Keith DeRose was rightly criticising it on FaceBook.
Johnny, unlike Moloch worship, I’m really glad Calvinists don’t physically sacrifice their children, even if they do think God might, which is still very tragic 
In my experience they usually fall into 1 to 3. I think we should strongly reject many aspects of Calvinism, but somehow do so without hating the people ('m glad you’re trying to do this too).
Agreed, Alex. And despite appearances to the contrary I do believe there are lots of good ‘1 - 3’ Calvinists out there. I may even know some of them 
. As for the 4s, well I like to think they are few and far between. Although when I read people like Johnson quoting Tertullian in support of their beliefs I do worry …
Anyway, I’ve said as much as I’m going to say on this depressing subject. What was that Nietzsche quote -
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster … for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Cheers
Johnny
Please also keep in mind that our rules about demonizing other people’s beliefs have to apply to everyone, or else we’re only being hypocritical if we ask non-universalist members to tamp down on calling us intentional deceivers serving Satan (and then take steps when they refuse to tamp down on this), while allowing universalist members free reign to accuse non-universalists of worshiping and/or promoting Moloch through dishonest beliefs.
Those rules weren’t put in place because we’re not “courageous” (and therefore cowards). They were put in place by the site owners because they wanted a site where non-universalists could feel safe coming here to dispute with us soberly on these issues.
Universalists naturally want to feel safe from being oppressed by non-universalists here for our beliefs, and that’s understandable, but what am I supposed to do when people like “True Disciple” show up to spit their hatred in our direction? If I ask him to stop while allowing other people to do the same thing back in his direction–or in the direction of the Calvinist who showed up in that thread asking (the Arminian) TD to tone it down for our sakes–then I’m merely being an ideologue using my power to suppress dissent from people I don’t agree with.
And how was Jaxxen, someone who unlike TD was capable of sober and serious discussion, rewarded for standing up for us? He was accused of intentionally (if perhaps self-)deceptive worship of and service for a horrible demon. Just like TD had accused us. Which Jaxxen had defended us against.
Jaxxen has every good reason to leave our forum and never come back. Which of my Calvinist friends, or the Calv friends of some of the other members here, will take our forum seriously, or feel at all comfortable trying to respectfully discuss and work our our differences here?! Sure, my Arminian friends and family and acquaintances might be willing to chime in with a “preach it, brother”, when Calvs are the ones being hung on the cross to have refuse thrown at them; but we’re supposed to be reconciling both sides of a broken soteriology with one another.
I am outright EMBARRASSED at the thought of ever telling the Calvinistic friends of my brother’s family that I am an administrator and guest author at the Evangelical Universalist forum. Because God forbid, they might actually take a few minutes to look it up for themselves, and then utterly shut out any possibility of taking me seriously in my beliefs again, for supporting such a place.
sigh
And what would my most beloved think, who isn’t even a Christian at all, if she (God forbid) came on this forum and found my own side pissing in the mouths of fellow Christians? We’re no better than those other people she rejects! At best she’d be sad and confused as to why I was supporting this site, and would secretly wonder whether I myself was no better after all than she had thought I was.
[Edited to add since there was misunderstanding on this later: that strong way of putting it was my expected description of how [u]SHE WOULD SEE IT. My way of putting it was “hanging them on a cross to throw refuse at them”. Once upon a time that was how a bunch of people thought traitors to God should be punished. People who regard Calvinists as willfully participating in worse than Moloch worship must be regarding them as fundamental traitors to God. True, the chief priests and Pharisees might not be hurling trash at the traitors hanging on the cross, but their expressions of rejection amount to the same thing. That they wouldn’t normally by their own principles agree to hanging criminals on a tree, only shows how much they think it’s important to hang the current criminal by contrast.]
Sure, being awesomely charitable she’d understand the technical distinctions involved, that people here are upset because other people are willing to abandon some people to never-ending misery or annihilation. She’d understand and sympathize and even agree with our feelings about that. But then she’d see how we put our beliefs into practice: not by doing our best to reconcile with people who have sinned against us (doctrinally speaking or more directly), but by doing our best to drive such people away from reconciliation, by actively insulting them with what we believe to be the truth about them–no different from the behavior we reject when it’s aimed at us by the TDs of the world.
We aren’t doing to others as we would have them do to us.
She would think we aren’t real live Christians after all.
Please brothers: I know there are strong feelings involved in this, and I know it’s possible to work out the logic in such a direction – I think I can say with some assurance that I am one of the few people on this forum, perhaps the only person (I can’t think of any other), who goes to some time and effort promoting and defending the idea that Christ was seriously threatening strong punishments to followers of His who embraced the concept of hopeless punishment. But that is a hugely incendiary position to take, and so I try to present it in as acceptable a manner as I can, such as by making it a self-critical test, or expecting that those who technically but sorrowfully accept it will be exempted. Even Christ didn’t make it altogether explicit (which is why proponents of hopeless punishment have ironically tended to take those statements and apply them hopelessly to those-people-over-there!)
