College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

If you need a description here, you might want to consider not going into this forum.

Would you get rid of a student religious leader if you found out he was gay? If so- reply why.

Yes
16
39%
No
25
61%
 
Total votes : 41

College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

Postby Super Duper Soldier » Nov 11 2002 10:36:09 pm

Hi Mom!

College Group Fires Leader For Being Gay
Posted: November 11, 2002
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT

(Pella, Iowa) A Christian group at an Iowa university has removed its leader because he recently announced that he is gay.

Brad Clark, student body president at Central College in Pella, was asked to step down from his role of organizing worship services for the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

"He was basically asked to step down because he didn't agree with our statement of beliefs," said Betsy Loomans, a campus staff worker with InterVarsity, a nondenominational student ministry with chapters on more than 560 college and university campuses nationwide.

InterVarsity's midweek worship service attracts up to 500 students each week. According to its constitution, the organization does not discriminate on the basis of members' sexual preference but does consider the sexual orientation of its leaders.

The decision provoked a review of InterVarsity's constitution by the student government. After a lengthy debate, Centrals student senate voted 22-12 last week to continue to recognize InterVarsity.
Last edited by Super Duper Soldier on Apr 02 2004 06:41:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."
--Mitt Romney, Lowell Sun, 3/30/06
User avatar
Super Duper Soldier
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 7814
Joined: Nov 10 2002 11:09:12 am
Location: IOWA

Postby daoist » Nov 11 2002 11:56:53 pm

this is disgusting.
I:IV:XV

I procreated.
User avatar
daoist
the athiest atheist
 
Posts: 45859
Joined: Apr 24 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: I would have waited an eternity for this. It's over, Prime.

Postby Jimmy » Nov 12 2002 12:03:37 am

If his lifestyle disagrees with what they feel is right, then why should he be a leader in their organization. He should not be treated with any less dignity as a human being, but the organization certainly has the right to have a set of beleifs that they follow.
Jimmy
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Jun 01 2002 01:52:45 pm
Location: A golden hill.

Postby Cuentas » Nov 12 2002 12:18:50 am

i agree that they have the right to ask him to leave. Simply because
He was basically asked to step down because he didn't agree with our statement of beliefs,.
Cuentas
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 494
Joined: Sep 19 2002 08:26:00 pm

Postby Pokaris » Nov 12 2002 12:50:29 am

Why is it disgusting? His beliefs differed from theirs so he was asked to leave. I dont imagine I'd be too accepted into a vegan group if I showed up eating a nice fat pork chop.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
User avatar
Pokaris
Rider
 
Posts: 9728
Joined: Feb 28 2002 02:33:41 am
Location: Grinding Soybeans

Postby Mongoose1 » Nov 12 2002 01:28:55 am

According to its constitution, the organization does not discriminate on the basis of members' sexual preference but does consider the sexual orientation of its leaders.


If I were to guess, thats the part Daoist is referring to

oh well, alienate those who wish to help....i'm sure its their loss
Mongoose1
i <3 strangetalk
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Apr 13 2001 12:00:00 am

Postby aerogems » Nov 12 2002 11:49:34 am

OK, someone help me out because I think I'm feeling an attack of dumb blonde coming on here....

How exactly do you not discriminate on a basis of sexual preference, yet justify saying in the same sentence that you DO "consider" it. If you "consider" someone's sexual orientation, and it's enough to basically fire someone from their position, isn't that discrimination against someone based on sexual orientation? After all, this group seemed to have no problem with this guy until he decided to announce he was gay.

BTW, on a side note, isn't it sort of a great irony that a lot of the "posterboy's" for Christian groups are starting to come out of the closet? There was the guy who the Boy Scouts was using in all kinds of ads who announced he was gay, and boy did they ever drop him quickly. Now there's this guy who's the head of a particular chapter of a large Christian group.... Maybe some day Fred Phelps will come to grips with his homosexuality and then the same people who used to picket places with him will harass him.
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Postby Super Duper Soldier » Nov 12 2002 11:55:33 am

aerogems wrote:OK, someone help me out because I think I'm feeling an attack of dumb blonde coming on here....

How exactly do you not discriminate on a basis of sexual preference, yet justify saying in the same sentence that you DO "consider" it. If you "consider" someone's sexual orientation, and it's enough to basically fire someone from their position, isn't that discrimination against someone based on sexual orientation? After all, this group seemed to have no problem with this guy until he decided to announce he was gay.

BTW, on a side note, isn't it sort of a great irony that a lot of the "posterboy's" for Christian groups are starting to come out of the closet? There was the guy who the Boy Scouts was using in all kinds of ads who announced he was gay, and boy did they ever drop him quickly. Now there's this guy who's the head of a particular chapter of a large Christian group.... Maybe some day Fred Phelps will come to grips with his homosexuality and then the same people who used to picket places with him will harass him.


well... it's not really Phelps... it's one of his grandsons that there are rumors at his college that he is gay.
It would interesting to see Phelps have to picket his own church for having a gay member.
"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."
--Mitt Romney, Lowell Sun, 3/30/06
User avatar
Super Duper Soldier
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 7814
Joined: Nov 10 2002 11:09:12 am
Location: IOWA

Postby aerogems » Nov 12 2002 01:17:46 pm

runlola wrote:
well... it's not really Phelps... it's one of his grandsons that there are rumors at his college that he is gay.
It would interesting to see Phelps have to picket his own church for having a gay member.


Well, a pretty fundamental principle of psychology is this: Those that are the most outspoken against something are almost always those that were the most tempted but managed to resist the temptation.

Applying it to this instance, since Phelps is so incredibly anti-homosexuality it just stands to reason that he is a closet homosexual with some very powerful denial working for him. He maintains this denial by his picketing funerals, events, and what not where gay people are involved. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all to know he was a closet pedo at the same time, since he really seems to focus in on younger people from what little I know about him.

Don'tcha just love religion? It gives people the idea that being who they are isn't always good enough, and so they sometimes turn into twisted perversions like Falwell and Phelps.
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Postby Pokaris » Nov 12 2002 01:29:19 pm

aerogems wrote:
runlola wrote:
well... it's not really Phelps... it's one of his grandsons that there are rumors at his college that he is gay.
It would interesting to see Phelps have to picket his own church for having a gay member.


Well, a pretty fundamental principle of psychology is this: Those that are the most outspoken against something are almost always those that were the most tempted but managed to resist the temptation.

Applying it to this instance, since Phelps is so incredibly anti-homosexuality it just stands to reason that he is a closet homosexual with some very powerful denial working for him. He maintains this denial by his picketing funerals, events, and what not where gay people are involved. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all to know he was a closet pedo at the same time, since he really seems to focus in on younger people from what little I know about him.

Don'tcha just love religion? It gives people the idea that being who they are isn't always good enough, and so they sometimes turn into twisted perversions like Falwell and Phelps.


Or even worse those twisted folks who strive to help others like Mother Teresa or the Pope :D
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
User avatar
Pokaris
Rider
 
Posts: 9728
Joined: Feb 28 2002 02:33:41 am
Location: Grinding Soybeans

Postby aerogems » Nov 12 2002 02:23:32 pm

Pokaris wrote:Or even worse those twisted folks who strive to help others like Mother Teresa or the Pope :D


Now you're getting it! :lol:

But on a slightly more serious note, how long exactly has it been since the Pope has been able to do much besides sit around and mumble a few things? He's not exactly the picture of youthful vigor anymore.

I have no problem with people who want to help in a selfless fashion... Even respect them quite a bit. Of course they're merely the balancing power to even the scales when you have people like Falwell and Phelps claiming to be doing God's will. If we just outlawed religion, then in a few generations we probably wouldn't be having a problem with rape and other sexual crimes, hateful bigots like Falwell and Phelps would eventually die off in a few generations, and IMO the world would be a better place. Even if all you did was outlaw the worshiping of any diety, keeping all the rest, it would do wonders IMO. But to quote Carlin, "We don't have time for rational solutions!"
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Postby Hedgethorn » Nov 12 2002 02:53:56 pm

aerogems wrote:OK, someone help me out because I think I'm feeling an attack of dumb blonde coming on here....

How exactly do you not discriminate on a basis of sexual preference, yet justify saying in the same sentence that you DO "consider" it.


If you read the sentence closely, you'll see that they do not discriminate members on the basis of sexual preference, but they hold their leaders to a higher standard. In other words, they're quite alright if there are individuals of diverse sexual orientation sitting in the chairs during the service, but they expect their leaders to agree to the tenants of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and one of the tenants of that group is that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Since Clark no longer agreed with the beliefs of the group, they asked him to step down from leadership.

Note: they did NOT exclude him from participating, they only asked him to step down from his role of leadership. Though I'm not positive, I'm sure many other (non-Christian) organizations would ask one of their leaders to step down if the leader suddenly started promoting something contrary to the principles the group was founded on. If the president of the ISU Republicans decided to become a Democrat, I see no a priori reason why the rest of the officers couldn't ask him to resign as President. Likewise, if the Vice-President of LGBTTA were to convert to be a fundamentalist Muslim and starting speaking the evils of homosexuality, I think she also would be asked to leave the leadership role. But maybe my intuitions here are different from eveyone else's.
User avatar
Hedgethorn
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Apr 05 2001 12:00:00 am

Postby bigassbertha » Nov 12 2002 03:30:38 pm

Yeah whatever. "Let he without sin cast the first stone." I think that's how it goes.

Its central for christ's sake, do people actually expect anything more than this kind of crap from the place?

If so:
1) Come closer
2) [i smack you]
3) I say "you're retarded"
User avatar
bigassbertha
Happy Llama
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Jan 07 2001 01:00:00 am
Location: bat country

Postby Pokaris » Nov 17 2002 04:21:23 pm

bigassbertha wrote:Yeah whatever. "Let he without sin cast the first stone." I think that's how it goes.

Its central for christ's sake, do people actually expect anything more than this kind of crap from the place?

If so:
1) Come closer
2) [i smack you]
3) I say "you're retarded"


Whats your major problem with Central? It costs too much? They didnt let you in?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
User avatar
Pokaris
Rider
 
Posts: 9728
Joined: Feb 28 2002 02:33:41 am
Location: Grinding Soybeans

Postby bigassbertha » Nov 17 2002 04:33:39 pm

Pokaris wrote:
bigassbertha wrote:Yeah whatever. "Let he without sin cast the first stone." I think that's how it goes.

Its central for christ's sake, do people actually expect anything more than this kind of crap from the place?

If so:
1) Come closer
2) [i smack you]
3) I say "you're retarded"


Whats your major problem with Central? It costs too much? They didnt let you in?


just tryin to get a rise out of YOU- what the fuck took so long!? Holy christ its been like a week

But it does cost too much, and I didn't apply there if those answer your questions. My only disrespect for central comes from one time when I was hangin out there with a buddy of mine (a student there) and a bunch of central guys were tellin me, with pride, the shit they were putting a gay guy through in the residence halls. And from the way they told their stories, it sounded like it was pretty much accepted as OK by most people there.
User avatar
bigassbertha
Happy Llama
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Jan 07 2001 01:00:00 am
Location: bat country

Postby aerogems » Nov 17 2002 05:50:41 pm

Hedgethorn wrote:
aerogems wrote:OK, someone help me out because I think I'm feeling an attack of dumb blonde coming on here....

How exactly do you not discriminate on a basis of sexual preference, yet justify saying in the same sentence that you DO "consider" it.


If you read the sentence closely, you'll see that they do not discriminate members on the basis of sexual preference, but they hold their leaders to a higher standard. In other words, they're quite alright if there are individuals of diverse sexual orientation sitting in the chairs during the service, but they expect their leaders to agree to the tenants of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and one of the tenants of that group is that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Since Clark no longer agreed with the beliefs of the group, they asked him to step down from leadership.

Note: they did NOT exclude him from participating, they only asked him to step down from his role of leadership. Though I'm not positive, I'm sure many other (non-Christian) organizations would ask one of their leaders to step down if the leader suddenly started promoting something contrary to the principles the group was founded on. If the president of the ISU Republicans decided to become a Democrat, I see no a priori reason why the rest of the officers couldn't ask him to resign as President. Likewise, if the Vice-President of LGBTTA were to convert to be a fundamentalist Muslim and starting speaking the evils of homosexuality, I think she also would be asked to leave the leadership role. But maybe my intuitions here are different from eveyone else's.


Well, to me that's really the same thing. So they discriminate against their leaders, not their members. Aren't leaders members as well? Just higher ranking members in the hierarchy of the group. Saying they hold them to a different or "higher" standard is just using euphamisms to say "discriminate".

Should someone in the LGBTTA become a convert to the fundamentalist view of homosexuality == bad (and must die) idea, then I suspect they'd resign their commission long before the group ever had to fire them. I don't think they would be able to stand being affiliated with this group if they took up that belief. I understand your point, the example just wasn't a very good one.

There's really no way that the group can possibly hope to justify this without basically saying they employ double standards. Here are the rules you all must follow, except Jack, Barry, Chris, and Steve who get to ignore rules #3-7. Leaders are members, if they say they don't discriminate against members, then they can't discriminate against leaders either. Otherwise, they DO discriminate against members. Which, BTW, I'm fine with so long as they're up front about it. They're a private group/club, I don't care if they want to set standards for who can and can't be members of the club/group, just so long as they're very explicit about their expectations. So, to borrow an example from George Carlin.... Assuming you wanted to create a group of people who dress up in leather Boy Scout uniforms and smash each other on the head with a balteen hammer while you take turns blowing your cat..... I'm perfectly OK with that, so long as you say that all members must enjoy being smashed over the head and blowing cats along with any other restrictions you want to have. You don't just decide one day that because one of your members says they like to blow goats as well, that you're going to kick them out. That falls outside the realm of the group's mandate, leave it alone. If you decide you want to ammend the mandate, then every group member that wants to, should be allowed to have a say at a meeting. You just don't tell Dave the goat blower that you don't agree with his policy of blowing goats AND cats (because really, where do you find quality goats in Iowa) one day, and that he's out of the group because of it. Or he can't be the head cat blower anymore, nor does he ever get to hold the hammer again. In short, you don't just make the rules up as you go. You create a set initially and stick to them. If you want to change them or add more, you do so in such a way that every member has the opportunity to voice their concerns.

BTW, to those that may be wondering.... Yes, the name "Dave" wasn't exactly a random choice. While I'm not saying anything about Dave of "Do you agree with Dave" infamy (I have no knowlege of whether he likes blowing cats, goats or any other animal or not, nor would I want to know if he does), I just figured he'd make a great example. Add an extra little bit of humor to the example with the mental image of Dave blowing cats (or goats).
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Postby Pokaris » Nov 17 2002 10:12:52 pm

bigassbertha wrote:
Pokaris wrote:
bigassbertha wrote:Yeah whatever. "Let he without sin cast the first stone." I think that's how it goes.

Its central for christ's sake, do people actually expect anything more than this kind of crap from the place?

If so:
1) Come closer
2) [i smack you]
3) I say "you're retarded"


Whats your major problem with Central? It costs too much? They didnt let you in?


just tryin to get a rise out of YOU- what the fuck took so long!? Holy christ its been like a week

But it does cost too much, and I didn't apply there if those answer your questions. My only disrespect for central comes from one time when I was hangin out there with a buddy of mine (a student there) and a bunch of central guys were tellin me, with pride, the shit they were putting a gay guy through in the residence halls. And from the way they told their stories, it sounded like it was pretty much accepted as OK by most people there.


Ah ha ha

I know who they are speaking of. The reason that gay kid got harassed is because he was like dormpuppy and was just a douche about it. Most people at Central have no problem with gay people, we just dont like douche bags.

Im sorry I couldnt respond sooner. I have been busy. I just got back from Purdue. I really dont even remeber posting what I did last night.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
User avatar
Pokaris
Rider
 
Posts: 9728
Joined: Feb 28 2002 02:33:41 am
Location: Grinding Soybeans

Postby citydogisu » Nov 17 2002 11:35:46 pm

Here's another article on this. I highlighted a few key things.

Gay Student Forced to Resign Leadership Post in Religious Group at Iowa's Central College
From The Chronicle, Wednesday November 6, 2002.
By JEFFREY R. YOUNG

A Christian group at Central College, in Iowa, forced one of its student leaders, Brad Clark, to give up his position because he would not disavow his homosexuality. Mr. Clark, who is also president of the student government, called the removal discriminatory, and it has led to debate about whether the Christian group, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, should continue to be recognized on the campus.

Mr. Clark had served as one of the organizers of a weekly worship service for InterVarsity, a popular group at the college, which is affiliated with the Reformed Church in America. In September, he told other leaders of the group that he is gay. Later that month, leaders of InterVarsity asked him to give up his leadership position after Mr. Clark would not agree to a statement that the only acceptable form of sexual activity is between a man and a woman who are married. They did not remove him from the group, however. Mr. Clark, who said he was disappointed with the group's decision, then left InterVarsity.

"I expected that there'd be a lot of conversation and debate about it," said Mr. Clark. "I didn't know it would be to the extent that I'd be asked to leave my position."

Leaders of InterVarsity say that their policy is not discriminatory and that they welcome anyone as a member.

"If we kick all sinners out, we'd be down to zero in a big hurry," said William McConnell, associate director of advancement at the national office of InterVarsity. But "why would we expect someone who doesn't agree with the standards of the group to express leadership in it?"

Mr. McConnell said that the group might be willing to have a gay member take on a position of leadership, but only if he or she agreed to denounce homosexuality. "It's more a question of whether a person feels like he has to advocate for homosexuality," he said.

Last month, Central's Student Senate reviewed InterVarsity's constitution to consider whether or not the group could continue to be recognized in light of its policies. After heated debate, the senate voted 22 to 12 to continue recognizing InterVarsity. Campus officials say the group does not receive university funds, though it is eligible to receive money from a student-activity fee that is managed by the Student Senate.

"I was pretty disappointed with the decision," said Mr. Clark. "I think it sets precedent for our student government to recognize discriminatory organizations."

InterVarsity's Mr. McConnell, however, said that "it's a question of whether a group has a right to exist under its own terms on campus."

A college diversity committee of students, professors, and administrators is drafting a policy on how groups like InterVarsity, which are recognized by the college but not run by it, should behave. The college's own policies bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"There's a conflict between how the college internalizes our nondiscrimination policy and how InterVarsity does," said David Roe, Central's president. "I'm hoping to use this as a catalyst to examine internally when we talk about our values, what does that mean vis-à-vis the behavior of [groups] on campus?"

The committee is being asked to make policy recommendations that could be put in place as soon as next spring.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

I wonder if he grew up in Pella...

Postby Bea Arthur » Nov 18 2002 07:32:46 am

I think there was a Brad Clark in the class of '99 at Pella. I would not be surprised if he is the same guy. Hrmm.

You are forgetting some key elements. Maybe a native of that town can illustrate them a bit:

1) It was in Pella.
2) It is a part of the Reformed Churches of America.
3) It happened in Pella.
4) Did you notice where Central College is at?
4) Do I really have to re-state it a third time? Ok, fine. Pella!!!!

There is religious madness in Pella. Some people would call it fervor, or zealousness. Well, maybe they are zealots. Who fucking knows.

Sometimes, when I'm home for a long enough period of time and I deal with the locals on a regular basis, I feel like the people are ready for a witch burning, or a crusade, or a lynching, or burning crosses in someone's lawn...

That town *is* Calvinism.

And when you have a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reformed Church (2nd and 3rd used to be ON THE SAME BLOCK) you've got some ISSUES.

Now... what you have to understand about modern christianity is... it doesn't like homosexuality very much. It makes those people (you know, rich people...) uncomfortable. Maybe the reason is... Christianity has been getting kind of touchy/feely with Jesus, and it almost takes on romantic (read homosexual) overtones (well, homosexual with the guys, with the girls it just sounds sexual, which takes on a very bizarre life of its own.)

I can't really explain what I mean by this. The best way for me to show you what I mean would be to actually go to church and *cough*nazi*cough* youth groups with you for about 3 months, and point and giggle any time anything with said overtones was expressed.

But I don't think I could stand going to that much church (sober).
User avatar
Bea Arthur
i <3 strangetalk
 
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sep 09 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: the 'hood.

Postby citydogisu » Nov 18 2002 08:22:27 am

My father runs a clinic in Lynnville and a clinic in New Sharon.
He told me of a patient that had to switch schools because the kids at Pella Christian HS kept beating him up because he was not dutch.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby Alterego » Nov 21 2002 01:30:18 am

First off, I am from Pella. I went to Pella Christian High, and I knew Brad Clark from Pella High quite well. So if you got any specific questions about Pella, ask away.
I dont really know how to respond to dancing monkey. He/She must not understand religion very well if he refers to it as madness and sees something evil/disturbing about 3 churches on one street.

Dormpuppy's comment is ridiculous. Like getting beat up because you drink coke instead of pepsi.

The main issue/important point about Brad Clark that doesnt get mentioned is that he sees nothing wrong with being homosexual, which means that he believes practicing homosexuality is OK. Things would be very different if Clark thought his homosexuality was a sin, and would try to work against his feelings. (flame away on that) That is simply a Christian belief, homosexuality is a sin, just like using God's name in vain or getting drunk too often. One can still be a Christian if you recognize your sins and repent. This is a fundamental part of Christianity.
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Postby citydogisu » Nov 21 2002 01:33:52 am

Alterego wrote:First off, I am from Pella. I went to Pella Christian High, and I knew Brad Clark from Pella High quite well. So if you got any specific questions about Pella, ask away.
I dont really know how to respond to dancing monkey. He/She must not understand religion very well if he refers to it as madness and sees something evil/disturbing about 3 churches on one street.

Dormpuppy's comment is ridiculous. Like getting beat up because you drink coke instead of pepsi.

The main issue/important point about Brad Clark that doesnt get mentioned is that he sees nothing wrong with being homosexual, which means that he believes practicing homosexuality is OK. Things would be very different if Clark thought his homosexuality was a sin, and would try to work against his feelings. (flame away on that) That is simply a Christian belief, homosexuality is a sin, just like using God's name in vain or getting drunk too often. One can still be a Christian if you recognize your sins and repent. This is a fundamental part of Christianity.


So you use a strict interpretation of the bible?
Do you stone your members for eating pork or wearing polyester then?
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby Alterego » Nov 21 2002 01:42:36 am

Be more specific.
Christians only stoned people in the Old Testament, the NT changed all of that. Christians, I believe, should be tolerant, which doesnt mean relativistic. We can/must disagree with those who have different beliefs than our own, but we can be civilized about it. The group would be condoning Clark's beliefs if they allowed him to continue to be their leader.
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Re: College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

Postby SadisticKids » Nov 21 2002 02:44:31 am

According to its constitution, the organization does not discriminate on the basis of members' sexual preference but does consider the sexual orientation of its leaders.


So are they trying to bring in homosexuals to "set them straight"? If you're going to be "open" to other peoples' lifestyles, you shouldn't try to change their lifestyles upon their acceptance in to the group. That's not acceptance, that's conformity.
User avatar
SadisticKids
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Jul 23 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Freddy Ct.

Re: College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

Postby citydogisu » Nov 21 2002 07:18:50 am

SadisticKids wrote:
According to its constitution, the organization does not discriminate on the basis of members' sexual preference but does consider the sexual orientation of its leaders.


So are they trying to bring in homosexuals to "set them straight"? If you're going to be "open" to other peoples' lifestyles, you shouldn't try to change their lifestyles upon their acceptance in to the group. That's not acceptance, that's conformity.

But conformity is what Judaism/Christianity/Islam is all about!
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Re: College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

Postby SadisticKids » Nov 21 2002 11:23:13 am

dormpuppyisu wrote:But conformity is what Judaism/Christianity/Islam is all about!


So if the very prominant religions you have named above are all about conformity, wouldn't Satanists conform to be themselves?
User avatar
SadisticKids
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Jul 23 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Freddy Ct.

Postby aerogems » Nov 21 2002 11:25:48 am

Alterego wrote:Be more specific.
Christians only stoned people in the Old Testament, the NT changed all of that. Christians, I believe, should be tolerant, which doesnt mean relativistic. We can/must disagree with those who have different beliefs than our own, but we can be civilized about it. The group would be condoning Clark's beliefs if they allowed him to continue to be their leader.


Um, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here but first of all are Chrstians generally though of as the followers of Christ? Secondly, isn't the Old Testiment more about the state of affairs in the world before Christ was born and then the New Testiment is supposed to be something of a biography of his life?

So, if the above premises are true, wouldn't that then make it impossible for Christians to stone anyone in the time of the old testiment, simply because they didn't really exist yet? I'm guessing that most of those people were Jewish, and then some of those people splintered off and formed Christianity.

Either way, you say that Christianity is/should be about tollerance. So, why then would you word things in such a way that it gives the impression that you AGREE with the decision of this group? What this group did is not exactly what I'd call an act of tollerance. More like an act designed to try and bring enough social pressure down onto this person that they will conform to their particular ideals. One of the more dispicable tendencies of the modern church if you ask me. They essentially hold a double standard by saying that you should be tollerant to other people, then turning around and pulling stunts like this one. Any belief system is fine, so long as it's endorsed by the Church is the basic message they're sending, and anything NOT endorsed by the chuch is automatically wrong. That's just a shining example of tollerance.

I do get a good laugh out of the "converted" people who claim to be "ex-gays" myself. I don't think that would work any more than it would trying to "convert" me to homosexuality. The people who run these sorts of "classes" (I can never bring myself to even imply education with religion without feeling dirty) should consider the alternate view. Suppose that only 10% of the population was heterosexual and religion had deemed heterosexuality a sin, but everything else were pretty much the same. How do you think these people would like having influential people whiping large groups into a frenzy about how "evil" these heterosexusals were for living in sin like they do. Something tells me that if the tables were turned, they wouldn't exactly be the ones rushing to these "classes" to become "ex-heteros". That's assuming they managed to get past the dunken rednecks that occationally like to beat up heteros or to have people telling them they're going to hell all day long. I just can't see why someone would CHOOSE (as the Christian church tends to assert) to live a lifestyle where they know full well they'll be persecuted relentlessly. OK, maybe a FEW people would actually choose that life, but we're talking about maybe 1/1000 of a percent of the entire homosexual comunity. More than likely, people are just simply born with the disposition for being attracted to men or women. Most are programmed for the opposite sex, some aren't.

Something else to consider. Assuming God created life, he would have had to create homosexual people. Unless it's an unexpected "mutation", but then you have to consider can a being powerful enough to create the universe and the life on this planet be capable of making such a simple mistake? Isn't to be divine to be perfect?

To quote Carlin on this, "These are not the sorts of results you'd expect on the resume of a supreme being. This is the sort of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. So I think most reasonable people would agree that he's at least incompetent, and just maybe, just maybe doesn't give a shit."
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Re: College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

Postby aerogems » Nov 21 2002 11:29:03 am

SadisticKids wrote:
dormpuppyisu wrote:But conformity is what Judaism/Christianity/Islam is all about!


So if the very prominant religions you have named above are all about conformity, wouldn't Satanists conform to be themselves?


You should take a look at Satanism some time, it started out as a joke by some guy and his friends in his living room. A lot of people seem to mistakenly think they worship the christian devil. Not really sure what you call those people.

BTW, this was something of a general comment, the quotes are there merely for background info. So don't bother posting something saying, "I know all about Satanism! I've been a card carrying member since xxxx!" Most people don't, especially christians who rarely understand their own religion let alone others.
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Re: College Christian Group Fires Leader For Being Gay

Postby SadisticKids » Nov 21 2002 11:46:32 am

aerogems wrote:
SadisticKids wrote:
dormpuppyisu wrote:But conformity is what Judaism/Christianity/Islam is all about!


So if the very prominant religions you have named above are all about conformity, wouldn't Satanists conform to be themselves?


You should take a look at Satanism some time, it started out as a joke by some guy and his friends in his living room. A lot of people seem to mistakenly think they worship the christian devil. Not really sure what you call those people.

BTW, this was something of a general comment, the quotes are there merely for background info. So don't bother posting something saying, "I know all about Satanism! I've been a card carrying member since xxxx!" Most people don't, especially christians who rarely understand their own religion let alone others.


In order to truly worship the Christian Devil, you have to also believe in the Christ...

Oh man, I can see the foundations of the dogma now!
User avatar
SadisticKids
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Jul 23 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Freddy Ct.

Postby citydogisu » Nov 21 2002 11:58:55 am

aerogems wrote:Either way, you say that Christianity is/should be about tollerance. So, why then would you word things in such a way that it gives the impression that you AGREE with the decision of this group? What this group did is not exactly what I'd call an act of tollerance. More like an act designed to try and bring enough social pressure down onto this person that they will conform to their particular ideals. One of the more dispicable tendencies of the modern church if you ask me. They essentially hold a double standard by saying that you should be tollerant to other people, then turning around and pulling stunts like this one. Any belief system is fine, so long as it's endorsed by the Church is the basic message they're sending, and anything NOT endorsed by the chuch is automatically wrong. That's just a shining example of tollerance.


Focus on the Family is like that.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby Alterego » Nov 21 2002 12:34:24 pm

Aerogems,
Your statements about Christians being followers of Christ are correct, obviuosly. You are also correct about the OT being about the state of the world before Christ was born. The OT is the history of God's chosen people, the Israelites, the NT is about the change in the relationship between God and his people due to Christ. I was just quickly responding to puppy in his own terms. Too many people quote the extreme verses and ideas in the OT and try to apply them to what Christians are or should be about today without understanding the changes that occured due to Christ.
I do agree with the decision of the Christian Group, Intervarsity. There is nothing intolerant about Intervarsity's decision in this case. They are in no way forcing their views on Clark, in fact the opposite would almost be occuring if Clark was allowed to keep his position. I don't understand why some people have a difficult time understanding that Clark disagrees with group's beliefs--he should therefore not be leading them. If he wants to start and head a group of pro-gay Christians, I dont think anyone would stop him. You are confusing tolerance and relativism by what you say later (sorry I dont know how to do the quote thing). Relativism, is, to put it simply, the belief that any belief system is fine. Tolerance is the belief that there is a right and a wrong, but people have a right to believe the wrong thing. Tolerance in no way means that Christians have to adopt/conform to the wrong belief. The church has made mistakes in the past--its made up of imperfect humans. The inquisition is the perfect example of a huge mistake.
You are confusing Christian beliefs when you speak about God and the creation of homosexuals. God created life, yes, but homosexuality and other sins are the result of the fall. God allows Satan to work in the world, but He himself doesnt cause the sin, he merely allows it. I have not completely made up my mind whether or not people are actually born gay. Either way, God is not making a mistake when people are/become homosexual, humans made the mistake at the very beginning by allowing sin to enter the world.

=could someone explain the quote thing to me=
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Postby Bea Arthur » Nov 21 2002 07:26:06 pm

Alterego wrote:I dont really know how to respond to dancing monkey. He/She must not understand religion very well if he refers to it as madness and sees something evil/disturbing about 3 churches on one street.


I'm a he.

You completely missed my point.

What groundbreaking doctrinal differences are there that they kept reforming things? And do the people attending the church even care that much? Are they aware at all of what it means?

The churches are almost social clubs. Then again, people actually believe some of the stuff the pastors say.

And the people go to church, and behave while they're there, but many of them are fucking assholes outside of church... completely hypocritical people... greedy, lying, cheating bastards... and some of the ones that tried to appear most religious were the biggest bastards of them all...

I know that's the way the world works, but fucking hell, aren't there 20+ churches in Pella? and there are, what, 8 or 9 thousand people?

That's a lot of churches... I thought it was above average in number.

Who knows, I'm probably mistaken.
User avatar
Bea Arthur
i <3 strangetalk
 
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sep 09 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: the 'hood.

Postby Alterego » Nov 21 2002 08:17:58 pm

Monkey,
If that's your point I agree with you, your previous post didn't quite get that across. Instead your first post just seemed intent on bashing Pella, Christians, and religion without any distinctions or explanation.
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Postby iron fist » Nov 22 2002 09:24:25 am

If you are truly Christian, you pretty much have to because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. We are still supposed to love and reach out to those people, HOWEVER having them in a leadership position in the faith when they are violating the tenets of the faith consistently with their lifestyle would not be appropriate.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby aerogems » Nov 22 2002 09:52:57 am

Iron Fist wrote:If you are truly Christian, you pretty much have to because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. We are still supposed to love and reach out to those people, HOWEVER having them in a leadership position in the faith when they are violating the tenets of the faith consistently with their lifestyle would not be appropriate.


Then you need to take a closer look at your own Bible, because there are descriptions of homosexual acts spinkled throughout it. I don't have specific examples I can just pull out of my ass at the moment (while unintentional, that pun works kind of nicely with the topic), it shouldn't be too hard to find with Google for those who don't want to wait for me to get around to it. Some people have made a pretty strong case for Jesus being gay. Which includes more than just walking all over the country side with a bunch of guys. Just because people who like wrestling seem to enjoy rolling around on a mat with other men who barely have any clothing on, and grope each other doesn't necessarilly make all wrestlers gay.... Although high school and college wrestling does originate in ancient Greece where homosexuality was a major part of the culture for Greek men.
Oscar: I don't want a traffic light, and no one else in Dog River does either!

Lacey: But what about the train crossing? You don't have any problems with that?

Oscar:That's different! It goes "ding, ding, ding"! And the arm goes up and down! It puts on a good show!
User avatar
aerogems
Scotty "Scooter" mcScott Scott
 
Posts: 7199
Joined: Sep 04 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Here, there, and maybe over there too

Postby citydogisu » Nov 22 2002 01:43:54 pm

Iron Fist wrote:If you are truly Christian, you pretty much have to because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. We are still supposed to love and reach out to those people, HOWEVER having them in a leadership position in the faith when they are violating the tenets of the faith consistently with their lifestyle would not be appropriate.


Yeah we gotta kick out the leaders that wear polyester since that is an abomination in the bible.
Gotta kick out any leader that eats pork since that's an abomination in the bible.
Gotta kick out any leader that does not burn the furniture a female sits on during her period since that is the law dictated in the bible.

Gotta kick out the leaders whose parents plant 2 crops side-by-side since that is an abomination in the bible.

Gotta kick out the leaders who eat shellfish since that is an abomination in the bible.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby iron fist » Nov 22 2002 02:23:49 pm

aerogems wrote:
Iron Fist wrote:If you are truly Christian, you pretty much have to because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. We are still supposed to love and reach out to those people, HOWEVER having them in a leadership position in the faith when they are violating the tenets of the faith consistently with their lifestyle would not be appropriate.


Then you need to take a closer look at your own Bible, because there are descriptions of homosexual acts spinkled throughout it. I don't have specific examples I can just pull out of my ass at the moment (while unintentional, that pun works kind of nicely with the topic), it shouldn't be too hard to find with Google for those who don't want to wait for me to get around to it. Some people have made a pretty strong case for Jesus being gay. Which includes more than just walking all over the country side with a bunch of guys. Just because people who like wrestling seem to enjoy rolling around on a mat with other men who barely have any clothing on, and grope each other doesn't necessarilly make all wrestlers gay.... Although high school and college wrestling does originate in ancient Greece where homosexuality was a major part of the culture for Greek men.
Dude, you haven't ever read the Bible, and if you have you don't have much comprehension. I don't know what your sources are, but they are biased and not grounded in fact.

Hey dormpuppy, don't know what you are talking about, but guess what!?!? Those aren't abominations anymore. Not since Jesus. Pork is clean. Only under the law of moses, which we are no longer bound by, were those things abominations. And some of those things were never abominations in the bible period (polyester hadn't been invented), so I don't know what you are talking about. However, I completely understand why a group would ask a leader who didn't agree with the goals or principles of the group to step down. LGBTA would make someone like Fred Phelps step down if he held a leadership postition, wouldn't he? And it would be because he wouldn't agree with your group. So don't be hypocritical about this.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby citydogisu » Nov 22 2002 02:54:24 pm

Iron Fist wrote:
aerogems wrote:
Iron Fist wrote:If you are truly Christian, you pretty much have to because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. We are still supposed to love and reach out to those people, HOWEVER having them in a leadership position in the faith when they are violating the tenets of the faith consistently with their lifestyle would not be appropriate.


Then you need to take a closer look at your own Bible, because there are descriptions of homosexual acts spinkled throughout it. I don't have specific examples I can just pull out of my ass at the moment (while unintentional, that pun works kind of nicely with the topic), it shouldn't be too hard to find with Google for those who don't want to wait for me to get around to it. Some people have made a pretty strong case for Jesus being gay. Which includes more than just walking all over the country side with a bunch of guys. Just because people who like wrestling seem to enjoy rolling around on a mat with other men who barely have any clothing on, and grope each other doesn't necessarilly make all wrestlers gay.... Although high school and college wrestling does originate in ancient Greece where homosexuality was a major part of the culture for Greek men.
Dude, you haven't ever read the Bible, and if you have you don't have much comprehension. I don't know what your sources are, but they are biased and not grounded in fact.

Hey dormpuppy, don't know what you are talking about, but guess what!?!? Those aren't abominations anymore. Not since Jesus. Pork is clean. Only under the law of moses, which we are no longer bound by, were those things abominations. And some of those things were never abominations in the bible period (polyester hadn't been invented), so I don't know what you are talking about. However, I completely understand why a group would ask a leader who didn't agree with the goals or principles of the group to step down. LGBTA would make someone like Fred Phelps step down if he held a leadership postition, wouldn't he? And it would be because he wouldn't agree with your group. So don't be hypocritical about this.


*nods* so then you agree that homosexuality is no more of an abomination than eating an Iowa Chop. Good to see that.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby iron fist » Nov 22 2002 03:42:58 pm

No. You are messed up again. The new testament rules out everything you mentioned as abominations. But, like the old testament, it reaffirms homosexuality as a sin. So that is what this whole intervarsity thing is about, and that is why they do not object to members eating pork.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby citydogisu » Nov 22 2002 05:54:02 pm

Iron Fist wrote:No. You are messed up again. The new testament rules out everything you mentioned as abominations. But, like the old testament, it reaffirms homosexuality as a sin. So that is what this whole intervarsity thing is about, and that is why they do not object to members eating pork.


give me references to homosexuality in the new testament.

Better yet- give me 1 line where Jesus said "I hate fags" or spoke anything on homosexuality.
I really doubt that a man who had "love everyone" and "judge not" as his central tenets would say anything about 2 men loving each other.

And I thought that Jesus said that the law had been fulfilled.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby iron fist » Nov 22 2002 09:33:26 pm

dormpuppyisu wrote:
Iron Fist wrote:No. You are messed up again. The new testament rules out everything you mentioned as abominations. But, like the old testament, it reaffirms homosexuality as a sin. So that is what this whole intervarsity thing is about, and that is why they do not object to members eating pork.


give me references to homosexuality in the new testament.

Better yet- give me 1 line where Jesus said "I hate fags" or spoke anything on homosexuality.
I really doubt that a man who had "love everyone" and "judge not" as his central tenets would say anything about 2 men loving each other.

And I thought that Jesus said that the law had been fulfilled.
The law that he is referring to is the Moses law where you must make sacrifices before a priest etc. etc. to be justified before God. Through Jesus the law was fulfilled. And Jesus did love everyone, and that is why he came to save us. However, he made it very, very clear that while he loved everyone, we were all sinners, God hates sin, and we will die in our sins if we don't repent and come to him. As for the judge not, Jesus was certainly allowed to judge. Also, there is a difference between judging and observing. An observer can point out sin and say it is wrong according to the Bible, just as a witness to a car accident can say someone illegally ran a red light. Thus, InterVarsity can observe that that man was a homosexual and can say that behavior is wrong according to the Bible. That is different than judging, or passing sentence. In the car accident example, the witness points out illegality, but the JUDGE passes sentence and, well, judges the person. We can observe something is wrong, but it is GOD who judges people and passes sentence.

The Bible, NIV wrote:Rom. 1:27 : In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:0-11 : Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Note this second verse. It is very important for two reasons. One, it makes clear that homosexuality is no better and no worse than other sins, because God sees them all the same. Also it makes clear that there is hope for everyone through Jesus.

The Bible, NIV wrote:Jude 7 : In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
These are not all homosexual verses in the Bible. I picked only New Testament verses, and made sure they were clear. They illustrate the Bible's stance quite well.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby citydogisu » Nov 22 2002 09:53:36 pm

well- your bible is wrong since the word homosexual was not invented/created until the late 1800s.

1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10
At issue are two words: malakee (found only in 1Corinthians) and arsenokeeteh, which is in both verses. Tradition assumes a homosexual meaning of the words. Actual study reveals that in its use there, malakee means "morally weak" or, perhaps, "immoral persons". (The translation "effeminate" in the King James Version was an archaic one and, in any case, did not imply homosexuality in Greek--as it does not today.)
Arsenokeeteh means to refer directly to cult prostitution, again. Such practices were common both in Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy was). It clearly refers, in this use and later uses in other writings, to prostitutes who engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual cult practice. Neither of these words can possible be translated to mean "homosexual" or any similar distortion of their meaning.

Romans 1:26-27
This is the only passage in Scripture which, apparently, talks about homosexual behaviour among women as well as men. The dangerous, traditional interpretation come from failure to relate it to the whole chapter. Paul talks about idolatrous people who put things or concerns before their devotion to God. As an example, he refers to fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome. The homosexual activity to which he refers is idolatrous. He implies that all of the cult worshippers engaged in it. (The interpretation that he is writing about homosexual behaviour in general would force this to say that all idolatrous people become homosexual--an obviously spurious interpretation.) The final sentence referring to their just reward is a reference to the venereal disease which was epidemic among such cults. This specific reference to fertility cult worship cannot be construed to condemn homosexual behaviour in general.
"Against Nature"
Some argue that God created male and female, as recorded in Genesis, only as a means of procreation. Homosexual behaviour is condemned on the assumption that it does not produce offspring. Since gender difference exists, they say, heterosexual contact is the only way god meant sexuality to be expressed.
Procreation was only one of God's purposes in creation of humanity as recorded in Genesis. The other, equally important, was that God did not wish us to be alone. God gave us relationship with one another. It is dangerous to argue from simple biology when talking about ourselves as the image of God. Jesus told us that "God is Spirit" and we are created in the image of God. Human beings differ from animals in our spiritual nature. We are capable of relationship and this is the context of our sexuality. Our "natural" capacity for sexual expression, homosexual or heterosexual, is given meaning by our capacity for loving relationship.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby iron fist » Nov 22 2002 11:56:45 pm

First off, I appreciate the educated response. I will try to respond in a similar manner. I do have one question though. I don't think I was talking about Timothy, so how come you brought that up? What would your response to the Jude verse be?

In regards to the Corinthians verse. I don't believe there was a translational problem. They covered a number of deviations that a man could take sexually. They didn't just cover homosexuality, but also male prostitutes and those who are sexually immoral, which is talked about more in the following passage, which I won't type because it is somewhat lengthy. It appears to me that we can be pretty sure that homosexuality was included, as everything else mentioned was very similar and they were thorough in coming back to citing sexual sins three times. Also, you said that my Bible is wrong because the word homosexual wasn't invented until the 1800s. Well, the English word homosexual may not have been invented (not suprising since that word is an almost scientific classification), but they sure had ways of saying the same thing. I think the Romans verse was quite clear in its description. Also, this was not intended to be an exhaustive list. As I said before, I included no Old Testament verses, which are often the definition of sexual immorality. I also didn't try to hunt up every new testament verse. These are just some examples, but even if the Romans verse was the only one, that would be OK, because the Bible says it is 100 percent accurate. That of course would not convince an outside observer, I suppose, but it would be enough for intervarsity to ask the gay leader to step down since they base their group on the Bible.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby citydogisu » Nov 23 2002 12:05:34 am

yeah, most Christians dont fully comprehend the bible because they take it out of the historical and societal context to which parts were written.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby iron fist » Nov 23 2002 12:57:47 am

That was not what I said at all. I said most Christians take the Bible at its word when it says it is accurate.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby asheron » Nov 23 2002 01:00:34 am

Unfortunatly that word means nothing without context, as Dormpuppy said.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are which are persecuted for righteous sake, for theirs shall be the kingdom of heaven. And blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
asheron
I can spel.
 
Posts: 16146
Joined: Sep 07 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Under the Map of Mars

Postby iron fist » Nov 23 2002 01:29:15 am

Asheron wrote:Unfortunatly that word means nothing without context, as Dormpuppy said.
I gave the whole context. I didn't just say "homosexuality is bad," I quoted the entire verse to give you the full context it was presented in. Also, whether you agree with this or not, that group has a right to exist on its own terms.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby Alterego » Nov 23 2002 01:41:08 am

Dormpuppy,
That is an educated response, gleaned directly from the website http://www.religioustolerance.com (or a website using the same references). That website does speak on both sides of the issue, so rather than repeating the opposing argument, anyone can just check it out there if they're interested. But, in this situation an impasse has been reached where I can see neither side budging. The pro-homosexual "Christians" (for lack of a better term) side will use the reasons Dormpuppy quoted, and the "conservative" Christians will stand by the fact that they believe in the Bible's infalibility.
As far as the context issue goes, you are incorrect when you say that most Christians do not take context into account. In fact, very few Christians take every word in the Bible completely literally. The vast majority of Christians do take context into account, but they do have the right to discern if/how much effect the context has on the meaning of the passage! That's a very large issue in the church right there. How do different denominations interpret (take context into account) different passages. I believe that you cannot take the Bible completely literally, just do the form of writing found in much of the Bible. For example, much of the Bible is written in poetry or song for which often does not come through in translations. (I am not saying that the passages used against Homosexuality are)
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Postby citydogisu » Nov 23 2002 01:55:26 am

Alterego wrote:Dormpuppy,
That is an educated response, gleaned directly from the website http://www.religioustolerance.com (or a website using the same references). That website does speak on both sides of the issue, so rather than repeating the opposing argument, anyone can just check it out there if they're interested. But, in this situation an impasse has been reached where I can see neither side budging. The pro-homosexual "Christians" (for lack of a better term) side will use the reasons Dormpuppy quoted, and the "conservative" Christians will stand by the fact that they believe in the Bible's infalibility.
As far as the context issue goes, you are incorrect when you say that most Christians do not take context into account. In fact, very few Christians take every word in the Bible completely literally. The vast majority of Christians do take context into account, but they do have the right to discern if/how much effect the context has on the meaning of the passage! That's a very large issue in the church right there. How do different denominations interpret (take context into account) different passages. I believe that you cannot take the Bible completely literally, just do the form of writing found in much of the Bible. For example, much of the Bible is written in poetry or song for which often does not come through in translations. (I am not saying that the passages used against Homosexuality are)


HISTORICAL AND SOCIETAL CONTEXT.
Not "oh how should we read this poetry"

Why was shelfish and pork unclean 3000 years ago? Because they did not know how to properly handle these items.

Why was homosexuality "an abomination"? Because these tribes were fighting against others. They needed everyone to get married and have kids to maintain a population.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby iron fist » Nov 23 2002 02:23:22 am

dormpuppyisu wrote: <snip>

HISTORICAL AND SOCIETAL CONTEXT.
Not "oh how should we read this poetry"
None of the passages I quoted were poetry. Did it sound like poetry to you? Those were direct messages, and the context was a letter written to real people in a real church teaching them about Christianity and its beliefs and tenets. Sounds like one of the most accurate contexts you can get.

dormpuppyisu wrote:Why was shelfish and pork unclean 3000 years ago? Because they did not know how to properly handle these items.
It was an abomination whether they knew how to handle it or not. They knew how to cook meat longer than 2000 years ago, but it wasn't until God said it was clean that a change occured.

dormpuppyisu wrote:Why was homosexuality "an abomination"? Because these tribes were fighting against others. They needed everyone to get married and have kids to maintain a population.
No, it is because God said it was an abomination and perversion, and it had nothing to do with warfare or needing kids. You act like everyone would naturally choose homosexuality if given the chance, but that is not the case. They would have had no problem having kids because the vast majority would automatically choose heterosexuality. They wouldn't need to make laws to enforce breeding. Your argument is not correct. They outlawed homosexuality because they believed it was an abomination in God's sight. That is the context.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby asheron » Nov 23 2002 02:32:37 am

Nothing was said about homosexuality, but instead about homosexual sex.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are which are persecuted for righteous sake, for theirs shall be the kingdom of heaven. And blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
asheron
I can spel.
 
Posts: 16146
Joined: Sep 07 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Under the Map of Mars

Postby iron fist » Nov 23 2002 02:40:29 am

Asheron wrote:Nothing was said about homosexuality, but instead about homosexual sex.
I don't know what the point of this distinction is. First, I believe the Bible says homosexuality, but even if it made that distinction, what are you trying to say?
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby asheron » Nov 23 2002 03:04:12 am

Iron Fist wrote:
Asheron wrote:Nothing was said about homosexuality, but instead about homosexual sex.
I don't know what the point of this distinction is. First, I believe the Bible says homosexuality, but even if it made that distinction, what are you trying to say?


In the original text, it does not say homosexuality. That is in the translation.

There is a difference between a romantic relationship between two guys and homosexual sex. Things like in Romans, it is very likley that he was not talking about homosexuality bug about specific homosexual acts.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are which are persecuted for righteous sake, for theirs shall be the kingdom of heaven. And blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
asheron
I can spel.
 
Posts: 16146
Joined: Sep 07 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Under the Map of Mars

Postby Alterego » Nov 23 2002 01:50:18 pm

Like Iron Fist was saying, there really isn't much of a difference between homosexuality and homosexual sex. Homosexual sex is part of homosexuality (romantic relationship b/t two males). Sex is generally an eventual by-product of romance, isn't it?

I will try to cut off a possible circle we may be entering.
Homosexuals are necessarily sinning because they are homosexual, they must avoid their urges to have romantic relationships with males (inevitably sex) just as other Christians must avoid their urges to participate in other sins (e.g. alchoholism). Therefore, it comes down to whether or not homosexuals see their feelings toward the same sex as sinful or not. If they do not, as those who are in romantic relationships obviously do not, they are sinning.
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Postby Persona » Nov 23 2002 02:33:54 pm

Why is God against homosexual acts, anyway?
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
User avatar
Persona
postcount = god
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Oct 01 2002 04:24:27 pm
Location: Jesusland

Postby Bea Arthur » Nov 23 2002 08:36:42 pm

xerxes wrote:Why is God against homosexual acts, anyway?


a) it interferes with people "being fruitful and multiplying" (like we need more people or something...)

makes me wonder exactly how selfish god is.

b) god gets to send more people to send to hell.

The christian god seems to have purposely created a fucked up world. I can't figure out why an omnipotent, benevolent deity would, unless God's benevolence is in some ways contradictory to ours.
User avatar
Bea Arthur
i <3 strangetalk
 
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sep 09 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: the 'hood.

Postby iron fist » Nov 23 2002 09:11:12 pm

Actually, it is our fault this world is messed up since we decided to disobediantly sin. It isn't God's fault. And the Bible calls it a perversion of natural relations and the way God meant things to be. Look at the Romans verse above. And Asheron, you are dead wrong when you say the Bible only meant homosexual sex and not homosexual romance. I will requote the verse (emphasis added by me):

Romans 1:27 wrote:In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


Notice how the Bible cited BOTH lust for one another (homosexual romance) and indecent acts between men, which would include all sexual acts. The Bible covered them BOTH, and there is no distinction that you can make. All homosexuality is covered and pronounced wrong by the Bible. Alterego is correct when he says that men must avoid their homosexual feelings just like other men must avoid their desires for alcoholism or lustful desires towards pornography or women or adultery. Homosexuality is the same as these other sins, they must all be avoided and not acted out.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby asheron » Nov 23 2002 10:40:11 pm

Alcoholism isn't a sin. Just don't get sins confused with what crazy fundimentalists say are sins.

But you do see that you aren't taking that in context with the original language and social meanings. I'd look up the stuff on that verse.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are which are persecuted for righteous sake, for theirs shall be the kingdom of heaven. And blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
asheron
I can spel.
 
Posts: 16146
Joined: Sep 07 2001 12:00:00 am
Location: Under the Map of Mars

Postby Persona » Nov 23 2002 10:48:02 pm

Iron Fist wrote:Actually, it is our fault this world is messed up since we decided to disobediantly sin.

We? I don't ever being given a decision to sin. I think I was just born that way, that is, before I was born there was a 100% chance I would sin.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
User avatar
Persona
postcount = god
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Oct 01 2002 04:24:27 pm
Location: Jesusland

Postby citydogisu » Nov 30 2002 06:41:31 pm

eh- doesnt make much difference anyway.
God is a worm in a tequila bottle.
User avatar
citydogisu
Super Duper Soldier
 
Posts: 8053
Joined: Jul 25 2002 02:52:24 pm
Location: Whereva.

Postby omar » Dec 02 2002 11:20:54 pm

dormpuppy, i think it'd be appropriate to be a little more tolerant toward Christians, especially since you represent a lot of homosexuals.[/quote]
omar
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Dec 02 2002 11:29:18 am

Postby Cuentas » Dec 03 2002 12:42:26 am

the orignal language and meanings
1 corinthians 6:9
just what the term of homosexual offenders is refering to
arsenokoites= one engagin in homosexual acts, sexual deviant
this word comes from the other words
arren= variant male and
kenophonia which comes from kenos which means empty vain ineffective
which is a variation of the word
kiote =marriage bed of sexual immorality

its late for me and i dont remember what imeant
Cuentas
flirting with addiction
 
Posts: 494
Joined: Sep 19 2002 08:26:00 pm

Postby iron fist » Dec 06 2002 02:00:37 am

xerxes wrote:
Iron Fist wrote:Actually, it is our fault this world is messed up since we decided to disobediantly sin.

We? I don't ever being given a decision to sin. I think I was just born that way, that is, before I was born there was a 100% chance I would sin.
Our precursors made the choice for us. Now we are predisposed.
This message brought to you courtesy of Internet Explorer 7.0
User avatar
iron fist
postcount = god
 
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sep 27 2002 11:13:36 am

Postby Persona » Dec 06 2002 10:30:57 am

Iron Fist wrote:
xerxes wrote:
Iron Fist wrote:Actually, it is our fault this world is messed up since we decided to disobediantly sin.

We? I don't ever being given a decision to sin. I think I was just born that way, that is, before I was born there was a 100% chance I would sin.
Our precursors made the choice for us. Now we are predisposed.

So you admit it's not our fault and that "we" did not decide to be disobediant? That sounds unfair that we should be predisposed to sin and then blamed for it.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
User avatar
Persona
postcount = god
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Oct 01 2002 04:24:27 pm
Location: Jesusland

Postby Alterego » Dec 06 2002 10:55:01 am

We aren't "predisposed" to sin, we are sinful. Predisposed we simply mean that we have a greater tendency to sin, every part of humanity and creation is tainted by sin. Unfair? I hardly know how to respond to that. How can we know what is fair and what isn't?
Alterego
haha i'm a noob
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 13 2002 11:32:44 pm

Next

Return to Religion & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest