The cat on the mat went to Babylon. For best results, click "page" and start "From Fillion, The Study of the Bible..."

When discussing hypothetical shifts of sexual orientation, Fern's April 14 post is worth remembering--

I think it would be helpful to stop thinking of 'gay' and 'straight' as absolutes.  It's more meaningful, particularly in the context of assessing the efficacy of so-called conversion therapies, to think of human sexuality as a line with 100% heterosexual at one end and 100% homosexual at the other.  Most people will cluster around one or other of the ends but a significant minority are spread along the line.  These people are generally bisexual in that they are able to have close emotional and physical relationships with both sexes.  I strongly suspect that it is this group of people who are successfully 'converted' which means, in their case, that they are more drawn to heterosexual behaviour than homosexual and that they are able and willing to suppress same-sex attractions because they derive greater benefits and satisfactions from being, to all intents and purposes, heterosexual.

I do recognise that this isn't snappy enough to fit on the average double-decker.

Since the middle of the last century, measures of sexual attraction have been psychometrically validated for just such a range of variation. Fern's bit of reality should modify some arguments on both sides.

At one end, it suggests that some persons near the heterosexual end of the spectrum may indeed want help in wrestling with what they view as mere temptation. It is hard to see a principled objection to this. To those cases, it is not relevant whether far more homosexual persons ever shift all the way across the spectrum to pure heterosexuality.

To those in the middle, it is relevant to the question how one maps a binary moral concept onto a human continuum. Where would one draw the line? And are these "orientations" stable? Some have speculated that there are more women than men in the middle of the range, occasioning some women to spontaneously shift rather far in the heterosexual direction as they feel the urge to reproduce. This has posed an obvious problem for many lesbian couples in what they had expected to be permanent attachments..

At the other end, the existence of a homosexual range of the scale indirectly suggests that some really will have especially great difficulty with change along this dimension, which is just what countless gay men have described. This lends weak support to the hypothesis that homosexuals are a "natural kind" as philosophers of science understand that concept, which poses the question how this is seen in relation to God's creative intent.

I have not seen good data on the distribution of these measures, either for men or for women, in general populations.

Hi DavidW-- Thanks for reading 18 pages! What is most refreshing about the transcript beyond this link is that the speaker is both clearly motivated to do something to help gay people, and also reading the scriptures in a traditional evangelical way, although not without carefully considering the alternatives. And he is speaking to an audience of others who share both concerns. This is not a prophet in the wilderness; this is the voice of a reformed evangelical constituency that I have not heard elsewhere.

It would take an essay to unpack all that is going on in that complex meeting-- part of the launching of a new evangelical presbyterian denomination in the US-- but it does represent a missing voice in our discussions-- people for whom an evangelical way of reading the scriptures does not permit them either to abandon the gay people in their lives, or to upend the readings of scripture that anchor their own lives in a crazy world.

What was most striking to me was his critique of the Church's response to the AIDS crisis as a deep failure when judged by gospel criteria. He goes well beyond the usual minor concessions that "yes, people should not be so mean" to suggest that, in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, this mission failure is reason for change in the church, as any other sustained mission failure would be. Ecclesia semper reformans semper reformanda. Indeed, the new denomination that posted this on its website is reforming rather a lot. Next week, hopefully, I'll be able to post something about that for the critiques of the discerning villagers.

His brilliantly simple approach to the problem of dealing respectfully with persons who do not know the way is also worth considering. Debatable--  are things different when we are dealing with those who differ in where the way is?

DavidW

The issue of the thread is as advertised. If you think there is another issue we would be better discussing, then you are quite at liberty to start a thread for it. It is quite clear to me from your last response to me that you do not profess to be interested in the topic of this thread - you are quite at liberty not to post on topics which you don't want to discuss.

My invitation to you to say something about what you think it meants ti understand someone else remains - not to understand what they say, or what they mean - but to understand the person. If you need a Biblical idea to ground your reflection, Jesus becoming fully human - the incarnation, might be one. God did not just speak through the words of the prophets but came in bodily form. What does that mean for the way in which we are invited to know (Biblically also love) God, neighbour, each other, our enemy?

Mark

It does not however address the meaning of marriage, 

Dave

Well David W

I am glad you read what I said and took it seriously. People are different, God created people as you state man and woman, but lets not bypass that in Genesis it says that woman was from within the man . (ie rib) That is what the word says, on the seperation they developed their own characters. Yes man was to be the hunter and women to carry children, but that all went out the window with the first granny smith(apple)

It is not loving to shout the word at people in judgemental terms. It is loving to say ok Gods intention was this but the intention was not fulfilled from the beginning, now we need to worship as God loved us before we loved him, and because he loved us he gave us free will, he did not dictate you will love me you will worship me and if you dont i will ignore you or kill you, which is what humanity does to the gospel.

It is destructive to be telling people that they need to repent of being themselves before God gives them a hearing, it is not true, the truth is God loves his creation of which homosexuals are part.

It is crucial, we come to God from imperfect people in an imperfect world with underdeveloped understanding and a misunderstanding of desire, but we can understand this important point, we make mistakes all of us, we often intend not to make them again and we often do, but the way we are born cannot be a mistake unless through medical negligence. It is not a mistake when a man lies with a man as you put it ok as you say the bible puts it, because it is the mind and spirit which we give to god and in the mind and spirit of the homosexual they are a woman in some instances inside, in the same way as eve was inside adam or for that matter men are inside women before they are born.

Yes of course it may not be ideal or in the natural order of the perceptions of the way things should be, but well we are a disorderly race, it is when we come before the lord we put some order in our lives.

People who make judgements are not loving people they are being egotistical, and we all do it.

There is this chorus

In my life lord be glorified x3

In your church lord be glorified x3

In our world lord be glorified x 3

How is it glorifying God to say , when you believe you are the lowest of the low and of no worth at all until you become a cloned version of my perception of humanity and Gods love?

Though i am not worthy to eat the crumbs under the table I am going to eat the whole loaf. Because Jesus is the bread of life.

Angela

This calls forth my empathy.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/25/video-coalition-for-equal-marriage-releases-beautiful-viral-campaign-film/

Bowman,

Thank you for the linked article. I have got to page 18 and can subscribe to it! Its a very good article indeed.

 Is it a start? 

Mark Bennett,

The issue of the thread should not be trying to understand one another, but trying to understand God. Better still for believers, seeking to follow Christ.

Nonetheless one of the views expressed by some of us on homosexuality, is the Biblical one held by the overwhelming majority of Christianity.

Having presented what the Biblical testimony says, why do you not understand the motives? Are believers not motivated to have faith and believe in God and His word?

Hope that helps you understand.

Origen Adam,

Is bigotry and closed-mindedness worse than shouting homophobia and complaining then? 

As to your judgements, Christ taught that His disciples love Him and know the truth when they seek to do and obey what He teaches. If you have other ideas about Christians then that is up to you. But it isnt one I am going to buy into. There are disputable matters, but simply denying all and every condemnation of a sin means its not a disputable matter and the Pope will tell you the same. It is also the position of the Anglican Communion.

Angela,

You wrote "I am disappointed that we cannot accept that people are different" We are not different Are we not all men and women? Do we not all fall short of God’s glory? Is there neither male nor female in Christ or not? What you are saying is based on the idea there are categories of people based on sexual attractions. There is nothing in God’s Biblical testimony about that. Sure we all have different sinful desires more than others but I try to see people as God sees them and not different. In God’s testimony there are two categories of those who are in Christ and those who are in Adam, otherwise it is man and woman.

And no there is no call to Christians to recognise or acknowledge categories that humans have created. Our message is about the truth of God’s creation, if people are entitled to choose whether they believe it or not we are entitled to present it dont you think?

When you refer to destructive behaviour what do you mean?

Also what is all this about loving and caring for people again. Who isnt and in what way? Accepting what is contrary to God’s purposes is not loving people, loving people is first loving God.

Also what do you mean by forgiveness? Presenting the gospel is presenting God’s forgiveness through Christ is it not?

Blessings to all villagers! Wherever you stand on That Topic, please take a look at the transcript beyond this link. The presenter is an evangelical Presbyterian pastor who has ministered in the San Francisco Bay Area. His compassion for gay people goes considerably beyond anything that I have heard outside of the gay community itself. He grounds his presentation in the scriptures. He explains his reasoning. He speaks from experience as a pastor who knows the complexity of human situations to others who are responsible in them. He is decisive, but not arbitrary. I cannot think of a villager whose concerns are not somewhere addressed in this transcript. Conversely, I see challenges for all positions in his words. In those ways, this transcript should fulfil some of Stephen's expectations for this thread. Read and pray.

I stumbled across this whilst making some inquiries for Stephen's other thread on ecclesiology. And in that frame of mind, it seemed to me that, whilst most parts of Christendom are experiencing the rift over homosexuality as an analogue to the "culture wars," there are some who are making creative use of the crisis to think carefully and prayerfully about what has gone awry in the way churches serve the Lord. There, rather than cycles of recrimination, one finds the fresh energy and goodwill to return to focus on the Lord's will for the present day. It is possible to think in that way and feel, not stuck in a morass, but freed of a burden and called in Him to something better. 

DavidW, the "issue of this thread" is trying to understand one another. I have asked you a number of questions I consider to be fair on this forum, which are as yet unanswered, and which would help me to understand you. I think your point of view is clear, and I understand that, but I don't understand what motivates you to express it in the way you do, or the interpretative processes you allow yourself, and how those processes relate to the ones you disallow for other people.

I wonder, given your last post, whether you are more concerned to understand Angela and Bowman on this subject, or alternatively to tell them that they are (in your strongly held view) wrong. If you are simply trying to tell other people with whom you disagree that they are wrong, I think that you have departed from the advertised topic of this thread.

Maybe you could post a short reflection on what it might mean to understand someone with a different point of view from your own?

Mark