The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

Practices Christian Living
#61

There’s a big difference between saying X is no better than pedophilia (which is what you were doing not at all obliquely in regard to Calvinism, and which nobody here was doing in regard to homosexual behavior); and saying those who object to X are not necessarily X-ophobes by objecting to X, by asking whether objecting to Y necessarily involves Y-ophobia.
[size=150]
[EDITED TO ADD: MY MEMORY WAS FAULTY ON THIS TOPIC! JOHNNY HAS DEMONSTRABLY [u]NOT[/size] COMPARED CALVINISM WITH ANY KIND OF CHILD ABUSE! I’m leaving the paragraph in order to acknowledge and admit to my error – I don’t know why I remembered that, but I was wrong, and I immediately retract and repent what I said.]

The specific Y topic wouldn’t matter, because the point to the comparison isn’t to equate X with Y morally.

If someone had accused you of being a Calviphobe, and you had replied that objecting to Calv doctrines (even if strongly so) was no more necessarily Calviphobic than objecting to pedophilia is necessarily pedophiliphobic, then no one would have had any complaint, except maybe people who misunderstood you to be comparing Calvinism to pedophilia morally. But actually you would have been defending yourself against charges of only behaving according to irrational fear of Calvinists when you object to Calvinism.

Granted, highly emotional Calvinists who are looking for an excuse to oppose your opposition, and/or who get their feelings easily hurt (and/or who are looking for excuses to lash out), might not bother to notice and acknowledge what you are actually doing, especially if it was important to such Calvinists that anyone who opposes them must only be doing so out of emotional irrationality (similar to their own behavior on the topic perhaps). But that wouldn’t actually be your problem. Calvinists who morally reject pedophilia don’t necessarily do so out of a phobia of pedophilia, so they shouldn’t accuse you of only having a phobia of Calvinism when you’re rejecting Calvinism. Should they?

Same thing here: I’m glad there are homosexuals who morally reject pedophilia, but surely they would be insulted if someone in favor of pedophilia dismissed their rejection of pedophilia as a phobia of pedophilia. Consequently they shouldn’t do the same thing to people who reject homosexual behavior, even though homophobia is a real problem and has historically and tragically been connected to rejection of homosexual behavior for thousands of years up until today.

I don’t know why it would make any difference to you if you were aware of the evidence; I only mentioned it because there are people who are aware of the evidence and who for that reason might bring up the topic in connection. (Since I wasn’t the one who came up with comparison I made guesses as to why someone would do so.)

None at all for the actual purpose of someone bringing up the comparison in order to defend themselves against the charge that their rejection of homosexual activity is only due to a phobia.

I don’t hold it against modern Calvinists who reject that behavior; I don’t hold the murder of Protestants (including my Anabaptist forebears) against Catholics (and Calvinists!) who reject that behavior; and I don’t hold pedastry against modern homosexuals who reject that behavior. Apparently the problem isn’t with me holding past or current behavior against current proponents regardless of whether the current proponents reject that behavior or not. :wink:

So on that ground, you think someone would be perfectly correct and reasonable to claim you have a phobia against Calvinists, since that kind of behavior has occurred against Calvinists (and actually still does in various places of the world even if not that much in the First World anymore)?

I don’t think so: people shouldn’t dismiss your rejection of Calvinism as being a phobia, even if other people have acted against Calvinists in a phobic way, and still do today. If someone tried to dismiss your rejection of Calvinism as necessarily being due to a phobia, I would defend you the same way: are people who reject pedophilia only doing so due to a phobia of pedophilia? (Or for pedophilia substitute any other common moral rejection Y. Regardless, that doesn’t mean I’m thereby equating Calvinism morally with Y. I’m only observing that people who take moral stands on X or Y aren’t necessarily doing so as a phobic reaction.)

The only reason there is an ambiguous semantic range for the term “homophobia” is because people insisted on applying the term to people who weren’t in fact behaving in a phobic way, in order to dismiss their behaviors as irrational fear. Continuing to do so doesn’t help the situation. If “homophobia” now applies to any rejection of homosexual sex as morally wrong, even if the behavior isn’t phobic, then the term has been spoiled. It would be like applying the term sodomy to any homosexual sex act, even if the act doesn’t involve rape (and/or mistreatment of guests). I don’t call it sodomy, and I don’t accept that the common application of the term to any homosexual act is right.

My Calvinist friends might call you Calviphobic, especially if they were annoyed by the insults you give them, but that doesn’t mean I should agree with them, and so regard your very strong rejection of Calvinists as a phobia, does it? I don’t think so, but maybe you think you should be described as a Calviphobe, even though you don’t have an irrational fear of Calvinists?

