Major DC character to come out of the closet

[lester1/2jr]

this is just my opinion (obviously) but if you look at the ten commandments, lke 5 of them are variations on thou shall not steal. don't covet they neighbors house or his wife, etc 

So what is homosexuality stealing? i think the perception at the time was that these were people who were shunning marriage in favor of just sexual release withuot the consequence of pregnancy. I think now we understand homosexuality is something else.

what is a gay person stealing from anyone? a possible spouse? would you want your son or daughter to marry a homosexual of the opposite sex?

I guess this could be interpretted as a "liberal" interpretation of the bible but i think bible has to make some sort of sense. You can't just follow it blindly because what if it's the Antichrist talking?

[indianasmith]

If you look at the New Testament, God's design for human sexuality is monogamous, heterosexual marriage.  While polygamy was tolerated in OT times, there is not a single case where a polygamous relationship made for a positive family situation.  Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon all had grief from their plural marriages.

Biblically speaking, I think that the reason homosexuality is condemned is because it violates God's created order.  He made man and woman, and bound them together for life.  Whether homosexuality is inborn or learned, I believe it is still emblematic of the broken and scarred nature of the world we live in.  All of creation has been warped out of God's original design, and will remain warped until the world is made new.

That is a purely Christian and Biblican interpretation of the issue.  If you beleive in neither Christianity nor the Bible, then obviously it will make absolutely no sense to you!

[Allhallowsday]

...That is a purely Christian and Biblican interpretation of the issue.  If you beleive in neither Christianity nor the Bible, then obviously it will make absolutely no sense to you!

You're ducking.  That is one "purely Christian and Biblical interpretation".  Nonetheless, you make little, if absolutely no, sense. 

[indianasmith]

To you, at least!


I think you will find that what I posted represents the general thinking on the subject of most evangelical American churches.   Not asking for any agreement here, just trying to explain why many Christians feel that way.

[AndyC]

I know many of them like to think they own exclusive rights to the name, but evangelical American churches ain't the only Christians. Your basic position doesn't really bother me, but the little assumptions that casually find their way in there do make me wince a bit.

[indianasmith]

That's why I said many Christians, not all.  Granted, I've spent my life in the evangelical community, so I do sometimes take our view for granted as being representative of Christendom.

My bottom line is that Scripture should be the only true guide for doctrine and practice.  It's all we have that comes to us straight from the Apostles of Jesus.  I try to toe the Scriptural line on what I say, and what I do (with less success at the latter.)

Sorry for the wince!

[lester1/2jr]

indiana- but again what is the reason behind the admonition against homosexuality? What is someone who is being gay taking from someone else or themself?  I'm trying to understand the purpose of the rule against homosexuality and it makes no sense to me.  I can see why you shouldn't kill or steal.

[indianasmith]

I'll just be perfectly honest - I DON'T KNOW. 

Except that God made the human race male and female and intended man and woman for each other. That is made clear in both Testaments of Scripture.  Homosexuality tends to fly in the face of that.  It essentially tells God "I reject your created role for me and choose another."   But in the end, what  it all boils down to is whether or not one believes Scripture is inspired of God or not.  If you believe the Bible is nothing but a quaint old book written by men, then it has no binding authority over you at all.  If you believe it to be the inspired word of God, then you have to try to obey it, whether you fully understand or not.

[Mofo Rising]

That is a purely Christian and Biblican interpretation of the issue.  If you beleive in neither Christianity nor the Bible, then obviously it will make absolutely no sense to you!

Of course it makes sense. This decree against homosexuality isn't exactly rocket science as far as Christian dogma goes. It's not like we're talking about something as abstruse as the concept of transubstantiation. I may be completely irreligious, but that doesn't mean I don't understand theological arguments.

I should say that many homosexuals I know are still devout Christians. In fact, most people I know are devout Christians. I understand you're part of a community (one of the best benefits of religion), but I think that your particular brand of Christianity may not be as widespread as you think it is.

More importantly, we're discussing homosexuality in a polite, almost academic sense. This is not the way it plays out in the world. We're living in a society where homosexuals in a committed relationship are denied what should be basic rights, such as visiting somebody in a hospital when they are dying. We are living in a society where people are beat to death for being gay.

Theological arguments about brands of Christianity are fine, but lets not pretend they are merely academic. Homosexuals are not free to live their life without the intrusion of people who think they live their life "wrong." This is an election year, we're all going to hear a lot about gay marriage.

This is not a polite discussion, it's an active (and incredibly damaging) imposition of belief.

[AndyC]

I'll just be perfectly honest - I DON'T KNOW. 

Except that God made the human race male and female and intended man and woman for each other. That is made clear in both Testaments of Scripture.  Homosexuality tends to fly in the face of that.  It essentially tells God "I reject your created role for me and choose another."   But in the end, what  it all boils down to is whether or not one believes Scripture is inspired of God or not.  If you believe the Bible is nothing but a quaint old book written by men, then it has no binding authority over you at all.  If you believe it to be the inspired word of God, then you have to try to obey it, whether you fully understand or not.

There goes that all-or-nothing philosophy again. You either believe it's the inspired word of God, 100% factual, literal and directly applicable to every situation regardless of circumstances or what your own conscience tells you is right, or it's just an old book to you. Little assumptions that are ignorant or possibly dismissive of what many other Christians believe.

It also strikes me as a bit of a straw man against anyone with a different theological view.

Other person: As I understand the scriptures, that doesn't make sense. (Suggest another interpretation or closer analysis)
Indy: If you aren't a Christian, it won't make sense to you, but those of us who believe in the Bible have to obey it.

Big jump there.

[indianasmith]

100% inspired word of God - absolutely.
100% factual - not always.  It contains parables, stories, analogies, and poetry.
100% literal - again, there is symbolic language, figures of speech, etc.
Applicable - not every verse applies to every situation, but there is a verse for every situation.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but there is not a single positive reference to homosexuality in the entire Bible.  It is not something that comes up in every book or passage of Scripture, but everywhere it is mentioned, it is mentioned as a sin that is displeasing to God.

It's not some flowery, apocalyptic poetic verse, the New Testament's teachings about homosexuality are always found in passages where the author is listing various sins that are displeasing to God.  So if the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, then it is apparently wrong about a great deal of sins.  Adultery, for instance - nearly every passage that condemns homosexuality condemns adultery as well!  So are we to assume that the Bible is wrong about that?  That God has changed his mind in the last two thousand years about the institution of marriage?  What about idolatry, greed, theft, murder, and covetousness?

You may accuse me of an "all or nothing" mentality, but to say that the Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality are wrong, or mistaken, or due to errors in interpretation is to open up every single moral teaching of the New Testament to question.  There are Scriptures which are cryptic and open to our interpretation. Ask six different pastors about the "Beast" of Revelations and you will get six different answers.  But the Biblical teachings on sexual morality are pretty darned clear and simple.

Mofo, as far as I am concerned, "partner benefits" for committed gay couples are fine.  I have no issue with that. But a homosexual relationship is not and can never be a true marriage as far as I am concerned.

[AndyC]

100% inspired word of God - absolutely.
100% factual - not always.  It contains parables, stories, analogies, and poetry.
100% literal - again, there is symbolic language, figures of speech, etc.
Applicable - not every verse applies to every situation, but there is a verse for every situation.

Not what I'm talking about, and I think you know it.

Adultery, for instance - nearly every passage that condemns homosexuality condemns adultery as well!  So are we to assume that the Bible is wrong about that?  That God has changed his mind in the last two thousand years about the institution of marriage?  What about idolatry, greed, theft, murder, and covetousness?

You may accuse me of an "all or nothing" mentality, but to say that the Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality are wrong, or mistaken, or due to errors in interpretation is to open up every single moral teaching of the New Testament to question.

The old slippery slope. That takes us back to Lester's point. Those other things are clearly harmful. There is a victim, or at least some understandable consequences. Once again, we are dealing in absolutes and over-generalization. We have a few passages condemning something that is not harmful in and of itself, and these passages are used as justification to abuse, bully, insult and discriminate against people because they happen to be different in something that is really none of anyone else's business. It's apples and oranges. To say that questioning those passages will put all morality in jeopardy is a big stretch.

What does put the whole Bible at risk over a few small passages is the all-or-nothing mentality. I can think of two groups of people who promote it where the Bible is concerned - evangelical Christians and Atheists.

I have no issue with that. But a homosexual relationship is not and can never be a true marriage as far as I am concerned.

That's what it really boils down to, and you have every right to feel that way. Just don't make it a prerequisite for being Christian.

[indianasmith]

There are a lot of things that Scripture condemns that don't hurt others.  But they hurt us, spiritually, by removing us from God's will and rejecting His plan for our lives.

Obviously, we don't and won't agree on this.  But I think my way of thinking is closer to what Christ's apostles actually taught.

[alandhopewell]

RC, you are my friend, and it's good that you are redirecthing this thread to its original topic. The only thing I will say in contradiction to your last post is that Christ taught love, not tolerance.  When they brought him the woman taken in the act of adultery, He drove off her accusers and forgave her.  But He did not say "Go and sleep around some more."  He said "Go and sin no more..."

JESUS also said "...give to CAESAR what is CAESAR's..." and I know the rest, but that's enough.  The Romans were dominators, oppressors, rapists and killers.  JESUS most definitely preached tolerance.   Sometimes, he chose to give good advice.

...As a man of partial negroid genetics, I never found Ebony White disturbing. So he spoke thus....so what? He was a fully realized character, who sometimes had more of a hand in solving a case than Denny Colt did.

     Better that than some of the nihilistic urban gyrations that pass for "black" today.

I do appreciate your candor; which early on I had mistaken for a kind of racism.  I think there are problems in "Black" America that are cultural... and probably in "Gay" America, too.  Just about ANY America I think of as a matter of fact.  And of course you've shared some of your heritage with us, even your photo. 
Yet, I feel sad.  Why do I feel you are hating on yourself?   

     AHD, I appreciate YOUR candor, as well. However, the only parts of myself I "hate" are my shortcomings as a person.
Many years ago, when Dr. King (and Jesus, and my grandfather) exhorted us to live as if race were irrelevant (which it is; blue cup, red cup, it's a CUP) I decided to behave in exactly that way . I don't care if the other six billion, eleventy-million folks on the planet think race is important....it isn't.

     I hate behaviors, not people, and I believe that bad behavior is bad behavior regardless, and the Involuntary Boat Ride
Defense does not excuse it. I don't lump myself in with such people, nor do I count myself as "better" than them; I am better than such behavior, and so are they.

[Jim H]

Many Christians make way too big a deal about homosexuality

I think that's the most important thing to note in American Christianity and the gay stuff.  There's an almost hysterical overreaction to gays, and I find it completely baffling.  There are so many other behaviors just as equally or more strongly argued against in the bible (it really does have only a relative handful of mentions), that the singling out of gays by the evangelicals and others in the USA should give anyone thinking clearly pause.  

It's obvious something more is going on here.  A lot of it is something cultural filtered through the religion, I suspect.  Not sure exactly what is going on beyond that though.