Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

As for me (though I'm not the one you asked often people answer questions I ask directly to others anyway), my fiancee and I keep Kosher. Jacklyn is ethnically Jewish, from her mother's side, and she also has been determined to have allergies to pig based products and seafood, so it works out for that reason also. As to the type of Kosher, confer Leviticus 11.

No, you misunderstand me. MY decision IS related to my religious views. For me personally, there need be no other factors. And I think prejudice might be a strong word as is commonly used. I've had homosexual friends who were like brothers to me, but I was no less honest if the topic came up. They knew precisely where I stood, but they also showed me the same kindness in respecting my views as I did theirs. We had some LIVELY debates back then, and beyond that there was never any animosity. I share the view of many Christians "hate the sin, love the sinner." Hey, we're sinners, too.

What I meant by stating my opinion on the basis for "prejudice" (as you put it, I think "preference" might be a better word) was that it seems to arise from POSSIBLY innate factors not having anything to do with religious understanding. I can't explain that--you'll have to go ask people of various cultures on various continents where exactly the homosexual taboo comes from. Obviously the USA and most of Europe aren't the best places to begin your search! I just know that the taboo has been in place in a variety of places and likely was so before the arrival of Christianity. We weren't able to forcefully convert or kill EVERYONE, you know. China/Far East most immediately come to mind. I say China because Confucianism and Buddhism to my knowledge have little to say on the matter. I doubt that the religious aspect of those two, though Confucianism is not a religion in the same sense, would really even take a position on it and are probably as far from Christianity as you can get, at least based on what little I know. They likely would have had a cultural prohibition on homosexuality that had little to do with religious beliefs. Sorry I can't do any better than that at this time.

Regarding the other specifics you mentioned: Stoning to death for adultery--yes AND no. The Law clearly states that certain forms of adultery are punishable by death, while certain other forms of adultery can be redeemed. That basically meant if you slept with a woman who wasn't spoken for and it was a consensual act, you would have to marry her. There is, of course, a chance you wouldn't get caught. However, a woman could be put to death if it was discovered she wasn't a virgin when she married. The best thing you could do for yourself and the poor girl was just come clean about it and offer to marry her along with paying the required penalties. There were legit concerns over the problem of adultery in the OT period, so punishment had to be severe. We no longer live in that time period, have the same issues, or even live in a nation like Israel that would have had the same strict rules. Nevertheless, adultery is still a sin. Just because something is LEGAL does NOT make it RIGHT. For me, this is especially profound because it makes me worthy of the death penalty. I think a lot of us recognize that it's wrong. But very few really appreciate that adultery marks the sinner for death.

However, Jesus' sacrifice and offer of forgiveness of all sins supersedes the penalties of the OT. That means any nation can make any law it wants to serve/protect its interests, which may or may not include punishment for adultery. In America, adultery in the context of marriage subjects the unfaithful spouse to huge concessions in money and property in divorce court, assuming it can't be settled out of court in a NFD case. Jesus said that the only justified cause for divorce was adultery, but forgiving a spouse and trying to reconcile would not be above His teachings. In some American jurisdictions, a spouse might even have a viable case in civil court against the person the cheating spouse had an affair with for "loss of affection," like saying "you knew she was married and you pursued her anyway." Therefore, our laws reflect our culture, which is self-determination through representation. We believe the Law was handed down from God to His own people, the Israelites. Death is understandable in that "to whom much is given, much is expected." But the NT preaches forgiveness and mercy, and even God was often merciful in the OT when His people repented. The difference between the OT and the NT is that mercy is free to all people, not just the Israelites, and that it is accessible without all the legalistic rites and rituals reserved for the Israelites.

As far as female circumcision goes, I can't speak for another culture as to whether that's right or wrong because neither the Law nor the NT speak against it. What I can say is that I see no reason nor any need for it. The Bible only requires male circumcision as a sign of the covenant with Abraham. Logically, this command follows the Israelites tracing lineage through men and would not have had nothing to do with women. To justify as to why it shouldn't be carried out, we have to look at other evidence.

The purpose of male circumcision is to identify with God's people. There's nothing averse to this practice. It does no harm to the baby (unless it's improperly carried out, and complications or bad procedure seems to be extremely rare). The only possible negative effect is by severing the sensitive nerve endings of the foreskin, a circumcised adult male will experience significantly less sensitivity during sex. For me, also being circumcised, the trade-off is worth it in staying power! But that's another topic...

Female circumcision, by contrast, has no real religious significance or purpose. In fact, it has been shown to be harmful to women and results in painful intercourse as well as other problems. To relate it to Hebrew rituals, there are very few that directly subject women to harm, one of which would have been the Jealousy Ritual, and even that would only result in harm if the party was guilty. I think if those cultures that do carry out female circumcision were to truly examine it as a practice in terms of necessity and risk/benefit, they would have to conclude that it's worth abandoning.

But you spoke of respect for all cultures and all religions. You refer only to Christianity and the Jews. There are many strange customs from other religions and cultures. And your resort to practicality in reference to female circumcision is strangely at odds with your lack of practical considerations with regard to gay people.

You're the first Christian I've heard of who DOES keep Kosher. Well done anyway for at least following what you believe.

I don't have the typing power to say much else, my C key is broken and I'm holding the damn thing in with sticky tape.

Respect does not indicate tacit approval.

The Bible does not give anything explicitly for or against female circumcision. One must conclude that either God does not have a position on it or that some other Biblical principal is at play.

Perhaps all I can do is go back and do some more reading. I think MAYBE I remember reading something about a prohibition against mutilation in general, but I don't want to suggest that there's something in the Bible if it isn't there. What the Bible DOES say is that people who were not "whole" could not be a part of the worship assembly (OT), which meant if they were deformed or were missing appendages, and so on. The Bible DOES specifically prescribe a penalty against a woman if she attacks a man with a "low blow" (my words, not the Bible's--I think it says something like "crushes... testicles"). In the latter case, the woman's actions have consequences to the man's fertility. One of God's first commandments is "Be fruitful and multiply," so any sin that would affect the outcome of childbearing would be especially egregious in those days. You might loosely interpret this to extend to any kind of genital mutilation including that of women.

Another way to look at is through the "Greatest Commandment": Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. Jesus issued a second when He was pressed about this matter: Love your neighbor as yourself. The Bible has too many regulations regarding women for me to list right now, but Jesus' quoting of Moses and summarizing the meaning of all Law as it pertains to all human relationships has profound implications on the following of Law in day-to-day life. What does female circumcision have to do with loving the Lord? If female circumcision is already regarded as a cruel practice that is oppressive to women and has absolutely no sanction in the Law or anywhere else in the Bible, then what does it have to do with loving your neighbor? It doesn't sound very loving to me. So from that angle one must conclude that it is contrary to Biblical teaching EVEN THOUGH it's not specifically named. From a different angle, if it is used as a means to preserve national identity and causes no problems for women and a woman can wholeheartedly consent to it, there's nothing wrong with it either. Personally, I don't see how it is humane to women, and everything I ever hear about it suggests that the reality of it is human cruelty. Contrast that with male circumcision, which with proper practice is not painful or cruel (I had my son circumcised after birth. All indications of this practice is that it is comparatively painless, can be performed without anesthesia, puts little stress on the baby, and heals rapidly with proper care). Circumcision for males IS an OT mandate, though it is only required for Jewish males. In fact, circumcision was used by the patriarchs as a deceit tactic against an entire city after the rape of Dinah, even after a king was prepared to proselytize an entire population to make restitution for injury. Using circumcision to weaken a population just prior to invasion to ensure a quick victory is not in keeping with God's will. Simeon and Levi forfeited their inheritance for their descendants because of this blatantly sinful act. How is this "loving the Lord"?

Apply the same concept to female circumcision. The Bible does not require it. It is not "loving your neighbor" due to the pain incurred (my understanding is it even makes intercourse painful, which means a lifelong condition). The Bible speaks to the FAIR treatment of women. How is this practice fair? If you want more than that on female circumcision, I'm sorry, that's the best I've got. All I have to go on is Bible study, prayer/meditation on scripture, and my own conscience. Am I wrong in drawing that conclusion, though, based on what IS known about women's issues in the Bible?

Keeping Kosher... That IS a good question.

I think of keeping Kosher as an ideal to be reached for by the Christian according to his conscience.

Kosher is a ceremonial commandment that is unique to the Jews. I already mentioned circumcision, and even though I didn't go through RITUAL circumcision, nor did my son, it is something we believe in as reverence to God's command to the patriarchs, from which Christian theology is derived. That's MY feeling, anyway, and it remains up to the individual believer what of the ceremonial customs he is to preserve. In my previous post, I quoted the "greatest commandment" and Jesus' extension of it as a summary of the intention of all Law. Keeping Kosher for Gentiles, ergo Christians would not necessarily be in or out of keeping with the spirit of Law, since the distinctions are strictly for the Jews.

