After I left the Episcopal Church to enter the Catholic Church a half a dozen years ago, a good and wise friend told me to avoid taking pot shots from afar. Sage advice.
But a video by Gene Robinson this is part of the It Gets Better campaign has a line that strikes me as telling, and I can’t resist commenting.
Robinson was the first openly gay person elevated to the episcopacy in the Episcopal Church. The goal if the video, which is part of a series, is to speak to gay and lesbian teens whose attitudes and circumstances may be leading them to contemplate suicide. It’s certainly a good thing to discourage anyone from despairing of the gift of life, but I was struck by a comment that comes at around the 1:45 mark.
Robinson says, “God loves you just the way you are,” and then he goes on to day, “God doesn’t want you to change.”
Robinson has in mind, of course, the question of sexual orientation, but I found the sentiment arresting. The main word of Christ, it seems, is affirmative. You’re great. You’re doing fine. No need to change.
I must say, by my reading at least, the New Testament says something very different. Jesus is forever warning his disciples that, if they wish to follow him, their lives are in for some very big changes. And the Sermon on the Mount? It’s a demanding ethic, not a affirmative hug.
There are arguments to be made for why the Christian tradition (and all other traditions for that matter) is wrong to treat male-female sexual reciprocity as normative. I don’t find these arguments persuasive, but they’re not stupid.
But I’ve always thought it disastrous to use the “God loves you just the way your are” and “God doesn’t want you to change” slogans, along with the closely related “God doesn’t make mistakes” shibboleth.
Why? Because it turns Christianity into bourgeois religion, and the church into an affirming chaplaincy for the status quo. There’s no salt in a message that tells people that they’re basically good and don’t need to change.
November 12th, 2010 | 10:38 am
Agreed. I expressed pretty much the same sentiment in a blog post a few weeks ago and got into a dust up with my commenters.
November 12th, 2010 | 10:56 am
Telling: the first message given by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark contains the word, “Repent”. (Mk 1.15)
I always thought that word meant, “God wants you to change,” and I always thought this message was directed at everyone.
Oh, well.
November 12th, 2010 | 10:56 am
Actually, though it might not be self-evident for all viewers, the message is predicated on the change of self-acceptance with regard to sexual orientation and learning to not internalize the message of bullies. Which, btw, from most accounts appears to be not the easiest change to undertake, but the work of some years, even a lifetime.
November 12th, 2010 | 11:13 am
GR’s treatment of Catholic theology suggests that he is either
(a) very very ignorant of basic Christian concepts.
(b) deliberately untruthful.
November 12th, 2010 | 11:49 am
Jesus most certainly forgave the woman caught in adultery, but He also demanded that she stop what she was doing and change her behavior. This was implicitly directed to the males also.
November 12th, 2010 | 12:03 pm
Bishop Mark Hanson, of the ELCA, noted in his video for the project something about “this is the way God created you to be.”
November 12th, 2010 | 12:47 pm
The big problem I have with this project and similar arguments is that it demands that people be enslaved to their own desires. Instead of saying, “You know, denying yourself is a viable option, one which might just be the thing to set you free,” they assume that any sexual desire that you have is something that MUST be acted upon. Bullying is evil. Suicide is evil. But so are homosexual acts! Despair rushes in when you believe that you must act upon desires that you are led to believe can not be mastered or changed. Your sense of self-worth is thereby built on the shifting sand of emotion, led around by marketers who play off your desire-enslavement. Instead of videos encouraging teens with disordered desires to chain themselves further to those desires, someone needs to tell these kids that they are Loved, no matter what they do, by Someone who can give them the power to control their desires and their expression. This well-meaning video series unintentionally encourages dead-end despair, not eternal freedom.
November 12th, 2010 | 1:10 pm
Not to mention that this attitude of affirming everyone in their okness denies the Fall. We are broken, and nowhere more so than in our sexuality.
November 12th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
I agree with R.R. Reno. I would add that this only plays into the hands of secularists and atheists, for I believe that the primary motivation for atheism lies not in any scientific or moral objections to religion, but in the fear that, indeed, the Gospel might be true and that we have ro repent and change our lives. What need do I have of God if I don’t need to change? And if God is not there, Whew!, what a relief! My moral complacency remains intact.
