News-Record.com

I hope to live long enough to see the day when the issue of sexual orientation is ignored as much as skin color. I sure expect that I won't live long enough to see the day when both are ignored completely, but at least there's hope for a bit of progress.

It's not a matter, I don't think, of a few chosen passages from the Bible that are holding us back from a more mature view of the issues. I think it's more a matter of people using those few verses to justify their fears of the "different" ones. What is sad is there's nothing to fear there.

Eric:

Under an atheistic worldview, why should any of this matter? Who cares if we mistreat each other? Aren't we all going to just die and end up as worm food? Of course, the worms will ultimately die too! Who decides what mistreatment is anyway?

"Under an atheistic worldview, why should any of this matter? Who cares if we mistreat each other?"

[sigh]

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods. Period.

What leads one to "care" about humans is the philosophy of humanism. This states a pretty obvious basic tenet -- that humans should care about what happens to humans. Call it enlightened self-interest, perhaps.

The thing that interests me in conversations with folks is that there are secular humanists, and theistic humanists. Both groups may come at the problem from different starting points, but they arrive at the same destination: the desire to make the human condition the best that can be managed.

This is why I can get along so well with many religious folks. The believers who are, like me, humanists share an awful lot of my views.

So... are you going to comment on the actual issue here, or are you going to try to drag the thread away from the subject at hand?

Eric:

I'll stay on topic first and then respond to your other comments. First, I think the choice of words is at least in poor taste. However, the Bible should be the the source of information for making these types of decisions in a CHURCH body. You are an outsider trying to judge an in-house debate. That's like me trying to enforce a prescribed prayer at your "Free Thinkers" meetings.

What's this SHOULD business ("humans should care about what happens to other humans")? That sounds like a moral rule to me. Where did that rule come from? Why should I obey it?

"First, I think the choice of words is at least in poor taste. However, the Bible should be the the source of information for making these types of decisions in a CHURCH body. You are an outsider trying to judge an in-house debate."

Yes yes. I know I'm not as "churchy" (if I may coin a useful term) as you. Being a faithful church member for 20 years and attending chuch as often as I do now are meaningless, no doubt.

My comments, however, were aimed at a human problem known as xenophobia, which you appear to have a healthy dose of. I only come on this board to share my view of the truth. If I'm wrong, please explain why I'm wrong, but don't give me this "You're wrong because you don't belong here in our club" business. That dodges the issue at hand.

The issue, as I see it, is one of societal norms. When I was growing up, "interracial relations" was a huge taboo, and I knew several people who could quote Bible verses to support that stance. In fact, I know a fair number of such folks even today. Women voting was a totally unthinkable concept a century ago, and there were Bible verses used to justify that ban. Then there's the whole thing about slavery...

Now tell us all. Why should gays be kept from church leadership today, knowing that biblical support for bans are as fluid as they are known to be? Or if you like, tell the church members who are reading this board. I'm certain they would enjoy reading your spiritually-obtained wisdom on the subject.

Eric:

So now you label anyone who disagrees with you as having a mental disorder! Name-calling is the pettiest form of discourse. I was hoping you were above that.

Maybe if society says murder is alright, the church should just enlighten itself and get with the times. Yes, the church and Christians have made errors in interpreting and applying God's Word over the centuries. Many verses are taken out of context to justify evil and false teaching. It drives me crazy when believers do it and when nonbeleivers do it.

I know that you go to church with your wife. Are you a MEMBER of that church? I go to a lot of football games; that doesn't make me a fullback! Which church is it? Do they have a website so I can get an idea of their beliefs and mission?

Believers are supposed to act differently from the culture. We also have the right to govern ourselves. If you are a MEMBER, you can voice your opinion and vote as well. And if you disagree with the decisions and the beliefs of that church, there are other churches all over the country to attend that may hold views closer to your own. They may be in error in those views, but you can still go if it makes you feel more comfortable.

You still didn't answer my question about where your moral rules come from and why I should obey them.

"So now you label anyone who disagrees with you as having a mental disorder!"

Do you even know what xenophobia is? Using a term derived from the Greek language for a common frame of mind isn't "name-calling," sir. Honestly, are you going to address the concept I offered to discuss, or are you going to go back to chest-beating and whining over my choice of words?

I mentioned several issues where the church has changed stances. You seem to have claimed that those were errors in interpretation. Why are you so certain that today's interpretation is so much more correct than during the times of those other errors?

