Why Is the President being so Bold?

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

I am seeing some distraction writing, but not enough to dismiss it from him.

Why don't we both do a little more research in the 12th Century Church?

No matter what we should find, there is no doubt that Catholic Church winners stomp out and hide documents---and it appears that priests have always had problems with altar boys.

[Sandy]

Jesus would....

The least you could do would be to say "I believe Jesus would" or "I think Jesus would." Given that we have no record of Jesus having any encounter with gay persons you are assuming you know the mind of God. That's always a bit dangerous if you don't have a specific Biblical text to refer to.

Also you really don't know exactly what canon Jesus was talking about when he talked about not changing a jot or a tittle. The canon was not complete yet and wasn't complete until Jamnia. So you are doing isogesis when you say that you know from Jesus own words that he supported a canon that didn't yet exist as one.

Actually, we do know from historical reference that the Jewish canon of the Old Testament that Jesus called the "scriptures" was pretty much right along the lines of what was translated into the Septuagint, regardless of whether or not they were in a canonized form, they were accepted by the Jewish leadership in that form as much as 100 years before Jesus came along, and at any rate, none of the references relating to homosexuality would have been excluded from that text. We have a very clear and concise record of how Jesus encountered sinners, what he said to them, and what the results were. Suppose he had encountered a gay person? He encountered an adulteress, and he rescued her from her would-be executioners, and then sent her on her way to "go and sin no more." In other words, he responded to her repentance. In other cases, he offered healing. So, it seems quite clear that he would treat homosexuals the same way, either forgiving them and encouraging their continued repentance from their sin, or a healing that would have delivered them from it. Paul's authoritative words in Romans make it clear, along with the Levitical law, that homosexual behavior is, at the very least, adultery or fornication. It is sin. And Jesus forgave repentant sinners.

[Timothy Bonney]

Which Jewish leadership would that have been Sandy? The Saducees recognized a different canon than than Pharisees just to name two factions. All that being said, Jesus still didn't say anything about homosexuality no matter what books made it into the canon later in the church. I'm not discounting Paul. But this is an issue of the 21st Century and not one that was all that important in Jesus lifetime. Our generation is the one that is making it the big fight it is.

[Gene Scarborough]

2000+ years obscures our ability to know EXACTLY what the gay scene was in Jesus' day.

It is clear to me that gays have existed all along the human saga. In some cultures they were accepted and in others they were not.

My study of Sociology let me view into quite a few cultures while at college. The Eskimos, for example, consider it a good thing to offer their wife to a visitor as a simple expression of friendship. In our culture it is called Adultery---"stupid" if she is ugly

[Sandy]

Which Jewish leadership would that have been Sandy? The Saducees recognized a different canon than than Pharisees just to name two factions. All that being said, Jesus still didn't say anything about homosexuality no matter what books made it into the canon later in the church. I'm not discounting Paul. But this is an issue of the 21st Century and not one that was all that important in Jesus lifetime. Our generation is the one that is making it the big fight it is.

The fact that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it would have been considered sin. Jesus didn't need a church council, nor a Jewish one to acknowledge what he considered to be authoritative scripture, and there is plenty of evidence from what was recorded about him to know that he fully and completely accepted any part of the scripture that defined homosexual behavior as sinful. It is relatively easy to conclude, based on his recorded actions toward sinful behavior and those involved in it, that his response to sin was to forgive it based upon the sinner's repentance, and to provide healing when it was needed. I believe that if Jesus thought homosexuality was the result of brain chemistry and was physiologically based, he would have given a healing.

The nature of sin is defined clearly in both the Old and New Testaments. Sinful behavior is the result of human separation from God's indwelling spirit. There's a lot of sinful behavior that Jesus never spoke about or actually dealt with, but it is very clear that he did deal with its root cause, time and time again.

We've had many discussions about canonicity, variant texts, and all that. Obviously, to make a presupposed point that the text is unreliable and unclear, you have to put forth the argument that this group had one canon, that group had another, this text varies from that one, and create the impression that the differences can't be reconciled. But the fact of the matter is that the textual evidence available demonstrates that there was actually very little variance between the canons, and that there is a very clear, concise and consistent agreement across the board, both in Jewish teaching and in the early church. It is pretty clear from Jesus' associations, actions and teachings that he rejected the Sadducees and their perspective, largely because of their view of the resurrection. Their way of approaching authoritative scripture was to simply reject anything their presuppositions didn't agree with.

[Timothy Bonney]

The fact that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it would have been considered sin.