But these are things that people need to come to conclusion about themselves, ideally in regard to themselves, not in judgment against other people. Such judgments might also be accepted coming from people they regard as being in rightful authority over them–just as we ideally ought to be willing to accept the judgment of God against us if we have somehow been involved in promoting a hellishly twisted notion of God. But presuming for sake of argument that was true, how many of the people here would take seriously such accusations against you from strangers whom you regard as having no authority over you?!
If this was a private backchannel on Yahoo with only a select invited group, we wouldn’t have a public image to hurt by indulging in a good screed of frustration at what those-heathen-people-over-there-are-really-worshiping. If the forum had been set up for the purpose of indulging in such invective, maybe the forum would have no public image to hurt that way either (although the cause of Christian Universalism itself would I think be hurt by the existence of such a forum. Which I would not accept taking part in, by the way.)
But this isn’t a private backchannel forum, and it was set up to reach out to those who are different from us, from whose ranks almost all of us have come.
Please don’t stab the hands of those who dare to reach back to us.
For the record, Jason, neither I nor anybody else here (so far as I have seen) has ever accused either Matt personally or Calvinists generally of worshipping Moloch. This isn’t the first time you’ve got your metaphorical knickers in a twist in this regard. I said quite clearly that I was illustrating the evils of Calvinism through analogy - and I stand by that analogy, unpalatable though you or anybody else might find it.
Since when did it become verboten to challenge the promotion of evil in the name of God on this forum? Presumably if Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church infamy were to set up a user account here you’d defend his right to preach that God hates fags, and slap down anybody who held his doctrinal position - based on his sincerely held Biblical beliefs, naturally - up to ridicule?
Consider the parallels: Phelps preaches that God hates a particular group of people - gay people - and is going to parcel them off to eternal torment in hell. Calvin and his adherents do likewise with the so-called reprobate, ie all those human beings who God in his infinite and inscrutable wisdom chooses not to save, even though he could if he wanted to. You talk about being embarrassed that your Calvinist friends or family might see their beliefs held up to uncomfortable scrutiny on this site. Maybe you ought to be asking them why they aren’t embarrassed - not to say ashamed - to be holding those beliefs in the first place.
I get it in the neck for speaking out against a theology that is reviled by everybody - Christian, atheist and agnostic alike - who doesn’t actually subscribe to it. And yes, I consider it cowardly to remain silent on so great an evil, an evil that probably does more to keep thinking agnostics outside the Kingdom than Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens could ever dream of doing.
And if your stance on this issue represents the official view of the forum, well it makes a guy wonder if it isn’t time to pick up his chips and find another game.
Cheers
Johnny
I suppose I should add an addendum in regard to the recent blow-up on MIss Tea’s thread.
I realize that the people who were calling Jaxxen’s theology those horribly insulting descriptions thought he was attacking Miss Tea at a time when she was feeling emotionally vulnerable.
I certainly agree that TD (the Arminian) was doing so. But Jaxxen was not doing that. (Even TD wasn’t doing that at first; he was trying to warn Miss Tea away from us to keep her from being hopelessly punished by God for following the wrong gnostic doctrines or whatever.)
What Jaxxen was doing was trying to provide Miss Tea more reassurance against fear of God’s wrath, than he thought purgatorial universalists like me (and he specifically referenced me) were able to give her.
Jaxxen didn’t notice that she was afraid for other people, too, but he didn’t try to reassure her about other people. He was following a standard Calvinistic concept that those who are concerned sorrowfully about God’s wrath wouldn’t be that way unless they are of God’s elect; and on his notion of penal substitutionary atonement (which many of us also reject) God’s elect absolutely don’t have to worry about being punished with God’s wrath, not even His loving wrath, in any way.
He didn’t insult our idea of God or call it a sadistic tyranny fit for Hitler. On the contrary, he went out of his way to acknowledge that our notion of God’s wrath isn’t like that at all. All he argued was that if his beliefs are true, Miss Tea doesn’t have to worry about even the slightest and most loving wrath of God. That’s a big selling point for Calvinists in dispute against Arminians, and notably an Arminian had already been on that thread making tons more trouble, so it made sense from Jaxxen’s perspective to try to help Miss Tea the way we were trying to help except (he thought) even better.
