Monday, June 18, 2007

PFOX Will Not Like This

To rehash for newcomers, the Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools came under attack a couple of years ago by a radical religious cell that opposed teaching about homosexuality. Besides the usual stereotype stuff -- that gay people are dirty, promiscuous child molesters who spread diseases and undermine decency, etc. -- the radicals claimed that gay people could become heterosexual. "Change is possible," their billboard announced, on 355 near the MCPS office building. It's their motto, their mantra, they repeat it over and over again, and some uncritical, wishful-thinking people seem to buy it.

In 2005, a lawsuit was filed by two groups, our local nuts and an organization based in Virginia called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays or PFOX, or, if you believed the "and Gays" part and used all the letters, PFOX-GAG. They were represented by a national-level legal group, based out of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

PFOX's mission is to make gay people think they can become straight. Their typical approach is to do something obnoxious, and then when people object, they claim that as proof of widespread discrimination against "ex-gays." Oh, and they claim there are tens of thousands of these "ex-gays" out there, though if you ask to talk to one you always get one of the same handful of them, guys who make their living being "ex-gays" or have some public investment in the whole hoax.

You might not remember last summer, I blogged a thing called "Ex-Gay" Label to be Retired. It reported on an interesting discussion on Warren Throckmorton's blog (wow, twice in a row), where a bunch of the originators of the "ex-gay" movement were talking about the obvious fact that nobody is really "ex-gay." You may be able to act straight or commit yourself to celibacy, but those who are innately homosexual will always be that way. Everybody knows that. And these "ex-gay" leaders were discussing among themselves the inadequacy of the term and the fact that it needed to be retired.

It looks like they're finally getting around to it.

The LA Times has an interesting article this morning, pointed out in the comments section by Orin.
Alan Chambers directs Exodus International, widely described as the nation's largest ex-gay ministry. But when he addresses the group's Freedom Conference at Concordia University in Irvine this month, Chambers won't celebrate successful "ex-gays."

Truth is, he's not sure he's ever met one.

With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men; he's a husband and a father, and he identifies as straight. But lately, he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.

His personal denunciation of the term "ex-gay" — his organization has yet to follow suit — is just one example of shifting ground in the polarizing debate on homosexuality.

Despite the fundamental gulf that divides them, gay-rights activists and those who see homosexuality as a sinful disorder are starting to reach agreement on some practical points.

Chambers and other Exodus leaders talk deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight, no matter how hard they pray.

New ground in debate on 'curing' gays

I mentioned in a previous post, and other places. that PFOX represents Denial. Their Executive Monkety Monk Regina Griggs has a gay son, and she has to keep going "Lalalalalalalala change is possible lalalala" rather than accept him for what he is. Sad, delusional, but attractive to a certain kind of religious fanatic who insists that a certain handful of passages in the Bible -- especially those that seem to denounce homosexuality -- are literally God's word.

I don't know these other guys, Chambers for instance, and I do wish they'd just find a community that will let them live as they are, but that's not the way they want to do it. They want to try to suppress their natural feelings so they fit a religious expectation. Okay, it's a free country. I think that's kind of dumb, I wouldn't do that if I were you, but ... I can't see how it's entirely different from a Catholic priest practicing celibacy. Again, it'd drive me crazy, but for some guys it's worth doing.

And some of these guys, it seems to me, are very honest about their feelings and the difficulty of adjusting to the church's demands.
A leading conservative theologian outside the ex-gay movement recently echoed the view that homosexuality may not be a choice, but a matter of DNA. To the shock and anger of many of his constituents, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that "we should not be surprised" to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

That's heretical to many conservative Christians. But it's a view increasingly embraced by the public at large; a Gallup Poll last month found that 42% of adults believe sexual orientation is present at birth. (Three decades ago, when Gallup first asked the question, just 13% held that view.)

Yes, the CRC and PFOX love to roll their eyes and complain that the school district tells students that sexual orientation is innate.

Well, it is.

And now we see that people on their side, evangelicals and fundamentalists, are realizing you can only deny reality for so long.

This article takes an interesting turn just about here ...
"Something's happening. And I think it's very positive," agreed Michael Bussee, who founded Exodus in 1976, only to fall in love with another man — a fellow ex-gay counselor.

Now a licensed family therapist in Riverside, Bussee regularly speaks out against ex-gay therapies and is scheduled to address the Ex-Gay Survivor's Conference at UC Irvine at the end of the month.

But Bussee put aside his protest agenda recently to endorse new guidelines to sexual identity therapy, co-written by two professors at conservative Christian colleges...

Skipping down ...
"It's about helping clients accept that they have these same-sex attractions and then allowing them the space, free from bias, to choose how they want to act," said Lee Beckstead, a gay psychologist in Salt Lake City who uses this approach.

The guidelines for this type of therapy — written by Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University — have been endorsed by representatives on both the left and right. The list includes the provost of a conservative evangelical college and the psychiatrist whose gay-rights advocacy in the 1970s got homosexuality removed from the official medical list of mental disorders.

"What appeals to me is that it moves away from the total polarization" common in the field, said Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist.

In my perfect world, people just accept one another. Yeah, sure.

A guy goes to the shrink. He says, "Doc, I am attracted to guys but my religion doesn't allow me to be gay. What should I do?"

To me, the shrink should say, "Find a church that accepts you." But -- I am not King of the World. An alternative is, some shrinks might say, "You will always be attracted to men, but maybe we can work out a way that you can still live within the rules of your church."

Given that this is not My Perfect World, that might be reasonable. I don't know, tough call.
"For many years, mental-health professionals have taken the view that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, any attempt to change sexual orientation is unwise," said Spitzer, a Columbia University professor.

Some therapies are widely considered dangerous, and some rely on discredited psychological theories. "But for healthcare professionals to tell someone they don't have the right to make an effort to bring their actions into harmony with their values is hubris," Spitzer said.

And I look forward to some good comments about how people feel about that.
Critics of Exodus note the group still sponsors speakers who attribute homosexuality to bad parenting and assert that gays and lesbians live short, unhappy lives.

And though Chambers has disavowed the term "ex-gay," his group's ads give the distinct impression that it's possible to leave homosexuality completely behind.

The Irvine conference, for instance, is being promoted with radio spots that talk of "sudden, radical and complete" transformation. (Chambers apologized for those ads in a recent interview, saying they were meant to urge church leaders to radically change the way they treat gays and lesbians, not to imply that conference-goers would magically transform their orientation.)

Yes, there has been some talk on the Internet about a possible contradiction between what Exodus believes and what they say they believe. This last "apology," for instance, does have the ring of bull-oney, don't you think? Chambers knows how people will take it when he says you can have a "sudden, radical, and complete" transformation.
The American Psychological Assn. set up a task force this spring to revise the group's policy on sexual orientation therapy. The current policy is a decade old and fairly vague; it states that homosexuality is not a disorder and that therapists can't make false claims about their treatments.

The new policy, due early next year, must help psychologists uphold two ethical principles as they work with patients unhappy about their sexuality: "Respect for the autonomy and dignity of the patient, and a duty to do no harm," said Clinton Anderson, the association's director for lesbian, gay and bisexual concerns. "It's a balancing act."

(By the way, one of the more thorough articles on this APA task force was written a couple of weeks ago by Josh Lynsen at the Washington Blade.)

The problem here is simply polarization; the right has used "ex-gays" as a wedge issue, intentionally. Some groups formed to help gays adjust to a church whose God requires them to live without romantic love. Then somewhere along the way, stupider people got hold of the concept and started saying you could stop being gay -- this meant of course that sexual orientation is a kind of choice, and that meant that gay people were that way because they chose to be, which makes it a moral choice, which is a bad choice because a couple of verses in the Bible can be interpreted to say men shouldn't have sex with other men (I don't think there's anything to discourage lesbians in the Bible, is there?). So then the whole "ex-gay" thing became a big hoax to badmouth gay people. Now it sounds like some of these guys are trying to de-polarize the situation and disentangle themselves from the nuttiness.

How about this: they stop trying to recruit people. If somebody wants to live their life differently, that's one thing, they'll look for help with that; going around putting up billboards and sending home fliers ... no, that's just rude.

By the way, the post immediately before this one talked about an "Ex-gay survivor" conference. I think this LA Times article is a direct consequence of that conference. See? Already some good has come out of it.

39 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wow! I'm impressed. Change is in the wind.

I do think Spitzer is trying a little too hard to be even-handed. I believe what therapists ideally do is help their patients develop a positive self-image so they can live their lives to the fullest. That would include, in this situation, telling the patient being gay is innate, that it cannot be changed intrinsically, but that one can certainly live one's life in a number of different ways. The critical issue is to be honest with oneself so one can be honest with others. If a gay guy wants to marry a woman and he explains his situation to her and she's game, then ok. Full disclosure. We're all adults here.

And, yes, Jim, your'e correct. There's no mention of lesbian sex in the Bible.

June 18, 2007 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a certain kind of religious fanatic who insists that a certain handful of passages in the Bible -- especially those that seem to denounce homosexuality -- are literally God's word"

Jim often wonders why he is accused of being anti-Christian. Is this bad grammar, Jim, or do you believe that those think the Bible is literally God's word are "fanatics"?

June 18, 2007 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, yes, Jim, your'e correct. There's no mention of lesbian sex in the Bible."

I know, Dr, that you're a an unparalleled expert in all fields of scientific and Biblical knowledge, but I think you've made an error here.

Forgive me my arrogance, but here's the text of Romans 1:24-27:

"24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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 received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

I know what you're going to say. This passage isn't about homosexuality but about lust. It doesn't apply to those who only experience mild twinges of attraction. Still, you must admit verses 26 & 27 sound like they are referring to lesbianism.

Bonus for Jim: Check out verse 26 and the description of lesbianism as unnatural. No problem for non-literalists, though, right?

June 18, 2007 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if the religious freaks at PFOX and CRC read the little part in the Bible about not judging thy neighbor?

I meet people who are different all the time in my profession and I have come to embrace and love their differences.

I wish the people at PFOX and CRC would realize that their only scientific research is biased hate-filled beakers that just keep on breaking on them (because all of their ideas just turn out to be a bunch of exploding B.S.).

Shame on you, PFOX and CRC. As a father of a gay son in MCPS I am angered and saddened by the fact that you HATE anything and everything about my son. What even makes me more upset is the fact that if any of you people have children who happen to be gay; they will live their lives NOT knowing what it is like to be loved by their parents just because those parents chose lies over love.

That's pathetic.

The MCPS Board of Education made the right vote on 6/12/2007. Those Board members know that science, TOLERANCE (PFOX, take the "and gays" off of your name, you are not friends of gays by any means), and love always win over hate, lies and more hate.

Sincerely,

A Loving Father

June 18, 2007 11:19 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

...or do you believe that those think the Bible is literally God's word are "fanatics"?

Nice misquoting there, Anon, you should be proud.

Of course my words were about a certain kind of religious fanatic who insists that a certain handful of passages in the Bible -- especially those that seem to denounce homosexuality -- are literally God's word.

Everybody here knows what I meant, including you. There are lots of prohibitions that the CRCs and the PFOXs ignore -- I can't remember the last time a CRC officer stoned their child to death, and I happen to know that they are sometimes disobedient. And I once did hear of a CRC member eating shellfish...

Oh, and that Bible quote didn't say anything at all about lesbianism -- it doesn't even imply it. I would've assumed that was about masturbation, but even then, it doesn't say so. The part about men says it means they had sex with other men, the part about women doesn't mention that.

JimK

June 18, 2007 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nice misquoting there, Anon, you should be proud.

Of course my words were about a certain kind of religious fanatic who insists that a certain handful of passages in the Bible -- especially those that seem to denounce homosexuality -- are literally God's word.

Everybody here knows what I meant, including you. There are lots of prohibitions that the CRCs and the PFOXs ignore -- I can't remember the last time a CRC officer stoned their child to death, and I happen to know that they are sometimes disobedient. And I once did hear of a CRC member eating shellfish..."

No, I didn't misquote you and I still don't know what you mean. It's really a yes or no question. Do you think that those who believe that ALL passages of the Bible, including those that seem to denounce homosexuality, are literally God's word are "fanatics"? Does belief that the Bible is literally God's word equate with fanticism in your estimation?

Further, I don't think believing in the Bible is a requirement for membership in CRC.

You also seem to be suffering from some confusion about what it means to literally believe that the Bible is God's word. Stoning children to death, eating shellfish, being disobedient- have you actually read the entire Bible?

"Oh, and that Bible quote didn't say anything at all about lesbianism -- it doesn't even imply it. I would've assumed that was about masturbation, but even then, it doesn't say so. The part about men says it means they had sex with other men, the part about women doesn't mention that."

Jim, it didn't just say that men also gave up natural relations. It said they did it in the "SAME WAY". Further, it said women gave up natural for unnatural relations. I don't think it would be correct to speak about a relation with one's self. That would be kind of like saying a country can import products to itself.

However, I did quote from NIV, which is not a literal translation, because it was the most readily available on the internet. I guess your position may have some slight hope, therefore. I'll check ESV this evening and get back to you.

June 18, 2007 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wonder if the religious freaks at PFOX and CRC read the little part in the Bible about not judging thy neighbor?

I meet people who are different all the time in my profession and I have come to embrace and love their differences."

The concern of CRC is what should be taught to kids. Is making any deision about what behavior to encourage of discourage the same as judging one's neighbor? Everyone here who encounters these CRC and PFOX leaders has remarked on their civility. You might be missing part of the picture.

"I wish the people at PFOX and CRC would realize that their only scientific research is biased hate-filled beakers that just keep on breaking on them"

Don't really agree with the sentiment here but nice use of language. A cut above most TTF comments.

June 18, 2007 12:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you are even weirder today than usual.

I use the word "fanatic" to describe people who try to get everyone to play along with their denial of reality. What they think about the Bible has nothing to do with it.

And yes, I am familiar enough with the Bible to know what I'm saying here. There are lots of things in the Bible that modern-day ... fanatics ... totally ignore. The "gay thing" is hardly mentioned, abortion is not mentioned at all, yet today's Christianists think that those are the only things that matter.

I'll state the obvious: it's political, you're sheep, the Party is just herding you along, capitalizing on your ignorance.

JimK

June 18, 2007 12:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The people who get sucked into pursuing "conversion therapy" are inevitably religious and deeply conflicted about a religion that tells them to hate a core part of themselves. It might look like a small step forward for the "exgay" industry to admit that they can't convert people and to work on simply encouraging people to live within the bigoted rules of their religion but its not particularly.

Rather than trying to get religious gays to live within the rules of a bigoted religion society should focus on freeing these gays from the religion. Religion is definitely a choice and its going to be far easier for someone to choose an afirming religion (or none at all) than to suppress their need for love for a lifetime. The religion is the problem, not the person's orientation.

June 18, 2007 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim writes:

A guy goes to the shrink. He says, "Doc, I am attracted to guys but my religion doesn't allow me to be gay. What should I do?"

To me, the shrink should say, "Find a church that accepts you." But -- I am not King of the World. An alternative is, some shrinks might say, "You will always be attracted to men, but maybe we can work out a way that you can still live within the rules of your church."

*****************************
Perhaps the doctor should say,

Some religions require that gay people be celebate, but others do not. The American Medical Association opposes "therapies" that are based on the assumption that being gay is an illness or that people should change their sexual orientation.

So you have a choice: You can be celebate and stay within the rules of your faith community. Or you can be true to yourself and find a faith community that does not require you to be celebate.

One thing to keep in mind, however. Many, perhaps most, people who belong to a particular religion belong to it because they were born into it. But others for whom religion is important choose a religion which makes the most sense to them, spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually.

Keep this in mind as you work through your journey.

June 18, 2007 3:00 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

I base my conclusions on the Christian Bible from those who know better than I. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible that deals with lesbianism.

June 18, 2007 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, you are even weirder today than usual."

Considering the source, I'll take that as a compliment.

"I use the word "fanatic" to describe people who try to get everyone to play along with their denial of reality."

It's sad how often one must refer to the dictionary when discussing a topic with "Teach the Facts" minions. Fanatic means marked by excessive enthusiasm. Nothing to do with spreading the enthusiasm.

"What they think about the Bible has nothing to do with it."

Well, you brought it up and, tellingly, still avoid answering the question. Do you believe someone is a fanatic simply because they believe the Bible is literally the word of God?

"And yes, I am familiar enough with the Bible to know what I'm saying here. There are lots of things in the Bible that modern-day ... fanatics ... totally ignore."

You're apparently familiar with the verses quoted by the gay propaganda machine. The meaning of the rules handed by God to Moses as part of the covenant with the ancient Hebrew nation is discussed at length by the New Testament. Just read the rest of Romans and you can't miss it. Should clear up your confusion.

"The "gay thing" is hardly mentioned,"

It mentions it a few times. The Bible is not really a list of rules.

"abortion is not mentioned at all,"

Killing is condemned. There is no detail about different victims.

"yet today's Christianists think that those are the only things that matter."

If you mean Christians, not true. I go to church every Sunday, and don't remember the last time I've heard either mentioned.

"I'll state the obvious: it's political, you're sheep, the Party is just herding you along, capitalizing on your ignorance."

Are we talking about the ex-gay thing here? I haven't heard any position on reparative therapy from either major party or heard of any laws proposed concerning the matter.

June 18, 2007 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as this post goes, it's a little disingenuous to say Exodus Int'l has changed their position. I've heard these people speak before and they've always said the jury is out on innateness.

What is known is that only about six-tenths of men have only same-sex encounters during their life. As many as twenty percent have both hetero- and homo- sexual experiences. This would lead one to believe, absent evidence to the contrary, that most homosexual men could, if motivated, lead a happy and satisfying heterosexual life. Nothing wrong with making these people aware of their options and what help is available to support the decision. This is what Spitzer is saying. This is why the APA is re-evaluating.

The idea that therapy hasn't worked if temptation continues is a little much. We wouldn't say the same about alcoholics or adulterers. Once you've wandered into a area like this, it may always haunt you. Doesn't mean the situation is hopeless.

June 18, 2007 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So you have a choice: You can be celebate and stay within the rules of your faith community. Or you can be true to yourself and find a faith community that does not require you to be celebate."

Actually, what Spitzer is saying is that there is a third choice. You can strive to live a heterosexual life despite some inner conflict and seek help to deal with them.

June 18, 2007 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trying to get others to join you in any endeavor can be an indication that you are "marked by excessive enthusiasm."

The Bible both condemns and condones killing.

If you believe the church you attend on Sunday is the only Christian church, you are mistaken. Such a belief is a good indication that you are "marked with excessive enthusiasm" about your church. Plenty of Christian churches discuss gays and abortion.

I don't know who you're asking but I think anyone who thinks the Bible is the literal word of God is a fanatic.

June 18, 2007 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Bible both condemns and condones killing."

Of the weak and innocent to advance the convenience and pleasure of the strong?

What part of the Bible?

"If you believe the church you attend on Sunday is the only Christian church, you are mistaken. Such a belief is a good indication that you are "marked with excessive enthusiasm" about your church. Plenty of Christian churches discuss gays and abortion."

Well, opinion is generally more diverse within the church than without. Still, it's safe to say that there are absolutely none that "think that those are the only things that matter", as Jim said.

As far as "Christianists", a term which I think TTF and Andrew Sullivan have grasped to express their displeasure that religious conservatives still enjoy free speech in this country, there are plenty of liberal type churches with very distinct ideas about what public policies we should follow. They don't hesitate to voice them.

"I don't know who you're asking but I think anyone who thinks the Bible is the literal word of God is a fanatic."

Yeah, I think Jim agrees but is afraid to take a position on the matter.

June 18, 2007 6:28 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I said exactly what I consider a fanatic to be. If someone believes in a literal interpretation of scripture, says their prayers every day, lives by the Lord's word when they can and asks forgiveness when they can't, then, cool, I love that. That's good people, that's my people.

When that person has to go around trying to get everybody else to buy into their belief system, or when that person judges everyone around them for not living up to standards they don't subscribe to or care about -- I'd call that a fanatic.

A normal person has some sense of perspective, they know that other people have different beliefs from them and they respect other people and know that sometimes those others are right; the fanatic thinks only his own beliefs are right, and everybody else's beliefs are wrong.

It doesn't have anything at all to do with what they believe, it has to do with how they act.
JimK

June 18, 2007 6:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous said "This would lead one to believe, absent evidence to the contrary, that most homosexual men could, if motivated, lead a happy and satisfying heterosexual life. Nothing wrong with making these people aware of their options and what help is available to support the decision. This is what Spitzer is saying. This is why the APA is re-evaluating.".

Anonymous, gay men who have sex with women do it by fantasizing about men. That's not a happy and satisfying heterosexual life, look at the lie lived by men like Ted Haggard. And even if a bisexual man could, why would they owe it to you to do so? We don't choose who we fall in love with, it just happens I've happened to fall in love with women and a man at different times, why would I owe it to you to have forgone one of those loves and to do without love for half of my life?

And as to Spitzer he said he doubts that the vast majority of gays could expect to change by much a firmly implanted same sex orientation and that the few he found whom he merely believed had changed is an outcome unlikely to be available to the vast majority of gays.

Anonymous said ""The Bible both condemns and condones killing."

Of the weak and innocent to advance the convenience and pleasure of the strong?

What part of the Bible?"

Unfortunately I don't have my bookmarked bible with me, but off of the top of my head in Deuteronomy 7:2 god orders genocide, demanding that the Jews kill not only fighting men, but innocent women, children, and babies, whether or not they seek a peace treaty with the Jews. This type of thing is found throughout the bible, its one of the most bloodthirsty zenophobic, hateful books every written.

June 18, 2007 7:04 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Anonymous

You quote Romans 1:24-27 without any attention to Romans 2:1-4, which is the rest of the passage and the real crux of the matter. Reading part of a letter to pick out the parts that condemn other people, but ignoring the parts that address your own behavior: is that fanaticism, or is it simply arrogance? It's not charitable, and it's not, to my mind, particularly religious.

rrjr

June 18, 2007 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would suggest that most Americans who say they are Biblical literalists would discover they are not Biblical literalists if they actually read everything in the Bible. For example, how many Americans actually believe that, consistent with Leviticus, that disobedient children should be killed? I will provide the precise passage in a moment.

June 19, 2007 4:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death.” Leviticus 20:9

June 19, 2007 4:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You quote Romans 1:24-27 without any attention to Romans 2:1-4, which is the rest of the passage and the real crux of the matter. Reading part of a letter to pick out the parts that condemn other people, but ignoring the parts that address your own behavior: is that fanaticism, or is it simply arrogance? It's not charitable, and it's not, to my mind, particularly religious."

Only quoted this to demonstrate that lesbianism is addressed. Jim and Dana said scripture was silent on it. Also suggested that the entire book, including chapter 2, should be read to understand the biblical view of the law. Could you quote what was said that you objected to?

June 19, 2007 7:07 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, not that it actually matters, but the passage you quoted didn't say anything about lesbians.

JimK

June 19, 2007 7:33 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

Anon said:

"Only quoted this to demonstrate that lesbianism is addressed. Jim and Dana said scripture was silent on it."

As I implied, I don't think Paul's intent here is to tell Christians they shouldn't be Lesbians; his intent is to tell Christians they shouldn't go about accusing other people of sin. What were you using the passage for?

rrjr

rrjr

June 19, 2007 8:02 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

As for me, I don't care what Paul said. The Christians can duke that one out among themselves.

It just bothers me a little that certain Christians are willing to steal Jewish law and tradition when it suits their purposes, but then ignore the reality when it doesn't, as in the case of female gay relationships.

June 19, 2007 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As I implied, I don't think Paul's intent here is to tell Christians they shouldn't be Lesbians; his intent is to tell Christians they shouldn't go about accusing other people of sin. What were you using the passage for?"

As I said before, and you could clearly see if you read the comment stream, I was using the verse to show Jim and Dana that lesbianism is mentioned in the Bible, as it is here, despite Jim's rhetorical gymnastics.

I didn't say, and didn't meant to start a discussion about, what the passage was saying about lesbianism. Since you brought it up, however, the passage seems to say that homosexuality, both male and female are a possible consequence of sin, rather than sin itself, at least in the society Paul was addressing. The Bible may call it a sin elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to here.

Robert, you have a bizarre notion that defining morality is the same thing as "judging" people. Judging is something one does to individuals not to moral principles.

To help you see this, let's consider a sin other than homosexuality. If one were to say gluttony is a sin, that wouldn't be judging, but making a moral statement. If one were to say Rigby is a total pig, that would be judgmental.

Take TTFers, as another example. I come here and argue with them and may call them ignorant or illogical, but I never accuse them of being immoral. TTfers, on the other hand, are always calling me a moral degenerate of the worst kind. Do you see who is guilty of judging others?

June 19, 2007 11:55 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, we call you a liar sometimes, is that what you mean?

If that's not what you mean, then please show us one instance where anyone here has called you a "moral degenerate of the worst kind" or anything equivalent.

JimK

June 19, 2007 12:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Further to Anonymous's question as to where the bible condones killing:

God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

http://www.evilbible.com/

June 19, 2007 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. (??) Beyer

And since why should a therapist 'ideally' tell a patient homosexuality is innate when no scientist in the world--including some of the most famous self-identified gay researchers--have made that claim?

(And almost all have described the phenomenon as most likely a combination of complex factors?)

If you tell your patients being born tall is the same as being born a basketball player, you can't be much of an "M.D."

June 19, 2007 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would suggest that most Americans who say they are Biblical literalists would discover they are not Biblical literalists if they actually read everything in the Bible."

David, as I have been apparently not been doing a good job explaining, no Christians are Biblical literalists in the sense of taking every word of the Bible literally. Virtually all orthodox Christians believe in a perspicuous interpretation, that is that it's literalness, or lack thereof, is obvious from the context. The problem is that those who want to undermine the Bible will sometimes say it is ALL meant to figurative language. The reaction from believing Christians will sometimes make it sound like they interpret everything literally but that has never been the case.

Indeed, many false doctrines have been the result of poorly judging when scripture is meant to be taken literally, the most infamous probably being the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

What Jim had originally brought up and we've been discussing is whether the Bible is literally the word of God. This is another matter and something most Christians believe. Just because it is God's word, however, does not mean God didn't use metaphors, allegories and parables. He most obviously did.

"For example, how many Americans actually believe that, consistent with Leviticus, that disobedient children should be killed? I will provide the precise passage in a moment."

No need. This is a propaganda point mostly constructed by gay advocates. Jim and Dana both repeated it above and added that Christians "ignore" these passages. This is wrong, however, and indicates that neither has read the entire book of Romans or any of the other Pauline letters that discuss just this topic. The covenant God made with Moses and the ancient Israelites is discussed extensively, exploring its meaning and purpose. Far from ignoring the topic, Christians believe this discussion is sacred scripture. If you want to read the book of Romans, I'd love to discuss it further here.

One other thing, David. Do you think it is possible for anyone to keep the entire law as detailed in the Torah? Just curious about your opinion on that.

June 19, 2007 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It just bothers me a little that certain Christians are willing to steal Jewish law and tradition when it suits their purposes, but then ignore the reality when it doesn't, as in the case of female gay relationships."

Jesus taught from the Jewish scriptures and his disciples, all raised as Jews, believed and searched them for truth. Why is it that you don't think that the teaching that Jesus and his disciples derived from them not a form of Judaism?

Do you really want to take the side of the Pharisees?

Also, aside from the law, you mentioned tradition. Is there any Jewish traditional position on lesbianism?

June 19, 2007 3:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous, many Christian sects teach that the bible is the literal inerrant word of god, the Southern Babtists for example. This is why so many Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old.

June 19, 2007 3:16 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Twisted Truth at June 19, 2007 2:37 PM

Twisted truth, the difference between a basketball player and a gay is that basketball players don't have powerful desires to play basketball that appear out of nowhere without any exposure to basketball. Gays have powerful desires that appear out of nowhere without any exposure to same sex love.

June 19, 2007 3:20 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Untwisted Truth again, like Anon, makes an ad hominem attack on my credentials. Pretty sad. I made no comment about basketball players.

The overwhelming consensus is that sexual orientation is innate, be it hetero, homo or bisexualism. Saying something is innate is not saying it is simple; it may very well be complex. Saying it is innate does not mean it is genetic. It may be genetic, epigenetic, the result of environmental effects on sexual development, hormone levels, hormone receptor levels and responsiveness, any combination of the above.