In support of that, read Acts 10 (pretty much all of it). Peter, who probably isn't exactly the best educated man among Jesus' followers, shows here that he is no less devout than the priests. Keeping Kosher prevents Peter from witnessing to Gentiles, because doing so would put him at risk for touching the "unclean" or "common." The Lord through Peter's vision instructs him "What God has made clean, you must not call common." This means for Christians that there are more important matters of faith than keeping all the ceremonial laws. It is more important, for example, to spread the Gospel to unbelievers, even the gays and the atheists. (Seriously, though, there are likely genuine believers who are homosexual and even those believers who have turned away from that the gay lifestyle).

Morality vs. immorality matters are a little more absolute. The most extreme example of sin appears to be murder. If I'm free from the Law, does that make it right to murder? Clearly not, and the basis for that is much deeper than "law of the land." The NT is consistent with the OT in condemning all sinful behavior, among which are adultery and idolatry. The NT advocates the forgiveness of sin, while the OT is concerned with the punishment of sin. I think that means keeping basic laws of morality wherever the Christian lives, which would be consistent with the view that homosexuality, whether we believe it's good or evil, is still protected in the USA as "right to life." The Christian's right to free speech/expression and religion, however, allows us to speak out against it. It's clear that our right to speak out isn't slowing the gay movement down any. But gays have a political right to choose contrary to Christian teachings just as Christians can choose contrary to homosexuality.

Actually, I think that homosexuals serve an extremely important role to conservatives in terms of providing a group of people against whom Conservatives can compare themselves favourably.

If it weren't the queers, then it would just have to be someone else to assume this role.

or we can get them a mirror so they can see how idiotic and worthless they are.

doesnt it bother people that so much has been edited in the bible that its fairly likely that it doesnt resemble the first one very well (im saying bible but more specificaly the individual gospels).

and i dont get the whole picking and choosing thing too, if you're not going to follow it completely why bother? is god going to allow half hearted christians into his kingdom?

The equation of biblical sanction with a justification for a public policy disfavouring homosexuality is ultimately fallacious.

No denomination can bring forward a definitive interpretation of scripture. Whether we speak of Chistians, Jews or Muslims, within each of these broad faiths lie many divisions of opinion about what is right and proper.

So to those who would rely upon Leviticus as an absolute bar against homosexual behaviour, by all means, govern your life that way. By all means, teach your children that this is your belief (but don't be too surprised if one of them winds up desperately unhappy as a result of trying to reconcile your teaching with the reality of his or her own life).

But do no suppose for a moment that your interpretation of scripture is a valid motivation of establishing a system of civil and criminal law. For every person you can line up citing a strict interpretation of Leviticus, I can line up those who rubbish scripture as fiction, others who take a purposive approach to scriptural interpretation and perceive the prohibitions in Leviticus as related to idolatry, yet others who belief that Christ released all Christians from the legal code of the old testament.

My sexual orientation, and the legal recognition of my relationship in no way inhibits how you choose to live your life, or the messages that you choose to teach your children. If you choose to hold me up as an example of all that is wrong with the 21st century, I can do nothing (and would not wish to do anything) to stop you. But you cannot expect that freedom without being prepared to extend it, in turn.

Personally, I think the Bible is mirror enough for anyone to see how worthless they are. The OT places such high penalties on idolatry and other offenses that it's amazing some people are allowed to live at all. Part of Jesus' ministry dealt with showing how the Law, especially as it was rigorously judged by the priests of Jesus' day, really was impossible for everyone to follow perfectly. The priests themselves were guilty of the sin of self-righteousness: Deuteronomy 9:1-6 makes clear that the Israelites were to take Canaan back not because they were good and righteous people, but because the people of that territory were exceedingly wicked. Apparently, the priests of Jesus' time had forgotten this, and they set themselves up to look higher and mightier than the rest of the people they were supposed to serve. One must recognize the sins of his own heart before he may judge the sins of others. I try to apply the same principal to judging homosexuality as sin. It's right there in the Bible. That is undeniable truth. But, if I try to make a case that somehow I'm superior to homosexuals because I'm not guilty of it based on Biblical truth, then I'm a hypocrite because I fail to acknowledge my own guilt of other sins (I don't practice what I preach). However, I do try my very best to take the Word to heart and do what it says. I'm an imperfect creature prone to mistakes, but at least I can take comfort in the Law of mercy and forgiveness.

Anyway... What exactly has been edited that is inconsistent with the first one? You say "fairly likely," which I take to mean you don't really have a point of reference as to Gospel editing. It's highly unlikely that the Gospels have been edited to mean anything more/less than a record of Jesus' ministry and teaching. Compared to other ancient texts, the writings of the NT have the shortest time spans from the time of the events they recorded to the time they are committed to paper, which means the writers of the Gospels didn't allow themselves much time to forget about the things they witnessed.