Matt cuts to the chase here, beautifully, compassionately, (as he so often does):

(My agreed emphasis)

I’m glad to see you think he cuts to the chase beautifully and compassionately here, too. :slight_smile: But that includes the portion you also quoted: people on your side of the issue need to realize that not everyone who is against homosexuality is a homophobe, much like people on my side of the issue need to realize that not everyone in favor of homosexuality is in favor of sodomy (in any sense of that term). Insisting on a right to apply the term anyway on the ground of ambiguous semantic reasons, when the only reason there are ambiguous semantics is because the term was misapplied to people it doesn’t apply to, doesn’t help.

#62

Check your facts, Jason. I never brought up paedophilia in connection with Calvinism or anything else. I’ve never even used the word on this forum until now.

I suggest you retract that calumny and apologise forthwith.

#63

Friends – not these notes or we are going to have schism :frowning: .

Johnny I really do think that it is possible to be against homosexual activity and not homophobic. It really is. Jason is not homophobic – and I know that he has been personally kind towards gay people.

Jason, I’m not aware that Johnny actually compared Calvinism to child abuse – I know that people who feel strongly about crude versions of penal substitution atonement sometimes compare this to child abuse – but Calvinism/ the Reformed tradition in its entirety – it would be completely wrong to cast aspersions upon.

You’ve certainly compared it to Satanism. Five Point Calvinism – people may well be hurt who are Five Point Calvinists coming on a Universalists site and seeing people letting off steam. However, they do want to preach something very alarming – a gospel that God hates most people and will torture then for eternity. Simple as that. This sort of god has often been likened to something satanic by many other Christians and not only Universalists, and some of them very illustrious; Charles Wesley for instance. I think this belief system is pretty horrible – and I witness the quotations from John Piper about the child going through the windscreen in a car accident as an example. Yes we shouldn’t hate someone who believes this sort of thing– but it’s hard not to disguise abhorrence for the disconnect in imagination and empathy that these beliefs entail. What Piper said was appalling – absolutely. However, yes there are people who come on this site who come from a five pointer position who are genuinely bewildered by their inheritance and it doesn’t help them to insult the terrible beliefs they have inherited.

To be able to live with the idea that some of your own children may not be elect – and therefore will be tortured for eternity is plain weird. It has driven sensitive souls to despair.

Five point Calvinists and sectarian Calvinists seem to often have a rosy and innocent view of their own history – and an ignorant and dismissive view of the histories of others. And it is for this reason that it is necessary to remind them for example, that there were horrific incidences of what can only be called child abuse by the authorities in Geneva when Calvin had sway – absolutely appalling; the execution of the girl that struck her parents, the condemning to death of naughty children and placing them on the scaffold in halters only to reprieve them. As the article that Jeremy has recommended states – Rabbinical Judaism had long seen the biblical mandates that the Calvinists used as no longer binding. So I feel fine to remind extreme Calvinists about this – I don’t like hurting people’s feelings but sometimes it’s necessary.

Calvinists have not advocated sexual paedophilia – that is clear.

I’ve been in the hot seat for insulting a Calvinists here – although I hope people understand that sometimes there’s more to things than meet the eye – I was actually concerned for a young woman’s life at the time, more concerned about that than the freedom of someone to start telling us that God hates most of us, no matter that this was done in a personable and friendly manner. And I know that when push came to shove you acquitted yourself very admirably – Johnny do remember that this is Jason who you called a’ gentleman and a scholar’.

Jason I don’t think for a moment you have a homophobic bone in you – but you will defend homophobic attitudes in others.

I’m still pondering the one about pederasty. Yes gay historians need to be honest about any famous gay people in history who have advocated pederasty. But we all need to be honest about the difficult stuff in our histories.

And yes there were feminist separatists’ who embraced lesbianism as a political option (they were in a minority; I don’t think the idea is hugely popular today, and probably a lot of these women had been in abusive heterosexual relationships).

Yes Calvinists were fiercely persecuted – especially in sixteenth century France. They did a huge and terrible amount of persecution and bloodletting too (and the resurrection of the herem by Calvin has hugely contributed to early modern genocides in the past – and all Calvinists of good will should reject this). Today if Calvinists are persecuted they will be persecuted in parts of the world where Christians in toto are persecuted. Gay people are persecuted all over the shop and American Christian right wing literature etc is fanning the flames of the persecution of homosexuals in Africa at the moment – so that’s a point of concern.

Finally – the big thing here is that we know that one of our site members is seriously ill, possibly dying, happens to be gay, and has been seriously distressed by this thread. That’s why passion has run high. That’s’ why I hope this stops soon.

Love

Dick

#64

Johnny and others,

I don’t know why I recall that, but I’ve made a search and don’t find it, so I will infer my memory is faulty. I will retract that claim immediately, and add a emphatic note of my error to the post, so that people will see I made the error and that I’m not hiding I made the error.

(I’m not constantly on the forum, and even when I am I’m not constantly on the same thread; I only got back to it this morning.)

Updated: now marked in my post. I don’t know why I remembered that, but I can only repent of the error and ask Johnny’s forgiveness.

Sobor, considering I called homophobia both real and a contributor to tragedy, I’m not sure why you would say I’m defending actual homophobic activity. If I found people kicking anyone’s head in for their sexuality, they would not themselves be healthy much longer if I had anything to do about it. I don’t like bullies regardless of what their feelings happen to be. I understand homophobia (as an evolutionary by product), but I reject it utterly, as it only leads to uncharity towards other people. (And very hurtful uncharity at that.)

Having said that, I very much appreciate your mediation. http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/bow.gif

Moreover, I do not blame Johnny in the least for being upset and angry over my mistake. (Neither do I blame him in the least for being upset and angry over homophobia per se. :slight_smile: I myself have been violently attacked and nearly crippled due to actual homophobia, despite not being homosexual in the least.)

#65

Jason

Thank you for your gracious apology, which I accept unreservedly. Of course I forgive you, old bean.

Please forgive me for the combative, ungracious tone and import of my posts. Seeing as how Dick has kind of let the cat out of the bag, bless him (and he’s way too much of a gent to advertise his own terrible trials at the moment - he’s a full-time carer to his very elderly, very ill mother) I will say, briefly, that it’s true I am particularly upset about some of the things said on this thread because Bret is very much in my thoughts at the moment.

For anybody reading this, I want to say that Bret is a some-time member here: a Christian; a Universalist; a wonderful, kind, very brave, funny, feisty bloke; a gay man in a loving, faithful relationship; and a dear friend. He’s also very ill.

He doesn’t want anybody’s pity. But I’m pretty sure he could use all of our love and support and prayers.

He’ll probably throw up when he reads this - at me being schmaltzy, not because he’s ill (I hope). He’s probably also going to kick my lardy British butt from here to Texas for ‘outing’ him. Well, he was already out, but you know what I mean.

Bret, I love you man. God’s grace and peace and power to you.

Thanks again Jason.

Peace to all

Johnny

#66

Dear Jason –

Hello old chum :slight_smile: – I don’t think you defend homophobic activity at all; I’m expressing myself badly. I’m talking about an issue of fairness and moderation of here –

This is not a site that has as a matter of policy that the Administrators take a certain line on homosexuality. Indeed both Bob (Wilson) and Richard (Beck) show a great willingness to question orthodoxies about gay people – and I would hazard a guess that Richard’s blog has actually attracted some gay Christians to this site. So the site does have some responsibility towards gay people. Obviously there are a lot of Christians from a conservative evangelical background here and they are going to think in good conscience that that homosexual activity is sinful and that they must speak up about it. But because this isn’t a purely conservative evangelical site – and indeed that diversity is actually reflected in the site governing body – it only seems fair that, of course people can express their views about homosexuality being according to the best of God’s plan. However when people start to compare gay people in any way with paedophiles and people involved in bestiality, at that point I think this should be a moderation issue. Yes I can see where these fears are coming from but they are actually homophobic and if gay people are going to be on this site and not feel afraid, this sort of language should be seen as out of order in discussion. It’s fine to raise concerns, state objections etc. – but talking about gay people – who often have loving and faithful relationships in a non tidy world –in the same breath as paedophilia and bestiality is just hate filled or at least the consequences inevitably are, even if the remarks haven’t been thought through. (And all I was suggesting is that I’d feel happier if you would be a bit firmer about these views). I think the more liberally minded here would cut out some of the frank and potentially of offensive talk about people’s bits and bobs if this reductive stuff were to be avoided by those who disagree with homosexual activity. Outside of the technicalities of what people do with their bits and bobs –gay people are human, and I’ve know some wonderful gay men and women, including a child protection officer who just loved cared and protected children so much. You know that too Jason – and I know that you know that.

As I’ve said in private before, Fulcrum – Tom Wright’s site – has a policy about not agreeing with gay activity but it actually also does not allow homophobic remarks. Fulcrum I can take or leave – I like this site lots better. I’m really glad that EU welcomes diversity and is very tolerant in its own way :smiley: . I think if we all have responsibilities here. There is no reason why we should all be talking about gay issues all of the time – we are all human beings and have plenty of other things to talk about. But when these issues do come up – and people say stuff that dehumanises gay people, I think moderators should come in and gently guide us to a better place.

All good wishes

Dick

#67

(Return apology accepted, btw, Johnny. :slight_smile: )

For what it’s worth, if I or any of the ad/mods had thought Paidion’s remark was homophobic, we would have tagged him on it once we read it. We thought the context clearly indicated his point was restricted to providing principle demonstrations for the following point:

The illustration of his point involved appealing to moral stances he expected everyone to agree about, and instead of choosing examples of unrelated physical acts (like gossip or murder) he chose examples of other sexual acts more widely regarded as immoral. Possibly he remembers the extremely irresponsible gay culture excesses from the 50s through into the 90s, and thought connecting back to those topics would add salt to his point. That might not be fair, since that kind of pornographic excess wasn’t (and still isn’t) hardly restricted to the gay underground (which would tend to tar all association since all gay activity had to be largely underground for most of that time), but that doesn’t mean Paidion was being homophobic himself (the expert authorities of Wikipedia notwithstanding, whom we know are unbiased and accurate when reporting on all cultural factors like Christian universalism for example. :wink: )

As someone who suffered from occasional homophobic violence as a child (rescued from permanently crippling damage on one such occasion in the nick of time only by the fortunate arrival of my mother), I am not particularly patient with homophobia when I actually detect it; but then I tend to stay out of these threads, too. But then if I’m asked to patrol the threads (and the ad/mods were asked to patrol such threads more frequently) I’m required to try to be fair to everyone on all sides the aisle.

So, for example, I fully agree that if someone feels it necessary to tell a fellow child of Christ they are sinning by expressing X-type of sexuality, they had better be just as vigilant about telling their friends and family members they believe Y-type of sexual behavior (practiced by friends/family and also prohibited by the Bible) is also a sin, when the topic comes up. Actually, since those two actions are pretty close in type to one another, I rather expect such people do exactly that already without my having to bring up the parity for fairness.

I do not agree that such people ought to crush anyone’s head with a stone; consequently I don’t agree they ought to go crush an adulterer’s head with a stone if they are also prepared to merely tell another person a different behavior is also a sin because they think the Bible teaches both behaviors are a sin; consequently I don’t agree that if they aren’t prepared to execute person X then they also shouldn’t bother merely saying anything to either person.

Now, if they were prepared to execute Person Y I might technically agree they ought to be prepared to execute Person X, too; but practically I would say they don’t have the right to be executing anyone in either case, and I would go on (as in fact I did earlier in the thread) to bring up where St. Paul actually goes in the second half of Romans 1 and the start of Romans 2, in addressing people who are hot to see those nasty-people-over-there executed while expecting God to grant themselves patience or leniency on their own ‘smaller’ or ‘other’ sins.

(To which I might add that at the Mars Hill forum in Athens, the same St. Paul when talking to exactly those same pagans he was excoriating so strongly in Romans 1, acknowledged that God was so affectionately lenient with them that He was practically “winking at” what they had done!–even though He expected them to do better, too.)

Be that as it may. Since the actual topic of the thread has long since passed, I’m going to lock the thread to keep people from inadvertently (or vertently… I declare “vertently” to be a real word :wink: ) hurting each other’s feelings by continuing on it.

(However, I’ll give the thread a day or so more leniency so that I’m not trying to have the last word thereby. :slight_smile: )

Pre-marital sex
#68

Jason

Can I ask you, please, to consider whether locking this thread is the best thing to do. Emotions have run high, that is true. There has been dispute, that is true. But there has also been real opportunity for learning, for gaining a better understanding of positions ‘on both sides’. And there has also been opportunity for reconciliation and healing, and for us all to show unity and fellowship.

The only way there will ever be true unity; the only way LGBTQ people will ever be fully and equally loved and accepted just as they are, just as we all should be, is if we talk through these issues, with compassion and understanding. Surely whenever we oppose anybody on any issue we run the risk of hurting their feelings. Does that mean we must all agree on everything, or stay silent?

Very few, if any, openly gay people’s voices are being heard on this site. What is our message to them? Come, join us here, celebrate the Universal love of God for all his children? But for goodness sake don’t talk about being gay or we’ll have to shut you down?

All the best

Johnny

#69

Jason - I’m sorry about you getting beaten up old mate - and I’m so sorry you’ve suffered some permanent damage :frowning:

Jason - I need to correct this: you actually say you were rescued from permanently crippling damage by your mother - of that I’m glad :slight_smile: I misread you :blush:

#70

I’m glad to see that you guys have worked things out. :slight_smile:

Dick, you are a peacemaker, and that means you’re blessed, 'ol boy. :wink:

And I agree with you mate about mods watching threads such as this more closely, to make sure people are being careful about what they’re saying and how they’re saying it… like my friend Jeff Leach always says, quoting from scripture, ‘we should spur each other on to love and good deeds’… personally I think it’s less effective rebuking people for the wrong that they are doing, or that you think they are doing (though there may be a time and place for tough love, like drug/alcohol intervention for example) than it is just encouraging them to be more compassionate, more gracious, more loving, and by example.

Positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement, if you will. :slight_smile:

That’s why I try to be as balanced as I can in these kinds of discussions, here on the forum and elsewhere online, and try not to fly off the handle… sometimes I really want to, and there have been times when I have, which I regret, but I try…

I’m learning gradually, very gradually, to live by those a couple of those old wise sayings in the Bible:

‘A kind word turns away wrath.’ and ‘Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry.’

We are all of us still learning and growing, and none of us have everything figured out yet, so I think we should try to be as patient with each other as we can. And it’s like Plato said: ‘Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.’

And I think this applies very much to the topic under discussion.
Many people who are gay are indeed fighting a very hard battle in their lives, battling things like loneliness, rejection, uncertainty, alienation, frustration, confusion, depression, and the like…
People like my friend, whom I mentioned earlier, are fighting a hard battle.
People like Bret, whom Johnny mentioned, are fighting a hard battle.

But going even further, all of us, in our own way, are fighting a hard battle.
And people who are fighting a hard battle, the battle that we call life, need kindness rather than judgment.

We need to be kind to one another, rather than judge one another, we need to be kind others, rather than judge others, and as much as we can.

I have a lot to learn and a lot of room to grow in this myself, but that’s the direction I want to move in.

Anyways, I just wanted to say again that I’m glad you guys sorted things out, that’s a beautiful thing. :slight_smile:

Blessings to you and peace :slight_smile:

Matt

#71

Final thoughts from me

I’m not hugely interested on joining in threads on gay issues – but it is one of those issues that I think both sides need to be heard on, And when I see my dear friend Johnny on his white charger I instinctively want to help him out, (and keep him under control :wink: :laughing: ). I actually don’t like the word homophobia because it can be misused badly, especially against conservative Christians who are value conservatives rather than right wing bigots.

The only think I want to do, if you like, is ‘raise awareness’. I don’t think Piadion was being hateful. But obviously the slogans of paedophilia and bestiality are used in literature that stirs up persecuting zeal against gay people – absolutely so. The myth that Aids in Africa is a result of gay people having sex with monkeys does the rounds and results in torture and death. So I just would like to say to my conservative Christian friends – my value based conservative Christian friends – just think before you post on this topic; and chose your words lovingly. Every one with some sort of authority who has spoken here – apart from Drew – has picked up Johnny on his views specifically. All in authority bless you; please just be aware of a bigger picture – including the fact that someone who is gay and dying and a member of this community, and a lovely, man has been reading this thread (it’s always good to have a sense of audience)

#72

I know we’ve pretty much wrapped this discussion up, but I just ran across this song today on the radio, which I thought was really powerful and heartfelt.

It’s called Same Love, by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis.

Here’s a link for the video:

youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

And here are the lyrics:

#73

That’s a beautiful song and video. Thanks for posting, Matt. “Press play, not pause” says it all.

#74

Sure does :slight_smile:

#75

Johnny,

The only reason I would lock the thread is because the actual topic of the thread has long since past, and because people have been hurt in/because of this thread, and since things have worked out pretty much all right I’d rather not risk someone reading part or all of the thread and trying to draw up hostilities again while adding to it.

That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of simply locking down discussions on the topic. Although if the ad/mods are expected to police other threads when the topic comes up, sometimes locking the thread is the only way to tie off the bleeding for a while. In this case the bleeding has stopped and I’d rather it end well than risk going back to the bleeding.

It’s because I do actually care about the feelings of everyone involved on both sides that I’m going to tie off the thread. But I’ve also allowed leeway for final comments from everyone, and I’m glad I did. :slight_smile:

(If Johnny or anyone else wants the thread to be unlocked, you’re welcome to petition any other admin or mod; if they unlock it again I won’t object.)