The New Christians

The New Christians


Ending Christian Euphemisms: “Unbiblical”

posted by Tony Jones

In our attempt to exterminate Christian euphemisms from our vocabulary, Nathan nominated thusly:

“Unbiblical” when what the situation really is is
“I really, really DON’T like that” OR “I disagree” OR
“Your words challenge my deepest held idolatries posing as genuine
Christian faith.”

This euphemism seems to be more prevalent today than I remember it — or maybe I just ran into it less in the past. Of course, what it implies is that there is a consistent, reliable, and mutually agreed upon hermeneutic for a particular passage, or for the entire narrative arc of the Bible.

I ran into this at the Cornerstone Festival this summer, while on a panel discussing gays in the church. The two anti-gay members of the panel, both “ex-gays” who were affiliated with Exodus International, repeatedly stated that theirs was the “biblical” position, and that opposing views were “unbiblical.” They said this with no anger, and really no passion. It was said matter-of-factly, and simply, as though no counter-argument could possibly be summoned.


Related to this euphemism, and even more disturbing to me, is this:

“Well, I hold to a higher view of scripture than _________.”

This came up not too long ago when the website for the Origins Project website was launched. It stated in several places that Origins was a network committed to a “high view of scripture,” to which many in the emergent community asked, “Relative to what, to whom?” That language has since been removed from the Origins website, but the implication is clear: Some (aka, emergent) have a “low” view of scripture, others have a “high” view.

I don’t say this to criticize Origins, since I support them and hope for their success. Just to point put that the website copywriter fell prey to an assumption that the hermeneutical posture of biblical inerrancy is “higher” (aka, better) than a an infallibilist or narrative or other posture. It also seems to ignore the history of biblical interpretation, by which such theological giants as Augustine and Aquinas used allegorical interpretations that we today would find downright wacky.

In the end, the phrase a “high view of scripture” is clearly a euphemism meant to divide the body of Christ. Let’s euthanize it.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(82)
post a comment
Randy Thomas

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:43 am


Being a Christian on a post-gay journey… I know the two people you refer to and neither are anti-gay. Their lives and convictions are not based on anything other than their free will to determine the course of their lives.
If you want to “exterminate euphemisms” try not attaching the bland, abused generalization (yet stigmatizing) label of “anti-gay” to everything and everyone that doesn’t hold to a liberal pro-gay orthodoxy.



report abuse
 

Zach Lind

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:49 am


hey tony,
I wrote a post about that very issue with Origins having a “high view” of scripture: http://www.findingrhythm.com/blog/?p=1604
Dan Kimball pushed back a bit in the comments section and I think it’s worth a read.



report abuse
 

Wes Ellis

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:51 am


Great thoughts!!!
I’m a youth pastor and not too long ago I had a parent pull their kids out of my youth group because my teachings are apparently “unbiblical.” What hurt most of all was losing the students with whom I’d built a good relationship (thus I see what you mean when you talk of these euphemisms being meant to divide the body of Christ) but what hurt almost equally was being misunderstood. Everything we do in our youth ministry and everything we teach is guided by my accountability to scripture. I’m simply trying to teach the Bible and I’m being called “unbiblical.” The truth was that I wasn’t literal enough for the parent and we disagreed on our interpretation. It wasn’t that they were “biblical” and I wasn’t… it’s that they didn’t like my approach… if they had been clear about that, I’m sure it wouldn’t have hurt quite as much and there may have been more civility in the situation.



report abuse
 

Mere_Christianity

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:52 am


You have declared war on Christians then?
Tony?
This was inevitable with the emergent movement.



report abuse
 

Les

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:01 am


Hi mate.
I like the post. One that always got me was when people said “I’ll pray for you” and I felt it was often a way of closing off a conversation in a polite manner.
If you mentioned the issue to them a week or so later it was clear that they hadn’t actually prayed. I know many people take prayer seriously but many times “I’ll pray for you” is a pious throwaway comment.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:09 am


No objective reader of scripture could ever conclude that God is libertine about sex. To the contrary, the bible reveals a God who has a very strict code governing human sexuality. In the bible we read that all deviant or otherwise pagan forms are rejected, whether its homosexuality, incest, zoophilia, or polyandry.
As to using the phrase “that’s unbiblical,” what did you expect? In protestantism, the scripture is the only source of God’s Word to refer to on issues. So, it’s logical that protestants would argue using this appeal to bible authority.



report abuse
 

Adam Lehman

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:10 am


I have yet to find a person who is completely biblical in their doctrine. For example, I have yet to meet a person in a church (conservative or liberal) who treats all scripture the same.
those opposed to gays are not as opposed to greed.
they don’t protest murder (war) but they’ll protest prop 8.
I totally agree with this post. Good stuff.



report abuse
 

Liz

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:15 am


I agree – we should euthanize the euphemisms “unbiblical”
and “higher view of scripture”. I would also like to point out that I am also weary of some other responses when I disagree with someone’s interpretation of scripture:
You call yourself a Christian?
You don’t believe in the Bible?
And my favorite…
“I don’t interpret scripture, I just believe what it says.”



report abuse
 

James

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:24 am


I hope you all realize that if scripture isn’t the ultimate authority to decide an issue then every issue becomes one person’s opinion against another person’s opinion. And at that point, it’s just a matter of the most powerful group winning the day.
Do you all realize this? Are you okay with that?



report abuse
 

John D. Palmer

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:29 am


I have to say I quite like the use of “Christian Euphemisms” and particularly “unbiblical”. Weather you use it as a statement of defense of your position on “scripture” or I use it to undermine your presumptuous understanding of an idea or thought as it is related to “holy scripture” it is a fun and useful euphemism. Its funny when used in common conversation because of its ironic value and this funny can be a link to a deeper conversation about what exactly anyone might mean by something being biblical or unbiblical. The idea that I should stop my use of “Christian Euphemisms” sounds a bit like a “book burning” to me. I’ll be praying for you as you consider embracing a higher view of scripture friend.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 20, 2009 at 11:44 am


John D. Palmer said: The idea that I should stop my use of “Christian Euphemisms” sounds a bit like a “book burning” to me.
James: Yes, indeed. It is a juicy irony that liberal emergents are on a mission to eradicate “fascist-like traditional morality” by imposing a new fascist-like morality more in line with their own modern tastes. The “New Christians” will be just as oppressive, intolerant, and ostracizing to dissenters as the traditional ones they oppose daily.
Oh the humanity. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.



report abuse
 

Mere_Christian

posted October 20, 2009 at 12:31 pm


The emergent movement is proving to be as anti-Christians as the Exodus folks are anti-gay.
Obvioulsy that’s why neologisms must override historic truth of the Gospel.



report abuse
 

brian

posted October 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm


Disagree.
You keep running into these euphemisms because most of your theological convictions are indeed “unbiblical.” Let’s keep the word. And also, let’s keep “high view of scripture.” Relative to what/whom? Example: You have a low view of scripture meaning you don’t really see it as infallible and authoritative relative to your own opinions and post-modern culture/ethics. A high view of scripture means one sees the Bible as an authoritative meta narrative which is inspired and infallible. This post is unbiblical.



report abuse
 

Arni Zachariassen

posted October 20, 2009 at 12:43 pm


Let’s just grab the bull by the horns and get rid of the ultimate euphemism: “Heresy”. That word makes no sense at all anymore, if it ever did. No one has a privileged access to truth so no one can condemn or even accuse anyone else of heresy.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 1:31 pm


wow.
there’s so much to respond to, I don’t know where to begin.
but here’s my initial thoughts on the comments here.
interpretation is a rhetorical act of power. it is about the most powerful community…
i mean, if Cyril hadn’t brought enough big and mean Egyptian monks to Ephesus to literally beat down some of his theological opponents in council, we may have a very very different Christology today…among other things…
to acknowledge that the Church represents a community in conversation for 2000 years is to admit to the communal nature of interpretation.
it’s a fact of life…long before classifications of “pre-modern”, “modern”, and “post-modern”.
for me, this is part of the value of the “post-modern” critique. it points to this dynamic as a constant feature of the human experience.
for others of you who are getting close to “shrill”, i would have to ask this question:
Regardless of people’s view of Scripture, can you not admit that “unbiblical” is term that does get deployed in dishonest ways to shut down discussion or to neutralize arguments without actually dealing with them?
cuz that was my point when I suggested the term.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 1:36 pm


another thought…
i remember hearing a pastor one spring talk about how all the news magazines in spring like to run stories about Jesus (it being Easter season and all).
he said that they always feature some big liberal theologian who is trying to shoot holes in the gospel and destroy our confidence in the faith.
that’s practically a verbatim quote.
i found this comment to be deeply uncharitable.
not only because on its face it assumes motives and intentions that he couldn’t possibly know, but also because I’ve studied under and know personally some of those theologians that would get categorized as such.
I can unequivocally say that the ones I’ve had the privilege to be around do their work out of a deep love for and respect for the sacred texts. they do their work because they desire to see the texts handled well and be properly understood.
it’s fine to disagree with people and their conclusions, but this insistence that any particular theological position demands a correlating condition of ones heart is really annoying and kind of stupid.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 1:46 pm


brian,
i see holy scripture as authoritative–the norming norm of the Christian community.
I still would like to see us stop using phrases like “unbiblical” and “higher view of Scripture” in political ways.
they are theologically laden words, but used in a theologically impoverished manner.
if these words can be used responsibly, then so be it.
but in my experience, they are just codes that are functionally no different than all the other rhetorical devices of political correctness.
to all,
i’m still confused as to when the failures of “our own opinions and post-modern culture/ethics” became such a pressing issue.
the failing of human opinions and the particular culture/ethics of any given time is present in every age.
this isn’t a “postmodern” problem.
this is a human problem.
ugh.
now i’ll have to add “postmodern” to my boogeyman list:
hollywood
democrats
msnbc
liberals
gays
“washington”
coastal elites
secular humanists
academia
the media
and now…”postmodern”



report abuse
 

Jonathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 1:59 pm


Nathan – I unfortunately have to agree that indeed there are those who throw around “unbiblical” as an expected trump card when indeed their argument may be as weak, or even weaker, than those to whom they say it.
Nevertheless, truth can be known and it is true that some things coming out of MANY pulpits are indeed unbiblical and need to be called out as such because these ‘shepherds’ are paving the wide road to destruction.
So, bottom line, I’m with you. Funny you’ve got msnbc on your list.
Arni – “No one has a privileged access to truth so no one can condemn or even accuse anyone else of heresy.” Your statement is just begging to be asked, “Is what you said… true?”



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:01 pm


Scripture judges. It warns us against certain people, certain false teachings, and certain ways of living. It admonishes us to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and to make a defense for it (2 Peter 3:15). Jesus even called people “hypocrite” and “viper.”
Perhaps the truth of Scripture – a particular truth – is worth ascertaining and then defending. Perhaps this is so important – even more important than peoples’ feelings – that we have to reexamine our culturally-based antipathy for these activities.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:23 pm


“Unbiblical” isn’t a euphemism. It’s an assertion. To the degree it isn’t backed up by argument, it is a naked assertion, but it isn’t a euphemism. This post is a backdoor conversation about gays in the church.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:23 pm


Which Bible?
Which translation?
Which interpretation?
Since there are enormous variations between the languages and Bibles I think we need to agree, at a minimum on which Bible we are referencing.
Then and only then, can we discuss whether the circular logic of “the Bible says it is the word of God, therefore it is the word of God” applies…



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:24 pm


Ouch… No pun intended in the last post.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:29 pm


Like I believe that…you backed right up into that one, Kevin.
Which raises a good point. Why do conservative Christians have this fixation on anal intercourse? Are they jealous?



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm


Panthera,
Evidently, you would like to dispense entirely with Scripture, suggesting that everything about it is so uncertain??



report abuse
 

Korey

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:47 pm


Kevin: If I say “that’s unbiblical” in place of “you are a devil”, it may be an assertion about someone’s position (naked or not), but it also appears to qualify as a euphemism.
As for your backdoor comment:
Are you afraid someone might concede that a particular euphemism should be abandoned and in so doing abandon a previously held stance about gays in the church? Tony’s subtle manipulation is apparently opaque to all but the canniest of observers! muhahaha



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 2:50 pm


Daniel,
No, of course not. I am not a native English speaker, I don’t regard ‘your’ American conservative Christian interpretation of the Bible (hint, if it uses the word ‘homosexual’ it is a perverted, lying text) as God”s exclusive word. Why should I? The variations among the Latin, German, Elizabethan English and modern English texts are enormous, never mind that the conservative Christian Protestants somehow managed to lose entire passages of text compared to the Catholic versions.
Then, of course, we have the ‘version’ from the LDS. How does that line go again, oh, right, he ‘forgot’ where he put the golden texts of God from that angel with the Irish name…
Answer my question, please and defend your choice. Then we can discuss what I accept and what I reject and why.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:12 pm


“Are you afraid someone might concede that a particular euphemism should be abandoned and in so doing abandon a previously held stance about gays in the church?”
On the first post, I predicted that this discussion would devolve into a proxy war over hot button issues. That seems to be where this is headed. Would Tony mind if a religious leader declared it unbiblical to ignore the poor?



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:14 pm


“Why do conservative Christians have this fixation on anal intercourse? Are they jealous?”
Jealous? No. Appalled? Yes.



report abuse
 

Greg

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm


New Testament teachings tend to move away from using static “laws” and into the realm of intentions and relationships — i.e. compassion and love.
So using the term “unbiblical” in an unloving manner might be considered unbiblical.
On the other hand, undertaking actions that harm others and lack a basis in love might correctly warrant the label “unbiblical.”
While all exegesis of the texts has a subjective basis — thus making literalism suspect — we can probably make ground by assessing an action or statement within the context of relationship.
Was our intention to harm (unbiblical) or to love (biblical)?
That may become too complex for snap judgments — but maybe that is the blessing of such an approach. Slows us up and makes us assess what it is we are really doing within the context of a (divine) relationship.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm


once again, i think the crux of the “euphemism” idea rests where we find the term used to mean something the one deploying the term isn’t intellectually honest enough to admit.
i don’t think the word itself should be totally excised from the english language.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm


Recourse the Big, I notice that 30-45 million Americans without health care doesn’t bother you. That nearly 20% of the children in the US are malnourished.
That America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, is the most violent of all the developed countries and is the only first world country in which every new generation is less well educated and has a lower standard of living than the one before.
I note, tho’, that nearly all the threads on Beliefnet which discuss homosexual rights and gay marriage inevitably devolve into conservative Christians freaking out about men having sex with other men. As if that were the sole rational for us wanting civil rights, including marriage. Your focus is far too much on this.
Not, as an even larger number of straights than gays can attest, that there is anything wrong with anal sex. I think it is just a strawman for you conservative Christians because your real problem is your insecurity. You’re afraid that you somehow aren’t really manly men unless you are dominating a woman. When a man shows love and affection for another man, when he lets another man into his body, that upsets your absurdly inadequate sense of self and so you get all hot and bothered.
That, I think, is the real problem here. You conservative Christians throw away Bible verses left and right when they don’t suit you. The thought that a man can still be a man and enjoy emotions, love, affection and having another man make love to him scares you to death.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:34 pm


@ Greg,
well said.
@ Recourse,
would it matter if such activity was going on between a man and a woman?
can of worms, I know…



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:38 pm


Greg wrote:
That may become too complex for snap judgments — but maybe that is the blessing of such an approach. Slows us up and makes us assess what it is we are really doing within the context of a (divine) relationship.
end quote
Excellent point, Greg.
The focus in American Christianity is far too much on bludgeoning those of us who don’t fit into the conservative, know-nothing, fundamentalist, ultra-nationalist camp into submission. There’s no room in our culture wars for anything but polarization. The moment someone claims for themselves the right to say who is and who is not a Christian, they’ve become unbiblical. They have elevated themselves to a god.



report abuse
 

Dave H

posted October 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm


Is no one capable of following through on a topic? I see a few trying, but overall it seems impossible to sustain dialogue on the issue raised in the original post.
I keep returning to this thread because, as a Mennonite, I am hoping to find some real and true consideration of the ways that Christians might use words (perfectly good words) as weapons. This is something my tradition takes seriously, completely apart from any doctrinal position any words may support or denounce. Some of us think no human word is worth preserving in and of itself if it is a ready weapon of coercion or division. I think this is the conversation Tony is trying to stir.
“Back doors.” Give me a break. I applauded Tony for coming out about his opinions on the place of LGBT folks in the church and share what I understand to be his view. But today I almost regret that he ever did, since now no one seems capable of thinking about anything else! I’m tired of the gayness! Can we give the gayness a rest for ONE DAY?!
Alright, well, I apologize for the cranky levels there.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 20, 2009 at 5:04 pm


@ Dave,
thank you for your clarity on this.
i think that people try to turn this into another opportunity to rag at Tony about his perceived hatred of Scripture is just more of the same behavior attempting to be addressed.
as the person who initially suggested “unbiblical”, i think it’s obvious the context in which i was using the word.
unfortunately, people have picked up the word to simply perpetuate in this thread the very problem.
no worries about cranky…



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm


Dave,
No need to apologize for ‘being cranky’. We are in the middle of a hot war here and, unfortunately, those of us who are gay are the flavor of the month for the conservative Christians.
They attack us with their laws, we hit back with superior (not hard) literacy, knowledge of the Bible and reason. Any and all topics across nearly all open Christian fora on most blogs are going to either stifle dissenting views or reflect more or less of this war.
I am sorry that my own contributions impede your learning.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 20, 2009 at 5:32 pm


Most Americans have healthcare coverage and are well nourished, and the incarceration rate is high due to the huge numbers from Democrat-run cities, which are like breeding grounds for criminal activity.
Trying to paint America as a third world nation is totally funny. Thanks for the giggle.
I suspect that gay issues and sex are inseparable. Have you ever been to a gay pride parade? It’s the epitome of sexual obsessive-compulsive behavior on display in public. Wow. Heteros would be arrested on the spot for such public displays of full nudity and sex.
Anal sex is for creatures who can’t seem to find a proper vagina.
Marriage among heteros is about complementarity of the species. In nature, the male and the female of a species have to cooperate together to keep the race alive and fully resourced. Gayness, like other sexual rarities, is an evolutionary blip away from the vast norms of nature.
Does it “scare you to death” to know that many people enjoy emotions, affection, and lovemaking with pets? It’s just sex, yes?



report abuse
 

Greg

posted October 20, 2009 at 5:59 pm


@Dave H
A salute to the Mennonites for keeping the peacemaking tradition alive.
John Paul Lederach is one Mennonite (who teaches at the Kroc Center for Peace Studies at Notre Dame) who I admire. Wrote a wonderful book titled The Moral Imagination.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm


Dave,
Goodness, the charity flowing from the conservative Christians here is simply enough to make even the most resolute atheist come running to join us Christians.
I think the only way to honor your request is to resign from this discussion, at least for a while.



report abuse
 

Drew Tatusko

posted October 20, 2009 at 6:36 pm


James towards the top uses the odd phrase “objective reader of scripture” as if there is a clear idea of what that is. This is not new. What happened, as any reader of American higher education history is aware, is that the Baconian understanding of science began to push the humanities and theology with it out of the mainstream of “useful” studies in colleges and emerging universities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But rather than stay the course, biblical studies that rejected biblical criticism in terms of a literary achievement, began to apply Baconian science to the Bible. This system rejected the idea of a hypothetical construct in favor of sticking to whatever presented itself to the senses in an assumed transparency of objectivity.
So the idea is built on a long since undermined scientific notion of objectivity that scientists no longer recognize. So-called “high biblicism” is nothing more than an assumed late 19th century understanding of scientific objectivity and because we no longer give this way of seeing things scientific credibility, much less rational credibility in the arts and in literature to be sure, it remains anachronistic and backward.
This idea of “high” biblicism is nothing more than an outdated and absurd scientific view that tries to make the Bible more “scientific” and objective. It is therefore quite ironic that those who follow this path ignorant of the wondrous depths of scripture beyond a false notion of objectivity bound for failure will adamantly oppose current scientific discourse rooted in the scientific method of hypothesis and theory testing! It is the same old worldview that must reject the revolution of scientific discourse that happened many decades ago. Not to embrace what “high biblicism” actually is, is merely to invest one’s self in ignorance.



report abuse
 

Ryan

posted October 20, 2009 at 7:04 pm


Or unbiblical could simply mean…unbiblical? I know that sounds radical but this is kind of a tired way to pursue Tony just because your ideas have been pinpointed as recycled liberalism.
I really do not mean to be combative, it is not my point. But I am tired of your constant attitude of being less than generous towards those who hold to historic orthodoxy. If you do not want to then fine, but to act like those who do live in fear of old liberalism is just giving yourself too much credit. For the most part it is apathy.
I read your blog because I want to see my blind spots and be challenged, but the bitterness that has oozed through your posts of late has even ruined that.



report abuse
 

Dave H

posted October 20, 2009 at 9:40 pm


@Greg Thanks for bringing up Lederach, he is an important voice for building peace and finding our way through conflict toward something that builds community rather than tears down persons.
There’s a tradition in Mennonite thinking that wrestles with how words, when used as instruments of control, can denigrate BOTH parties in an argument.
Take for example the phrase “high view of scripture” — this is a perfectly fine phrase if it is used descriptively as a way of finding common language to move toward mutual understanding or even persuasion.
But if the phrase is used as a way of wresting control of the conversation by unilaterally defining the terms of debate, or by masking true meaning, which i think is what bothers Tony about the common use of this phrase, this eliminates the possibility that arguments can be resolved through reason toward peace.
In these cases, arguments are often “won” by rhetorically boxing in opponents and controlling the terms of debate. For example…
“You don’t have a high view of scripture, which is a pre-requisite to being taken seriously as a Christian, therefore I win.”
The opponent may protest: “No, wait, I DO have a high view of scripture, please reason with me in those terms so I may be freely persuaded to your point of view, rather than defining me out of the conversation.”
To which the weaponized rhetorician may reply: “Nope, you don’t have a high view of scripture, I win because I get to insist that’s what you are.”
This denigrates both parties, by victimizing one, and making a bully of the other.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 21, 2009 at 12:27 am


“But today I almost regret that he ever did, since now no one seems capable of thinking about anything else! I’m tired of the gayness! Can we give the gayness a rest for ONE DAY?!”
It would be easier to think of something else if he used a different example. But he didn’t, did he?



report abuse
 

Mere+Christian

posted October 21, 2009 at 8:02 am


@Pathera,
The very use of that username shows how unbiblical it is to have the celebration of homosexuality and it’s adherants anywhere near a Church.
How utterly comfortable you are with proclaiming that intense insult. But bashing “Bible-beleiving” people is something that cannot be disconnected from the worldly. It is simply a fruit of it.
///
And on other matters of reality:
No matter the word for it, same-gender sex acts, same-gender unions OR same-gender marriage find no support or encouragement anywhere in the New Testament. Gay Pride parading, exists solely IN the world. Gay whatever being a main goal of neo-theologians.
Obviously “Emergent” is just another neologism to hide the “powers and principalities” drooling in the dark to crush the Church and squeeze out of it fresh young people. Permissiveness is as attached to the emergent movement as it is with all secular social clubs desiring access to Church people.
Liberalism (no matter the pretty politically correct paint that covers it), which declares its heresy by its fruit, shows how this 21st century social club is Unbiblical. It’s just another flesh satisfying party.
Unbiblical, as in provably UnChristian. As in UnGospel, UnApostolic and UnHealthy for the Body of Christ, (AKA The Church).
By their fruit you will know . . .
Emergents have come not knocking on the door of The Church, but rather sneaking in over and around them. And when expelled for the nastiness they possess, start acting the victim.
How truly telling that is.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 9:31 am


@ nathan, just because one CAN stick a reproductive organ in an open body cavity, that doesn’t mean one should. The anus is there to expel last night’s burrito. Mother Nature has not designated it as an organ of sexual reproduction.
@ Panthera, the reality is that gays are the ones attacking heteros with laws that impose gay marriage when none has ever existed. You are the political aggressors, not us. You may have started this fight, but the heteros are going to finish it. There are more of us than you, and in power politics that matters.



report abuse
 

Tom LeGrand

posted October 21, 2009 at 9:32 am


“The very use of that username shows how unbiblical it is to have the celebration of homosexuality and it’s adherants anywhere near a Church.”
Are you serious? I don’t know about “celebrating” homosexuality in the church…but I know of many Christians who don’t want homosexuals–celebrated or not–anywhere near the church. If I’m understanding your line of thinking, you are basically saying that the sin of homosexuality is so egregious that it must have a 100 yard restraining order from church gatherings.
This means one of two things. One, homosexuality is worse than other sins and must be judged more harshly. Since that is “un-Biblical” (Yeah Tony I said it!), then it must mean that all sin/sinners must be excommunicated from the church.
Great. Now I can sleep in on Sundays.
I am not clear on all the dynamics and semantics of how the traditional church should handle this issue. But one thing I do know: Christ would not kick them out, and would certainly not speak to them with the vitriol that many Christians do. If your goal is to keep homosexuals from getting anywhere near the church, then you have a very strange view of the church’s mission.
The New Testament says more about how we speak and gossip than it does about sex (of any kind), alcohol, drugs, and marriage combined. How many gossips have you kicked out of the church lately?
“Emergents have come not knocking on the door of The Church, but rather sneaking in over and around them. And when expelled for the nastiness they possess, start acting the victim.”
The Church goes well beyond traditional buildings and ecclesiastical structures, neither of which are endorsed anywhere that I can find in the Bible. Your ecclesiology is weak and…dare I say it?…un-Biblical. Perhaps Emergent or other ideas that might be outside the box got tired of trying to change things from the inside, so they felt the need to have a branch of The Church that was willing to hear some different voices. And to assume those voices are not Christian is an awfully arrogant view.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 21, 2009 at 10:41 am


Chiming in just briefly – I really want Dave to be able to have his discussion – my name is Panthera. First born children on my father’s side of the family have been named Panthera for several hundred years. I like the name quite a bit as it reminds me of a favorite relation.
The nastiness above is a reference to a made-up story which conservative Christians love to tell as an example for the blasphemy of pagans and all others who don’t define their love of God through hatred. Supposedly, a Roman soldier by that name is the father of Mary’s all-too-human child.
Total BS and a really grave insult, both to me and to all Christians who put God first and not the Republican agenda.
I demand an apology!



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 11:00 am


Tom, you said: “Christ would not kick them out, and would certainly not speak to them with the vitriol that many Christians do.”
But Christians are absolutely required to firmly assert and teach the immorality of various acts. This becomes even more imperative when a special-interest group wants to redefine immoral acts a moral and upright.
This generation’s homosexuals are on the warpath to make deviant forms of human sexuality normative and even celebrated in public. Rather, proper psychology is to be ashamed of our sinful acts.
And yes, gossip should be openly rebuked; but so should homosexual acts and other sexuality that is oriented away from family life and the dignity of the human person.
Sins matter. What we DO, matters. Life can be heaven on earth only when we reduce sins and increase proper justice and charity towards all.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 21, 2009 at 11:40 am


@ recourse:
what if both a husband and wife receive pleasure and joy from such an activity?
is it still out of bounds?
if yes, why?
some people, like myself, it just doesn’t appeal to, but what about the people it does appeal to/work for/enjoy?
do you also draw the line on oral sex because of the primary functionality of the organ?



report abuse
 

the amazing rando

posted October 21, 2009 at 11:46 am


It would appear the Panthera has a “Higher” view of scripture than those she/he is attacking.
Tony, I’ve heard you say many times that you have a better interpretation of scriptures. If no ones interpretation can possibly be called “higher”, then there’s no point in conversation because everyone is right. You obviously don’t believe that.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm


Nathan,
Anal sex among heteros is an out-of-nowhere fading fad that was sold by homosexual activists and the pornography industry in the past decade of human history. It is a mere passing fad peculiar to our current time.
Anal sex among heteros is of political origin and is not something that arises from human nature. Therefore, when the politicization ends, it will end too. Our anuses are for excrement, and that common sense reality is gravity with regard to norms. Once the political (i.e., synthetic) push for anal sex ends, so does any significant usage of the anus for sex. (The percentage of heteros who misuse their anuses is statistically insignificant already, even with the political push to make homosexuality more “normal seeming” to everyone.)
By the way, I’m not in any way seeking to make gay sex acts among adults punishable by law, even though it’s objectively a misuse of human relations. (Caveat: STDs could perhaps require some health-related restrictions as needed.)
The mouth is never seriously suggested as a substitute for proper organic vaginal sexuality. It is usually a brief foreplay in preparation for and anticipation of nature’s prize: Attempted fertilization of the vagina resulting in conception. And, bingo, the human body thus succeeds in fulfilling it’s natural quest to replicate itself. This is God’s will and is woven into the deep structure of all living things.
As a philosophy, homosexuality is a denial of natural biology itself. Drafted into a new legislative norm, homosexual marriage radically and dangerously alters the core terms of marriage for heterosexuals.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm


@ recourse,
where do you get your data that establishes anal sex as a contemporary political phenomenon?



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm


furthermore, you’re not really answering the question.
i don’t think anyone is denying the primary use of the rectum.
but you’re not addressing what we are to make of those heterosexuals who receive, in fact, physical pleasure from said act.
is that pleasure not legitimate, real, a figment of the imagination, a pleasure forbidden?



report abuse
 

Larry

posted October 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm


where do you get your data that establishes anal sex as a contemporary political phenomenon?
Obviously, he’s pulling it out of his ***. Seriously, the Albigensians, who were also known as Bulgars, furnish us the root of the term “buggering”. The Albigensians, who were very, extremely, Gnostic in their view of the material world thought it evil to bring children into the world, so, if they could not resist the sexual urge, practiced anal intercourse to avoid conception. Anal intercourse has been used as contraception probably from the time humanity first figured out the sex-baby correlation.



report abuse
 

Larry

posted October 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm


I should add that the Albigensians were a sect that started in 11th century France. They were hardly a contemporary fad.



report abuse
 

Benjamin Burgess

posted October 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm


I agree, Tony there are some (professing)Christians who appear to have no patience nor love in teaching biblical truth. Paul tells us to:
“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” 2 Timothy 4
He also says I have become all things to all people so to win as many as possible for the sake of the gospel [1 Corinthians 9:19-23]. Let there be no “high views” nor “low views” of scripture. Rather let us celebrate that scripture when exegeted correctly is RELEVANT!!!



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm


@ nathan, anus sensory experience is real, as everyone who takes a dump knows. But it doesn’t logically follow that the presence of such sensory nerves are sexual, at least not any more than the presence of such sensory nerves in one’s inner ear.
@ Larry, assuming you’ve accurately described the Albigensians’ sexual behavior, we should remember that the Albigensians were driven to it not by Nature but rather *by their bizarre belief* that organic sexuality was evil and wrong because it brought evil matter into a universe comprised of evil matter. That’s wacko cult stuff there, and I could see how that might drive them to anal sex or perhaps even castration. If I’m not mistaken, the Albigensians also practiced the “virtue” of suicide for the same reason.
Any possible rise in anus use by heterosexuals today has been driven not by nature but by political propaganda and a robust marketing effort by the porn industry. Same goes for heteros now “trying out” group sex with men and women alike. This pornification is marketing-related and does not reflect true moves of nature. Nature hits back hard at all sexual libertinism, including good old heterosexual fornication) through rampant body-crushing diseases.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 21, 2009 at 3:23 pm


nevertheless, there are people who claim to derive great sexual pleasure from anal penetration.
it doesn’t follow that just because you and i wouldn’t like to engage in the act that there is nothing really there sexually for some people.
i just don’t know how you can make the claims you’re making…even “from nature” or “from design”…since such activities are enjoyed by some hetero couples.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 21, 2009 at 3:25 pm


at the end of the day, i think your “history” and “sociology” is fuzzy at best.
these things are not recent phenomenon…
as far as stats on how many hetero couples practice anal sex…where did you get your numbers?



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 6:57 pm


Nathan: nevertheless, there are people who claim to derive great sexual pleasure from anal penetration.
RTB: There are people who derive sexual pleasure from watching people assaulted on videos. Doesn’t mean it’s right. (Or does it?) Anyway, everyone knows the anus is a digestive organ and has never been labeled a sex organ or any part of sexual reproduction.
But this bring up a curious point on which you and I should be able to agree: sexual obsessives are capable of making anything into a sexual object, even things like mucus, blood, or an empty eye socket. To a pervert, everything becomes sexual, and even a pet horse may cause sexual arousal for some people. All these things were once reserved for abnormal psychology, but in a dying culture like the West the abnormal becomes recast as the new “normal” while seeking ever more insane abnormality. It’s a death spiral. Eventually it just eats itself until an orderly society with a masculine orientation comes in to conquer the land and kill off the mind-crazed population. Darwin was right.
You appear to have flunked biology 101, in which the reproductive systems of plants and animals is taught. (Hint: the human reproductive system is one of those systems, and it doesn’t include the anus.)
In nature, biological creatures with sexual reproductive systems are not known to have anal sex in any statistically significant numbers. Anal sex is simply a NON-nature concept. It’s akin to a biological or mental disorder.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 21, 2009 at 7:59 pm


I just took the time to read through this thread again. Probably a mistake, taken all in all.
Dave, I’m sorry. My experience here has been that there are a lot of good thoughts and discussion here, one must, however, take a very deep breath and keep asking us to return to the topic under discussion. I had hoped that upon my retiring from the discussion, the level of vitriol would decline and your quest (which is interesting to me, too) be joined.
At this point, I am at a loss as to where we should go from here. There is much to be said for Christians who are undecided on the issue of how to relate to gay Christians (and non-Christians in general, gay or no) being exposed to the passionate hatred and rejection which this thread has exposed.
This is reality for gay Christians in the US. This thread shows clearly the situation for us. Is this really what Christ wanted for us?



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm


@ recourse,
i hear your point. and i hear what you are saying in answer to my further questions.
i’m at a loss as to why it was necessary to be condescending/demeaning about my understanding of biology.
my point has been that people clearly see themselves as more than a biological system.
you clearly see that as necessarily perversion in this particular area.
thanks for answering my questions.
peace.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 11:47 pm


Well, Panthera, God revealed that he wants people to “be fruitful and multiply,” which means we are to reproduce our bodies with a person of the opposite sex.
We use our wills to select those people, mate, and remain loyal, no matter how challenging. For it is only natural that humans reproduce their bodies to the next generation, and it is right that those children be loved and cared for for decades by their biological moms and dads.
It’s a simple obvious plan really. So, will you obey God, or will you obey whatever natural desires you feel dominate your will?
It takes a lot of human will power to live a good life, but it’s worth the hard work.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 21, 2009 at 11:56 pm


Nathan said: i’m at a loss as to why it was necessary to be condescending/demeaning about my understanding of biology.
RTB: The answers to your question are right there in Biology 101, yet you don’t accept the scientific natural reality because, in your opinion, “people clearly see themselves as more than a biological system.”
The problem with homosexuality is that homosexual activists refuse to see people as part of the natural biological system. Homosexuality is a blatant open rejection of natural biology. But nature doesn’t allow a person’s refusal of reality to change reality. Nature is hard wired.
I didn’t mean to sound rude, but I was frustrated by your own interest in denying the Biology 101 reality of the human species as it relates to sexual reproduction in mammals.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 22, 2009 at 6:24 am


Recourse the Big wrote:
It’s a simple obvious plan really. So, will you obey God, or will you obey whatever natural desires you feel dominate your will?
endquote
The question is not one of obedience to God or following my own whims. Virtually the entire medical, scientific, legal and sociological disciplines are in agreement (all, except the consevative/fundamentalist/literalistic/evangelical/christianist ones) that homosexuality is not a choice, that one’s sexuality is immutable.
My monogamous, loving, faithful, true and loyal marriage and partnership of now 25 years is following my will, that is true. Our marriage is also God’s will.
Your analysis of biology, evolution, natural selection and human sexuality is not based on scientific study nor is it really in-line with Biblical evidence.
Think for a moment. Jonathan and David were lovers. Their devotion to each other is plainly there for all to read.
I fail to understand this obsession with anal sex, as long, however, as we are on the topic, I can affirm that it is quite possible to have an enormously enjoyable orgasm from no other stimulation than anal intercourse. The unity of two becoming one is just as real and just as valid as in any coupling, regardless of whether one, two or no penises are involved. Being held strongly and kissed passionately and deeply is more intimate than any intercourse, in any case…as anyone who has been so kissed knows.
I won’t go into anatomical detail here, your analysis of sexual activity is not in line with biology, not even remotely. Men and women have enjoyed anal intercourse all through time, it is not something ‘new’. Goodness, there are very many heterosexual men who enjoy having their female partners penetrate them, whether with finger or by other means. Two healthy people having gentle sex don’t transmit disease. There is nothing wrong about it, nothing unnatural.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 22, 2009 at 8:38 am


Panthera, you’re plain wrong about sexuality because you are in an absurd denial that sex is *sexual reproduction* – i.e., having and raising offspring with someone of the opposite sex.
Anyone can use their will to choose to have and raise a family if they are mature and come to see the beauty of that vocation. Plus, even if we reduced human sexuality to mere attraction (as you do) and forgot that sex is the body’s attempt to reproduce itself, we would note that even that one-dimensional approach is not an “immutable” one. We see all kinds of shifts in people’s attractions. So, you’re deceiving yourself and have forgotten that you have free will in addition to natural inclinations.
Next, your live-in relationship is not “God’s will” if by “god” you’re talking of the Judeo-Christian God. Perhaps one of the hindu gods is openly tolerant of homosexuality. Instead, you are living in sinful acts as much as any fornicator, adulterer, or zoophile. Turn from your sexual sins and God will accept you. Persist in them and He will condemn you for rebellion and hatred of His commands. (Hey, I have to live by that, too, so we’re all in the same boat here.)
I don’t care about the pleasure you have sexually in your anus. (Hell, one can have that with your own hand). Fact is, your body keeps trying to reproduce itself by ejaculating into an empty dry socket full of burrito, and so your body is facing extinction from the gene pool. (And all because you refuse to partner with a woman in life to raise up your offspring.) Thank God your unnatural urge to live that way is rare and not normative — otherwise the human species would die out completely.
Anal sex among heteros has never been common in history. Man’s nature is to stay away from the anus due to its waste function. People do not like contact with human waste. You might as well cut a slit in a person’s stomach and slide the penis in and out of that warm hole. I’m sure it would feel good, but it would be just as infertile and wrong-headed.
I’ve been to gay pride parades, and they are quite revealing. (Excuse the pun.) I’ve never seen so many sexual obsessives acting out on their obsessive compulsivity in one public space. It’s very aggressively perverted, and it reminds one of the Spirit of Sodom, where the gays wanted sex with God because he appeared at Lot’s home in male form.
Repent and select a woman of our species to raise a family with. You’ll find that lifestyle quite invigorating, too. Godspeed.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted October 22, 2009 at 10:04 am


@ recourse,
forgive me if I wasn’t being clear about where I was coming from and trying to get at.
It’s not so much that I deny the categories/analysis of biology.
I’m trying to get at how you suggest we engage these issues with people, on the ground.
I work full time in a faith community…so I’m always interested in how people would engage people, etc.
Like I posted before, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
It’s not often that people actually try to have a conversation about the “ethic of anal sex”. Most bolt out of discomfort…
peace.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 22, 2009 at 12:11 pm


I quote and respond in ().
Recourse the Big
October 22, 2009 8:38 AM
Panthera, you’re plain wrong about sexuality because you are in an absurd denial that sex is *sexual reproduction* – i.e., having and raising offspring with someone of the opposite sex.
(I certainly do see sex as embracing more than merely sexual reproduction. Sex, for instance, is one means of expressing my love for my husband and his for me. Since we are monogamous and have been together for 25 years now, I am aware that not everyone defines it that way, but that’s their problem. Were we to follow your logic, I note, however, that by your definition, the only time a man and woman may have sex is when they are a)mutually fertile and b)trying their hardest to have a baby.)
Anyone can use their will to choose to have and raise a family if they are mature and come to see the beauty of that vocation. Plus, even if we reduced human sexuality to mere attraction (as you do) and forgot that sex is the body’s attempt to reproduce itself, we would note that even that one-dimensional approach is not an “immutable” one. We see all kinds of shifts in people’s attractions. So, you’re deceiving yourself and have forgotten that you have free will in addition to natural inclinations.
(I do not reduce human sexuality to mere attraction. Hello, woke up every morning with this man for 25 years. He has taken care of my parents, I of his. He nearly lost his life defending me when I was attacked by conservative Christian relations. Your statement does not apply. As for raising a family, there is considerable evidence that families with gay offspring succeed better in bringing their progeny to adulthood than those without. Same as for families with grandmothers, by the way – which is why women lose their fertility when otherwise still biologically young. Your position is based on the false assumption that preservation the species is mandated for all members of that species, at all times. Nonsense.)
Next, your live-in relationship is not “God’s will” if by “god” you’re talking of the Judeo-Christian God. Perhaps one of the hindu gods is openly tolerant of homosexuality. Instead, you are living in sinful acts as much as any fornicator, adulterer, or zoophile. Turn from your sexual sins and God will accept you. Persist in them and He will condemn you for rebellion and hatred of His commands. (Hey, I have to live by that, too, so we’re all in the same boat here.)
(It is not a ‘live-in relationship’, thank you very much. We are legally married in our country and were also married by our church. Our sexual activities are between us, exclusively and do not involve any others, human, animal, mineral or plant. Jesus never said one word about gay sex.)
I don’t care about the pleasure you have sexually in your anus. (Hell, one can have that with your own hand). Fact is, your body keeps trying to reproduce itself by ejaculating into an empty dry socket full of burrito, and so your body is facing extinction from the gene pool. (And all because you refuse to partner with a woman in life to raise up your offspring.) Thank God your unnatural urge to live that way is rare and not normative — otherwise the human species would die out completely.
(You really need to do some research before you continue to harp on this issue. Heterosexuals have anal sex, gays have anal sex, lesbians have anal sex. There is quite a bit of statistically relevant data (I won’t yet call it evidence) that when my husband ejaculates in me, my body benefits directly from the various hormones and other components of his semen. There is no basis to your contentions, nor is anal sex the be-all and end-all of gay love. We kiss, we hug, we stroke, we massage, we comfort we cuddle, we take care of each other when one of us is ill. I am beginning to wonder if you have ever read about Jonathan and David? American conservative Christians as a group have problems with male bonding, but if it’s in the Bible, you don’t get to reject it by your lights. I can not offer a woman the same passionate desire I bring to my husband, why should I burden her with something cold and unloving? Abusurd).
Anal sex among heteros has never been common in history. Man’s nature is to stay away from the anus due to its waste function. People do not like contact with human waste. You might as well cut a slit in a person’s stomach and slide the penis in and out of that warm hole. I’m sure it would feel good, but it would be just as infertile and wrong-headed.
(Goodness, you have a, shall we say, interesting imagination. Just as a woman keeps her vagina clean, so must a man or woman who wants to have anal sex keep their anus clean. Not that hard. I might add, from what I read in women’s magazines, the vast majority of heterosexual men present their women with penises which could use a bath, to put it delicately. Again, this obsession with anal sex, what is your problem? Again and yet again, do some research. Straights have been buggering each other forever.)
I’ve been to gay pride parades, and they are quite revealing. (Excuse the pun.) I’ve never seen so many sexual obsessives acting out on their obsessive compulsivity in one public space. It’s very aggressively perverted, and it reminds one of the Spirit of Sodom, where the gays wanted sex with God because he appeared at Lot’s home in male form.
(Honestly, shall I answer that with a strip joint for straight men? Comparing normal gay men to the guys who are out celebrating in costume is as foolish as my saying the Pope wears a skirt. And it’s lavender, too. I don’t dress up, neither does my husband and, frankly, none of the gays and lesbians and transexuals whom I am acquainted with do, either. At 6’2″ and built like a brick outhouse, I just couldn’t carry it off.)
Repent and select a woman of our species to raise a family with. You’ll find that lifestyle quite invigorating, too. Godspeed.
(You are seriously suggesting I abandon the love of my life, my husband to go impregnate a woman whom I am incapable of feeling more than Philos towards? Not happening. God blesses our union regardless of what your Christian sect thinks. Not all Christians believe as you do. We don’t for instance.)
I am curious, just how, exactly do you conservative-fundamentalist-evangilical-literallistic-innerant Christians pick and choose which Bible verses to believe? The same for your take on modern science? Seriously, how do you decide what aspects of reality to ignore?



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm


errata:
Your position is based on the false assumption that preservation the species is mandated for all members of that species, at all times. Nonsense.)
Sorry, I meant to write: Your position is based on the false assumption that preservation of the species is predicated on all members of the species producing offspring.)



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm


Peace to you, Nathan.
The truth is that the gay discussion isn’t really a hot-button issue at all in the U.S.A. *until* we start speaking about laws — specifically, what will the law of marriage be for all citizens, and what are to be the terms of that legal contract. That’s when the matter gets red hot.
Heterosexuals need the marriage law to say very specific things if spouses and their children are to be protected from the economic and personal devastation of easy divorce. Trying to accommodate always-infertile gays and wildly fertile heteros *under the same law code* can’t be done effectively, for the unions are entirely different and produce entirely different social units. The two different groups need two separate legal codes.
But I don’t want to go there at the moment. The truth is, most American christians are satisfied with allowing gays to do what they want in the privacy of their own lives. But marriage is a legal matter that applies to everyone, and so redefining it is gravely problematic and devastating to heterosexuals.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 22, 2009 at 1:54 pm


O-ha, that argument.
Already been proved wrong, in none of the now 23 countries treating s as fully human has there been any change in the status of straight marriage just because we are finally extended the same civil rights as everyone else.
Your beef is with the no-fault laws, not with us. Goodness, Massachusetts has fewer divorces than the red states. Same with most European countries and Canada.



report abuse
 

Recourse the Big

posted October 22, 2009 at 2:06 pm


But Panthera, the problem is that you don’t view sex as pertaining to sexual reproduction at all. You can’t, for two homosexuals can’t carry out together what their bodies are seeking: namely, to reproduce themselves into children. Therefore, Nature requires you to partner with the opposite sex, yet you refuse to listen to Nature and your own body’s quest to reproduce itself. Your view of sex is entirely lacking the core essence of what sex is for all creatures: an attempt at reproduction and subsequent parenting.
You are simply failing to recognize that you are a biological creature like all other biological creatures.
I obviously do not have any beef with the mutual brotherly care you and your partner have. That’s all very good, and in fact this level of caring is ideal for Dads and sons and any bonded close male friendships, really. But that love is different from the complementarity of male/female, and the partnership there which reproduces your bodies into shared progeny to whom you are responsible for life. You and your man can never have that, for your bodies aren’t made to accommodate that. And yes, preservation of the species is the normative vocation of every living creature. And you refuse to participate in that grand calling.
The God of Holy Scripture does not recognize your “marriage” as valid any more than you validate “marriages” in India between women and certain animals (gods). Yes, these inter-specie marriages really exist, but I bet you don’t honor them as valid.
There is no science at all to back any physical function/benefit of gay sex. It is not part of the reproductive system or any system. Your man’s semen are swimming around in you desperately trying to locate an egg! His body is trying to reproduce, but your “marriage” prevents it and ensures his genetic extinction from the human gene pool. (And vice versa.)
King David was not gay. Stop the revisionist history twaddle.
Next, your comment about “not being able to offer a woman the same passionate desire…” shows a complete failure to understand what marriage is among heterosexuals. The most passionate, steamy, romanticized Hollywood marriages last mere months. But for the rest of us heterosexuals, marriage is about partnering to raise a family, which simply doesn’t revolve around romantic passionate desire. So, you certainly theoretically *could* be a perfectly good spouse to a woman. And you misjudge the bond that would develop with her via sharing life’s daily chores and struggles and fears and triumphs. There are deep natural human bonds there that would form no matter *what sexual appetites* one has.
The reason gay pride events are so shockingly out of control to any objective observer is because we men are hyper-libidinous. And what’s harder to control than ONE hyper-libidinous male? Two. (Or three, or more.)
Finally, whether or not you (Panthera) are willing to change your ways hinges upon your answer to two things: (1) Are you going to allow your body to fulfill it’s reproductive and co-parenting mission with a female of our species, and (2) Is God an omnipotent being whose Sovereign Will must be obeyed upon penalty of damnation?
I don’t know about you, but I both love *and fear* God, as is constantly discussed in Holy Writ. I have plenty of urges of my own that run afoul of the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I do not want to find myself an enemy of God and must submit to an infinitely superior Supreme Being.
But I do wish you well on your journey and have to say that I’m sure we would like each other apart from our disagreement about marriage. I’m sure your partner is a great guy, and I never belittle genuine care between people.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted October 22, 2009 at 5:00 pm


I think we’ll just have to leave it at that, then.
There is quite a bit of scientifically falsifiable research which shows that homosexuality occurs throughout the entire animal kingdom, especially in mammals.
Makes perfect sense to me (obviously), after all, God created evolution and natural selection to perpetuate the species not the individual. There is not basis for believing that we are all called upon to reproduce, there is basis for preserving the species.
I certainly understand the difference between the “honeymoon” phase of a romantic relationship and the real love that only grows through friendship and bonding together over time. Since I am, however, certainly not going to commit fornication by cheating on my husband and as I am incapable of feeling even the tiniest bit of eros for a woman, it just isn’t in the books. I like women. But sex with a woman?
No. Not even if I were not married.
As to the gay parades, I could link here to the love parades in Europe or to any number of straight stag parties. That is not the point. Since we are monogamous (as are many gays, you just don’t notice us in the US), I just don’t see the connection.
And yes, my husband is a great guy. He was willing to defend me with his own body and nearly died for it. Wow.



report abuse
 

Ed

posted October 31, 2009 at 11:43 am


Sure, lets get rid of the idea that anything could possibly be unbiblical for any reason whatsoever. The entire idea of having to be biblical places way too much pressure on me. And I hate pressure. So we can say that it is unbiblical to use the “euphemism” unbiblical. First of all, it seems to me that you need an accurate definition of the word “euphemism.” So here you go: “the use of a word or phrase that is less expressive or direct but considered less distasteful, less offensive, etc. than another.”
I think that someone who views a position as unbiblical, and has the guts to say so, is not being soft or indirect. In fact, it seems to me that they are being exceptionally direct in their assessment of a particular position. This sort of directness is found in Jesus Christ, Paul, John, Peter, in fact, this sort of directness is found everywhere in both the Old and New Testaments. But don’t let that little fact stop you from euthanizing it. Heaven forbid you would seek to follow Paul’s pattern! The term “unbiblical” is NOT a euphemism in any sense of the word. It is used to describe one’s view of a position. Regardless of whether or not that person’s opinion is correct or not, that is their view. And I bet you that even you too think some views are unbiblical also, don’t ya? For instance, the practice of strapping a bomb to one’s person in the name of God is one I bet you think is an unbiblical belief and certainly an unbiblical view. This kind of semantic hypocrisy screams loudly that one is either just a rebel for the sake being a rebel, or they are simply and exceptionally misinformed.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted November 1, 2009 at 2:03 pm


Ed,
Try reading Tony again, this time without the assumption that he is the devil incarnate. That is not what he is saying, at all.



report abuse
 

nathan

posted November 2, 2009 at 12:40 pm


semantic hypocrisy?
where?
Tony is speaking about a particular deployment of the term. He’s calling for the cessation of that deployment…



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 8:44 am


“Unscriptural” is better. “Not scriptural” is best.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 5, 2009 at 8:52 am


Panthera
October 22, 2009 5:00 PM
…my husband is a great guy
———————————————————–
The Word of God is clear that “marriage” is the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.
If he’s a dude and you’re a dude, and you claim that he’s the husband, what are YOU? You can’t be a wife. Therefore, your union cannot be a Godly union.
Where, in the Word of God, do you find the union of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, Godly? Try making a scriptural case.



report abuse
 

Kris Sovereign

posted May 14, 2014 at 1:36 am


LinksSites of attention we contain a connection in the direction of… Log inside of in the direction of Response



report abuse
 

Leonore Raygosa

posted July 17, 2014 at 9:39 pm


Thanks for some other informative blog. Where else may I am getting that type of info written in such an ideal means? I’ve a undertaking that I’m simply now operating on, and I’ve been on the glance out for such information.



report abuse
 

credit repair companies

posted July 30, 2014 at 12:38 am

credit repair debt

posted August 19, 2014 at 10:51 pm


Very good information. Lucky me I came across your site by accident (stumbleupon). I’ve saved it for later!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

My Blog Has Moved
Dear Readers, After a year with Beliefnet, I've decided to move to my own domain for my blogging.  It's been a fine year -- some things worked, other things didn't.  But in the end, I'll be a better blogger on my own.  My thanks to the Bnet editorial staff; they've been very supportive. Ple

posted 12:13:57pm Nov. 13, 2009 | read full post »

The Most Important Cartoon of the Year
By Steve Breen, San Diego Tribune, October 18, 2009

posted 8:51:22am Oct. 25, 2009 | read full post »

Social Media for Pastors
Following up on Christianity21, we at JoPa Productions are developing a series of boot camps for pastors who want to learn about and utilize social media tools like blogging, Twitter, and Facebook.  These are one-day, hands-on learning experiences, currently offered in the Twin Cities and soon

posted 10:45:52am Oct. 22, 2009 | read full post »

Ending Christian Euphemisms: "Fundamentalist"
I've taken some heat in the comment section for using yesterday's post on "unbiblical" and a "higher view of scripture" as a thin foil for my own disregard of biblical standards. To the contrary, I was pointing to the use of the word unbiblical as a stand-in for a particularly thin hermeneutic. Ther

posted 10:15:41am Oct. 21, 2009 | read full post »

Why You Should Get GENERATE
Last week at Christianity21, GENERATE Magazine debuted. With the tag line, "an artifact of the emergence conversation," it fit perfectly at the gathering. When I actually got around to reading it last weekend, I was truly surprised at how good it is.There have been several efforts to begin a paper j

posted 3:14:37pm Oct. 20, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.