Re: Apologies, plus what Chris H. believes

Subject:

Comments:
: hi chris, thank you for the clarification. : I thought I should comment on two things. : (1) John Boswell's work on corinthians is not valid at all. I completely aggree with that. I also think some scholars have motivation, but that does not neccessarily debunk their research. The same logic could be said of christian scientists: "oh you cant be a scientist, you have biblical motivation". The motivation is not what counts, it is the evidence presented and the ability to sift it therof, despite the motivation of the person presenting it. Motivation does not change the truth, but it can cause bias which Im sure we both agree is a travesty when it comes to any debate. : (2) I would never just ignore a scientific study for being anti-gay. The problem that I have seen with anti-gay science essays is that they either avoid observation and biological analogies (for example scientists have never discovered what causes left-handedness or heterosexuality), or the author clearly has a hatred for gays. In one study I read the author actually called for the assination of gays! : anyways... hows the weather up there? : : First, a message to X: thanks sincerely for your apology, it was very kind of you and well-received. I too have taken on an overly-aggressive tone at times, and for that I too apologize. : : Now, onto the "sicko" comment that has resurfaced a couple of times. I did NOT intend to refer to gays and lesbians as "sickos". What I was trying to do was explain that, when it comes to the mental health of gays and lesbians, no one can look into their hearts and minds and know their mental condition with certainty, and more than we can for anyone else. And given person, homo or hetero, could appear stable on the outside but really be sickos on the inside. I was refuting your point: the assertion that gays and lesbians are stable people. The fact is that neither you nor I can really know that for sure, so there’s no point is discussing who’s stable and who isn’t. : : If I am to keep my own philosophical integrity, I ought to abide by the principle that people ought to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not in association with a group they're affiliation with. Hence, I would never generalize gays and lesbians as sickos, because of course I could never know that generalization to be true. But my point was that the same goes for you: you can’t know gays and lesbians AREN’T sickos, either. : : Neither have I once claimed that homosexuality is sinful. I always much prefer, instead of asserting my own opinion, to evaluate how others have arrived at theirs and try to get them to see why sometimes their arguments and reasoning either need work or are completely faulty. If you watched me carefully and for long enough, you'll find that I'll do the same for fundamentalists that haven't thought through their position either. I have no more tolerance for fuddy-headed church-goers than I do for fuddy-headed gays and lesbians. : : As for what I actually believe: I am a Christian, although I work hard to disassociate myself from the unthinking fundamentalist camps. Fundamentalism is less common here in Canada than in the U.S., anyway. I think much of the thinking by both sides about what the Bible says about sex and homosexuality is inaccurate. I don't think you can arrive at a conclusion by micro-examining the texts that refer to homosexuality, but even if you do, I think there is very very little evidence that gays and lesbians can use to suggest that the bible supports the idea of homosexuality. Even if you manage to weaken the passages one by one, it's tough to get away from the wider view that the bible takes a rather dim view of the practise. Most scholars would probably agree with this. : : Still, I think gays and lesbians ought to be treated as complete equals within the church, except perhaps in matters of marriage or union-blessing. I think incidents of homophobia within the church are probably over-hyped (at least, here in Canada they are). I attend a conservative church, and gays and lesbians would be welcome to worship and take out memberships and participate like anyone else. Most people would believe it was sinful, but it wouldn't be hounded on any more than anyone else's sin is, as long as the church isn't asked to bless it. In my mind, equal treatment for gays and lesbians in the church is very important. I also don't have a problem with political equality: same-sex benefits, anti-discrimination laws, etc. I wouldn't even really mind if they were married by the state, as long as it was a strictly civil procedure, not a religious one. I think the gay and lesbian demand to be married or blessed within the church is a profoundly selfish demand, and shows no respect for the overwhelmingly high percentage people in the church that would feel deeply hurt and distressed by the practice. There are plenty of churches out there that are willing to bless your union til the cows come home: don’t invade someone else’s church and make demands as if you own the place. : : I'll conclude with a comment about scientific studies, and expert analysis on gays and lesbians and well as current scholarship on biblical texts. Like most people, I don't have the time or the inclination to evaluate all the current research in these various areas -- but I do dabble from time to time. I admit that I have a deep suspicion towards scientific studies -- I have ever since I read a recent study that claimed (as insane as it sounds) that children that live through the divorce of their parents experienced no lasting impact on their lives. But most of all, I am suspicious of studies that relate to gays and lesbians. Some very brave scholars have emerged to say that many of these studies are very poorly executed, and (worse) do not receive the same scholarly scrutiny as other studies, which is a crucial element to the acceptance of any study. There's also a notable politically correct chill in the air: if a scholar seriously attempted to publish a study that appeared anti-gay, he or should could expect their career to suffer in some way, perhaps dramatically. I am personally acquainted with one researcher who knows of two studies whose funding was withdrawn because the preliminary results appeared slightly anti-gay. I also know of a Harvard-based Greek scholar that told me John Boswell's classic work on the Romans and Corinthians passages was packed full of serious and fundamental errors, but no one in the classical community wanted to challenge it because it appeared anti-gay to do so. No one wants to be associated with that, and no serious scholar is going to make an effort to publish something that will ultimately make him or her a pariah. Same goes for biblical scholars. There's no reason to think these people aren't motivated more by the status of their careers than anything. : : So, read my posts carefully, don't judge me or read anything into it, and reply on it's merits. Then we'll have a fun debate! : : Chris H.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: