hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) (07/05/90)
This topic has come up in alt.atheism from some
Christian posters -- the idea that homosexuality is
sinful and that being homosexual denies one entrance
to the kingdome of heaven. As an agnostic, this would
normally not be of much interest to me except that
many Christians use this statement to justify their
bigoted and intolerant attitudes. These attitudes
are then manifested in the secular world in such
things as sodomy laws and prohibitions of homosexuals
in the military.
What I would like to focus on is: does being Christian
mean being anti-homosexual? A related and, I think,
important question is: if the core of Christianity is
Jesus' teachings then why is the Apostle Paul given
any great weight?
Some observations from the outside ...
I come at this from a secular, scientific perspective.
It seems to me that believing Christians who are also
aware of what research is telling us about human sexuality
will have trouble with the idea that God would punish
people who are homosexual not through an act of free will.
Do such Christians take the position that Paul just
got it wrong in the case of homosexuality?
--
paul hager hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
--from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
[So far I don't believe anyone has said specifically that being
homosexual denies one entrance to the kingdom of heaven. (Of course I
Cor. could be read as saying that, but I think there are some implicit
qualifications.) What has been said is that homosexual activity
(somewhat different than being homosexual) is wrong, and that they
would pray for homosexuals and counsel with them in love. These
things are hard enough to deal with without exaggerating what is being
said. I would guess that the typical approach of those who oppose
homosexual activity is to consider it a problem similar to alcoholism.
Even if it is shown to be completely biological, that does not
necessarily make it acceptable. However we do not say that all
alcoholics are damned. We recognize that they have a problem, but
that God's grace is sufficient to save them, just as it is to save the
rest of us.
As to why Paul is given weight: For better or worse, Jesus didn't
write anything. It seems to me that the writings of one of his most
influential interpreters is a pretty good source under such
circumstances. The gospels are no more first-hand than Paul's
writings. They are stories written down 30 to 50 years after the
events portrayed. Paul certainly had access to at least some of the
disciples. The fact that what we see from him is an attempt to work
out the implications of the Christian message, rather than a
narrative, does not seem to me to reduce its usefulness as
representing what Jesus' followers thought his message was.
--clh]tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (07/08/90)
Just to comment on the comment about the writings of Paul: The core of Christianity is not the teachings of Jesus but the identity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, the Savior promised to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15, to Abraham, to David, and so forth. Paul's writings are (with the rest of the epistles) an elaboration of this role, after the fact, and instructions for the formation of ecclesias. Of course, if you don't think that all the bible was inspired, but that Paul just wrote down a lot of good ideas he had, then the above won't make so much sense. Of course, if you don't think that all the bible was inspired, you might as well be Zen Buddhist -- and I mean that sincerely. Tom Price tp0x@cs.andrew.cmu.edu
mike@turing.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (07/08/90)
That post brought up a lot of feelings for me, and I need to express
them here.
There are a number of viewpoints Christians hold. Here is a brief
list of the most common:
1: All homosexuals are damned.
2: All active homosexuals are damned.
3: All homosexuals are wrong, though not necessarily damned.
4: All active homosexuals are wrong, though not necessarily damned.
5: Homosexuality is an illness, like alcoholism, which is
unfortunate, but not a desirable way to live like. The "afflicted"
should seek treatment to help the condition.
6: Homosexuality is as equally valid expression of sexuality along
with heterosexuality.
I know Christians who believe each of these.
For myself, I hold to (6), but that is personal. Part of my faith is
the understanding that we will always have differences. We cannot
resolve all of them, and we certainly shouldn't use anything but
persuasion in an attempt.
In my church there are people of categories 3-6 (fortunately 1 and 2
are becoming more rare in our society). Many of them know of my
sexual orientation, and we don't have a problem. I don't spend my
time worrying about what I perceive as problems in their lives, and I
expect them not to worry about what they perceive as problems in mine.
When I have been approached on the subject, I respond simply that I
have considered their point of view and found it to be lacking
(usually in softer words than those, of course). We can coexist as
Christians in the body of Christ without being absolutely sure of who
is sinning and in what way.
It is precisely that tolerance which enables the Church to function.
Paul gave a good example. Certain Christians felt that it was wrong
to eat the meat of animals sacrificed to pagan deities. Paul
admonished them to understand that such feeling was not universal, and
that they shouldn't force their ideas on others. At the same time,
the others were to be politic and not press the issue. Each side
could coexist quite happily with the other when it was realized that
they could tolerate eachother's differences in moral understanding and
leave the issue at that.
I'm not so concerned that there are people who think homosexuality is
wrong in some way or another. I'm far more concerned with people who
forget our common shared humanity. That humanity transcends our
differences, our faults, and our joys. I'm perfectly happy to realize
that there are people in my congregation who would prefer not to
find themselves in a Metropolitan Community Church congregation. I'm
not willing to accept people in my congregation who don't want me
there. I'm proud that my church has taken inclusiveness as a
standard, which indicates that we want people from all walks of life
to enter the door and find the joy that only Christ can bring.
There is only one area in which things can get complicated. When
youth in my church figure out my sexuality, I am honest and open with
them. On a few occasions this has led to inquiries by their parents.
I have found that every single parent I've talked with has been
supportive and helpful. I was even asked to talk with the Sr. High
class when they had a lock-in at the church. (Unfortunately, the
lock-in was cancelled.)
I realize, however, that there are parents who don't want their kids
to know any gay people, or to realize what gay people are really like
(rather than stereotypes and misinformation). As for such parents, I
have no desire to help them lie to their children. Sorry. It hasn't
been a problem yet.
I'm coming to realize the futility of extended discussion on the net
of the morality of homosexuality. The references for my comments on
gay marriages are forthcoming, and after that, I will limit my posts
to discussions of acceptance rather than morality. That's the real
issue: Are you willing to accept people in your churches who are
sincere in their faith in Christ, even though you have differences of
opinion about the morality of their actions?
If you think you are a nice, accepting congregation who happens to
think that homosexuality is wrong, consider that of the people who
have confessed to arson against Metropolitan Community Churches, most
have been Christians attending such nice, accepting congregations.
Not quite what I would call acceptance.
-mib
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[Note: the Metropolitan Community Church is a denomination formed with
acceptance of active homosexuals as one of its goals. --clh]credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (07/10/90)
In article <Jul.7.23.46.08.1990.3873@athos.rutgers.edu> tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) writes: >The core of Christianity is not the teachings of Jesus but the identity of >Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, the Savior promised to Adam and >Eve in Genesis 3:15, to Abraham, to David, and so forth. Paul's writings >are (with the rest of the epistles) an elaboration of this role, after the >fact, and instructions for the formation of ecclesias. >Of course, if you don't think that all the bible was inspired, but that >Paul just wrote down a lot of good ideas he had, then the above won't make >so much sense. Of course, if you don't think that all the bible was inspired, >you might as well be Zen Buddhist -- and I mean that sincerely. Sorry to quote almost the full message, but it seems necessary in order for me to make my point. I consider myself a Christian, and I do not agree with any part of this statement. Nor do I think that I might as well be Zen Buddhist; if I were, I would lose the truths that God is offering me through Christianity. In particular, I do not believe that "the core of Christianity" is some theological formulation about the "identity" of Jesus. I believe that the core of Christianity is the message which Jesus brought, and expressed in his teachings. Of course his teachings are more meaty and complex than the vague "love and good feelings" to which some people have tried to reduce them. Let's not get into another fruitless argument about whether the Bible is inspired (let alone about what "inspired" means), but let's also not make the mistake of thinking that all Christians believe the same things and express them in the same way! CAR credmond@watmath [Traditionally Christianity has based itself on *both* the teachings *of* Jesus and the teachings *about* Jesus. The teachings of Jesus are the things he preaching in the ministry while he was alive. The teachings about him involve such things as why he died, how his death and resurrection save us, etc. The things about him are consistent with what he said about himself, but certainly go beyond it. The most common theory is that he couldn't have taught in any detail about the meaning of his death and resurrection before they happened because nobody would have known what he was talking about. I think it's a mistake to try to remove either of these components from Christianity. Without the teachings of Jesus, it becomes sort of a mystery religion: much of the meat of what it means to live a Christian life is in the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, etc. Without the teachings about Jesus, it becomes a society for ethical enlightenment, without the salvation that comes through Christ's atonement. I hate to see these two aspects of Christianity made into competitors, as these two messages seem to be doing. --clh]
tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (07/13/90)
Well --- I don't suppose it is possible over the net to find out if there is real disagreement here or simply formulations. My complaint against the statement that "the teachings of Jesus are the core of Christianity" is that it implies that Jesus of Nazareth was primarily an ethical teacher, and that the only important part of the Bible is the quotations and parables attributed to him. I consider the phrase "the teachings of Jesus" to be misleading through implying that his teachings were somehow unique to him, when in fact they are contained in the whole of the Scriptures and in the lives of each of the righteous characters in the Old Testament, in the Law in allegory, etc. We can agree, I am sure, that the ethical teachings are the necessary means of placing oneself in relation to the -- what was the phrase used? Rest of Christianity, the theological superstructure (which is simpler than it sounds). TP
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (07/13/90)
As you say, much of the difference, if not all of it, is "formulations". Very importantly, I would NOT argue that Jesus was "primarily an ethical teacher". For one thing, most of his ethical teachings have been found in other religions, and in the non-religious philosophers as well. The core of Jesus's teaching has to do with the relationship between people and God: "faith" -- and that's not "ethics". Have you read Tom Harpur's book FOR CHRIST'S SAKE? Or did that book even make it outside the borders of Canada? CAR
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/13/90)
Homosexual acts, masturbation, adultery and fornication (pre-matrital
sex) are all grave sins, according to the Catholic Church. I have never
engaged in homosexual acts. However, before becoming a Catholic, I did
engage in the other three types of sexual sins. That makes me three
times worse of a sinner than than someone who has comitted homosexual
acts. The difference between me and most "activist" homsexuals, is that
I have repented my sins and they have not. God is *always* ready to
accept a repentent sinner. Unrepentent sinners are another story,
however. You can read all about God's provocation of unrepentent
sinners (e.g. the Pharasies) in the Gospels. How much you have sinned is
far less important than how much you have repented, picked up your
cross, and followed Jesus.
chris
--
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / /
\\ / /
Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o
Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
The Catholic Church considers homosexual acts gravely morally disordered. This rests on scriptural, traditional, and rational foundations. This implies, in my mind, that it must remain opposed to the establishment of a state of society wherein homosexuality is viewed as morally indifferent. In my opinion, this issue has arisen from the widespread use of artificial contraception. Many no longer see sex as a means essentially ordained towards a primary end -- procreation. Joe Buehler
cms@dragon.uucp (07/13/90)
In article <Jul.10.03.40.06.1990.12131@athos.rutgers.edu>, credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) writes: > In article <Jul.7.23.46.08.1990.3873@athos.rutgers.edu> tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) writes: >>The core of Christianity is not the teachings of Jesus but the identity of >>Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, the Savior promised to Adam and >>Eve in Genesis 3:15, to Abraham, to David, and so forth. Paul's writings >>are (with the rest of the epistles) an elaboration of this role, after the >>fact, and instructions for the formation of ecclesias. [deleted] > in order for me to make my point. I consider myself a Christian, > and I do not agree with any part of this statement. Nor do I > think that I might as well be Zen Buddhist; if I were, I would > lose the truths that God is offering me through Christianity. > > In particular, I do not believe that "the core of Christianity" > is some theological formulation about the "identity" of Jesus. > I believe that the core of Christianity is the message which Jesus > brought, and expressed in his teachings. The author's point seems to be that the Eucharist is central to Christian theology, a position with which I agree. Who Jesus Christ is, the Son of God and Saviour, is central to Christian worship and belief, at least as Catholics understand it, in a way that His teachings are not, although many of His teachings contain Eucharistic and Baptismal elements. We follow the teachings of Jesus because we believe that the Son of God has saved us by His redemptive work on the Cross. First, we believe in the Man, then we believe in His teachings. There are many people who believe in Jesus Christ who couldn't begin to tell you who gave the Sermon on the Mount. > Let's not get into another fruitless argument about whether the > Bible is inspired (let alone about what "inspired" means), but let's > also not make the mistake of thinking that all Christians believe > the same things and express them in the same way! There are certain things you *must* believe in order to be a Christian. Acknowledgement of the truth of the contents of the Apostles Creed is one, although one may not necessarily use it in worship services. All of His teachings lead to the Cross. You must believe that He died on the Cross for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. This, of course, is paramount, the point I'm making. To say "Jesus Christ is Lord" is another way of saying "Jesus Christ is God" since "Lord" is used in reference to the God of Israel. If one confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord (God) then once speaks by the Holy Spirit; otherwise, one does not speak by the Holy Spirit. It's as simple as that. > CAR > credmond@watmath > > [Traditionally Christianity has based itself on *both* the teachings > *of* Jesus and the teachings *about* Jesus. ... > Without the teachings of Jesus, it becomes sort of a mystery religion: > much of the meat of what it means to live a Christian life is in the > Sermon on the Mount, the parables, etc. Without the teachings about > Jesus, it becomes a society for ethical enlightenment, without the > salvation that comes through Christ's atonement. I hate to see these > two aspects of Christianity made into competitors, as these two > messages seem to be doing. --clh] Amen. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia