Christianity & homosexuality
two world colision talks about christianity and gayness and suggests to him they are compattable.
I understand from what I have been told that salvation depends on three pillars which are basically faith. I thought that was main stream and a such being gay doesn’t stop you from being saved - BUT you are highly immoral if you do the absolute minimum to avoid harm (gain salvation) and then proceed to intentionally break laws.
That has implications regarding their faith also. how deep can your faith be in that case? That raises the question do you say god does not reject homosexuality or do you say that he does but it is jsut one of theminor sins that occur every day? (I find the latter a weak excuse)
eric seems to take the plausible position which is that homosexuality as a whole is not a sin at least not if done right. And I expect that interpretation is in a sense open BUT the next question is, is this analysis biased on self justification?
If so it may not be "immoral" (from his perspective) but is the potentially lesser "crime" of "intellectual laziness". this may be less of an isue to a theist who might see that as no crime at all but to a philosopher it may represent the ultimate crime. Still I gues often philosophy is about where to choose to stop thinking, as i argued previously to a large extent this defines the diversity in philosophy.
I understand from what I have been told that salvation depends on three pillars which are basically faith. I thought that was main stream and a such being gay doesn’t stop you from being saved - BUT you are highly immoral if you do the absolute minimum to avoid harm (gain salvation) and then proceed to intentionally break laws.
That has implications regarding their faith also. how deep can your faith be in that case? That raises the question do you say god does not reject homosexuality or do you say that he does but it is jsut one of theminor sins that occur every day? (I find the latter a weak excuse)
eric seems to take the plausible position which is that homosexuality as a whole is not a sin at least not if done right. And I expect that interpretation is in a sense open BUT the next question is, is this analysis biased on self justification?
If so it may not be "immoral" (from his perspective) but is the potentially lesser "crime" of "intellectual laziness". this may be less of an isue to a theist who might see that as no crime at all but to a philosopher it may represent the ultimate crime. Still I gues often philosophy is about where to choose to stop thinking, as i argued previously to a large extent this defines the diversity in philosophy.
posted by Genius at 11:16 AM
3 Comments:
It would be useful to know which flavour of Christianity you are talking about. Your analysis makes no sense, for example, if you are discussing Quakers' beliefs.
I don't think I've ever met a Quaker who believes homosexuality is immoral, or sinful, or a crime of intellectual laziness. Not only are we a pretty liberal group, but judgements of immorality and sinfulness are not really part of a Quaker's view of God/faith/life/the world.
That said as we're non-credal there are sure to be some of us with very different views.
"...That raises the question do you say god does not reject homosexuality or do you say that he does but it is jsut one of theminor sins that occur every day? (I find the latter a weak excuse)..."
No. i say that when He said "homosexuality" back then, it's not what we mean when we say "homosexuality" today. the issue is context. He mentioned "homosexuality" in the context of idolatry, violence, unfaithfulness and lust. But today, we don't think of "homosexuality" in that way - we think of the gay community of which there are also relationships founded on love, commitment, and faithfulness.
the point i'm making in my post is that we attach our modern definition of the word "homosexuality" to our interpretation of the word in Scripture without taking into account the context of ancient times.
see my response to your comment at Two World Collision
Note, i'm not wanting to cause trouble either, just continued dialogue.
Anita,
Well As I understand it the fundimental point in christianity is that jesus saves us for our sins. This dominates other things such as the brute fact that a thing might be sinful. If Jesus did not die for our sins and we have some additional work to do then I think this implies there are some sort of justification to be done beyond the "normal" understanding and I suggest you are in danger of ceasing to be "christian" by the relitively narrow definition.
ERIC,
As to homosexuality being a sin it doesnt seem to be very major part of The bible but the lines that reject it do seem to reject it without any easy way to get out of it. I am sympathetic towards your position as I see it as "more neat" if it is not a sin but I am not sure this justifies coming to that conclusion without evidence.
I dont see much of a contradiction (although I may well be missing somthing) with the world view that sees it as a sin (except in as far as that might be a bit unfair on those who are strongly inclined towards homosexual).
Such evidence would justify your approach of looking for a compromise. Otherwise it is a solution where there is no apparent theological problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home