Homophobia

[Everglaze]

I wouldn't have thought you were old enough to vote. And anyway, you're from Canada aren't you? I wasn't aware of any gay issues on the ballots in Canada.

 

No offense taken, but yes, I'm old enough to vote. Let's just say conservatives (against) and liberals (with) impose the issue.

[Clergicide]

It's hard enough to find happiness in life. If two people of the same sex find love in each other, good for them!

[currentchristian]

I mentioned in the "Morality" thread that I would post a link in this thread to a 1961 educational film produced for teenage boys. It's called "Boys Beware."

 

This film, in my view, mirrors and reinforces the homophobic views of that era. My father was 17 in 1961. Perhaps he saw this very film. Perhaps doing so reinforced or solidifed his views. Perhaps this is why he said many times as I was growing up, "I don't want a queer within a mile of me." (Happy P.S.: He later was very happy to have his gay son and his gay son's partner in his family.)

 

To feel the homophobic impact, mentally substitute the words "molester" or "predator" each time the narrator uses the word "homosexual." (It wouldn't be a bad film, in fact, if "molester" or "predator" were used instead of "homosexual.")

 

Here's the link:

 

Boys Beware at Youtube (10:12 version)

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Here's a link to some information about Sid Davis, the producer of Boys Beware and other mental hygiene films of the 1950's and 1960's.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

CC, I've been part of quite a few online fundy-liberal/nonChristian debates on gay rights. Most of the time I'm the only straight person arguing for gay rights. One thing I've learned is to pick up the cues as to whether a person in the argument is gay or straight. In an earlier post you referred to your "partner." That tipped me off. It was not absolute proof but most people talk about their wife or husband. A non-gender-specific term like "partner" is normally used by people in a same-sex relationship.

I use the term partner because I am not married, and yet have lived with my female partner for the past 6 years. She does not care for the term "girlfriend" on a number of levels as that generally denotes a young girl or a late teenager or early 20's (she is in her 40's and the term doesn't apply). Additionally, "girl" is traditionally used in a male dominant society to put "little ladies", in their proper position as play things, or pleasant sexual objects, or any non-threatening role to men.

 

To refer to a woman in her 40's as "girlfriend" is charged with this type of history and connotation. This is her complaint. I could use the term SO, (significant other), but that likewise carries this odd social connotation of distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It's difficult as a heterosexual male to speak of my relationship without the sort of reaction coming from what you just pointed out above, but I see her point and respect what it behind that.

 

I have the perfect solution. Get rid of the institution of marriage in secular society. All long-term relationship will be recognized under a generic domestic partnership license. We will start saying, "We are licensed partners", or as would be the case of those who prefer to simply live together without the whole cultural expectations, "We're partners". Those dating of course would simply be just dating. The more we get rid of distinctions like this, the simpler life will be for everyone.

[The Sage Nabooru]

I have the same opinion on homosexuality as I do on permarital sex, marriage, abortion, etc.:

 

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's not something that harms you or anybody else.

 

It's not like drugs, where the impact is 99% destructive; rather it is a practice that is morally ambiguous and not particularly harmful to the body or mind. If you decide that it's wrong, fine. But just because you limit yourself from it, doesn't mean that everyone is under that jurisdiction.

 

For example, I believe that keeping one's house in a mess is wrong. But I don't see people that are put in personal danger, or endangering others, because of a dirty house. Therefore, I don't impose my neatnik sensibilities on others.

[I Broke Free]

Here's a link to some information about Sid Davis, the producer of Boys Beware and other mental hygiene films of the 1950's and 1960's.

 

Thanks so much CC. I actually did see this video in school back in the late 60’s. I lived in Southern California and we saw all of Sid Davis’s productions. (I was born in 1960) I have even discussed this video a couple of times on this forum.

 

That video did more to harm my little gay psyche than just about anything in my life. When I began to realize that I was attracted to other boys, the ONLY reference I had was that damned video! I was terrified that I would end up hanging around in restrooms looking for boys to molest. The only conclusion that one could make from that video is that there is no difference between a homosexual and a pedophile.

 

On another note CC. My dad also came around and accepted me as gay and openly embraced my partner (today is our 8th anniversary!) as part of the family. People can change.

[currentchristian]

Here's a link to some information about Sid Davis, the producer of Boys Beware and other mental hygiene films of the 1950's and 1960's.

 

Thanks so much CC. I actually did see this video in school back in the late 60’s. I lived in Southern California and we saw all of Sid Davis’s productions. (I was born in 1960) I have even discussed this video a couple of times on this forum.

 

That video did more to harm my little gay psyche than just about anything in my life. When I began to realize that I was attracted to other boys, the ONLY reference I had was that damned video! I was terrified that I would end up hanging around in restrooms looking for boys to molest. The only conclusion that one could make from that video is that there is no difference between a homosexual and a pedophile.

 

On another note CC. My dad also came around and accepted me as gay and openly embraced my partner (today is our 8th anniversary!) as part of the family. People can change.

 

You are so right. This film did much harm. Thank goodness we are becoming more enlightened around this issue as time goes on. Primary opposition these days comes from conservative religionists, but even in religion changes are underway!

 

Congratulations on your 8th anniversary! My partner and I just marked our 8th anniversary, too, in mid-November. Since May 2004, as you likely know, same sex couples have had equal access to civil marriage in Massachusetts. We have not taken advantage of this wonderful right, but likely will ... one day ... as soon as one of us officially proposes.

 

-CC in MA

[Japedo]

 

Ramen666, I know that text very well. I mentioned it in the very first posting. I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me that God is the author of that passage. You see, I am not a literalist-fundamentalist who worships the Bible and has made a god of it and says things like, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." The Bible is not my god. Leviticus 18.31 offends me very much; but God is not its author. (I do not subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration of scripture.)

 

Believe me, Ramen666, I have very serious issues with the position of many churches and Christians on this issue. (This is the issue that, more or less, got me kicked off a Christian forum.) That said, most Christians do not hate gay people and God most assuredly does not hate gay people. How can Love (God) hate gay people?

 

-CC in MA

 

 

If God is not the author then who is? In studying the Torah, (First 5 books ) They are the only books recognized as being directly from God in the founding Jewish religion that is. One doesn't have to declare themselves literalist fundamentalists to read and understand what it says and that Church/State policies arise from scriptures such as these posted. People on the large scale wont accept it because they believe it will displease their god, no other reason, they also don't want to be shunned or thought of supporting such policies.

 

Do you use any verse to proclaim yourself a 'current Christian? If so, why is that particular one legitimate in your eyes? 'Most' Christians will tell you they don't 'hate' gay people, but will declare they 'hate' their sin. They relate being gay to being sinful and have it up there with murder and stealing. It is complete mind fking and coloring their bigotry thru rose colored glasses. I'm sure you've heard, Love the sinner hate the sin, it is one of their favorites to use. It is manipulation they use and this causes depression and self hating in people who want to be part of the faith. It also promotes no self worth and a host of other mind fking hogwash. They are masters of manipulation and capitalizing on peoples wants and desires. The only way to gain control of people is to take away who they are. With some it might be money, with others it might be sexual orientation, others still it might be as simple as a difference of opinion so on and so forth.

 

 

You said in one of your posts that your parents never took you to church until you took them to the a/g. Being nosey and nothing else, Is that the Assembly of God that you refer to?

 

I believe all men and women should pursue their own happiness, and that governments and religions only hinder and stunt growth.

[currentchristian]

 

Ramen666, I know that text very well. I mentioned it in the very first posting. I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me that God is the author of that passage. You see, I am not a literalist-fundamentalist who worships the Bible and has made a god of it and says things like, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." The Bible is not my god. Leviticus 18.31 offends me very much; but God is not its author. (I do not subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration of scripture.)

 

Believe me, Ramen666, I have very serious issues with the position of many churches and Christians on this issue. (This is the issue that, more or less, got me kicked off a Christian forum.) That said, most Christians do not hate gay people and God most assuredly does not hate gay people. How can Love (God) hate gay people?

 

-CC in MA

 

 

If God is not the author then who is? In studying the Torah, (First 5 books ) They are the only books recognized as being directly from God in the founding Jewish religion that is. One doesn't have to declare themselves literalist fundamentalists to read and understand what it says and that Church/State policies arise from scriptures such as these posted. People on the large scale wont accept it because they believe it will displease their god, no other reason, they also don't want to be shunned or thought of supporting such policies.

 

Do you use any verse to proclaim yourself a 'current Christian? If so, why is that particular one legitimate in your eyes? 'Most' Christians will tell you they don't 'hate' gay people, but will declare they 'hate' their sin. They relate being gay to being sinful and have it up there with murder and stealing. It is complete mind fking and coloring their bigotry thru rose colored glasses. I'm sure you've heard, Love the sinner hate the sin, it is one of their favorites to use. It is manipulation they use and this causes depression and self hating in people who want to be part of the faith. It also promotes no self worth and a host of other mind fking hogwash. They are masters of manipulation and capitalizing on peoples wants and desires. The only way to gain control of people is to take away who they are. With some it might be money, with others it might be sexual orientation, others still it might be as simple as a difference of opinion so on and so forth.

 

 

You said in one of your posts that your parents never took you to church until you took them to the a/g. Being nosey and nothing else, Is that the Assembly of God that you refer to?

 

I believe all men and women should pursue their own happiness, and that governments and religions only hinder and stunt growth.

 

We don't know who the author of the holiness laws is. Moses, in part? Scribes? Levites? I simply do not believe that the Source of life would call for the death of homosexuals or disobedient sons or adulterers.

 

Yes, you are right: A/G is Assembly of God. I was a member of that denomination from age 16 to 21.

 

-CC in MA

[Japedo]

 

 

We don't know who the author of the holiness laws is. Moses, in part? Scribes? Levites? I simply do not believe that the Source of life would call for the death of homosexuals or disobedient sons or adulterers.

 

Yes, you are right: A/G is Assembly of God. I was a member of that denomination from age 16 to 21.

 

-CC in MA

 

If you don't know the author, what in your mind makes the laws holy? If you don't believe god to be behind it then for what purpose was it written?

 

I can't imagine you're still a member of A/G? I came from that particular cult myself, I have a certain contempt for it lets just say.

[Jun]

CC said he WAS a member of A/G.

 

From their website -

 

"We believe that the Bible is God's Word. It is accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives."

 

We believe in one eternal God who is the Creator of all things. He exists in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. He is totally loving and completely holy.

 

CC has shown that he doesn't believe that rubbish anymore, right CC?

 

This Pentecostal cult is a pain in the but here in Oz. They have "believers" in local government positions that like to stir the pot.

 

What's "completely holy" mean?

[AKR]

According to Merriam-Webster (m-w.com), "homophobia" is the "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

 

It seems to me that most of those in the U.S. who oppose, for example, equal marriage laws for same-sex couples, non-discrimination policies that include "sexual orientation" as a "protected" category, and the general nationwide movement toward a normalization of same-sex love, often use their religious values and certain biblical writings (e.g., Genesis 19, Leviticus 18.22 & 20.13, Romans 1, I Cor. 6.9 and I Tim 1.10) as the foundation for their views.

 

Homophobia, however, may also be culturally-based and independent of any antagonism stemming from religious or biblical texts. Therefore, I'm interested in the views of those on this forum that do not make use of religious/scriptural values in determining their position, in regard to homosexuality, homosexuals, and the movement toward legal equality for gay/lesbian people.

 

Does anyone who has freed him/herself from what s/he perceives to be the shackles of religion oppose equal marriage laws, protection of gay/lesbian rights, etc.? Does anyone struggle with homophobia? (Don’t worry to state what you really think as we’re all anonymous here.)

 

-CC in MA

 

 

i never really had an issue with gay people when i was a christian. it wasn't really a topic growing up. now, i'm 100% in support of equal rights for gay people. i'm all for gay marriage and gay adoption.

[Jun]

According to Merriam-Webster (m-w.com), "homophobia" is the "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

 

I've never understood the "fear of" bit.

 

Does it mean a genuine FEAR as in say, someone with arachnophobia being scared to death of spiders?

 

Does someone with this "homophobia" relapse into fits and spasms when a gay person is nearby? Or do they have panic attacks and start frothing at the mouth? Do they run the other way?

 

Would homophobia be the result of a traumatising encounter with a gay person in early childhood?

[currentchristian]

 

 

We don't know who the author of the holiness laws is. Moses, in part? Scribes? Levites? I simply do not believe that the Source of life would call for the death of homosexuals or disobedient sons or adulterers.

 

Yes, you are right: A/G is Assembly of God. I was a member of that denomination from age 16 to 21.

 

-CC in MA

 

If you don't know the author, what in your mind makes the laws holy? If you don't believe god to be behind it then for what purpose was it written?

 

I can't imagine you're still a member of A/G? I came from that particular cult myself, I have a certain contempt for it lets just say.

 

I haven't been a member of the A/G for two decades. That was years ago. I remain a member of the Christian "cult," but not any particular brand thereof.

 

These rules were very much like the rules of many ancient groups of that era and geographical location. Like Hamurrabi's Code. Take that link to his 282 laws (and see how beautiful the stone slab upon which they were chiseled is!) and see how many of them sound levitical.

 

I'm not saying God was not with these people and inspiring these people and even providing guidelines. But the extrapolation form the guidelines seems more human-devised than god-given, to me.

 

-CC in MA

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

From today's New York Times:

 

December 7, 2006

Conservative Jews Allow Gay Rabbis and Unions

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

 

The highest legal body in Conservative Judaism, the centrist movement in worldwide Jewry, voted yesterday to allow the ordination of gay rabbis and the celebration of same-sex commitment ceremonies.

 

The decision, which followed years of debate, was denounced by traditionalists in the movement as an indication that Conservative Judaism had abandoned its commitment to adhere to Jewish law, but celebrated by others as a long-awaited move toward full equality for gay people.

 

“We see this as a giant step forward,” said Sarah Freidson, a rabbinical student and co-chairwoman of Keshet, a student group at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York that has been pushing for change.

 

But in a reflection of the divisions in the movement, the 25 rabbis on the law committee passed three conflicting legal opinions — one in favor of gay rabbis and unions, and two against.

 

In doing so, the committee left it up to individual synagogues to decide whether to accept or reject gay rabbis and commitment ceremonies, saying that either course is justified according to Jewish law.

 

“We believe in pluralism,” said Rabbi Kassel Abelson, chairman of the panel, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly, at a news conference after the meeting at the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York. “We recognized from the very beginnings of the movement that no single position could speak for all members” on the law committee or in the Conservative movement.

 

In protest, four conservative rabbis resigned from the law committee, saying that the decision to allow gay ordination violated Jewish law, or halacha. Among them were the authors of the two legal opinions the committee adopted that opposed gay rabbis and same-sex unions.

 

One rabbi, Joel Roth, said he resigned because the measure allowing gay rabbis and unions was “outside the pale of halachic reasoning.”

 

With many Protestant denominations divided over homosexuality in recent years, the decision by Conservative Judaism’s leading committee of legal scholars will be read closely by many outside the movement because Conservative Jews say they uphold Jewish law and tradition, which includes biblical injunctions against homosexuality.

 

The decision is also significant because Conservative Judaism is considered the centrist movement in Judaism, wedged between the liberal Reform and Reconstructionist movements, which have accepted an openly gay clergy for more than 10 years, and the more traditional Orthodox, which rejects it.

 

The move could create confusion in congregations that are divided over the issue, said Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive director of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the movement’s more than 750 synagogues with 1.5 million members in North America.

 

“Most of our congregations will not be of one mind, the same way that we were not of one mind,” said Rabbi Epstein, also a law committee member. “Our mandate is to help congregations deal with this pluralism.”

 

Some synagogues and rabbis could leave the Conservative movement, but many rabbis and experts cautioned that the law committee’s decision was unlikely to cause a widespread schism.

 

Before the vote, some rabbis in Canada, where many Conservative synagogues lean closer to Orthodoxy than in the United States, threatened to break with the movement.

 

But Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, said: “I find it hard to buy the idea that this change, which has been widely expected, will lead anybody to leave, because synagogues that don’t want to make changes will simply point to the rulings that will allow them not to make any changes. This is not like a papal edict.”

 

The question of whether to admit and ordain openly gay rabbinic students will now be taken up by the movement’s seminaries. The University of Judaism, in Los Angeles, has already signaled its support, said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, its rector and the vice chairman of the law committee. He co-wrote the legal opinion allowing gay ordination and unions that passed on Wednesday.

 

The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, the flagship school in Conservative Judaism, will take up the issue in meetings of the faculty, the students and the trustees in the next few months, Chancellor-elect Arnold Eisen said in an interview. Mr. Eisen said he personally favored ordaining gay rabbis as long as it was permissible according to Jewish law and the faculty approved.

 

“I’ve been asking the faculty, and time and again I got the same answer,” Mr. Eisen said. “People don’t know what they themselves think, and they don’t know what their colleagues are thinking. There’s never been a discussion like this before about this issue.”

 

The law committee has passed contradictory rulings before, on issues like whether it is permissible to drive to synagogue on the Sabbath. But the opinions it approved on Wednesday reflect the law committee’s split on homosexuality.

 

The one written by Rabbi Roth upholds the prohibition on gay rabbis that the committee passed overwhelmingly in 1992. Another rebuts the idea that homosexuality is biologically ingrained in every case, and suggests that some gay people could undergo “reparative therapy” to change their sexuality.

 

The ruling accepting gay rabbis is itself a compromise. It favors ordaining gay rabbis and blessing same-sex unions, as long as the men do not practice sodomy.

 

Committee members said that, in practice, it is a prohibition that will never be policed. The ruling was intended to open the door to gay people while conforming to rabbinic interpretations of the biblical passage in Leviticus which says, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.”

 

The committee also rejected two measures that argued for a complete lifting of the prohibition on homosexuality, after deciding that both amounted to a “fix” of existing Jewish law, a higher level of change that requires 13 votes to pass, which they did not receive.

 

Rabbi Gordon Tucker, the author of one of the rejected opinions, said he was satisfied with the compromise measure. “In effect, there isn’t any real practical difference,” he said.

 

The Conservative movement was once the dominant stream in American Judaism but is now second in numbers to the Reform movement. Conservative Judaism has lost members in the last two decades to branches on the left and the right. Pamela S. Nadell, a professor of history and director of the Jewish Studies program at American University, said, “The conservative movement is wrestling with the whole question of how it defines itself, whether it still defines itself as a halachic movement, and that’s why there was so much debate and angst over this.”

[Mythra]

CC - you sound fairly intelligent. Odd that you would still be a christian. That's your business I guess.

 

But I'm not sure how you reconcile verses like these:

 

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1)

 

I think in some versions, the word "error" is "perversion".

 

 

I don't understand why a gay person would stay in this religion.

 

 

But then, the whole religion thing (any religion) seems like a complete absurdity to me now.

[currentchristian]

CC - you sound fairly intelligent. Odd that you would still be a christian. That's your business I guess.

 

But I'm not sure how you reconcile verses like these:

 

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1)

 

I think in some versions, the word "error" is "perversion".

 

 

I don't understand why a gay person would stay in this religion.

 

 

But then, the whole religion thing (any religion) seems like a complete absurdity to me now.

 

Hi Mythra. This is a very reasonable question. Here's what I hope is my similarly reasonable answer.

 

The Romans 1 quote above encapsulates the sociological perspective of Paul the apostle. Many claim that Paul wrote this letter to the Christians in Rome while residing in Corinth. We know that Corinth had loose sexual mores: temple prostitution, homosexuality, pederasty, even pedophilia. Paul lumped all of these sexual habits together as ungodly and shone the spotlight on the most debased version from his perspective: homosexuality. Like the 1961 video I linked to in a previous post, Paul believed that homosexuality was the bottom of the barrel in terms of god-rejection; homosexuality represented the final stage of sexual debauchery.

 

Of course, what Paul saw as homosexuality was much more likely pederasty and pedophilia and boy prostitutes at the temples. Sounds nasty to me, too. But Paul was unable to distinquish between those who are constitutionally (genetically and biologically foreordained) homosexual as a justaposition to those who are constitutionally heterosexual, and what he saw all around him in the Greek world. Few could make this distinction even forty years ago, and some can't make this distinction even today. Sad to say. For many, homosexuality remains debased. (Remember the American Pyschiatric Association did not remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" until 1973.)

 

So this is one of those areas in which I disagree with Paul's sociological views. But even if one agrees with Paul's view as expressed in the writings you reference, there remains hope in Romans 2.1: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (NRSV) Whatever our "sin" or "wrongdoing," it seems to me Paul, in terms of his theological perspective, declares that we are all "in the same boat." I wish Falwell, Robertson, et al, would pay as close attention to Paul's theological perspective in 2.1 as they do to his sociological perspective expressed in Romans 1.

 

Why stay in a religion? If I were to leave behind everything with which I had a disagreement I'd have to lock myself in my bathroom and be there just me, myself and I. No books. No TV. No radio. No friends. No family. Nothing. Because there is no federal protection against discrimination against same-sex couples, for example, should I leave the country? Because only Massachusetts allows equal access to marriage rights for gay couples, should everyone who disagrees leave the state and everyone in the other 49 who agrees come live here?

 

It would not be reasonable for me to reject Jesus because some of his followers reject me. I believe that Jesus is the bread of life and the living stream, and I'm both hungry and thirsty. (Not trying to convince anyone else of this, just stating my view.)

 

I hope I have answered this question in a way that, while you may disagree, my perspective is understandable. If not, let me know and I'll try again!

 

-CC in MA

[LosingMyReligion]

Hi Current Christian.

I'm gay and a former Christian. I have a question for you.

 

Yes, I've read the books that explained the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible(back when I was trying desperately to hang onto the idea of god). However, the mere fact that the Biblical writers did not go out of their way to make any distinctions between craven "Homosexuals" and regular Same Gender Loving people was absurd to me.

 

How can you reconcile being gay with remaining a devout Christian?

Granted, if there were definitive proof that the bible did not hate gays I still wouldn't return(for the simple fact that the Bible is not inerrant nor the word of a god)...But I just wanted to know how you could hang onto the faith.

 

Did you ever struggle with it, as a gay person? I've never been to a gay friendly church, so how do the pastors deal with such an issue?

 

Thanks for your reply in advance.

[Vigile]

Here's a classic:

 

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as

informative:

 

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus

18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

 

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.

I don't agree. Can you settle this?

 

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.

19:27. How should they die?

 

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -

Lev.24 :10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

Your devoted fan,

[currentchristian]

Hi Current Christian.

I'm gay and a former Christian. I have a question for you.

 

Yes, I've read the books that explained the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible(back when I was trying desperately to hang onto the idea of god). However, the mere fact that the Biblical writers did not go out of their way to make any distinctions between craven "Homosexuals" and regular Same Gender Loving people was absurd to me.

 

How can you reconcile being gay with remaining a devout Christian?

Granted, if there were definitive proof that the bible did not hate gays I still wouldn't return(for the simple fact that the Bible is not inerrant nor the word of a god)...But I just wanted to know how you could hang onto the faith.

 

Did you ever struggle with it, as a gay person? I've never been to a gay friendly church, so how do the pastors deal with such an issue?

 

Thanks for your reply in advance.

 

Hello LosingMyReligion. I struggled with being gay because of the cultural messages about it. Not coming from a religious family, I don't remember a religious issue with being gay that bothered me (although I'm quite aware that religion and culture feed off each other). After getting involved with the A/G (who still declare homosexuality a grave sin), I did struggle. But my struggle was with my experience as a gay person and my experience as Christian. Messages all around were that these were incompatible. I didn't find this to be true, at all. My experience trumped the written code. I think the same thing happened when the experience of Gentile believers trumped the written code against "foreigners." Religion must be allowed to evolve -- not in order to conform to a base culture, but so as to make wise use of current sociological, psychological, historical and scientific knowledge, as well as personal and group experiences.

 

There are many gay-friendly churches these days, not to mention the UFMCC, which was founded in 1968 for the express purpose of ministering to gay/lesbian Christians. I don't attend any of these churches and haven't for years, but I'm very glad that they exist, and I'm glad to see any and all religious efforts to incorporate gay people into the family of faith.

 

Regarding leaving the faith. Of course, some of the faithful would say I already have. But I have not. For me, belief is sensible, reasonable, rational. To respond to your point about the Bible -- it is not, in my view, "inerrent" or the "Word of God." It is a guide, a very fine guide by and large, and it reveals to me the true and living Word of God (Jesus, in my view), but veneration or worship of the Bible is most unwise and unfruitful, seems to me.

 

Not trying to convince anyone else of any of my views. Just statin' 'em.

 

-CC in MA

 

Here's a classic:

 

Dr. Laura Schlessinger . . .

 

 

This one has come around in e-mail many times. I love it! And it makes a great point.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

.... I don't understand why a gay person would stay in this religion.

That's easy. The parts they do not like are inspired by man. The parts they like are inspired by a god. That way they can pick and choose what they want to believe and just ignore the rest. The usual term for that is; Salad Bar Christian. What you are seeing here is a perfect example of that.

[currentchristian]

CC said he WAS a member of A/G.

 

From their website -

 

"We believe that the Bible is God's Word. It is accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives."

 

We believe in one eternal God who is the Creator of all things. He exists in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. He is totally loving and completely holy.

 

CC has shown that he doesn't believe that rubbish anymore, right CC?

 

This Pentecostal cult is a pain in the but here in Oz. They have "believers" in local government positions that like to stir the pot.

 

What's "completely holy" mean?

 

I'd certainly not use this wording for the Bible, nor would I feel a need to expound on a trinity being, but I wouldn't personally call it "rubbish" either, simply because I try not to use such black-white language and I try to be respectful of what others think even if it is not what I think.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

.... I don't understand why a gay person would stay in this religion.

That's easy. The parts they do not like are inspired by man. The parts they like are inspired by a god. That way they can pick and choose what they want to believe and just ignore the rest. The usual term for that is; Salad Bar Christian. What you are seeing here is a perfect example of that.

 

Thank goodness we have a constitutional right to be a salad-bar Christian or a salad-bar Republican/Democrat or a salad-bar atheist or a salad-bar.....take your pick. We are free, aren't we!!

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

Thank goodness we have a constitutional right to be a salad-bar Christian or a salad-bar Republican/Democrat or a salad-bar atheist or a salad-bar.....take your pick. We are free, aren't we!!

No "goodness" was involved to thank. There is nothing in Atheism to be "salad bar" about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Not much there to pick and choose from.