A term is being used with 'bias towards foes' of what some consider "Righteous".
I'll just state it: 'Homophobia".
If one is homophobic, supposedly his/her beliefs/actions are based on a fear of homosexuality. Or so say the GLAADaughters of the New American Revolution.
It's dismissive: "He's one of those Christians who are against Gay Marriage. He's a homophobe."
Naw.
But let's talk about this for a moment-why is it that we Christians are supposed to be afraid of homosexuality?
Is it like a disease? If I shake hands with a homosexual, I will become homosexual myself?
"Oh no, Doug-(we) (they) are born that way."
So...if there's no contagion...what is the basis for my alleged phobia?
"Well, it's hateful to deny that someone else's sexuality is normal!"
Comes down to this, citizens: Those who staple the homophobe tag on Christians who reject homosexuality as 'normal' assume that we fear what is different, what we can't comprehend.
Here's the twist: it is actually YOU who are God-phobic. You fear what You can't comprehend.
We Christians simply point to God's Word and accept His opinion as trumping that of any Man.
If God said that homosexuality were just dandy, we would have it as a sacrament.
But that is not what God's Word states.
We Christians are not motivated by fear of homosexuals.
We are motivated by Love for God.
If God scares you...you might be the one with the foe bias. Say it out loud.
10 comments:
This might be my most obtuse post title ever.
No hints, but if someone cares enough to ask, I'll tell.
Some twist on moebius (pun intended)?
You know I always say it's what you do that matters? How do you think gay people should be treated? Should same-sex civil marriage be allowed and recognized by federal and state governments (with all the government benefits that implies)? Should it be legal to fire a gay person or refuse to rent to them because they're gay?
Hamlet. Acted crazy to keep his enemies off guard.
Killed when he grabs a poisoned sword blade rather than the handle.
Homosexuals should and are treated the same as anyone else.
As for 'same sex civil marriage'-your adding the word civil is what makes it clear.
What this world does regarding anyone is not my purview.
But if a country demands that my church must bow to their laws....nyet. Whatever civil whatever-as long as it is not part of the church, it's none of my business.
Should it be legal to fire someone for being 'gay'?
Let me turn that around on you, Lu-should a person be safe from being fired if they are a screw-up because they are part of a "protected class"?
Someday people might ponder, "Should it be legal to fire a Christian because he or she IS a Christian?
Why don't you poll the Dems in your area and get back to me.
The Catholic Church that you so love to excoriate won't marry a divorced person whose ex-spouse is still alive to anyone other than that ex-spouse. Nor will it marry a non-Catholic to a Catholic, or two non-Catholics in a Catholic ceremony. So why do you never hear of anyone's suing the Catholic Church for discriminating against Protestants? Because a church's freedom to make whatever rules it wants about whom it will marry is implicit in the "free exercise of religion" clause of the First Amendment, and everyone gets that, or used to before the phrase "same-sex marriage" drove people mad. Likewise, it's a church's prerogative to decline to marry same-sex couples if it so chooses. The word "civil" has always been implicit or explicit in all discussions of legalizing same-sex marriage, including the laws and court decisions themselves.
I believe in the Netherlands there are two distinct forms of marriage: the religious commitment and the civil contract. I agree with you (again!) that it's a bit confusing to refer to both by the same term.
Churches must bow to civil law in the sense that they can't make something legal by performing a ceremony. If a priest of the Church of Pastafarianism married my daughter to a box of spaghetti, that marriage would have no force under the law. Nor (returning to reality) was Elizabeth Smart ever legally married to her kidnapper, because even if they were married by someone with the necessary legal authority, she was underage and didn't have her parents' permission. (Nor can a church perform human sacrifice or extort money under false pretenses, and so on and so forth.)
Let me turn that around on you, Lu-should a person be safe from being fired if they are a screw-up because they are part of a "protected class"?
Seriously? If anyone were safe from being fired for that reason, only white males between 18 and 45 would ever get fired. Having been laid off numerous times and fired once, I can attest that you can't just say "not so fast, I'm a woman" (Jew, lesbian, African-American, disabled veteran, etc.).
Not even the rankest liberal (and I can find you quite a few stinkier than I am) wants anyone to be fired for being a Christian.
Since I can't believe you don't know all this, I'm going to assume that this is a standard-issue Doug's specialty red herring. Therefore I will ask again: Should it be legal to fire or evict someone for being gay?
"Should it be legal to fire or evict someone for being gay?"
As my answer, switching Christian for 'gay' seems to have missed it's mark,no, Lu-it should not be legal for anyone to fire or evict someone for being gay. Or a Christian.
I've seen 'soft' prejudice up close, and I didn't like it. The apartment complex where I lived in Vegas didn't have many black families-the manager, Pat told me that she 'made it harder' for black people to rent. I don't know why.
As I posted recently, I believe that if a bakery is in the business of selling wedding cakes, then that bakery should sell cakes to anyone, period.
But here's the rub-if another Christian refuses to sell cakes to someone, I respect that Christian's right to not sell such a cake. Believe it or don't, this is covered in Scripture, 1 Cor chapters 8 and 10. If it is a matter of conscience, then don't cause anyone to betray their conscience/beliefs.
Getting back to the post, 'homophobe' doesn't work.
I don't 'fear' homosexuality or homosexuals, so I am not a 'homophobe'.
What am I? A person who is a Christian who agrees with God as to what is good and what is evil.
If I were to call evil good, I would not be righteous.
So dere.
I don't read those chapters the same way you do: it seems to me that they're saying a Christian should think of how their actions look to other Christians, and do nothing that might lead someone else astray. The stuff about eating sacrificed food is confusing, since we don't have anything like that today, but Paul seems to be saying something akin to you shouldn't eat chocolate bunnies, even though the chocolate itself is perfectly harmless, lest anyone think that you celebrate Easter or condone other Christians' doing so.
Truth to tell, I don't much like the word homophobic or its relatives either. If you look at the Greek roots it literally means something like "fear of the same thing." It also sounds too clinical, like an illness some people mysteriously suffer from. I prefer anti-gay. If you insist on homosexual (which seems not to have entered the language until the late 19th century, and which isn't formed quite right either), you could say anti-homosexual.
"stuff about eating sacrificed food is confusing, since we don't have anything like that today,"
let me update that for you:
if a brother in Christ is a recovering alcoholic, and I know it, even though I am not tempted by drink, I will not drink in front of him so as to tempt him to do something that his conscience tells him is sinful.
Or if a brother or sister is tempted in any way-and we all face temptations-it would be wrong of me to use my freedom in Christ to do anything which might harm the conscience of a brother or sister.
food sacrificed to idols back then meant partaking in idolatry which some Christians had been saved out of-Paul (and I) know that there are no other gods, but if a brother would be harmed by my eating food sacrificed to idols, then I (and Paul) wouldn't eat it.
Gay may be 'shorthand' that everyone understands, but I don't like it as it means happy, and now the meaning of the word has been taken over by something that brings no joy.
Post a Comment