What a LOVEly cartoon…You really can’t beat a big, generous, glorious hug (i’m a fan, did you guess?)…and a kiss doesn’t have to mean tonsil hockey (nor does it have to mean betrayal). What I would give to enjoy a wholesome kiss and a hug from my mum and dad, I suppose I’ll just have to make do with my husband/daughters/brothers/sisters/friends instead.
Simply LOVING the QUOTE!! Thanks for making this cartoon on it!
@ 9: whahhahaha tonsil hockey; that’s a first (the name I mean …:lol:)..aaaah..thanks for the laugh, Carole and here’s a big, generous, glorious hug to YOU from me…..squeeeeeeeeeeezzzzze…..
HisGal, I am sitting here, in front of my PC, bored senseless, as I have been most of the weekend, typing up job applications…that was just what I needed! Thanks x
“Love is love” is about the most misleading statement you could possibly make about love.
Most people will have confused and wrong ideas about just what love is and is not, and your statement equals “all of your prejudices towards love are true”.
Which they are not.
My statement have nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with your oppinion on the whole gay/lesbian thing btw.
Moreover, since for the preservation of pure doctrine and for thorough, permanent, godly unity in the Church it is necessary, not only that the pure, wholesome doctrine be rightly presented, but also that the opponents who teach otherwise be reproved, 1.Tim.3 (2 Tim. 3:16); Titus 1:9,
for faithful shepherds, as Luther says, should do both, namely, feed or nourish the lambs and resist the wolves, so that the sheep may flee from strange voices, John 10:12, and may separate the precious from the vile, Jer.15:19
@ 12, which means 4 women are lesbians, 4 men are gay, 2 women are straight, and 2 men are straight. the world population would collapse if this was a fact…
A J
But a collapse in world population might actually be good for the planet and for the sustainable future of humanity …
I think this is a great cartoon – and it’s fun too.
Meanwhile Lee Abbey and no doubt other “Christian” conference centres do not allow same sex couples to share the same room …
Faith, hope, love and the greatest is love …
Jon @ 6 – I take that what you are saying is that regardless of whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual their love is legitimate. However, (and i was not being flippant about the earlier post about a mother and son loving one another) what if the mother and son did not see it as hurting anyone in the same way that two homosexual men did not see their love as hurting anyone, what then? Where is the basis for saying that as long as two people love one another then the world is good?
#19 But considering this from the perspective of art, it is suggesting that none has precedence over the other.
To make a silly counterpoint: If one is to look at it in terms of correlating numbers with the populace, it would appear to be saying that gays and lesbians are valued higher.
@19 – Lesbians can have children. They do invitro. Gay men can have children by having a surrogate carry the child. All this ‘the population will collapse’ is just utter nonsense imho. The world is overpopulated as it stands now. The earth’s resources cannot withstand a whole lot more imho.
“Where is the basis for saying that as long as two people love one another then the world is good?” i’d never say that, marcus. i’m certainly not making a point about mothers and sons, or footballers and dogs for that matter. whenever the issue of orientation comes up, it seems some want to find a comparison, when there isn’t one. also, i said ‘love doesn’t go around damaging people’… not ‘people who think they are being loving don’t think they are damaging people.’
i know nothing at all about why people engage in incestuous relationships, or bestial ones for that matter.
I find it interesting that there’s a tendency to equate love with romantic sex by making the assumption that these are couples – I saw this as the embodiment of Love – which in some cases is expressed by sex between two consenting adults. But hugs and kisses can happen between any two people as a sign that they seek to come together in love.
“whenever the issue of orientation comes up”
I think the problem here is that the principle is stated and then illustrated. This encourages the principle to be explored, as opposed to the illustration that can be safely presumed to merely point us in the right direction as opposed to encapsulating the entire principle.
Subtext isn’t everyone’s strong point. You’ll have to accept my apologies on that.
obviously i knew that this cartoon would be contentious, but the first thing i see in this cartoon is joy… well, after seeing daft people with strange round heads that is!
It’s funny what we all read into something like this isn’t it.
There’s all kinds of interpretations available.
For instance, the 2 women at the far right look like mother and daughter enjoying a hug, the couple in the middle could very well be a hetro male/female couple if she is undergoing chemo and now has a bald head- he’s shaved to show support and be like her. Maybe she’s kissing him as a way of saying “thanks”, the couple with the gal in the purple could be long lost friends or brother/sister seeing each other after a long separation, the couple where the gal’s in pink, are clearly having a snog lucky them….
Jon @ 24 I know that you were not dealing with beastiality with this one, your illustrations have always been clear and I would recognise a four legged creature even in the simple round head pointy ear fashion However I was genuinely wanting to explore the issue of where do we draw the line in saying what is legitimate love and what isn’t.
I agree with other comments that this cartoon could be seen as simple loving hugs and expressions of love without any hint at sexuality – however I am sure that you knew it would raise the issue of sexuality – even if it wasn’t designed to. As someone who tries not to discriminate against people of other sexual orientations I am constantly asking why can I or should I accept homosexual orientation but not incestual orientation – just exploring the issue.
I think “Love is love. To deny love is to deny God” sounds beautiful.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s true.
What about a married person who quite unexpectedly and unintentionally gradually falls in love with a colleague/fellow church member but resists acting on it? I think there are times when actually to deny love is to please God.
Laura, 30, well said! I didn’t examine it to establish categories I just saw love in its purest, joyous, most wonderful form!
AnneDroid, 33, here lies a huge and unfortunate complication…why, oh, why, oh, why (what is this? Points of View?) doesn’t God hard wire it into us to lock into our ‘one and only’ to the exclusion of all others. Sometimes I think free will isn’t such a great thing – it leaves the door wide open to do the wrong thing.
ooh, nice point annedroid. what would you say if i said i thought “Love is love. To deny love is to deny God” and “To deny love is to please God.” were both true depending on context? my caveat is “love doesn’t go around damaging people.” so, ken barlow in coronation street is most definitely wrong in my view for following his selfish desires in the knowledge that his wife and family will be seriously damaged. i do think your quote is great too, and true… i’ll nick that for a cartoon too… see what it brings up in conversation.
