I'm replying to this here because, well, this is where the discussion has been, and there are a couple of folks in the discussion who are not on the spin list; but I really think this has moved way OT, and can I suggest that anybody who wants my head on a plate reply on the spin list or privately? I promise to pay attention and not flame.
Alison Page wrote:
Leah said -
Jesus said much more about adultery and fornication in general than he
ever expressed about homosexuality
Agreed, but I'd go more strongly than that, even. There is condemnation of betrayal of faithfulness, and condemnation of a system that prostitutes women, but I don't believe Jesus said anything at all (pro or anti) about 'homosexuality'.
Well, actually there are two things you're overlooking, IMHO. One is that Jesus wasn't operating in a vacuum. He had an entire cultural background to work from - one that included the Levitical Law. That was a given, and considered to stand except where he superseded it specifically. The Old Testament remains part of the Christian Bible because Jesus confirmed it (for example through various references to the 'Law and the Prophets'.)
The other thing is that the idea that 'fornication' only refers to sex outside of marriage is a fairly modern one. IIUC, the word translated as 'fornication' was understood in the day to refer to 'unlawful' (forbidden by Levitical Law) sexual practices of any type - so condemnation of fornication would include adultery and homosexual acts (always presupposing that translations of the Law indicating such are forbidden are correct).
[As a side note to Tavia's question as to why Christians are so concerned with sexual morality - IMHO this is why, because in the Levitical Law sexual immorality (of many kinds) was given equal weight with murder and idolatry. In our society, we pretty much agree that murder is wrong, and we don't really have what most people would consider idolatry. Sexual morality is where Christianity (and some other religions) stand apart from society at large, so of course it looks like Christians are overly concerned with it.]
Jesus, at least as reported, stressed that social convention should take a second place to personal love ('if god brings two people together, then human beings should not keep them apart'), and that if a person condemns another person's sex life it is the *condemner* not the person condemned who is at fault.
I agree wholeheartedly that we're supposed to police our own morals and not those of others. However, I must say that *_if_* God forbids a sexual relationship between any two people - be it because they have green eyes or whatever - then it doesn't strike me that He's very likely to be what's bringing them together. All the references in scripture to two becoming one of which I am aware refer specifically to a het marriage. (And I refer here to marriage as a covenant, not as a civil institution.)
Having probably pissed off some people who are very dear to me, I'd better clarify a couple of things.
- I don't feel any personal revulsion at the idea of homosexuality. I am uncomfortable with PDA's between gay couples, but then I'm uncomfortable with PDA's between het couples, too. I'm completely in favour of equal civil rights for everybody.
- I didn't choose my religion because I particularly liked its sexual values, or any of its other rules; I chose it because I believe that its underpinnings are true. AFAIC, anybody who would choose a religion _because_ it's 'anti-gay' is a bigot (I don't think that applies to anybody here).
- However, my life experiences have led me to believe, on a very deep level, in the Creator God of the Bible; and I believe that as Creator He gets to make the rules _whether I like them or not_. For example, I don't get to cheat on my income tax. Inconvenient, that. ;-)
- I don't expect anyone who doesn't share my faith to adhere to its rules; for that matter, I don't expect everyone who shares my faith to interpret what its rules are identically. So if I say I believe something is 'forbidden' (or wrong, or immoral) that only means that _I_ mustn't do it (with a couple of fairly narrow exceptions - one is if it does direct and measurable harm to someone other than the person taking the action, and the other is if it involves coercion or betrayal. In those cases, I reserve the right to believe that nobody should do them.)
- What I'm interested in is conforming my own heart more closely to God's intent, not some personal agenda of my own that I label as that intent. If I ever see a compelling, scholarly, scripturally sound argument that convinces me that the Bible has been mistranslated or misinterpreted, and that God hasn't forbidden same-sex relationships, that will be fine with me - in fact, better than fine, I will rejoice for all the gay Christians out there; and for my friendships with gay non-believers, because we'll have one less point of difference. (This isn't as uncommon a position among Christians as some might think. And BTW, I have read the writings of gay Christians looking for just such an argument; I just haven't found one yet.)
*
Given all of the above, maybe some of you will understand exactly why I find it so extremely disturbing that people are being called 'homophobic' and 'sick' for trying to adhere to the principles of religions that they believe in, and dare to say so. The idea that it's somehow wrong for people to make or adhere to a moral judgement is in itself a moral judgement.
Please understand that I am in no way attempting to badger anybody into agreeing with me; but I suppose you all know by now that I think _trying_ to state one's position clearly is a good thing. ;-)
One of the things that Blake was fighting for, after all, was the right of the honest man to think and speak.
Again, all of the above definitely IMHO and not intended to offend anybody, (although, considering my track record at expressing myself, it will probably offend everybody,) Mistral