Charlie
-
Posts
373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Charlie
-
-
Can I ask, is it really deep? I'm in the market for a new mattress (replaced a 20 year old with cheapo, which broke in less than 5!). I went to Sears a few weeks ago and they were all so deeeeep! I really don't want to replace all my sheets. How do people do it?
-
I don't think I'm following you here. Exodus 34 is a quick recap of the whole Law, which had already been given in detail the first time Moses was on the mountain. It is not a replacement for everything written in the chapters previous. In fact, one could make the case that the specific laws included in the chapter 34 recap are chosen to be representative of various parts of the whole Law. There are mentions of sacrifices, festivals, dietary restrictions, etc. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that boiling a kid in its mother's milk is not contained in the section of scripture commonly known as the Ten Commandments (cf. Ex. 20, Deut. 5). There are a total of 613 commands in the Mosaic Law. As the name implies only (roughly) 10 appear in the Ten Commandments. None of them are dietary laws. In fact, the Ten Commandments, as the summary of the Law, are all moral commands (with the possible exception of the Sabbath).
I think you misunderstand how Christians view the Mosaic Law. Just because two commands appear side by side in the Law, it doesn't mean that they both have to be upheld and obeyed by Christians. At the time they were given, God expected adherence to them all. But the book of Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial and civil commands were types and shadows -- their reality is in Christ. These have been fulfilled and are no longer necessary; only the moral aspects are universal. However, the commands are not neatly categorized in Exodus and Deuteronomy (moral, civil, ceremonial) because at the time they were written to Israel they were all relevant. Their proximity to each other in the document is irrelevant.
I understand what you say about hurting people by accident on purpose. I think we can all relate. We all lash out when feeling defensive or vulnerable, and sometimes a sharp word can feel like a safety line in the heat of the moment. I don't think these necessarily reveal the overall intent of the person, impulsive behaviors are just that - impulsive and sometimes get away from our rational intentions. But I'm talking about hurting people, or refusing to help when possible, by virtue of keeping quiet or silently validating an immoral idea, knowing its effects bring pain to others, or dismissing them.
I understand what you are saying, but wouldn't you agree that, by your definition, the morality or immorality of any idea is subjective? If I disagree that a particular idea is immoral, am I culpable for pain caused to others when I silently validate it? Why would I speak against an idea that I don't believe to be immoral?
I disagree that God's law is painful. I don't feel an ounce of pain rejecting it. I'm happy to blaspheme against the holy spirit and have never felt an ounce of discomfort. Most of the people I know offline and on feel this way. In a world of 7 billion people, it would appear the majority don't feel pain, or else they'd be Christian too. I would argue the pain you observe is a result of the cognitive conflict that occurs when one is faced with two diametrically opposing, but very deeply felt forces of cognition. One the one hand, we're hard wired to defer to authority from infancy. We're hard wired to seek approval in our behaviors and flee those who break rules (unless they're quite charismatic and produce rewards too great to reject). This process is observable in some really interesting ways. On the other hand, we cannot deny what we perceive, and that includes internal stimuli. Being told homosexuality is abhorrent is painful only if those people close to you think that. Otherwise, we'd see a universal response to homosexuality that reflects this pain, not overwhelmingly in conservative religious communities almost exclusively.
If you believe we're hardwired to defer to authority, you must have had much more compliant toddlers than I did, LOL! FTR, I didn't say that the only possible response to the conviction of the Law is belief. For many of us, the natural tendency to self-justify pushes in the other direction, so that we convince ourselves the Law doesn't apply, for whatever reason (it isn't real, it's immoral, etc.). I think we know we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I do have a question, however -- and I hope our conversation to this point has been respectful enough that you know I do not mean this with any degree of snark. If the bolded is true, then why have several posters here who have LBGT loved ones become extremely upset with other posters who were adamant that homosexuality is wrong? If it's not painful to hear from strangers, why the reaction?
I'm not sure I'm tracking you with the story in Exodus. The very first sentence in chapter 34 refers to the tablets that Moses broke (in chapter 32) and that these are the replacement commandments. The idea that there are ten commandments is a popular idea based on the bible, but that's it. Wiki has more info on the different commandments and how they've been compiled and referred to in history. But I don't want to stray too far from the point - Christians identify sin differently.
The idea of morality being subjective is pretty clearly observable in history, cultures, and biology. There are certain core elements to morality, like fairness and empathy, but how those are expressed, or what we call moral behavior, differ according to certain variables. So maybe we're splitting hairs? I don't know. I kind of don't think so. But is this too far off point?
You ask, "If I disagree that a particular idea is immoral, am I culpable for pain caused to others when I silently validate it? Why would I speak against an idea that I don't believe to be immoral? Well, while the answer to your question is, in my opinion, no, but I don't think it applies here. There are literally pages of explanations why applying a certain belief is harmful in this very thread. It's hard to accept a claim of ignorance in this case.
The Milgram experiment is probably the most well known study that supports the idea that humans instinctively defer to authority. Your problem toddlers (and mine) are explained by the fact we're also hard wired to explore, experiment, and act autonomously!
You ask, "If the bolded is true, then why have several posters here who have LBGT loved ones become extremely upset with other posters who were adamant that homosexuality is wrong? If it's not painful to hear from strangers, why the reaction?" I can't answer for others, but I imagine it's for the same reason you educate your children and do what you can to see them not get hurt but to succeed - empathy. Read some stories by lgbt people who grew up in Christian homes that sought to "correct" lgbt behavior, and you'll see why people are upset. Real people get hurt real bad because people are convinced their hostile behaviors justified.
And finally, I too have enjoyed this exchange. I hope you understand I don't mean to present any hostility. If it looks like I'm angry and accusatory, it's not my intent. Truly I believe that if we got together over hot chocolate, we'd find each other quite pleasant company. These questions are fun to discuss, I think, and now that my kids are older, I find fewer opportunities to do this. So thank you for keeping me company!
-
3
-
-
Why does the medical profession get to decide how gay people are referred to? Shouldn't gay people get to decide that? If we're going to use medically accurate terms, I guess we should stop saying baby and start saying fetus or infant?
Medical professionals are the peer reviewers for medical issues. When a claim is made, its the community of those trained and experienced in the field that determine if the claim is legit or not. Sadly, the medical community is not allowed to ever update according to new information. That's why medical schools teach about the four humors, and obstetricians still look after the development of the humble homunculus. Oh wait.
-
7
-
-
@ PeachyDoodle, in the events written in Exodus chapter 34, the writer states: " The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai." So Moses went up the second time with two more stone tablets. The lord came down in a cloud and stood there telling Moses what to write. "Then the Lord said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you. Obey what I command you today." He goes on to talk about not making treaties with Canaanites, don't make idols, celebrate the festival of unleavened bread, redeem all firstborn males, including animals (?), rest on the Sabbath, and finally do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk. "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel'.â€
The boiling command is secured between statements of the lord telling Moses this is the commandment he is making with them. These are the new commandments written down on stone, the one replacing the stone that broke at the bottom of the mountain. If the goat doesn't count, neither would keeping the Sabbath or the celebration of unleavened bread (which evolves, through the "last supper" to modern communion or eucharist).
I understand what you say about hurting people by accident on purpose. I think we can all relate. We all lash out when feeling defensive or vulnerable, and sometimes a sharp word can feel like a safety line in the heat of the moment. I don't think these necessarily reveal the overall intent of the person, impulsive behaviors are just that - impulsive and sometimes get away from our rational intentions. But I'm talking about hurting people, or refusing to help when possible, by virtue of keeping quiet or silently validating an immoral idea, knowing its effects bring pain to others, or dismissing them.
I disagree that God's law is painful. I don't feel an ounce of pain rejecting it. I'm happy to blaspheme against the holy spirit and have never felt an ounce of discomfort. Most of the people I know offline and on feel this way. In a world of 7 billion people, it would appear the majority don't feel pain, or else they'd be Christian too. I would argue the pain you observe is a result of the cognitive conflict that occurs when one is faced with two diametrically opposing, but very deeply felt forces of cognition. One the one hand, we're hard wired to defer to authority from infancy. We're hard wired to seek approval in our behaviors and flee those who break rules (unless they're quite charismatic and produce rewards too great to reject). This process is observable in some really interesting ways. On the other hand, we cannot deny what we perceive, and that includes internal stimuli. Being told homosexuality is abhorrent is painful only if those people close to you think that. Otherwise, we'd see a universal response to homosexuality that reflects this pain, not overwhelmingly in conservative religious communities almost exclusively.
-
3
-
-
Nope. That's more of a secular morality: if you can't find any way that this action hurts another person, according to how I define "hurt", you can't prove it's wrong.
As with the Bible (and since sin is a biblical concept), it starts with God, not people and what they want or value. Because we tend to want and value the wrong things. (Not always; that's not what the doctrine of total depravity says--or sufficient depravity, as Dallas Willard said, "I believe that every human being is sufficiently depraved that when we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, 'I merited this.'")
I gotta run out the door or else I'd get into what sin is a bit further. lol Yes, we can sin against one another, but EVERY sin is also a sin against God.
Well of course it starts with God. Without God and the bible "sin" wouldn't be a thing. Behavior would be explained in other ways. Behaviors that were named in the bible as sins have been demoted when it became unarguable they don't negatively affect people. Nobody cares about the sin of boiling a baby goat in its own milk anymore. It's so irrelevant that most Christians don't know it's one of their "ten" commandments. Slavery isn't considered a sin in the bible, whereas it is today, because it's unarguably immoral according to modern standards. So yes, it starts with the bible, and yes secular morality influences Christian morality. That's why this last decade has seen a reversal in terms of Christian views about lgbt - the influence is very real, it inspires change within Christian churches.
If you can define "sin" in such a way that all Christians agree, it'll be the first in 2000 years. Observably, it usually validates the individual Christian's own personal moral outlook. So when I hear people who don't condemn homosexuality but try and encourage people to not quite accept homosexuality, it would appear like they haven't quite figured out their own moral stance on the issue, but are hedging their bets just in case. That's why I agree with previous posters that suggest in 20-50 years lgbt will not even be a blip on the moral radar in Churches - the debate will be over by then. In the meantime, real people are getting really hurt while many real Christians sit back and give themselves permission to not think about it.
edit: I'm a little concerned that my first sentence sounds like I'm rolling my eyes. I promise I'm not! I hope it doesn't come across that way to anyone, because I really don't feel that way and I don't want to give that impression! ack! [/social anxiety]
-
5
-
-
Referring to the idea that homosexuality is no more or less a "sin" than any other behavior is big part of the problem, imo. Most sins are considered sins because they negatively affect people. Despite years of trying to justify being lgbt as a personal or social problem, many Christians have yet to come up with any reason to denounce such behavior other than it offends God. So when I hear the argument that homosexuality is a sin like any other, I interpret them saying they really don't consider the practical meaning of "sin," they're allowing themselves not to think about the effects of telling people their sexuality is abhorrent, they're just following orders. A good soldier doesn't question his orders after all, he follows them. When I hear "no sin is worse than any other," I hear a Christian give themselves permission to not consider the moral ramifications of their own behavior.
-
4
-
-
I think many Christians don't realise that denying the LGBTQ the same rights as themselves (right to love/marry/cohabit/have children/live in dignity etc) is a denial of human rights. Either one is for granting the same and equal rights to 'all' fellow human beings or against. There is no neutral ground in human rights.
"Liking" was not enough. I wholeheartedly agree.
-
2
-
-
Thank you. I wish the members on this thread who defend their right to call LGBTQ 'sinners' would also chime in with their interpretation.
I wish there was an emoji to describe how utterly disheartening it is to read the above post. The amount of hate towards fellow human beings; whatever their gender and sexual orientation!
One interpreted lgbt family members to be analogous to abusive family members. Clarification was not given upon request. To the second point, I remember watching a youtube clip of two members of WBC on some show (Russel Brand maybe?). What struck me was that they absolutely disagree with the idea that they hate anyone. They believe they are doing the loving thing by alerting people to the one thing that can save them from an eternal horror. I don't think the Christians here hate other people, although I do believe a great many Christians in general are taught to suppress empathy.
-
I have come to the conclusion that an awful lot of hateful nonsense promoted by the religions of the earth could be avoided if everyone just thought "WWMRD" and acted on it. What would Mr. Rogers do?
Be kind, be gracious, be friendly, be courteous, and don't be a busy body. Some people definitely did not watch enough Mr. Rogers growing up!
If you can manage that, my kid can live without looking over his shoulder all the time. If you can manage that, then the Bill of Rights can apply to him to. If you can manage that, he can be what he is without hurting you, and you can be you without hurting him.
That seems like a plan we should all be willing to live with.
All I can say is that as usual, I am eternally grateful my son was born to me and not most of the people I interact with IRL and online.
Parenthetically, I recently read that Mr. Rogers once got a letter from a little girl who asked him if he would please let her know when he was feeding his fish, as she was blind. From that day on, every time he fed his fish he mentioned it out loud.
:wub:
-
16
-
-
Okay, stop the bus. Let's talk about Jesus in the New Testament. He criticized the church and its leaders and its laws. He reached out to the marginalized--the ones society and the church ignored or vilified. He said to love. Period.
Respectfully, I disagree. Where Yahweh in the old testament punished people who strayed with plagues and hemorrhoids, Jesus of the new testament punishes people who stray with eternal suffering. Furthermore, he says most people on earth will endure this faith. He even shares a parable about a rich man who dies and starts to suffer and wants to warn his brothers so they escape the same fate, but Jesus shows no mercy. In my opinion, the moral crime is greater for the god of the new testament because he not only punishes a person for eternity, he punishes for thought crimes (those who don't believe are already damned, John 3:18).
@OP, In conversations I've had with Christians, it's this desire to help their child avoid eternal suffering that inspires them to adopt and advocate what they consider to be "tough love" stance by showing an lgbt child that they won't behave in a way they believe enables sin. It's kind of like the story of Tootle the Train and all the red flags. It's just "better" when you follow the rules. Only, instead of running into red flags, the sinner will suffer for all eternity. What parent wouldn't do everything they could to avoid that, right? ss
-
Yeah, another religion has. The one that dangles gay people from roof tops and drops them or beheads them or locks them in cages and burns them to death. If I had to choose between conversion therapy or being dropped from a roof top, the conversion therapy is less violent.
But seriously, I just wanted to know where in the bible it says it is ok to exclude gay people, not about bashing Christianity. I know plenty of gay people who are Christians and did not have these issues. Then I moved to the south and have seen this. Wanted to know if I was missing anything. I did not ask about the Koran or Qu'oran, I am unsure how to spell it, and what it says about being gay. But now I would like to know. I want to know if those violent acts against gay people is a fundamental part of Islam or if it is just an extreme thing kept to some groups.
Well here's the thing, no matter what passage you find in the bible, you'll find Christians disagree on its interpretation. There are passages that say God hates gay people, and that they deserve death. This is no longer a prominent Christian belief in the US (but is increasingly so in Uganda). Most Christians will not agree the passage about deserving death applies today, for various reasons, but the passages are there nevertheless (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13). Similarly, there are passages that suggest being gay is on par with unholiness, and other things that are contrary to the ways of God (1st Timothy 1:9-10). There are passages that suggest the Christian should separate themselves from unbelievers, and then Jesus will receive them (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). There are passages that list behaviors and people to avoid, and suggest that people who don't abide by the doctrine of Christ (which Christians have yet to agree on), should not be received into the homes of Christians because these people are "partakers of evil deeds" (2nd John 1:9-11). And there's lots more.
Of course there are many passages that can be found to the contrary, and even these passages may be interpreted quite differently than I'm suggesting, but you're asking about passages that support a particular point of view, so that's why I'm limiting to those.
For another, more vitriolic and nauseating look, consider the bible verses shared by the church everyone loves to hate, Westboro Baptist. I offer these not because they're a popular church, but because they've already done the work for you. They've compiled bible verses that contribute to the idea that excluding lgbt people from the Christian's life is God's will because their immoral character is infectious and detrimental to society. Ever heard the "gay agenda?" I kid you not, people think there is a vast, demonic conspiracy to ruin America by turning people gay, which will then incur the wrath of God such that 911 9/11s wouldn't even come close to our collective punishment. I don't endorse anything they say, and I expect most Christians here would not agree on the entirety of their message (if any of it), but we've already heard rhetoric that suggests lgbt people are inherently immoral because the bible says, so clearly there exists a spectrum of opinion on the issue.
Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs as filthy, impudent & libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6;Phil. 3:2), produce in society mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom & fields of Gomorrah, poisoning society's mores with the poison of dragons & the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), show their sin & shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless & unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5), liars & murderers (Jn. 8:44), filthy & lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are likened unto dogs eating their own vomit, sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness to dishonor their own bodies, to vile affections, & to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28); and, unable to blush, be ashamed, or repent (Jer. 6:15), they have no hope of Heaven (Rev. 22:15). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10:31.
So maybe you can understand, if a preacher is spewing this kind of sentiment from the pulpit, not all at once but in bits and pieces, how a person might conclude that ultimately, it's in their best interest to get rid of the "partakers of evil deeds" from their midst? "At one point, and I was right there," he says, "my mom actually told this lady that she loved all of her children besides me."
(inb4 "not real Christians")
-
Some people believe moral corruption is harmful.
You said to me earlier you don't eschew facts surrounding sexuality, namely lgbt variety. I'm going to hold you to that. We can measure the harm of behavior by the emotional, psychological, and physiological effects on an individual. These are facts we can obtain. Are you now suggesting that living with a gay sibling is as harmful as living with an abusive parent? Are these two scenarios roughly equal in measure emotionally, psychologically, and physiologically? If that is the case, I would appreciate seeing some objective evidence for this measurable harm done by living with a gay sibling because I seriously doubt such a study has ever been presented. Either that, or I would be compelled to consider you to be eschewing these facts for reasons I don't want to speculate, but if you want to clarify that would be fine, too.
-
3
-
-
Huh? I don't know your kid and said nothing about your kid. My only comparison was that some think nothing of cutting off relatives for all sorts of reasons but to do so for moral reasons is seen as horrible.
And I did say I am tired and it was perhaps a bad comparison.
I disagree it's that simple. Cutting off relatives because of abusive behavior is a moral decision because abuse is hurtful, it's detrimental to the emotional, psychological, and physical development of children, as well as to damaging to the well-being of the other adults who suffer from the abuse. Living with a gay sibling isn't detrimental to the emotional, psychological, or physical development of children, so your analogy is off by too wide a margin to work. It's not only off, it's an insulting, offensive comparison to make. You're comparing lgbt teens, like mine, to abusive people who hurt other people. My question is how you understand being queer to be analogous to abuse, and if you don't, would you retract that comparison?
-
11
-
-
Yeah I am tired and it probably doesn't make sense.
It not only doesn't make sense, it's insulting. You're telling me my child is abusive by virtue of their refusal to capitulate to your personal sexual standards. If you don't have a reason for such an accusation, I'd appreciate your retracting that.
-
2
-
-
I consider that I get to say who I associate with. Just like people here who cut off nosy MILs or bossy FILs.
I know it isnt exactly the same but one is no more extreme than the other.
That's like saying stealing paperclips from work is no more morally outrageous than stabbing and then then raping orphaned baby panda bears. After all, a sin is a sin is a sin. It isn't exactly the same, but one offense is no more extreme than the other.
I don't comprehend this.
You're equating homosexuality with abuse. In what way would a person in your life abuse you by virtue of being openly queer?
How did you become the victim of an lgbt teen in this hypothetical scenario? How does that work? Connect the dots for me, if you would.
-
3
-
-
It is interesting to me that so many on this board strongly encourage going no contact with family who are difficult or emotionally abusive. Your MIL gives your kids sweets against your wishes? Cut her off!
But Holy Cow don't cut off anyone who lives contrary to your moral code.
Do you consider people who do not agree with your moral code to be abusive? Would your son or step son, should either one, come out as queer, be interpreted as an act of hostility towards you?
-
I am not eschewing such knowledge.
Well, thanks for that assurance, but it doesn't solve my kid's problem about inadvertently offending the next Christian who believes they are righteously justified to dole out some punishment for the "crime" of being an unrepentant gay teen.
-
5
-
-
Never quite understood how this is supposed to relate to humans. Animals eat their young too but we don't consider that desirable behavior in humans. I don't think it is very sound to apply animal behavior to human behavior.
For the same reason we study animals to understand any part of human physiology. The more information we know, the efficiently we can identify and address problems, from circulation of the blood to behavior. Many of the basic structures and functions of the brain are common to all animals. Since complex human thoughts are built on a foundation of simpler mental processes that are evident in animals, animal studies can shed light on uniquely human behaviors. These processes are biological in nature, they're physical, and so can be studied methodically, with great attention to detail. Thrse studies give us more information about our own behavior. Sex isn't just a simple impulsive response to available reproductive organs. There's some very specific behaviors that can be observed and studied, from the humble fly to the president of the United States.
-
4
-
-
I read comments in this thread that illustrate just how emboldened some Christians are to eschew facts that don't conform to their beliefs.
I don't know what this means. What facts are being eschewed?
If the only Christians wandering around were the homeschoolers on this forum, I wouldn't much mind it so much, but there are literally millions of you. I'm surrounded. My gay kid is especially surrounded in the city in which they go to college. Thank goodness the college itself is very inclusive and supportive because there's simply no way to know which Christians are hostile and aggressive and feel justified in violence until after you get yelled at, punched in the face, or tied to a rural fence post and left to die.
The knowledge we have of human behavior, particularly sexuality, namely lgbt variations.
-
1
-
-
So far I'm thinking:
Wide pages instead of tall.
100 years per page.
Completely blank except for the timeline.
Procklicked, so I can add or replace as needed.
On a two page spread the left side would be the timeline and the right side would be the a world map to map the events from the left side.
Am I missing anything?
Sounds fun! I ordered a book from Homeschool in the Woods eons ago. I liked the quality and especially liked the images and brief captions. We scrapped the books and went with a wall design. I agree that the last couple decades get pretty cramped up so you might choose each page to represent fifty years, and then ten years as you get closer to current time.
-
2
-
-
Did you read anything in this thread from anyone who you felt would be hostile or violent to your child or any other homosexual? I didn't.
I read comments in this thread that illustrate just how emboldened some Christians are to eschew facts that don't conform to their beliefs. If the only Christians wandering around were the homeschoolers on this forum, I wouldn't much mind it so much, but there are literally millions of you. I'm surrounded. My gay kid is especially surrounded in the city in which they go to college. Thank goodness the college itself is very inclusive and supportive because there's simply no way to know which Christians are hostile and aggressive and feel justified in violence until after you get yelled at, punched in the face, or tied to a rural fence post and left to die.
-
9
-
-
:iagree: ...or the victim/ target of a hate crime. Imagine living each day wondering if your child will be the target of a hate crime.
When my queer kid asked me about the city of their choice for college, I realized they meant safety for being lgbt. It hit me like a punch in the gut. I never, ever had to consider my personal safety for something as innocent as holding my bf's hand or giving him a kiss in public in college. This is something my kid can't take for granted. Reading comments here that show some Christians simply defer to biblical alternative facts. It's a real eye-opener. How are any of us to know which Christian is peaceful and which one believes the holy spirit is lighting a righteous fire under their feet when they see a gay person? My gay kid?
-
11
-
-
This seems outside the scope of this topic and more about Christianity itself, but I don't know any Christian who takes their faith seriously who would claim they heard some absolute judgment about something beyond their own experience from the Holy Spirit. The journey is more difficult and internal than that.
I do, however, unfortunately know a lot of people who don't care much about becoming more like or having a relationship with God, but who do fiercely guard some sort of tribal identity as "Christian" making them feel morally superior to others. I assume that is the Christianity to which you speak. That isn't so very different from many identities people assume - its purpose being merely an ego-driven source of identity and self-righteousness rather than becoming better.
And you're correct, the discrepancies in interpretation is precisely the reason that some denominations don't believe people are capable of interpreting the bible themselves at all, that instead a trained priest should do it for them.
I don't know what you mean by the bold, but I'm responding to the conversation in light of the OP's request for biblical references that her Christian friends might be using to justify their actions. It is my understanding that Christians who throw their children out of their homes do so because they believe they do understand the bible correctly, and are following the call of the holy spirit. My comments about the arguments used by the OP's friends getting less and less popular as time goes by can be seen in the trends of the church in history, among Christians who believed they understood the bible correctly and were led by the holy spirit. [edit - that's the argument I'm referring to, hostility against lgbt, not Christianity in general, although I think the two are related so I'm probably being vague, sorry].