“however I am sure that you knew it would raise the issue of sexuality – even if it wasn’t designed to.” marcus… i confess, it was meant to. i think annedroid has made a good case for when falling in love is best not acted on. i am just really wary of discussing homosexuality in certain ways.
the ‘not damaging’ is key for me, marcus. for the moment i’ll stick with that. i’m not sure that incest is an orientation… desire and orientation are not necessarily synonymous.
heterosexual and homosexual relationships have the capacity to damage. they also have the capacity to heal and to bring joy to themselves and the world around them.
i can see no outcome for incest but pain and tragedy… having seen it close to home that is indeed what came about as a result of it. in fulfilling their own desires or feeding their own sense of need, those who should have been attended to and loved were abandoned… tragedy. i don’t want to judge, because goodness knows the extent of the brokenness which led to such behaviour, but it wasn’t good. the son became a paedophil and the mum’s perspective was all up the spout, and she died, at least in part, in extreme denial. she could not even see her own son’s behaviour as wrong… she believed everyone else was making it up… even though he went to prison. as i say, this is close to home, so it’s not easy writing about it. i have to say though, this is a far cry from orientation and more to do with power and control. the mum in question lost all of her siblings to tb as a child (eight kids i think… something of the brokenness i mentioned earlier)… no wonder she was messed up as an adult… i don’t suppose in those days there was any offer of counseling. in fact there wasn’t of course. i do know that the mental health professionals have done pretty well from the fallout.
carole… but when we do the right thing, we can have such a great sense of smug satisfaction. sorry to be trivial… it’s just that after my last comment i feel the need for light relief and i knew you could take it!
Comment by Thelineinthesand — May 4, 2009 @ 11:39 am
One problem is that we only have one word for love in the english language. We translate all sorts of greek concepts as love. I certainly don’t eros my guitar!
I also didn’t think that all relationships in the cartoon were sexual, or romantic. I assumed a lot of parental/friendship ones too.
hey marcus… no probs! none at all! no offense nor hurt… the question was yours to ask and mine to answer in the way i chose. i didn’t realise i’d answer as i did, but there you are… an honest question deserves an honest answer. peace and love.
too right, bo!
carole… i knew i could count on you!
robb… you don’t eros your guitar? methinks the man protesteth too much!
I assume you don’t know the 4879 signatories personally. So by branding them all “judges” aren’t you perhaps doing a spot of judging yourself? You are free to have your own opinion on the subject of the petition, but, WITH RESPECT (really), I’m not comfortable with the blanket term you apply to all these people.
Perhaps they are loving, gracious, warm human beings who nonetheless feel they must be true to what they believe God teaches to be his will, in the Bible. At least some of them must be this way, surely? If you say no to that, then I’m sorry but you DO sound judgemental, even if you’re not.
Jon and thelineinthesand – I am intrigued as to how it has gone from the top of the list where Scottish people were making decisions about the The Church of Scotland….
…to a bunch of Americans and Australians making decissions for Scottish people.
If this gets held up as a piece of evidence they need their heads read. They can take our land but they’ll never take our freedom is being thrown out in spectacular fashion. I wonder if Alex Salmond has signed it.
Oh well, at least the English aren’t doing it to ‘em.
This is the wonder of the internet is it? A small group can forward masses of emails around the world and get a massive list of people together.
[Before anyone gets all high and mighty about me talking about Scotland, I was drinking with a Scotsman on Saturday. I like to call him "Dad"]
annedroid… i don’t know enough about the decision making process to have any clue as to whether petitions like this change anything. my feeling would be that it might have a small effect on those making the decisions. as i said… big decision. i never knew there were so many australian scots!
robb. i’m 1/8th scottish, which means that whenever i talk about the scots and i have to allocate 1/8th of myself to the task i have to make sure it isn’t my bottom that’s given the job.
Actually, jb, there really are lots and lots of Scots in Australia, New Zealand and Canada in particular, but across the world generally. I think it’s something to do with the weather here that so many leave (I say that fresh from two freezing nights in a tent in Aviemore). And Scotland had a big missionary history so you find churches in places like Malawi have a historical sense of attachment to Scotland.
I’m happy and honoured that I have bits of you and Robb as fellow Scots too.
This contribution has nothing to do with the debate, I admit.
33. Here I go back on the person of Jesus re: denying our love is a greater sign f life. The bible doesn’t talk about this but given human nature, I am positive that some of the women Jesus encountered had feelings towards him that were more eros than agape. Jesus kept the conversation focused on his teachings and the women responded likewise – if they had feelings of eros, they were transformed into agape. I compare this to two religious rock stars I know – one is being marketed by his publisher as a sexy thinker and is developing a bit of a groupie following (reminds me kind of like a religious version of the latest Simon Fuller piece of garbage . The other dude (who by the way is far more successful) doesn’t have a groupie following and isn’t marketed like a sex symbol – his message is much more Jesus focused.
We’ve had this discussion via other cartoons re: this gray area were commandments aren’t broken but boundaries are violated. It’s critical to keep the eye on the prize. I’m referencing here scenarios where we know in our hearts the relationship isn’t healthy. Sometimes we do have to break a vow in order to be faithful to God. For instance, one of my dearest buddies is a former Roman Catholic priest married to a nun and it’s one of the most beautiful marriages I’ve ever seen.
AnneDroid,
your right. i should be more aware of how my comments could have been percieved. I was not intending to brand these people as judgemental. my comment was me wrestling with the concept of how a petition could be deemed as appropriate in this situation. I do know quite a few people who have signed this petition. some of them are the most amazing, compassionate, encouraging and non-judgemental people that i have ever been blessed by knowing. this is not a simple issue and i admit that limiting my feelings to a 2line quip does not do it justice.
indeed every time i look at it all i have are new questions with no answers. but there is one image (as you may be able to tell from my name) that i cannot get out of my head. How often do we rush into picking up our rocks? but the difficult thing is not to drop it and walk away! the hard part is staying around and listening to how jesus dealt with these situations and learning from it.
i hope i’ve made myself a bit clearer my head is a muddy puddle
Comment by Thelineinthesand — May 4, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
BeckyG – I thought I was the only one who had ever wondered that – I’ve never heard it spoken! I like your summary of how Jesus dealt with it, too.
Thelineinthesand – thanks for clarifying. My head is also a muddy puddle, or indeed muddy muddle!
Ann – Yep, I don’t see any “women who lusted after the Lord” stories in the New Testament. What is fascinating is to see what’s left out of the bible. My theory is that often an issue isn’t brought up because it’s a non-issue. For example, if people got married off as soon as they hit puberty, then you don’t need to talk about premarital sex. If homosexuality was really a major problem, then Jesus would have addressed that in the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5-7 is where Jesus outlines his agenda by focusing on those issues he deems to be of critical importance for those who want to follow in The Way.)
BTW-the religious leader I cited who avoids the groupie scene has set up a number of safeguards (e.g., he always travels with a companion, doesn’t let himself get into late night or lengthy one-on-one sessions with a member of the opposite sex unless he knows the person well enough that boundaries have been set, and so forth). The other one is actually marketing himself so that his sexuality becomes a selling point.
Eros’ high point is the Song of Songs. My point is that agape and philia are the dominant forms of love mentioned in the NT but we tend to equate love with eros.
@ Jon,
I applaud your willingness to create stuff like this, because it can start good conversations.
I liked this statement: “If God says somethings we may say are ‘love’ are actually false, are we to disagree because of the emotions it conjures up within us?”
This is a good point, because a large part of the argument supporting homosexuality is based upon the capacity to have certain kinds of feelings towards other people of the same sex. The people who believe in that would often at the same time condemn the human capacity for hate, rage, and violence, which are also feelings that naturally occur in humans. So really, who gets to choose which feelings are virtuous and which are not? I would prefer any kind of love over hate, but that is not true of everyone.
But this all digs into a deeper issue of our human cravings and feelings. What happens when we are driven solely by our feelings and our cravings? We may crave what drugs give us, but it may destroy us and our relationships with people around us. We may crave fast-food but we may destroy our health. We may crave sex whenever we can get it, but it may do all kinds of damage to relationships, or to our bodies through STDs.
That is why it is such a big problem for anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, to define themselves by their sexuality. Anybody who has defined their entire identity around their sexual preference has in my opinion hidden away from the world the majority of the beautiful creation that God made them. Sexuality, while significant, is not the whole picture of humanity. There is much more to us than that.
Oops, I kinda got going there. I hope that my opinions add to the discussion rather than affect it negatively, because they are just that, my opinions.
I’m not really saying that (although I do believe that).
What I am saying is that love and truth belong together, but we sinful humans like to only hear the ‘love’ part.
Mushy sentiments are universally accepted as ’spiritual.’ But as one author said, we are called to be ‘good,’ not just ‘nice.’
I guess that, not only do I reject the idea that acceptance of hx (being ‘nice’) justifies it, but that the warm fuzzies we get from being nice don’t validate such things. That type of humanistic epistemology can lead to the error of justifying sin, which I think is what is going on in this case.
I read this wonderful cartoon, not because I always agree with it, but because we have a common ‘enemy’ – empty, dead, judgmental religion. But I try not to throw the truth out with the bathwater.
The mushy sentimentality that you discuss is not agape nor is it philia – it’s this version of romanticized love that isn’t what Jesus is talking about at all.
As a straight woman I have no clue what it’s like to be gay but I do know that much of what I’ve seen hurled against homosexuals doesn’t strike me as the least bit loving. For example, I have someone who is no longer speaking to me right because I tried to convey the truth to them without love. I was right but not Christlike. In hindsight, I should have kept quiet until I could convey these thoughts in love.
I’m coming rather late to this after a couple of days away and thus wading through the entire thread at one sitting. I like what you say Andy M @ 62 about the perils of defining identity solely around sexual preference and especially your comment that
Sexuality, while significant, is not the whole picture of humanity.
I also think that Marcus @32 raises a critical question and one which we have, by and large, tended to skirt round in our previous discussions on this issue. Just so that it’s clear where I’m coming from, I speak as one who no longer finds it possible to claim that the Bible unambiguously denounces homosexuality as wrong and sinful. However I do think that this leaves us needing to wrestle with other sorts of questions, one of which is, if we believe that human sexual inclination is naturally varied then ‘where do we draw the line’ with respect to what we do or don’t accept as acceptable practice in the area of sexual behaviour; so…how is that decided, and by whom? Of course, we might immediately want to bring in all sorts of things – Jon mentions the issue of ‘harm’; on another thread Robb talked about abuse of power; we might say bestiality is easy to exclude on the basis of crossing a species boundary etc. But people have different perspectives on these things – some of which at least are culturally determined. I think though that it’s a question we have to face up to and at least make an attempt to address.
yes, a good point, Pat #68 (and one that I think JB intended)
as a single person, I would love to have more ’safe’ relations
where serious-long-term hugs were a part of the day.
whilst my singleness means a lack of sexuality in my relations, I don’t
think tht it should mean a lack of sensuality… sometimes that would
make all the difference…
with this subject, i couldn’t possibly leave the discussion on 69.
thanks pat and caroline.
is it perhaps the case that all male female relating is sexual? we are perhaps afraid to admit it because ’sex’ can be a dirty word. what i mean is, that the warmest, safest hug from an aunt or a girlfriend does affirm my sexuality. i’m not talking about eroticism or the act of sex, but our sexuality along with the rest of our being is affirmed.
if i see you next year at greenbelt caroline too, i would hope the hug i give you would be me affirming you… sexuality would be part of that, wouldn’t it? have a virtual hug in the meantime… you’re great.
I’m not sure that sexuality can ever be comprehensively banished from our relationships with others, Caroline Too, but I think we can have friendships where, despite that, tactile and sensual is safe and can be a source of comfort and support.
Jon – (The assumption here is that we’re talking straight men relating to straight woman. I would assume that gays and lesbians have the same reaction hugging some of their sexual preference that I do when I hug a guy that I think rocks.)
One day when we were doing romance scenes in improv class, my teacher quoted an actor (whose name escapes me). He was about to do a steamy sex scene with an actress and said to here. “Ma’am, I’d like to apologize in advance if during our scene I’d get an erection. And I’d like to apologize if I don’t.” You can’t help the biological reaction one gets to seeing someone that stimulates one’s senses. The Q is what do you do with these impulses, a theme you explored in your new cartoon.
becky @ 75. yes, indeed. i was only speaking of my own experience. i do find also, that my hugging another man also affirms my sexuality, just differently.
“The Q is what do you do with these impulses, a theme you explored in your new cartoon.” again… yes, indeed.
Jon – Bingo. I had to do an improv scene with another woman in which we played lesbians. I found kissing her pleasurable but it didn’t turn me on the way I would find myself when doing a romance scene with a guy. I also recall doing a scene with a guy with really had halitosis that was pretty unpleasurable.
Just to mention, there is a great book that tries to lay out a bigger picture of sexuality that goes way beyond the usual physical idea of sex. SexGod by Rob Bell.
First glance… hmm not sure God endorses Gay love… then thought hang on that shows how prejudiced my thinking was at first gamce, they could be friends.
I think as has already been stated the God is Agape not Eros love.
Andy M (69) – Got all excited about Rob Bell’s Sex God, then found out he doesn’t approach the subject of Homosexuality, so being gay myself, there’s not much point A pity, as I really enjoyed Velvet Elvis
Thanks Jon and debaters for yet another thought provoking cartoon and discussion. As usual, I’ve come far too late to join in, though I would have with great pleasure.
Thank you all so much for the glowing regards I have received from those who sent them. They really help on a pretty crap day.
Dear Jon,
Thank you for illustrating what I never could w/ mere words.
Dear people who believe homosexuality is a sin,
If what I do w/ my husband is loving, and done in love, hurts no one and sustains me through my heartbreak what does it matter to you? If God truly thinks being gay is a sin, He knows how to stop me.
I would remind you that we are all brothers and sisters, united by our faith in the Christ, Jesus.
@Mike (#86)
I understand your perspective. I would assume that for Rob Bell, to wade into the homosexual issue in that book would probably would have been a distraction from the message as a whole. People usually develop acute tunnelvision when that subject comes up, either for one side of the argument or the other, and then nobody would have heard what he was trying to get across.
But I do want to ask, how is there not any point to a gay person reading that book? Even if he doesn’t specifically dig into that particular issue, do his ideas about sexuality/humanity/spirituality only concern heterosexuals? I’m just curious, because I personally see implications for all people in his ideas.
>> VAL: If what I do w/ my husband is loving, and done in love, hurts no one and sustains me through my heartbreak what does it matter to you?
It’s nothing to me. However, if you want to get legal affirmation of your choice, while ignoring the affects and implications on our society, and esp. our children and their compulsory education, you may be acting without concern for others.
But the better question is, why would it matter to *God?* if hx WAS sinful, it would matter for the same reasons that all sins matter to God:
1. They harm us in spirit, soul, and body.
2. Ignoring them, or worse, defending them, puts us in opposition to the truth, which is to say, in opposition to God.
3. They hinder us from becoming what God made us to be, that is, they harm our healthy emotional development.
4. They separate us from Him.
>> VAL: If God truly thinks being gay is a sin, He knows how to stop me.
Well, how DOES God stop us from negative behaviors? Two ways – negative consequences, and conviction when we hear the truth.
The latter, however, we can avoid by hardening ourselves, and we all do that in response to injury or out of fear. That’s where God’s discipline, which brings brokenness, comes in. When we aren’t able to receive wisdom, God must bring the ‘rod of correction’ to help us escape from our dysfunctions and sins.
that’s a bit harsh, danielg. valentine doesn’t in anyway come across to me as someone who takes no account of society. in fact, i have every reason to believe the opposite to be the truth.
…and who wields this rod of correction? you?.. me?.. and who would one use it on?.. and for what reason?.. and isn’t there the most enormous danger of the rod actually being a plank?
i think it annoys the heck out of some people that homosexual christians are not ‘convicted’ of their actions. they would like to think it is because of hard hearts or not listening to god.
i think it is often because that particular agenda is not necessarily god’s.
i think god must be heartily sick of us and our loveless, bullying ways.
What is your definition of healthy love? For sure there are unhealthy kinds. Very unhealthy and unwhole and destructive kinds. God defines love in Himself (through Jesus) and in His Word.
*thumbs up*
Comment by émie — May 3, 2009 @ 11:44 am
fab!
Comment by Shuna — May 3, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
What if a brother and sister take this view?
Comment by herbeey — May 3, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
what if a mother and son take this view?
Comment by marcus — May 3, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
You need to define what you mean by ‘love’ otherwise we end up with very dodgy theology.
Comment by tallandrew — May 3, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
i think it is clear what i’m saying in this cartoon… and incest is not it.
love doesn’t go around damaging people.
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
amen
Comment by hollybunch — May 3, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
What a LOVEly cartoon…You really can’t beat a big, generous, glorious hug (i’m a fan, did you guess?)…and a kiss doesn’t have to mean tonsil hockey (nor does it have to mean betrayal). What I would give to enjoy a wholesome kiss and a hug from my mum and dad, I suppose I’ll just have to make do with my husband/daughters/brothers/sisters/friends instead.
Comment by Carole — May 3, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
carole… enjoy making do!
welcome, hollybunch! great name!
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Interesting to say the least that the ’straight’ couples are less in number. A message maybe?
Comment by aj — May 3, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean it as a criticism. Just a curiousity.
Comment by herbeey — May 3, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
#10 There’s equal numbers of gay, lesbian and straight couples though. It just depends how we make our distinctions and divisions.
Comment by herbeey — May 3, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
when the music stops, move on to the next person
Comment by subo — May 3, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Brilliant, Jon! Thanks, Valentine, for the inspiration to Jon with your quote!
EP
Comment by queermergent — May 3, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Simply LOVING the QUOTE!! Thanks for making this cartoon on it!
@ 9: whahhahaha tonsil hockey; that’s a first (the name I mean
…:lol:)..aaaah..thanks for the laugh, Carole and here’s a big, generous, glorious hug to YOU from me…..squeeeeeeeeeeezzzzze…..
got it?
Comment by HisGal — May 3, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
HisGal, I am sitting here, in front of my PC, bored senseless, as I have been most of the weekend, typing up job applications…that was just what I needed! Thanks x
PS looks like it’s Valentine’s day!
Comment by Carole — May 3, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
“Love is love” is about the most misleading statement you could possibly make about love.
Most people will have confused and wrong ideas about just what love is and is not, and your statement equals “all of your prejudices towards love are true”.
Which they are not.
My statement have nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with your oppinion on the whole gay/lesbian thing btw.
Comment by Bo — May 3, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Moreover, since for the preservation of pure doctrine and for thorough, permanent, godly unity in the Church it is necessary, not only that the pure, wholesome doctrine be rightly presented, but also that the opponents who teach otherwise be reproved, 1.Tim.3 (2 Tim. 3:16); Titus 1:9,
for faithful shepherds, as Luther says, should do both, namely, feed or nourish the lambs and resist the wolves, so that the sheep may flee from strange voices, John 10:12, and may separate the precious from the vile, Jer.15:19
Comment by Roberto — May 3, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
@ 12, which means 4 women are lesbians, 4 men are gay, 2 women are straight, and 2 men are straight. the world population would collapse if this was a fact…
Comment by aj — May 3, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
A J
But a collapse in world population might actually be good for the planet and for the sustainable future of humanity …
I think this is a great cartoon – and it’s fun too.
Meanwhile Lee Abbey and no doubt other “Christian” conference centres do not allow same sex couples to share the same room …
Faith, hope, love and the greatest is love …
Comment by Jane — May 3, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Jon @ 6 – I take that what you are saying is that regardless of whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual their love is legitimate. However, (and i was not being flippant about the earlier post about a mother and son loving one another) what if the mother and son did not see it as hurting anyone in the same way that two homosexual men did not see their love as hurting anyone, what then? Where is the basis for saying that as long as two people love one another then the world is good?
