Yet even Williams' rather simple explication of the difference between welcoming those afflicted with homosexual desires and incuding such people, without exhortion to the Gospel, appears to fall on deaf ears.

afflicted:

mentally or physically unfit

or

grievously affected especially by disease

I'd like to think that was just a poor choice of words.

JohnS --

I trust that this was an accurate word usage. This, after all, is what Christianity does think of homosexuals.

Jason--

This, after all, is what Christianity does think of homosexuals.

Which would then show why Superstition is a fundamentally flawed when deciding matters of mental health.

Weird Jason.

As the Apostle Paul tells us: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our afflictions."

If Christians think homosexuality is an "affliction," why then deny homosexuals the comfort of Christianity's embrace?

Hey, Jason. I should have put a comma after weird...Sorry!

Hoo boy, it's gettin' deep in here...

JohnS answered his own question when he quotes Paul using the word "affliction" to describe the many things for which Christians turn to God for comfort. Obviously, not all Christians are mentally unfit or physically diseased, but we do all face some of life's problems.

Furthermore, contrary to Goddard's rather uncharitable accusation, no one denies to homosexuals the "comfort of Christianity's embrace." All but a few very extreme churches want to see homosexuals accept salvation through Christ. Nevertheless, all but the most liberal do not ordain practicing homosexuals, since the Bible identifies homosexual practice as sin.

I believe that Eric is right, and that most Christian sects do consider homosexuality an "affliction." In doing so, it seems to me that they have left the spiritual realm and entered the medical one, wherein their claims are subject to falsification. It may therefore be an interesting few decades to come, as research on human sexuality advances.

(I also agree with Eric that the liberal Christian position is untenable. The passages forbidding homosexuality may be accepted or rejected, but they cannot be finessed out of existence.)

Williams will have really moved to the conservative camp if he ever supports the war in Iraq.

I'd like Goddard to explain how his beliefs are affected by a) the Bible's repeated condemnation of nonmarital sex, and b) Jesus' statement that marriage is an exclusively heterosexual union (Matthew 19:4-5)?

I believe that ... most Christian sects do consider homosexuality an "affliction." In doing so, it seems to me that they have left the spiritual realm and entered the medical one, wherein their claims are subject to falsification.

Just because something is an "affliction" doesn't mean it's a physical phenomenon. We all are afflicted with the temptation to sin, but in most cases it's a spiritual issue, not a medical one.

Just because something is an "affliction" doesn't mean it's a physical phenomenon. We all are afflicted with the temptation to sin, but in most cases it's a spiritual issue, not a medical one.

Very well. But I do not observe many Christian churches claiming that homosexuality is merely a spiritual affliction -- on par, for example, with blaspheming or neglecting the Sabbath. On the contrary, they most certainly do medicalize and psychologize their claims about homosexuality (and of course, there's the political agenda, too, which is what we've all been talking carefully around in this conversation). Here, I think, the religious claims about homosexuality are indeed subject to falsification.

I am happy to concede, meanwhile, that homosexuality may be a clear impediment to the ideal Christian life. Not being a Christian, I don't have a dog in the fight. But I do think that this is determination can only be made in the same sense that we also find eating pork to be an impediment to Orthodox Judaism: Let the state be indifferent to these things, and you may do as you wish in your Churches.

The passages forbidding homosexuality may be accepted or rejected, but they cannot be finessed out of existence.

I'm not so sure about that. If you are referring to the Old Testament, how to interpret passages in the Torah that appear to prohibit homosexual acts have been debated by Jewish scholars for centuries. Some argue that the Torah prohibits homosexual acts because they are intrinsically unnatural and procreation is impossible. Others argue the prohibition that men could stray from their wives and children, threatening the ideal of Jewish life. Others feel the rationale comes from the story of the rape of the visitors to Lot's house---that it's actually a ban on homosexual rape. Others argue that it was to stem both heterosexual and homosexual cultic prostitution in the Temple. In fact, that debate is coming to a head---the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is about to debate reversing the ban on same-sex marriages and the ordination of openly gay rabbis.

Per the New Testament, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Gospels. What little there is comes from Paul and, from what I have gathered, what Paul writes about it can also be subject to interpretation.

For instance, National Gay Pentecostal Alliance notes that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written to Christians who were part of a culture that expected everybody to behave bi-sexually. Which was great for Roman bisexuals I guess, but for everybody else, straigh and gay, it was not natural---it disregarded their sexual orientation.

Some people may buy that, others won't. I guess it all comes down to one's worldview.

On the contrary, [many Christian churches] most certainly do medicalize and psychologize their claims about homosexuality

I don't doubt that you could find churches that claim such things. In fact, I agree that there's an even broader problem with many churches demonizing homosexuals and elevating homosexuality as over and above other sins.

But orthodox Christian teaching is that homosexual practice is a sin that is no different in severity from heterosexual adultery. In recent years, most Christians have opposed the idea that there is a physical basis behind homosexuality (i.e. "born gay"), so I confess I'm a little confused about your assertion that many churches "medicalize" their claims about homosexuality.

I confess I'm a little confused about your assertion that many churches "medicalize" their claims about homosexuality.

Any Church that endorses the work of NARTH, Exodus International, or similar ex-gay groups is indeed medicalizing homosexuality. Although the ex-gay movement generally does not claim an immutable biological basis for homosexuality, it most certainly does claim that same-sex attraction is the result of various traumas happening in childhood or early adolescence. Ex-gay groups then try to "heal" these traumas through various mixtures of prayer, aversion therapy, Freudianism, divine intervention, and -- get this -- male bonding. I understand that this last can get rather... intense... at times. So if your Church routinely refers people to groups like these, then it is clearly endorsing a medical position on homosexuality.

...orthodox Christian teaching is that homosexual practice is a sin that is no different in severity from heterosexual adultery.

And this to my non-Christian mind is a double standard. Adultery is adultery, whether straight or gay. And adultery is indeed morally problematic. Homosexuality, though, is not the same thing as adultery, and why, in the Christian moral tradition, it should be linked to a deliberate act of dishonesty has always escaped me.

But I recall that quite some time ago we agreed, you and I, that we'd not argue any longer over this particular point. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.

Per the New Testament, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Gospels.

Maybe homosexuality wasn't a big issue in Judea. Maybe Jesus did speak on the issue, but the Gospels could record only so much of what He said over three years and that remark was one of many that didn't make publication. We do know that Jesus would oppose gay marriage, considering Matthew 19:4-5.

Homosexuality, though, is not the same thing as adultery, and why, in the Christian moral tradition, it should be linked to a deliberate act of dishonesty has always escaped me.

Homosexuality and adultery are not "linked" in any way, other than the fact that both are sexual sins. Christians often mention both of these sins in the same context to point out that there is no "ranking" of sins in the eyes of God. Thus, cheating on your taxes is just as bad as robbing a bank.

It is true that we have agreed to disagree on these matters. I am not trying to convince you of the truth of the Bible's teachings, I am trying to make sure there is a clear presentation of what it is that the Bible actually teaches.