On the fallibility of scripture, I agree with you. But again, Catholic theology is much different than just parsing of those words- it involves applying reason as well. Does this interpretation make sense when we apply it against our human experience, or does that one? Those are the kinds of questions asked by Catholic philosophers and theologians through the ages, and their answers have become more and more consistent with reason.

For example, the Genesis example and how that relates to homosexuality. If we believe that we were created, and obviously we observe that we were created in two different forms, and we recognize that we participate in creating progeny through procreation between man and woman, doesn’t it make sense then that our feelings of sexuality are related to that? That it would make sense that God gave us these sexual feelings for that purpose? That’s not to say that pleasure isn’t a part of that as well, or that the bonding between two that we call romantic love isn’t part of it. But I think that the acceptance of homosexuality as an alternate form of sexual expression is an outgrowth of the distortion of sexuality away from it’s core purpose of procreation and formation of a bond between an individual of each of the two genders, which then creates a couple which as a unit is two parts of a whole. I think that way too much emphasis has been placed on sexuality as part of our identity and as a pleasurable experience, while neglecting the greater purpose of it.

You may of course disagree with all of that, and I’m not going to try to convince you. I simply present that as context to hopefully show why my viewpoint isn’t just dogmatic, it’s based on what John Paul II called, The Theology of the Body. That is, an understanding of why our sexuality is even a part of who we are, and the ways that we think that God wants us to use this gift- which is based on scripture as well as logic.

And I guess a key point is that I don’t see homosexuality as any more sinful than a host of heterosexual activities, but I also don’t spend any time at all on pointing fingers at anyone who engages in these activities. I simply say that I accept the Church’s teaching on it for myself, and others can decide for themselves if they also see it that way.

To settle the question of whether a gay person chooses to be gay or it’s just the way he is, we should really go to the gays, not scripture. Scriptures are interpreted by fallible men, and it strikes me as odd, that what God means in any given passage correlates so perfectly with the interpreter’s own views. As views and interpetations differ so widely, then either God means to confuse us by contradictory messages, or the interpreters take too much upon themselves when they claim to know God’s one and only true intent. I vote for the latter.

About homosexuals, both in many congregations and in many legal aspects, they are denied equal status. In church, they are forgiven, at best. In law, they are barred from spousal protections.
(Let’s not be too specific; to cover all contingencies, this would turn into a bodk).
My view is that neither in church nor the state should individuals be required to have proper sexual credentials in order to be accepted as equals.

You seem to feel that homosexuality is more a life style choice.
I will grant you instances of teenage experimentaion, counter couldure adventurism, bisexuality and all the other variants. But, according to the accounts of gays, there is a core group who feel that it is their innate nature and part of their makeup in the same way as their race and hair color. I’m sure they do not like to have their sexual orientation be the number one definer of who they are. But just like they belong to a certain race, they are also homosexual.
Whether there ought to be ‘civil unions’ or ‘marriages’ is really irrevelant to me The central question is a legal one: would they have the same spousal protections as hetero couples.

Legal protections are for the state.
Churches can decline to perform gay marriage ceremonies, just like the Catholic Church decides the rules about priesthood and the role of women. I have opinions, but the decisions are up to the churches.

In the opinion column, I find that the focus on homosexulaity as a sin is very harmful. Forgiveness doesn’t cover it> To be forgiven for the color of my hair would be an insult.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You are a concervative, and I envy you your clear identifying with a group. I don’t know what I am. I have clear liberal tendencies, but my conservative side always wants to rein the liberals in. I am an idealist with no faith in idealism as a mode for living. I am very religious, but in an undefined, mythical sense, and the dogma of religions annoy me no end. It makes debating hard, because I have no script to rely on, and I have to make up my own policies as I go along.

Study the history of the New Testament, and you will see how God’s word changed in direct correlation to the changes within the Chrisitan community. I think we make God in our own image.

He can only aspire to God’s grace by fighting against who he is, by re-creating himself, taking over God’s job

If you were to read Catholic theology, you’d see that we very much believe that God wants us to be co-creators, and that we create ourselves when we make choices about our behavior. When we turn to him, we aspire to complete His creation of ourselves in His image. Don’t know if that makes any sense when taken out of context of a whole broad theology, but that’s it in a nutshell. So the thinking in regard to homosexuality is that the inclination toward that behavior might be a deception and (I’ll concede that this is a huge burden) God may wish for people to choose behavior that is in contrast to their biological sexual desires. The part that I feel makes this more consistent is the overall Catholic theology which makes similar (if not generally as difficult) demands for celibacy for heteros (celibacy before marriage or for clergy). I’m still conflicted about it because of the degree to which I think this affects people who sincerely believe that their homosexuality IS their identity, but I still see the consistency in the theology and I see that it isn’t in this case based on hate or fear of homosexuals.

I guess just to make one more point about the origins of our theology, a lot of it stems from our interpretation of the creation story. God made man and woman in His own image, two parts that come together to make a whole. To have a sexuality that ignores that, when viewed in the context of the creation story (and mind you, we do see it as an allegorical story, not literal truth as in creationism), is evidence that one is not ordering one’s life according to the way God created us. Now to get back to why I’m still conflicted about this, I have no explanation as to why some people would then be biologically inclined to have homosexual feelings, as this seems to place a much greater challenge on them. The only response I can make to that at this time is that perhaps it’s no difference than recognizing that God also places various other challenges on other people: physical handicaps, being born into poverty, mental or emotional challenges, etc. The playing field certainly isn’t level, and I guess I could only wonder whether those with extra challenges might be rewarded for carrying that burden.

The subject of hypocrisy and the subject of homosexuality are gettin all entangled here.
I was explaining how I see hypocrisy: it does harm. It is a problem to the extent that it does harm in a particular situation. And yes, all kinds of different situations arise, and they should be treated individually. But when all is said done, hypocrisy does harm, just like cheating does harm and lying does harm.

Homosexuality is a whole different topic.
It is not hypocrisy for a preacher to say gay love is a sin, but God loves you, anyway, if that is what he believes. But this presents other problems.
For the sake of brevity, let’s put all the variations and exceptions aside. Assuming a person is by innate nature gay, is the sin loving the wrong person or acting on that love? If the former, then gays would feel obligated to control with whom they fall in love, something heteros can’t manage to do.
If the sin is acting on that love, then gays would feel obligated to practice abstinence, leaving them out in the cold as far as relationships and family settings go.
The end result either way is to make the gay person feel his nature is intrinsically wrong. He can only aspire to God’s grace by fighting against who he is, by re-creating himself, taking over God’s job. That is not a healthy state of mind in which to spend your life.
To my mind, God’s love should be acceptance of the person, not his emotions or actions. Then we can go on to discuss what constitues good or bad in particular situations. But first, acceptance.

If Cheney truly believes that homosexual coupling hurts society, then he is hurting his daughter, because he is labeling her as a detriment to society. If he doesn’t believe it, but is pursuing this policy for political ends, then he is hurting the advocates of one man, one woman marriage restrictions.

If he believes it, but is being decent about it by treating his daugher with compassion, that’s an extenuating circumstnce in his favor, but it doesn’t make the harm disappear.

The problem with this is that you are proposing these two interpretations as the only ones, while I can think of several others which do not involve hypocrisy.

The first, which I think most likely to be Cheney’s view (because it’s consistent with responses that he has given when questioned) is that he probably doesn’t think that “homosexual coupling is harmful to society.” But he doesn’t see this as inconsistent with Bush’s advocating a marriage amendment because if marriage is defined as one man-one woman, there is nothing preventing states from adopting legislation for gay civil unions. That is the threshold at which gives equal civil rights to gays while not stepping on religious sensitivities about the covenental quality of marriage.

So, assuming that this is his view, there’s no hypocrisy. You might still say he should be advocating FOR the civil unions, but he certainly hasn’t spoken out against them either.

Another possibility (which I don’t think is Cheney’s view but I do think others feel this way) is the view that homosexuality is harmful to the individuals who practice it and thus it’s not hypocritical to wish to influence that behavior. Of course, this view relies on the idea that homosexual behavior is at least partly a choice, not a predetermined identity. You probably disagree with that and you may think that the science disproves it, but I’d say that the science doesn’t yet meet that threshold- so that there is latitude for people to reasonably disagree on the issue. I don’t think that this view is Cheney’s but again, it’s another possible explanation for behavior like his, which isn’t hypocritical.

I agree with the rest of your comment though, domajot. People in leadership positions should be held to a higher standard, and hypocrisy is wrong but not the greatest wrong that trumps all others.

If you read what I wrote I said I had a hard time finding where this man Said GAYS WILL GO TO HELL for their actions as per kRitters assertion.

I do not doubt he preached much about homosexuality and greed and good deeds and many other things. I can find many things he said about homosexuality.

I was simply pointing out……..LISTEN CAREFULLY NOW……

Very few mainstream Christian preachers of any denomination preach that Gays are bannished to hell for being GAY.

No where did I say I had a hard time finding information about him speaking on the gay issue. I can google and yahoo with the best of them. I even read books and my favorite magazine is the Atlantic.

Being in a wheel chair makes for reading and interneting an almost obscession.

So yes the truth stands firm in the face of your attacks. Please try harder.

Yep, smoky, (you don’t mind the nickname do you)?— good thing were only internet buds and not related or anything!:)

As far as few preachers believing that homosexuality condemns you to hell, I have to ask if you’ve been paying attention. I found this bit in an article about a minister sharing Haggard’s situation.

Those took no time to find. Frankly, simple searches turn up more than I have time to read. Why are you so unaware of it?

Reading the Bible, it strikes me how many passages directly contradict each other and how many are interpreted in various ways by various spiritual leaders.
The Bible was used both to justify slavery and to oppose it.

I accept God as being transcendental, something of a higher order than any of us mortals. That being so, I don’t see how any mortal, operating on a lower plane, can hope to understand the totality of a transcendental intention. At best, we can only get pieces of the whole of it, from which we interpolate in our humanly fallible way.

We interpret and hope that we come close. But to be absolutely sure of the totality of God’s word is to diminish God, to bring Him down to your level (since you can’t ascend to His), where you can commune word for word, definition for definition.

I respect, even envy, people who feel they have come to understand some central tenet pf their religion, but only if their certaintly comes with a good-sized grain of humility and doubt.
-Is that God whispering in my ear, or am I listening to the echoes of my own fallible judgment?
-Am I made in God’s image, or am I shaping God to match mine?

I have had a really hard time finding where this man preached that GAYS will go to hell for what they practice.

There are very few preachers anywhere that believe you go to hell for being homosexual. However people like you put words in Christians mouths, shout it loud and long enough and pretty soon the lies become the truth.

So let me refresh the memories of those who will listen to the truth. Homosexual activity is a sin. Says so in the bible. There are lots of sins. There are lots of activity that God does not like. Those activities are what create a seperation between man and God. Sin does not condemn man to hell. Mans refusal to accept God into ones life is what does that.

Therefore, ergo and hithertoo……….Homosexual activity is like adultery……Its a sin but it does not condemn man to hell. God is a forgiving God……..God is not a Spiteful God. God is looking to forgive not to Condemn.

For those who want the truth as it is, not as Aethiest try to portray it.

And those on the right like to point out the hypocrisy of the left. That was the point of those posts on George Soros. And Ted Kennedy is always held up as a lefty hypocrite.

An individual overstepping his own guidelines hurts only himself. It would be none of my business, I would butt in only
if the person was someone I cared enough about to regret his troubles, in which case I would offer help and solace.

People with influence are responsible for using that influence with care, because when they err, they harm much more than just themselves.

If Cheney truly believes that homosexual coupling hurts society, then he is hurting his daughter, because he is labeling her as a detriment to society. If he doesn’t believe it, but is pursuing this policy for political ends, then he is hurting the advocates of one man, one woman marriage restrictions.

If he believes it, but is being decent about it by treating his daugher with compassion, that’s an extenuating circumstnce in his favor, but it doesn’t make the harm disappear.

Hyypocrisy, like lying does harm in every circumstance because those at the receiving end feel deceived, conned, taken adbantage of. It does harm to trust, the glue that holds society together.

All transgressions, religious or legal, are addressed with extenuating circumstances, which is a kind of forgiveness, in mind. Even murder is often reduced to manslaughter.

Life is mostly gray areas and overlapping areas. Your arguments concnetrate on those (are you a lawyer?) to such an extent that the original responsibilty for harm done is totally obscured.

That said, I don’t believe in nailing anyone to the cross for transgressions. I oppose the death penalty for even the most heinous crimes, and hypocrisy is not my number one offense to worry about.

This reminds me of the cute girl that used to dance to that Frank Zappa song every time in my favorite disco. The bartender told me her name was Hannah, but I was too shy to talk to her…
:sigh:

People with power and influence over many people have a responsibility towards those they have sought to affect. People who claim to speak God’s word have the highest responsibility of all. Think of the youngsters in Hagart’s congregation fearing divine retribution for their feelings. They have a lot more to wrestle with now!

To a degree I agree with the issue of people in leadership positions (I just think that some take this too far, and often conflate the guilt of those people with their congregation who also believe the same thing.) And to the degree that (from my limited knowledge of it) this church was one that preached fire and brimstone, I have some agreement with you there about the message they were sending to the congregants. But again, I make the distinction between damning people to hell and preaching that a particular behavior is something that might not be what God intends for us (once again, whether or not you accept this depends on how iron clad the biological basis of homosexuality is). The latter message can be preached with compassion, and I feel that any church that holds the belief that homosexual behavior is a moral wrong should be dealing with it in that manner.

People with power and influence over many people have a responsibility towards those they have sought to affect. People who claim to speak God’s word have the highest responsibility of all. Think of the youngsters in Hagart’s congregation fearing divine retribution for their feelings. They have a lot more to wrestle with now!

I feel sorry for preachers and presidents for the public scrutiny they have to endure, but that’s the price of the game. If you want to play, you have to pay.

Compared to Clinton, Hagart will get off easy. Next week’s runaway bride will make it all go away.

Left behind, however, will be the 3-week miracle counselors. They ate really messing with troubled minds!