Comment by marcus — May 3, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
#19 But considering this from the perspective of art, it is suggesting that none has precedence over the other.
To make a silly counterpoint: If one is to look at it in terms of correlating numbers with the populace, it would appear to be saying that gays and lesbians are valued higher.
Comment by herbeey — May 3, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
@19 – Lesbians can have children. They do invitro. Gay men can have children by having a surrogate carry the child. All this ‘the population will collapse’ is just utter nonsense imho. The world is overpopulated as it stands now. The earth’s resources cannot withstand a whole lot more imho.
Comment by queermergent — May 3, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
“Where is the basis for saying that as long as two people love one another then the world is good?” i’d never say that, marcus. i’m certainly not making a point about mothers and sons, or footballers and dogs for that matter. whenever the issue of orientation comes up, it seems some want to find a comparison, when there isn’t one. also, i said ‘love doesn’t go around damaging people’… not ‘people who think they are being loving don’t think they are damaging people.’
i know nothing at all about why people engage in incestuous relationships, or bestial ones for that matter.
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
I find it interesting that there’s a tendency to equate love with romantic sex by making the assumption that these are couples – I saw this as the embodiment of Love – which in some cases is expressed by sex between two consenting adults. But hugs and kisses can happen between any two people as a sign that they seek to come together in love.
Comment by beckyG — May 3, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
“whenever the issue of orientation comes up”
I think the problem here is that the principle is stated and then illustrated. This encourages the principle to be explored, as opposed to the illustration that can be safely presumed to merely point us in the right direction as opposed to encapsulating the entire principle.
Subtext isn’t everyone’s strong point. You’ll have to accept my apologies on that.
Comment by herbeey — May 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
thank you becky for restoring some of the joy that i had when making the cartoon.
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
obviously i knew that this cartoon would be contentious, but the first thing i see in this cartoon is joy… well, after seeing daft people with strange round heads that is!
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
point taken herbeey. no need for you to apologise… i’m the troublemaker.
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
It’s funny what we all read into something like this isn’t it.
lucky them….
There’s all kinds of interpretations available.
For instance, the 2 women at the far right look like mother and daughter enjoying a hug, the couple in the middle could very well be a hetro male/female couple if she is undergoing chemo and now has a bald head- he’s shaved to show support and be like her. Maybe she’s kissing him as a way of saying “thanks”, the couple with the gal in the purple could be long lost friends or brother/sister seeing each other after a long separation, the couple where the gal’s in pink, are clearly having a snog
Comment by Laura — May 3, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
BTW-one can be in a sexual relationship where love is clearly absent or one can be fully loving towards all and be celibate.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 3:42 am
Jon @ 24 I know that you were not dealing with beastiality with this one, your illustrations have always been clear and I would recognise a four legged creature even in the simple round head pointy ear fashion
However I was genuinely wanting to explore the issue of where do we draw the line in saying what is legitimate love and what isn’t.
I agree with other comments that this cartoon could be seen as simple loving hugs and expressions of love without any hint at sexuality – however I am sure that you knew it would raise the issue of sexuality – even if it wasn’t designed to. As someone who tries not to discriminate against people of other sexual orientations I am constantly asking why can I or should I accept homosexual orientation but not incestual orientation – just exploring the issue.
Comment by marcus — May 4, 2009 @ 7:38 am
I think “Love is love. To deny love is to deny God” sounds beautiful.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s true.
What about a married person who quite unexpectedly and unintentionally gradually falls in love with a colleague/fellow church member but resists acting on it? I think there are times when actually to deny love is to please God.
Comment by AnneDroid — May 4, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Laura, 30, well said! I didn’t examine it to establish categories I just saw love in its purest, joyous, most wonderful form!
AnneDroid, 33, here lies a huge and unfortunate complication…why, oh, why, oh, why (what is this? Points of View?) doesn’t God hard wire it into us to lock into our ‘one and only’ to the exclusion of all others. Sometimes I think free will isn’t such a great thing – it leaves the door wide open to do the wrong thing.
Comment by Carole — May 4, 2009 @ 9:31 am
ooh, nice point annedroid. what would you say if i said i thought “Love is love. To deny love is to deny God” and “To deny love is to please God.” were both true depending on context?
my caveat is “love doesn’t go around damaging people.” so, ken barlow in coronation street is most definitely wrong in my view for following his selfish desires in the knowledge that his wife and family will be seriously damaged. i do think your quote is great too, and true… i’ll nick that for a cartoon too… see what it brings up in conversation. 
“however I am sure that you knew it would raise the issue of sexuality – even if it wasn’t designed to.” marcus… i confess, it was meant to.
i think annedroid has made a good case for when falling in love is best not acted on. i am just really wary of discussing homosexuality in certain ways.
the ‘not damaging’ is key for me, marcus. for the moment i’ll stick with that. i’m not sure that incest is an orientation… desire and orientation are not necessarily synonymous.
heterosexual and homosexual relationships have the capacity to damage. they also have the capacity to heal and to bring joy to themselves and the world around them.
i can see no outcome for incest but pain and tragedy… having seen it close to home that is indeed what came about as a result of it. in fulfilling their own desires or feeding their own sense of need, those who should have been attended to and loved were abandoned… tragedy. i don’t want to judge, because goodness knows the extent of the brokenness which led to such behaviour, but it wasn’t good. the son became a paedophil and the mum’s perspective was all up the spout, and she died, at least in part, in extreme denial. she could not even see her own son’s behaviour as wrong… she believed everyone else was making it up… even though he went to prison. as i say, this is close to home, so it’s not easy writing about it. i have to say though, this is a far cry from orientation and more to do with power and control. the mum in question lost all of her siblings to tb as a child (eight kids i think… something of the brokenness i mentioned earlier)… no wonder she was messed up as an adult… i don’t suppose in those days there was any offer of counseling. in fact there wasn’t of course. i do know that the mental health professionals have done pretty well from the fallout.
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 10:01 am
carole… but when we do the right thing, we can have such a great sense of smug satisfaction.
sorry to be trivial… it’s just that after my last comment i feel the need for light relief and i knew you could take it! 
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Jon – it is a pleasure to provide an opportunity for light to balance out the dark!
Comment by Carole — May 4, 2009 @ 10:29 am
“BTW-one can be in a sexual relationship where love is clearly absent or one can be fully loving towards all and be celibate.”
Such a great comment, thought it deserved to be repeated…
Comment by Bo — May 4, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Jon thank you for your sharing and I certainly didn’t mean to cause any offense or hurt – these issues are not far from many families sadly.
Comment by marcus — May 4, 2009 @ 11:18 am
http://www.confessingchurch.org.uk/general-assembly-2009/ga09-support/
4879 judges and counting.
can i get a witness?
Comment by Thelineinthesand — May 4, 2009 @ 11:39 am
One problem is that we only have one word for love in the english language. We translate all sorts of greek concepts as love. I certainly don’t eros my guitar!
I also didn’t think that all relationships in the cartoon were sexual, or romantic. I assumed a lot of parental/friendship ones too.
Can you add a guy hugging his guitar?
Comment by Robb — May 4, 2009 @ 11:55 am
I love the statement of the cartoon…
‘cos I can make it mean whatever I want to…
and I can get it to support whatever opinion I want it too…
and give permission for whatever action I want to get on with..
of course, such cynicism rather spoils the ‘love’
Comment by Caroline Too — May 4, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
hey marcus… no probs! none at all! no offense nor hurt… the question was yours to ask and mine to answer in the way i chose. i didn’t realise i’d answer as i did, but there you are… an honest question deserves an honest answer. peace and love.
too right, bo!
carole… i knew i could count on you!
robb… you don’t eros your guitar? methinks the man protesteth too much!
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
I get irritated by statements such as in the cartoon,
basically because the word love has been so abused, trivialised
and hijacked to justify anything…
if only we could go back to the ancient Greek of ‘agape’
love = the love that is a commitment love (God’s love for us)
then we could have celebrated that
Agape is love, to deny agape is to deny love
but we don’t speak ancient Greek, and we don’t have four words for
love, and so a wondrous word, provides so much room for anguish
and hurt.
Comment by Caroline Too — May 4, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
sadly wise point Annedroid #33
Comment by Caroline Too — May 4, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
caroline too… it is rather ‘open’ to interpretation, isn’t it?
makes for a good and hearty discussion. 
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
it does indeed, caroline too @ 45. it is sad.
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
“God is Love. To deny God is to deny love.” is a truer statement that I would more readily agree with.
All of God is love, but not all of “love” is God, at least, not as far as we can discern all that is love with our human minds/emotions.
Comment by MilePost13 — May 4, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
thelineinthesand… just been to the link and the numbers are growing. big decision.
milepost13. interestingly made point.
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
thelineinthesand at #40
I assume you don’t know the 4879 signatories personally. So by branding them all “judges” aren’t you perhaps doing a spot of judging yourself? You are free to have your own opinion on the subject of the petition, but, WITH RESPECT (really), I’m not comfortable with the blanket term you apply to all these people.
Perhaps they are loving, gracious, warm human beings who nonetheless feel they must be true to what they believe God teaches to be his will, in the Bible. At least some of them must be this way, surely? If you say no to that, then I’m sorry but you DO sound judgemental, even if you’re not.
Comment by AnneDroid — May 4, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Jon and thelineinthesand – I am intrigued as to how it has gone from the top of the list where Scottish people were making decisions about the The Church of Scotland….
…to a bunch of Americans and Australians making decissions for Scottish people.
If this gets held up as a piece of evidence they need their heads read. They can take our land but they’ll never take our freedom is being thrown out in spectacular fashion. I wonder if Alex Salmond has signed it.
Oh well, at least the English aren’t doing it to ‘em.
This is the wonder of the internet is it? A small group can forward masses of emails around the world and get a massive list of people together.
[Before anyone gets all high and mighty about me talking about Scotland, I was drinking with a Scotsman on Saturday. I like to call him "Dad"]
Comment by Robb — May 4, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
After reading (just about) all 49 posts, #48 is the one I like the most!
To simply say that what we, as humans, discern to be love is therefore love in the divine sense of the word seems wrong.
If God says somethings we may say are ‘love’ are actually false, are we to disagree because of the emotions it conjures up within us?
Comment by youthworkerpete — May 4, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
ywp at #52. It is a good one. You are right to highlight it. What you say is true, too, in my opinion.
Comment by AnneDroid — May 4, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
annedroid… i don’t know enough about the decision making process to have any clue as to whether petitions like this change anything. my feeling would be that it might have a small effect on those making the decisions. as i said… big decision. i never knew there were so many australian scots!
robb. i’m 1/8th scottish, which means that whenever i talk about the scots and i have to allocate 1/8th of myself to the task i have to make sure it isn’t my bottom that’s given the job.
ywp… you must be exhausted!
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Actually, jb, there really are lots and lots of Scots in Australia, New Zealand and Canada in particular, but across the world generally. I think it’s something to do with the weather here that so many leave (I say that fresh from two freezing nights in a tent in Aviemore). And Scotland had a big missionary history so you find churches in places like Malawi have a historical sense of attachment to Scotland.
I’m happy and honoured that I have bits of you and Robb as fellow Scots too.
This contribution has nothing to do with the debate, I admit.
Comment by AnneDroid — May 4, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
33. Here I go back on the person of Jesus re: denying our love is a greater sign f life. The bible doesn’t talk about this but given human nature, I am positive that some of the women Jesus encountered had feelings towards him that were more eros than agape. Jesus kept the conversation focused on his teachings and the women responded likewise – if they had feelings of eros, they were transformed into agape. I compare this to two religious rock stars I know – one is being marketed by his publisher as a sexy thinker and is developing a bit of a groupie following (reminds me kind of like a religious version of the latest Simon Fuller piece of garbage
. The other dude (who by the way is far more successful) doesn’t have a groupie following and isn’t marketed like a sex symbol – his message is much more Jesus focused.
We’ve had this discussion via other cartoons re: this gray area were commandments aren’t broken but boundaries are violated. It’s critical to keep the eye on the prize. I’m referencing here scenarios where we know in our hearts the relationship isn’t healthy. Sometimes we do have to break a vow in order to be faithful to God. For instance, one of my dearest buddies is a former Roman Catholic priest married to a nun and it’s one of the most beautiful marriages I’ve ever seen.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
AnneDroid,
your right. i should be more aware of how my comments could have been percieved. I was not intending to brand these people as judgemental. my comment was me wrestling with the concept of how a petition could be deemed as appropriate in this situation. I do know quite a few people who have signed this petition. some of them are the most amazing, compassionate, encouraging and non-judgemental people that i have ever been blessed by knowing. this is not a simple issue and i admit that limiting my feelings to a 2line quip does not do it justice.
indeed every time i look at it all i have are new questions with no answers. but there is one image (as you may be able to tell from my name) that i cannot get out of my head. How often do we rush into picking up our rocks? but the difficult thing is not to drop it and walk away! the hard part is staying around and listening to how jesus dealt with these situations and learning from it.
i hope i’ve made myself a bit clearer
my head is a muddy puddle
Comment by Thelineinthesand — May 4, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
BeckyG – I thought I was the only one who had ever wondered that – I’ve never heard it spoken! I like your summary of how Jesus dealt with it, too.
Thelineinthesand – thanks for clarifying. My head is also a muddy puddle, or indeed muddy muddle!
Comment by AnneDroid — May 4, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Ann – Yep, I don’t see any “women who lusted after the Lord” stories in the New Testament. What is fascinating is to see what’s left out of the bible. My theory is that often an issue isn’t brought up because it’s a non-issue. For example, if people got married off as soon as they hit puberty, then you don’t need to talk about premarital sex. If homosexuality was really a major problem, then Jesus would have addressed that in the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5-7 is where Jesus outlines his agenda by focusing on those issues he deems to be of critical importance for those who want to follow in The Way.)
BTW-the religious leader I cited who avoids the groupie scene has set up a number of safeguards (e.g., he always travels with a companion, doesn’t let himself get into late night or lengthy one-on-one sessions with a member of the opposite sex unless he knows the person well enough that boundaries have been set, and so forth). The other one is actually marketing himself so that his sexuality becomes a selling point.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I know there were words like ‘agape’ or ‘philia’ were mentioned in the Testament, but I didn’t realise that ‘eros’ was celebrated and glorified too.
Wow.
Comment by zefi — May 4, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Eros’ high point is the Song of Songs. My point is that agape and philia are the dominant forms of love mentioned in the NT but we tend to equate love with eros.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
@ Jon,
I applaud your willingness to create stuff like this, because it can start good conversations.
I liked this statement: “If God says somethings we may say are ‘love’ are actually false, are we to disagree because of the emotions it conjures up within us?”
This is a good point, because a large part of the argument supporting homosexuality is based upon the capacity to have certain kinds of feelings towards other people of the same sex. The people who believe in that would often at the same time condemn the human capacity for hate, rage, and violence, which are also feelings that naturally occur in humans. So really, who gets to choose which feelings are virtuous and which are not? I would prefer any kind of love over hate, but that is not true of everyone.
But this all digs into a deeper issue of our human cravings and feelings. What happens when we are driven solely by our feelings and our cravings? We may crave what drugs give us, but it may destroy us and our relationships with people around us. We may crave fast-food but we may destroy our health. We may crave sex whenever we can get it, but it may do all kinds of damage to relationships, or to our bodies through STDs.
That is why it is such a big problem for anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, to define themselves by their sexuality. Anybody who has defined their entire identity around their sexual preference has in my opinion hidden away from the world the majority of the beautiful creation that God made them. Sexuality, while significant, is not the whole picture of humanity. There is much more to us than that.
Oops, I kinda got going there. I hope that my opinions add to the discussion rather than affect it negatively, because they are just that, my opinions.
Comment by Andy M — May 4, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Well, I suppose that the corollary might be just as controversial, but less popular in the unholy mind:
Sin is sin. To deny sin is to deny God.
1 John 1:10
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
Comment by danielg — May 4, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
#63 @danielg – so, are you saying being gay is sin? i am just trying to understand you and what you are trying to communicate.
Comment by queermergent — May 4, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
I’m not really saying that (although I do believe that).
What I am saying is that love and truth belong together, but we sinful humans like to only hear the ‘love’ part.
Mushy sentiments are universally accepted as ’spiritual.’ But as one author said, we are called to be ‘good,’ not just ‘nice.’
I guess that, not only do I reject the idea that acceptance of hx (being ‘nice’) justifies it, but that the warm fuzzies we get from being nice don’t validate such things. That type of humanistic epistemology can lead to the error of justifying sin, which I think is what is going on in this case.
I read this wonderful cartoon, not because I always agree with it, but because we have a common ‘enemy’ – empty, dead, judgmental religion. But I try not to throw the truth out with the bathwater.
Comment by danielg — May 4, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
The mushy sentimentality that you discuss is not agape nor is it philia – it’s this version of romanticized love that isn’t what Jesus is talking about at all.
As a straight woman I have no clue what it’s like to be gay but I do know that much of what I’ve seen hurled against homosexuals doesn’t strike me as the least bit loving. For example, I have someone who is no longer speaking to me right because I tried to convey the truth to them without love. I was right but not Christlike. In hindsight, I should have kept quiet until I could convey these thoughts in love.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
I’m coming rather late to this after a couple of days away and thus wading through the entire thread at one sitting. I like what you say Andy M @ 62 about the perils of defining identity solely around sexual preference and especially your comment that
I also think that Marcus @32 raises a critical question and one which we have, by and large, tended to skirt round in our previous discussions on this issue. Just so that it’s clear where I’m coming from, I speak as one who no longer finds it possible to claim that the Bible unambiguously denounces homosexuality as wrong and sinful. However I do think that this leaves us needing to wrestle with other sorts of questions, one of which is, if we believe that human sexual inclination is naturally varied then ‘where do we draw the line’ with respect to what we do or don’t accept as acceptable practice in the area of sexual behaviour; so…how is that decided, and by whom? Of course, we might immediately want to bring in all sorts of things – Jon mentions the issue of ‘harm’; on another thread Robb talked about abuse of power; we might say bestiality is easy to exclude on the basis of crossing a species boundary etc. But people have different perspectives on these things – some of which at least are culturally determined. I think though that it’s a question we have to face up to and at least make an attempt to address.
Comment by Pat — May 4, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Sorry – also mean’t to say that I loved the cartoon – and didn’t see it as representing only sexual relationships
Comment by Pat — May 4, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
yes, a good point, Pat #68 (and one that I think JB intended)
as a single person, I would love to have more ’safe’ relations
where serious-long-term hugs were a part of the day.
whilst my singleness means a lack of sexuality in my relations, I don’t
think tht it should mean a lack of sensuality… sometimes that would
make all the difference…
Comment by Caroline Too — May 4, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
with this subject, i couldn’t possibly leave the discussion on 69.
thanks pat and caroline.
is it perhaps the case that all male female relating is sexual? we are perhaps afraid to admit it because ’sex’ can be a dirty word. what i mean is, that the warmest, safest hug from an aunt or a girlfriend does affirm my sexuality. i’m not talking about eroticism or the act of sex, but our sexuality along with the rest of our being is affirmed.
if i see you next year at greenbelt caroline too, i would hope the hug i give you would be me affirming you… sexuality would be part of that, wouldn’t it? have a virtual hug in the meantime… you’re great.
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
I’m not sure that sexuality can ever be comprehensively banished from our relationships with others, Caroline Too, but I think we can have friendships where, despite that, tactile and sensual is safe and can be a source of comfort and support.
Comment by Pat — May 4, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
I think we cross-posted Jon
Comment by Pat — May 4, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
And I’d hope for a Greenbelt hug as well
Comment by Pat — May 4, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
you betcha, pat. so long as you know it’s not just sexual!
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Jon – (The assumption here is that we’re talking straight men relating to straight woman. I would assume that gays and lesbians have the same reaction hugging some of their sexual preference that I do when I hug a guy that I think rocks.)
One day when we were doing romance scenes in improv class, my teacher quoted an actor (whose name escapes me). He was about to do a steamy sex scene with an actress and said to here. “Ma’am, I’d like to apologize in advance if during our scene I’d get an erection. And I’d like to apologize if I don’t.” You can’t help the biological reaction one gets to seeing someone that stimulates one’s senses. The Q is what do you do with these impulses, a theme you explored in your new cartoon.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
btw… i love hugging men too.
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
becky @ 75. yes, indeed. i was only speaking of my own experience. i do find also, that my hugging another man also affirms my sexuality, just differently.
“The Q is what do you do with these impulses, a theme you explored in your new cartoon.” again… yes, indeed.
Comment by jonbirch — May 4, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Jon – Bingo. I had to do an improv scene with another woman in which we played lesbians. I found kissing her pleasurable but it didn’t turn me on the way I would find myself when doing a romance scene with a guy. I also recall doing a scene with a guy with really had halitosis that was pretty unpleasurable.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
I meant really bad not really had.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Jon @ 74 – I’d accept it willingly and warmly as an affirmation in the ‘real’ of that which exists in the ‘virtual’
Comment by Pat — May 5, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Just to mention, there is a great book that tries to lay out a bigger picture of sexuality that goes way beyond the usual physical idea of sex. SexGod by Rob Bell.
Comment by Andy M — May 5, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
First reaction was not a good one, but follow-up ones were.
Comment by beatthedrum — May 5, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Don’t quite follow BTD – yours, or other people’s?
Comment by Pat — May 5, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Mine Pat.
First glance… hmm not sure God endorses Gay love… then thought hang on that shows how prejudiced my thinking was at first gamce, they could be friends.
I think as has already been stated the God is Agape not Eros love.
http://www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com
Comment by beatthedrum — May 5, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Thanks BTD and…nice one
Comment by Pat — May 5, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Andy M (69) – Got all excited about Rob Bell’s Sex God, then found out he doesn’t approach the subject of Homosexuality, so being gay myself, there’s not much point
A pity, as I really enjoyed Velvet Elvis
Thanks Jon and debaters for yet another thought provoking cartoon and discussion. As usual, I’ve come far too late to join in, though I would have with great pleasure.
Comment by mike_maple — May 5, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
And Jon, if we ever meet, there’s a full on hug comin your way
Comment by mike_maple — May 5, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
look forward to that, mike.
Comment by jonbirch — May 5, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
And the originator speaks. Hi y’all!
Thank you all so much for the glowing regards I have received from those who sent them. They really help on a pretty crap day.
Dear Jon,
Thank you for illustrating what I never could w/ mere words.
Dear people who believe homosexuality is a sin,
If what I do w/ my husband is loving, and done in love, hurts no one and sustains me through my heartbreak what does it matter to you? If God truly thinks being gay is a sin, He knows how to stop me.
I would remind you that we are all brothers and sisters, united by our faith in the Christ, Jesus.
thank you and goodnight.
Comment by Valentine — May 6, 2009 @ 5:37 am
Like, how? Flashes of lightning and thundering voice? Or the lazier and less impressive “automagically removal of such desire?”
Comment by zefi — May 6, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
@Mike (#86)
I understand your perspective. I would assume that for Rob Bell, to wade into the homosexual issue in that book would probably would have been a distraction from the message as a whole. People usually develop acute tunnelvision when that subject comes up, either for one side of the argument or the other, and then nobody would have heard what he was trying to get across.
But I do want to ask, how is there not any point to a gay person reading that book? Even if he doesn’t specifically dig into that particular issue, do his ideas about sexuality/humanity/spirituality only concern heterosexuals? I’m just curious, because I personally see implications for all people in his ideas.
Comment by Andy M — May 6, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
>> VAL: If what I do w/ my husband is loving, and done in love, hurts no one and sustains me through my heartbreak what does it matter to you?
It’s nothing to me. However, if you want to get legal affirmation of your choice, while ignoring the affects and implications on our society, and esp. our children and their compulsory education, you may be acting without concern for others.
But the better question is, why would it matter to *God?* if hx WAS sinful, it would matter for the same reasons that all sins matter to God:
1. They harm us in spirit, soul, and body.
2. Ignoring them, or worse, defending them, puts us in opposition to the truth, which is to say, in opposition to God.
3. They hinder us from becoming what God made us to be, that is, they harm our healthy emotional development.
4. They separate us from Him.
>> VAL: If God truly thinks being gay is a sin, He knows how to stop me.
Well, how DOES God stop us from negative behaviors? Two ways – negative consequences, and conviction when we hear the truth.
The latter, however, we can avoid by hardening ourselves, and we all do that in response to injury or out of fear. That’s where God’s discipline, which brings brokenness, comes in. When we aren’t able to receive wisdom, God must bring the ‘rod of correction’ to help us escape from our dysfunctions and sins.
Comment by danielg — May 6, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
that’s a bit harsh, danielg. valentine doesn’t in anyway come across to me as someone who takes no account of society. in fact, i have every reason to believe the opposite to be the truth.
…and who wields this rod of correction? you?.. me?.. and who would one use it on?.. and for what reason?.. and isn’t there the most enormous danger of the rod actually being a plank?
Comment by jonbirch — May 6, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
i think it annoys the heck out of some people that homosexual christians are not ‘convicted’ of their actions. they would like to think it is because of hard hearts or not listening to god.
i think it is often because that particular agenda is not necessarily god’s.
i think god must be heartily sick of us and our loveless, bullying ways.
Comment by jonbirch — May 8, 2009 @ 10:37 am
THANK YOU, Jon, for your words. It means A LOT from someone who is so often rejected and hurt by Christians.
i HEART YOU! i will give you a BIG HUG when we meet one day! We are planning to attend Greenbelt in 2010, so i hope you will be there!
Much admiration and respect,
EP
Comment by queermergent — May 8, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
aw, thank you queermergent. 2010 then… hold you to that hug!
xxx
Comment by jonbirch — May 8, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
What is your definition of healthy love? For sure there are unhealthy kinds. Very unhealthy and unwhole and destructive kinds. God defines love in Himself (through Jesus) and in His Word.
Comment by Teranne — May 12, 2009 @ 6:19 pm