Your second paragraph just reiterates the problem I saw in your last comment. Everyone who thinks they have a relationship with God can't be right, but no one thinks they're wrong. The OP's friends likely think they have a close, personal relationship with God, as do those Christians who are most progressive about sexuality. I imagine people who kick their kids out do so because they think it's the morally high road, and they believe Jesus is holding their hands and giving them the strength to make such a sacrifice. At least, this is the impression many give to justify an action that is increasingly seen as cruel or unjustified by society.
edited for clarity of argument
-
3
-
-
The problem is really that the Bible isn't very clear about what to do where culture and politics clash with faith. I mean, you can read Galatians and Ephesians and see Paul basically arguing to lie to people for the sake of Christ, but not to offend people. That the law is meant to serve us, and not us the law. That all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. Many of these things were political and cultural issues, and they were unimportant compared to bringing people to Christ. And yet Paul was very harsh about gossip and sexual sin, but okay with lying and defying other rules such as dietary laws. It might lead one to question whether Paul himself was gay, and struggled with the meaning of it.
I think the religious community, even the far-right, is coming around on the transgender thing. I know I was flipping channels one day and came upon Pat Robertson on the 700 club being asked about someone who was transgender and he was okay with gender reassignment surgery. It shocked me, but I didn't dream it, here's a huffpo article with video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/pat-robertson-transgender_n_3672244.html
I think many of these things are more political than biblical. We're Methodist, and the general council keeps voting to delay deciding the homosexual issue, knowing there will likely be a church split when they do make a decision, whatever that is. I think the biggest problem is that most of us reluctantly agree the bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the factions that are fighting over this are fighting to either 1) ignore the bible completely and have homosexuals in leadership and gay marriages in the church or 2) Throw them out altogether. I think most Methodists would prefer to welcome everyone into the church, and keep people who are biblically sinful out of leadership, without throwing anyone out.
Ultimately, I think in the next 20-50 years as the older generations retire from church leadership, you'll find that most mainline faiths aren't going to consider who someone identifies as or who they love as very important. But now it matters. If this bothers you, you should probably find a more liberal church.
As a Christian, I think the correct thing to do is to know the bible and listen to the Holy Spirit. Acting out of love and obeying the Spirit is MUCH more difficult than having some arbitrary set of laws to follow. You must constantly check to see where your ego/flesh is in play.
As an outsider, I see every Christian claim to do this. The way I see it, either you can't really understand what this spirit is communicating to you, or it's deceiving most of you, or trolling all of you, or you Christians attribute your own personal moral outlook to this supposedly external source to validate what you already think. You all read roughly the same book and come away with vastly different conclusions, many of them directly opposing each other. And for sure in twenty years homosexuality will be denied as important in the church just like segregation and the suffragette movement is today. But history tells a different story, and people aren't ignorant of this.
I think kids today are more knowledgeable than ever before. Few young Christians today will accept the claim that homosexuality is a result of demonic influence (although I read something about that just recently, poor teen). They know it's a matter of biology. And increasingly, they know people who fit the category but defy the stereotype. They know the same arguments were used in the past by the church against other so-called outsiders that are perfectly, and harmlessly integrated into society today (divorced and/or working women, Jews, etc). The argument is falling on deaf ears because it's loosing traction. It's a faulty argument, an illogical argument, an insensitive and mean-spirited argument, and people increasingly see it as such. So people like the OPs friends are increasingly interpreted as being cruel and hostile, even as a few holdouts support such things. And in twenty years, many Christians will deny these hold outs ever existed. Reference slavery for examples.
-
6
-
Religion and LGBTQ
in The Chat Board
Posted
Maybe so. Still, the warning allowed me time to quick BBQ a baby to the great god atheismo before continuing to read, lest the words lead me to faith like Paul warned. Once safe from any interfering supernatural juju, I read a post that illustrated my point rather nicely - despite years of trying to justify being lgbt as a personal or social problem, many Christians have yet to come up with any reason to denounce such behavior other than it offends God.