But let's look at actual evidence: There are 5,700 known Greek manuscripts of the NT. Beyond the NT, the most manuscripts of any ancient texts that are known to exist are some 643, and that would be Homer's Iliad. On average, the typical book of that period has roughly between 7 and 10 manuscripts. The earliest known is the John Rylands Papyrus, which dates between A.D. 117 to 138. Entire books, like the Bodmer Payrii can be found from around A.D. 200.

A study of the copying accuracy of the NT in comparison with the Mahabharata and the Iliad revealed the Mahabharata to be within 10% of the originals, the Iliad 5%, and the NT less than 0.5% error. The issues facing the copying accuracy of the NT has been shown to involve something like only a thousandth of the ENTIRE TEXT, which gives you about 99.9% accuracy of the NT. I'm not aware of any other ancient texts even coming close. You really don't have to worry much about how well the current Gospels resembled the original writings!

To answer your comment about picking and choosing: We are charged with doing what is right in the face of God's will for us. The "new covenant" frees the believer from rigid application of Jewish ceremonial law. If you're OK with eating pork, eat pork. You're not going to Hell over it. Jesus and His disciples once even came under fire for not washing their hands the right way. SERIOUSLY??? I mean, come on, God is really going to bring down His wrath upon you because you didn't wash your hands the way someone else thought you ought to do it? And then there was that whole "healing on the Sabbath" thing. The priests were so caught up on what day of the week it was that they missed the whole point: First of all, God's power to heal, and second, God doesn't sleep on Saturday--I mean, He is still in control and still provides, even on the holy days. The hypocrisy, I think, was also that while they condemned Him for working miracles, they didn't take the day off, either. It's like the story of the adultress caught in the act. Law says she has to be stoned. Jesus said, "Let him without sin cast the first stone." Is that a blank check for continued sinful behavior. No! Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more." Translation: "OK, I saved your butt, now get out of here and stay out of trouble." It's a testimony to God's mercy, not His condemnation.

Jesus wanted people to know they didn't have to be on the wrong side of the Law anymore. That was really the whole point.

Irishaspie is entirely correct in asking the question "why bother?" There's no reason. We aren't free from the Law in the sense that it's OK to go out into the world and follow our every whim. We're just free from the stranglehold of death that is inherent with total obedience to it. God leaves us with the choice, to follow or not to. If the Law is simply "love God" and the golden rule, it's not that difficult. That was the whole point Jesus was trying to make. You won't enter the kingdom of Heaven by going down a self-righteous checklist. The Law makes us slaves. Mercy and forgiveness set us free.

Following the Law, then is a matter of conscience. We are free from the ceremonial Laws that only served to set the Jews apart from other nations (like certain dress codes, Kosher meal preparation, circumcision, and so on). Ceremonial observance does not save the soul. I'm a Baptist, for example. So in keeping with my upbringing, I can't drink alcohol, go out dancing, play rock-n-roll music, and so on. We observe the ritual of baptism through immersion, and we take our saltine crackers with grape juice during communion. The question here is what do all these things have to do with the destiny of my soul. Absolutely nothing. But there are those old-timers still hanging around that would point out all the "improper" things I do and send me to Hell before my time. Though I believe in the value of immersive baptism (Jesus commanded it) and memorial service of communion, I also recognize that those things don't save me. If you rely on ONE source of morality and upright living before God, you have to rely on ALL of it. Christians are free to make those decisions, and this shouldn't be confused with a hypocritical pick-and-choose mentality. Therefore, I believe that I'm allowed to drink wine or beer in moderation. The Bible is used unfairly as a prohibition on that, but the Bible does NOT strictly forbid it. I'm allowed to play rock-n-roll because entertainment is part of how I make my living. Immersive baptism is a command from Jesus which is a public demonstration of a new believer's faith. I also try my very best to follow and uphold the rest of Jesus' commands as well as the writings of the apostles. But I also know that I'm not condemned in my failures, that I'm forgiven already, and that God will assist me through the Holy Spirit to do better. Just for one example, I got married partly in order to escape what had been an adulterous relationship (and I love her, too). Not only did I escape that sin, but so did my wife in the act of marriage. That means I'm no longer bringing myself down, but I'm also no longer bringing HER down with me.

Sin is still sin, whether it's in the OT or NT. That's why I can't say it's right for me to commit adultery and wrong for someone else to have gay sex--to say one is sin is to say I'm a sinner, too. A believer will have a desire to do all that's good in the eye's of God. The NT and OT both agree on idolatry, sexual immorality, and a host of other offenses. Therefore, the Bible is an ideal starting-point for a Christian to discover morality and ethics the way God intended.