Jaxxen wasn’t attacking Miss Tea; and he wasn’t attacking Sobornost after Dick replied with a post that concluded with very insulting denunciations of Calvinistic beliefs about God. True, Jaxxen didn’t anticipate that those of us who noticed that Miss Tea was afraid for other people might retort that his position offers less than no reassurance for them – although by Jaxxen’s standards the only people who have to worry about the wrath of God are those who literally never once give a damn about being good in the least, so he wouldn’t think any people would be seriously worried for the sake of such people. But we (and Miss Tea) are concerned for such people, too, not just for good people! Even Calvinists are supposed to be concerned for people who haven’t yet shown any evidence of giving a damn about being good, because they might still be of God’s chosen elect–but until such people show some signs of being moved by the Holy Spirit, they can’t be (on this standard) assured of also being among the elect.
But what we complain about in Calv soteriology is that if anyone did live and die without any attempt by God to save them from sin, then they were created as sinners merely to be the targets of God’s wrath for ultimately His own purposes–and that undermines the whole structure of reassurance that Calvinists otherwise rightly insist upon: a reassurance any universalist (whether we believe in further wrath of God or not) must technically agree with, that those whom God intends to save will surely be saved from their sins by God’s competent persistence–a persistence we agree God does not have to be convinced into.
Because, even aside from the question of whether an omnipotent tyrant who creates people to be condemned to show off his greatness can be trusted not to let some of those non-elect mistakenly come to think they are of the elect, so that he can show off his greatness in some inscrutable way in that fashion, too (and there are scriptures which indicate there will be people who think they are of “the elect” who are nevertheless punished by God with eschatological punishment) – even aside from that, it’s horribly disheartening to think that the best we can ever expect or hope for is that the heartless tyrant of the universe might spare us for his own purposes while destroying others. To say that we ought to worship such an entity anyway, because that’s what we were made for and besides he’s the greatest power, reduces down to mere worship of power to cause effects, which is merest slavery whichever way it is looked at.
I know that’s why people thought Jaxxen was attacking Miss Tea with despair when her heart was vulnerable. He wasn’t, but he wasn’t thinking out what the results would be from trying to reassure her like that: which could only be a partial reassurance (insofar as she is worried about other people) and, ultimately, no real reassurance at all.
But there are ways of trying to get across our concerns about that without accusing Matt, or other Calvinists, even if we think they’re being outright hateful (which Matt was NOT!–not in the least!) We have an obligation, to them and to God, to try to find ways of communicating our concerns so that they don’t just shut down in insulted rejection.
Fred Phelps wouldn’t be here to sincerely participate in sober discussion, and he would be asked pretty quickly to voluntarily depart or be booted if he didn’t sober up. TD was on his way to a fairly quick exit, too. Jaxxen, and several of the other Calvinists who have come here, aren’t Fred Phelps and making the comparison to him by analogy is highly unwarranted.
Meanwhile I expect Christian universalists to act better than Fred Phelps. There are different ways of doing things, and this is not the place for Fred’s way of doing things.
If you feel horribly insulted and upset that I just analogized your behavior with Fred Phelps, then keep that in mind next time you only analogize Calvinist behavior with worshipers of Moloch: being told it’s only an analogy doesn’t reduce the hurt made by the comparison.
If a Calvinist comes here (like for example Steve Hays, whom by the way I also lost my temper with and accused of Moloch worship), and arrogantly defends what amounts to Moloch worship, and suggests if we don’t fall in line we must be of the non-elect, and willfully mischaracterizes our position in order to make his position look better (all of which Steve demonstrably did), then I wouldn’t blame members for nuking him–but we still ideally ought to be and do better than him.
Paul Manata, to continue the Triablogue comparison, is not like Steve Hays, and deserves a higher (an even higher) quality of respect from us.
[Edited to add since there was strong misunderstanding about this later: in order to illustrate that the ad/mods have a duty to protect people on this forum from having certain kinds of language thrown at them, I am about to pick up Johnny’s retorted example of how we ought to protect homosexuals from hateful language–which protection [u]I AGREE WITH–and insert that topic back into a large selection of quotes from Johnny regarding Calvinists posted in this thread no more than 48 hours previous. People would expect us to rein in Fred Phelps if he showed up talking this way about homosexuals; the owners and founders of the site expect us to also rein in, as gently as we can, other people talking this way about Arminians or Calvinists or really just about anyone at all. This isn’t the forum for those kinds of denunciation.]
There are ways for people to try to get across that they believe active acceptance of homosexuality is a sin which (in itself and other things being equal) will be punished by God so long as it is impenitently held; but “God hates fags” isn’t it (or anyway that way of putting it isn’t what this forum is about)–even though Fred Phelps may be putting it that strongly because he’s genuinely concerned that people will be led to an unimaginably horrible ongoing end if they don’t stop supporting gay whatevers, and really truly believes he’s thereby bravely… well, why not pseudo-quote him on it?
You tell me–if Fred Phelps came to our forum and started talking like that on a regular basis whenever the topic of homosexuality came up, what would you have us do? If you ran across Fred talking like that about homosexuals and the homosexual agenda, and none of the ad/mods happened to be around, would you alert us expect us to do something about it? Would you think we were being cowards if we asked him to tone it down? Would you think we were cowards if we only asked him to tone it down rather than to leave? Would you think we were sticking him in the neck for speaking out like that on something he really genuinely believes to be true?
I mean, maybe it isn’t quite as bad as saying “God hates fags”, but I myself rather felt like vomiting while coming up with that selection from pseudo-Phelps, and I actually agree that propagating homosexual behavior is a sin!
(Then again, I’ve had a touch of the stomach flu all day, so… 
)
[Edited to add, since somehow some people got from this that I [u]agree homosexuals should be described this way: I absolutely don’t. Originally I had planned to use Christian universalism as the example, and pseudo-quote from a recent Arminian troublemaker who showed up briefly a few days prior to say such things about Christian universalists!–who would have thought, had I done so, that I was looking for an excuse to say such things about Christian universalism and universalists?!? The confusion may have come however because on one hand I do regard promotion of homosexuality as sin–with many qualifications, and not the same category of sin as behaviors intended to hurt other people–and on the other hand I think I made it pretty clear that I agree with the Anti-Calvs more-or-less in principle. From that an inference could be drawn from my comparison of the cases that what I more-or-less agree with the Anti-Calvs about in principle, whom I quoted from in building pseudo-Fred’s diatribe, I also believe to be true about homosexuals and homosexuality. Perhaps if I had regularly spoken up on the forum about what I actually believe regarding homosexual behavior this would have been less of a problem. I talk about what I actually believe later in this thread; readers may skip down to those posts here with a brief addendum also here.]
[Edited by JRP to further add, since there was also evidently some further confusion about what Allen and Cindy say shortly afterward in this thread: they were talking about reaching out to Calvinists without the ethical denunciations. They weren’t at all trying to agree with “pseudo-Phelps”.]
If someone has a loathsome painting on their wall, you can do one of two things.
You can tell them how much you hate it, why is disgusting etc, and offend them deeply. No amount of separating “the person from the painting” will soften the offense. Because you reject something they have chosen, they will take it personally.
Alternatively, you can give them a tremendously better painting. Soon enough, if all goes well, the old will be taken down to make room for the new.
Wow. You go away for a few days and look what happens.
I do think universalists need a place to discuss mainstream doctrine with which they disagree. And the ability to discuss it robustly. Calvinism is naturally a theology that causes great unrest of feeling. I personally hate with an utter hatred the doctrine, whilst loving and respecting many calvinists. I tend to think of them (and I’m not sure they’d like this) as still being blind to God, seeing through a mirror dimly, unable to see the true meaning of His glory. There are those calvinists however that I might deem as also having evil intent. Phelps would fall into that category.
But surely we do need a place to discuss the potential for evil in any belief system? Otherwise you can drift unawares into the consequences. We can’t just be PC. That’s neither reasonable nor sensible. I guess trying to find the balance is difficult and you’re never going to be able to please everyone. I find the expressed views of some on this forum on homosexuality highly rude, insensitive, ignorant and damning to the very soul of myself and many others close to me. There seems to be an expectation that certain ‘groups’ can take it, mostly those that are generally demonised in society anyway. The sad thing is, comments that would make certain people feel like Phelps had attacked them, have already appeared on the forum and yet you appear to have not noticed.
Yet whilst I found the opinions of many here on a huge group of people hard to deal with, I managed not to get into personal insults. That surely is where the real danger lies? Maybe if everyone, be they calv arm or kath could dial it back a bit and try to listen and understand where someone else is coming from, and then, if they still disagree, informing them why in a non personal manner, the forum would be a different place.
For what it’s worth, I think that Calvinism insults the character of God as described in scripture, whom is most beloved to me. And thus I find besmirches on His character heinous. So I will always say that it is a blasphemous doctrine and I make no apologies for it. Yet James White is still a favourite scholar of mine. And I’m more than prepared to hear why a Calvinist thinks I’m a heretic.
Dial it down people please! Let’s stop assuming what the other person meant and play nice again. Please! I don’t want to lose anyone from the forum on either side.
“Seriously Bro, I da man!” said the wind to his friend the sun. “You be sittin’ up there in the sky – what do you do? You just shine. If you’re happy you shine; if you’re lonely you shine; if you’re tired you shine; if you’re angry you shine; if you’re sad you shine. You just shine. Whoo hoo! Not too excitin’. I’m way more powerful than you, Bro. You go ahead and shine, but no one’s gonna see you when I blow a bunch of clouds across your happy sappy face.”
The sun just smiled, and the world got brighter. “Tell you what, ol Frien’,” he said. “See that ol’ boy down there, just a’walkin’ down the trail? I’ll bet ‘cha fifty bucks – can you get that ol’ ratty coat off his back?”
The wind just laughed. It sounded like a howling nor’easter. “Sunny Jim, I don’ need no fifty bucks to do that. ‘Sides – what would I do with that chit? Blow it around into a dust devil, that’s what. But I’ll get the ol’ boy’s coat off all right. Sit back and see how it’s done, Son.”
The wind commenced to howlin’. He blew a black bank of clouds over his friend the sun so he could blow even harder. He blew so hard he blew all the heat out of that ol’ boy’s blood and even started the ground to freezin’. But no matter how hard he blew, the ol’ boy just wrapped his coat around hisself the tighter, bent over with his head down, and hurried the more.
After a half hour of that, the sun tapped him on the shoulder (metaphorically speakin’) and said. “Havin’ trouble, Son?”
The wind spluttered. “I’d like ta see you do it better then,” he said. “That ol’ boy ain’t never gonna let go that coat a hisn.”
The sun smiled and the black clouds melted away. The heat and light stopped the wind in his tracks. “Now this is how you do it, Friend Wind,” he said, and started chuckling down at that ol’ boy walkin’ along the trail all hunched over. In no time at all, he straightened up. The sun kept grinnin’ and soon the walker took off his gloves and shoved them in his pockets, then his hat followed the gloves, and he shook out his hair. He unzipped the jacket and turned his face to the sky. Ol’ Sun, he just kept a smilin’, laughin’, chortlin’ even. Pretty soon out came a handkerchief and the ol’ boy commenced to moppin’ his brow. Then don’t you know he was shruggin’ outta that jacket and drapin’ it over his arm.
Well, Good Buddy," the sun said. “So who da man now?”
Sorry . . . I know you’ve all heard that story, but it’s still a good one.
Not to worry Jaelsister, 95% of homosexuals AND their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, cousins, etc. HAVE already left THIS forum after this last round on homosexuality. Not your fault, but just a bit late. They have gone on their way to “other” places. Pretty sad, but true. As Jason basically said, EVERYONE IS allowed their own beliefs…
And I’m going the same way Bret. I’m so sorry that you had to wade through that pile of offensive horseshit Jason posted. Not offensive to me directly - I’m big enough and ugly enough to look after myself. But to any of the few gay people who might still be brave enough to venture onto the site. There has long been a covert agenda of homophobia on this site, but Jason has done us all a favour by bringing it out into the open.
Admitting you’re a homophobe is one thing, swanning in and giving your fellow homophobes a slap on the back for broadcasting their homophobia is another. But coming up with two pages of homophobic bollocks just to try and win an argument is beneath contempt.
Dear Bret
I’m not surprised and I’m so sorry to hear that. I did stand up for my lgbt brothers and sisters last time, but didn’t have online access during the debate as a whole. I only hope that those lgbt people who are feeling strong and confident in themselves remain on board. It is such an ancient, well established prejudice that I think many usually fair minded people will only change their heart if they see and experience the amazing example of the lives of people like yourself, chipping away bit by bit at the preconceived ideas people have.
I find it mind boggling though that we are so concerned that people might feel insulted if you critique Calvinism in the extreme negative, but can’t see that when calling gay people unnatural or ill etc. One is a belief system, the other is part of the essence of whom someone is. One is chosen, the other innate. One speaks of members of humanity as being destined for evil no matter what, the other just wishes to be left alone and doesn’t affect other people’s lives. The body of Christ still has much to learn before it stops rewhipping its own members or renailing its own limbs. I just hope believers like yourself remain around to teach us
Quoted directly from you, of course. I just changed the topic around.
That’s how Calvinist visitors see what you’re saying.
But as you might say: admitting you’re a Calviphobe is one thing, swanning in and giving your fellow Calviphobes a slap on the back for broadcasting their Cavliphobia is another. But coming up with several pages of Calviphobic bollocks is beneath contempt.
It’s okay if I call you a Calviphobe for your attitudes about Calvinism, right? That’s very fitting and appropriate to what you actually believe and do regarding Calvinists, right? I’m not being unfair to call you that, surely.
I wouldn’t write those things about homosexuals, because I believe it would be wrong for me to treat them that way, despite my belief that homosexual activity and promoting it is also wrong.
I wouldn’t write those things about Calvinists either, because I believe it would be wrong for me to treat them that way, despite my belief that Calvinism and promoting it is also wrong. (Nor would I actually dismiss anti-Calvinist concerns by calling them Calviphobes, as though they’re at best suffering from an irrational mental neurosis.)
What you’re writing about the Calvinists, is what you’d utterly reject if the same attitude was taken toward homosexuals, here or anywhere else. Whether you leave here, or try to dodge the point by imagining (very, VERY wrongly) I was taking an opportunity to spew my own filthy hate on homosexuals, isn’t going to change that.
I’d try to get someone who actually wrote that about homosexuals to tone it down (or since this forum isn’t intended for the purpose of discussing homosexual issues I’d suggest he should go somewhere else if that’s what he wants to talk about); and I’m trying to get people who actually write that sort of thing about Calvinists to tone it down.
But if you can’t stand to be here unless you’re allowed total freedom to treat Calvinists the way you’d be appalled at homosexuals being treated, then I agree you should leave so you can go do that elsewhere. You can tell yourself that Calvinists deserve to be treated like that (like Phelps is absolutely sure in his heart homosexuals and those who might protect them from him, including myself, deserve to be treated like that), and so that makes all the difference.
Without getting into the question of the merits or demerits of either one, homosexuals do develop belief systems dealing with their various conditions; and arguments could be made that Calvinists are only attempting to rationalize and so validate internal pressures they were born with which are part of the essence of who they are.
In fact, the vocal New Atheism movement leans hard on that kind of explanation for all Christian belief, ours included, although Calvinism lends itself especially to being explained as an effect of evolutionary instincts for identifying and preferring the clan or group and competing to the death with other groups in control of resources and breeding rights.
Moreover, since opposition to homosexuality can be explained quite easily as an irrational evolutionary instinct to prevent the unfit from breeding and to keep those who breed improperly from access to limited resources, such opposition can be rightly described as homophobia, a neurosis that ought to be resisted by the person against their biological essence for various reasons. Or legislated against and treated if they won’t agree to resist their own essence.
Reducing the issue to belief vs. nature is too simple. We all have impulses running around in us by birth, and unless all impulses are to be given free rein (which would include the natural impulse to oppress homosexuals) we’re expected to cultivate some impulses under various circumstances and suppress or remove others. The proper question is whether homosexual impulses, as such, are among the impulses which ought to be fully suppressed and/or removed, or whether it’s permissible or even proper to cultivate them in various circumstances. And whichever way we answer those questions involve beliefs. (The same could be said for genetic impulses toward theistic belief or atheistic disbelief or sceptical doubt.)
Personally I believe instinctive emotions against homosexuality, including the instincts I myself was born with, should be suppressed or even removed rather than risk them leading to uncharity to homosexual persons. I don’t regard evolutionary biology to be a justification or even an excuse for promoting those impulses. (Others would disagree.)
On the other hand, I don’t believe all arguments against homosexual activity are merely rationalizations of instinctive anti-homosexual urges; and those arguments convince me to suppress any homosexual urges of my own rather than act to cultivate them.
On yet the other hand, I don’t regard those arguments as easily accessible and understandable, and accepting them requires accepting a large number of difficult theological positions first.
Consequently, I wouldn’t base governmental policy on those arguments. In fact I don’t believe a secular government has the right to force consensual adults to stop the behavior. Nor do I believe a secular government has the right to punish people who oppose that behavior. So I don’t believe governments should stop priests from marrying homosexual couples, nor should force priests to marry homosexual couples. (A priest’s religious organization is in effect a private organization, and he should be expected to abide by the decision of authority in the group or leave the group.) Relatedly, I wouldn’t perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple. On the other hand, I don’t believe homosexual couples need my permission to marry one another, and other things being equal I vastly much more approve of faithful homosexual conjugal union (in what I would agree to acknowledge as marriage) than casual sexual behavior of any kind. I am entirely prepared to vote in favor of governmental rewards for such stable relationships as for heterosexual ones. (I have also somewhat cynically joked that people who want to remove genetic dispositions to homosexuality from a population without violating the rights of the persons involved ought to vigorously approve and promote monogamous unions so as to minimize the spread of the relevant genes!) I understand why people who want to legislate against homosexuality altogether are angling for a constitutional amendment in order to get around judicial legislating-from-the-bench, which violates the checks and balances of our governmental system; but I am on record in a couple of places saying I would regard such an amendment as “an abomination”, and challenging its sponsors to stop couching it as though all they’re doing is affirming heterosexual marriage: dare to make the proposal clearly an amendment about denying rights to people ruled by the government, and then see how much support there is for it as an extension of our Bill Of Rights!–but don’t expect any support from me on it.
Such a position is guaranteed to make no one happy, and it ranks just about at the bottom of my theological priorities or even interests, so I don’t talk about it much; especially on this forum, where the owners would rather the administrators take positions on Christian Universalism (which this forum was set up for discussion and dispute on) than to lend our weight to other controversies.
Since I’m being accused of indulging in “homophobia”, though, for acting to protect Calvinists from the kind of linguistic attacks made by pseudo-Phelps against homosexuals, I figured I had better take a minute to talk about that.
Jason
I offer you an unreserved apology for throwing unwarranted, unfair and untrue accusations at you, particularly that of homophobia, which I retract with shame. I was angry and upset, but nothing excuses such unkindness and unfairness to a brother in Christ (or to anybody, actually) – one whom, I might add, I have always respected and liked.
This debate, such as it is, has very quickly spiralled out of control, to a place where it does nobody any credit – least of all me. The last thing I want to do is to throw further fuel onto the fire, or drag the forum, and with it the glorious truth of EU, any further through the mud. So it is indeed time for me to pick up my chips and find another game. But I feel it would be wrong of me to do so without at least explaining why. So here goes.
My hope has always been (and I know this hope is shared with others here) that one day we will live in a world where people’s sexual orientation is no more an issue than the colour of their hair. We will all be ‘judged’ not by who we love, but by how we love – or don’t love. I had hoped that this forum would be a place where that might happen now, a kind of microcosmic precursor of that better world to come.
But it seems this is not to be. For me the ‘facts’ of the situation are very clear. The Bible is first and foremost a signpost to the Living Word, which is Jesus. Everything God truly is is shown to us in Jesus - who befriended sinners, healed the sick, showed love and compassion to outsiders and the poor and the oppressed, and who never spoke one single recorded word against same sex relationships. For Jesus - and hence for God - being gay simply isn’t an issue. (In fact, there is a view that Jesus actually tacitly endorsed same sex relationships by healing the Centurion’s ‘slave’, who scholars believe was likely to have been his lover, but I wouldn’t press that.)
I see the Bible as a faithful and accurate record of the life and teachings of Jesus, plus a whole bunch of other stuff thrown in - history, myth, poetry, prophecy, legislation, romance, the works. All written by human beings, some of it wonderful and good and literally true, some of it wonderful and good and embodying truth that can only be expressed through story. And then some stuff which is either just plain wrong, or downright hateful crap which reflects the failings of the human beings who wrote it. It doesn’t matter that many of those men and women were very ‘godly’ like Moses or St Paul. Even the godliest of men get it wrong sometimes, have their own faults and prejudices. And some of those faults and prejudices have made it into the Bible – because faulty human beings were the only medium God had to work with. And he patently worked with and through some very faulty people, as we all know.
So what we have to do is apply the truth we know about God as revealed in Jesus to our reading of the Bible. And whenever there is a conflict between that and what the Bible actually says - or appears to say - Jesus trumps the Bible every time. So it is with sexual orientation and practice. There are a tiny handful of verses which appear to teach against same sex relationships. Most of these, when translated and understood correctly, probably don’t actually condemn loving same sex relationships. But even if they did, they would still be trumped by Jesus – in a similar way to how the stuff about God commanding genocide or stoning adulterers to death is trumped by Jesus.
And so it is my firm belief that there is no reason for any follower of Christ to be ‘anti-gay’, to not embrace full, unequivocal equality for all people regardless of where they are on the spectrum of sexual orientation and practice – none, that is, except their own personal negative feelings. Why some of us have those feelings, and whether we can change them, are questions we could and should look to answer. Personally I suspect there is very likely some evolutionary genetic component to all this negativity about gay relationships, in particular male gay relationships, but like you said in your last post this could and should be fought against, as we should fight against other instinctual drives which may lead us to act in contravention of the moral code.
It seems that my belief is not shared by most people on this forum. If both the overt opposition to full equality for LGBT people, combined with the deafening silence of the majority, is any measure of the general consensus, then I am in a very small minority. That makes me very sad. It makes me very sad that I don’t feel I can invite my gay brother here to learn something about the glorious doctrine of UR and be sure that he will feel welcome. I know that there have been gay people who have felt that way themselves.
The point has been made that some of the things I have said might well create a similar situation for Calvinists. So be it. There is simply no escaping the hatefulness of Calvinist dogma. But even the most vocal opponent of full sexual equality would concede that the two issues are of an entirely different order. And of course, as JaelSister has pointed out, there is no parallel here, because – and I acknowledge what you say on the matter, without necessarily agreeing with you, at least not in full – Calvinism is a belief system, something we choose to embrace or (hopefully) reject. Our sexuality is part of us – a vital, essential part of us. And we do not choose it – nor should we wish to, or ever feel like we ought to wish to.
All the best
Johnny
That’s perfectly okay, Johnny. In hindsight, I wish I had gone with my original plan of building a set of quotes against Christian universalism from a pseudo-“True Disciple” (maybe spiced with a few similar things from the real TD last weekend), and I’m certainly very sorry people were upset by it.
I’m also sorry you’re disappointed in this forum not being a microcosm precursor of the better world to come–and I know there are many people looking for such a thing (according to their expectations), and that’s a very proper thing to be looking for, even though by the very nature of things such a search is bound to fail and disappoint short of the actual better world to come.
But the intention for this forum was never that high to begin with (regardless of what shape any of us thinks the better world to come will be and what will or won’t be allowed in it). This isn’t a church. But many people don’t have a church (me neither at the moment) and are looking for one. I’m sorry if this forum doesn’t turn out to be the kind of church people are looking for, for various reasons, because I know people become upset when that happens–but that was always going to happen because we aren’t a church. We’re a more-or-less academic discussion forum with some social capabilities. Someone presents an idea, we chew over it pro and con for a while, each of us figures out what best to take away from the discussion, maybe we learn something new to improve our perception of the truth more accurately, hopefully some resources for future research and help are provided along the way.
The staff takes a few doctrinal positions related to the purpose for the forum’s existence (which is debating various forms of Christian universalism pro and con, and non-universalistic alternatives), but leaves everything else up to the members so as to exclude as few people as possible from the discussion of the forum’s main topics.
If you don’t think you should be discussing Christian universalism on a forum where the staff doesn’t come down solidly 100% on the side of approving of homosexual relationships, then okay, don’t discuss CU here. We also don’t come down solidly 100% on the side of disapproving of the systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of biological humans every year who by any standard are too young to choose between doing good or evil, and there are people who would never participate here because of that. Or because we don’t take a stand 100% approving of it (for whatever reasons), on the other hand. Maybe because each type of person wants to be in a microcosm precursor of the better world to come where one or the other of those things is fully supported.
I don’t blame anyone for that. I’m just trying to explain (as we have to explain to people’s disappointment on occasion) that we aren’t a church and we don’t take official sides (regardless of our personal beliefs) on those issues in order to create a community where those issues go one way instead of the other.
Clearly there is plenty of interest in making an online Christian universalist church congregation. So, go make one!–or two or three of different flavors. Stop by here every once in a while like a scholastic library to pick up something you find useful, take it back to your church and make use of it. Let us know where you set up the church, and we’ll post links for visitors; those of us looking for an online CU congregation may gladly join.
God’s grace and peace to you, whatever you do. {bow!}
As an addendum to my previous post on what I actually believe about homosexuality:
I recall being asked (by a member named Bret, whom some of you here will know, who has given me full permission to use this example with his name and significant other included) whether I would recommend for two homosexual men already in a gay committed marriage to be celibate.
My answer, word for word, with Bret’s permission:
I will also add that, for various obscure technical reasons, I have less problem with two women entering such a relationship than two men. So what I said there would also apply to a lesbian relationship, in case there’s some question.
Edited to also add subsequently: I also believe, and have told homosexuals this on occasion, that I DO NOT believe most homosexual behavior will be punished for impenitence, only behavior which is used uncharitably or otherwise toward the fulfillment of non-fair-togetherness – which is exactly the same principle on which I expect anyone else to be punished, first and foremost Christians who insist on being uncharitable. In most other cases, I fully believe some adjustments will be made as God sees fit and then the people will be free to love one another even moreso than before, probably even conjugally (or a post-resurrection equivalent). Or if I (and various scriptural authors) are wrong about it being a problem at all, then there will be no problems at all (except for those who apply it uncharitably, but as with anything else the uncharity and injustice will be the problem), and I certainly won’t have any problems at all with that in principle. On the contrary I expect my own feelings on the topic to be adjusted by God in the resurrection.
(But then, neither do I defend those feelings now by claiming they are the essence of who I am–even though a merely biological argument might be made along that line–therefore I have a right to feel and express them without critique or any possible expectation of adjustment.)
Thank you Jason. I’m sure I will drop by from time to time. There are many truly lovely people here.
May God’s blessing be with you - all of you - always.
Love
Johnny
This is fine, so long as “time to time” means every day or two.
Cheers.
Dear Johnny,
Quoting your first post below on this topic, you will notice I have chosen to highlight a couple of pieces in black which between one Brit and another would seem rather over the top; and not very helpful for potential converts from Calvinism or even convinced Calvinists coming on to the Forum . As a Brit I cannot help supporting an under-dog even if he were to be a Calvinist against such an onslaught, and I guess that’s more or less why Jason, quite rightly in my view, has taken the time and care, very thoughtfully and calmly, to steady the boat, and why Cindy has told us that lovely story, as brave and effective way as any in explaining our belief vs ECT.
Read your and their posts again brother and stay with us!
Love to all
Grandpa Michael in Barcelona!
The trouble is, of course, that an atheist or agnostic reading this - or more likely encountering this sort of thinking in a Calvinist friend or colleague - isn’t necessarily going to know that this sort of vicious cruelty is not only unbiblical, but is in fact the polar opposite of the true gospel message. And hence, unless exposed to a balancing Universalist or Arminian view of scripture and God, they are highly likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject the gospel altogether.
Which is why t**his sort of ‘religious’ Calvinist pornography needs to be rooted out and flushed swiftly down the toilet where it belongs. **I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Calvinism is a far greater evil, and far more damaging to the spread of the Kingdom, than even the most militant forms of atheism. Indeed, if Calvinism were the only religious show in town, the only right and moral thing to do would be to become an atheist.
Cheers
Johnny