Eric:

Xenophobis according to Wikipedia:

"Xenophobia denotes a phobic attitude toward strangers or of the unknown. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self. For example, racism is sometimes described as a form of xenophobia. In science fiction, it has come to mean "fear of extraterrestrial things." Xenophobia implies a belief, accurate or not, that the target is in some way foreign. Prejudice against women cannot be considered xenophobic in this sense, except in the limited case of all-male clubs or institutions. The term xenophilia is used for the opposite behavior, attraction to or love for foreign persons.

The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition ("DSM-IV") includes in its description of a phobia an "intense anxiety" which follows exposure to the "object of the phobia, either in real life or via imagination or video..." For xenophobia there are two main objects of the phobia. The first is a population group present within a society, which is not considered part of that society. Often they are recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, or in the worst case, genocide.

The second form of xenophobia is primarily cultural, and the object of the phobia is cultural elements which are considered alien. All cultures are subject to external influences, but cultural xenophobia is often narrowly directed, for instance at foreign loan words in a national language. It rarely leads to aggression against persons, but can result in political campaigns for cultural or linguistic purification. Isolationism, a general aversion of foreign affairs, is not accurately described as xenophobia."

A phobia is an abnormal fear, in other words, a mental disorder.

You cite the passages and I'll be glad to give you an interpretation.

I'll answer your questions when you stop avoiding mine.

"A phobia is an abnormal fear, in other words, a mental disorder."

This looks like equivocation to me. I used to have arachnophobia. Once upon a time, spiders scared me half to death, for instance. Would you consider that fear "abnormal"? Most folks see it as sensible, and certainly not a "disorder." Xenophobia is not necessarily a mental disorder, unless you start to accompany it with harmful behaviors, like attacking outsiders for no discernable reason. For most, it's something that leads to avoidance... and that's just sad more than a "disorder."

"You cite the passages and I'll be glad to give you an interpretation."

I don't have any passages I want interpreted by you, thanks. I was only asking why you think this desire to exclude gays from church life is correct when other exclusions have been (as you described them) "errors"?

"I'll answer your questions when you stop avoiding mine."

Ask me a question that's on topic and I'll do my best to answer. If you want to discuss questions of the basis for philosophy, it might be best to e-mail me. Take it easy, sir.

Eric:

Let's look at this passage for starters:

1 Corinthians 6 (NASB)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Does this seem unclear to you?

Ok, I'm well aware of the verses that are used to justify the exclusion of gays from church. I know what Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy have to say on the subject, and what the letters attributed to Paul say as well.

But that wasn't the main point of my question. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned, yet the support of Christianity for slavery is seen as an error. Now, in the 1850's there were many a Christian who would point to the very same books in the Bible you're using, and look up passages about slavery and ask the very same question you have asked me. You say they were in error. How do you know you're not in error yourself? Or perhaps, can you be sure that mainstream Christians fifty years from now will not see your use of the Bible as an error?

Eric:

How do you know you're not in error about me being in error?

How do you know in 50 years that your comments on this blog couldn't be interpreted as you agreeing with me that homosexuality is a sin and practicing homosexuals should not be permitted as leaders in the church?

If I'm in error about the passage I've cited, show me where there is room for equivocation in it's interpretation.

If you want to show me the passages on slavery, I can look at them. I think slavery was PERMITTED (not necessarily encouraged by God) in the same sense that divorce was PERMITTED, but not encouraged.

Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?
And as a follow: A heterosexual was elected bishop last week, with the gay candidates, for whatever reason, getting only a handful of votes.

Nancy:

I appreciate your blog. I have no personal problem with Eric or his right to express his views. I merely question his reasoning in some of these areas. I actually enjoy the dialogue to a certain degree, but his evasiveness is sometimes frustrating.

Thanks for giving us a forum for dialogue.

It seems the vitriol level has ratcheted up as the weeks ahve gone by. Eric's guest spot for "Faith Matters" seems to have added fuel to the fire.
It is probable non-believers are destined to be objects of scorn permanently in these parts. As a former true blue Yankee, I must say it was never exactly easy from high school through young adulthood wherever I have lived, but the South earns its reputation as intolerant of reasoned discourse on matters of religion or doubt thereof. That is a shame. I do not seek to ridicule, and do not see cause for such from any quarter.
See my other post on another thread for the perfectly innocent joke a U.S. Congresswoman told at atheists' expense.

As to the gay clergy issue (or laypersons, for that matter): I presume any club that wishes to set up rules for inclusion and exclusion are allowed to do so. If other members want to change the rules, there are procedures for doing so. Otherwise, the dissenters are free to start a new club or switch allegiance to another. Ditto if one can't abide by the rules of a nation, short of criminal acts (nonviolent civil disobedience, though, is a fine tactic for affecting the consciences of others), one may leave unfettered.

So what's the fuss? I only figure people have confined themsleves into thinking there is only one club they ever want to be in. Self-limiting behavior. Unproductive. I assume Eric doesn't see "atheism" as a club, though.

"Self-limiting behavior. Unproductive. I assume Eric doesn't see "atheism" as a club, though."

Indeed not. If I did, I would be hard pressed to claim many friends at all, and I would miss out on a LOT of stimulating, enjoyable times. Life with friends of whatever religious stance is too short to waste bickering...

"How do you know you're not in error about me being in error?"

I don't know if you're in error, Biblically. My point is that every era has resulted in "right" and "wrong" holding some slightly differing meanings in many areas of human life. It's an evolving set of standards.

"How do you know in 50 years that your comments on this blog couldn't be interpreted as you agreeing with me that homosexuality is a sin and practicing homosexuals should not be permitted as leaders in the church?"

I'd be hard-pressed to see how that might happen, but it's not likely to be a problem that will concern me. Time will tell, I guess.

"If I'm in error about the passage I've cited, show me where there is room for equivocation in it's interpretation."

Oh I agree with you that your proof texts look quite straightforward. I'm no scholar in Greek or Hebrew, either, so I must plead ignorance. Any further information in that regard would be welcome by me... I would hope you'd want to know the details if the translation you use was flawed in any way, eh?

"If you want to show me the passages on slavery, I can look at them."

Uh... tell you what. I'll paste in here the passages I can glean from a cursory scan of my notes. You can look up the verses in your spare time and respond using whatever medium you care to. How's that?

Ex 21:1-8 Ex 21:20,21 Ex 21:26,27 Lev 25:44-46 Num 31:25-30 Deu 15:12-18 Deu 20:10-18 Jos 9:22-27 1 Ki 9:20,21 2 Chr 8:7,8 Prov 19:10 Prov 29:21 Is 14:1-2 Lk 12:37-40 1 Cor 7:21 Eph 6:5-9 Col 4:1 1 Tim 6:1,2 Tit 2:9,10 The book of Philemon 1 Pet 2:17-19

It's a fair number of things in the Bible that either codify the practice of slavery or were written with the assumption that it was a "natural" institution. Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to my notes on the Catholic version of the Bible, but if memory serves, there's nothing there to contradict my contention.

That is that there is not a single word there that I've found or had pointed out to me that condemns slavery. How can support of slavery be considered anti-Christian if no one, not even Jesus, said a single word against it?

"Nancy:

I appreciate your blog."

Hear hear!

"I have no personal problem with Eric or his right to express his views. I merely question his reasoning in some of these areas. I actually enjoy the dialogue to a certain degree"

Aw man! I enjoy conversing with you a lot. Sure, there are rough spots, but I see you as one of the more decent, mature adversaries I've encountered here. I usually enjoy seeing what you have to say, though I get a bit annoyed over some of your little quirks as well. Cheers!

Eric:

Thanks for returning the kind words.

The translation I use is the New American Standard Bible. It is one of the most literal translations. I leaves most of the interpretation up to the reader. Accuracy is important to me, although there is some sacrifice in readability in some areas, especially the epistles.

I will make this one comment about Jesus not condemning slavery. First, it was not His mission to destroy the institution of slavery during His time on earth. Second, do you think everything He didn't expressly condemn, He approved of?

Later, dude.

If someone is discriminated against, in ANY venue, due to whom that one is intimate with is a disgrace. It also short changes the person/group that discriminates. Because someone with great ability may be overlooked and/or excluded.

What a shame in the name of the risen Christ!

Shalom

Darryl:

So the church should not discriminate against murderers or rapists or thieves or adulterers, etc. who want to serve in leadership positions? Is the only moral rule that's important to you "Thou shalt not discriminate"?

ECUMAN, are you without sin in your life?

Shalom,
Darryl

Darryl:

No, I am NOT without sin. That is why when I committ sins, I REPENT. I try not to rationalize them. I try not to bow to political correctness. I try to submit to the word of God.

If these were FORMER homosexuals (non-practicing) that were trying to assume positions of leadership, I wouldn't have a problem with that (assuming they met the same qualifications as everyone else in leadership positions).