It seems that Conservatism is rife in Africa

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36376840/ns ... s-africa//

Because most consertives seem to be fundemendlist Christians who take the Bible litterlay. Maybe homosexuality is a sin and maybe it isn't. Christians are supposedly not supposed to judge the faults of others. There are too many translation errors in the bible so who knows what is really being said. I personaly believe that 90% of the Old Testament is figurism. For the most part I am a conservative Christian but I personaly don't care weither a person is hetrosexual or homosexual I just don't think they should be given tax brakes and stuff because of their orientation but I don't think they should be the victims of hate crimes. I could care less about a person's orientation.

Actually most Americans with a "conservative" mind set are working class and people of the middle class with lower incomes. This notion of fundamentalist crazies is highly exaggerated. Americans tend to be socially conservative and middle of the road economically. What is called "conservatism" has to to with attitudes relating to sexual roles and interrelationships. Also, most of the Americans who are members of churches and take their religions even semi-seriously are NOT fundamentalist Christians. They are very conventional folks.

While there is a great deal of support for the Democrat party among working class and low income folks, the prevailing attitude in the United States is far from what the liberals preach. Blatant left leaning liberal attitudes are found among professionals, celebrities and high income folk.

America is psychologically a very socially conservative country, perhaps less so now than back before the 60's But compared to Europe, America is very much to the Right of Europeans in both economic and social attitudes.

Very few of the Tea Party folks are Christian fundamentalists although most of them are Christian.

ruveyn

I am not sure that I entirely agree with you, ruveyn. (Quel surprise!)

My take on social conservativism in your country is that it is a minority viewpoint that exercises a disproportionate control of the political agenda through it's death grip on the policy function of the Republican Party. Similarly, liberal attitudes are a minority view, that has a strong presence in academia, which leads to its stronger (though by no means universal) presence among university educated people (and hence, media). That being said, there are plenty of well educated, fierce conservatives, and there are plenty of working class liberals. The stereotypes have some basis in truth, but do not serve to fully characterize the polarization.

I take the view that most individual Americans are pretty firmly in the middle of the road. They are not particularly interested in running other people's lives, and not particularly interested in anyone running their lives. I also take the view that many individual Americans would fall into different categories depending upon the issue. Views on capital punishment are different than views on abortion, which are different again from views on recognition of same-sex relationships.

Finally, political views are subject to paradigm shifts. What was anathema once, say, miscegenation, is now unremarkable. What was perfectly acceptable once, say, smoking, is becoming increasingly proscribed.

You certainly have a right to your point of view, PunkyKat. The Bible expressly does point out homosexuality as sin. All you have to do is open it up and read it. Is the Bible not to be taken literally? The passage in Leviticus about homosexuality really can't be interpreted any other way. Any of us who judge homosexuals as sinners necessarily must confess to our own guilt first and THEN correct others we see as sinful--and that means ALL sin, not just homosexuality. I'm pointing out homosexuality, of course, because it is the topic at hand.

Christians are not supposed to judge the faults of others? The Bible doesn't say that. Oh, you mean "Judge not that you be judged," right? If I were a betting man, I'd bet that passage is the most often misquoted passage used to justify, well, whatever you want. What that verse actually means is don't look at a person and a situation and make an automatic assumption on first glance. For example, if I'm playing rock and roll at a bar on Saturday night until 3 a.m. the next morning, turn right around and play piano at Sunday morning worship service, don't be the little old lady on the back pew whispering "He was at that bar all night. Why do we let him play at our church?" Hey, that gig helps buy peanut butter and bread for the kids, and I'm not REALLY doing anything wrong.

On the other hand, you and your friend are walking down the street on a cold day and you meet a panhandler and your friend makes fun of him. The right thing to do is tell your friend to shut up, go into the nearest coffee shop, and get the poor man something hot to drink. By telling your friend to shut up, you ARE judging your friend. Why? Because your friend did something wrong. Further, you show them what a better example would be. If you were doing something wrong, wouldn't you want someone to confront you with it? Judging is OK. Gossiping and being mean is not.

Judging is also good because people like to misquote the Bible or twist words around to make them mean whatever they want it to mean. If judging is a bad thing, how are you able to discern truth? Christians seek to be knowledgeable in truth. Correcting someone when they make an error is judging them, but it is also helping them become stronger.

it is not.

not until it has been proven, or at least has some evidence othe than hear say and rumour passed down for over 2000 years.