giving christians a bad name

[Jon Clement]

Oh, man... That video... Is just creepy... I mean, jeez, did you see the way she was grinning the whole time?! That creepy zombie type grin? It's like she got a lobotomy or something... It's like she's possesed by a demon... It's just disturbing that there are people like that in the world...

[Sweet Mercury]

[quote="Mithrandir"]While we don't want to go off on this tangent too much, the bottom line there is that the media will air whatever makes people watch. People WANT to believe Christians are idiots - it makes them feel more comfortable with how they live. Besides, this stuff is contraversial. No matter which side of the contraversy you are on, you'll watch - and that sells advertisements. If you really want to do something about it, start a campaign to write to the broadcasting corporations with millions of letters saying, "If you continue to air this and give them validity, we will all stop watching your channel."

If nothing else, it'll make you feel better. ]

Excellent post. I often wonder why the media even bothers to give these people airtime, and my answer to myself is the one you posted above. I recently saw an interview with H&C with someone proclaiming a need to "forsake the soldiers," and the problem is just as you describe. The networks are so vast that people attribute a level of validity to anyone who is featured on them. Everyone has a right to have and voice an opinion, but the media doesn't have a requirment to give everyone a soapbox.

Also, as UC pointed out, the conduct of the interviewers doesn't help. Bringing someone on your television show simply to call them names removes the moral high ground that you might have had. Besides, it is much easier to allow people such as this to bury themselves with their own words.

to the OP: Don't worry. Most people are aware that people like this represent a tiny minority. And furthermore, anyone who is willing to use them as an example to condemn all of Christianity is probably not yet mature enough to engage in any real sort of theological or philosophical debate or discussion.

[Steeltemplar]

is homosexuality any worse than any of the other sins we see in society, especially the sin of pride so obvious here? These people don't appear to have read Proverbs "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov 16:18)

I think we should be careful not to underestimate the gravity of a sin like homosexuality. Pride, indeed, could well be seen as the root of all sinfulness. Even homosexuality finds pride within it - the idea that one can defy the order which God has placed upon marriage and sexuality simply because of one's own feelings.

However, there is certainly a severe and grave danger to the soul from homosexuality. Simply being a prideful person is a problem and sinful, yet one may be prideful while still maintaining their communion with God. This is not so with active homosexuality, which constitutes an entire lifestyle that is itself a grave evil in God's eyes. We should never treat this issue lightly, I believe.

Certainly, hatred for homosexuals is absolutely wrong. Phelps and his ilk are far from true Christian doctrine and it is good that we should denounce him. In particular, since these radicals claim to be of our faith, it gives even more importance to our vocal opposition to their ideas. Yet in being tolerant, let us not mitigate the severity of the sin of homosexuality.

[Arnobius]

I think Steeltemplar raises a good point. We should be careful not to yield the proper view of sin when we repudiate the view of one who twists it into a horrendous parody as Phelps does. We need to keep the perspective of "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin."

So yes we should denounce Phelps, but we should also use the opportunity to show the world what Christianity does think on the issue.

[mitsuki lover]

The problem is though we also need to be balanced.Let us not forget that homosexuality is not the only sexual sin condemned by Scripture,incest,adultery,
fornication,beastility,etc. are all also condemned by the same Scriptures.The problem is too often by condeming homosexuals we allow the other sexual sins to slide by.

[Steeltemplar]

The problem is though we also need to be balanced.Let us not forget that homosexuality is not the only sexual sin condemned by Scripture,incest,adultery,
fornication,beastility,etc. are all also condemned by the same Scriptures.The problem is too often by condeming homosexuals we allow the other sexual sins to slide by.

Well, yes, they are all very grave and we should condemn them. And if you asked me, I certainly would never mitigate those sins.

However, the issue being discussed here was homosexuality and it was being equated with pride. Had we been discussing fornication I should certainly have said something along the same lines.

[Android raptor]

Okay, I'll try to be careful about what I say here:

For one, Fred Phelps is only believing in one narrow interperatation of the Bible. People like him make me sick. But, as offensive as he may be, unless he goes out and hurts anyone, I think he's pretty harmless. I do hope he croaks soon, so his little "church" will go bye-bye. I wouldn't like to kill him though; I have better things to do with my life AND I don't want to stoop to his level.

Now, for other things. I do wonder how accurate those passages that condemn homosexuality really are. I mean, the Bible has been translated SO many times that stuff gets messed with, the meaning of words are lost, etc. I've read some things by liberal Christians that say that some things that are said to refer to homosexuality might actually be refering to things such as child-molesters, temple prostitutes, etc. So yeah...

One more thing: I like to think that Jesus was a revolutionary hippie; NOT a raving hate-monger like Phelps.

[Syreth]

Don't forget that the Bible was actually translated (from Greek/Hebrew to English) far less than it was transmitted (from an existing translation). In other words, many translations out there are just a different version of an existing translation. If you study any of the passages, you'll find that the different versions line up pretty well.

Also, we have sufficient manuscript evidence (over 5,000 Greek manuscripts alone) to back up the message of the Bible.

Remember that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sinfulness and is actually where we get the term "Sodomy," which is a word for the homosexual act.

Furthermore, Paul makes a blatant statement about the inherent sinfulness in homosexuality in Romans 1:27:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (NKJV)

The message of the Bible hasn't changed, but there are those who would change it because they don't like what it says.

