While searching for some layout and design inspiration, I ran across an editorial in a 2004 issue of Baylor’s magazine entitled Welcoming, Not Affirming written by a theology professor at the nation’s largest Southern Baptist affiliated university. Roger Olson expresses my view much better than I ever have.
Despite the age of the article, I believe the sentiments expressed are extremely timely. While we conservative Christians have been horrible at “love the sinner, hate the sin,” perhaps we can do better in the future moving toward being “welcoming, but not affirming.”
How can you “welcome” me while rejecting me at the same time? Your very judgment drives me away. You can’t have it both ways, Aaron. This type of Christian reasoning just makes you look self-deceiving, at best. I understand that you, at least (as opposed to seeker, who just hates us), are trying to find some kind of middle ground here. But sometimes it’s just impossible. How can I, as a self-respecting human being, accept your type of condescending “welcome,” knowing that, underneath, you still disapprove of me and oppose my equality?
No thank you.
A couple of other thoughts:
Olson writes:
We believe marriage is sacred if not a sacrament. It is one of God’s orders of creation and preservation. It cannot be redefined by human whim; it is a divinely ordained institution. We reject homosexual marriage for the same reasons we reject polygamy, bigamy and incest. It violates a sacred institution. And we ask why the latter should be banned if not for that very reason? Without God, all is permitted (eventually).
This would be fine if we had a Christian theocracy in America. However, we don’t. In a secular, pluralistic society such as ours, such religious strictures are inappropriate when instituting public policy and law. We may have freedom of religion, but we also have freedom from religion if we so choose. To impose one group’s notions of the sacred upon us all through the law is profoundly unAmerican and should be rejected by all reasonable people. My equal rights as an American citizen are not subject to your religious prejudices.
Another thought: My same-sex orientation is as profound and basic to my sense of self as your opposite-sex orientation is for you. Until you accept that fact, your and your religion’s opinions will be irrelevant to those of us who don’t fall within the parameters of your spiritual paradigm. To dismiss me and my deepest feelings as “sin” or “mental defect or disorder” reveals both your ignorance and your arrogance, and invites a similar dismissal of your religious outlook. Olson’s reflections on salt and light can be turned around and aimed directly at him: his beliefs can be seen as corruption which needs the administration of the salt and light of our truth. Or is he (and you, Aaron) so immune from fair criticism, so self-righteous, that pointing out the beam in your eyes is out-of-bounds?
“How can you “welcome” me while rejecting me at the same time? Your very judgment drives me away. You can’t have it both ways, Aaron. This type of Christian reasoning just makes you look self-deceiving, at best. I understand that you, at least (as opposed to seeker, who just hates us), are trying to find some kind of middle ground here. But sometimes it’s just impossible. How can I, as a self-respecting human being, accept your type of condescending “welcome,” knowing that, underneath, you still disapprove of me and oppose my equality?” ——-
LOUIS,
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING CONDESCENDING ABOUT A CHRISTIANS WELCOME IN HIS HOUSE OF WORSHIP. YOU WOULD REALLY BE WELCOME, WITH THE HOPE THAT WHAT YOU ARE TAUGHT WILL MAKE SUCH AN IMPRESSION ON YOU THAT YOU WILL WANT TO LEARN MORE. ONCE YOU SEE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION, THEN MAYBE YOU WILL DECIDE TO MAKE A CHANGE IN YOUR OWN LIFE. MAYBE YOU WONT. EACH PERSON MUCH CARRY THEIR OWN LOAD.
NO ONE IS CALLING ANYONE UN-EQUAL, BUT IF A PERSON BELIEVES WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TELL US, AND OF COURSE CHRISTIANITY USES THE BIBLE AS THE CENTER PIECE OF THEIR TEACHING, THEN THE CONGREGATION HAS THE RIGHT TO SET CONSTRAINTS ON THE DUTIES THAT A PERSON, WHO IS KNOWINGLY VIOLATING PRINCIPLES, CAN DO THERE. MAYBE ITS BAPTISM, MAYBE IT IS TEACHING, MAYBE IT IS OFFERING PRAYER FOR THE CONGREGATION. A HOMOSEXUAL WOULD DIS-QUALIFY HIMSELF BY HIS ACTIVITIES, BUT WOULD STILL BE WELCOME IN THE CONGREGATION.
By all means, no! Feel free to point out the obvious to me on a regular basis – I’m a sinful person who screws up on a regular basis. Here I go back to Olson:
Our deeply held beliefs are in contradiction. Those things that you feel are part of your innermost being are in conflict with beliefs that are the guiding principles for my life. There’s really not much that can change with that (with the exception of those who switch sides from both viewpoints), but I think we can be more understanding and “welcoming.”
Despite a deep disagreement, I do believe a genuine relationship is possible between gay individuals and Christians who do not “affirm” their lifestyle. I’ve seen it happen. It has to be possible because it is a reality. Is it difficult? Sure, but so is my relationship with my wife because we disagree about things. But any worthwhile relationship is always worth the struggle that comes with it.
I believe that is what Olson (and myself) are saying, that as long as you and I continue to hold to the same viewpoint there will be pitfalls there for any type of meaningful conversation and relationship, but as understanding adults we should be able to communicate those differences in a civil way and come to relate to the other’s thoughts and person in a much more fruitful way.
