Homosexuality, Culture, and Theology

[TAKODA]

So...

 

You haven't watched these videos, you have no idea what they say and you're making claims about them based off supposition, but you're judging me because I've... done the same thing?

 

Imma go out on a limb and say that's kinda weird, broseph.

 

And since neither you nor I have watched those videos, based on the "narcissistic zero" stance I've read Mr. Chandler taking toward members of his church who criticize him, I'm going to go ahead and feel pretty comfortable sticking to my belief of intolerance in these videos.

 

OK, now I am confused Knapp, there was no disclaimer on this post?

[tschu]

Wow @ those videos, playing "good-cop" from the pedestal of moral superiority. It's fascinating watching him trying to invent things about sociology and about human sexuality and spinning them into a nonsensical defense of how being homosexual is inherently an intentional offense against his mythical sky being

 

Can the church just die already

[The Dude]

Which means, that HE, YOU, or I are just as guilty as the person next to us regarding sin. Thats it. We are all sinners.

Sin? Seems like one of those things daft humans made up a long time ago, and a bunch of other daft humans thought "yep, that sounds right", without questioning it in any sincere manner.

 

I propose that none of us are sinners, and there's no such thing as sin. There's evil people that do evil things, but they have to earn that distinction.

[Ulty]

Yes.

 

No.

 

This guy isn't advocating for acceptance or tolerance of gays. He's just trying to soften the rhetoric about it. But still homophobic.

 

I listened to the first few minutes of video #2 up there. He's addressing the "pro-gay" arguments and how a modern churchgoer can diffuse them. The first one was that it doesn't matter that homosexuality doesn't hurt other people, it's a problem because it violates god's law. The second was how you can judge someone else if you are a sinner yourself. Well, that doesn't matter because as long as you are repentant, it's okay to judge someone else as much as you want. He goes on to try to find ways to debunk or counter any reason he could think of to actually accept homosexuality. He uses terms such as "lifestyle choice," "secular humanists," and "pro-gay." He's a homophobe who's using the bible to justify his bigotry, just like so many others. This guy is vile.

 

I looked him up a little more just to make sure I wasn't off base.

 

From this: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6798/megachurch_pastor__we_re__american_al_qaeda__for_opposing_homosexuality

 

 

Like Chandler, Giglio said homosexuality was not a focus of his ministry. But notice what he didn’t say. He didn’t say that his views had evolved since the 1990s. He didn’t say that he no longer thought gays and lesbians were hell-bound. He didn’t say that the dreaded homosexual agenda had ceased to be a threat to these great United States. He just reminded everyone that he hadn’t said that in a while, as if opinions have expiration dates.

 

The trick is to oppose homosexuality without appearing to be a bigot. Mark Driscoll, the founding pastor of Mars Hill Church, which has 14 campuses in four states, once answered a question about the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality with the following syllogism: sex outside of marriage is wrong, God said marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore gay sex and gay marriage are wrong. But he was quick to name-check other sins and to note that he had been a “fornicator,” i.e. sexually active while single, back before he was saved. “I will not be baited into picking on homosexuals,” he said.

 

But why not? I grew up in conservative evangelical churches in the 1980s and heard homosexuals picked on from the pulpit, and those pronouncements were not cushioned by several paragraphs of qualifiers. But the atmosphere is different now. Chandler doesn’t believe Christians are going to win this battle, if winning is defined as convincing the majority of people that you’re right. Even James Dobson said recently that it may be time to shift strategy, that the polls showing support for gay marriage among younger demographics ensured eventual defeat. James Dobson!

 

 

He doesn't promote acceptance or tolerance, he promotes changing the rhetoric so it's not so inflammatory, because they still want to get out a hateful message against the rising tide of equal rights. Well, I propose that he and any other homophobes go another step further and, if you are unwilling to change your views, don't just soften your words, just STFU about it altogether and keep your bigotry under wraps.

[Scratchtown]

 

Yes.

 

No.

 

This guy isn't advocating for acceptance or tolerance of gays. He's just trying to soften the rhetoric about it. But still homophobic.

 

I listened to the first few minutes of video #2 up there. He's addressing the "pro-gay" arguments and how a modern churchgoer can diffuse them. The first one was that it doesn't matter that homosexuality doesn't hurt other people, it's a problem because it violates god's law. The second was how you can judge someone else if you are a sinner yourself. Well, that doesn't matter because as long as you are repentant, it's okay to judge someone else as much as you want. He goes on to try to find ways to debunk or counter any reason he could think of to actually accept homosexuality. He uses terms such as "lifestyle choice," "secular humanists," and "pro-gay." He's a homophobe who's using the bible to justify his bigotry, just like so many others. This guy is vile.

 

I looked him up a little more just to make sure I wasn't off base.

 

From this: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6798/megachurch_pastor__we_re__american_al_qaeda__for_opposing_homosexuality

 

 

Like Chandler, Giglio said homosexuality was not a focus of his ministry. But notice what he didn’t say. He didn’t say that his views had evolved since the 1990s. He didn’t say that he no longer thought gays and lesbians were hell-bound. He didn’t say that the dreaded homosexual agenda had ceased to be a threat to these great United States. He just reminded everyone that he hadn’t said that in a while, as if opinions have expiration dates.

 

The trick is to oppose homosexuality without appearing to be a bigot. Mark Driscoll, the founding pastor of Mars Hill Church, which has 14 campuses in four states, once answered a question about the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality with the following syllogism: sex outside of marriage is wrong, God said marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore gay sex and gay marriage are wrong. But he was quick to name-check other sins and to note that he had been a “fornicator,” i.e. sexually active while single, back before he was saved. “I will not be baited into picking on homosexuals,” he said.

 

But why not? I grew up in conservative evangelical churches in the 1980s and heard homosexuals picked on from the pulpit, and those pronouncements were not cushioned by several paragraphs of qualifiers. But the atmosphere is different now. Chandler doesn’t believe Christians are going to win this battle, if winning is defined as convincing the majority of people that you’re right. Even James Dobson said recently that it may be time to shift strategy, that the polls showing support for gay marriage among younger demographics ensured eventual defeat. James Dobson!

 

 

He doesn't promote acceptance or tolerance, he promotes changing the rhetoric so it's not so inflammatory, because they still want to get out a hateful message against the rising tide of equal rights. Well, I propose that he and any other homophobes go another step further and, if you are unwilling to change your views, don't just soften your words, just STFU about it altogether and keep your bigotry under wraps.

 

If you watch the Q and A session. Chandler actually says this same thing. He actually says "If you don't genuinely love the person (In brotherly love), than just shut the hell up and stop making a mess of things"

 

 

[strigori]

 

Which means, that HE, YOU, or I are just as guilty as the person next to us regarding sin. Thats it. We are all sinners.

Sin? Seems like one of those things daft humans made up a long time ago, and a bunch of other daft humans thought "yep, that sounds right", without questioning it in any sincere manner.

 

I propose that none of us are sinners, and there's no such thing as sin. There's evil people that do evil things, but they have to earn that distinction.

 

Sin. Its a control device for the mindless sheep. "Sin" tends to not be in violation of laws, but its the 'catch all' to make sure every person 'needs to be saved' from themselves. Original sin even exists as a concept so the infant who cant take actions beyond basic functions of living, needs to be saved.

 

And even getting directly into what these kinds of guys are saying "Being gay is no different than any other sin" dropping being gay into the same lot as felonies. How very compassionate.

 

"Evil" can even be an interesting concept if someone is believing in a being that knows all, sees all, and has a master plan.

[walksalone]

I feel as if the point has been missed.

 

All sin is equal, which, is what he is saying.

 

Which means, that HE, YOU, or I are just as guilty as the person next to us regarding sin. Thats it. We are all sinners. It's the misconception of homosexuality being "OK" which what drives this topic.

 

If society felt that it was ok to be a liar, with no condemnation, then LYING would be the topic at hand. However, its not because we all agree that lying is bad.

 

The reason why this (homosexuality) gets the misconceptions of being OK is because of it not being laid out in bold letters "HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG" even though the Bible does clearly explain this situation. Sexual Immorality is where this gets grouped in.

 

The same as:

Sexual Promiscuity

Incest

Adultery

Beastiality(spelling?)

etc.

 

Wasicu...

 

[The Dude]

"Evil" can even be an interesting concept if someone is believing in a being that knows all, sees all, and has a master plan.

 

I don't think it's necessary to the concept. We as a society can decide that, let's say - murdering people, is bad. It's doesn't require a supernatural being of any sort.

[Junior]

I feel as if the point has been missed.

 

All sin is equal, which, is what he is saying.

 

Which means, that HE, YOU, or I are just as guilty as the person next to us regarding sin. Thats it. We are all sinners. It's the misconception of homosexuality being "OK" which what drives this topic.

 

If society felt that it was ok to be a liar, with no condemnation, then LYING would be the topic at hand. However, its not because we all agree that lying is bad.

 

The reason why this (homosexuality) gets the misconceptions of being OK is because of it not being laid out in bold letters "HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG" even though the Bible does clearly explain this situation. Sexual Immorality is where this gets grouped in.

 

The same as:

Sexual Promiscuity

Incest

Adultery

Beastiality(spelling?)

etc.

 

Ron Brown approves.

[tschu]

Ron Brown can STFU too. Nobody cares.

[JJ Husker]

A couple observations.

 

1- It is apparent that people who do not believe in a higher power or the concept of sin have a problem with anything being considered a sin by others. Not sure why this issue generates so much interest from those folks. This whole issue exists in a realm they don't acknowledge or believe in. But, it does make the conversation much more lively.

 

2- I find it slightly amusing that some people whenever somebody like this Chandler guy tries to explain why some people feel homosexuality is a sin yet the only comeback necessary in these peoples minds is to say "STFU" or there is no such thing as a sin. Newsflash, you're not helping reach any higher level of understanding or tolerance or middle ground by shouting someone down with "STFU" or telling them how their beliefs are mythical and stupid and unenlightened. IMO, that is worse than some of these holier than thou loud mouths who want to do nothing more than dwell on "other" peoples sins.

 

3- Yes it annoys me also that so many of these supposed and so called "Christians" dwell on the issue of homosexuality. I can only say that I personally have much more concerning sins of my own that I commit than to focus on what some other people may or may not be doing. I'll let God decide their fate and whether or not what they're doing is a sin. In the end, his is the only opinion that counts anyway. Sin is a concept of God and only able to be defined as such by him. When mere humans start trying to do God's job for him things are bound to get f'd up.

[The Dude]

A couple observations.

 

1- It is apparent that people who do not believe in a higher power or the concept of sin have a problem with anything being considered a sin by others. Not sure why this issue generates so much interest from those folks.

 

If that's where it stopped, and wasn't used to justify discriminatory laws and policies, then I imagine it probably wouldn't generate as much interest.

 

I do wonder if this "issue" is discussed as much in places that aren't as hyper-religious as the United States. Or if it's only an issue because religion makes it an issue.

[The Dude]

2- I find it slightly amusing that some people whenever somebody like this Chandler guy tries to explain why some people feel homosexuality is a sin yet the only comeback necessary in these peoples minds is to say "STFU" or there is no such thing as a sin. Newsflash, you're not helping reach any higher level of understanding or tolerance or middle ground by shouting someone down with "STFU" or telling them how their beliefs are mythical and stupid and unenlightened. IMO, that is worse than some of these holier than thou loud mouths who want to do nothing more than dwell on "other" peoples sins.

I do see where you're coming from here, and agree to some extent. At the same time, it does sort of illustrate why the "does God exist" debate is important. If you're going to use your God to justify doing anything that affects others, then you better damn well prove He exists.*

 

Otherwise, yeah, STFU until you come up with good reasons to discriminate or condemn.*

 

 

 

*Not saying "you" specifically, but speaking to the point in general.

[knapplc]

A couple observations.

 

1- It is apparent that people who do not believe in a higher power or the concept of sin have a problem with anything being considered a sin by others. Not sure why this issue generates so much interest from those folks. This whole issue exists in a realm they don't acknowledge or believe in. But, it does make the conversation much more lively.

 

2- I find it slightly amusing that some people whenever somebody like this Chandler guy tries to explain why some people feel homosexuality is a sin yet the only comeback necessary in these peoples minds is to say "STFU" or there is no such thing as a sin. Newsflash, you're not helping reach any higher level of understanding or tolerance or middle ground by shouting someone down with "STFU" or telling them how their beliefs are mythical and stupid and unenlightened. IMO, that is worse than some of these holier than thou loud mouths who want to do nothing more than dwell on "other" peoples sins.

 

3- Yes it annoys me also that so many of these supposed and so called "Christians" dwell on the issue of homosexuality. I can only say that I personally have much more concerning sins of my own that I commit than to focus on what some other people may or may not be doing. I'll let God decide their fate and whether or not what they're doing is a sin. In the end, his is the only opinion that counts anyway. Sin is a concept of God and only able to be defined as such by him. When mere humans start trying to do God's job for him things are bound to get f'd up.

 

All of this boils down to "I believe it's true so you should, too" and that's where the problem lies. If I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster teaches us that we should only eat meatballs for every meal, and anyone who doesn't is a sinner, and I start passing legislation outlawing any other food than meatballs, you're going to start having a problem with that, right?

 

At what point does my meatball zealotry become a non-starter for you? When I talk about it? When I preach that those who don't eat meatballs every meal are sinners? When I post about it incessantly on forums? When I complain about intolerance by those who tell me to STFU about my meatball proselytizing? When I create a series of national laws based on Meatball Acceptance?

 

Or are you saying you're always always always going to support me, even after I get the All-Meatball/All-The-Time legislation passed?

 

Because I'm guessing you're going to start some pushback before we get to the legislation stage.

 

Or have I read you wrong?

[Ulty]

2- I find it slightly amusing that some people whenever somebody like this Chandler guy tries to explain why some people feel homosexuality is a sin yet the only comeback necessary in these peoples minds is to say "STFU" or there is no such thing as a sin.

No, "STFU" is not the only comeback to it, but when the only justification for degrading homosexuality is religious interpretation and not based on any other facts, logic, or evidence, and people use this narrow interpretation to justify discrimination and marginalization, there is not much else to talk about. If there is going to be a logical discussion about it, by all means we should.

 

If you can draw a conclusion, whether it is about homosexuality or any other topic, and it is based upon rational thought or logic, it really can be a stimulating discussion (see the convos between Buster and Tschu in several political/economic threads), even if reasonable people disagree. However, if the only basis for an argument is "the Bible says so," well, "STFU" may not be the most diplomatic way to address it, but that's what the conversation is going to come down to.