Monday, June 28, 2010

Why Fundamentalists Must Exclude Gays (and Other "Sinners")

My latest on Huffington Post....

Click on this title to read...

Understanding the "Reason" Why Fundamentalists Must Exclude Gays (and Other "Sinners")


John Smith said...

"For instance, Evangelicals go so far as to tell lesbian, gay, bisexual/pansexual, and transgender people that they can be healed
of gayness, and even healed of gender ambiguity! They tell them that they can "change" and become heterosexual and thus "normal" if they only choose to accept Christ and/or seek godly counseling and admit that their gayness is a "chosen lifestyle" and that they weren't born that way regardless of what gay people themselves say about how and when they discovered they were gay.

"The history of theology (Christian or otherwise) is the history of people desperately trying to fit the way things actually are into the way their holy books says they should be. And since the holy books -- if taken literally -- are filled with backward nonsense, something has to give."

*Another demonic utterance from Frank, a.k.a., "St Francine the Ambiguous, the Hater of Hate and Lover of Non-Hate" Schaeffer, in his paradoxical quest to fit God into that small, fallible, and petty little corner called human reasoning.

*Were you aware that what you are saying about the fundamentalists' teaching on homosexuality you are also saying about the Eastern Orthodox teaching. You still claim to be a member of the Church. Here are a few "literal" quotes of "backward nonsense" from a few historical Orthodox Christian Holy Books:

"And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty." Leviticus 20:13
(incidentally, a cursory read of St John Chrysostom will verify that the Holy Fathers of the Church weren't at all embarrassed or ashamed to teach what the Holy Scriptures actually say-which is that God DID command in the Old Testament that the various listed offenders be stoned to death, such as homosexuals in this verse)

"...and burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error." The Holy Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, 1:27

"All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males...but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature...But when God has left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine satanical, but their life too was diabolical..." St John Chrysostom, Homily 4 on St Paul's epistle to the Romans

"It has seemed best to exclude the man who has madly fallen upon another man from Communion for three years, weeping and fasting, and eating dry foods toward the evening, and doing two hundred
prostrations; but as for the one who for the most part practices slothfulness, let him fulfill the fifteen years" Canon 18 of St John
the Faster; Canon 62 of St Basil the Great; Canon 4 of St Gregory of Nyssa

The present Canon penances the sodomist not to receive Communion for three years and to weep on account of his sin and, fasting until the evening, to eat dry foods, and to do two hundred prostrations every day. But if out of negligence he does not want to observe these, let him not commune for fifteen years, according to Canon 62 of St Basil the Great... --Interpretation by St Nikodemos the Hagiorite

mom23 said...

Which is why, John Smith, it's crazy to believe any of it. Seriously, "eat dry foods and do two hundred prostrations every day?" Like that wasn't made up by some OCD sufferer in the dark ages...

John Smith said...

Well, mom23, people actually believe in God and take their tradition seriously, thinking they're preparing for something yet to come. What I find strange and odd is that people like Franky "I hate my dad" Schaeffer, claim to follow that faith, and at the same time reject it. In other words, he adopts a faith, a religion, then proceeds to decide what he should practice in it and what he should reject! Odd, to say the least. Why not simply invent your own religion, rather than adopt a faith and proceed to reform it or reject it. Liberals are all the same! Simply just weird, subjective, self-centered people. Strange really...Leave God to the serious people, please, and attempt to pacify your disturbed consciences elsewhere.

strefanash said...

Well, this is a fair comment as to the psychology of many legalists. And I have been there and done it myself. I remember with shame walking to church one sunday morning. Passing through a park on the way to my church I saw some people playing football, and I harumphed to myself :"Why aren't they in church trembling before God like I am?"

A censorious prig and bigot was what I had become in only 2 or 3 years. I was about 22 years old

So I know first hand whereof you speak

But it is not Biblical. they, and I, act(ed) this way as they refuse to believe that Jesus loves and forgives, and refuse to admit their unbelief.

they are in fact backslidden into the kind of law bound superstition which missed the point of the Law of God that the Pharisees exemplified.

hence I call them, and was, (pardon the pun spelling here) a Phundamemtalist Farisee. But not a Biblical believer, rather a heretic

As for my own doubts, when I started to stop fighting them and admitted them to God in prayer I was deeply surpised by His response:

Mercy, patience and forgiveness. He already knew it all, being omniscient, and was pleased that I finaly admitted to Him. But all this is experiential, something the Bible clearly recommends when it says "taste and see that that the Lord is good" but which I never picked up in any of the thought of Schaeffer pere.

I could say more about temptation, mainly that the issue is terribly fudged, and the implications of clarity remove internal struggling altogether. But space prohibits

Sir, your writer's insight to human nature is shrewd and penetrating.

But alas, when it comes to Biblical religion, your thinking is in fact a straw man fallacy.

Understandable, but still a misrepresentation of what the Bible is actually, in its entirety, about

strefanash said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Landon Williams said...

The article itself is not very insightful into the rationale for Christian moral beliefs. But it is interesting to see how the author transfers his (and maybe others) experiences of doubt and struggle to all Evangelicals that take a moral, biblical stance against homosexuality and other "sins".

The more doubt they have, the more they fight and the farther they move to the right.

Using this very same logic, though, I could fairly say that you, Frank, (and others like you, those who are adamantly opposed conservative evangelicalism) are simply in caught in the trap of your doubt. So my question is: Are you again in a position of questioning your ideology? Are you attempting to mask your own problems by making more noise in hope that they will go away?

Can you give some real proof and evidence that says this time your ranting is trustworthy and based in reality?