Comments on: Misconceptions in sexual identity ministry

By: Eddy

Eddy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:50:29 +0000

Nice try, Michael.

What I am pointing out is that people who insist that the Bible is perfectly clear on the topic of homosexuality do not view the rest of the Bible that way. They pick and choose.

Your comments came as a rebuttal to my comments re another possible way of viewing the origins of SSA. I have never insisted while blogging here that the Bible is perfectly clear on the topic. I have presented what I believe is a plausible possibility…that it’s merely a sin likely many others with the same remedies. If it helps, you can call it a theory…just like the genetic theory, the germ theory, the ‘its perfectly natural’ theory.
And while it is true that some do ‘pick and choose’, that applies to both sides. I’ve known many from ‘the other side’ who believe so strongly that it’s not sin that they won’t even consider that homsexual promiscuity (sex with numerous partners) is sin. Both sides have people who muddle the messages we try to represent.
Since we don’t have anyone currently blogging who is trying to defend promiscuity, I avoid bringing it up in my conversations here. Since I’m not insisting that my theory is anything more than a theory, I’d appreciate it if you don’t bring the rigid folks into our conversations either. Actually, when they do show up from time to time, I’m usually one of the first to challenge their rigidity. I believe I did so in the recent Proposition 8/Castro thread.

By: MIchael Bussee

MIchael Bussee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:30:14 +0000

Eddy: Nope. I do not believe that "I, Michael Bussee, am completely pure and unbiased in all my interpretations." Far from it. Each person brings his own set of experiences, attitudes and viewpoints to the Bible. I do. You do. We all do. What I am pointing out is that people who insist that the Bible is perfectly clear on the topic of homosexuality do not view the rest of the Bible that way. They pick and choose. The best we can do is to say, "This is what I believe..." To insist that we know is arrogant. The Bible may or may not be "infallible". We (including me) are not.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:05:10 +0000

Michael–
Thanks for the excellent example of polarization thinking.
Allow me to rephrase your comments. “People who think homosexual behavior is sin view the Bible selectively, while I Michael Bussee do not. I, Michael Bussee, am completely pure and unbiased in all my interpretations.
People, like Eddy, don’t really believe the Bible is the infallible word of God like I do…They are biased.”
I’m on a blogsite, Michael, and I’m sharing the conclusions I’ve come to as they apply to the topic. I’ve reached those conclusions through prayer, Bible study and witnessing the lives and struggles up close of hundreds of people. You’ve done the same. We came to different conclusions. I will continue to discuss the conclusions I’ve come to for their potential merit. And I’ll engage in the discussion of whether or not it’s a sin when that is the topic.
I am not discussing the punishments for sin employed either by God or his followers; I’m simply saying I believe God calls it a sin. Those behaviors you cited at the end, although not punishable by stoning or able to be ‘fixed’ in the eyes of man by buying the woman, are still, at the bottom line, regarded as sin.

By: MIchael Bussee

MIchael Bussee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:30:00 +0000

Eddy is right on here: “And the debate over whether it’s ‘fallen’ or not is one we never really have here. It’s the question that polarizes us to the nth degree.”
So, the deeper issue is not really “science” — or “ethics” after all. It’s about whether or not one believes that the Bible calls all homosexual behavior “sin”. To arrive at the conclusion that it does, one must pick and choose which Biblical prohibitions to keep and which to conveniently ignore — a practice known as “selective literalism”.
Such persons don’t really believe that Scripture is the “infallible word of God” — just those passages that fit their bias. Otherwise, we could still stone our wives and kids, could still rape a woman if we follow-up by paying her Dad the “bride price”: and marrying her, etc.

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:45:43 +0000

@Jayhuck: Thanks, if you read the comments, you can see you were in the minority there. I am planning a follow up series expanding on the three points.

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:51:10 +0000

Warren,
I appreciated what I was able to read of your Crosswalk.com post!!!!! 🙂

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:48:06 +0000

Michael,

“Once you decide (based on what has been pumped into your little brain by church and culture) that homosexuality is bad, disordered, sick or sinful, you have to find something to explain why you are “that way”

ABSOLUTELY! Its not a mystery why some would try and blame a laundry list of individuals and events for their homosexuality.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:08:18 +0000

Michael–
I was clearly speaking of Roots Theory (which I referenced in my first paragraph) as it pertained to SSA. I’ve never allowed a printing or reprinting of the booklet that did not elaborate on the fact that it was based on teachings I’d already heard that had been applied to other ‘life-dominating sins’ but not homosexual behavior. “Roots”, as I presented it, was intended to demystify the homosexual condition and demonstrate to counselors and therapists that they already had this common theory, they simply needed to stop seeing SSA as a ‘condition’ so that they could trust the resources they already had at their disposal.
Of course, you and I disagree on whether it’s sin or not. If you don’t accept the possiblity that it’s in any way ‘fallen’, then your logic is certainly true. But, on the other hand, someone caught up in any behavior that we would all agree is wrong could employ that logic too. “Well, sure, if you presume that there’s something wrong with it (insert any questionable behavior), of course you’ll start looking for causes and you’ll find any number of experiences that you could label as a cause.”
And the debate over whether it’s ‘fallen’ or not is one we never really have here. It’s the question that polarizes us to the nth degree.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:40:40 +0000

Warren noted: “On the other hand, some say they believe their sexual desires were shaped in some way by unhappy growing up experiences. “
Well of course they do. Once you decide (based on what has been pumped into your little brain by church and culture) that homosexuality is bad, disordered, sick or sinful, you have to find something to explain why you are “that way”. What went wrong? Think!!! Something must have gone wrong to develop what Eddy calls a “life-dominating sin”.,.
As an aside, I know of many gay folks (and straight folks) with low sex drives, or who are celibate or whose sexuality is just a part of their lives for whom sexuality is in no way “life-dominating”. Maybe Eddy and I were/are obsessed with it to the extent that our homosexuality “dominated” our l;ives, but not every one is.
As for what shaped it, think back… What made me gay? Oh, I know! Those unhappy childhood experiences! And of course, we will find them, because everybody had some. People can believe this, but that doesn’t make it so. I doubt that straights spend much time trying to figure out which “unhappy childhood experiences” made them hetero.
As for Eddy’s claim that he intiated the Roots Theory, I think he gives himself way too much credit. It’s actually a very old idea — older than Eddy I am sure. .”..If we identify with or engage in a behavior, we develop habitual patterned responses that override our conscious choices.” Come on Eddy! That’s true of almost any human behavior, like riding a bicycle, for example. What makes you think you came up with the idea?

By: Legolas

Legolas — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:40:16 +0000

It is pretty humorous to see NARTH advanced as the antidote to the FOL.

Heh.