Note:
Hi everyone. Please note that we have a “Random Posts” section. It highlights earlier articles which were published on TOC and which you may have missed. “Random Posts” is located at the bottom, after our Facebook Fans box. We hope you’ll find it useful.
Kelvin Teo
In this article the writer speaks to Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao, pastoral advisor to the Free Community Church (FCC), on his views about homosexuality and Christianity.
The AWARE saga earlier this year saw the Christian community torn apart by differing interpretations of homosexuality. While the most vocal of advocates were adamant that homosexuality in itself is a sin against the Christian faith, other moderates and liberals plead for a more inclusive understanding of Christianity.
Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao represents the liberal point of view. He earned his Master of Divinity and Doctor of theology degrees from the Boston University School of Theology. Rev Dr Yap was consecrated the 1st Asian Bishop of the Methodist Church in Singapore and Malaysia in 1968 and was made the Visiting Professor of World Christianity at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University.
The FCC is not recognized by the National Council of Churches in Singapore because of its controversial stance towards homosexuality. It does not ostracise against gays, and is probably the only church in Singapore that does not treat homosexuality as a sin. Furthermore, the reputation of the FCC as a gay group has rendered the church unable to register as a legitimate organization. To circumvent regulations, the church has registered itself as a company, and worship sessions are considered private gatherings [1].
Kelvin: You are currently serving as Pastoral Advisor to the Free Community Church, a role you regard as the calling of God, since your retirement from full-time Christian ministry. Your mission is to declare Christ’s inclusive love (the Agape spirit) to those who have been ostracized and neglected for far too long by the Church. Care to share with us what specific events occurred in your life that led you to live up to your calling?
YKH: Early in my ministry a leading lawyer asked me the question about the teaching of the Church on the issue of homosexuality. This issue was not discussed publicly at that time. The Church did not bother to state its position. The gays and lesbians were in their closets and most people assumed it to be a closed subject since the Bible has declared that same-sex relationship is wrong. In my naiveté, I looked up the five or six biblical passages that relate to it which concluded that homosexuality is a sin.
Later, I re-read, studied and interpreted the passages which were not taught even in my seminary. Reputable scholars of the Bible with un conventional views gave their own interpretations which seem to be credible and convincing to me.
The story of Sodom now linguistically linked to sodomy was an issue of inhospitality to visiting strangers. It is never an account about same-sex relations. It was as defined in Ezekial 16:47-50 as pride, gluttony, and prosperous ease and refusal to aid the poor and needy. Sodom is a symbol of God’s judgment rather than same-sex relations.
The word homosexuality as we understand it today is a modern word and has no equivalent in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible. It was first coined in 1869 by a Swiss doctor to refer to aesthetic attraction, romantic love and sexual desire exclusively between members of the same sex. It was injected into the Bible as late as 1946 in the Revised Standard Version by the translators and was subsequently dropped in 1971. With such evidence how can I regard homosexuality a sin?
Moving on, when a medical graduate from a wealthy family had come out to his mother, he requested me to counsel her about acceptance of her homosexual son. Again I naively asked the question whether with all his money he has consulted a good psychiatrist to cure his mental disorder. He turned to me with his quizzical look and I was embarrassed for I had asked a stupid question.
I then learnt that already in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association has removed homosexuality from its list of personality disorders. This was followed by other Western professional associations of psychology, counseling, mental health, pediatrics, school teachers, social workers and other related groups.
They also raised concerns about the bad effects of reparative therapy which seeks to change sexual orientation. In August 2009, the American Psychological Association (150,000 members) Governing Council declared that “No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-4 vote.
The APA said some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies. It is the most comprehensive repudiation of “reparative therapy” which is pursued by a small group of religiously conservative therapists who maintain gays can change their sexual orientation. Can I ignore the declarations and warnings of these proficient professional associations?
Kelvin: In a letter published to the Straits Times on 18 July 2003, you described an interesting account of how you used to believe homosexual acts are always wrong. After listening to gay and lesbian students and friends, however, you have had to rethink your position and reread the Scriptures. Do you mind sharing with us the kind of thought processes you went through when you re-read the scriptures that finally led to your re-evaluation of your position (referring to the scriptures if you wish)?
YKH: In a more careful study of the Bible I realised that the words of the Bible were not dictated or handed down by God. Faithful and inspired men and a few women received what they believed to be revelations which were not literal words but interpretations of their understanding of what God had revealed. They were first transmitted orally. They subsequently wrote them down and the words of the Bible were copied and translated into different languages from the original Hebrew and Greek.
The Bible contains interpreted words of the writers of the different books of the Bible. There were other religious books which were not able to gain acceptance by the religious authorities then to form the sacred text of the Bible. The Bible is historically related and culturally bound. We are compelled to study and interpret its relevance to our contemporary context. The process continues.
Kelvin: What kind of internal struggles do you think a homosexual Christian will experience?
YKH: Christian LGBT faced far too long the rejection, marginalisation, stigmatisation, ostracisation and oppression in society. They were forced to stay in lonely isolation in their closets. They were compelled to act as if they are straights when they appear in public. A heavy burden of guilt was placed on their shoulders and they cry out in their silence and solitude. They did not choose to be a homosexual.
On the contrary, they want to change their sexual orientation and they tried prayer, exorcism, reparative therapy but of no avail. In their spiritual and emotional struggles there are those who were able to overcome and believe that God loves them and affirm homosexuality is a gift of God that they accept with grace and able to come out to the world with pride.
Society is beginning to be enlightened and becoming to be aware that the LGBT person can believe and sing “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” The tide of their liberation is rising everywhere for those who have eyes to see. God has heard their cries and will deliver them.
Kelvin: What was the effect of the AWARE saga on the Christian community specifically?
YKH: The AWARE saga was a revealing experience in our society. It shows the danger of Christian fundamentalism. It had surfaced the schemes of the Christian Religious Right.
A government leader in a private conversation with me commented that one can do that in America where the majority are Christian oriented although it is not good to splinter the Christian community. But in a multi-religious society in Singapore it is a totally dangerous development.
No one religion should impose its beliefs and values and displace those from other religions. We cannot afford to tear apart the delicate fabric of social cohesion. We cannot have the luxury to engage in religious conflict between faith communities. We need to respect differences in our diversity, engage in dialogue and work together for the common good and ensure a just and peaceful future.
Kelvin: What are the possible approaches of engaging the Christian community in a way that will lead to the acceptance of brothers and sisters-in-Christ who are gays and lesbians?
YKH: Most of the Christian churches have recently been politically correct to declare that they welcome homosexuals and love them. It seems to be that there is an unwritten condition that the homosexuals should not tell that they are gay and if they do then they must recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that they should not engage in same-sex acts and become celibate.