Sure it does Sandy unless you've learned to read the mind of God recently. Without a quote from Jesus we don't know what Jesus thought or didn't think about a fair number of issues. You can't make an argument from silence try as you might. You are assuming you know what Jesus thought on this issue by inference and nothing more.

The nature of sin is defined clearly in both the Old and New Testaments.

You know as well as I do that there are practices in the Old Testament that we don't follow today found in the holiness code and in other place. Exactly what constitutes a sin in every situation is not fully defined. Just as an example, owning a slave is a sin in the minds of every Christian I know. It wasn't viewed as such in the New Testament.

We've had many discussions about canonicity, variant texts, and all that. Obviously, to make a presupposed point that the text is unreliable and unclear,

Not at all. The text is reliable. Your interpretation of the text may not be.

What gets tiresome Sandy is the tone of posts in which you basically declare that you have the corner on what the Bible says and how it is to be interpreted. If all of this was so very clear and obvious Christians of all different denominations and backgrounds wouldn't be in such an uproar over the differences.

[Gene Scarborough]

So well-said, Tim---however Sandy loves his corner of this playground and may not be pursuaded.

For me, it is "no brainer." But then, us more open folks seem to have lost our brains to others!

[Sandy]

Interpreting the scripture is a matter of spiritual wisdom, not worldly wisdom, as Paul states in I Corinthians 2, however, you would have to accept that Paul was able to speak with authority on these things, and not buried in his Jewish bias when he wrote that.

It's not complicated. Jesus may not have dealt with homosexuality, but then, there's a lot of sin he's not recorded as having dealt with specifically, but his dealings with sinners was consistent. So it's not hard to conclude what he would have done had he encountered homosexual behavior.

[Gene Scarborough]

Well----now we have Sandy, the Prophet, to solve it all----until someone he knows and loves says, "I'm gay."

[Timothy Bonney]

Interpreting the scripture is a matter of spiritual wisdom, not worldly wisdom, as Paul states in I Corinthians 2, however, you would have to accept that Paul was able to speak with authority on these things, and not buried in his Jewish bias when he wrote that.

It's not complicated. Jesus may not have dealt with homosexuality, but then, there's a lot of sin he's not recorded as having dealt with specifically, but his dealings with sinners was consistent. So it's not hard to conclude what he would have done had he encountered homosexual behavior.

It isn't hard to conclude anything. But is is much harder to know if your conclusions are true or just a result of the view you'd like to be true. The "it's not complicated" shows just what you don't know or won't admit. I've watched Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others deal with this issue and it gets very complicated. And each group believes they are being scriptural, speaking the truth, and following God's will. There are qualified and trained scholars who hold differing opinions on this any many issues. If it weren't complicated we'd all come to the same conclusions and we'd not be having this discussion.

The "it isn't complicated, agree with me and you'd be right" argument fails every time.

[Ed Pettibone]

Interpreting the scripture is a matter of spiritual wisdom, not worldly wisdom, as Paul states in I Corinthians 2, however, you would have to accept that Paul was able to speak with authority on these things, and not buried in his Jewish bias when he wrote that.

It's not complicated. Jesus may not have dealt with homosexuality, but then, there's a lot of sin he's not recorded as having dealt with specifically, but his dealings with sinners was consistent. So it's not hard to conclude what he would have done had he encountered homosexual behavior.

It isn't hard to conclude anything. But is is much harder to know if your conclusions are true or just a result of the view you'd like to be true. The "it's not complicated" shows just what you don't know or won't admit. I've watched Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others deal with this issue and it gets very complicated. And each group believes they are being scriptural, speaking the truth, and following God's will. There are qualified and trained scholars who hold differing opinions on this any many issues. If it weren't complicated we'd all come to the same conclusions and we'd not be having this discussion.

The "it isn't complicated, agree with me and you'd be right" argument fails every time.

Ed: Tim, to be fair, Sandy seems to me to be saying, that by staying in communication with the Holy Spirit, (not sandy) one has a much better opportunity to discern the will of God than if they first turn to the "scientific community", even worse if they consult only the academic elite . Nowhere do the scriptures make popular opinion a standard for bringing forth the kingdom of GOD.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Tim, to be fair, Sandy seems to me to be saying, that by staying in communication with the Holy Spirit, (not sandy) one has a much better opportunity to discern the will of God than if they first turn to the "scientific community", even worse if they consult only the academic elite . Nowhere do the scriptures make popular opinion a standard for bringing forth the kingdom of GOD.

Yes, that may be what Sandy is saying Ed I agree. But discerning who is in communication with the Holy Spirit and has the right answer isn't easy. I've heard the argument too many times "the text clearly says..." That isn't an argument. That is a dismissal of anyone's opposing opinion. And obviously the texts aren't clear or differing Biblical scholars wouldn't come out with differing interpretations. "The text is clear" is code for "my reading of the text is the only valid reading and there is no other."

[Gene Scarborough]

I think having the "Joy of Salvation" is far more important than just "having Salvation" (as if anyone can own it).

When it comes to "joy in humanity," I think we are within this subject.

How would anyone who lives with homosexual feelings be happy if the society is constantly discriminating against them?

I'm not talking of people who are trying to gripe everyone off by being flamboyant in public. I would appreciate people keeping their flamboyance in public expressions of love within reason. Whether hetero or homo, we don't need to be prying palpating bodies apart in the heat of public passion.

I think what the President is citing is the need to quit the discrimination in a free society. It applies to race and we have dealt somewhat with it. Now the issue is sexual orientation. The cause for those feeling is being explored and what is already disclosed makes sexuality far more complex than simply male/female.

[Gene Scarborough]

Here comes the political fallout from the gay right discussion in Jacksonvile, FLA:

http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=14017

JACKSONVILLE (FBW) - A bill before the Jacksonville City Council granting civil rights protections for sexual orientation and gender identity is generating opposition from most Southern Baptists in the local association, while two pastors have endorsed the measure.

The measure would ban discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing in Jacksonville, one of four of the nation’s largest 70 cities without such civil rights protections, supporters claim.

Churches and other religious organizations are exempt from the provisions of the proposed ordinance, while religiously motivated business owners are not.

The proposed ordinance is sponsored by Councilman Warren Jones, and has the backing of many business leaders who say the absence of such civil rights protections is hurting the image of the city and recruitment of qualified workers. Leading advocates for the measure are former Mayor John Delaney, who has served as president of the University of North Florida since 2003, and former council President Matt Carlucci.

Be sure to see the picture of Baptist leaders---I will say no more about their "looks."

Redneck territory in the deep South gets us going as in NC

[Gene Scarborough]

Now we have another gay battle going on at Shorter in good old Rome, GA:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7388/53/

Wilson told the Rome News-Tribune that nobody asked him about his lifestyle when he was hired 14 years ago, but school officials probably knew he was gay when he was given tenure in 2006. That was just after the Georgia Baptist Convention won a long legal battle giving the convention complete control over trustee selection of the private Christian university founded in 1873.

New trustees set out to strengthen the school’s Southern Baptist identity, first by moving professors perceived as too liberal out of the religion department into non-teaching roles and then by electing Don Dowless, a vice president at North Greenville University, as Shorter’s 19th president effective June 1, 2011.

So far Wilson is still employed, but Dowless has said that staff members who do not sign the statement of faith will not be allowed to keep their jobs.

When Wilson returned his contract, he wrote a letter to Dowless explaining why he crossed out a portion of the lifestyle statement.

“I believe, for reasons that should be obvious, that the provisions therein constitute a grave violation of the principles of academic freedom and tenure, core values in academe that were formerly embraced by the university’s administration,” Wilson said in portions of his letter quoted by the Rome News-Tribune.

“I am aware of your intent to dismiss anyone, regardless of tenure status, who may express any disagreement with these provisions,” Wilson wrote. “Nevertheless, I would like to appeal to you, as a fellow academic, to reverse this significant departure from academic norms by creating an atmosphere in which faculty may teach, and students may learn, without these ideological restrictions.”

Most of the departing faculty and staff have tenures shorter than Wilson’s, and several have been at Shorter fewer than five years. The longest-tenured individual on the list is Craig Allee, a biology professor and dean of the School of Science and Mathematics, who retires after 44 years.

Are monkies climbing trees in Jacksonville and Rome these days?????

[Gene Scarborough]

Bishop John Shelby Spong has a serious positive response to the President's statement on same-sex unions:

http://johnshelbyspong.com/2012/05/17/conflicting-emotion-pride-in-the-president-shame-at-the-response-of-many-church-leaders/

You will have to log in to read it, but it is well-reasoned and significant. In part is states:

My amusement is heightened when I listen to the irrationality of those whose arguments are designed to keep their prejudices from looking silly. When gay and lesbian people seek to be included inside the experience and legal protection of marriage, how is it possible to claim that this will destroy marriage? Abuse, infidelity and divorce destroy marriage, loving gay couples do not. When people are justifying a dying prejudice, however, we probably should not expect rational arguments, for prejudice is sustained only in irrationality.

There was, however, another set of emotions that enveloped me as this historic announcement was made. “Shame” is the word that best describes this side of the equation. My sense of shame was directed primarily toward those religious voices, predominantly Christian, that rushed into public with negative responses. First, there was Billy Graham, a noble man in many ways, who is now in his 90’s and not well. He was followed by his son, Franklin, whose only claim to fame is that he is Billy’s son. Both issued statements that this decision by the President was in “direct opposition to the Bible.” That is a tired, threadbare argument. It was used to support the divine right of kings and to oppose the adoption of Magna Carta in 1215. It was used against freeing America’s slave population and later against the dismantling of segregation. It was used against the movement for equality for women. It is now used against justice for homosexuals. How arrogant to use the Bible to place God on the side of one’s prejudice! No one, not even the fundamentalists, really takes the Bible literally. If they did they would seek to pass laws that would make being homosexual a capital offense for which execution would be required. That is biblical. Execution is also called for in the Bible for willfully disobedient children, for those who worship a false god and for those who commit adultery. With that standard we could keep the electric chairs working overtime. Before one seeks to impose a literal Bible on our society one might actually want to read this sacred text.

Not all Americans are Christian---much less Fundamentalist Christians!

[Ed Pettibone]

Bishop John Shelby Spong has a serious positive response to the President's statement on same-sex unions:

http://johnshelbyspong.com/2012/05/17/conflicting-emotion-pride-in-the-president-shame-at-the-response-of-many-church-leaders/

You will have to log in to read it, but it is well-reasoned and significant. In part is states:

My amusement is heightened when I listen to the irrationality of those whose arguments are designed to keep their prejudices from looking silly. When gay and lesbian people seek to be included inside the experience and legal protection of marriage, how is it possible to claim that this will destroy marriage? Abuse, infidelity and divorce destroy marriage, loving gay couples do not. When people are justifying a dying prejudice, however, we probably should not expect rational arguments, for prejudice is sustained only in irrationality.

There was, however, another set of emotions that enveloped me as this historic announcement was made. “Shame” is the word that best describes this side of the equation. My sense of shame was directed primarily toward those religious voices, predominantly Christian, that rushed into public with negative responses. First, there was Billy Graham, a noble man in many ways, who is now in his 90’s and not well. He was followed by his son, Franklin, whose only claim to fame is that he is Billy’s son. Both issued statements that this decision by the President was in “direct opposition to the Bible.” That is a tired, threadbare argument. It was used to support the divine right of kings and to oppose the adoption of Magna Carta in 1215. It was used against freeing America’s slave population and later against the dismantling of segregation. It was used against the movement for equality for women. It is now used against justice for homosexuals. How arrogant to use the Bible to place God on the side of one’s prejudice! No one, not even the fundamentalists, really takes the Bible literally. If they did they would seek to pass laws that would make being homosexual a capital offense for which execution would be required. That is biblical. Execution is also called for in the Bible for willfully disobedient children, for those who worship a false god and for those who commit adultery. With that standard we could keep the electric chairs working overtime. Before one seeks to impose a literal Bible on our society one might actually want to read this sacred text.

Not all Americans are Christian---much less Fundamentalist Christians!

Ed: So Gene are you ready to become an Episcopalian? Really I probably shouldn't tease about that I have friends that are Episcopalian.

[Haruo]

Spong is not exactly typical of Episcopalians, for that matter. He is, however, good reading, and often has worthwhile things to say that are often lost to those who get hung up on differing prior assumptions.

[Timothy Bonney]

Spong is not exactly typical of Episcopalians, for that matter. He is, however, good reading, and often has worthwhile things to say that are often lost to those who get hung up on differing prior assumptions.

If I couldn't have worked it out with the United Methodists the Episcopal Church might have been my next stop.

[Gene Scarborough]

One thing I note as I review quite a few of these posts is a reluctance to entertain the possibility that sexuality is not as simple as ancient biblical minds thought. They tended to see things on a surface basis without much scientific analysis.

The best example is their belief that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun circled around it. Only in later centuries did further study reveal the earth spins on its axis.

With sexuality in all animals there are anomalies. There are creatures throughout the animal kingdom where both sexes exist in the same creature. With humans, such creatures are designated hermaphrodites. I encountered the phenomenon in college research at the Emory medical library. Gender assignment through surgery was an early approach, but now the standard procedure is to wait and let the individual decide whether they feel more male or more female. If there is no preference, then the patient is still in charge.

The bottom line is that people are uncomfortable when the shades of gray come out. I think much of the fear and trepidation in our gay-acknowledging culture is a transition from Pritanical traditionalism to the encounter we are having with multiple cultures from all over the world who don't wear the Puritan uniform nor follow the code. It could just be a brutal honesty people feel free to express instead of hide. My confidants in the homosexual world say, "That is just the way I am and I can't help it no matter how hard I try."

Like it or not, God is the Creator of all things. Just because he doesn't do it to our specs, is it evil and wrong?

[Ed Pettibone]

One thing I note as I review quite a few of these posts is a reluctance to entertain the possibility that sexuality is not as simple as ancient biblical minds thought. They tended to see things on a surface basis without much scientific analysis.

The best example is their belief that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun circled around it. Only in later centuries did further study reveal the earth spins on its axis.

With sexuality in all animals there are anomalies. There are creatures throughout the animal kingdom where both sexes exist in the same creature. With humans, such creatures are designated hermaphrodites. I encountered the phenomenon in college research at the Emory medical library. Gender assignment through surgery was an early approach, but now the standard procedure is to wait and let the individual decide whether they feel more male or more female. If there is no preference, then the patient is still in charge.

The bottom line is that people are uncomfortable when the shades of gray come out. I think much of the fear and trepidation in our gay-acknowledging culture is a transition from Pritanical traditionalism to the encounter we are having with multiple cultures from all over the world who don't wear the Puritan uniform nor follow the code. It could just be a brutal honesty people feel free to express instead of hide. My confidants in the homosexual world say, "That is just the way I am and I can't help it no matter how hard I try."

Like it or not, God is the Creator of all things. Just because he doesn't do it to our specs, is it evil and wrong?

Ed: Gene do you have any evidence that the Solar system has any thing to do with sexual preference? Forget the smoke and mirrors and give me some unequivocal evidence to support for you contention that Nature trumps Nurture in the development of sexual preference. As for your "confidants in the homosexual world", I am persuaded that they have deluded themselves with the aid of some enabling role models, straight and gay. BTW, I also have friends who are gay and they object to the term "The homosexual world". I have known former homosexuals who are now straight.

True Gene because God does not create in accord with with the perversion known as homosexuality it is SIN and therefore wrong.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

Evidence on sexuality is being discovered every day. No matter what I should tell you, you are happy to simply define it as "perversion." Until you have someone you love and respect reveal, "I am gay," you will never deal with it I fear.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

Evidence on sexuality is being discovered every day. No matter what I should tell you, you are happy to simply define it as "perversion." Until you have someone you love and respect reveal, "I am gay," you will never deal with it I fear.

Ed: Problem Gene, you have told me nothing I am not already familiar with. And btw, I have not said sexuality is a perversion. I have said, the choice of homosexuality as ones preferred sexual expression is a perversion. And you brother Scarborough have no idea of how I would react if someone I love and respect revealed, "I am gay". I have had people I love say thing that I consider just as perverse and I still love them but do not accept their choice. As I have told you I have a pastor friend who has an adult daughter who is gay, she is aware that he considers her sexual preference to be sinful. They love each other but over several years neither have changed their position. The idea that all parents must and do, cave into their children's departures from their upbringing is a lie from the devil.

[Gene Scarborough]

I didn't say you had to like homosexuality. You could do a better job of understanding and accepting it as part of God's creation.

I am still not going to waste my time trying to pursuade you of anything as to why is can simply be part of creation and the menefestation of the estrogen and testosterone flowing mutually inside each person.

Trying to understand a friend's daughter is not personal enough, Ed.

[Ed Pettibone]

I didn't say you had to like homosexuality. You could do a better job of understanding and accepting it as part of God's creation.

I am still not going to waste my time trying to pursuade you of anything as to why is can simply be part of creation and the menefestation of the estrogen and testosterone flowing mutually inside each person.

Trying to understand a friend's daughter is not personal enough, Ed.

Ed: Where did I say any thing about trying to understand my friends daughter. I gave you an example of a father who's daughter is an avowed lesbian and although he loves her he does not approve of her choice of a of a same sex partner and in fact considers it sinful. And ideed you would do well to give up trying to persuade me of any thing, when you can not make up your mind if as you often say homosexuality is a complex issue, or as you have said here "can simply be part of creation and the menefestation of the estrogen and testosterone flowing mutually inside each person". By the way, I assume you meant "Persuade" and "manifestation".

And Gene did you see the my post at viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9985&p=135092#p135092 titled View and Read a few homosexuals?