Sean

Anybody who uses the Bible to judge us either has not read all of it, or is just a blind follower who perpetuates the lies somebody dumped on him. The people who claim the bible is the definitive authority on morality probably don't know that is a publication edited by King Constantine for political purposes. The Bible did not appear one day on some sacred illuminated spot of holy land. It is a book of stories that easily stretch the imagination. It is a nice collection of stories, but I put more faith in the goodness of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Bible says that slavery is okay, people should be stoned to death for things like wearing wool pants and cotton shirts at the same time, planting different crops too closely to each other, working on Saturday and touching a football without gloves. These people are unable to think for themselves and people like that are impossible to reason with. My favorite is the clothes of different fibers prohibition, that is only a few verses away from the single source of their claims that men who lay down with men as men lay with women are an abomination. Every one of them who wears a wool suit with a cotton shirt is going to Hell, but they are fine to own a few slaves. Ask them to explain that one.

Val

He's either ignorant of the bible and/or uses it incorrectly to justify his homophobia and to spread his bigotry. This bigotry should be viewed in its historical context. Biblical interpretations have changed to adapt to societal and cultural changes on a range of issues. Yet, it has also been used to falsely persecute the LGBTQ community. There is no doubt that the oppression of the LGBTQ community continues to persist mainly on false interpretations of the Bible. The arguments against homosexuality are based on false interpretations of select biblical text. The common quotes are from Sodom, Genesis, and Leviticus. The following is just part of an article written by a theologian who gives important insight into these texts. Further reading on the matter can be found on www.religion-online.org. Dr. James Nelson, professor of Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary, wrote about this in Christianity and Crisis back in 1977, part of which is reprinted here from Religion Online and John R. Bushell.

While the Onan story (Gen. 38:1 -- 11) does not deal directly with homosexual activity, it gives us important clues to some of the reasons for its ancient condemnation. Onan's refusal to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law, a refusal expressed in his deliberate withdrawal before ejaculation, was interpreted by the biblical writer as so serious a violation of divine decree that Onan was killed by Yahweh.

Three interpretive observations are important to our subject. First, the story clearly represents the strong procreative emphasis characteristic of the Hebrew interpretation of sexuality. Our awareness that the very survival of a relatively small tribe struggling against external challenges depended significantly upon abundant procreation helps us to understand this emphasis. Yet, our own situation on an overcrowded planet is markedly different, and faithful response to God's humanizing activity in Christ should compel us to reassess this procreative norm.

It is, however, another Genesis account (19:1 -- 29) that we associate more directly with homosexual activity -- the Sodom story. Contemporary biblical studies persuasively indicate that the major theme of the story and concern of the writer were not homosexual activity as such but rather the breach of ancient Hebrew hospitality norms and persistent violations of rudimentary social justice. That in-hospitality and injustice are "the sin of Sodom" is evident when one examines parallel scriptural accounts as well as explicit references to Sodom elsewhere in the Old Testament. Further, the story is not given an explicitly and dominantly sexual interpretation until several centuries after it was written -- in the intertestamental Book of Jubilees.

Given this general agreement, scholars do differ as to whether homosexual activity actually played any role in the story at all. However, within the context of the story's major theme, what if we assume that the writer did intend to condemn certain homosexual acts as particularly illustrative of human guilt in the face of God's righteousness? Even then, in fairness to the text, it is difficult to construe the Sodom account as a judgment against all homosexual activity, for its condemnation then would be directed against homosexual rape. Indeed, as John McNeill has observed, the use of the Sodom story in the Christian West may be another of those ironies of history. In the name of a biblical account whose major theme is in-hospitality and injustice, countless homosexually oriented persons have been subjected to precisely that.

What are we to make of those Old Testament passages that in addition to rape condemn other homosexual acts? (See, for example, the Holiness Code in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13; also Deut. 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46.) Cultist defilement is the context of these passages. Canaanite fertility worship, involving sacral prostitution and orgies, constituted a direct threat to Yahweh's exclusive claim. Yahweh was the God who worked through the freedom of human history and not, primarily, through the cycles of biological life. Thus, sexuality was to be seen not as a mysterious sacred power, but rather as part of human life to be used responsibly in gratitude to its creator. In this context these texts are most adequately interpreted, and this central message is utterly appropriate to the norm of the new humanity that we meet in Jesus Christ.

Also, remember that a common Middle East practice during this period was to submit captured male foes to anal rape. Such was an expression of domination and scorn. As long as homosexual activity was generally understood to express such hatred and contempt -- particularly in societies where the dignity of the male was held to be of great importance -- any such activity was to be rejected summarily.

In the New Testament we have no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality, either as a sexual orientation or as a practice. The major New Testament references are found in two Pauline letters and in 1 Timothy. The context of Paul's widely quoted statement in Romans 1:26-27 is clearly his concern about idolatry. Three things should be noted. First, concerned about the influence of paganism upon the Roman Christians, Paul sees homosexual expression as a result of idolatry, but he does not claim that such practices are the cause of God's wrath. Second, in this passage we have a description of homosexual lust ("consumed with passion for one another") but not an account of interpersonal homosexual love.

Third, Paul's wording makes it plain that he understands homosexual activity as that indulged in by heterosexuals, hence that which is contrary to their own sexual orientation. Thus, it is difficult to construe Paul's statements as applicable to acts of committed love engaged in by persons for whom same-sex orientation is part of the givenness of their "nature." Indeed, Paul uses "nature" as a flexible concept expressing varying concerns in different contexts. An ethical position that condemns homosexuality as a violation of natural law must turn to a non-biblical philosophical position -- but not to Pauline material -- for its content.

Justin

Religion and politics. They are an age-old trap. I have a feeling your supportive mother warned you about discussing religion and politics in polite company.

What happened between you and your acquaintance is not uncommon when it comes to these two topics. When it comes to these two topics in particular, it's very important to keep conversations within strictly defined parameters. Interpersonal relationships are worthwhile, but they can be tricky. It is advisable to know of potential pitfalls and strive to avoid them. One sure way of avoiding potential pitfalls is to have guidelines that all parties involved follow. Rules of engagement are an essential tool in maintaining the health and harmony of our prized relationships. Don't leave home without them.

Before I give you my "Four Guidelines For Weighty Discussions", designed to steer participants in a friendly discussion around the social intercourse "landmines" both you and your acquaintance hit, we need to review the difference between a discussion and a debate.

In a discussion, one merely presents his point of view to others. In a debate, one tries to convince others that his point of view is the only correct one. No one wins or loses a discussion, but someone wins a debate. Conversely, someone loses a debate. You used the term ammunition in your question to "AskAGayPerson.com". One does not bring ammunition to a discussion because winning, losing, and convincing are not part of a discussion; one, however, should be heavily armed with an arsenal of cogent verbal ammunition in a debate. If you are not prepared to win or lose a debate, opt for a discussion instead. I do not recommend debates between friends and loved ones in casual settings especially when it comes to weighty issues like religion and politics. I would advise you to limit your participation in debates to academic or professional settings only. Politely excuse yourself from any suggestion to do otherwise. It's very possible to smell a debate coming far in advance; and if you are not prepared to engage in one, simply walk away. In general, peaceful discussions are the way to go; and all participants must be committed to not letting a discussion devolve into a debate, which is clearly the crux of what transpired between you and your acquaintance.

My "Four Guidelines For Weighty Discussions" are simple:

(1) LISTEN. Give each person an open floor to present his point of view on a topic without time limitations. If you do not have the time to listen to everything a participant wants to say on a given topic, agree to reschedule the discussion for a time when you do. Not allowing a participant enough time to express everything he would like to say on a matter is one of the surest ways of watching a discussion devolve into a debate right before your very eyes. While a participant is speaking, do not interrupt him; do not speak over him. Listen intently, and absorb what is being said.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGE. Let the speaker know that you have listened to and absorbed his perspective. For example, you might say, "Thank you for sharing your thoughts, John. I was unaware that you held such strong convictions, but I'm glad that I now know of them. Knowing how you feel about this subject will help me be a better friend who can be more sensitive to your feelings."

(3) RESPECT. We are all entitled to our opinions. Opinions are not answers. They are not right or wrong. One is not better than the other. Let go of any demand that other people's opinions must agree with yours. People with differing opinions can still be friends. Agreement is not the goal of a discussion. Respect of others' opinions is the goal.

(4) UNDERSTAND. We have all had different life experiences, and our unique experiences have had an impact on our opinions. People of good will can disagree on even the weightiest of issues and still remain friends. Strive to understand how someone you enjoy could have arrived at an opinion that is totally different from yours. For example, your friend's opinion could be the by-product of having been raised his entire life in the home of Christian fundamentalists, which is a life experience that would have shaped his opinion quite UNDERSTANDABLY. You do not have to agree with someone else's point of view, but you would be well served by striving to understand it. You might tell your friend, "I understand how you could believe what you are telling me. I may disagree with your opinion, but it is certainly valid. You are a good person, and the difference in our opinions on this subject is not an obstacle to our ongoing friendship."

Discussions are peaceful. They are not acrimonious. When you look back on what you wrote, you will be surprised to find that it is teeming with acrimonious verbiage despite its striking brevity, including terms such as idiot, ammunition, throw, someone like that, and putting someone in his place. These terms are inconsistent with the tone and spirit of a fruitful discussion. It doesn't surprise me that such an approach would cause your discussion to devolve to a point where feelings were hurt on both sides.

It is incumbent upon gay people to remember what it is like to be mistreated for being different from the heterosexual majority. Historically, our different way of feeling and expressing love has subjected us to painful abuse including harsh, unrealistic demands to conform to societal norms. We must take care never to feel comfortable enough to do to others what was done to us for far too long now that the collective consciousness of the world is turning more and more in our favor with the passing of time. Your acquaintance merely has a different opinion from yours about the morality of homosexuality. His belief system does not impact what you are free to believe. No one is forcing you to believe as he believes or conduct yourself in accordance with his beliefs. Based on what you have written, I don't get the impression that your acquaintance inappropriately met with you on a false pretense, ambushed you, or surprised you with personal beliefs you had no idea that he held. You both played a role in letting your discussion devolve into a bitter debate. Resist the urge to belittle his belief system, deny him his belief system, or require him to conform to the belief system held by you and the majority of people within your social circles. Diversity is not a one-way street; people of all belief systems should be allowed to travel it. Be generous enough not to do to him what has misguidedly been done to gay people for so long. The oppressed have a special responsibility never to become the oppressors.

You inquiry also raises the question of your acquaintance's moral judgments as to what is right and wrong. You ask, "Who is he to judge?" Your question is a clear allusion to the Biblical reference found in Matthew 7:1-5, verses beginning with the familiar line, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." The beginning line of this reference is often misconstrued because it is taken out of context. All one ever hears is this familiar beginning sentence, but it is just one of several. When taken in their entirety, these verses are not meant as a total ban on judgments of morality. Rather, they are merely an admonition against hypocritical judgments. For example, your acquaintance's judgment that your homosexuality is sinful would be inappropriate if he were secretly conducting clandestine homosexual dalliances while chastising you for the very same thing. It is completely appropriate, however, to make moral judgments that are not hypocritical. Most people, for example, would certainly agree to the moral judgments against killing, lying, stealing, coveting, and committing adultery. We must all have a code of ethics – a sense of right and wrong. Thankfully, instilling you with a sense of right and wrong is what your parents and kindergarten teacher struggled mightily to do. Hopefully, you have refined your own personal sense of right and wrong. You are entitled to yours; your acquaintance is entitled to his; you must both travel a street called "Diversity" without crashing into one another - along with the rest of mankind. Follow the simple traffic rules I have laid for you, and things should be quite peaceful and loving.

Thank you for your question; it has provided the staff and readers of "AskAGayPerson.com" with a wonderful opportunity to revisit some powerful lessons in interpersonal dynamics and the reciprocity of diversity. We have all benefited because of your question.

Kyrie eleison