Gays and lesbians know that too well and will continue to stay in the larger closet of the congregation and forced to wear masks and live a lie that they are just like them.
The Christian community must re-study the Scriptures and reflect upon the interpretation of the particular passages relating to same-sex acts and come to their own decision whether the Church’s official teaching that homosexuality is a sin or not.
Most people shun and avoid meeting the gays and lesbians. They are people of sacred worth created by God like you and me. We are called to love even our enemies and they are not your enemies. He or she is your own son and daughter or your relative and they were born into your family and they did not choose to be there. Own them and love them, they are your kith and kin. The gay person is a human being created by the same God who created you and me and each one of us different. We belong together to God the Creator of us all. We are one human family.
Kelvin: What are the possible approaches of engaging the Christian community in a way that will lead to the acceptance of brothers and sisters-in-Christ who are gays and lesbians?
YKH: Most of the Christian churches have recently been politically correct to declare that they welcome homosexuals and love them. It seems to be that there is an unwritten condition that the homosexuals should not tell that they are gay and if they do then they must recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that they should not engage in same-sex acts and become celibate.
Gays and lesbians know that too well and will continue to stay in the larger closet of the congregation and forced to wear masks and live a lie that they are just like them.
The Christian community must re-study the Scriptures and reflect upon the interpretation of the particular passages relating to same-sex acts and come to their own decision whether the Church’s official teaching that homosexuality is a sin or not.
Most people shun and avoid meeting the gays and lesbians. They are people of sacred worth created by God like you and me. We are called to love even our enemies and they are not your enemies. He or she is your own son and daughter or your relative and they were born into your family and they did not choose to be there. Own them and love them, they are your kith and kin. The gay person is a human being created by the same God who created you and me and each one of us different. We belong together to God the Creator of us all. We are one human family.
Kelvin: Care to share with us the high points and low points of your service as Pastoral Advisor to the Free Community Church?
YKH: I regard it as a privilege and a calling of God to stand alongside with those who are despised and rejected. Even though I am being misunderstood widely I find this a defining moment in my ministry. Knowing that I do not agree with the teaching of the Church on this particular issue I believe that I have to be obedient to God in serving the LGBT community.
When I see the liberating effects of those who made the hard decision and dare to appear in the Free Community Church (FCC) at a great risk, I thank God that they have come home and received God’s welcome. They are free at last from guilt and shame and walk with their heads held high. They start with leaving their masks at the door of FCC and then throwing their masks away as they relate to others in the world.
There are those in FCC who are still in doubt and wrestling with the issue of their sexual orientation. They have to unload the false teaching of the Church and it is not easy. It was cruel of the Christian community to cause them so much suffering and pain. They need to regain their self-esteem and worship the God who is loving.
The follow-up service is to help those in FCC who have accepted their sexual orientation to live the responsible life of a Christian LGBT. The moral quality of life must be different from those who are not guided by religious faith. They will need to grow in spirituality and improve the quality of Christian living.
Kelvin: If there is a message that you can pass on to (i) homosexual Christian and (ii) other Christians who have yet to accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters-in-Christ for who they are, what would it be?
YKH: Do not remain in your closet and exist in lonely existence. There is help and hope available around you. Seek out others around you who can support you in your struggle. Keep your faith in Christ who will set you free.
Know the damage done by the Church to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Many have abandoned the Church because they have not been ministered. We have cast them out and they are rebellious and have given up on Christian faith. Reach out to them.as a witness for Christ who associated with the dispossessed. Extend your hand in genuine friendship and concern and embrace them with your love and affection.
—–
[1] Source: Associated Press, “Singapore’s gay church exists despite ban”, 30 July 2005. Republished in http://www.freecomchurch.org/06-300705.htm
Kelvin Teo also writes at http://kelvinteowrites.wordpress.com
199) Kezu on November 18th, 2009 11.51 pm
The reason *probably* is back in those days women are not consider an equal of men.
yep… if so, another point will be about gender equality. if we (i really mean ‘they’) follow the Bible when woman don’t matter… and we allow them to ‘matter’ now, are they still following the Bible?
Re Sheep and wolves
Those pedophille clerics are just small fly compared to damages done by Luther (But Luther is great man as well). Even the fathers of protestants are hands full of blood.
Jean Calvin ordered the death of Miguel Servetus just because he is not able to agree 3 =1 or 1=3.
And below excerpts (the content is much much more vulgar than below) is what Martin Luther wrote about jews in his “Von den Juden und Ihre Lugen” (of the jews and their lies)
das man jre Synagoga oder Schule mit feur anstecke. ( their synagogue or school with fire set)
man ihre Häuser desgleichen zerbreche und zerstöre. ( their house as well as burn and destroy)
müssen wir sie wie die tollen Hunde ausjagen… (must the mad dog [Jews] drive out )
Luther is clearly the ideological father of Hitler.
And Christians nowadays simply are not aware of what their fathers are doing because no church wants to talk about it. And I realise many Christian are not able pose a credible intellectual response to Kezu.
But that does not make a Christian cease to be a Christian. My stand is everyone is sinner. But homosexually is certainly in very great disapproval by lord. And there is no way a orthodox church can openly preach Gay is ok!!!
It is not,
Lobo76
‘They’ still dont believe women matters.
The issue of equality is always interlinked.
In UK, as Arix pointed out. Where Equality bill seek to protect against discrimination against gender, sexual orientation and so on is still necessary.
All to note, UK has abolish the laws against GLBT way ahead of her colonies.
SG need not take precedent from India, but look at the where Section 337A originated from and learn from it.
Sigh, i dont despise religion, just hypocrisy of men and what they do in the name of religion.
Keze #181,
You foolish foolish disbeliever of the file divider. Just ask Arix, the leg/end, what his Bio text taught him about gays. If you like his arguments, you will love, no, worship what turns up in a search.
I learnt EVERYTHING I need to know about apologetics from him. You will be wise to do the same. Too bad you are foolish.
sslim
admonition taken.
I begged your forgiveness in my ignorance.
have you met my double? Uzek? nice chap. you will like him/her/it ….
Sheep and Wolves,
I have one thing to say to you: you have been watching too many conspiracy theory movies.
There is also another issue with disciplining the errant priests. Again, the Church is in a Catch-22. If it chooses to discipline the priests, some crackpot atheist like Christopher Hitchens will pop up and make some garrulous analogy with the Inquisition and try to prove what a hypocrite the Church was: It preaches mercy and compassion, but not to its own people.
The USCCB also released a public statement saying that an excessive focus on this one issue would create an unnecessary obsession with it, and the greater the obsession, the more truth is going to be bent by sensationalists in the media, as it already has, judging from the response of people like you.
A documentary is not always an unbiased, objective piece of work that covers all perspectives. The best example of that would be Michael Moore’s documentaries.
Uzek (#192),
Actually, there is some debate in Islam as to whether Polygamy was permitted circumstantially or universally.
Lobo76 (#98),
Ancient Israel ran on a patriarchal system, and a patriarchal system was very controlling of women, so they would not have permitted Lesbian sex by default, i.e. no WSW. God only commands what needs to be commanded; nothing more, nothing less.
Lobo76 (#200),
Actually, your reasoning is why I call the Bible “a guide”, not a “handbook”. But the Bible is Divinely-Inspired, which means that it cannot err in terms of meaning. Because it is filtered through the human mind, the expression of that meaning is limited by the limits of human language.
But language – spoken and written – is not the only means of human understanding. We also have emotion, the ability to “sense” wholes. The expression of Divine Inspired meaning is thus fully achieved through both language and emotion, both reason and faith.
Since the Bible is Divinely-Inspired, its ultimate Author is God.
I have faith you are wrong.
204) sllim on November 19th, 2009 12.23 am
I learnt EVERYTHING I need to know about apologetics from him (Arix). You will be wise to do the same. Too bad you are foolish.
Would the following qualify as an example? =)
206) Arix @UK on November 19th, 2009 4.17 am
… the Church is in a Catch-22. If it chooses to discipline the priests, some crackpot atheist like Christopher Hitchens will pop up and make some garrulous analogy with the Inquisition and try to prove what a hypocrite the Church was: It preaches mercy and compassion, but not to its own people.
As far as I know, such sex crimes do not warrant the death penalty. Not sure why the Inquisition is brought up (where the penalty is usually death iirc)…
Furthermore, my impression is that the Inquisition is notorious for its overzealousness, so how does allow the full weight of the law to fall onto its priests compare to the Inquisition’s practices?
210 Arix @UK on November 19th, 2009 4.17 am Sheep and Wolves,
The USCCB also released a public statement saying that an excessive focus on this one issue would create an unnecessary obsession with it, and the greater the obsession, the more truth is going to be bent by sensationalists in the media, as it already has, judging from the response of people like you.
Same could have been said about the issue of homosexuality. But that floodgate is allowed to be opened. Actively persued by the Christian Right as a rallying slogan across US.
That’s why when label of hypocrite is often associated with christian.
Ancient Israel ran on a patriarchal system, and a patriarchal system was very controlling of women, so they would not have permitted Lesbian sex by default, i.e. no WSW. God only commands what needs to be commanded; nothing more, nothing less.
So this is no different than the arguement that JayF made.
‘Because its Obviously wrong, just like having to say Jesus is a man’ kind of arguement. Very nice.
186) Arix @UK on November 18th, 2009 10.52 pm Kezu (#175),
I need to clarify a term. When the Church – at least the Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran and High Anglican – talk about the “literal” meaning of the Bible, we don’t mean literal as in surface meaning; we mean literal in the sense of what the author in that particular context wished to convey. So following the “literal” meaning of the Bible does not necessarily mean following it word-by-word, because certain policies were designed for certain eras. But again, policies do not equate attitudes.
You see, now i am having a teeny problem with your overall arguement.
If I may, when it comes to issues say shellfish / or 2 treads.
Bible need to be look at in accordance to context, but not literarly.
But when it comes to homosexuality, this we are to read literarly.
This duplicity is nice in business world. But you see, it errodes credibility.
There was a term for it, isnt it? wat is it it, S+W ?
My oh my. Arix sure is converting me to his Catholic faith.
When shown a documentary, which is widely praised, Arix accuses me of “watching too many conspiracy theory movie”, even though the documentary mostly has the rapist priest speaking from his own mouth. I am nnow sure Arix didn’t watch the documentary. I understand as it exposes the hypocrisy of his faith and his Church and his Pope.
Arix then goes on and say, effectively, that because some – whom he called “atheist crackpots” – “like Christopher Hitchens will pop up and make some garrulous analogy”.
And so, according to Arix, if there is potential for “crackpots” to surface, the Church should not do the decent thing. NEVERMIND THE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN WHO WERE RAPED AND HAD THEIR LIVES DESTROYED BY THE CHURCH AND ITS PRIESTS!
Wonderful, Arix. Wonderful. You are more concerned about the rapists than their victims. Excellent display of mercy and love.
Arix then says that “an unnecessary obsession with” the crimes of the priests would result in “sensationalists in the media.”
My oh my. Here again, Arix displays his nonchalance about the children who had to go through terror and the horror OF BEING RAPED REGULARLY! Arix is saying, “Pls don’t be obsessed just because some children were raped by priests”!!
You know what, Arix, I am obsessed. Yes, and I do not apologise for it. Because of people like you who preach mercy and forgiveness and love through one side of your mouth, while displaying hypocrisy and insensitivity through the other.
I think we have enough insight to the mind of “god-fearing” Arix.
Perhaps he fears his god so much that he would, effectively, dismiss even the rape of children.
To Arix, it seems to be: “Protect the church at all cost”.
Sad. Really sad how blind faith can make one so pathetic.
Arix’s philosophy:
If there is potential for the Church to be castigated and if there are going to be potential “sensationalists in the media”, lets keep mum, lets not apologise, lets not bother to tell the complete truth. The priests and the church are more important than the victims of rape, abuse, terror.
Well done, Arix. You really have out-done yourself this time.
210) Kezu on November 19th, 2009 11.18 am
This duplicity is nice in business world…
Not really… unless the ‘deal’ is one off. If you are looking for repeat business, this is certainly not ‘nice’. =)
Frankly, most of the time, this kind of duplicity works only in matters of faith. You see, Faith covers up the duplicity quite nicely.
217) lobo76 on November 19th, 2009 12.16 pm 210) Kezu on November 19th, 2009 11.18 am
This duplicity is nice in business world…
Not really… unless the ‘deal’ is one off. If you are looking for repeat business, this is certainly not ‘nice’. =)
Frankly, most of the time, this kind of duplicity works only in matters of faith. You see, Faith covers up the duplicity quite nicely.
Ah, couldnt agree more. Usually its the tactic of ‘Fly by Night business’.
Wonder if we can apply this tactic in faith?
S+W,
What Arix is aptly shown is ‘The End Justify the Means’.
Human lives and suffering dont matter in the process.
I begged the question, is church attitude to human life so blaise?
Lobo #211,
Very few utterances from Arix wouldn’t qualify as apologetics :) I have a library of his material as homage. I set it to scroll automatically, shut my eyes and spit, and without fail it hits an apologetic.
Kezu,
I am so glad you used “duplicity” on Arix. I was once there on that very spot on the road to Damascus, I used the very same term. Now I realise I was totally wrong. So will you.
219) sllim on November 19th, 2009 12.37 pm Lobo #211,
Kezu,
I am so glad you used “duplicity” on Arix. I was once there on that very spot on the road to Damascus, I used the very same term. Now I realise I was totally wrong. So will you.
Hahaha slim.
You see, duplicity is like the ‘Act of Cheating’ (meaning not implied)
Some wise woman once said ‘The act of cheating is defined ONLY by the act of getting caught’
Very effective strategy dont you think, and can be applied to almost everything.
Then again, if that doesnt work,
Persuade, cajole, convince, badger and torture the masses to see your point of view. Again, to qoute another wise woman ‘General Perception is the Reality’.
This strategy always work, cause who’s to say their reality need to include other people?’
LoL
There appears to be a presumption that same sex action is sinful by the majority of Christinas such as NCCS rather than a conclusion from the bible. We read the bible to cherry pick verses to support of our preconceived arguments and then say it is “blibical”. This is particularly risky when the bible is a narrative of long ago historical events rather than a list of prescriptive do and don’ts directly from God to us in the 20th century. The bible may/does not speak by itself.
Traditionally, there has been a strong focus on sin and the Law especially when it relates to others. A majority of Christians have strong views against Homosexuality because they deemed it to be a sin against the Mosaic law (Lev 18:22) even when we do not follow these archaic laws such as not eating unclean foods (Lev 11:4) nor do we apply the correct context of idol worship of fertility gods where straight men had sex with both man and women as part of their worship of these gods. The core of these laws, the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:3-7) also fail to mention Homosexuality contrary to our preoccupation because these laws talk about idol worship and not same sex orientation which we have spin it to be. We have often misuse the bible to impose our own definition of sin or interpret out of the context to suit our agenda. The harm caused by conservative Christians in the name of religion has been so great and against the Golden rule (Mat 12:30-31) that some have redefined sin as an action that causes harm to ourselves, to others, or to creation. There is a call to live a life with humility understanding that we are sinners, one way or another. These should set the boundaries of our faith walk lest we err in our interpretation of the bible of God’s will.
if we had been wrong on saying same sex relationships is OK, we are guilty of giving too much love, grace and compassion. Let us be judged thus for we are only a very small minority opinion coming against the very vast majority of Christians. If we had been wrong on saying same sex relationships by itself is sin, and insists that gays should be put in prison, and same sex marriage banned, then ‘God save us”, for do not think that we or you could easily escape from judgement,
Judging by the responses by conservative Christians against Rev Dr Yap and FCC Singapore, may God have mercy on us. I wish them best of God’s grace in this very long and lonely journey being pelted by stones on all sides – to have faith and to remain steadfast in the bringing God’s Word of Grace to the GLBT population. Of course, their message is not heard also in the GLBT community, so vary of the persecution, hate and hypocrisy shown by Christians in the name of Christ, who will stay afar of from any church, even one that says they are inclusive and do not judge them by their sexual orientation.
Des
Your post were too long, but i manage to read it and here’s my humble reply.
Yes, I have rejected my Methodist upbringing.
Ironically its not due to issues with homosexuality but due to disillusioned with prominent Christian culture, where hypocrisy is the predominant behavioral pattern.
Thank goodness you did not agreed with Aware Hijacking too.
On your answer to ‘God’s desire for us’.
This is the thing you see, where we have the most conflicts.
We agreed there are 2 major commandments that matter most.
‘Love thy God … & Love thy neigbour….’
Of course there are many others minor ones in the bible.
But my question to you is, what if in pursuing the others minor ones, we have breached the 2 major ones?
Are we still virtuous in the eye of the Lord?? Is our salvation guaranteed?
Ah, you see your issue with Rev Dr Yap (noted your omission of title Rev) is this.
You cannot really accept the reality that there other Christians who does not share the ‘blind faith’ approach to issues like homosexuality and many others I might add.
When I say blind faith in this issue, we follow without question. Any hope of understanding is ignored regardless of any reasonable doubts (or overwhelming proof)
We seen the damage of blind faith, the atrocities done to other races (slavery) and women in history.
Are we so anxious to repeat this again, knowing how much suffering that must follow.
Is human life worth so little that we can afford to be so blaise?
Personally I believe love thy neighbor gives us lessons in ‘Equality and of Compassion’ to all humankind.
You see, the real problem with the Christian Right that I have is this.
They see enemies everywhere and demons around the corners.
Hence they do what they must, militant religionism.
This translated to all non-converts are automatically enemies and homosexuals, demons to be obliterated.
At many point in this witchhunt, we ask where are your compassion in Christ like image?
On issue of ‘healing’. . . .
The thing I have the most against this kind of ‘theraphy’. Not just that it doesn’t work.
But in most cases, it creates the false hope that leads to a lot of collateral damages.
You see, if a person managed to get married and later discover it did not work.
I don’t really need to explain the pain and damage of a loveless marriage and divorce, do I?
I am glad there are voices of reason from the conservatives, instead of the usual bible thumping hate mongering that was almost too common these day.
Des
In your hidden post, you mentioned the sin of homosexuality is true because of its mention in OT and re-stated in NT. Thus making it irefutable.
In the Book of Proverbs, it is stated that “the Lord” specifically regards “six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth.” namely[2]:
Haughty eyes
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plots
Feet that are swift to run into mischief
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
Him that soweth discord among brethren
This give rise to the 7 deadly sins that we have today.
In almost every list Pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris, is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise
Bear in mind that many of lessons of Jesus Gospel is pertaining to this, (where not even his own disciples are spared from).
My question is this, why is it we are so quick to condemn and advocate persecution of ‘Sin of Homosexuality’ instead of Pride?
Could it be, if and when the Church does go after the sinner of Pride, the stone throwers will find equal or more stones aimed back at themselves?
In the face of this, how can we still continue to allow discriminations and intolerance to continue?
The rift between Conservatives and Liberals has been widening for sometimes.
What is sad is that the stand on homosexuality is not even the real issue that cause the divide.
I do hope christianity has learn to resolve this issue this time round with compassion instead of with blood.
Step off the religious high-horse. Here’s one article that situates the present culture wars within America where religious fundamentalists export their agendas to other cultures to implicate them into their ideological war. Who pays the price?
Executive Summary:
http://www.publiceye.org/ark/africa-report/pdf/full-executive-summery.pdf
Research Paper:
http://www.publiceye.org/ark/africa-report/pdf/africa-full-report.pdf
Abstract: Sexual minorities in Africa have become collateral damage to our domestic conflicts and culture wars as U.S. conservative evangelicals and those opposing gay pastors and bishops within mainline Protestant denominations woo Africans in their American fight, a groundbreaking investigation by Political Research Associates (PRA) discovered.
Dear Kezu,
You said:
“In your hidden post, you mentioned the sin of homosexuality is true because of its mention in OT and re-stated in NT. Thus making it irefutable.”
Ah – perhaps I need to make it a bit clearer. The Levitical prohibition on same-sex sexual behaviour is taken over into the New Testament both explicitly and implicitly.
Explicitly, homosexual sex is described by Paul as a vice of the Gentiles (Romans 1), a breaking of the Jewish law (1 Timothy 1) and a sin that will keep you from inheriting the future Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6). The word used is ‘arsenokoites’ – a word that essentially means ‘men who take men to bed’, that Paul made up as a direct transliteration of the Leviticus 18 prohibition. It is a blanket prohibition on all same-sex sexual activity, and not specific acts as detailed by other, more specific Greek words. For lesbianism, see Romans 1.
Implicitly, it is carried over into the New Testament as part of a category of sins described as ‘sexual immorality’ (porniea in Greek), which was a word that 1st Century Jews used to describe the catalogue of sexual sins in Leviticus 18 (adultery, incest, same-sex sex, and bestiality), as well as general sex outside marriage. Sometimes they are expanded on (as in 1 Corinthians 5-6) and sometimes the one word stands for all. Both Jesus and Paul denounced sexual immorality.
This is why I believe that it is irrefutable. It is not a ‘blind faith’ thing at all. I think that the evidence is overwhelming. Even nonChristian Lesbian and Gay scholars will agree that the New Testament gives blanket prohibitions. That is why liberal theology is simply wrong on this issue. Robert Gagnon is the expert on this – check him out online.
As for the issue of women and slavery, they are bad analogies. Women and slaves were treated as spiritual equals with men in Christ in the New Testament (the issue of roles can be debated) . No-one is commanded to own slaves in the Bible at all, and there appears to be a trajectory towards the liberation of slaves in Paul’s Letters (‘If you can obtain your freedom, do so’, says Paul in 1 Corinthians 7′). There is no such trajectory for same-sex sexual behaviour.
You do raise an excellent point with the issue of Pride. Pride is primarily a spiritual sin, like lust, and greed and anger and the other so-called ‘deadly sins’, which do not always have an outward, physical manifestation, or if it does, it may not always be traced back to Pride. However, as much as I am aware, pride is often tackled from many pulpits, because it is the root of many other sins.
If you take a look at the New Testament, particularly Paul’s Letters, where lists of vices to be shunned are detailed – the most common behavioural sins that are called out are either sexual sins or sins of the tongue, because they directly affect the health and well-being of the Christian Community.
As for why homosexual sex is singled out, rather than say Pride, I would say that no-one is calling for Pride to be re-labeled as ‘good’, and to be celebrated in Church. It is the issue of the day – and may be for some time.
“The rift between Conservatives and Liberals has been widening for sometimes.
What is sad is that the stand on homosexuality is not even the real issue that cause the divide.”
Yes – I completely agree. It saddens me somewhat.
225 Des on November 19th, 2009 6.12 pm
You see, there are others more well verse in refuting that than me.
See Gentle Lamb’s post in #70, and follow the link too. (I did and read every articles there and enlightened)
http://www.psa91.com/clobber3.htm
http://www.psa91.com/clobber56.htm
As for the issue of women and slavery, they are bad analogies. Women and slaves were treated as spiritual equals with men in Christ in the New Testament (the issue of roles can be debated) . . . . . .
You see, I prefer to come to conclusion on someone’s virtue Not based on what they claimed, but by what they did.
A likewise stand I take, when looking at Christianity.
Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he said ‘sorry’ to Jews, Galileo, women, victims of the Inquisition, Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church through the years
Also 100 other apologies to conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church, Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade, Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation, injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women and others
Let me rephrase your argument on sin of pride vs homosexuality.
Sin of pride, is spiritual, cannot manifested physically but agreed to be roots of many other sins therefore (harmful)
Solution : tackled from pulpits. (I assume preaching)
Sin of homosexuality : manifested physically, harmful? (even between 2 consenting adult and even Non Christians?)
Solution: need I list down the actions Churches has put in motion locally and globally?
As for why homosexual sex is singled out, rather than say Pride, I would say that no-one is calling for Pride to be re-labeled as ‘good’, and to be celebrated in Church. It is the issue of the day – and may be for some time.
Ah, there you see. After 2000 years of tradition the church has yet to found a solution?
Or the same solution that’s imposed on sin of homosexual perhaps too harsh to be imposed on oneself?
Yes – I completely agree. It saddens me somewhat.
Perhaps the only way to heal this is to be from another Christian?
To me Rev Dr Yap is doing exactly that despite being branded herectic by you.
223) maytaglady on November 19th, 2009 5.00 pm
“Step off the religious high-horse. Here’s one article that situates the present culture wars within America where religious fundamentalists export their agendas to other cultures to implicate them into their ideological war. Who pays the price?”
Well maytaglady, if you will step off your equally impressive steed and condemn the actions of sexual libertarians in the American church for their role in this mess, you can meet me in the middle. I deplore some of the things my side is doing. Can you bring yourself to denounce the other side?
Des
Just one last question in your opinion.
Which is greater, Sin of the Flesh of Sin of the Spirit?
*sigh*
Dear Kezu
Yes – I read Gentle Lamb’s post when it was first posted, and the articles he/she added.
There are several problems:
1 – Romans 1:26-27 is taken by most commentators to be referring to Gentiles – not Jews. Paul is behaving as a typical Jewish rhetorician and denounces the major sins of the non-Jewish world – including same-sex sexual behaviour. He only gets to the Jews and their bad Law-keeping in Chapter 2. There is no way this passage can possibly refer to ‘straight men’ being bored with women. Now I suppose straight men can have sex with anything they want to, given the chandce and need, but all of the Old Testament references to Baal-worshipping orgies either make no reference to same-sex sex or are described in heterosexual terms. And the summit point is this: straight men do not ‘burn with lust for one another’ (1:27). To suggest that it is talking about straight men is laughable. There may be many interpretations, but some are good and some are bad. The ‘clobber passage’ one is bad.
2. As for the 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage – it can be shown quite convincingly that ‘malakos’ and ‘arseonkoites’ refer to the active and passive partners in male-male sex from Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, and no amount of crying ‘homophobia’ will make it otherwise.
May I encourage you to check out the following PDF:
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf
Warning: it’s 112 pages long, but very detailed.
Once again, we are all encouraged to deal with our own sins. As I have said before the only justifiable position of the church to an unrepentant sexual sinner is to show them the door until such a time as they repent (1 Cor. 5). I am well aware of what some churches have done and condemn it too.
Des
I am well aware of what some churches have done and condemn it too.</i?
I am glad you too condemn it.
But is this the best one can do or sufficient enough to stop the intolerance and injustice from a position within?
In response to #225, Des
In the Sept issue 2006 of the Trinitarian by the Trinity Church in Singapore, in the article by Rev Gerald Tan, on exposing the works of the enemy in sensual world, he said that
” Asherah is the female counterpart of Baal. Asherah is a false goddess and the worship of Asherah usually involves an Asherah pole, which has an extremely sexual slant to it. Asherah worshippers were also known as ‘sodomists’. In our day, this is known as homosexuality”
One of the greatest weapons of the enemy is to twist the truth and sometimes even in church teachings. The worship of Asherah did exist and was very common. It was a goddess where men would have sex with temple prostitutes and that not being enough, it extreme passion even men would have sex with men. These were straight men who were going against their nature to have sex with men. However, the worship was primarily a sex orgies between men and women. It was the goddess they are worshiping and not a naked male idol and so no gays would likely be involved. Its only straight men who would likely indulged. If we interpret the same manner as the extremist Christians, ie based on the action only, then the sin would be heterosexuality. Instead, the Pastor conveniently compared this to to Homosexuality, which in our day defined as loving and committed relationships betwen men. So something vulgar and sex orgies primarily beween men and women in a hetosexual hedonism in idol worship is blamed upon loving gay couples 4000 years later which has nothing to do with them. The Pastor was correct concerning Asherah and incorrect when comparing this to modern day Homosexuality. He was not careful enough to understand that the works of the enemy is deception, and one can be deceived only by half truths.
The Holman dictionary calls Asherah was the fertility goddess of the Phoenicians and Canaanites. She was called “Lady Asherah of the Sea.” It was a naked woman and not a man. It was straight men was was worshipping this idol just like straight men worshiped and have sex with Aprohdite in the city of Corinth. The female naked idol would naturally not find fancy with gay man. However, even a very quick sanity check of any person of sound mind, would know that Gays are only 5 to 10% of the population, and even if legalized would never be pervasive as spreading to the moral heartlands and so enticing the entire nation to same sex sexual orgies. God did not judge Israel because 5% of the population engage in this idol worship (if at all the Pastor’s sermon was correct). He judged because the entire nation become intertwined into it and not just a few percentage. Calling it as Homosexuality and blamming gays is an obvious distortion of the facts. On the contrary, if it were straight men, we could easily have understood the meaning by observing Geylang where prostitutes will lined her streets. The symptom of religious extreminism is that we seldom see our own sins, and use the weak and defenceless and those who can’t answer back as scapegoats. Because the real issue are too challenging to resolve and we rather believe in a half truth.
Sheep in wolves clothing
It is an amazing thing to observe how Christians and Catholics, such as Arix here, have no hesitation in condemning others for what they perceive as moral deviancies, while at the same time ignore, dismiss and even ridicule others who point out the crimes of the Church.
History has proved that the Church, despite its good works, is in no moral position to dictate morality. We can cite the Dark Ages, or the Church’s attitude towards Jews in the Second World War. But we shall not.
We shall only cite the most recent atrocities committed by the Catholic Church and its priests, it’s bishops and its archbishops.
Yet when we, observe how Catholics like Arix first dismiss these, then ridicule these, and most important of all, ignore totally and not even mentioning or displaying any contrition for the suffering the many victims endured and carry with them even until today.
Arix has made no mention at all about the victims. In fact, he seem dismissive of them and their suffering. Arix is afraid that if the “truth” comes out, “sensationalists in the media” would have a field day.
In short, Arix’s concern is about the Church’s image.
Arix is more concerned about PR.
Yet, Arix takes it upon himself to condemn a whole group of people – namely, homosexual people. And he does so quoting chapter and verse of his Bible.
Why does Arix not quote chapter and verse of the same Bible to his church which condoned the abuse of so many many children?
It is such blatant hypocrisy, which Arix has clearly displayed, which makes me want to puke each time I see and hear someone like Arix suits himself up and takes the moral high ground.
It makes me puke.
Lobo76 (#208),
Neither do I, but the Inquisition tends to be the standard by which Atheists judge the Church. I am not an Atheist, so why don’t you ask them?
Kezu (#209),
Sorry, please clarify what you mean here.
Kezu (#210),
I will fairly admit that the Church is partially responsible for itself being misunderstood. Catholics – and the rest who broke off from Catholicism some time in history – explain their doctrine using Hellenistic forms that are not understood by people today, except the very few who study Greek Classics. So whenever the Church makes use of a term, we must stop and pause to see if the Hellenistic approach to that term is similar to our modern approach. Which, of course, the Atheists are not doing.
In this case, the Church – and most of the orthodox Protestant denominations – distinguishes between the “literalist” meaning and the “literal” meaning of the Bible. Sometimes, both coincide; many times they do not. The “literalist” diverges from the “literal”.
In the case of shellfish and clothing, as I explained, the “literal” intention is to give the Jews a distinct identity; at the time of Moses Jewish culture was not sufficiently advanced to understand the distinction of identity philosophically. But in Jesus’ time, the influence of the Romans and the Greeks and Persians before them, as well as the maturation of Jewish society itself, would enable people to at least be able to do bare-bones philosophy. These practices were reflective of a deeper purpose, and as long as the deeper purpose is maintained, the details of the practices can be adjusted for each age and culture.
In the case of homosexuality, the “literal” intention is to condemn homosexuality as a deviation from the moral ideal, and thus homosexual acts as immoral actions. It is already expressing the deep purpose itself, and therefore brooks no attempt at change. (How the Church should seek to reconcile homosexuals is another matter altogether.) The “literalist” coincides with the “literal” because homosexuality is an abstract concept.
I am not being duplicitous; I am being consistent and honest. This is the standard principle of Biblical Exegesis, applied consistently to all parts of the Bible.
Arix says: “I am not being duplicitous; I am being consistent and honest.”
Do that with regards to the abuse and rape committed by your priests and church and we may believe you.
Sheep and Wolves (#211),
2) Sure, the Documentary is widely-praised, by whom and for what? I could praise it – as I think I would – for good graphics and plotline, and excellent engagement with the subject. But that doesn’t mean I have to consent that the documentary is fully 100% factual.
4) “thousands” is an estimation. Nobody has actually proven a concrete figure. All the people quoted in the documentary claim to “I agree that there will be more …” or “I am sure that there are …” or “certainly there must be” but none of these are empirically credible statements. Perhaps I didn’t watch your exact documentary, but I watched a similar one on the BBC.
5-7) You are fitting words into my mouth. Neither I nor the Pope endorsed any of the child molesters, and the Church did hand many over to the local police, contrary to what some leading Atheist “thinkers” claim.
I do not support the rapists or the molesters (and most were just molesters actually) who were priests, or who were Church officials, and certainly I concur that a harsher line should have been taken by the Vatican.
Conversely, one must also see it from the Vatican’s viewpoint. Firstly, there is a worldwide shortage of priests; if the Vatican were to de-frock all the clergy who participated in the scandal, it would stretch the shortage of priests even further, and although Atheists might hail it as their victory, the Papacy obviously thinks otherwise.
Secondly, a one-hour or two-hour documentary does not interview everybody. The way such documentaries paint the scandal is as if every single priest and every single bishop is involved in child abuse, which is clearly sensationalist, and is only becoming acceptable because of the decline in people’s respect for the Church. It is as one bishop said, “It doesn’t matter how many hospitals the Church builds in Mongolia or how many schools the Church sets up in Brazil. The moment a single priest molests a single child, the Church is suddenly the Big Satan, and all its contributions to human welfare are forgotten in a blink of an eye.
My – and the Pope’s Message is: “Yes, demand that Justice be done, but do not let the sins of a few cast a shadow of the good done by many.”
That’s very different from the allegation of “cover-up” conspiracy you are alleging.
As an addendum to the previous post:
If a physics teacher took drugs, molested his students, smoked and took porn videos during lesson time, does that mean that his students should ignore everything he teaches them about physics?
Some food for thought.
The more Arix speaks, the more hypocrisy comes out from him. I would now add two words to the word hypocrisy – unbelievable and shocking. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Shocking hypocrisy.
Arix says: “I do not support the rapists or the molesters (and most were just molesters actually) who were priests…”
The key word here is: “just”.
“Just molesters”, Arix says. Just.
Shocking, especially when it comes from a self-procliaimed “god-fearing Catholic”.
Obviously, Arix has no clue about how it feels to be molested. But of course, he pretends to know.
The Arix goes on and say the documentary is just a one-hour or two-hour documentary. Perhaps Arix needs a 10-hour documentary? Amazing how blind faith makes one really truly blind.
Arix says he perhaps didn’t watch the documentary. How does one “perhaps didn’t watch the documentary”??? You either did or did not. Then Arix goes on, presuming that he did not watch the documentary, to dismiss the people quoted in the documentary!
Amazing. Laughably amazing.
He did not watch the documentary. But he dismissed the people quoted in the documentary.
And why does Arix not watch the documentary? Only his god knows. I am sure if it was a documentary portraying homosexuals negatively, Arix would be lapping it up, even quoting from it, defending it.
Arix then defends his church and his pope: “…the Church did hand many over to the local police.”
Does Arix provide any proof? No. It’s his words. Only. But the important question is: How many is “many”?
And then Arix makes the most vile of the vilest remarks:
“there is a worldwide shortage of priests; if the Vatican were to de-frock all the clergy who participated in the scandal, it would stretch the shortage of priests even further”
I am speechless. Totally speechless.
Arix is saying his church will keep these rapist priests because of shortages of priests which his church is facing.
This is why Arix’s hypocrisy makes me puke.
As an addendum to the previous post:
If a priest forces a child of 5 or 6 or 7-years old to perform oral sex on him, molested the child, forced the child to have sex with him during cathechism time, all the time telling the child that this is love, does that mean that the child should ignore everything he teaches them about love?
Absolutely.
Some food for thought.
And so, we can be clear that:
1. Arix did not watch the documentary but condemns it anyway.
2. Arix is more concerned about his church’s public image than the victims who suffered at the hands of his priests.
3. Arix is more concerned about the shortages of priests in his church than the lifetime sufferings inflicted in the victims by the priests.
ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING.
Arix
Kezu (#209),
Sorry, please clarify what you mean here.
not sure which post is this. please drop a specific line next time.
The current #209 is my reply to sllim.
I will fairly admit that the Church is partially responsible for itself being misunderstood. Catholics – and the rest who broke off from Catholicism some time in history – explain their doctrine using Hellenistic forms that are not understood by people today, except the very few who study Greek Classics. So whenever the Church makes use of a term, we must stop and pause to see if the Hellenistic approach to that term is similar to our modern approach. Which, of course, the Atheists are not doing.
You see, that where a lot of people has bones to pick with you and your Bible.
The bible you are quoting from now are in English (which i presume the language you too are using)
If there were concerns of ‘Lost in Translation’ from Hellenistic, then safeguards and precautions should have been put in place? You mean even after 2000 years, nobody thought of such thing?
The issue is not about should or not, its all about whether there’s any Need or not?
But now that translated version from Hellenistic to English (may not be fully accurate reflection of exact meaning as indicated by you) is now being translated further to … how many languages now? *lost count*
And you say what Altheists are not doing?
I would say most of Bible thumping readers are also not doing too!.
How many are taking up Hebrew/Ancient Greeks just to pore through the scrolls in Vatican to gain the actual meaning of scriptures that made up the Bible now?
What most of them do is just regurgitate what being preached from the pulpit every Sunday. Coming from the same English bible that you and I are reading
(which you indicated may not translated accurately from Hellenistic language)
If you ask most of them, they probably think the Bible dropped from heaven and came straight from God in English.
Your post is so lengthy, i need to split up the reply.
Are you sure you are not adopting one of my favorite strategies?
‘If you cannot convince, confuse them’ .
233) Arix (@UK) on November 19th, 2009 11.53 pm
In the case of shellfish and clothing, as I explained, the “literal” intention is to give the Jews a distinct identity; at the time of Moses Jewish culture was not sufficiently advanced to understand the distinction of identity philosophically. But in Jesus’ time, the influence of the Romans and the Greeks and Persians before them, as well as the maturation of Jewish society itself, would enable people to at least be able to do bare-bones philosophy. These practices were reflective of a deeper purpose, and as long as the deeper purpose is maintained, the details of the practices can be adjusted for each age and culture.
Arix, i must admit i am impressed. Philosophers the likes of Plato, Socrates and many, many others are unable to impart bare-bones philosophy to the Romans?
Who in turn established Christianity as state religion for 150 years?
Honestly I can believe the true meaning of the Bible is not wrong,
But i cannot accept that there are no errors/misinterpretation/inaccuracy when written down by human hands across different languages that not many can still read let alone master.
Despite all the modern discovery and so on, the bible has yet to be revised, has it now?
(if so i did not remember reading about non-pancake earth and heliocentrism?)
Has it’s contradicting verses in the Bible been updated? or more important question is will it?
Perhaps only then can we Truly talk about shellfish and 2 treads, and it’s deeper purposes.
Kezu (#237),
Look carefully at your quote again. You are totally off-tangent.
What I meant is Moses lived 1000 years before Plato and Socrates and Aristotle, and Jewish Society – with the Ten Commandments and Leviticus – were founded at that time, when as illiterate slaves coming out of Egypt, they had no knowledge whatsoever of any form of philosophical understanding. So the Shellfish and the Two threads are substitutes for the philosophy they embody.
But by the time of Jesus, all these philosophies, plus those of the Greek, Roman and Persian empires, had influenced the Jews, so they had new material they could use which they did not have previously 1000 years ago. Thus, Christ and Paul appeal to this better sense of philosophy and moral understanding; thus the Shellfish and the Two Threads are no longer necessary.
You somehow read exactly the opposite meaning!
Kezu (#236),
1) “”"Same could have been said about the issue of homosexuality. But that floodgate is allowed to be opened. Actively persued by the Christian Right as a rallying slogan across US.”"” Please clarify “floodgate”.
2) That quote is not talking about the Bible; it is talking about the doctrinal definitions that Christians teach based of from Scripture and Tradition. For instance, those found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is, not the text of the Bible that is in Hellenistic Terms, but the explanations of the Text formulated at the Church Councils that are in Hellenistic Terms.
4) The actual issue is that these definitions – not biblical verses – were trans-literated, not translated.
5) I agree, with an addition: Neither are the all-embracing Liberals like Rev Yap doing so.
8) No, I am not. If you feel confused, read through again. If you still feel confused, ask me to clarify.
Sheep and Wolves (#233),
If you continue like this, I will report you to the editor for hurling emotional invective at me that does not add to the discussion. For the moment, I will be polite to you.
3) It is objective quantitatively. In terms of psychological impact, molesters are less severe than rapists. You can of course, provide me evidence to prove the converse. I am not off that.
Morally, I am not endorsing Molesters any more than I am endorsing Rapists.
7) Even a 10-hour documentary would be insufficient. I wonder how long it takes to interview 1 billion people (the population of the Global Church)?
8) In case you didn’t notice, I mentioned that I have watched a documentary on BBC about this issue. I didn’t go to the link you posted, so I am unsure if the documentary I watched is the same as the documentary I linked to.
Plus, do not make false accusations. I did not dismiss any of the people quoted in the documentary. I am sure that they are not telling any lies whatsoever, and expressing sincere heartfelt opinions. But then they are not statisticians so they have no idea what the actual numbers are.
9) Now you are being a hypocrite! Who do you think you are to presume to know what I would do in response to such a documentary? FYI, what you say of me constitutes an unqualified personal insult, and you should apologize immediately.
10) Well, you can go and check on the USCCB website.
11-) I am just trying to show you the Church’s Catch-22. In fact, your entire post exemplifies perfectly my point that Atheists will pick on anything to attack the Church with, without bothering to empathise with the Church.
So I guess, at the end of the day, you are still the real hypocrite.
Dear Kezu
Sins of the spirit are clearly the most important – but we do not neglect those while also dealing with the sins of the flesh.
Gentle Lamb (#230)
You misunderstand my point.
I am well aware what happened in the case of Baal and Asherah worship during Old Testament times, and the Aphrodite worship that was part of Corinthian life in the time of Paul.
My point was that you cannot derive that from the Romans 1 text.
The Romans 1 text is Paul’s description, as a Christian Jew who has the both the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus as his background, describing the world’s fall into idolatry and sin as a result of the general rejection by mankind of God as God. As a result of this, God gives mankind over to his desires, and so the world is full of those who sin in body (1:24-26) and mind (1:28-31).
And the key word is desires. A desire is something that is already there inside. It is not necessarily chosen by the person. In this case, we learn that men, burning with lust for other men, abandon ‘natural’ relations with women and commit indecent acts with one another.
As I said to Kezu in my summary of that argument – straight men do not ‘burn with lust for one another’. To make the passage say that is distorting it beyond recognition. You may as well say that ‘down’ is ‘up’. Straight men may have sex with men – I grant you that not only is that possible, but it has been done historically and currently, as we both agree on, but they do not do so out of ‘lust for one another’. Something else is clearly going on here. The passage describes men (and women) who want to have sex with one another because they feel like it and are attracted to one another. ‘Burning with lust’ may be strong language, but it essentially describes those who have same-sex sexual desires, which now take over, even with the clear background of the two-sex division of humanity that is God’s intention for sex (which is the issue of ‘natural’ – the God-ordained purpose which bodies are for, not what people ‘feel like doing’).
Paul’s concern is not that every man is doing this – but that it even exists. Yes, I know that gays are only a small proportion of society, but that is not the point. Look at the list of sins in Romans 1:28-31 – the point is not that all of humanity is doing them all the time, but that they are there at all. It is a consequence of a world that has rejected God. It is a consequence of the Fall.
Of course, Paul goes on to describe how the Jews break the Law (chapter 2) and how the whole of humanity is under sin (chapter 3:1-20) before bringing in the good news of righteousness by faith in Christ (3:21-4:25). Yes, we all, homosexual and heterosexual are saved by faith in Christ, but this must be accompanied by identifying with Christ (Romans 6) and putting actual sins to death by the Spirit (Romans 8) for the ultimate attainment of eternal life. Eternal life is both now and not yet, and we are preserved in faith by the Gospel as we both believe its promises and heed its warnings.
Gentle Lamb – I am guessing that by your name you identify as a Christian. I do not want to take that away from you, but one simply cannot twist the scriptures like this. It is a very strained interpretation, and should be recognised as such. It seems that it is an attempt to get away from the obvious conclusion – that Paul condemns same-sex sexual behaviour as being part of man’s fall away from God and his purposes. He also makes the point, ignored by many Evangelicals, that it is not entirely chosen – that same-sex desires are pre-existing before it is acted on in conscious choice. I can understand those who simply ignore the passage out of rejection of God and Christianity, but we Christians are called to be better than that, right?
People like Arix will pick on anything to attack homosexuality, while remaining hypocritical on what in the Bible should be followed or not.
When asked about things that are equally condemned by the Bible as homosexuality, such as shellfish or divorce, they start to give excuses. How convenient, interpreting the book as it long as the interpretation suits their convenience and agendas.
When asked about molest and rape of young children, it seems like Arix is more concerned about outlawing consensual loving relationships between men. I mean, it’s just molest, but gay sex between two consenting adults? NO WAY!