Thank you for your response. I just thought there was a great difference between saying:

“But classical Christians believe that eros – romantic, sexual love – is reserved for monogamous, heterosexual, covenantal relationships.”

That basically, a particular type of love SHOULD be reserved for a particular group….and saying that a particular group CANNOT EQUALLY experience this love.

Could we agree that both same-sex and opposite-sexed couples can equally experience eros, but many christians believe that same-gendered eros should not be blessed by the church?

I wonder if you’re still watching this thread. Thank you for answering my questions. I asked if you would support/ignore/fight laws that would punish gays with prison time or death.

You answered that you would certainly fight strongly against laws that punished gays with death. Your response in regards to laws that would punish gays with prison time wasn’t so strong.

It sounds like while you are sure that gays shouldn’t be killed for being gay, you’re not so sure that forcing them into prison them isn’t a just punishment for their sin.

Have I understood you correctly?

I do think you are right that I was mixing my tenses between you the person and you the collective.

As for the auction issue, I very much appreciate that you apologized to Mike for your attitude (if not your actions).

You also write, “because in your world you have your Truth and it gives you carte blanch to despise anyone who sees otherwise. And no matter how vile and unfair and cruel is something that is being done, you have your Love, and it justifies anything you or those who agree with you do.”

I assume by this and other of the comments in your post that you might be referring to the eBay auction. Just wanted to let you know I’ve posted a public apology to Mike Jones for some of my unloving actions against him. (On the Montel thread.) I’ve also personally contacted him to say the same.

Maybe I’m confusing your tenses when you refer to “you” above; maybe you mean “all you guys lumped together” and not me personally. But here it does sadden me that you think I have done anything vile or unfair or cruel or that I despise those who disagree with me. I do make mistakes and when I do, I eat “humble pie.” But I know at heart I’m not what you describe.

You write, “I don’t mind that you choose Truth over truth. I do mind, however, when you decide that the things that you belive are divinely ordained and therefor you have both the right and the obligation to demand them of others.”

I know that you mind the second part. But I can’t do anything about that. And since we have such radically different worldviews, it may indeed be an unbridgeable chasm between us. I hope that on this blog, in the Church and in culture at large we will find civil ways to air our disagreements. But I am not terribly saddened that you and I may never agree.

You also write, “But you, John, Alan and the rest are not content with your Truth. You insist that those of us who see a yellow wall ignore the truth of the yellow and embrace the Truth of the blue.”

No, Timothy, I don’t think I insist that of you. (I try to explain my beliefs and actions with the hope that you may connect with them, but I don’t insist you embrace them. You can reject them if you choose, as can anyone else.) I do insist it of the Church – a commitment to Truth as she best understands it. And I believe that the Church has the right to argue for that Truth in the public square in the effort to persuade as many people as possible.

What I meant in the former post is I think I pretty well understand where you’re coming from on this, and I also think you understand me. I don’t sense we are going to change each other’s minds. So are we doing a disservice to the blog or this thread by continuing to discuss it?

I reread my comments and they appear harsh. If possible please accept the point I’m trying to make and overlook to the extent possible the tone in which it appears to be conveyed.

My understanding of that program (which is not much understanding at all) is that it is set up to establish a form of communication with the church world. I’m definitely in favor of finding a way for the gay world and the church world to communicate (in language, not Language).

There are times when I think we have some hope of connection but then you make statements that sadden me of ever reaching any place of agreement.

I don’t have any desire whatsoever to discuss Moore. However, I do wish to follow up on the following:

For me, the language of faith isn’t artificial, unreal or untruthful. It’s Truth with a capital T. For you, science (or whatever you want to call it) is. I think we’ve both made that pretty clear to the blog. Do we really need to continue to belabor our differences?

Yes, we need to belabor the difference. This is, to me, the most important matter that I want you to understand.

You set up a dichotomy between Truth and Science. That is artificial and a red herring. The real battle is between Truth and truth. Between that which is declared to be True based on your own personal (or even the orthodox) understanding of Scripture and that which is visibly true.

I don’t mind that you choose Truth over truth. I do mind, however, when you decide that the things that you belive are divinely ordained and therefor you have both the right and the obligation to demand them of others.

John Smid once said that though a wall appears yellow, if God says that it’s blue then it’s blue regardless of what it looks like.

That sort of thing is fine for one’s own personal walk. But you, John, Alan and the rest are not content with your Truth. You insist that those of us who see a yellow wall ignore the truth of the yellow and embrace the Truth of the blue.

This is very similar to the other dichotomy that is paired as Truth in Love.

I often see anti-gay activists declaring that they bring Truth in Love. But this Love is very different from the observable kind of love that Jesus spoke of. Just as Truth ignores that which is true, Love ignores that which is loving. Instead, this Love involves cruelty, a lack of caring, and visible hostility.

Those who are convinced of their Truth seek to impose it on others either through laws. Those convinced of their Love use it to punish those who do not adhere to their Truth.

For example, truth would say that same-sex couples are as in love with each other as opposite-sex couples while Truth arrogantly claims that they aren’t and so therefore they are unworthy of any civil protections.

Plain old love says that those who are sick with AIDS and unable to shop and cook should be shown compassion and be fed while Love says that the sick and hungry can starve to protect from embarassment those preachers who agree with me.

But for me the biggest problem with your Truth and your Love, Karen, is that it forever separates us. No matter how factual or evidentially based is something I bring to you, you can just ignore it – like the yellow wall – because in your world you have your Truth and it gives you carte blanch to despise anyone who sees otherwise. And no matter how vile and unfair and cruel is something that is being done, you have your Love, and it justifies anything you or those who agree with you do.

And I have no idea how to reach beyond that.

The two aren’t the same by a long shot.

The HRC is not the state. Therefore it is not a blurring of church and state. It is just an advocacy organization, and quite blatantly so. They make no bones about it. And yes, they do hold opinions about matters of faith that they don’t agree with. Just as I see a constant stream of criticisms against the Episcopal church and the UCC from a number of conservative non-religious political groups. Would that, too, be an example of a blurring of church and state? I personally don’t think so.

You on the other hand, claim to be nonpolitical. Alan claims to be only interested in gays who don’t want to be gay (using different language of course), implying that he’s willng to leave the rest of us alone But obviously, by his public policy stances that have nothing to do with sexual orientation change, he’s not. What he says and what they do are clearly two completely different things.