S. Thank God I’m intimately familiar with Schrodinger’s Equation, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity – I might want to comment about using computers for web-surfing one day, and I’d hate be lacking in qualifications to do so (and if you’re familiar with how those concepts play into the development of Silicon technology for computers – you might even get a chuckle from that bit of sarcasm, but OH what a geek you’d have to be).
No Greg, you needed to be qualified before threatening to be sarcastic with me; not before you draw analogies. You’ve been rude enough to the good people here to (surely) satisfy at least one of your goals, so accept you’ll need to avoid being rude with me. I don’t have their tolerance levels.
You’re obviously quite ready to invent and use analogies, that much I do accept. It’s Debate Class 101 technique when one has nothing solid to support mere opinion. Ignoring the opportunity to point that out, I simply said it was a rubbish analogy: mathematicians don’t pick and choose what they “believe” about their field. It’s maths, not metaphysics.
It’s a particularly unimpressive analogy because you also attempted to use it to insult people who, unlike you, actually gave real examples to support their understandings.
That said, I’d be oh so impressed with all the rest of the bumf … ‘cept I don’t “believe” you. On that I’m being led not by the letter but the spirit. Annoying as that may be. I suppose it’s a bit like being on a roller-coaster with one arm tied behind your back and spitting into the breeze, to coin a pointless analogy or three.
(Not believe, not least because of your continuous use of highly irregular CaPiTaLiSaTiOn and very odd phrasing).
FYI, I am Blessed — you may stop addressing me as if I’m not. Actually, just stop.
ps: I’m guessing, from much, that you’re involved in a (largely?) black (largely?) pentacostal faith. In reply to some earlier ‘picking and choosing’ you did on slavery eg: 1) ‘accepted’, but not ‘approved’ 2) ‘Israelite slavery’ not same as ‘American slavery’ I would also guess that Genesis 9 and it’s historic interpretation is something you have either left unsaid and/or utterly rejected.
It’s too long and long convaluted for here, but ‘The Curse of Ham’ was a foundation biblical justification for enslavement of Africans. That Ham+ was dark-skinned, and cursed, was an accepted ‘belief’ for most of Christian history. Shamefully, it poisoned LDS thinking until as late as 1978 when (miracle of miracles) they were saved by a divine revelation.
I thought that “belief” was rubbish in 1977, of course, but then again I also told dear old Effie the Syrian he was a fool to include it in the first place. He didn’t listen to me, but unfortunately others did. And look where that took us all.
This go around with Greg is pointless. His examples are bogus and the real elephant in the room is being ignored.
In Algebra X time 1=X. In Calculus X times 1=X. Absolutely the same. No change. No conflict.
Kill the disobediant child and an eye for an eye are exact and complete opposites to accepting back the prodigal son and turning the other cheek. No similarity at all.
Greg claims that killing the disobediant child and accepting the prodigal son back are the same and not in conflict. I’m wondering what you do first. Do you kill the child and then accept them back for burial, or do you accept them back and then when they are close enough and relaxed, plunge in the dagger. You can go through the same exercise with turning the other cheek and plucking out the offender’s eye.
The real issue is Greg’s Orwellian newspeak. Just because he chooses to proclaim that killing the disobediant child is the same as accepting back the prodigal son doesn’t make it true. It is demonstrably false.
I suppose next we will be hearing more Lies from the Ministry of Truth about the War that is being conducted by the Ministry of Peace against the Eternal Enemy who was our Ally last week.
I’m getting off this merry-go-round, because I’ve already read this book. I know how it ends.
John and grantdale –
Congratulations. You’ve both successfully devolved the conversation back to the clueless, idiotic practice of taking my comments out of context (or just out and out making up arguments from me out of whole cloth), building an easily refutable position that I’ve never held, then crowing at your success at how the strawman burns so easily.
I’d like to think it’s a lack of literacy, or inability to think critically on your part (especially when someone presents ideas that you disagree with), then at least you wouldn’t be guilty of Fox News/MSNBC style “spin” – but I’m convinced that’s exactly what’s happening.
If it was just ignorance, then that would be relatively easily curable (not for us to come to agreement, but at least understanding) – you would just need some information (and maybe some training on reading comprehension).
John, I’m sure you know how the book ends, since you’ve authored both sides of the conversation out of whole cloth.
Grantdale, what is a Black Pentacostal Faith (uh oh, there I go capitalizing again)? And for that matter – what don’t you believe (if I’m going to be accused of being a liar, I’d at least like to know what for)? If it’s my credentials, not only am I not interested in impressing you, I probably shouldn’t have stated them in the 1st place – since they were completely immaterial to the discussion in the first place (besides, I didn’t mean to make you jealous… are you one of those guys/gals that couldn’t get in to U of M? If it makes you feel any better, just blame it on Affirmative Action – ugghh, there goes that capitalization again – it seems to soothe the egoes of the under-qualified… Go Blue!!).
By the way, yes I’m quite familiar with the white supremacist twisting of scripture to justify slavery (not just the Ham/Cush story, but other passages). What of it? And differentiating Israelite slavery with American slavery qualifies as “picking and choosing”? Wow – and I thought Alan and I weren’t on the same page with the definition of that phrase.
To those of you who have been interested in engaging in genuine dialogue (even after suffering through some contentious language on my part) – I say thank you. I feel like I have a better understanding of homosexual issues in general (though you’re clearly not a monolithic group) and issues that arise when trying to reconcile homosexuality with Christian faith. I’m sure it comes as no surprise that we’re still not on the same page, but I am motivated to search the scriptures and pray with the goal of more clearly knowing God’s TRUTH in this regard (for what it’s worth).
I’m also walking away with a renewed interest in holding “us” (as far as that pronoun can go in describing “mainstream” Christianity) accountable to focusing more on winning others through our exemplary behavior and adhering to the tenets of the faith, of their own free will, rather than lobbying to legislate enforcement of our standards on others. And working against the ever-present hypocrisy among those of us in the faith who show more zeal for engaging in Pharisee-ical condemnation of others, rather than in transformative, edifying love of others.
At the risk of being “rude” and having grantdale say that my closing is an accusation that you are all among the UN-blessed…
Be Blessed,
Greg
P.S. John and grantdale – I would suggest you actually ask me what I meant by my statements and analogies, rather than make up the meanings and do “chat-battle” with yourselves… but I’m sure you’re not really interested in responding to my ACTUAL statements, it would only interfere with your cyber-intellectual-auto erotica.
Just when I thought I had calmed everyone down 🙁
Looking back, I think I’ve learned that the discussion of religion, and more so that of doctrine, is probably best attenuated after a certain point. I wish I was skilled enough to know exactly where that point lies in each discussion, but it’s somewhere before where this one ended up.
I’m not going to point out what I think went wrong specifically with that last exchange, because whatever grantdale/John might have done, Greg matched with his reply. If you really want to participate again, Greg, I suggest perhaps wading around in less intense conversation before you dive in the deep water. You may become more familiar and understand, for instance, why people generally don’t end each comment with a signature, even when they aren’t blessing anyone.
It’s easier to be taken correctly (and to take others correctly) when you have been around under less tense circumstances first. There is certainly no reason why you should not remain involved if you like.
Greg, please also excersize care when using the word “Pharisee.” David Roberts, this note from me may become tiring for you. But in my eyes, it’s as necessary as telling someone to please not use the phrase “That’s so gay” – even though it has been largely accepted as a way to describe something “lame” or “stupid.”
Let me also add that if anybody who comes here is looking for a good amount of the people participating to come to their side of “T”ruth, they’re not going to be very successful if that truth includes letting go of genuine, incredible person-to-person romantic love when it occurs between the same sex.
Greg:
With all do respect, “mainstream” Christianity would have to be considered either Roman Catholic or a combination of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox by sheer numbers. There are more Catholics in the world than Bible-only Based Christian congregations. Add the Coptics, the Syrians, and other Orthodox faith communities (as well as the Angelican communities) and it is even more. Perhaps there are more Bible-only Based Christians in the United States, but that does not make it “mainstream.”
Second, as many are “won over” by exemplary behavior that Christians in general may possess, there are more who are turned away from the behaviors of those in the various Church communities (Catholics and Orthodox included). Ted Haggard is the example of bad behavior talked about here in this blog.
Third, we Christians have lobbied to legislate enforcement of our standards on others since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman state. In Texas, thanks to the Baptists, you can’t buy liquior in certain counties. They used to have a blue law where you couldn’t buy certain things on Sunday. (I remember in El Paso going to a store and having certain isles blocked off because they contained the “forbidden items.”)
Also, seeking legistlation to protect the rights of others or ourselves is not wrong. We are still on earth. We’re not in heaven yet. And we are called by Christ to seek peace and justice in this world for ALL people, not just those who dance to the same drum.
I don’t eat meat on Fridays the whole year, but I don’t want a law passed that says everybody can’t eat meat on Fridays because my religious freedom would somehow be violated. And yet, there were civil laws in Europe forbidding the sale and consumption of meat on Fridays. Why? Because of religion. So laws based soley for religious reasons are best kept in the proper religious group. Government should not inact laws to restrict my freedom (for example, force all Americans to eat hamburgers on Friday or face jail time), but by the same token my religious practice and beliefs should not hinder you from enjoying a nice, big, juicy steak for Friday dinner.
David:
I guess because of Ted Haggard and his religious affiliation that many things were discussed that tended to veer away from the principle subject. Because his old church was so rigiid in its view on homosexuality, and its treatment of the whole Haggard scandal, in some ways its good to understand the religious philosophy behind it. We just had a meeting for the LGBT group at my church and someone mentioned a book written by a professor (I’ll have to get the info later) and how churches are categorized according to their beliefs and how that affects their acceptance or rejection of LGBT’s in their communities. What I have noticed is that LGBT’s of an Evangelical background tend to have a harder time of acceptance than those of us of an Orthodox one (although that might be changing with the new pope). So while some things may have been better left unsaid in this blog, I think a lot of it was enlightening.
David –
Duly noted. I’ll do a better job in the future of adhering to my stated goal of responding to and engaging in genuine questions and dialogue, and not allow myself to get baited into (and hopefully not inciting) a “flame” war.
Emily –
My apologies on the “Pharisee” remark. That definitely came from a NT perspective where theyve become synonymous with the hypocritical, self-righteous religious that exist in every faith, without consideration that that wouldn’t be a universal perspective of the group (reminds me of the joke about the “Great, British patriot – Benedict Arnold”).
Please forgive my comment as an ignorant, narrow-sighted mis-statement, that won’t be repeated.
And yeah, by no means did I expect anything I wrote to be so compelling that people would start denouncing their homosexuality and declaring me the “Great Emancipator”. As I’ve written – if we can reach mutual understanding, then I think that’s a tremendous accomplishment (but quite achievable), while “agreement” would be almost impossible (unless someone DID abandon their previously held “truths”).
No signature 🙂
Alan –
Yeah, by “mainstream”, I was implying here in the USA, and even moreso – those who have taken to pushing for more and more legislation to force others to adhere to “our” morals. And while, in terms of number in America, that would be Protestants instead of Catholics, my real point was that those of us in the church (and I’m speaking universally) should be interested in holding each other accountable for upholding the standards (Biblical in general and the example of Christ in particular) of the faith, and NOT hypocritically condemning, judging, and treating others with anything BUT love.
But regardless of who “mainstream” Christianity refers to, we once again seem to be in agreement: this time that our personal beliefs shouldn’t be mandated by law, and enforced on others (though lobbying for, or voting for laws that protect our rights and the rights of those we disagree with – might even be seen as Christian duty).
So I’m not sure if your numbered list was meant to be corrective, or if you were just elaborating, or if it wasn’t really addressed to me at all.
Greg:
That’s good, because no one should have to denounce their homosexuality, especially in order to be a part of a Christian community, or of any religion for that matter.
The emancipation comes when we accept ourselves, love ourselves, and realize the good that comes from our sexual orientation and know that we are loved by G-d. I think many of us here have had such an emancipation or have come here seeking it.
Well Greg you’re certainly forgiven, and I thank you for your humbleness but please know my intent isn’t to beat-up but simply to try to educate a bit. I think that the Benedict Arnold reference is fitting. As long as there is an understanding from both sides it’s fine. Likewise, if you had come back and said “the Word of G0d tells me my usage is correct” then I wouldn’t have been able to respond either way. I gave you the article, quietly made a suggestion.. that’s as far as I can go in this setting and really as far as I want to go.
David R — you have an unenviable job. You know we know that, and thank-you 🙂
We haven’t been in the best of form these past couple of days.
—————————
That said…
I am still sitting and posting while I look at a sky that was trying to decide all weekend if it be dull grey or brilliant orange. A freakish orange-red that carries the dust of inflamed forests, and the ashes of loved ones that have been incinerated within them. They float above us, and fall.
For the past week we have suffered under 110degF+ days. On Saturday we got a cool change. A ‘Blessed” relief. But that cool change sent winds that blew back the fires and scorched the living daylights out of entire communities. Men. Women. Children. Gay. Straight. Saved and Unsaved.
As daylight fell into dusk we listened as the helicopters flew over our insignificant house and dropped their cargo into the Alfred Hospital. Again and again. By 10pm we already knew a tragedy had occurred; as we always do, by counting the helicopters. Today we are trying to comfort those who have lost. We are grateful we have not lost personally, but anguish for our friends that have. Our sister is safe, our nieces are safe — the flames at St Andrews did not keep eating their way south.
I spoke this morning to someone who knew ‘dozens’ of people from her home town — people she grew with — people who have all evaporated into that terrible-beautiful, grey-orange sky that drops it’s dust on my streets. Men, women, children.
Greg, you and your autistic focus is irrelevant. Mere dust of dust, honestly.
Also, I thought I asked you to desist. Don’t compound rude with oblivious.
grantdale,
My thoughts have been about you two. I have watched the news and immediately wondered how you were affected. Thanks for the update and best wishes.
I also thought about you and yours when I saw a report of the fires down under. I don’t think I quite caught the enormity of the thing until a later broadcast. We’ve had our share, both as a nation and local to me. Fortunately, it is usually mostly property that goes up in flames, albeit with a lot of life’s trappings. But life is the important thing. Stay safe you guys.
And Greg, one of the things you will know if you stick around a bit longer, is that grantdale (that is grant and dale, two people) are not known for beating about the bush on anything. And I think we have all had a moment when they were a bit annoying, but the annoyance is mostly because they have an irascible habit of being correct. They are part of what makes up XGW, and if you were to react to them without knowing that, you would miss a lot.
grant & dale … i hope you two stay safe.
You all sound like judgemental hypocrites who have never been through any kind of self confusion or turmoil in your entire lives!!!! If you really want to be helpful to anyone like Ted Haggard, your best action (instead of ripping him apart on a blog site) would be to pray for him to find his way to peace. Just because we live in a free country where you can say what you want to say, does not mean that you SHOULD say what you want to say, especially if it means tearing someone apart! And even more specifically, if you call yourself a Christian, it is supposed to be your living practice to not be judgemental of those who have fallen into their temptations. I said these words to make you think, what if it was YOU having all of your inner demons exposed. You would not want someone who does not even know you judging you. Please be mindful that this person (even if he was wrong) is still just that: a PERSON, A HUMAN! We are not above mistakes, which is why God sent, Jesus: to redeem us from our humanity. Please remember that the next time you see someone being ripped apart by our national media.
Renee, considering the abuse he subjected certain young gay members of his flock to, I wouldn’t be so quick to come to his defense. I also wouldn’t merely dismiss it as “falling into his temptations.” Pastors who “fall into” the “temptation” of being abusive to a vulnerable member of their flock – all the while railing against the things they embody – deserve all of the scrutiny they get.
Renee:
Being an Orthodox Christian, I am “ripped apart” by the likes of Haggard and others just for being an Orthodox Christian. And then being gay just adds to their hateful speech. All the while Haggard and the likes take on an atmosphere of being “perfect” because they have “found” Christ (as if he were playing “Hide and Seek.”) Yes, “we are not above mistakes,” but to say we are to not comment on his behavior nor to condemn it is anti-Christian. And to point out a false teacher or one who is teaching in error is something we are called to do as Christians.
But going beyond the Christian aspect of this, just as human beings we are responsible to expose those who ABUSE others for their own sake. Haggard used and abused people directly and indirectly for his own ego. He used at least one man in his congregation for his own sexual pleasure, a young man who was seeking spiritual guidance not a sexual encounter. And Haggard lied and lived a double life … condemning homosexuality and indoctrinating others to hate the LGBT people, to say we are not children of G-d, while doing the very things he was condemning. And apparently his church was covering up for him.
By the fruits of their labor shall you know them. Haggard chose to take the position of leader of a religious community … and he abused them and lied to them. Leaders are accountable to G-d and those whom they lead. It’s not like he just ran a red light or forgot to pay a parking ticket … he abused people and yet does not want to take responsibility for his actions. HIS DOINGS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT IS LIKE TO NOT BE A TRUE CHRISTIAN.
To Emily K. and Alan S.,
Thank you for your response. I have no desire to be confrontational, but I do wish to bring a perspective to the table which has not been rendered. I do understand that the word says that leaders will be judged more harshly for leading others astray; however, let’s not take the word out of context. God said HE would do the judging. It’s more than exposure of a sin when we indulge in the media’s constant attack of a man who claims he is doing his best to get back in line with the word of God. It is not our place to judge a person, period, even after they have been exposed! It is no one’s just place to say if a man has gone to God and laid their burden down because no one knows (except that man and God). I can not defend his actions, but I can most certainly say that I sympathize for him and the position he put himself in because the road of no peace is a long one. I also sympathize with those who were misled by his hypocrisy because confusion is the where the devil reigns.
Renee,
I have always perceived that most Christians are always reaching to perfect themselves and do the “right” thing. I think most people try their best to be “good” and get past their wily ways. We are also a species that learns through believing words and copying examples of other’s’ behaviors and actions.
In the Bible, “God”, who would seemingly be the utmost example for Christians to follow, judges and destroys with a “do as I say not as I do” connotation i.e. let me do the judging and destroying. Supposedly destroying Sodom and Gomorra for not being nice to strangers, is one of but many examples of destructive acts committed by “God”, Leviticus probably being the cremedelacreme of such anxiety inducing actions.
Bush, a born again Christian, did the same thing with Iraq. Wasn’t he simply following the Christian model of what “God” did with S&G? And what man is not going to copy his “father”, hopefully his greatest teacher? How on earth can we blame Bush for being an example of the very “perfect” creator he desires to emulate, through “perfecting” himself? Isn’t the very role model in which Christians try to emulate, a loving destroying judging icon? It seems with this model, Bush did exactly what he was taught, and should be praised by every Christian. Ted Haggard is no exception.
With this in mind, I do not see how Christians can do anything else but love like Jesus and judge like “God”, as that is the “perfection” which is emulated. Is this not where the “God-like” “Christian soldier” doing things in “the name of God” mentality comes from? In another case, the Phelps would be doing their job “perfectly” as instructed.
So if I am not mistaken, for “God” to set bad examples of judgment and death, Christians will only seek to emulate. It is what Christians are taught. Monkey see monkey do. Judging is not only perfect, it is expected. So with this in mind, Christians should definitely judge as part of their emulation of progressive “perfection”.
So I say to you, if you are a Christian, you will judge and love, both an emulation of your role model “masters”. I think this is where Christians get their “righteousness” to judge quite openly without restraint. They are simply following the “rules”. If anyone has a smidgen of common sense, few people follow the dictum of “do what I say not as I do”. To many, that is a fools follie of sheer confusion.
With this dichotomy between Jesus and God, could this be the very root of hypocrisy the Christian religion fails to understand within itself? Could it be in fact, that Jesus has a few things to teach “God”?
I would be interested in thoughts on this.
Devlin – I think you’ve posed a legitimate question, however “tongue-in-cheek” you may or may not have intended.
The only answer (as a Bible-believing Christian) that I can offer is the “understanding” that I (and I’d hazard to say a large percentage of the “body of Christ”) have come to with regard to the OT and the NT.
Without delving too deeply into the theology of being “under the law” vs. “under grace”, and the Biblical explanation that “The Law and the Prophets” (basically the OT) served as an example of our (humanity’s) need for grace and a savior, because we can NEVER live up to the standards of a perfect God.
So all the examples of “destruction and death” in the OT are not EXAMPLES to be followed, but rather warnings for each individual that a similar fate awaits us all for “falling short”. It’s not an opportunity for us to judge, condemn, stone and put to death OTHERS, but for us to look inward and realize that, by the offenses we’ve all committed against God and man, we’re really not worthy of anything BUT judgement, condemnation, stoning and being put to death.
Then comes Jesus, often prophesied, and promised to be coming in many shadows and types in the OT (let’s say in the “brighter side” parts of the OT). He shows us that the law was never meant to be used to condemn each other, but to set our own standards for how to treat each other (“To Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself is the fulfilling of the Law”). He also comes to not only set an example of how we really SHOULD fulfill the law (not out of fear of punishment, but out of a desire to please God, and help others, e.g. “The Good Samaritan”), AND to realize the futility of trying to do things our own way, rather than submissively running into the arms of our loving Father God (e.g. “Prodigal Son”, repeated sayings of “the kingdom of God is like this”, etc.).
So, if there’s an example to follow DIRECTLY, then we as Christians can seek to emulate the MAN Jesus, who walked the Earth as just that, a MAN. To speak to your question/comment/conclusion about emulating God (especially in terms of judgment and destruction) it’s pretty clear – WE ARE NOT GOD. So, while Jesus did HUMANITY in the most perfect way (which we SHOULD try to follow), it’s not our place (let’s say “above our pay grade”) to try to play GOD.
And I don’t see that as a “Do as I say, not as I do” edict, so much as a “know your place, and realize that YOU’RE barely making it, so who are you to condemn somebody that but by the “grace of God” you could so easily BE them”.
So, when it comes to judgment – yes, we can and should be able to judge what is right and wrong (in terms of actions, beliefs/teachings that run contradictory to the truth, etc.), but we are NEVER to judge (and by judge I believe both judge worthy of condemnation, OR judge worthy of praise) other people – who knows, the person you condemn today, may be tomorrow’s hero… and we’ve certainly seen how today’s hero, put upon a pedestal, can so easily become tomorrow’s heel.
Just my two cents, make change if you’d like.
Greg: Well said!