Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Proud to be gay, celibate for Jesus

If something is an unchangeable fact about someone, then one should not be prejudiced against them on that account. If gay means same sex attracted, then I think there are cases of persons who are gay, and they can't change that. Christianity may require that they be celibate, but there is no just prejudice against them based on who they are attracted to. I realize "phobia" is probably an inapt term. 

A group of Christian gays might apply to march in a Gay Pride parade with the intent to carry a sign that says "Proud to be Gay, Celibate for Jesus." Now the parade organizers would probably deny the application, but that would be religious prejudice. But if I am right in thinking that these people can't, as it were, "pray the gay away," then to treat them poorly because they are same sex attracted would be anti-homosexual prejudice.

24 comments:

Ilíon said...

What, making this a separate post changes the faulty logic?

Ilíon said...

AS I said in the other thread --

One can replace the name of the specific perversion with any number of other sins and still be operating by the same irrational logic.

For instance: A group of Christian [murderers] might apply to march in a [Murderer] Pride parade with the intent to carry a sign that says "Proud to be [Murderers], [Not-murdering-today] for Jesus."

NO ONE who identifies with his sin can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. No one who clutches his sin to his breast like a priceless treasure can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

The options available to *all* humans are just these two:
1) clutch at and identify with your sin – become your sin -- and thereby die eternally;
2) let go of your sin -- let Christ become sin for you -- and thereby live eternally.

Ilíon said...

"... But if I am right in thinking that these people can't, as it were, "pray the gay away," then to treat them poorly because they are same sex attracted would be anti-homosexual prejudice."

For one thing, the only people who even remotely believe the "I was born this way" excuse are people like you -- "gays" themselves don't believe it, despite that they always trot it out for the delectation of people like you.

For another thing, even if everyone did believe the "I was born this way" excuse, and even if it were actually the truth, it's irrelevent to the actual issue -- What are *we* to to do with *them*? That is, What does society owe to persons afflicted with same-sex attraction?, and, at least as importantly, What do persons afflicted with same-sex attraction owe to society?
* For example -- just to take the example of a "Pride" parade -- do persons afflicted with same-sex attraction owe it to society to keep their sexual activity off the streets and behind closed doors, the same as everyone else? Or, does society owe it to persons afflicted with same-sex attraction to strut around in public naked, and, indeed, to buttfuck in public?


And, lastly, the very fact that the example I used above, of "gays" prancing around naked in public and performing their perversities in public, or, as another example, that organized Gay, Inc is now demanding (and getting) The State to persecute Christians who simply wish to be left alone on the matter, has so quickly become a public issue gives the lie to the whole "anti-homosexual prejudice" thingie.

There is *always* a god-of-the-system; there is no such thing as "religious neutrality" or "moral neutrality". If the god-of-the-system is not God, then it will be some idol; and generally, there will be a demon behind that idol, feeding off the human souls offered up to it.

Ilíon said...

above -- "Or, does society owe it to persons afflicted with same-sex attraction [to allow them] to strut around in public naked, and, indeed, to buttfuck in public?"

Bilbo said...

Ilion,
I have a very close friend who is gay and considers himself to be a Christian, and believes that he was born that way and cannot change.

Legion of Logic said...

Let's say that homosexuality is a purely biological trait and not even remotely a choice. That would not excuse a homosexual act from being a sin.

Seems to me that homosexual acts are rather unique among sins in that, unlike just about any other sins, homosexual Christians (and their supporters within Christianity) attempt to make the case that they are NOT in fact sinful acts. You don't see a believer who gets trashed at a bar trying to make the case that drunkenness is perfectly fine, or Christians making the case that lying is fine. It's not that Christians don't do these things, far from it - but whatever their excuse, they don't try to make the case that their particular sins aren't even sins.

Ilíon said...

"I have a very close friend who is gay and considers himself to be a Christian, and believes that he was born that way and cannot change."

What you mean is: you have a very close friend who wants the logically impossible; he wants to clutch the anchor that is this specific sin and still to float to the surface.

No one believes the "I was born this way" excuse. And, even if everyone did, they'd still be destined for hellfire unless they repent of their sin.

oozzielionel said...

The cultural narrative creates category incongruities. In the cultural narrative "Born that way" implies a biological connection to a sexual attraction. This pseudo-scientifically morphs into a link to hard-wired personal identity, moral neutrality, and for some a God-given gift. All of which are wrong conclusions. The Christian view is that we are born both with the image of God and in a sinful condition in need of regeneration. There is no safety in anything we are born with. We are born with all kinds of deformities that need healing. Our birth condition does not create our identity. Christ gives us identity.

Then there is the myth of "unchangeable fact." To hold Christian views, one must at least hold that Christ transforms us from sin to righteousness. Christ affirmed that morality is expressed in actions and words but also affirmed that sin is in thoughts, intentions, and even imaginations. Adultery includes lust. Murder includes hate. Sexual attractions can be controlled and even transformed.

Bilbo said...

Ilion,

I assure that my friend believes that he was born gay.

Ilíon said...

And I know that he doesn't (*) he was "born that way", but that he finds it a convenient excuse for making his sin-temptation into his identity.

AND, as I've already said, even if he did believe it, it wouldn't matter: he still can't enter the Kingdom on Heaven while he insists upon holding onto that sin.


(*) and, after all, what is his favorite (sexual) fantasy? It is that some cute "straight" guy will "fall in love" with him.

Ilíon said...

Bilbo: "I have a very close friend who is gay and considers himself to be a Christian, and believes that he was born that way and cannot change."

at First Things: The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy -- "In some churches, the new orthodoxy is most aggressively manifest in feminist and homosexual (or, as it is said, “lesbigay”) agitations. These, however, are but the more conspicuous eruptions that follow upon a determined denial of the normative truths espoused by an older orthodoxy. Proponents of the new orthodoxy will protest, with some justice, that they, too, are committed to normative truths. These truths, however, are not embodied in propositions, precedent, ecclesial authority, or, goodness knows, revelation. They are experiential truths expressing the truth of who we truly are—“we” being defined by sex, race, class, tribe, or identifying desire (“orientation”).

With the older orthodoxy it is possible to disagree, as in having an argument. Evidence, reason, and logic count, in principle at least. Not so with the new orthodoxy. Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity. In this game, identity is trumps. An appeal to what St. Paul or Aquinas or Catherine of Sienna or a Church council said cannot withstand the undeniable retort, “Yes, but they are not me!” People pack their truths into what Peter Berger has called group-identity kits. The chief item in the kit, of course, is the claim to being oppressed.
"

Bilbo said...

Ilion,

On what grounds do you claim to know that he doesn't believe that he was born gay?

SteveK said...

I mostly agree with Ilion (shocking). If you love your sin and are proud of it, something's wrong. Whether you are, or are not, born gay is irrelevant. Are you proud to be that way and wear the label proudly (identity)? That's a relevant question.

SteveK said...

If you are proud to be a sinner, then you better start questioning whether you've been transformed by the renewing of your mind. What you *choose* to be proud of is a product of your rational mind. The choice has nothing to do with the desire you did not choose - be it food, lust, power, etc.

Hal said...

"Proud to be gay, celibate for Jesus."

Why would a person who was proud to be gay think he should be celibate? I could understand it if he was making a decision to enter the priesthood, but otherwise seems to be a foolish position.

Of course I don't share the view here that homosexuality is wrong nor the practice of it.

Ilíon said...

Biblo: "On what grounds do you claim to know that he doesn't believe that he was born gay?"

I've already told you --

1) *No one* believes it (and "no one" includes your "friend");
2) Even if *everyone* believed it, it would still not be true
3) Even if *everyone* believed it, and *even if* if were true, it would still be the fact that God condemns homosexual acts -- according to God, those who do not turn their backs on/repent of homosexuality cannot enter the World to Come.

====
To the general reader --

If Bilbo's "friend", and Bilbo ... and Victor Reppert ... and *you* (the reader), really did believe the "I was born this way" excuse, then they (and you) would equally apply it to so-called "homophobes".

After all, IF *I* am not allowed to morally comdemn, and to wish to have nothing to do with, and to wish to push to the edge of society those broken men who make it a point of Pride to lick other men's assholes (*), on the asserted grounds that "he was born that way", THEN *you* are not allowed to morally condemn me for my desire (as stated above), and on the same grounds that I was "born this way".

Goose, gander.

But, of course, you homophiliacs reject the above argument ... because you don't and *never did* believe the version of it that you spout.


(*) to be blunt, I have the same attitude toward *anyone* who incorporates fecal matter, and its source, into their "sex life", regardless of the sexes involved.

Victor Reppert said...

By gay I mean a person who is same sex attracted. There are Christians who consider same sex attraction to be an inescapable fact about themselves, and not a sin in itself. However, in obedience to Christ, they maintain that they are obligated as a matter of obedience to Christ to live celibate lives.

It is possible to hold that homosexual acts are sinful, and something to be ashamed of, but homosexual orientation is not.

I am very sympathetic to the orientation/act distinction. One of the things that has fueled the gay rights movement has been the perceived failure of Exodus International. Biblical injunctions seem exclusively directed toward homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation. But charges of prejudice make sense only if what one is accused of prejudice against is something about which one has no choice. We can choose our actions, even if we can't choose our orientation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/15/yes-many-christian-communities-are-toxic-for-my-lbgt-friends-but-theres-more/

Bilbo said...

Ilion,

Once again you merely assert that my friend does not believe that he was born gay, offering no grounds whatsoever to support your denial. When you can come up with actual grounds feel free to publish it. Until then, I suggest you quit wasting your time and mine.

Ilíon said...

"By [mad] I mean a person who is [wrothful]. There are Christians who consider [wroth] to be an inescapable fact about themselves, and not a sin in itself. However, in obedience to Christ, they maintain that they are obligated as a matter of obedience to Christ to live [apathetic] lives.

It is possible to hold that [wrothful] acts are sinful, and something to be ashamed of, but [wrothful] orientation is not.

I am very sympathetic to the orientation/act distinction ...
"

Ilíon said...

Bilbo,
Once again, you make this dishonest pretense.

Ilíon said...

What is it that that One Guy said that one time? Something like "sin comes from the heart of a man".

SteveK said...

Ilion,
"It is possible to hold that [wrothful] acts are sinful, and something to be ashamed of, but [wrothful] orientation is not."

I'm reading the book below and I have to say it's quite good at undoing the popular idea that Christian righteous anger is just peachy. You might like it...or not.

https://www.amazon.com/Unoffendable-Just-Change-Make-Better/dp/0529123851

*Anger is not to be confused with acting against injustice.

Bilbo said...

Ilion,

Now you are stooping to calling me dishonest. What am I being dishonest about? On what grounds do you make this claim?

Ilíon said...

It's not as though there were any stretching, or lifting, required.

I don't play these games, and I don't justify myself, least of all to the dishonest.