But anyhow, the Bible's view of sin is certainly interesting. Whenever it lists out sins, it throws in common inward ones with less common outward ones... For example it lists things like pride along with witchcraft. The bottom line is that we're all sinful and in need of Jesus and we ought not to discriminate the love that we show to others simply because of how bad culture has deemed the sin.

[Android raptor]

Hmmm, but I've read that the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing might actually be more beastiality than anything else (they were trying to have relations with angels, right? And since angels aren't exactly *human*, it would kinnda' be more beastiality than anything else). Anyway, I'll see if I can dig up a link that has some very intriguing articles on religious matters if this topic doesn't get *too* out of hand...
<Mod snip: Debate fodder.>

[Nate]

Hmmm, but I've read that the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing might actually be more beastiality than anything else (they were trying to have relations with angels, right? And since angels aren't exactly *human*, it would kinnda' be more beastiality than anything else).

Yeah, but the men thought the angels were humans. So it still constitutes homosexuality because they thought the angels were men.

It's just like if I see a transvestite on the street, and don't know it's a transvestite, and think she's attractive. That doesn't make me a homosexual, because I think he's a woman. The same principle applies here.

[Arnobius]

Hmmm, but I've read that the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing might actually be more beastiality than anything else (they were trying to have relations with angels, right? And since angels aren't exactly *human*, it would kinnda' be more beastiality than anything else). Anyway, I'll see if I can dig up a link that has some very intriguing articles on religious matters if this topic doesn't get *too* out of hand...
<Mod snip: Debate fodder.>

So, the best they can do is say "Hey, saying this doesn't MEAN they meant men." However, they have to show evidence that it WAS understood to mean people and not men. So things like Jewish and Christian commentary would be needed to demonstrate it was understood to be "people. This site cannot provide that evidence, and the citations the article uses are not works of biblical or linguistic scholarship, but of articles from advocacy groups... very biased and no serious scholar would accept them as a source.

[Android raptor]

Okay, I really don't want this to get out of control. I'm sorry I brought up the whole issue. I guess a mod should close this thread before it erupts into something violent.

[Syreth]

There's another inevitable question: If they think that they're qualified to make a more accurate translation, then why don't they?

Some issues are important enough to talk out, even if they get a little heated. If you still are having doubts, you can PM someone.

[Android raptor]

Okay. And on different translations, I think that site said that there are some new translations out that don't condemn homosexuality. Also, I have a friend who is Catholic, liberal, and has something pertaining to theology. I shall talk to her...

[Arnobius]

Okay. And on different translations, I think that site said that there are some new translations out that don't condemn homosexuality. Also, I have a friend who is Catholic, liberal, and has something pertaining to theology. I shall talk to her...

Well, the issue here is: Is the translation faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew and is the translator clear on the way the readers of the times understood it? If the translator is not qualified on both, the translation will be useless. Also, what is the motive of the translators. Is it to accurately give us the word of God in our own language or is it motivated by advocacy of a certain position.

To seek to come up with a translation that says all previous translations completely missed the point will have to publish extensive proofs establishing that their view is correct.

And I myself have a Masters degree in Theology. [I hate to bring it it up since it sounds like I'm boasting or something, but if people are going to bring in sources of "my friend says..." then I may as well establish my own credentials]. If your friend says anything that indicates a view that homosexuality is ok, she is definitely NOT giving you a Catholic understanding, but only her own opinion

[Steeltemplar]

Well, the issue here is: Is the translation faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew and is the translator clear on the way the readers of the times understood it? If the translator is not qualified on both, the translation will be useless. Also, what is the motive of the translators. Is it to accurately give us the word of God in our own language or is it motivated by advocacy of a certain position.

To seek to come up with a translation that says all previous translations completely missed the point will have to publish extensive proofs establishing that their view is correct.

And I myself have a Masters degree in Theology. [I hate to bring it it up since it sounds like I'm boasting or something, but if people are going to bring in sources of "my friend says..." then I may as well establish my own credentials]. If your friend says anything that indicates a view that homosexuality is ok, she is definitely NOT giving you a Catholic understanding, but only her own opinion

To add to what AnimeHeretic is saying, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 2357) says concerning homosexuality:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

If you are not Catholic, I understand that you do not necessarily accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, please understand that anything that is said contrary to this on the issue does not represent the teachings of the Church nor the beliefs of faithful Catholics.

[Mangafanatic]

*Come in with the fire extinguisher and sprays down the thread*

Okay, guys, you know the drill. Theological debate is off limits. Here at CAA we believe certain things to be unquestionably true. One of them is the fact that in more than one passage of scripture, homosexuality is condemned as a perversion of God's plan for sexuality as it was set up in the Garden (One woman, one man). We love those who are struggling with the sin of homosexuality, but we still condemn the act. Concerning the site which was linked, such citations are only going to stir up heated debate. Tolerance, as in not harrassing those who disagree with you, is a wonderful and God honoring goal. However, tolerance, when it means accepting that everyone is right, no belief is wrong, and we can all find common ground in our beliefs and live happily ever after is simply not possible. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father except by me."

Not exactly the words of a "Let's all find some common grounds and just love eachother" leader. Christianity demands absolutes. It demands love. It demands the understanding that some things are wrong-- always and somethings are right-- always. But it doesn't demand tolerance from us towards actions which violate a holy God who lays down laws of absolute right and wrong.

With that said, I am going to close this thread. I hope the issues raised by the creator were answered and that she's gained helpful insight into how to handle these issues in the future.

If anyone has any question, please feel free to PM me.