As for Jesus' teaching being Jewish, well, to a large degree they were. But not those of his later followers, such as Paul. And if they are so Jewish, then why has the Church encouraged Christians to kill Jews for two millenia? And why did the Jewish Christians form their own religion in the first place?

As for the traditional Jewish take on lesbianism -- for over a thousand years there really wasn't one. During the medieval period some rabbis lumped women in with men, without any rational justification. But any learned Jewish individual understands that there is nothing about lesbianism in the Torah, known as "d'oraita."

June 19, 2007 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Until "those" anons don't eat shellfish and make sure their clothing is not made from mixed fibers- I don't think they have a right to make claims about homosexuality.

I thought Spitzer was suggesting what Dana says. I doubt Sptizer thinks a gay person can actually be truly hetero but can live celibate or even with a member of the opposite sex(although I would think you had to be bi to do that0

June 19, 2007 9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon says:

"David, as I have been apparently not been doing a good job explaining, no Christians are Biblical literalists in the sense of taking every word of the Bible literally. Virtually all orthodox Christians believe in a perspicuous interpretation, that is that it's literalness, or lack thereof, is obvious from the context. The problem is that those who want to undermine the Bible will sometimes say it is ALL meant to figurative language. The reaction from believing Christians will sometimes make it sound like they interpret everything literally but that has never been the case."

Thank you for your clarification. So, then, the question for each believer is what language should be taken literally and what language should be viewed in a wider context. Among Protestants, at least, may I correctly assume that there is no single, authoritative, Diety-designated source to instruct believers as to what should be taken literally and what should not be taken literally? This is certainly the case for Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Jews (and for many Orthodox Jews, as well).

So, then, the challenge for each believer is to determine what should be understood literally and what should not be understood literally. This, in a larger sense, is the challenge of freedom, upon which the United States of America is based: The idea that, at the end of the day, individuals can and should be trusted to make sound judgments.

Anon, do I have this framework correctly laid out, in your view?

Finally, as to whether anyone can fully comply with the 600 some rules set forth in the Torah, I don't really know. It is a heckuva challenge. I was not raised Orthodox and have never been Orthodox, so I do not know how hard it is. Certainly, the chilling passage of Leviticus 20:19 suggests to me that no one really does, entirely. Nor would they want to. So, in my view, all of us pick and choose, using the good sense that, hopefully, God gave us.

June 20, 2007 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, then, the challenge for each believer is to determine what should be understood literally and what should not be understood literally. This, in a larger sense, is the challenge of freedom, upon which the United States of America is based: The idea that, at the end of the day, individuals can and should be trusted to make sound judgments.

Anon, do I have this framework correctly laid out, in your view?"

Not really, David. I would say that it's not really that much of a "challenge", at least in the broader points. The meaning is fairly clear to any honest hearer. Saying it's not all to be taken literally is not to say the meaning isn't obvious.

And individuals really can't be "trusted", unfortunately. And obviously, when you think about it, considering the multitude of opinions concerning the meaning of various scriptures.

"Finally, as to whether anyone can fully comply with the 600 some rules set forth in the Torah, I don't really know. It is a heckuva challenge. I was not raised Orthodox and have never been Orthodox, so I do not know how hard it is. Certainly, the chilling passage of Leviticus 20:19 suggests to me that no one really does, entirely. Nor would they want to. So, in my view, all of us pick and choose, using the good sense that, hopefully, God gave us."

Hey, did you read that Romans passage? I've read all the Jewish scriptures, can't you read one book of Christian scripture? I think it would help you understand the Christian perpsective on the laws in the Torah that you all seem puzzled about, assuming you want to undertand it.

June 20, 2007 8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon,

I do not pretend to be a New Testament scholar. Could you provide the chapter and verse of the Romans passage?

Thank you.

June 21, 2007 3:48 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon, I've read the Christian scriptures, though I would never claim to be an expert on them.

Keep in mind that you've read the Tanach because it's part of your belief system; Jews read Christian and Muslim works for comparative religion purposes and to better understand one's neighbors, but they are not part of the Jewish belief system.

Many of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) can no longer be fulfilled since the destruction of the Second Temple, and many are completely beyond the pale, as already discussed. So things are never obvious to a group of people, and Anon's conviction that things are obvious is simply arrogance.

June 21, 2007 4:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home