Monday, November 06, 2006

Queer Theology Exposed

Absolutely awesome post by Christine at Talkwisdom!

It's long, but well worth it!

Early 20th-century author G.K. Chesterton once observed that when men refuse to believe in God (as Scripture reveals him), they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

In Paul's view (which Chesterton shared) humankind are not atheists by nature, but worshippers. When people en masse become futile in thought and dark in heart, says Paul, and reject the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, holy, loving, and sometimes wrathful God, they don't cease to worship, they cast about for something else than God to worship.

Those who reject God, says Paul, begin the worship-"exchange" of God for something else with some kind of embodiment of things he created. In more primitive societies, people create and worship material images of animals, celestial bodies or other natural phenomena -- or idealized images of human beings themselves.

In more sophisticated societies, worship of creation may become more "intellectualized"; people may revere "the cosmos" or "the mind of man" or anything else awe-inspiring, but less threatening, than the omnipotent Deity Paul speaks of.

Almost inevitably, people trying to find the God-less object most worth of their reverence end their search with the highest natural manifestation of creation, humanity itself. (We might refer to this stage as discovering the essence of what's known today as secular humanism.)

In Paul's frame of reference, the highest of all created beings in spirit, intellect and authority is man. And, as Paul says elsewhere, his view is that the male gender possesses the higher authority of the two genders. Thus, Paul posits, when God-less human beings seek an ultimate being to worship other than God, they eventually conclude their search revering the most awe-inspiring and esthetically beautiful specimen(s) of humanity itself. At this point, Paul implies,"

God [gives] them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator -- who is forever praised. Amen" (vs. 24-26). In most cultures that have taken this direction, fervent admiration (approaching or encompassing) worship of human male and female forms becomes common.

41 comments:

kevin said...

Long and well worth it? Mark, have you read it? I take it you haven't.

By the way, the first part is plagiarized from Wikipedia, and the rest (after the first paragraph) is plagiarized from Tony Marco. If Christine and the others who have plagiarized and changed this article will look at the copyright, it cannot "be altered or edited in any way." Therefore the "ex-gay" she got this from, her blog and yours have broken the copyright law.

Mark said...

Dr Kevin,
Yes, dear Kevin, I did read it, and she does not change anything and she links the source you dumbass angry homo with a Phd..:) I mean that in the nicest way possible.

You don't like it becuase you hate the truth.

So sue me!

Mark said...

Kevin,
Provide a link to Tony Marco and I am sure Christine would provide credit where it is due. I see the exgay post does not provide it, and that is where she got it. You simple have infromation she perhaps does not.

Now, get me a beer Dr. and help yourself to some tacos.

Kevin said...

Ah, Mark, you poor thing. I am not an angry homo. I just don't like it when someone cheats or lies. You did not read the original. You read part of the original--and you would know this if you bothered to look it up. I take it the 'she' in your comment was Christine. Well--she did give a link, but that was to an 'ex-gay' who took it from someone else without giving a link. That's plagiarism.

No way will I provide you with a link to Tony Marco. You can do just what I did and put it in a search engine. Put the first line of what you, Christine and the 'ex-gay' give, and then put the first line of the second paragraph. You will see that the second paragraph is not the beginning of the article by Marco. Do it yourself, and then you can send me an apology for saying that I hate the truth. It seems that the truth for you is very relative. The real truth is that the first paragraph is stolen from Wikipedia and the rest of it is a PIECE of what Marco wrote. If you think plagiarism is the truth, then fine. But don't tell me that I hate the truth.

And I'm not interested in suing you. Why would I want to sue you? One thing I am not is a lawyer...I'm just saving your hetero ass from a bit of a fine/jail for breaking a copyright.

Josiah said...

Are you really, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, stupid enough to believe gay people worship their gender? You're heterosexual, correct? Do you worship the female gender?

Mark said...

...I'm just saving your hetero ass from a bit of a fine/jail for breaking a copyright.

Thanks man! A good looking guy like myself would not last a minute in jail with all those homos. Plus, I am very fragile, that's French, look it up.

I take it the 'she' in your comment was Christine.

A ph'd eh? lol!

If you think plagiarism is the truth, then fine

Ok, lets see, I stole a diamond, and according to you Dr. Kevin, that diamond is no longer real? Like I said, you hate the truth, your accusations of plagiarism are funny if not so damn stupid. Now get a lawyer and sue me, or shut the hell up already. You homo's have a lot of lawyers, find one. Do the Right thing Kevin!

Note to readers: I have a potty mouth, sorry. Kevin will not address the article's content. Why becuase that's the last thing he wants you to consider. He want's you to consider where I got it, how I got it, and did I violate copywrite laws.

BRILLANT! (I say that in the voice a the show's Family Guy character, I do it quite well)

Mark said...

Chase, aka josiah,
Are you really, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, stupid enough to believe you have not worshiped your own gender?
You're homosexual, correct? Do you worship the male gender?

I recall that you may have done just that. So have many other people, gay and straight.

Now before I spoon feed you another bowl of truth, what exactly is your defintion of worship? and where exactly, Biblically speaking, are you having a hard time realizing sexual sin is not stagnant? Make a note boy, it is never satisfied? nor is any celebrated embraced sin.

Josiah said...

Do you worship the their gender because you're straight? I hope not. Just because one is attracted to the same gender does not mean one worships it.

I define worship as putting something first in your life, making sure that your duty is making sure that this is what will help whatever you worship with your life.

Also, despite your arguments, I do not struggle with "sexual sin," and I'm quite satisfied where I am in regards to sex right now, which is nowhere, though I'd be so wonderfully happy to have a boyfriend again.

jas said...

i have never admitted or said that sexual immorality isnt "immoral". but i cannot condemn that people dont have the right to do it. sexual immorality is a consensual act, and what people want to do in their private lives is their business as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

sure i wish people wouldnt do it, but i dont see anyone throwing stones at me when i go out and get drunk every now and then.

Mark said...

josiah/Chase,
I have edited my reply above to you by deleting one sentence, I am sorry.

You asked this, and you may reply again due to my indiscretion which I am sorry for.

Again, since you're heterosexual, do you worship the opposite sex?

At times, yes I do, among other things! Worship, Chase is putting the flesh, the world, human wisdom, human intelligence, job, money, sexual desires, children, spouse, parents, dog, cat, etc...above God!

We either celebrate and embrace it, or we go to the Cross of Christ and give our heavy burdens to Him. All of them! That is life changing. Nothing is hidden before God and He demands nothing less.

Christ's work on the cross is for everyone! Most however chose their own wisdom, their own version of love, their own worldy interests, their own truth...that leads to death, an eternal seperation from God. Because we held onto this world and not His.

Your in my prayers.

Mark said...

Also, despite your arguments, I do not struggle with "sexual sin,"

We all do josiah/Chase. The act is not necessary before a perfect Holy God. Our thoughts condem us as well.

Anything, outside one man one woman in marriage, is outside God's will. We either stop striving for His will, result eternal death / Hell. Or we live for His will and rely on Jesus Christ's work on the cross to strengthen and save us. It's a life long path!

Kevin said...

Mark--I am not going to comment on that piece of shit written by Marco. You wouldn't read something written by an ex-Christian, or believe it, so why should I bother with an eleven year old essay that has seen better days?
Besides, you are the one who claimed you've read it. Why don't you give us your own commentary on it to enlighten us? You have read it, right? Why should I address the contents if you haven't?

And I won't address the content because you, or Christine, or that 'ex-gay' have added other crap to it and taken away the beginning, so how can I comment on it when you yourselves don't know what the essay says? Give me a break. As I said a million times before--I won't do your homework for you.

highboy said...

"sure i wish people wouldnt do it, but i dont see anyone throwing stones at me when i go out and get drunk every now and then."

You don't see them throwing stones at gays either, though both are equally sinful. If you have, call the cops. That's assault and battery.

"I define worship as putting something first in your life"

Then homosexuals who twist and deliberately misinterpret (wrong word, more like ignores) the Bible so that their sinful sexual lifestyle can somehow fit certainly qualifies.

Mark said...

Kevin,
like I said, Kevin will not address the article's content. Why becuase that's the last thing he wants you to consider. He want's you to consider where I got it, how I got it, and did I violate copywrite laws.

Besides, you are the one who claimed you've read it. Why don't you give us your own commentary on it to enlighten us?

I thought it was an awesome anology of where the homosexual affirming christians are slammed shut, with the Bible no less. The fact it has your panties in a twist, only confirms that.

Now Kevin, since you claimed on Brummers web site I banned you, did you want to explain why you lied? or were you just being melodramatic as usual to make a point more valid?

Mark said...

oh btw Kevin,
I never claimed my excerpt which is posted was the begining of the essay. You Dr. have made yet another incorrect assumption. :)

Kevin said...

Mark, get over it. You claimed to have read the essay. You did not. I know you did not post the entire essay--I figured that out in a second (pretty fast for a Ph.D., eh?) when I looked at Christine's post. I figured she didn't write that, so I looked at 'ex-gay's' post and figured she didn't write it either.

You state: "oh btw Kevin,
I never claimed my excerpt which is posted was the begining of the essay."
Finally, a bit of truth! :)

Here, although I said I would not do your homework for you, I feel sorry for you so here is the link to the original essay:

http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/marco2.html

Here is the link to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theology

Now it is plain as day that what I said in the first post is correct. I hope you can handle the truth.

Mark said...

I read it, for the last time. I did not however read the first pharagraph of the orginal.

Now it is plain as day that what I said in the first post is correct

No, you were very unclear. But just for fun, I was wrong, you were right.

Josiah said...

"Then homosexuals who twist and deliberately misinterpret (wrong word, more like ignores) the Bible so that their sinful sexual lifestyle can somehow fit certainly qualifies."

Highboy, you seem to ignore the fact that the majority of us don't believe the original word condemned us like that. It seems Mark is thinking the same way. We, unlike you, believe that we are doing God's will and putting him first. Simply telling us we're not isn't going to change that.

Stephen said...

*grins*
Vasey proposed that the nuclear family is held up and idolised in modern society, in conflict with the family values of Biblical times. I wouldn't go as far as he did, but I think it bears thought: we can all put things before God in our lives.

In truth, my sexuality brought me closer to God, it was my "road to Damascus" and for that I will always be greatful.

Love

Stephen

Christinewjc said...

Hey Mark,

In case you are no longer following the "Queer Theology" thread at my blog, I wanted to share this link with you:

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

It's even better than the Tony Marco one!!

Stephen said...

Indeed, I have read both articles. They are well written, though their conclusions are based on a number of presuppositions on the part of the authors and a number of their standard counter-claims are rather weak.

For example, the argument: "if we agree homosexuality is ok, then we have to agree beastiality and child sacrifice are ok".

The "slippery slope" argument does not hold water since we are already well on the way "down" the slippery slope, what with condoning women wearing men's clothing and eathing chickens and eggs on the same plate.

We need a better guideline for which laws in the Bible still "count" and which laws no longer "count". It's not sufficient to adhere only to the laws that are convenient to you, the ones which affirm your own biases.

I posit that this principle is the principle demonstrated by Jesus in His life. Both Paul and Jesus claimed that love (agape) was the principle upon which all laws should derive their power.

Mark said...

The "slippery slope" argument does not hold water since we are already well on the way "down" the slippery slope, what with condoning women wearing men's clothing and eathing chickens and eggs on the same plate.

Stephen my friend, is that all you got? really, is that all you got?

We need a better guideline for which laws in the Bible still "count" and which laws no longer "count".

Your conscience and prayer. The kind of praying that leaves you naked before a holy God who knows everything, thoughts and acts. Nothing is better than the Bible to discover God's love and forgiveness!


It's not sufficient to adhere only to the laws that are convenient to you, the ones which affirm your own biases.

B I N G O !
Nothing 'affirms' our own anything. Only Christ's work on the cross for our sins brings us restoration with God. Christ's blood covers us like perfect snowflakes, blameless and perfect in Him!
:) peace

Stephen said...

Er, forgive me, Mark, but you didn't actually appear to refute my argument, you just typed some vaguely encouraging Christian rhetoric.

Stephen said...

Oh, I think I understand where you're coming from, you believe that if I pray about it God will show me homosexuality is wrong.

I have prayed about it, and I know with certainty that God does not judge me for it.

Stephen said...

I have read through your response a half-dozen times, and you know what? It's almost identical to posts we gay Christians make to each other to affirm that God does not judge us in His eyes.

The more I read it, the more I conclude that you don't actually disapprove of homosexuality at all...

Anonymous said...

Hmm...

Is it just me or are you not responding to Stephen's argument?

The "slippery slope" argument does not hold water since we are already well on the way "down" the slippery slope, what with condoning women wearing men's clothing and eathing chickens and eggs on the same plate.

Stephen my friend, is that all you got? really, is that all you got?

It may be all he has but it's still valid?

Kevin said...

I personally am not going to read the 'Responding to Pro-Gay Theology' by Joe Dallas. Why? For two reasons: his own description says that he was a 'former gay rights activist and staff member of a MC Church..." He is what I call and "ex-gay"-for-pay. Pay him money and he will say what you want to hear.
The second is that this article appears in NARTH, a group that has been debunked by medical professionals.

I wrote my dissertation on Augustine, a Catholic church father who before he became Catholic was in a Christian religion called Manichaeism. Augustine, when he converted to Catholicism, wrote quite a bit against the Manichaeans. Augustine can't be trusted to tell the whole truth about the Manichaeans because he has to prove he is now Catholic. One way he could do that is to pick on the Manichaeans. Everyone knows that you cannot totally trust a person who was once part of a group and then spends a great deal of his or her life writing against them.

Dallas is trying to show the world that he is no longer gay. That is fine with me--but I don't trust a thing he writes because he does it just for that reason. He makes makes money trying to show the world how straight he now is. It is like a bigger guy picking on a smaller guy just to show how manly he is. But what this really shows is that the big guy feels himself inferior and has to make himself feel better by picking on someone else.

Kevin said...

O.k.—I couldn’t stop myself and have started to read that article on "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology."
A couple of things:
1) Joe Dallas states:
"Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" requires no more interpretation than "Thou shalt not kill." It is intellectually dishonest to say conservatives "interpret" such verses out of prejudice against homosexuals.”
Let’s just assume (and it is not a hard assumption to understand) that he is correct about the first “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman.” O.K.—so what have some Christians done with this verse? For one, they have made numerous laws that prevent gays and lesbians from living their own private lives. The gay marriage ban is a good example of a use of such a scripture. But, why is it that “Thou shalt not kill” is not used in a similar way? For example, we have a current president and vice president who claim to be Christians, but yet they have no hesitation in decimating 600,000 people in Iraq, plus being responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, as well the deaths in Afghanistan. If “thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman” “requires no more interpretation, then certainly “Thou shall not kill” is even more clear. Yet, I do not see Christians up in arms and fighting to change the U.S. Constitution to prevent killing, especially killing by the government. Why should part of the Ten Commandments not be taken seriously, and a verse that is not part of the Ten Commandments shoved down people’s throats? It smacks of hypocrisy to me.
2) Dallas clearly does not understand what he means when comments on “out of context” argument. He does not know the history of Judaism or Christianity to say that with any degree of seriousness. You cannot tell me that a society from 3,000 years ago (or nearly 2,000 year ago for the New Testament) is going to be exactly like our society of today in terms of sexual morals/behaviors.

He does have the nerve to state: “In some cases, a scripture may seem culturally bound (injunctions against long hair on men, or women speaking to their husbands during church.)” Why are some culturally bound, and others are not? Because he wants them to be one or the other. This is the same problem with the verses of the Bible that he thinks are NOT culturally bound. What is and what is not seems to be decided by what one wants to believe at any given moment--and Dallas is a good example of that.

Mark said...

The "slippery slope" argument does not hold water since we are already well on the way "down" the slippery slope, what with condoning women wearing men's clothing and eathing chickens and eggs on the same plate.


The idea that the law is divided into ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law, may help explain different aspects of the law of Moses. These divisions however are indeed Man made.

Stephen and ebsfwan, you may ask, am I saying that we are required to follow the ceremonies of the Old Testament? Not at all. consider the following
passage:

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Hebrews 10: 1
The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship.


Perhaps the concept of discernment needs to be explained as well. Paul wrote the Corinthians (1Corinthians 6:9-11) and said of those who had been "effeminate" or "abusers of themselves with mankind" (phrases referring to homosexuals), "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Evidently, salvation puts such practices in the past tense. He does not say that they could never fall into the old sins, but he does say that salvation lifts them out of these categories. A sodomite who is comfortable in his or her sodomy is certainly not a Christian.

Satan will use the Bible to validate the sins of the ones who look to justify their own sins. Those people are not discerning, they are not seeking God's truth with their heart, therefore they will not find it.

Mark said...

Lastly, homosexuality is an imitation, a false sexual expression, clearly outside God's will for our lives. The fact you think your born with those feelings, makes no difference.

Oh, and love has nothing to do with it being right or wrong.

Stephen said...

Aah, I am sorry, Mark. I didn't mean that because I love someone it's ok to have a homosexual relationship with him.

What I am saying is that the principle by which we determine how to apply the laws in the Bible is the principle demonstrated by the life of Jesus, the principle of an agape love for all people.

As you said, the current "rules" for dividing the laws into ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law are quite arbitrary and man-made.

Much love

Stephen

Josiah said...

It doesn't matter that the division between laws are man made. If they weren't we'd live in a theocracy. Since we live in a republic, or representative democracy, or however, you want to call it, it makes sense that the population is forced to follow laws made by man.

Stephen said...

Josiah, sweetie, we're batting for the same team ;)

I am not suggesting that the Jewish law should be enshrined in modern civil law, nor am I suggesting that bacase those laws are man-made they are necessarily a bad thing.

What I am suggesting, though, is that for Mark to say: "God disapproves of homosexuality" is disengenious because one could just as easily make the claim "God disapproves of eating eggs and chicken together". The "rules" by which we distinguish between what Jewish laws are right and which ones are not are man-made, not God made, so to say with any certainty that "God disapporives of homosexuality" is wrong.

Mark said...

What I am suggesting, though, is that for Mark to say: "God disapproves of homosexuality"

Your not fooling anyone stephen. including God!

is disengenious because one could just as easily make the claim "God disapproves of eating eggs and chicken together".

Only a fool would say that. Like I said before, Satan will use the Bible to validate the sins of the ones who look to justify their own sins. Those people are not discerning, they are not seeking God's truth with their heart, therefore they will not find it.

Stephen said...

Mark, when you use the Bible to feed your own prejudice it's discernment, but when I use the Bible to demonstrate your hypocrisy it's Satan? Please don’t be so arrogant.

To you, the Jewish law that says: “don’t eat eggs and chicken together” is really silly. So silly in fact that you skip over that bit in the Bible and go on to read all the good stuff about how God will curse your enemies forever.

Likewise, the Jewish law which says “don’t have sex with other guys” is just as silly to me. So silly in fact that I skip over that and go on to read about the love of Jesus, the love I try to emulate in my life.

Stephen said...

I would like to add one more thing: to me, you are using the Bible to justify your own fear & hatred. You can claim it's not hatred but I encourage you to examine your heart as you review what you have written about gay people in the past and see if you can spot the compassion of Christ or the fear of man.

God's Truth is Jesus. If you don't find the compassion of Jesus in the Bible, then you're looking for the wrong stuff, stuff about how God will smite your enemies.

Love

Stephen

Mark said...

I don't skip over anything Stephen.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I am not afraid of anything!

I do not hate anyone, or I at lest try not to..and ask God to help me when I think that way.

If I was not compassionate, I would be silent.

There is no such thing as a gay person, only a person who celebrates their sin before a Holy God. For me not warn them that is wrong, would be a another sin against God. I choose to speak.

Love you too!

Stephen said...

*claps*

Indeed, Mark, I agree!

Now, do you think that Paul is talking about a general theological principle here or was he explicitly allowing us just to eat what we like and celebrate the Sabbath when we like but nothing else? I think it’s a general principle.

What about all the Jewish laws about what clothing we should wear or what hairstyles are allowed by God? What about eating blood? We are told to "abstain from blood" in Acts, but Paul seems to contradict that.

As I said to Christine, the Bible cannot be read as a list of "plus and minus rules". Some Christians seem to believe that we need to take all the laws of the Old Testament, subtract the ones explicitly "allowed" in the new and add any new ones (such as: don’t have long hair) that may have been added in. The problem with this one is we’re still left with "silly" rules that we can’t explain away.

Treating the Bible in this way makes us more like Jews than Christians. The solution is to live by a Spiritual law as opposed to the fleshy law of sin. This is what the bulk of Romans is about.

*hugs*
Stephen

Stephen said...

I guess the reason why I dislike this "plus and minus" business is I don't believe that God changes His mind. I believe God is the Absolute standard of Truth and what is Right. The idea that what is Right may change over time makes me feel a little ill.

To say "the newer laws of the Bible override the older laws" seems to imply God changes His mind in the span of a few thousand years. If that's true, what does He think now?

Really, what we have to say, what we need to believe if we are to believe in a God who is not only just but unchanging is the idea that we "missed the point" the first time.

Jesus came to demonstrate the "point" by his life.

And still, just like the members of the young Church that Paul castigated for their quabbling, we're still quarralling over what other Christians should be allowed to do.

Mark said...

God does Not change His mind.

what we need to believe if we are to believe in a God who is not only just but unchanging is the idea that we "missed the point" the first time.

you might be right, but the laws you seem to keep bringing up, have been expalined, and the sexual boundaries God has established for us seem to be in question simple because other laws no longer apply. I suggest you pray about it.

peace

Stephen said...

*grins*

Yes, those laws have been "explained". In much the same way, "queer theology" seeks to "explain" the anti-gay ones.

There are many, many Christians who still believe it's wrong for women to wear men's clothing, but they don't try to make laws preventing the rest of us from doing what we like.

There are just as many Christians who believe it's wrong to eat meat and some of them protest but even the most rabid of them don't presume to prevent you from eating steak.

I have prayed about it. I have earnestly prayed about it for longer than you can imagine.