beautiful monsters

It's like... the humourous side of scary.

I love #1. Thinking for yourself is overrated! ;)

#5's a cracker, too. =)

I have *so* many responses to #5. Eg,

1. I'm sick. I'm sick and I'm proud.
2. Does "Fact" seriously expect this, ah, test to work on lesbianism? In a society that eroticises women to the extent that we do?
3. "Think real hard. Think in detail." This is, um, inciteful... *g*
4. So, this is not the Bible-says-so argument; this is the gut-reaction argument. But if your gut reacts differently, you're by definition wrong. So, yeah, not a particularly *useful* test.
5. "It must be stopped!" You can't stop homosexuality: always been, always will be.

No, number 3 is the definate classic here. I hate it when people roll out the book of Leviticus - isn't that the one that says I can't eat shellfish? Man, if it came down to a choice between my immortal soul and those marinated green-lipped mussels, I just don't know which way I'd go...

the most depressing thing about #1 is that he's still stuck in this corner, and fighting for it. i find the whole thing v bizarre. i hope that one day Daniel can look back and thing "man i was up tight back then! i'm so glad i'm not like that now"

thanks for this Fionnaigh - it can't have been pleasant putting it together!

Where is the love? Didn't Jesus say Love one another. What about the biblical command to love thy neighbour. What about the Jesus who rebuked the religious kill joys of his time the Pharisees. Jesus hung out with those people who were discriminated against such as the poor, prostitutes and lepers.

I am not really going to get myself into a biblical argument. I am not religious myself. The point is that you can select parts of your bible to support pretty much any point of view. It seems stupid to be ruled by a certain interpretation of texts that were written over a thousand years ago. You can get inspiration from religious texts but they should stop you from thinking about the consequences of your actions.

Leviticus says all kinds of crap. Shellfish, mixing fabric fibres, not touching meat and milk when you're menstruating. It utterly baffles me that there are still people who take it seriously.

I must be pretty sick, huh?

I think I need to start up a biblical blog to explain the Scriptures to you, my dear fellow Kiwis. I haven't heard any POV that reflects orthodox or balanced teaching. And some people on either side of the debate have lapsed into hysteria and fear.

Is #4 Running Blog Capitalist Glenn? If so, I'm more than a little surprised...

The great majority of Christian churches affirm that the Bible is indeed God's Word to humanity, and trustworthy in all matters of faith and life.
Your attempts to dismiss the Bible and Church doctrines are not justified, there is a large body of scholarship that rebuts your assertions quite effectively.
Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/18.51.html
What God Hath Not Joined
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/11.36.html

Also, your definition of hate speech looks to me like a paranoid attempt to suppress freedom. Religion is a funny thing, it deals in Absolutes, and questions that go to the core of a human soul. It is the Church's duty to teach the truths of God, as revealed in the Bible. The church is motivated by concern for the future of NZ, and the future of their neighbour's souls.

Nowhere have Destiny incited violence or dehumanizing propaganda. They have tried to balance the unchanging standards of the Biblical teaching on sexuality, with the equally demanding requirements of love and grace. And I applaud them.

The god I worship is a loving, caring God and he loves sinners!

Every sin I committed, I will be accountable for my sins....not anyone elses!

All this hatred that destiny church has created is against whanau memebers who are either gay, lesbian or transgender....is that what Destiny Church whanau is about?

Anah

Nowhere have Destiny incited violence? They want homosexual law reform reversed. If they suceeded in making homosexuality illegal, what exactly would they be using to enforce the law? Disapproving looks?

I'd love to know what robertp thinks about Real Live Preacher's view then:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/thebibleandhomosexuality.html

"Nowhere have Destiny incited violence or dehumanizing propaganda". According to accounts of the march by people I know personally, this isn't true of Destiny's members, who are quite capable of shouting "fags" and pushing people around, and given Tamaki's bizarre beliefs about a homosexual conspiracy to convert the rest of use, it isn't true of Destiny's leaders either.

Hi Stephen

"I'd love to know what robertp thinks"
I'm blushing! OK, I took a look at the "Real Live Preacher" page, and repond thusly:

"Would you at least agree that the passages are ambiguous and open to many interpretations?"
Heck no. According to http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/11.36.html :
The moral tradition of the church, from the earliest period into the Reformation and since, has been emphatic: Homoerotic behavior is against the will of God.

Those who reject this tradition take several tacks, for example: "The church has fudged on other controversial issues, and homosexuality is the same." What about female ministry and slavery, critics ask; doesn't the Bible forbid the one and accept the other, yet the church does what it thinks best anyway?

In fact, female ministry and slavery are handled differently from text to text in the Bible (e.g., on female ministry: 1 Cor. 14:33b–35 vs. 1 Cor. 11:4–5; 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Tim. 3:11, cf. Rom. 16:1). Without addressing these issues at length, we can see that, at the least, there are internal tensions in Scripture regarding female ministry and slavery. But there is no internal tension among the passages that speak of homoerotic behavior.

"Would you at least agree that others may responsibly interpret them ..."
They also may be sincerely wrong.

" ... and not agree with you?"
I am very happy to live in a country where people can freely air their disagreements. 'Live and let live' seems to be a unique precept of Western democracies (biblical too)

"perhaps you would be willing to err on the side of compassion"
Absolutely. Compassion, forgiveness, and healing are part of Jesus' ministry to a fallen world. We all could use some understanding. Preaching against sin may alienate people, so should be done with grace and mercy in mind also. Another CT article expounds greatly on this theme.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/global/printer.html?/ct/2004/135/22.0.html

Would you have me abandon my moral principles, violate my conscience, and gloss over the clear teachings of Scripture, and some of the greatest saints, just to make you feel better??!

Of course Christians make as many mistakes as any other bunch of humans on the planet. Pride is probably one of our worst failings. Sigh. Yet we still cling to our Saviour because he takes us as we are, and slowly conforms us to His image.

IS - i suspect that Glenn is Glenn Peoples, who is a spokesperson for Student Choice, which seems to have a lot of fundies involved in it. if Running Blog is (was?) who i think then he would be quite a different Glenn who i would expect to a) probably support CUB and b) not be fundie.

Robertp, it's nice to hear a voice pipe up that has some intelligent comments. Though as someone with a wildly different point of view (I am 'walking in darkness' I'm afraid. I am sick) I disagree with a lot of them. However it makes me happy to hear you talking about compassion, which is my semi-uneducated impression of what Jesus was all about.

I am also happy to live in a country where we are free to air disagreements. I would never advocate the suppression of Destiny Church's point of view. Part and parcel of this sort of freedom is the fact that there will be an emotional and intellectual response, some of it inconsistent or uninformed. That's fine with me too. As long as the citizens of this country at least try to use what's between their ears.

Cheers

> "Would you at least agree that the passages are
> ambiguous and open to many interpretations?"
> Heck no.
> The moral tradition of the church, from the
> earliest period into the Reformation and since,
> has been emphatic: Homoerotic behavior is against
> the will of God.

Moral tradition? What's that got to do with the possible interpretations of biblical passages? I doubt anyone would disagree that christians (or at least people who call themselves christians) are capable of incorporating their own personal values in to their religion. What makes you think that's not where that "earliest moral tradition" came from? "This is what my predecessors believed" carries very little weight in an analysis of what the Bible actually says.

Darth, clearly you are not a Catholic, for many Christians this argument carries a lot of weight. Modern culture has a bad case of chronological arrogance: personally I do not so glibly disregard the wisdom of past generations.

I am glad you recognize the authority of Scripture. Check the following passages: Genesis 1:27, Leviticus 18:22, Matthew 19:4, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Timothy 1.

The wisdom of past generations is fine if you understand why they held the views that they did, so can make a rational analysis of whether they are still relevant. And if you actually know what past generations really believed - traditions can evolve over time, like chinese whispers. Listen to what the past says, certainly, but don't unquestioningly accept it as wisdom. But wise or not, you're talking about human opinions, which have no bearing on the meaning of God's words.

Most of the passages you mention are covered perfectly well by: http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/thebibleandhomosexuality.html. Matthew 19 is about divorce, so not relevant. Timothy is a repeat of Corinthians.

You haven't responded to the issues raised by Real Live Preacher.

You can say I am just relying on "human opinions", but that's a cop out and an appeal to relativism. I (not so humbly) contend that the multitude of bible translations, the great saints of the past, and contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship all bear out the orthodox doctrines of the Christian church regarding sin.

Real Live Preacher's arguments all rely on skewed reading of the bible, denying its authenticity, and misinterpretation of the scope of cultural context as opposed to the evidence of the sinful nature. As my earlier reference (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/11.36.html) pointed out, his claims are strung together by tenuous logic.

What amateur revisionists try to do is equate homosexual behaviour with cultural protocols such as women wearing hats. On issues such as head coverings and hair length, the bible is equivocal. On the issue of homosexual behaviour (and other things such as drunkenness, theft, witchcraft) the message is clear and unequivocal throughout the whole Bible: don't do it.

Do I have to give you the text of every verse that repeats this instruction? I thought I put quite a lot of effort into responding to Real Live Preacher!! Neither have you written an adequate answer to the other verses I mentioned earlier, particularly
Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9

Interestingly, the law of grace instituted by Jesus is actually more stringent than OT law, and requires obedience to the principles and spirit of the law, rather than an outward show. In many ways I am sure my friends in the gay community are closer to the spirit of the law than I. But I am trying to remain faithful to the word as I have received it, and this includes speaking up for what I believe to be right and true.

I found this site by entering my name into a search engine. I want to clarify, that the person named "Glenn" quoted above is not me, Glenn Peoples. No idea who it is.

That's not to say I think badly of what he said, or that i affirm it, but it's not me. And to clarify, yes there are some conservative Christians in Student Choice, and I am one of them. There are also atheists, Jews, queers and straights. We exist to comment on issues relating to compulsory/voluntary membership of student associations, and anyone who shares our por-voluntary position is welcome to get involved, queer or straight.

"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. " Jude 1:4

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them." Jude 1:7-10