Thursday, April 19, 2007

New Gay Religion Paradigm

According to Christian psychologists are working on a new paradigm to help people whose sexual feeling conflict with their religious beliefs. On the surface this idea sounds great. Everybody could use help dealing with unwanted feelings. However, the paradigm seems to be to affirm them in what ever course they choose to go. If you think your religious beliefs take precedent fine, or if you think your sexual desires take precedent well that's just fine too. This paradigm just makes my skin crawl. Talk about the ultimate in post-modern psychology.

While on the surface I agree with psychologists that homosexuality is not a mental disease, I do disagree with them on the issue of it being right and normal. It is a manifestation of sin rather than a psychosis and needs to be treated as such. It should not be ignored nor should it be affirmed. The article reports a sad truth that many people who feel same sex urges and are deeply involved in Christianity are often conflicted and self loathing. Now while it is good that they do not like how they feel, it is wrong that they should be in such despair. Where there is such despair the gospel is not being preached and perceived attitudes may scare them away from seeking help. Now one of the men interviewed did seek help but he sought help from places that are American Evangelical in nature and so are likely to be very law based. No doubt these people need the Law like the rest of us miserable sinners but they also need the Gospel if they are ever to be free. One does have to wonder why their turmoil is viewed as greater than that of heterosexuals.

Is it because heterosexuals have easier outlets for seeking help? Are we more accepting of heterosexual sins? I think it is both. We already are too tolerant of couples living together or just having sex without moving in with each other. Many times we just wink, wink, nudge, nudge over such deviance, but we never adopt a serious tone with these couples. Meanwhile, we are yelling and screaming about how homosexual acceptance is a serious threat to society. This double standard gives people the idea that we treat people bound by the sin of homosexuality as something more evil and hated than heterosexual sin.

I think it is time we seriously considered how we are handling the issues of sin. We need to less time singling out a specific sin and more time condemning all sin as equal and above all follow up with the Gospel. At the same time we need to help these people deal with their sin and part of that is going to be setting up an atmosphere of trust. It is easier for people to seek help when they feel trust in others and trust is hard to come by when we give off a perceived reaction of rejection. Such perceptions come out when we focus too much on one sin and in how we talk generally. As much as it pains me to say, the pc crowd is right it is hurtful to poke fun at somebody just because how they feel and such actions are going to destroy trust.

The only question is, how do we have an atmosphere of trust yet condemn the sin when the sin is so closely associated with their core identity? Quite frankly, I don't have the answer to that question.


Anonymous said...

you are so wrong

Dr. Luther in the 21st Century said...

ROFL, I am sure you, anonymous, will never come back to see any response, but come on. It is easy to simply state somebody is wrong, but unless you prove it you are wasting bits on the internet.

Adam said...

Obviously it can't be proven that gays are not sinful. Likewise, one cannot prove that they are. It's called faith: faith that gays are sin or faith that God loves all of his children, no exceptions. Jesus tried to teach us to love one another unconditionally. Love your enemy like your brother, some stupid crap like that, right? Except it's not stupid, it makes alot of sense. But, I don't know, maybe you can show me the part in the bible where Jesus says "God bless everyone except the gays" I'm sure you'll find it. you people always do.

Dr. Luther in the 21st Century said...

I am going to make an assumption in that from your statements you deny the validity of the passages in Leviticus and Romans or you believe they do not mean what they plainly state, that homosexual lust and sex are sinful. I make this assumption because you claim that they cannot be proven to be sin and these passage clear state that they are sins.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." -Lev 19:22

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." - Romans 1:26-27

That said one sin is no worse than any other sin. I count my sins to be just as bad as one who is given into homosexuality. The difference is that I acknowledge my sins for what they are sin. I do not hate homosexuals as you imply, I love them for they are my brothers and sisters. It is because I love them that I cannot keep silent when they are doing great harm to themselves by persisting to deny their sins.

Anonymous said...

Adam asked you to quote JESUS - but instead you quoted the OLD Testament which are NOT the words of JESUS. You quoted words that a Middle Eastern man wrote down into a book thousands of years ago. Just because something was written down DOES NOT prove that it is true. You can not use 1 old book from thousands of years ago as "proof" of anything. Also the OLD Testament is the Torah, which is the Jewish religion. Judaism and the Jews do NOT believe that Jesus is GOD. So as a good Christian why would you follow the teachings of the JEWISH religion in the OLD Testament who do NOT believe that JESUS is GOD? Why are you not solely reading ONLY the NEW Testament which are the teachings of JESUS? The OLD Testament belongs in a museum NOT in a church. The traditional view is that Leviticus was compiled by Moses, or that the material in it goes back to his time, but internal clues suggest that the book developed much later in Israel's history and was completed either near the end of the Judean monarchy in the late seventh century BCE or in the exilic and post-exilic period of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Scholars debate whether it was written primarily for Jewish worship in exile that centered on reading or preaching,[3][4] or was aimed instead at worshipers at temples in Jerusalem and Samaria.[5] but they are practically unanimous that the book had a long period of growth, and that although it includes some material of considerable antiquity, it reached its present form in the Persian period (538–332 BCE). Chapters 1–5 describe the various sacrifices from the sacrificers' point of view, although the priests are essential for handling the blood. Chapters 6–7 go over much the same ground, but from the point of view of the priest, who, as the one actually carrying out the sacrifice and dividing the "portions", needs to know how this is to be done. Sacrifices are to be divided between God, the priest, and the offerers, although in some cases the entire sacrifice is a single portion consigned to God—i.e., burnt to ashes. Do you do BLOOD SACRIFICE?

Anonymous said...

Will you sell your daughter into slavery as suggested in Exodus 21:7-11?

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.