As moderator of the Chrisitian Union forum I try not to restrict what is posted on the forum too much. As Ben Wood knows (because I told him personally), I have deleted posts in the past that I considered unnecessarily homophobic. If he objects to what is posted he could tell me.

I don't necessarily agree with anything that is posted. For example the comment (also quoted above):
"My personal experience of homosexuals is they are the most screwed up people you'll meet"
This is not something I would say. This has not been my experience.

Should we assume the moderators of this forum agree with the following comments about Christians...
"Fuck the Pope away Fuck the Pope away"
Re: the pope -- "someone will do the right thing and assassinate him"
The pope is a "a stuffy old Nazi with an age-old cabal of wizened fascists"
"complete set o'bastards! urghhhh!"
" they are a bunch of fvcking right-wing christian yanks"

Ben, the remarks about chistians that you have listed seem to be about extremeist inderviduals (which, lets face it, the pope is), whereas the remarks i have seen on your forum are about a sizeable minority and such views if left unchecked can snow-ball into catastrophy! i.e. Hittler didnt just persecute a jew. (Actually he persecuted homosexuals too)

Some comments...
Most of the Christian Union does not use the CU forum. Views on the message board do not necessarily reflect the CU as a whole. As far as I know none of the official leaders of the CU regularly look at the CU forum.

I feel that some of the comments that have been made in the earlier part of the discussion "The Bible and Morality" have been misinterpreted, particularly by guest (?Paul). I think comments such as "The whole of that thread is ****ing horrible" is unfair. There are some comments I am not happy with, but I don't think the whole thread is pure homophobia.

I don't agree with everything on the forum, including things written by CU members.
Ultimately I have to take responsibility for not deleting things that are offensive. It would be helpful if LGBT could say specifically what they are offended by rather than complaining about the whole thread.
I don't claim to be a perfect moderator. Someone could claim that it is dodgy that the last person I banned was someone who spent half their time insulting me. However, it would be more helpful if complaints could be made to me rather than publicly accusing the CU of homophobia.

Things that are offensive are not necessarily intended to be, or motivated by hatred of people. Also, I don't think disagreeing with someone's actions should be seen as hatred of the person. For example, I don't hate my housemate, but also don't approve with him having sex outside marriage.

I don't want hostility between CU and LGBT. I don't think anyone in CU wants to kill members of LGBT. I think Steve's comparison of the CU and the actions of Hitler are unfair.

Alice says "Serious attacks on any person or group of people don't tend to be tolerated here." I had quoted a message from this board which said it would be good if someone killed the Pope. What counts as a serious attack? I can see that this is not a policy statement of the LGBT society despite being on this forum.

Gentlemen I will make it clear. I am the much quoted poster referred to in your resend threads and yes it is my considered view that homosexuality is inherently immoral. This is both my view based on my interpretation of the bible and on my observations of world around me. I do not intend to debate such things here how ever.

I am posting for one reason only. To make it clear that my views are exactly that. My views. They are not necessarily representative of cu policy indeed I'm unsure what official policy is due to the fact that my involvement in the cu is relatively recent. If you or indeed the luu have an issue with my views you need to take it up with me.

If my views so offend you then I can only direct you to the back of the long line of other people who find my views and arguments in some way offensive or disturbing. As for the accusation of me being homophobic I should like to point out, and indeed any one who read the thread will know, that I do indeed have friends and acquaintances who are practicing homosexuals. They are well aware I disapprove of such activities but do not seem to feel that I am in any since a homophobe.

Indeed if you are basing such an accusation on the basis that I compare disgust with homosexual activity to the disgust with paedophilia then you should also be aware I count among my friends both those who once were paedophiles and those who once were abused by them.

I feel that the scattered sound bites that have been posted here do not do my views justice and may lead some to misunderstand the fabric of my arguments. Yes indeed I feel there are aspects of the ethics of paedophilia and homosexuality that are comparable yet the primary comparison I have been making is with homosexuals and those abused by paedophiles.

In conclusion my views are my own and I shall express them. Whether you, the luu or father Christmas find them offensive of not has no bearing on their accuracy of my views nor will it have any effect on my expresion of them.

From dictionary.com

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
n.

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

"homosexuality is inherrently immoral" sounds like homophobia to me...

Anyway, I agree with Rich, moderating a forum is a pain in the arse, and it is hard to know what to delete and what to leave alone, we've certainly had arguments in the past about whether posts should be deleted or not. Personally, I think whoever this person posting above me's views are expressing bigotry and prejudice as a result of the mental conditioning of a power hungry institution which exists only to exploit the weak minded. (That is because I have been reading Nietzsche this week). But that's just my view. If this was the offical position of the CU then it would be something to take issue with, but this is the view of one person posting on a website.Who really gives a **** what one homophobe thinks?

chemicalfears wrote:

---

1) I believe in the right of free speech, and I will die to defend that right for any and all people on the face of this earth, whilst there is still life on it.

2) The views that you openly display, whilst being legitimate in their origin, ie, your views which you have a right under law to have and express, can be very easily proven to incite hatred. That´s a crime if you were not aware.

3) I uphold the law when it comes to freedom of belief - yet another fundamental human right, as outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights - but when those beliefs impact on a sizeable group of people, you should be aware that you are going to come in for some flak. Which you are.

4) We also have the right of free speech, which again, as already stated, is a fundamental Human Right, and we will exercise that right every bit as much as anyone else.

5) The "ethics" of homosexuality do not exist. Homosexuality is something that neither you, nor any organisation - secular or otherwise - has EVER proven to be CHOSEN. Therefore, I would be grateful if you would please restrict your argument to the facts as they stand at the present time: no form of gender (except in certain species of frogs and fish) nor sexuality is a choice, and you should have availed yourself of that information before speaking your piece.

6) Religion IS chosen, therefore YOU have the choice that we as born members of the LGBT community - active participants or not - do not have. A great deal of us were to be raised cradle to grave in faiths that actively persecute us: this puts you, and in fact ALL spiritual believers of whatever stripe, in a position of great power over us, and the very regular abuse of this power has caused untold mental anguish for many people who are LGBT. Please be aware that not all of us like these facts, nor are willing to accept them as the "status quo".

7) I am fiercely proud to be gay, because I belong to a group of people that have been my family since the moment I was conceived, and who fight for their right to stand as equal members of the cultures we belong to. Not all LGBT people think in such a way, but I do. This LGBT family of mine have collectively been there for me during virtually every single period of hardship I ever experienced - something I can not say of the Church in which I was raised and that I later renounced, nor the majority of people I grew up with. Forgive me for being protective of my Family, but I hope you feel the same about your Family, whoever They may be.

8) In the Bible it says "love thy neighbour". I pray that you feel your behaviour lives up to that Commandment.

One last thing; i am gay and a survivor of child abuse, and I can tell you truthfully that I knew the first long before the second ever happened.

Alexander Ward
xxx

---

Just gotta say.... all that you wrote there was fantastic. I'm a Christian and i have felt (much to my disappointment) unable to join the CU, largely due to the comments I have seen on their message board (which I know are 'individual opnions', nevertheless, I would feel uncomfortable being a member of a group with just one person in it who can say some of the things I have read).

Jesus said "Love thy neighbour", but he also said "Love thy enemies and pray for those who persecute you."....

A message to ANYONE who thinks or says "homosexuality is inherrently immoral"...... I'm praying for you, because you really, really need as many prayers as you can get!

Joe Nagle

I think that I have to agree that despite being a Christian myself, I find the general position of the more evangelical Christian churches ragarding homosexuality to be quite sickening. As people may have seen from my posts on the CU forum under the same name, I am all for closer integration and better acceptance of the homosexual community. I do not believe that it is the position of Christians as a whole that homosexuality is sinful. I for one am not a proponent of this. To the contrary I believe it is a number of outspoken cliques, possibly including a subset of the members of the CU that is responsible for supporting and in some cases vocalising this viewpoint. Needless to say I hope that it can be changed but after my long debates their views are still firmly entrenched.

I did not intend to post here again but I feel I should clear up some misconceptions.

The views that you openly display, whilst being legitimate in their origin, ie, your views which you have a right under law to have and express, can be very easily proven to incite hatred. That´s a crime if you were not aware.

If I say I believe adultery to be inherently immoral no one accuses me of inciting hatred towards adulators. Indeed if people interpret what I say as an avocation of hatred against homosexuals then I conjecture they are deliberately misconstruing what I say.

"homosexuality is inherrently immoral" sounds like homophobia to me...

The extension of your argument is that the statement "adultery is inherently immoral" means I have a fear of adulterers or by your own definition a contempt for them. If you intend to define contempt so and since it is my considered opinion that all humanity is sinning and imperfect then you would have to argue I hold contempt for all humanity. More accurate would be to say I have contempt for all humanity’s sin including my own.

I would like to say that I didn’t want a fight with Code-WARRIOR. If you read the thread and another;

Nor did I seek one. Indeed the second such thread is a tangential argument in one of my earlier threads that a moderator split off in to it's own thread. Any 2 people with strong views on an issue are likely to argue. It has been my observation that it is wise for those with strong views to develop think skin.

Allot of the comments I received were very hurtful and upsetting, especially because I supposedly believe in the same God. I have said how low I felt on the CU forum, how I was offended by the remarks. People say sticks and stones but names do hurt- "mentally damaged etc". One post said that I had been caught up in the vice of homosexuality. One knock after another, sorry for feeling bad about it, I think it’s pretty natural. I know it’s a tough job moderating but I’m hurting at the moment so this whole thing isn't just an abstract debate for me on free-speech. I'VE been crying about it allot, it’s been on my mind. Sorry if that's not very free-speech or liberal of me. I can't remember the last time when I read such hateful stuff about my life and who I love.

Bluntly you have no reason to say anything said was hateful as you have no reason to believe anything said was motivated by hate. Love is not always this nice warm fuzzy concept. Some times the application of love is nether pleasant or popular. I and I imagine others who hold views similar to my own do not hold them out of spite or malice but love. You can not reasonably accuse the church for not assenting or agreeing to your practices or beliefs any more than the devil worshipers I recall in one classic comedy sketch. The worst you can accuse us of is being misguided which incidentally is the very thing we say of you.

I think this whole dialogue idea was a bad one; it’s brought nothing but hurt and regret. I know that allot people in the CU think being gay is a sin; I was stupid to think I could just walk in and make instant peace. By the way what is the CU's policy on LGBT people because I was discouraged from my project of dialougue telling me that allot of CU members are upset by homosexuality

It depends on what you want. As I intimated on our forum before. If you are expecting a lot of Christians to turn up and say they completely or substantially agree with homosexuality then you are not likely to get it. The 'hard core' of Christianity, that is those who spread and propagate the faith most zealously, those who continue to practice it even when it is illegal as it is in many parts of the world, are mostly people you would label fundamentalists. This is, for the most part, the way it has been for the last 2000 years and if you believe modernity has changed this you are mistaken. As I said at the time I'm not inherently against the idea of a dialog but if you believe such a dialog will produce some sort of middle ground or compromise position on moral issues then you are once again mistaken. If the prospect of undertaking such discussions knowing this will not happen dismays you then I would advise you not to proceed. If on the other hand you believe there is something to be gained from such discussions despite this then I encourage you to proceed.

The problem with your comparison is that that homosexuality and adultery are unequals. Adultery is an action that someone consciously chooses to carry out. Homosexuality isn't an action, neither is it a choice.

Once again my words are being misconstrued. I am of course referring to the homosexual life style which is undeniably a choice.

I'd make another comparison. For example, what if someone thought being black was immoral. Or a sin. What if they constrewed some part of the bible (which I am sure someone has) to say that black people were inferior. Would you then agree with them and allow them to hold that assertion? Would that assertion be racist?

Whether it would be racist is nether here nor there. It would be theologically inaccurate and country to any believable system of absolute morality.

Especially when I think the comments are written in the context of discussing the bible's position on homosexuality.

In case there is any doubt it is part of the CUs doctrinal basis that the bible is an absolute authority. I quoteThe Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.

Homophobia (and trans and biphobia for that matter) riddle society at large. We cannot let the same happen within our union.

If by homophobia you mean people are not allowed to fundamentally disagree with things you assert to be facts such as for instance homosexuality being a natural expression of some innate genetic factor than I might just as easily assert that people who question the virgin birth are christianaphobes.

I would go as far to say that the CU needs to be extremely careful about the comments it allows it's members to make on a forum that might incite homophobia or are in anyway homophobic.

As we've seen your definition of homophobia is highly suspect. As for 'might incite homophobia'. I suggest saying I like blue t shirts might incite homophobia or at least some one could claim so. How people interpret things in their wish to see what they want to see is nether my problem nor something I can reasonably be expected to do anything about.

This is completely against the rules of the union whether you like it or not.

I can not speak for the cu but I can speak for me and I will tell you I am an absolutist. Relative notions of what is and is not socially acceptable mean nothing to me. Quite bluntly the concerns of this society and the union are not my problem.

The Pope proved today that he is the homophobic bigot we expected him to be by comparing homosexuality to a mental disorder. Maybe Peaches should have rewritten her song after all.........

And what actual evidence to you have to prove it isn't? Having an opinion that differs from your own nether makes one a homophobe or a bigot.

Anonymous wrote:

---

If by homophobia you mean people are not allowed to fundamentally disagree with things you assert to be facts such as for instance homosexuality being a natural expression of some innate genetic factor than I might just as easily assert that people who question the virgin birth are christianaphobes.
.

---

The problem there is that there is no physical evidence to my knowledge that either the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ ever lived, and therefore no DNA to examine.
On the other hand, I´m gay AND alive, and though on the continent, willing to submit to the most thorough examinations of my DNA that science can currently perform. When do we start?

Also, with regards:

"I am an absolutist. Relative notions of what is and is not socially acceptable mean nothing to me. Quite bluntly the concerns of this society and the union are not my problem"

They will become your problem if you directly contravene the rules of the Union of which you are a member, and which protect the rights of each society in that Union.

Another point I would make, is your constant use of the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" - exactly what does this entail in your view? I would like to know since you make so many references to it without explaining what it is you are referring too. When does the "homosexual lifestyle" begin? At birth? On first experience of homosexual feelings? The loss of virginity to a member of one´s own sex? Please, enlighten me. I wasn´t aware i was living the "homosexual lifestyle" until you told me.

I do not particularly care to live in a society which is governed by christian law, christian holidays, and a christian mindset, but I do nonetheless, and do not protest at being surrounded by the "christian lifestyle" of which I am not necessarily fond. Why is that?

What is it that makes you detest this "homosexual lifestyle" so much? If you would argue that it is damaging, then I would argue that I have witnessed many people damaged by some schools of christianity, but it doesn´t mean all christianity is bad - too much of anything is a bad thing. I would also be prepared to admit that there are certain things, which in themselves can be damaging (such as drug addiction) that have a heavier influence on LGBT people than most others, but does this condemn the "homosexual lifestyle" of the one taking the drugs? I would argue no. Neither does the "christian lifestyle" which can precede entry into certain cults.

The Greeks had a most wonderful phrase you know, one of the most sacred maxims of their entire culture, carved above the entrance at the Shrine of Blessed Apollo at Delphi, and it read:

"Know Thyself"

The other one you may have heard of, also found at the entrance to the Shrine of Blessed Apollo, is one which you may want to bear in mind:

"All Things In Moderation"

Sensible people those Greeks. Perhaps we would do well to listen to their sayings.

Sasha
x

I would like to say sir that I find you're view of the world deeply disconcerting, not least because I'm sure that such views have similarly been voiced by Jihad's, Fascists and Islamic militants. This blatant disregard for the social leads a man to very dangerous places, suicide booming etc."I will tell you I am an absolutist. Relative notions of what is and is not socially acceptable mean nothing to me.". This sounds chillingly like extremism to me. Such a person could never concede that their perceptions could be mistaken, that they possess the keys to the kingdom and others do not. I believe that in many respects you are a Pharisee in Christian dress.

I openly acknowledge the ambiguity, the confusion, the uncertainty involved in living ethically. Anybody who does not is an exceptionally unethical person. Finding the right over the wrong is a struggle, it is a multi-layered dialectic between social influence and individual conscience, scripture and reason. It is not as simple as opening up the Bible at the right place; we must treat our quest for the good as a work in progress. This is I believe standard Protestant Theology.

You on the other hand feel it necessary to treat morality as if the right choice is always obvious or that things are always ethically cut and dry and therefore are very quick to condemn gay people for the lives they choose. When God asked Abraham to kill his son was the right action evident to Abraham? Probably not. The question for me is not are there absolutes, but rather how do we orientate ourselves such absolutes? How do we live out notions of absolute good in our daily lives with all the problems and contradictions of being human, fallible and unique in spirit and temperament? How do we affectively live out the Kingdom of God in the 21st century?

You banter this sentence- The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior- without explaining what you mean by such phrases as the “Infallible Word of God”. If you mean by it that the Bible is some kind of manual of unquestionable instructions and directives I think that is wrong. The Bible does not pretend to answer every question; it does however point the imperfect human mind towards God. The Bible is not God in book form- that would be idolatry; the Bible is one product of God’s ancient relationship to man.

So- to the question: How do we orientate ourselves to absolutes? Part of the answer is found in scripture and in the life of Jesus of Nazareth who taught people their true potential as sons and daughters of God as part of a universal fellowship of love. Clearly you and I differ on interpreting the implications of this fellowship. I believe that God calls gay people to participate in his kingdom as equal partners, not as self-pitying pennants waiting for crumbs to drop from their master’s table. (Your suggestion perhaps)- Rather he calls us to live in the spirit of Christ- that is radical inclusion of those the establishment and the orthodoxy rejects off hand. Jesus was an uncomfortable presence to the religion of his day precisely because he practiced such inclusion. He ate and drank with people that the high priests considered beyond the pale: He healed the ritually unclean, spent time with unbelievers and opposed force and violence. That does not mean we accept everything as okay that never take a moral stance, of course we don’t.
Fellowship with God calls us to do to others as we would be done by. We should take a negative moral stance when people are being hounded out their churches because of their sexuality; we should protest when people that might need God in their lives are told they are not welcome in his fold. We must condemn a society where gay kids still grow up lonely and suicidal. We must condemn the church leaders who sit as in Moses seat and tell us that we are evil and must reform. This is the critical Christian love in action.

This blatant disregard for the social leads a man to very dangerous places, suicide booming etc."I will tell you I am an absolutist. Relative notions of what is and is not socially acceptable mean nothing to me.". This sounds chillingly like extremism to me.

And what is extremism? the belief that principals are worth going to extreme lengths for? On that basis mother Teresa was also an extremist also Gandhi, Mandela and almost any other well respected person you care to mention. Such people would not be famous if they had not taken their principals to extremes. Extremism is a neutral concept considered out of the context of a buzz word.

You banter this sentence- The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior- without explaining what you mean by such phrases as the “Infallible Word of God”.

Perhaps I did not make my self clear. That is an article in the doctrinal basis of the cu.

God calls gay people to participate in his kingdom as equal partners, not as self-pitying pennants waiting for crumbs to drop from their master’s table.

All Christians are to some degree pennants as we are not perfect. We endeavour to become more like Christ each day. I do not advocate self pity but transformation for all men to out grow their sins. Until then we operate on grace. Not a half hearted grace of a few crumbs but gods rich and abounding grace that is more than capable of expunging our wrongs, cleaning our consciences and delivering us from our sinfulness.

Jesus was an uncomfortable presence to the religion of his day precisely because he practiced such inclusion. He ate and drank with people that the high priests considered beyond the pale: He healed the ritually unclean, spent time with unbelievers and opposed force and violence.

He also told them to stop sinning. Have I argued for that Christians shouldn't eat with homosexuals? That they should not heal them both emotionally and physicaly? That they should not spend time with them? Have I argued homosexuals should be subjected to some twisted pavlovian lunacy? No far from it.

We should take a negative moral stance when people are being hounded out their churches because of their sexuality; we should protest when people that might need God in their lives are told they are not welcome in his fold. We must condemn a society where gay kids still grow up lonely and suicidal.

Did I say I approved of any of those things? I simply asserted that homosexuality is wrong not that homosexuals should be treated as pariahs.

Surely you mean 'in my opinion'?

If you are arguing that you are compelled to have sexual relations of any kind, homosexual or heterosexual, and that you have no control then you are certainly in need of help and no psychologist would disagree.

Well the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973 and the majority of psychiatrists would not class homosexuality as mental disorder. That isn't 'proof' per say, but it is a widely held opinion.

As I seem to recall that followed about 3 years of constant protest at APA meetings. I have numerous criticisms of modern psychological and psychiatric practice and one of the chief ones is that they are far too influence by popular thinking and not enough by rigid experimentalism of the sort seen in the physical sciences. As I said I have critical views of many things. I don’t hear psychologists calling me a bigot.

Another point I would make, is your constant use of the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" - exactly what does this entail in your view? I would like to know since you make so many references to it without explaining what it is you are referring too.

When one is in the habit participating in homosexual acts in the same way one by definition has the life style of a millionaire when one has sufficient money.

"God Hates Fags" or so it is claimed by placards of seething masses of protesters out side gay weddings, funerals, marches and clubs (at times).
But what evidence is there of this? Its all in the bible I hear you say, but should theses parts now be listened too or have they even been badly translated, misinformed or just not applicable any more for the modern world.

Jesus, surely the the Star of at least the new testament, NEVER mentions the subject of homosexuality all the while being very strong on the "thou shalt not judge" and "love one another" and don’t forget "do unto others as you would have done unto you" approaches to one's neighbors that religious anti-gay protesters choose to ignore....I see no love in the statement "good hate fag's" neither in any of the comments made by "anonymous".

Even the most hardcore of anti-gay Christians can only EVER cite a maximum of four Bible passages which they claim to condemn homosexuality. In fact it seems that, due to mistranslation (it does happen, it’s a very old book), even those pages that condemn then-contemporary social phenomena such as temple prostitution rather than your basic same sex relations. In fact in parts of the bible- Genisis-19:4-11 for instance- the sin of Sodom (the place not the act) is actually a sin of abuse (the men of Sodom want to sleep with two angels against there will, it is the fact that it is against there will that is put across to be wrong not the homosexuality), but if you don’t want to believe that, in the same passage of genesis, Lot, the man who stopped the rape of the angels is got drunk and sleeps with his daughters (which is, in the same part of the bible that "gay sex" is "condemned", said to be an abomination) but there is retribution of fire and brimstone from god, from this are we can assume that god does not seem to take much offence to breaking of these so called laws.

The bible quote that is taken 9/10 times (of which I have seen) come from a book of the old testament called Leviticus, a book that lays down laws for the Israelites
regarding cleanliness and other such things sensible for a desert dwelling nomadic tribe thousands of years ago, but still applicable in this day and age, or even intended to be applicable now? Seeing as one of the LAWS is that "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." so that mean no eating any beef seeing as the breeds have been bread in and out of each other for generations now, have to avoid bread ect. just incase there has been double crop planting in that field and make sure not to mix your fabric's or else you can hope to see protestors out side your house calling you a sinner and a abomination to the lord....because they are his laws after all.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with female; it is abomination," says Saint Paul, the man credited with turning Christianity from a religion based on love to one based on judgment. And while "abomination" sounds pretty heavy, please don’t forget the rule on laying down with other men is tucked in alongside other laws regarding not eating shellfish (but do we see placards out side sushi joints proclaiming "god hates Prawns" no...this may seem like a puerile point but it is not, why are those who claim to be fulfilling gods will pick and chose what they listen too but I will come back to this point), not letting women with periods near temples, and not picking up sticks on Sunday.

The passage is, anyway, a code for holiness for Israelites who want to set themselves apart for special attention fro the lord. And that's not you, is it?

Other passages dragged out to condemn homosexuals come from Corinthians, where the simple mistranslation of the word "malakee" as "effeminate" instead if the intended "morally weak" has been corralled into divine condemnation, and from Timothy where "arsenokeeteh" refers not to homosexuality but to temple prostitution, of both the female and male variety.

All skimpy pickings considering the vehemence which homosexuals are condemned by many Christians.

Personally I don’t know why we listen to all the superfluous entry’s in the bible anyway, if Jesus is the truth and the light which I believe he is being a catholic myself, then really all we should listen too are his exact word seeing as he is GOD so "love thy neighbor" really should be adhered too, no mitigating circumstances, wasn’t Jesus sent to underline the true message of God being, in brief, love God and love thy neighbor and yourself, now where EVER does Jesus preach hate so why should other such as Paul be listened too and why now that Jesus came and summed up the rules so well should we listen to the old testament, if Jesus didn’t say it and seeing as Jesus is God then how can we chose to ignore his teachings or listen to ones now made obsolete by his teachings.

So is all this strife necessary, I think not, and if you really want to be a good Christian then listen to Jesus teaching of love and acceptance.


-- Edited by MrDarcy at 19:33, 2005-11-30

Dear Anonymous,
I'm afraid that I'm not sure of your name, but I had no desire to read back through the pages above to find it. My name is Steve Gribben, part-time member of the LGBT over the last three years or so. I'm also a pure atheist, and someone who believes in the laws of nature, proven through experimental eveidence after having been conjectured theoretically. For this reason, I have no desire to enter into a theological debate, as it is meaningless to me. I do however wish to argue against the following:

Anonymous wrote:

---

If you are arguing that you are compelled to have sexual relations of any kind, homosexual or heterosexual, and that you have no control then you are certainly in need of help and no psychologist would disagree.

Well the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973 and the majority of psychiatrists would not class homosexuality as mental disorder. That isn't 'proof' per say, but it is a widely held opinion.

As I seem to recall that followed about 3 years of constant protest at APA meetings. I have numerous criticisms of modern psychological and psychiatric practice and one of the chief ones is that they are far too influence by popular thinking and not enough by rigid experimentalism of the sort seen in the physical sciences. As I said I have critical views of many things. I don’t hear psychologists calling me a bigot.>

You're saying that the physical sciences can be brought in to justify your stance!! I'm sorry, but I couldn't control my laughter when I read that.
I have been a patient of a psychiatrist for a couple of years now, after having been referred by my doctor, suffering from depression & anxiety. These problems started about three years before I came out incidentally. And I can assure you, after having seen three psychiatrists, and told them of my sexuality, NONE of them have even questioned it, let alone considered it a negative influence.
You claim to have critiscism of modern practice? I'd be very interested to hear what exactly. The fact that the accepted view now no longer considers homosexuality to be a mental illness is not justification of your viewpoint. It's the fact that science moves on.
Psychiatric practice in the fifties and sixties on homosexuality invariably involved in many cases, injections of oestrogen, completely changing their personality, and killing many as a result, for example, Alan Turing, one of my heroes.
Modern scientific research is not based on the psychiatric level, but the biochemical level. It is widely considered to be a hormone related condition, and entirely natural. Theologically, this poses an interesting question I suppose. If God is defined to be nature, and the Bible says homosexuality, a natural process, to be immoral, does this make God immoral?
If you wish to discuss any of these issues, please get in touch. But please stick with the theological argument. The scientific argument will get you nowhere I can assure you.

Oh, and the person who suggested that all gay people are screwed up. How many LGBT people have you actually met? Perhaps you can meet me, and judge for yourself. Are you really more emotionally stable than me? It's an impossible thing to judge without having first met that person.
I hope that this debate continues, and that you can be converted to a more tolerant intelligent Christianity. I for one, cannot be converted, as I follow fact, not 2000 year old scripture made by fallible human hand.

Steven. xxx

-- Edited by steven at 00:07, 2005-12-01

-- Edited by steven at 00:26, 2005-12-01

Anonymous wrote:

---

If you are arguing that you are compelled to have sexual relations of any kind, homosexual or heterosexual, and that you have no control then you are certainly in need of help and no psychologist would disagree.

---

Okay, the act of sex is a choice. The person who you are attracted to, well at least the gender/sex of that person is not a choice. If you can't make that distinction between the sexual act and a sexual orientation it is you tha needs help. If you stand by that assertion, do you conclude yourself not to be heterosexual as to being heterosexual is 'to have sex with someone of the opposite sex' as you seem to be implying here. I really don't understand your argument.

But I suppose you will claim I am miscontruing your argument. I am not. It is jsut unclear.

Do you believe the state of homosexuality is a choice (not the act, just the being, like being heterosexual)?

If yes, is heterosexuality must also be a choice? Especially if someone can choose between the two. When did you choose to be heterosexual?

If no, homosexuality, the state of being a homosexual, (not the sexual act) is not a choice, it just is an 'is', what the hell should we do about it?

Or do you believe the sexual ac defines the sexual orientation - ie the act of homosexuality (sex) is what makes someone a homosexual. Not doing it makes them 'not' homosexual. is that the same for 'heterosexual' people too? if they don't have 'sex' do they cease to be (or never become) heterosexual?

Sorry if this is confused, but your argument and train of thought is confusing in itself,

Oh, and if you think that your gonna 'get away' with comparing homosexuality to a mental disorder on this forum, you'd better think again. We're not gonna lie down an passively absorb what we are told by you Neo-Nazi Chrisitans who seem to be able to interpret the bible perfectly to fit your own agenda and prejudices.

Thank God (whoever he/she/it mighten be, if they infact do be) for Christians like Ben Wood and Evie who are able to use their faith for good rather than hate mongering and oppression.

JOHN

Anonymous said:

"Have I argued for that Christians shouldn't eat with homosexuals? That they should not heal them both emotionally and physicaly?"

Excuse me, but what on earth do they need healing from? If the above is not a bigotted comment, I don't know what is !! As has been stated on the CU forum, this guy seems to believe that everyone else should change their views to match his.

"One point that I forgo to make is that I'm also celibate. By choice. Does this make me a sinner to the same degree as someone who is sexually active?"

Most conservative Christians teach that celibacy or marriage are the only legitimate options for a Christian. For example Martin Hallett writes:
"No-one is condemned for having a particular sexual orientation...
The whole of Scripture echoes th[e] prohibition by God of any sex outside marriage, hence adultery, fornication, ... and homosexuality etc are forbidden for those seeking to obey their Creator."

" When is the last time anyone in this country was killed for being a christian?"

I think it is terrible when people are murdered. Murder is something that is definately unChristian. Sadly people do get killed because of prejudice because of things like their race, sexuality,

I think Christians also do sometimes suffer abuse:

Clergymen facing threat of violence
SEVEN out of 10 clergymen have been victims of violence.....murder of Anfield vicar Christopher Gray five years ago and the savage attack on Father James McGrath in Birkenhead in 1997....
Dec 17 2001 Liverpool Echo

Vicar stabbed in London
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/640770.html

Church arson man 'hated religion'
A man with a hatred of religion who set fire to three churches in Lincolnshire within hours of each other has been sent to a psychiatric hospital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4276834.stm

Ben (Slade)

I think it is patronizing and wrong to label homosexuality as a moral deficiency like greed or envy. (On the CU Forum)

"I think a big part of the problem is that the world and the church treats homosexuals as a class of people rather than as individuals. No one would say, "How do we handle blasphemers" or "How do we handle liars" because they aren't all the same. It is incredibly important that the Church reach out to the unsaved population, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or other differences".

Homosexuality is part of the nature of the individual and as such I believe it is morally neutral. Sexual Orientation in itself is neither good nor bad, it depends how we direct our desires. In the same way to say that money in itself is the root of all evil because money is in itself neither good nor bad, it depends how it is used. It is your contention using Romans as a base that outward action of loving sensually your own sex; I contend that the passage you refer to is not saying what you think it does.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; (probably a reference to adultery), men with men working that which is unseemly, (male prostitution/orgies?) And receiving in themselves that recompense [sic] of their error which was meets." KJB

If we place the said passage in context Paul says that God has sent punishment on unbelieving Gentiles, that God turned them from what was natural to them to the unnatural. For Paul, the "nature" of something was its particular character or kind. In Romans 2:14, Paul speaks of Gentiles who follow their own conscience and "do instinctively what the law requires." But, the Greek text reads "by nature", and the implication is that the Gentiles acted as was consistent with the kind of persons they were.

For Paul, something is "natural" when it responds according to its kind, when it is as it is expected to be. For Paul, the word "natural" does not mean "in accordance with natural laws." Rather, "natural" refers to what is characteristic, consistent, ordinary, standard, expected, and regular. When people acted as expected, they were acting "naturally". When people did something surprising something unusual, something beyond the routine, they were acting "unnaturally." That was the sense of the word "nature" in Paul's usage.

Thus God's punishment on the clearly heterosexual Gentiles was to turn their passions against their will, not that the desires themselves are evil but rather that God has made them a victim of passion. Incidentally, up to the 16th century the unnatural passions referred to in this passage were quantified as masturbation by the church. In verses 26 and 27, Paul uses two words to describe the sexual acts he has in mind: "degrading passions" and "shameless acts". Neither of these words has an ethical connotation. Both refer simply to social disapproval. Take "degrading passions" for example. The Greek word translates as "degrading" is ATIMIA. It means something "not highly valued, "not held in honor", "not respected".”Socially unacceptable" also conveys the meaning of the word and is the very sense in which Paul uses it. Therefore Paul is not employing the idea that it is nature in the traditionally sense that condemns these acts, but rather sexual acts that violates what is socially virtuous is wrong. Like Aristotle Paul is not giving a lesson in divine morality, he is discussing social mores. Since in Paul's time same-sex relations were widely accepted in the Greco-Roman world, so we cannot draw any moral conclusions on the basis of this translation For Paul therefore the wages of unbelief in God is an addiction to harmful behavior against your will. This behaviour was not exclusively homosexual in nature.

It is clear that these remarks are not ethnically neutral and portray Paul as a Jew who using a rhetorical device to frighten his Gentile audience into accepting God- if you do not believe God will take control of your will and make you do things contrary to society; you will become a slave of evil. If we take Paul at his word then atheists and those from different faiths are all addicted to anti-social behavior because God has forsaken them, including Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. This is clearly a terrible statement and of course is not born out by experience. Also the fact that I am gay is because in me this is the natural state of affairs and not because I do not believe in God; clearly I do therefore that cannot be the reason for my sexuality therefore Paul's premise is proven wrong by deduction. Even if we were to take the passage seriously, what does God's ancient punishment against the Gentiles have to with a 21st century gay couple who are in a stable loving relationship? Is our sexuality contingent on our belief in God? If so why aren’t all Christians heterosexual and why aren’t all atheists?


-- Edited by JesusBitch at 12:56, 2005-12-01

Ben wrote:

---

" When is the last time anyone in this country was killed for being a christian?"

I think it is terrible when people are murdered. Murder is something that is definately unChristian. Sadly people do get killed because of prejudice because of things like their race, sexuality,

I think Christians also do sometimes suffer abuse:

Clergymen facing threat of violence
SEVEN out of 10 clergymen have been victims of violence.....murder of Anfield vicar Christopher Gray five years ago and the savage attack on Father James McGrath in Birkenhead in 1997....
Dec 17 2001 Liverpool Echo

Vicar stabbed in London
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/640770.html

Church arson man 'hated religion'
A man with a hatred of religion who set fire to three churches in Lincolnshire within hours of each other has been sent to a psychiatric hospital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4276834.stm

---

Similarly, in the past two years alone, TWO men have ben BEATEN to DEATH in homophobic attacks. No it probably wasn't directly due to those who murdered being Christian. But what I will say is that the homophobia that institutions like the Christian faith perpetuates does not help at all.

Just to clarify my above post. I don't like the Godhatesfags website.

I just want to pull the debate back a bit. i know that u can spend hours debating the theological implications of homosexuality till we're blue in the face but still not get anywhere because its all just intellectual rather than people concentrating on personal experience of faith and sexuality. I wrote a poem a while ago in which i wanted to try to express my faith and sexuality as healed and positive whole rather than putting them in opposition. I think there is something really special about poetry that can put my faith into words more tham technical prose, so i wrote this,

The Queer Christ

I love you as I behold,
I love you between the tears
And the open sky dark with another’s pain,

The same kisses are mine,
It was so,
And so it remains,
Let me always dwell in his shadow,
Sharing the pull of the winds, the push of the nails,

Let my lord love me as his alone,
May I leap into his strong arms
Let my darling wipe away all my tears,
Let my heart throb with his,

Deep and undying surge,
As the sea, the firmament,
The boy from Galilee,
His face like Kurt Cobain,
Written on my heart,
Once he called me from the world and all sobering sleep,
To walk the night clad in a thousand thrills,

The clouds gather in the east,
And yet I stay in his warm wing,
His eyes alight,
And we behold together,
The same gaping hole,
In the war-soul,
And the dead solider both,

A brick through the window of eternity,
A car shrieking past, no time to see or care,
The doors of the houses all shut and bolted,
And in the darkness a candle stood alight,
The soothing song of days gone by,

He came to earth,
I remember the moment,
He fell, for you and for me,
Ate the fruit of the fields,
Took mortal pulse in his veins,
Felt heat and cold,
Kissing the lips of whom he loved,
Queer spirits abided with him,

Wheezing softly,
Blood tricked from his face,
His tank-top stained crimson in the half-glow,
Beaten black and blue,

Passers by, piercing the shadow,
Traversing the urban-arches,
How soon they forget the light,
And hold all feeling at arms-length,

He knelt low under the moon,
The smell of engine oil in his nose
A bruise, a horrid gash,
Abandoned he wept and shivered,
And yet he smiled still,
For distance shall not part the angels,
Sadness shall not weary the stars,
If only Christ’s love endures so sweetly,
If only we believe in love.

I still love you as I behold,
I still love you between the tears
And the open sky dark with another’s pain.
Smells like Queer spirit,

Nice poem ben, liked it a lot.

For my part, I´m glad I became a pagan. At least the gods of old didn´t spurn us.

Ganesha, Hercules, Iaolas, Apollo, Hyacinth, Cybele, Attis, Rhea, Ishtar, Innana, Loki, Antinous, Achilles, Dionysus, Lugh Lamhfada, Set, Horus, and the list goes on.

Before the coming of the Faiths of the Book, queers were not demonised in the way that the abrahamic faiths have become so accustomed to. We were revered as priests and priestesses, oracles, seers, healers, counsellors, doctors, shamans (and this is true: research the Gallae, the Kuretoi, the Daktylloi, the Hijra, people of Two-Spirit) - not animals to be whipped with the words of a book by people who bless with one hand and pour forth poison with the other.

Instead of using that Book to whip people with, I wish the people who care so much about it, would actually read it, and see that Jesus is supposed to be a healing force of love. The Bible could be so much good if people would just approach it with less of an absolutist stance, and as inlowercase says, as a general framework.

sasha
xxx

-- Edited by chemicalfears at 16:13, 2005-12-01

forgot that i put that there, and im sure that god has a sense of humour.

-- Edited by inlowercase at 16:44, 2005-12-01