As I said when this was being discussed somewhere else here, I don’t hold it against you for reacting the way you do when you feel part of the essence of who you are is being attacked. That is a natural human reaction. You don’t need my permission to react that way.
Through out history Christians (myself included) have communicated our message poorly, particularly towards gay people. You have heard that poorly relayed message and even more unfortunately been made to suffer unfairly because of the poorly understood message of Christ by His followers.
This is not about do you have the “right” to be upset about certain things. Sure, you have that right. I couldn’t cause you to give it up even if I wanted to. I guess what we’re asking is that you somewhat give up that right at least in times when we are trying to be genuine and understanding, while still holding to what we believe to be true. It’s not something that we can (or should) demand from you and honestly, you don’t even owe it to us because of how many of us have behaved. However, that’s were we are at – asking you to be understanding of us, as we make mistakes and try to learn the best way to present to you the most wonderful Thing that we have ever known.
Actually, I don't really care if others "affirm" me or not: that would make me beholden to their opinion. I would not be friends with them, however.
Also, their opinion comes into play when they try to legislate it and force it on me by law, as in the case of equal marriage rights or serving in the armed forces. Then it becomes relevant and I take umbrage. And that is what you conservative xians are doing.
While Olson wrote: it is a divinely ordained institution.
That’s why al priests and pastors have to say at the end of each marriage, “By the power vested in me by the STATE of _______, I now pronounce you husband and wife.” (Or, in Massachusetts, “husband and husband” or “wife and wife.”) It’s the GOVERNMENT which regulates what a marriage is or isn’t, and only for taxation and insurance purposes–nothing more. It is a very recent development in history that marriage should be centered on love, not money or land…
Olson also wrote: We reject homosexual marriage for the same reasons we reject polygamy, bigamy and incest. It violates a sacred institution.
What–the sacred institution of a man and his double cheese burger? I’m surprised he didn’t throw bestiality in there–it’s all the rage in fundie Christian circles these days. And those things mentioned are RAMPANT in the bible, even to King David, the man after go’d own heart!! (If BTW, it should be known danced naked aorund a fire praising said god whom Olson makes out to be such a prude…) It is banned sometimes out of fear of being different and strange, sometimes out of today’s standards of what is “good” and what is “moral.” Morals change with the times, whether people like to admit that or not, just as our gods and laws do.
Olson also said: And we ask why the latter should be banned if not for that very reason? Without God, all is permitted (eventually).
Biggest fallacy yet! In a society like the United States, in which individual freedoms and rights are a guarantee, it is the ability to live freely while NOT infringing upon another’s right to life, liberty, and property which determines what will and won’t be allowed. A “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution (which most fundies think they’re for until they realize it means they can’t run the country according to their interpretation of god’s laws…) means that everyone can and should be free to do whatever they please as long as it meets this criteria: If it doesn’t infringe upon another person’s freedoms to life, liberty, and property, it is OKAY.
Louis
Maybe its the self guilt you have in you, that you know you are sinning and still do it. Maybe thats the reason that you push yourself away from being a christian.
I don’t know your background or know how many, or if you have been to a christian church. But most of the people that go to church sin. Maybe not all of them sin as severly as others but they do. The Great thing about being a christian is all you half to do is ask god for forgiveness and he forgives. It is not mans job to judge others. So if you went to a church and felt like they judged you go to a different church. If i may make a recamendation I go to a vineyard church and its great. They don’t judge anyone its a huge mix of different kinds of people. Try it out.
One last thing:
Don’t let other people’s judgement pull you further away from god. Its something between you and him not no one else..
Louis:
You should not be affended if marrage is only allowed between Male and Female. Thats why Male and female have different reproductive parts that go together. Male and male don’t have parts that work together. Thats why male and female can reproduce. and two males or two women can’t. If we were supposed to choose don’t you think god would have made us unisex. But the last time i checked he didn’t. The only thing a Male on male relationship can produce is diesase. (That should tell you something) Its a sin and shouldn’t be done.
In my opion if you choose to be gay then thats your personal choice. But that doesn’t mean that you should get rights to marriage. Marriage is supposed to be the joining together of two and taking a oath to god. How can you make a oath to god and your other partner if you are breaking the oath to begin with. Stupid logic.
Another logic for you.(gays in the military) How would you like to be one of the straight guys in the showers they share with a few gay guys in the room. Thats the same as a pervert guy taking a shower with 20 woman. How do you handle that? I don’t think they can unless everyone gets there own personal restroom.
I do not argue with the ignorant.
You can't argue with gayness
If we break that barrier of allow gay marriages. Whats next? Male and animal. Man and child. Their is always going to be someone that wants to change the law. or push the boundries. The law of God and the Law we have written has worked for years, it shouldn't be changed at all. If we keep bending the rules and our laws how far will it get before people say enough is enough.
Louis,
I agree with your point whole heartedly. The fact remains that you are arguing against these peoples beliefs. Time has shown over and over that no matter how irrational, people will argue their beliefs to the death. Some of the people on this forum are able to disagree in more mature ways than others (as you have likely noticed). The whole idea of taking quotes from the bible does not re-enforce a fact (contrary to the popular belief of this forums regulars) it merely re-enforces thier own beliefs. The people on this forum don't want to admit the truth that they do not welcome gays at all. If anything they see that they want to "help you" become un-gay I think you would agree that this is not something you are ever going to wake up and say "wow, being gay is a bummer. I think I will be straight now" If you are looking for understanding and tolerance the religious right is probably not the easiest place to find them.
I THINK THIS RANDOMDUDE IS REALLY HILARY CLINTON
Ray & Benjamin9:
As a reader of these comments, I am tired of seeing you shouting.
Whether you realize it or not, the use of all capital letters on the web is deemed the same as yelling and screaming at someone face to face.
I am not sure if that is your intent, but if it is stop it. If not, then there are a multitude of options to make your comments stand out from others (e.g., bold, italics, etc) when using quotes from others posts and then responding. A simple google search for HTML text formatting elements will get you that.
Thank you.
John
I don't hate gays personaly, i just hate what they do. Just as much as i don't hate the Crack head himself, I just hate the addiction he has.
I knew it wouldn't be long. Ray says: Whats next? Male and animal. Man and child.
Except that those create a victim out of a non-consenting person or thing, whether child or sheep. The right of the individual is based on the premise that you violate no other persons right to life or liberty.
Read before you hurt yourself.
DAMN, YOU GUYS TAKE THIS POSTING WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. but if it will help quell anal reactions(no pun intended)to my typing, in the name of unity here, i shall use nothing but lower case in my posts. which to you very serious peeps should equate to a whisper.
john, i hope you can hear me.
p.s. – please do not bold font, it frightens me.
I don't hate Christians personally (well, maybe a few); I hate what they believe. I hate their stubborn ignorance; I hate their self-righteousness; I hate their arrogance and their smug assumption that they are just right, no matter what the data proves otherwise. And, most of all, I hate their fanatical attempt to impose all this on me.
louis, who is imposing anything on you? how is this done?
what makes them ignorant? why do you hate christian thought? of course christians believe they are right, if they did not, and still attended church or where ever they worship, then they would be hypocrits … much worse than being wrong.
the nazi pharisee ………………………
Hi All:
Greed/gluttony is sinful, and the Bible mentions it far more frequently, and condemns it more harshly, than it does homosexuality. And yet very few Christian churches condemn fat people who consume enough calories to feed a dozen or so starving people, very few ask whether or not fat people can be Christians. Not many Christian churches would refuse to accept fat pastors. Consider Ezekiel 16:49:
'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
So why do conservative Christians feel the need to walk past so many sins that we are guilty of, and try to tell a tiny fraction of the population that they are miserable sinners? It seems to me that the reason is exactly because it's easier to worry about the tiny sliver in our brotehr's eye than in the big log in our own.
your friend
Keith
Having sexual relations with the same sex is a little worst than eating a few extra potato chips. But yes anything in EXCESS is seen as a sin.
You seem to always defend one bad action with another. One question for you, Just because there is fat people does it make being gay less of a sin. Not all fat people can help their weight. You can twist things around all you want it still doesn't make it right.
So what you are saying you have something against fat people. And you are saying we shouldn't let a fat person teach gods word. Are you saying everytime we walk past someone sinning (or a fat person) we should stop them and say "SINNER"……..(hint the caps)
What is it about conservative, traditionalist christianism that makes people so dense, so arrogant and unconcerned, so cruel? I think, at base, that it is a shield they wield against their terror of existence itself, their intense fear of the unknown and the different, and the fact that reality is, ultimately, unknowable and their own lives insecure and precarious. They cling desperately to an arbitrary and absolutist viewpoint rather than acknowledge the shifting insecurity that is their life. Thus, they need scapegoats to bear the blame for their own fear of existence: it is the Other who threatens their jury-built sense of security and who must be punished. They are, ultimately, to be pitied.
"What is it about conservative, traditionalist christianism that makes people so dense, so arrogant and unconcerned, so cruel? I think, at base, that it is a shield they wield against their terror of existence itself, their intense fear of the unknown and the different, and the fact that reality is, ultimately, unknowable and their own lives insecure and precarious. They cling desperately to an arbitrary and absolutist viewpoint rather than acknowledge the shifting insecurity that is their life. Thus, they need scapegoats to bear the blame for their own fear of existence: it is the Other who threatens their jury-built sense of security and who must be punished. They are, ultimately, to be pitied". ——-
i do not find true christians to be cruel. i think the very fact that they express a concern here shows otherwise.
would you rather them not hold true to their religion of hope and faith and accept what they know is right? you might feel better, but the rest of us would be in a sorry state.
it sounds like you may be the intolerant one. this is a chrisitian thought posting forum, correct? so if you are posting here i must come to the conclusion that you may be reaching out for understanding of some type. posting negative thought on my religion of choice bothers me more than say, umm, someone using ALL CAPS(i was not yelling)to express their thoughts.
maybe john will come to my rescue?
whispering nazi pharisee …………………….
You'd be surprised how many christianists post in gay forums. Tit-for-tat.
i do not know if i would be surprised. but why do you?
that is what interests me. i do not understand the strategy of tit-fo-tat. although the tit part i can agree with.
Benjamin9, Louis has as much or more right to comment here than you. He has been a regular since the beginning. He and I have discussed these issues on several sites and I'm glad he is here to offer his opinion.
You are "welcome" here just like everyone else, but don't badger people. You do no service for Christ by proving to be the most brash and sarcastic. We are held to a higher standard than any other.
Louis, I know you have been bombarded with comments from others as well, but you failed to respond to my earlier comment. I would like to hear your reaction to it.
Keith, I have in my mind a wonderful post illustrating that fact. I just haven't had the time to post it yet. While it is a salient point that too many churches accept certain sins, the answer, as Olson stated, is not to simply ignore other sins. The answer is to be like Christ and tell those of us who sin, "Does anyone condemn you? Neither do I. Go and sin no more." Compassion and justice. Grace and law. Both sides must be represented to be fully Christ-like.
HI Ray:
Having sexual relations with the same sex is a little worst than eating a few extra potato chips.
Where do you get that same gender sex is worse than eating a few extra potato chips?
You seem to always defend one bad action with another. One question for you, Just because there is fat people does it make being gay less of a sin. Not all fat people can help their weight. You can twist things around all you want it still doesn't make it right.
I wasn't defending any actions at all. I was complaining about hypocrisy. Now the fact is, I don't believe that the Bible says anything about covenantal gay relationships (i.e. the relationships that would be analogous to straight marriage), but that's not the issue right now. The issue is how some Christians focus on the tiny sliver in their brother's eye instead of the giant log in their own.
So what you are saying you have something against fat people. And you are saying we shouldn't let a fat person teach gods word. Are you saying everytime we walk past someone sinning (or a fat person) we should stop them and say "SINNER"……..
We should not behave that way at all, neither about obesity nor about homosexuality. To loudly condemn homosexuality is just as wrong as loudly condemning fatness. How can it be OK for a pastor to commit the sin of overeating but NOT OK for a pastor to be gay?
your friend
Keith
it sounds like you may be the intolerant one. this is a chrisitian thought posting forum, correct? so if you are posting here i must come to the conclusion that you may be reaching out for understanding of some type. posting negative thought on my religion of choice bothers me more than say, umm, someone using ALL CAPS(i was not yelling)to express their thoughts.
maybe john will come to my rescue?
whispering nazi pharisee …………………….
Benjamin9:
Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Also it is very clear you have not spent any real time on the web in forums or in chat rooms. Had you done so, you would have learned this lesson about CAPS a long time ago because users much more vocal than me would have slapped you.
This is far from a petty thing for me, but a question of etiquette. Just like you learn the rules of what is social acceptable to do in conversations in real life, one needs to know the rules of the road before sticking their foot in their mouth in the online arena.
Unfortunately, you have managed to stick you foot precisely where it shouldn't be by screaming in CAPS (regardless of intent) and belittling others. Definitely not a Christian act in my book.
"Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Also it is very clear you have not spent any real time on the web in forums or in chat rooms. Had you done so, you would have learned this lesson about CAPS a long time ago because users much more vocal than me would have slapped you." ——-
do not confuse sarcasm with wit. and it did get me somewhere, you replied didn't you?
first you hear me screaming with caps … now you want to slap me with words. my brother, i offer the other cheek, slap away.
"This is far from a petty thing for me, but a question of etiquette. Just like you learn the rules of what is social acceptable to do in conversations in real life, one needs to know the rules of the road before sticking their foot in their mouth in the online arena." ——-
john, did i not adjust my font? i have put myself out, giving up my love for the capitalized word, to make louis, who is not a christian based on his despise of my religion more comfortable. if caps really fire you up, i wonder how you feel about past participles.
"Unfortunately, you have managed to stick you foot precisely where it shouldn't be by screaming in CAPS (regardless of intent) and belittling others. Definitely not a Christian act in my book." ——-
oh, john, please don't. impugning bad behavior upon me(tears … rolling … down … face). i haved belittled no one. you are a sensitive man it seems. but thats ok, it takes all kinds. can we get back on topic now?
“Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Also it is very clear you have not spent any real time on the web in forums or in chat rooms. Had you done so, you would have learned this lesson about CAPS a long time ago because users much more vocal than me would have slapped you.” ——-
do not confuse sarcasm with wit. and it did get me somewhere, you replied didn’t you?
first you hear me screaming with caps … now you want to slap me with words. my brother, i offer the other cheek, slap away.
“This is far from a petty thing for me, but a question of etiquette. Just like you learn the rules of what is social acceptable to do in conversations in real life, one needs to know the rules of the road before sticking their foot in their mouth in the online arena.” ——-
john, did i not adjust my font? i have put myself out, giving up my love for the capitalized word, to make louis, who is not a christian based on his despise of my religion more comfortable. if caps really fire you up, i wonder how you feel about past participles.
“Unfortunately, you have managed to stick you foot precisely where it shouldn’t be by screaming in CAPS (regardless of intent) and belittling others. Definitely not a Christian act in my book.” ——-
oh, john, please don’t. impugning bad behavior upon me(tears … rolling … down … face). i haved belittled no one. you are a sensitive man it seems. but thats ok, it takes all kinds. can we get back on topic now?
Jeez, what an a**hole.
louis, that is not nice. you seem to have a dwindling vocabulary. this topic has now degenerated to name calling?
louis, that is not nice. you seem to have a dwindling vocabulary. this topic has now degenerated to name calling?
louis, that is not nice. you seem to have a dwindling vocabulary. this topic has now degenerated to name calling?
You deserve it.
btw: why do you post everything twice?
Hi Aaron:
Keith, I have in my mind a wonderful post illustrating that fact. I just haven't had the time to post it yet. While it is a salient point that too many churches accept certain sins, the answer, as Olson stated, is not to simply ignore other sins. The answer is to be like Christ and tell those of us who sin, "Does anyone condemn you? Neither do I. Go and sin no more." Compassion and justice. Grace and law. Both sides must be represented to be fully Christ-like.
Let's leave aside for the moment the debate about whether or not the Bible calls covenantal gay relationships sinful. Let's assume for this discussion that homosexuality is a sin. But so is gluttony. The question is: how should the church respond to those sins? As it is, conservative churches are much harsher toward homosexuality than they are toward gluttony. So should the church be harsher toward fat people–even refusing to allow practicing fat people ordination–or should they be much less harsh toward homosexuals? I don't see any churches trying to deny the overweight adoption rights, or the right to form marriage-like unions. I don't see churches refusing to call overweight people their brothers in Christ, asking if the overweight can even BE Christians.
It seems to me that the typical church goes beyond TOLERATING the overweight; they positively accept the unrepentantly heavy set as part of their church family. So my question is: why DON'T they condemn obesity as hard as they condemn homosexuality? Sadly, I think I know the answer.
your friend
keith
I believe the church in my opion should welcome those people with welcome arms. The gays the prostitutes the drug addicts "sinners of all kinds". If the church don't except them where else are they to go.
But sin is sin and church is the first step to becoming more christ like. We must all start somewhere. Even you Louis : Gay or not Gay. You will be judged no different thaN any other person in front of the Man himself.
:KIND OF LIKE SANTA CLAUS HE KNOWS IF YOU HAVE BEEN NAUGHTY OR NICE:
Keith,
****Greed/gluttony is sinful, and the Bible mentions it far more frequently, and condemns it more harshly, than it does homosexuality. And yet very few Christian churches condemn fat people who consume enough calories to feed a dozen or so starving people, very few ask whether or not fat people can be Christians. Not many Christian churches would refuse to accept fat pastors. Consider Ezekiel 16:49:*****
Just real quick i don't have much time but reply on your point (very few people ask whether or not fat people can be christians)
My fellow christian man, anyone can be christian all shapes,all colors, as well as the drug addicts and prostitutes. Just because your not perfect doesn't mean you can't proclaim to be christian. Different people battle with different things. There shouldn't be any bouncer at any door of christ saying who can and can't be christian. Instead we should welcome all and let god do the judgeing.
That question in my opion , if your 100% pure christian, (that comment)should not be a issue. Thats just a question to start a up roar…..
divine intervention would be my guess.
keith,
just because one is fat does not mean they are gluttonous.
having homosexual sex is sinful per the scriptures along with fornication, etc.
Hi Ray:
My fellow christian man, anyone can be christian all shapes,all colors, as well as the drug addicts and prostitutes. Just because your not perfect doesn't mean you can't proclaim to be christian. Different people battle with different things. There shouldn't be any bouncer at any door of christ saying who can and can't be christian. Instead we should welcome all and let god do the judgeing.
Right on! Jesus is the Savior of the whole world, not just the straight, Republican, slim figured, and not just for the socialist, pacifist or for the tolerant for that matter. Jesus the Physician came for those who suffer the illness of sin, and that would be all of us.
But still…I assume you'd not object to having an unrepentant overweight pastor. Ignoring the sin of gluttony seems inconsistent with the stance most conservatives take toward homosexuality. To be consistent you'd either have to toughen up your stance toward the overweight or lighten up your stance toward gays. Which of those two options should the church take? If you think I posed a false choice, then I'd ask how you can justify the idea that gay sex is worse than gluttony.
your friend
keith
Hi Ray:
My fellow christian man, anyone can be christian all shapes,all colors, as well as the drug addicts and prostitutes. Just because your not perfect doesn’t mean you can’t proclaim to be christian. Different people battle with different things. There shouldn’t be any bouncer at any door of christ saying who can and can’t be christian. Instead we should welcome all and let god do the judgeing.
Right on! Jesus is the Savior of the whole world, not just the straight, Republican, slim figured, and not just for the socialist, pacifist or for the tolerant for that matter. Jesus the Physician came for those who suffer the illness of sin, and that would be all of us.
But still…I assume you’d not object to having an unrepentant overweight pastor. Ignoring the sin of gluttony seems inconsistent with the stance most conservatives take toward homosexuality. To be consistent you’d either have to toughen up your stance toward the overweight or lighten up your stance toward gays. Which of those two options should the church take? If you think I posed a false choice, then I’d ask how you can justify the idea that gay sex is worse than gluttony.
your friend
keith
Hi Ben:
My dictionary defines gluttony as excessive eating or drinking. Being overweight cannot occur unless you consume more calories than you need; i.e. unless you overeat. I am not being judgmental here; like huge percentages of America I have been overweight.
your friend
Keith
i think that imbalances can occur chemically in the body that can cause problems. also, diet(what type of foods) can cause one to be overweight … too many carbs in the diet, not enough exercise can cause problems with weight. certain northern indian tribes consume lots of fatty substances causing weight gain as insulation against arctic cold, but i would not call them gluttons.
Hi Ben:
1. About fat northern indians: they are not overweight, they weigh the right amount for their environment. They are not overeating.
2. About chemical imbalances and metabolism: maybe in rare cases one can NOT overeat and still be overweight. Maybe for such people it would be impossible for them to eat a perfectly healthy diet while maintaining the proper weight. But while it is certainly true that some people can eat more than others without gaining weight, I would say that nearly consuming more food than they need (they may also be consuming less of some foods they do need). Those people–most of us in America I'd say–are indulging in gluttony which the Bible marks as a sin. For Christians to be consistent they'd have to treat homosexuality the same way they treat gluttony, it seems to me. And that doesn't seem to be the case, what with the undeniable existence of overweight pastors in churches.
your friend
Keith
i think all people eat more than they need probably. thats hard to judge. i have known folks who ate what ever they wanted, more than they needed but their metabolism kept them thin even up until their 70 or 80's.
i have known those who ate little, but still maintain body fat. body types can belie the facts.
some of those northern chicks are pretty hefty, dont know about being just right. hehehe.
so, this leads me to believe that gluttony, like many other sins, are not so easily observed. what you see as a human being is not always what you get. i think since many sins are carried out in the "dark" places so to speak, maybe even deep in the heart. in these cases, only he can make that judgement.
HI Ben:
I think all people eat more than they need probably. thats hard to judge. i have known folks who ate what ever they wanted, more than they needed but their metabolism kept them thin even up until their 70 or 80’s.
I have known those who ate little, but still maintain body fat. body types can belie the facts.
Exceptional cases don’t disprove the rule though; we know that there are lots of unrepentant overweight pastors in the christian church. You make a very good point below that I want to address, but it still seems to me that my point stands: american churchs are willing to be very tolerant of the sin of gluttony–even tolerating pastors who suffer from that sin–but hypocritically refuse the same treatment to gays.
so, this leads me to believe that gluttony, like many other sins, are not so easily observed. what you see as a human being is not always what you get. i think since many sins are carried out in the “dark” places so to speak, maybe even deep in the heart. in these cases, only he can make that judgement.
This is a very important observation you make. All of our sins take place in the “dark” places–our sins happen inside our minds when we decide to do what we do. None of us can say that WE would do better than THEY if we were in their shoes. None of us are in a position to judge ourselves as better than the sinner next door. Humility is the key, that’s why Jesus criticized the Pharisee who prayed “thank God I’m not like that tax collector over there” and praised the tax collector who prayed “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner”.
your friend
Keith
Aaron wrote:
This is not about do you have the "right" to be upset about certain things. Sure, you have that right. I couldn't cause you to give it up even if I wanted to. I guess what we're asking is that you somewhat give up that right at least in times when we are trying to be genuine and understanding, while still holding to what we believe to be true. It's not something that we can (or should) demand from you and honestly, you don't even owe it to us because of how many of us have behaved. However, that's were we are at – asking you to be understanding of us, as we make mistakes and try to learn the best way to present to you the most wonderful Thing that we have ever known.
The difference, which you seem to overlook, is that your xian views on hx are just that: views. With me, they are intimately part of my innermost being. And this is where you fail, I think, because you refuse to really acknowledge that fact. One can be a Christian without holding to traditional xian views on hx. It is only literalists and inerrantists who insist on maintaining your views. Modern, progressive xianity does not require such a viewpoint. Thus, you, Aaron, can abandon your opinions on hx without betraying your beliefs.
I just watched Brokeback Mountain again last night, and once again experienced its depiction of the pain and terror of the closet. The thing you people just can't seem to get is just how destructive your religious views are to other people. All the disorders which seeker seeks to lay on gay people pretty much stem from the fact of the cultural homophobia which infect our society. You want to be open and welcoming, and for that I applaud you. Well, I'm sorry you can't be as long as you harbor and act upon the homophobic views you espouse, views that are anti-human and evil in and of themselves. At base, it's a failure of charity and love, and entirely extraneous to Christ's message. You really need to critique your faith more forcefully. In fact, my view of faith is that it must be trashed and destroyed before it can become real. Otherwise, it is just parroting what others think and believe. Keep that in mind when you attempt to communicate with me and other gays.
Hi Louis:
The thing is, I do agree with you about the main issue. I think the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and the anti-gay ideology of much of the Christian church is analogous to the way the segregationist south interpreted the Bible to support the view that whites are superior to blacks.
But I am not sure I can agree that homophobic Christianity is the result of a failure of charity and love on said Christian. Certainly this is sometimes the case: when you hear a lot of people condemn homosexuality one of things they complain about is the "grossness" factor–an argument that is itself disgusting in its bigotry. In the South in the 60s I used to hear people make similar remarks about interracial kissing; the idea of kissing a black made them sick they said. A lot of the anti-gay rhetoric coming from Christians is so hateful as to be a self inflicted slander upon the faith.
But IMO there can (and do) exist well meaning bigots, folks happen to believe that homosexuality is a grievous sin but who do not hold any malice toward gays. Congratulations to them you might says; it's not that much better to be discriminated against by a patronizing bigot than by a foul mouthed angry bigot. Who can blame you for feeling that way if you do? But to someone who actually believes that homosexuality is a sin, that person cannot with integrity approve of gay relationships. It's not a matter of his critiquing his faith, it's a matter of the specific content of his belief, it's about a matter of fact, not attitude. It might just be one of those things, it might be there is no possibility for meaningful dialog in such cases.
It always come to this question: is it possible to love someone while at the same time disapproving of that person's behavior? The question cuts both ways: is it possible for you to love someone who disapproves of gay sex? I have faith in God that such is possible, that we CAN love each other even in the face of the most profound disagreements, even if the other person causes us serious harm. But it is not my place to demand that other people seek the ability to forgive. When a person does somebody wrong, the wrongdoer has no right to demand the victim forgive him.
your friend
Keith
I guess what really matters is not their motivation but the practical results of their beliefs. One can be entirely sincere in his beliefs while ignoring or explaining away their evil consequences. Have they no responsibility at all? Aren't we supposed to judge the tree by its fruit?
Hi Louis:
I guess what really matters is not their motivation but the practical results of their beliefs. One can be entirely sincere in his beliefs while ignoring or explaining away their evil consequences. Have they no responsibility at all? Aren't we supposed to judge the tree by its fruit?
I think you can certainly judge the homophobia of (some) Christians by its fruits. But I don't think we're supposed to judge the people themselves. Of course, this command of Jesus' was given to us Christians and we have no business demanding that non-Christians follow the "Judge not…" thing.
About the "ignoring the evil consequences" thing though; I think Aaron is trying to look clearly at the consequences, while remaining true to what he believes to be true, and he is admittedly trying to see things differently from how he's seen them in the past (still while remaining true to what he believes to be true). That seems to me to be a little different from the Fred Phelps version. But of course, since I'm not the one being pounded by homophobic society, it's probably easy for me to draw such distinctions:-(
your friend
keith
Keith,
what you said was kinda what i was trying to say before this topic became a discussion on CAPS(sorry louis/john). louis would be welcome in my home, my congregation, where ever. i, and the christians i know, who i hang with, would not judge a fat person or anyone else.
i still feel, you can not tell from sight who is a glutton and who is not from waste band size. i work with a person who was in a major car accident some time ago. she has steel in her back and can not exercise a great deal. she is heavy and her condition has a lot to do with it.
but do people just plain let them selves go? yep.
You might recommend the South Beach Diet to her. It took 30 pounds off me – very scientific.
btw: I don't think Aaron is in the same class as the evil Phelps (or seeker, for that matter). Still, he's in the same ballpark, as he thinks hx can be "cured." I understand that he's trying to come to some kind of compromise, but this is one thing that I just cannot compromise on: it's one of those either/or matters.
BTW, while all sins may be "sinful," all sins are not of the same graveness, neither in their effects, nor in God's eyes.
Sexual sins are, in general, more serious, biblically speaking, than sins like gluttony, even though both could be considered "sins of the flesh."
Theologically, we could discuss why, but I think it's important to mention this very point – some sins ARE more heinous than others, even if all sin is bad. That doesn't make, for instance, gays worse people or "more guilty" than obese people, but it does NOT mean that these sins are merely "equal" in their severity.
To think of all sins as equal is very simplistic, and probably not biblical.
louis, that away! i knew you had a sense of humor in there! i welcome it … anytime wit instead of foul language can be used that adds to the discussion, well done my lad. by the way, are you still fat?
anyway … john may scold you for potty language, so watch out … i know he is a big etiquette guy.
aaron,
i just now read your comment above. of course louis has a right. i want him to, and everyone else. its great! i am not trying to be brash or what ever, but using a bit of brevity to break through the hateful and or defensive replies is ok in my book. i find no one answers any of my questions i pose. they would rather argue inconsequential points on punctuation and font size.
by using a bit of brevity, a little bit, just a little of the "in your face style", i hope to actually find out what people think. since i am new here, and do not wish to pour over archives to find what people said last month, i am a bit direct. i hope louis is not the only one who gets a pass here when he uses objectionable language or certain tactics in his words.
i beg to differ on your thought on jc, he was very confrontational in a thought provoking way. he challenged those, who had been taught they were correct for hundreds of years, to examine their actions and thoughts, which made him an enemy of the system. if its good enuff for jc, i can dig it.
While I don't subscribe to all this sin-mongering xians love to indulge in, my understanding is that sins of the spirit are far worse than sins of the flesh (cf, Dante). Thus, pride is far worse than sex (attn: seeker).
Well, it may be useful to do a type of triage on sins from a biblical perspective, and perhaps divine principles for determining the gravity of various sins. Especially since it is clear that some sins are more grievous than others, as you indicate.
But I don't think the rule is "sins of the spirit are worse than those of the flesh." I would say that certain sins in both categories (and there may be other categories) are worse than others – both pride and sexual immorality top their respective lists.
I agree that pride is particularly heinous, as well as some other sins listed in Proverbs 16:15-19
We can also look at the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), as well as the entire list of capital crimes in the Old Testament.
We must also evaluate the New Testament, which interestingly, arguably highlights the sins of unbelief and sexual immorality, including homosexuality, adultery, and promiscuity.
But simple lists alone won't give us the right perspective unless we view them in historical and theological context. We ought to do more than merely look at those lists, but rather, ask WHY those things were sinful, and divine principles, rather than merely refer to lists. And in divining these principles, we might do well to understand the difference between the laws given to Israel, and those that are timeless, the Old and New Testaments, as well as the differences between ceremonial, moral, and dietary laws.
After all is said and done, I would expect something like the following:
– sexual sins are serious
– pride, lying, and idolatry are serious
Some sins like gluttony, drunkenness, fearfulness/cowardice, sloth, and stinginess, may not carry the same temporal and eternal weight. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to either discount such sins as unimportant, or to go to the other extreme and weigh all as equal.
Gee, what a surprise! seeker finds sexual sins (especially hx), to be as bad as pride. He just can't give up his hobby-horse, no matter what.
Louis, don't be a jerk. I said that I believe it we look at it scripturally, that conclusion can be reached.
I am not spouting my opinion, but claiming that we can use reason to determine what the *scriptures* emphasize, rather than being on our hobby horses. While you would like to claim that sexual sins are less important, that's not a scriptural approach, but one that those who care to justify sexual sin take.
Sounds like you desire to justify hx is your hobby horse, since you merely meet my reasoned approach with scorn.
Hi Seeker:
After all is said and done, I would expect something like the following:
– sexual sins are serious
– pride, lying, and idolatry are serious
Some sins like gluttony, drunkenness, fearfulness/cowardice, sloth, and stinginess, may not carry the same temporal and eternal weight. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to either discount such sins as unimportant, or to go to the other extreme and weigh all as equal.
Absent biblical passages that explicitly say that particular sexual sins are more serious than gluttony, where do you get that they are? As gluttony is a form of greed, and greed is by definition a failure to love your neighbor as yourself, and as greed is condemned in the strongest language, well it seems pretty important.
your friend
Keith
Well, as I tried to communicate, such a discussion is not a simple one. But I alluded to the fact that scripture does not handle all sins similarly.
I think we can divine which are more serious by looking at:
– sins that scripture explicitly calls out as ones God hates
– ones that carry a capital punishment
– ones that scripture condemn as the pinnacle of their genre (like homosexuality in Romans 1, cf. Sodom)
– ones that carry the penalty of dis-fellowship (like the man put out of the church for sleeping with his step mother in 1 Corinthians 5)
"Reasoned approach"?! Har-de-har-har! You are incapable of achieving a reasoned approach on this issue as you have proven over and over here. You illustrate the saying that the Devil can quote scripture to suit himself.
I'm starting to think Louis is the Devil…. Louis why are you so hateful and bitter. You want everyone to see things your way, why not try to see things our way too.. I'm sorry but just because your gay doesn't mean everyone should change their beliefs just for you. The laws of god are firm. So are you a believer or not.
Hi Ray:
I'm starting to think Louis is the Devil…. Louis why are you so hateful and bitter. You want everyone to see things your way, why not try to see things our way too.. I'm sorry but just because your gay doesn't mean everyone should change their beliefs just for you. The laws of god are firm. So are you a believer or not.
He is bitter because (a) he is gay and (b)society basically pounds the c**p our of gays and (c)Seeker's theology holds that what Louis considers to be foundational to his identity is a horrible defect and danger to "normal" society.
It's really not too hard to understand why he'd feel angry.
your friend
Keith
(c)Seeker's theology holds that what Louis considers to be foundational to his identity is a horrible defect and danger to "normal" society. It's really not too hard to understand why he'd feel angry.
Yes, "Seeker's" theology, which is really mainstream biblical Christian theology going back centuries, claims that homosexuality is a defect, and like all sexual sin, a danger to participants, and to any society that affirms sexual sin as normative. Said theology also calls such activities "sin."
Of course Louis is mad – he is raging against the truth, and perhaps our less than diplomatic and kind presentation of it.
He has gotten to the point where he can NOT engage in logic because he is too angry, and having tried his best to convince us previously to no avail, has given up on logic, thinking us too entrenched for reason anyway.
And he is in one sense right – his "logical" approach is one we have found wanting, and rebuffed with our own arguments. So we are at an impasse. Reasonable minds will have to evaluate the arguments for themselves – and to some extent, that is why I argue – not to convince hardened gay apologists, but to keep those who are undecided from buying the same empty and misinformed logic.
So of course he is mad, and even worse, he defends his sense of selfhood from our injurious truth (which could heal if it was received) with name calling, and justifies his ad hominems by believing that all who hold oppposing opinions are hateful.
There is little more we can do for Louis than what we have already done. But for those who are seeking, we must present the balanced, biblical truth, and show how science supports such (which it does).
Ray, you parachute into this blog and try to crash a very long-running argument. seeker and I have gone back and forth on this topic for well over a year now. Why do you think you can have a fair and accurate idea of what has gone on? seeker tries to represent himself as a paragon of righteousness, reason, and Christian correctness, but the truth is quite different. What he says above is true in a sense: I have given up trying to reason with him because reasoning makes no difference with him. He is a fundamentalist, xian fanatic who refuses to listen to anything or any other viewpoint. You should have seen what he has said over the years – probably the worst is his recent post on the MRSA outbreak where he blames all gays and maintains that we are a threat to society (attn: Hitler fans). What "science" he cites invariably comes from fundamentalist sources and skewed and incomplete studies. He just asserts his views as truth, as if any real evidence is unneeded, because he thinks he has God's ear on all topics. It's not being hateful and bitter to come down on him and his ilk as hard as he comes down on me. And, it's not name-calling to give an accurate description of what he is doing: he is a bigot and a hate-monger. He has shown this over and over again. To seeker, the letter of the law far outweighs the spirit; he makes of the Good News a ball and chain, a hair-shirt, and a weight it is impossible for any man to carry. He is cruel, heartless, and merciless in his attitudes and manner toward gay people. Why would any thinking and feeling being want to have anything to do with his demonic version of religion? Of course I have given up on reason when dealing with such religionists: it makes about as much sense to deal with them as it would playing a violin for a cow.