November 12th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
- H. Richard Niebuhr,
November 12th, 2010 | 1:35 pm
As with all issues that are debated from a biblical perspective, the core issue here is whether or not the bible truly is the foundation for moral behavior. If you believe the stories of the bible, then you are confronted with the reality that the god of the bible decided that mankind was so evil his only choice was to kill everyone except for a chosen 6 people. These people he killed were completely evil “[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
However, god also killed every infant with this flood. This implies that these infants also had imaginations that were filled only with evil. Any parent of a newborn can tell you this is absurd.
Now, did the this genicide solve the problem of wickedness in the world? Obviously not. How did all all knowing god, NOT know this plan would not accomplish what he intended?
Of the 6 that were chosen, only Noah was a rightous man. What right did the other 5 have to be saved? If all men werefilled with evil, then the other five were also filled with the same evil. That seems unfair, to allow those 5 to survive, yet to kill everyone else when those 5 had the same issue with being evil.
And what happened after the flood was over. Why the evil started right back up again.
[21] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
[23] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
[24] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
[25] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
[26] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
[27] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Why did god not know this would happen? And if he did know, why would he allow these people to survive the flood, only to start sinning again?
This is not the story of a morally perfect being making decisions that are best for mankind. The bible is NOT the foundation of morality. Therefore, to argue against homosexuality because the bible says it is bad is stupid
November 12th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
This man is an idiot! Actually this kind of “I’m OK, you’re OK religion” plays right into the hands of atheists. What after all is the use of a god who has no requirements, sets no guidelines for living and stands for no universally recognizable Truth. He is completely irrelevant to us. With friends like this religion needs no New Atheists!
November 12th, 2010 | 2:36 pm
Robert –
You’re in good company. A lot of atheists think that the religious only believe because of willful self-delusion and actually know in their hearts they are fooling themselves.
I suggest you look up C.S. Lewis’ essay on ‘Bulverism’.
November 12th, 2010 | 2:49 pm
Brian –
Actually, it seems the message is more that the desires, and acting on them, aren’t automatically harmful or evil. Hence the push to get testimonies from homosexuals who have gone on to build happy, loving lives.
Now, you can disagree with that message – say that those tetimonies are false, or that there’s a few that Satan doesn’t attack as strongly so as to mislead others, or what have you – but your responses will probably be better-received if they are on-target.
November 12th, 2010 | 3:38 pm
Many bullies have gone on to build happy, loving lives.
November 12th, 2010 | 5:26 pm
Mary –
Well, there are two responses to that. First, bullies don’t seem to be a big risk for teen suicide. The bullied, on the other hand…
And secondly, well… I can’t help it, I have to link to this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf3xbo_it-gets-worse_webcam
:)
November 12th, 2010 | 6:14 pm
Dear Gene Robinson and Mark Hanson:
If I’m naturally inclined to to find homosexual acts grotesque, did God make me just the way I am????
If not, why not???
November 12th, 2010 | 9:03 pm
Because it turns Christianity into bourgeois religion, and the church into an affirming chaplaincy for the status quo. There’s no salt in a message that tells people that they’re basically good and don’t need to change.
Congruent with consumer preference, in certain times and places (and producer preference as well, judging from what has been coming out of the seminaries for fifty years or so).
November 12th, 2010 | 9:05 pm
“Well, there are two responses to that. First, bullies don’t seem to be a big risk for teen suicide. The bullied, on the other hand…”
And how do you know that bullies aren’t “a big risk” [sic] for teen suicide? Or that sodomites are?
I thought that the CDC compiled data on suicide victims’ age, sex, residence, and race. When did they start compiling data on victims’ sexual behavior or whether or not they were being “bullied” (or were practicing anti-social bevavior)? How would such information even be obtained? How would “bullying” even be defined for the purposes of collecting data for stat. analysis?
November 12th, 2010 | 9:58 pm
The same “bourgeois” phenomenon can be seen in connection with abortion, where Christians more often than not treat it as a “sad situation” based on the financial, marital, or other circumstances of the woman deciding to have an abortion. Some try to fix the circumstances in hopes of changing the decision. But might it not be better for Christians to undermine the narcissistic narrative of “this-baby-will-ruin-my-life” that is behind so many abortions by calling it what it is: a short-sighted and selfish act (read: sin)? Shame can still be powerful, as the decline in smoking shows.
November 13th, 2010 | 4:43 am
Your treatment of Bishop Robinson’s statement is obviously unfair. God makes people gay or straight or in-between. Why do you insist on taking his statement out of context?
Your homophobia is a far worse sin than any sexual act. Christians don’t hate. Go back to Sunday School and try to get a handle on what Jesus is teaching us.
November 13th, 2010 | 6:14 am
It strikes me as paradoxical that, whilst Dr Robinson’s claim to speak with authority, on this and other matters, rests on a belief in Anglicanism as a “third way,” preserving a special apostolic continuity of faith and order, his remarks, here and elsewhere, demonstrate that it would be fanciful to suggest that, on theological, ecclesiological and moral issues, his position is in tune with the tradition of the ancient undivided Church.
One wonders how his views are received in the flourishing Anglican churches of the Global South, never mind in Rome or in Moscow.
November 13th, 2010 | 9:30 am
Lack of hatred is not congruent with an iron-hard condoning, where the slightest shift from the cultural party line means ostracism.
I am growing more and more convinced that one’s sexual orientation is not a GOD MADE ME THIS WAY but rather a socialized behavior, much other fundamental parts of one’s personality such as one’s native language.
November 13th, 2010 | 9:31 am
I don’t understand all that I know about the “God made me this way and therefore I must be good” argument. However, it seems to create a dilemma: either everything is created as God as God wanted it, thus raising the problem of evil in an extreme form, or not everything is created as God wanted it, which requires those who demonstrate why homosexual orientation is good because God made it, but severe birth defects that lead to suffering and death are not. As best that I can tell, any attempt to take the second horn will lead to special pleading which only confirms the author’s statement that Robinson and his apologists turn “Christianity into bourgeois religion, and the church into an affirming chaplaincy for the status quo.”
November 13th, 2010 | 11:29 am
It is interesting to see that you are so unable to defend your position that you refuse to post dissenting opinions.
November 13th, 2010 | 12:02 pm
As someone who spent almost all of my life–from early teens to my early dotage–pursuing sex with other guys, I can tell you that Gene Robinson is delusional. I had about ten serious relationships and great many more casual, anonymous sexual encounters. I won’t say that it was all misery or a total waste. I did find my way back to the Church through the help of Courage (the Catholic fellowship for same sex attracted men and women who want to live chastely). But I am still suffering (aren’t we all suppose to?) in many important ways for my sexual sins.
Where Robinson is so wrong is in not being able to see that even though we didn’t ask to be same sex attracted, we reinforce the desire by acting on it and making it that much hard to resist. God loves us no matter what we may want to do or even do, but he still wants us to live chastely. And he will give us the grace to do so if we ask for it. Here’s what I say…
Same sex attraction is what I’ve got.
Don’t call me gay because I’m not.
I love all gays and wish them well,
But if I do what they do, I’ll be in Hell.
Gay is the enemy of everything that’s good.
Gay is the enemy of God.
Gay is the enemy of civilization.
Gar is not gay. It’s very, very sad.
November 13th, 2010 | 12:05 pm
I read an article not long back, by a Vietnam veteran, who had been examining the much higher suicide rate among current active duty troops, and he’d posited the notion that perhaps, given the trend that has been ongoing for the past several decades, against competition, whether in school or community based sporting leagues, in schools with grades, with the rationale that it breeds hurt feelings, and the like, that our young people are less capable of dealing with life and the stresses that go along with it.
I was bullied as a child, as a teenager. I didn’t have the parental or other guidance or advice/support other than “stand up for yourself”. As a parent, when my daughter was builied, I sought advice, and was supportive, encouraged her to keep talking about it with me when it occurred. I utilized role playing as a strategy to help her and myself, as a means to help her figure out how to deal with these situations, as well as meetings at her school.
What I see today, are hundreds of millions of dollars being expended to supposedly address bullying, but those programs, far from alleviating bullying, seem more to actually increase it. When I see what is going on in Massachusetts and California, I notice that those claiming to be advocating against bullying, are setting an example of how bullying, threats and intimidation is acceptable, depending on who you are. Suicides have actually increased dramatically in Massachusetts, including among young children.
There is so much hypocrisy and fraud being perpetuated. Christians are being stereotyped, and discriminated against. When they seek to speak out on behalf of their rights, they are labeled guilty, they are whitewashed, and denied any right not to have their beliefs protected from discrimination, and with the threat of government dictating what their beliefs can and can not be. They are then threatened with increased discrimination, based upon their religion, that if they do not abandon their beliefs, they can not hold their jobs, or even control their own private businesses, or raise their children in their religious beliefs without government interference.
Robinson is one such hypocrite and fraud. He’s an example of someone who infiltrated the church to hide away in. I can’t claim to know what is in his heart, but whether he truly believes the Gospel is correct, and he’s raging with resentment and seeks to take that resentment out on the faith and faithful, or he doesn’t believe anyway, and is exploiting his office to weaken and corrupt the faith of others, but the result is, he has and continues to harm innocent Christians, including children.
He’s an irresponsible human being, who instead of addressing his own conflicts, and resolving them, he’s in denial, and taking out his own conflicts on others. That sort of person isn’t worthy of a position of authority.
There needs to be a discussion on the dishonesty, and pervasive discrimination and and corruption that is being held up as being in aid of equality and “fairness”. The behaviors of Robinson, and others “activist” like himself in public office and private life, are those of abusers, their advocacy is in aid of nothing more than a dysfunctional and regressive society, with no rights, no liberties, and no freedom. They need to be held up to the light of day, and put on the defensive, and not allowed to distract from the facts by using straw man arguments like those who stand up to them are somehow bigoted, and forced to address the clear and striking examples of their bigotry and abusive behavior.
November 13th, 2010 | 1:47 pm
He has it PARTLY correct. God does love all His children, with a love that is beyond our wildest dreams. But, He has set rules in place that are for our own good and we ignore them at our peril.
The prodigal son HAD to hit bottom and want something else before he came back… to his father’s love.
The Westboro Baptist Church is WRONG, God doesn’t “hate faggots”, He loves all his children, but he gave us all free choice and if we make the wrong choices we need to repent and come back to His way.
November 13th, 2010 | 3:31 pm
There’s a distinct difference between God wants you to change who you are and God calls you to change what you do. The point Bishop Roginson … and many of us … are making is not that God has no expectations. Isaiah 42 has a good list. So does Micah 6:8. And Luke 10.
The point is that those expectations hold equally to all beloved children of God and that sexual orientation and gender identity are “morally neutral.” And the Episcopal Church — our church — is working very hard to be a place where all are both welcomed AND challenged to live up to God’s high calling to be part of making the Year of the Lord’s Favor a reality.
November 13th, 2010 | 4:42 pm
My question for Canon Russell is this: if a child is born with a severe handicap, an intrinsic disorder, would God want that child to be changed, to be healed? Of course, he would. The real issue is whether homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered. The answer to that cannot be “God made me this way; therefore, it is the way God wanted me to be.” Otherwise, one would have to say God wanted that child to have the severe handicap.
November 13th, 2010 | 8:14 pm
“The real issue is whether homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered.”
And if I want a real answer to that real question I’ll go to a real experts in the field of psychology. And that jury has been in on that for decades. Asking the church questions about sexual orientation makes as much sense in the 21st century makes as much sense as asking the church questions about astronomy in the 17th century.
It’s time the church recognized that sexual orientation is morally neutral and then called ALL Christians to live up to the same standards of holiness in their relationships — “fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.”
It survived finding out it was wrong about whether the sun revolved around the earth. It can survive finding out it was wrong about homosexuality being “intrinsically disordered.”
November 13th, 2010 | 8:47 pm
Benighted Savage –
“Sodomites”? Well, you sure live up to your nom de web. :)
In any case, must the numbers come only from the CDC? Assuming you’ll grant me some tiny leeway…
http://www.suicide.org/study-on-bullying-risk-for-suicide.html
http://www.netfamilynews.org/?p=29176
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2624.html
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayteens/a/gaysuicide.htm
This one, I admit, does find some slight indications that bullies, too, might be at increased risk of suicide… but not in the same league as victims:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717170428.htm
November 13th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
“And if I want a real answer to that real question I’ll go to a real experts in the field of psychology. And that jury has been in on that for decades.”
You are obviously entitled to your own experts. Whether yours are “real” and mine not. . . . Well, this is not the forum to discuss that. But why would psychologists be the real experts on this issue? Why not the philosophers? Or simply sanctified common sense?
In any case, Robinson’s argument in the video is not a scientific one, but a theological one: God made you the way you are and therefore, you do not need to change. That argument, as it stands, leads to a real problem with the notion of a loving God, and ultimately, to the more fundamental problem for all theists, the problem of evil in a world created by a loving God.
November 13th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
If God hates homosexual sexual behavior, and it is not a natural condition, why do you see it occur in so many different animal groups? Are you going to say that they are making a conscious choice to commit sin as well?
Is Homosexuality Natural?
For millennia, homosexuality has been touted as a sin, an abominable act against God, and inevitably, Nature. For sex has always been perceived as a tool for procreation, and any other reasons attached to the act of fornication has generally drawn the ire of the conservative right.
The reality is, homosexuality in animals is far from abnormal. In fact, modern biologists have observed that at least 1,500 animals exhibit some form of gay behavior, with 500 species well documented
Species known to exhibit homosexual tendencies include:
1. The American Bison: This stocky, well-built animal has long been known by native Red Indians to engage in mounting, and full anal penetration. Mounting of one female bison on another female is also common.
2. At least 6-10% of male sheep engage in homosexual activities (makes one wonder where all the meat we get in supermarkets really do come from).
3. Pairs of male flamingoes have also been witnessed raising eggs of female counterparts.
Homosexuality: A Genetic Anomaly, or a Case of Sacrificing for the Common Good?
Homosexuality seems to go against the very grain of evolution: If the genetically encoded goal of every animal is to ensure the survivability of its genes, then why do some animals choose an act that is the equivalent of a evolutionary dead end?
Studies of this nature may contend that homosexuality does serve several purposes. In the case of penguins, it may be that gay penguins like Roy and Silo may be utilized in a penguin colony as nannies to help look after
abandoned or lost eggs and chicks, which would surely help boost the survivability of chicks in the harsh environmental conditions in Antarctica.
In the case of the flamingoes, it may be that male flamingoes hold larger territories than females: A pale of gay flamingoes, followed by their heterosexual counterparts, may be boosted by a pair of alpha males, instead of just one alpha male. The presence of gay flamingoes may also lessen the competition for mating partners amongst heterosexual males.
On the extreme end of the scale, virtually every bonobo chimpanzees are bisexual, which may also indicate that sexuality, may simply act as a form of social bonding for animals, other than the singular view of procreation as purported by conservatives.
Comparison to Human Counterparts
While the study into animal homosexuality does shed some light into the human equivalent, it would be wrong to compare every animal activity to human activity. Infanticide, for example, is common amongst animals, but is prohibited in modern society.
This is not to say that such studies are completely irrelevant. After all, human beings are merely more intelligent equivalents of animal counterparts. In time to come, learning and understanding homosexuality is just another biological blip in the evolutionary chain, homosexually will be less of a taboo subject than it is today.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/162620/gay_animals_truth_about_gay_animals_pg2.html?cat=9
November 13th, 2010 | 10:25 pm
The answer to that cannot be “God made me this way; therefore, it is the way God wanted me to be.” Otherwise, one would have to say God wanted that child to have the severe handicap.
Obviously he did, or he could simply cure the handicap. Or prevent it from happening in the first place. God does answer prayer, correct? Why does not not answer the prayers of children with handicaps?
November 13th, 2010 | 10:38 pm
SeaDragon
November 13th, 2010 | 1:47 pm He has it PARTLY correct. God does love all His children, with a love that is beyond our wildest dreams.
And that love is expressed by an eternity of torment and pain if you choose incorrectly?
What definition of love have you ever seen that shows that as a component?
November 13th, 2010 | 10:44 pm
Thomas
November 13th, 2010 | 9:30 am Lack of hatred is not congruent with an iron-hard condoning, where the slightest shift from the cultural party line means ostracism.
I am growing more and more convinced that one’s sexual orientation is not a GOD MADE ME THIS WAY but rather a socialized behavior, much other fundamental parts of one’s personality such as one’s native language.
And what convinced you of this?
November 13th, 2010 | 11:14 pm
Ray Ingles
November 12th, 2010 | 2:36 pm
You’re in good company. A lot of atheists think that the religious only believe because of willful self-delusion and actually know in their hearts they are fooling themselves.
You are the delusional one. Most atheists have come to this point of view after studying religion and the alternatives. We do not believe because the concept of belief is not rational.
You believe in a god that was willing to kill all mankind because it was so evil, he could not bare it anymore.
But when he killed all mankind, he also killed one week old infants. Anyone who has ever been a parent, knows their one week old infant was not filled with evil. It is an absurd concept.
And god did not fix the problem of sin with his flood. People started sinning again right away; Noahs children were sinning. Why did all all knowing god, not “know” his flood would solve the problem?
Was he not all knowing, or simply wanting a good bloodbath?
November 14th, 2010 | 1:01 am
“…must the numbers come only from the CDC? Assuming you’ll grant me some tiny leeway…”
Linking to reports produced by sodomite advocacy groups strikes me as being more than just “some tiny leeway.” As for the CDC — I can’t think of any other organization who collects and analyzes data on suicide for the whole nation. If you’ve got such a source, please post a link.
November 14th, 2010 | 8:13 am
Jeff Dixon –
Sorry, Jeff, you need to read more carefully. I’m an atheist myself. Indeed, our points are not even mutually incompatible. I do think most atheists have thought about the topic of religion more than most theists. However, as Larry Niven pithily put it, “There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks.” :)
Irrational atheists do exist. Rational theists do exist, too… but it’s possible to be both rational and mistaken.
November 14th, 2010 | 8:18 am
Benighted Savage –
(Come, on, be honest now… are you a Poe? :) )
At most, I’m only 2/5ths guilty of that. And I’d contend it’s only 1/5, since one of the links just summarized a study they didn’t carry out: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/346
But, of course, I don’t think you’ve read C.S. Lewis on ‘Bulverism’ either…
November 14th, 2010 | 1:11 pm
Irrational atheists do exist. Rational theists do exist, too… but it’s possible to be both rational and mistaken.
I never said all atheists, I said most atheists. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read more carefully
November 14th, 2010 | 3:27 pm
Jeff Dixon
November 13th, 2010 | 10:25 pm
“The answer to that cannot be “God made me this way; therefore, it is the way God wanted me to be.” Otherwise, one would have to say God wanted that child to have the severe handicap.
Obviously he did, or he could simply cure the handicap. Or prevent it from happening in the first place. God does answer prayer, correct? Why does not not answer the prayers of children with handicaps?”
I would be the last one to deny that the problem you identify, traditionally known as the problem of evil, is a serious problem for Christianity. What has been troublesome for me is that heterodox Christians such as Gene Robinson do not seem to realize that their theological argument leads to a particularly acute form of the problem.
November 14th, 2010 | 4:12 pm
Identifiying sexual orientation as a “handicap” starts — for many of us — with a faulty premise which inevitably leads to a faulty conclusion.
Our children’s children will look back on these arguments with the same disbelief as we now look at the medieval arguments about whether women had souls and the 19th century arguments about whether Africans were fully human.
God does indeed love us just the way God created us. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is a problem to solve. Bigotry and homophobia are.
November 14th, 2010 | 4:43 pm
“The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
November 14th, 2010 | 4:12 pm
Identifying sexual orientation as a “handicap” starts — for many of us — with a faulty premise which inevitably leads to a faulty conclusion.”
As does the failure to identify sexual orientation as a “handicap” starts–for many of us–with a faulty premise which inevitably leads to a faulty conclusion.
I am sure that an argument on the truth of that first premise would be interesting. Here I can only repeat what Reno says in his article, “There are arguments to be made for why the Christian tradition (and all other traditions for that matter) is wrong to treat male-female sexual reciprocity as normative. I don’t find these arguments persuasive, but they’re not stupid.”
November 14th, 2010 | 6:38 pm
In line with the latest “progressive” lingo, I too have decided to brand everyone who sees things differently than I as a “hater.” Won’t you join me and help stamp out “hate”?
November 14th, 2010 | 7:06 pm
“…of course, I don’t think you’ve read C.S. Lewis on ‘Bulverism’ either…”
If you can post anything that supports the original claim that, nationwide, sodomites are committing suicide at a rate higher than expected because of their being bullied, please do so. Your last link discusses a sample set of only 224 respondents (who were recruited in the most interesting way!) from a limited area, and discusses the effect on them of “family rejection,” not bullying. Hardly a satisfactory response, and further proof that “bullying” is being used willy-nilly in this discourse.
My asking any poster to provide evidence to support a claim that “A is the case” is hardly an example of Bulverism.
November 14th, 2010 | 7:38 pm
The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
November 14th, 2010 | 4:12 pm
God does indeed love us just the way God created us. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is a problem to solve. Bigotry and homophobia are.
Not according to the bible, which is one strong argument that the bible and the biblical god described therein is not the foundation of morality.
The other more defining argument is that we know the bible is wrong on so many issues. The god of the bible condones slavery, we know that is wrong. It does not know how the universe was created. While I am sure you preach a tolerant version of christianity, it is still preaching a myth.
November 14th, 2010 | 8:31 pm
Robert
“I would be the last one to deny that the problem you identify, traditionally known as the problem of evil, is a serious problem for Christianity”
It is not just a serious problem, it drives home the fact that the biblical god is a myth. For a self proclaimed atheist, you sure seem to want to dance around the issue of a god.
November 14th, 2010 | 11:20 pm
Wait, if it weren’t nationwide but were only a local problem… then it would be something to be ignored?
The links make the case that (a) being bullied puts one at elevated risk of suicide, (b) bullies are (at most) at less of an elevated risk of suicide than bullying victims are; and (c) ‘sodomites’ are at increased risk of bullying.
Now, even if the people making the videos are wrong, and ‘sodomites’ are not at any elevated risk of suicide… it sure is a terrible thing they are doing, trying to address a problem they think is there. Those benighted… huh.
November 14th, 2010 | 11:55 pm
Mr. Dixon, I am not the self-proclaimed atheist. I believe that was Mr. Ingles. And I apologize if I seemed to dance around the issue of a god. By all means, I had no intention of doing that! I am a traditionalist Christian, a recent convert to Roman Catholicism. It is just that it is difficult to carry on a serious conversation on the problem of evil under the constraints of a blog comment. Moreover, I don’t know who I am talking to. When you say “It is not just a serious problem, it drives home the fact that the biblical god is a myth,” you wildly overstate your case, suggesting to me that you are not familiar with the literature in this area, and this is not the place to have that argument. If you haven’t read in this area, I would suggest any thing by Alvin Plantinga, or Richard Swinburne to start. Marilyn McCord Adams is also an important source (though I don’t think she is as good a theologian as she is a philosopher).
November 15th, 2010 | 8:44 am
Jeff Dixon – “I never said all atheists, I said most atheists.”
True… but did you note I didn’t say “all atheists” either?
November 15th, 2010 | 8:49 am
“Wait, if it weren’t nationwide but were only a local problem… then it would be something to be ignored?”
No, but it wouldn’t be the claim that I was discussing, now would it? Shall we discuss the price of tea in China, too?
“The links make the case that (a) being bullied puts one at elevated risk of suicide, (b) bullies are (at most) at less of an elevated risk of suicide than bullying victims are; and (c) ‘sodomites’ are at increased risk of bullying.”
The links provide no clear definition of what “bullying” is, provide no data about actual suicides — instead we get data sets that are made up of informant claims about depression (were they? Clinically depressed?), informant claims about being bullied or disapproved of somehow (what’s bullying? is it the same as rejection or disapproval?), and informant claims suicide attempts were made. The more general argument that “being bullied puts one [an individual sodomite] at elevated risk of suicide” is not proven statistically anywhere, to the extent that such an assertion even makes sense statistically.
Still no proof that there’s some epidemic of teen sodomite suicide in America that’s being caused by bullying.
“…any elevated risk of suicide…”
And here’s another good example of vaporous terminology. What does “elevated risk of suicide” mean? It’s obvious from the studies you linked to that it means something like “an increased chance that someone who self-indentifies as a sodomite claims that he/she has attempted suicide.” “Bullying” is apparently a rubber-word that has no consistent meaning.
To put it kindly, this is journalism masquerading as science.
November 15th, 2010 | 9:00 am
[...] doesn’t want you to change.” … Huh? That’s just about as really really wrong as one could [...]
November 15th, 2010 | 10:46 am
Okay, I guess we’ve established that I can’t present sufficient proof to B.S. to convince him that there’s a need for the ‘It Get’s Better’ project.
Of course, apparently there’s a few thousand people who did go through bullying and wanted to tell kids in their situation now that, well, “it gets better”. I suspect statistical indications aren’t liable to be very persuasive to them, either.
November 19th, 2010 | 10:56 am
Robert
November 14th, 2010 | 11:55 pm Mr. Dixon, I am not the self-proclaimed atheist.
Sorry, I got some posts mixed up there. My apologies
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact