Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Daniel Helminiak's books and the morality of homosexualityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Daniel Helminiak's books and the morality of homosexuality | Login/Join |
The Human Core of Spirituality: Mind as Psyche and Spirit and Religion and the Human Sciences: An Approach via Spirituality These are two very important books, imo, even though they've not gained much traction among spiritual writers. Helminiak studied under Bernard Lonergan, whose accounting of the human spirit draws from St. Thomas Aquinas and the best of other classical writers. What Helminiak has done is make Lonergan's rather dense and technical works more accessible to the rest of us. The core description of spirit is thus: A. Reflecting and non-reflecting, which enables spirit to both stand outside of a phenomenon and interact with it. B. Move along four transcendental imperatives: - be attentive - be intelligent - be reasonable - be responsible Helminiak takes this account and thoroughly breaks it open, showing, for example, how spirit is different from psyche, but also how psyche is "enspirited," and thus functions in the service of spirit. His account of psyche honors what has come about during the past century, while demonstrating that this aspect of our consciousness is similar to what we find in higher animals. I'm just scratching the surface here, however. What follows is Helminiak's summary of The Human Core of Spirituality.
| |||
|
Still, in essence, spirituality can be treated apart from religion and theology -- and it ought to be, if a coherent and accurate understanding of spirituality is the goal. And this is the goal of my book. This is also what our contemporary world needs. That's intriguing enough to make me want to read that book. A discussion of sexuality summarizes the book. Woo hoo! Well, that's settles it. Are there pictures?  Such an approach calls social science to take seriously the universal human realities that it has for too long ignored as "religious." And such an approach calls contemporary communities and nations to attend to the spiritual issues that undergird any human society, whether religious or secular. That's, again, quite intriguing. It's my sort of back-of-the-envelope contention that religion (even if a quite personal one � a church of one) is the proper context for nurturing spirituality. Again, most assuredly some religions, or parts of religion, do less nurturing and more passing of the offering plate, at least figuratively. And given my first contention, the second one is that those who deny religion will still feel their spiritual yearnings and will attempt to satisfy and explore those yearnings and will often do so through means that are not equipped to handle such things (such as economic systems, politics, and the very structure of the state). It would be intriguing to read Helminiak's recipe for how communities and nations can attend to spiritual needs. Getting social science to take seriously spirituality may have to wait a generation until the more leftist, often anti-religious orientation is moderated a bit. That's not to say that playing the piano, acting, writing a poem, or making love aren't all highly, highly spiritual experiences. But I think that one is still left with a sort of "towards what end?" idea that is missing from just having these experiences at random, wonderful as they are. There needs to be some sort of "glue" that ties them all together into something that makes a higher sense. That's, obviously, the vulnerable point where one can get involved in a religion that may, say, condemn all those little wonderful spiritual events in your life. And that would be a shame. Or, for whatever reason, the church is just too in-your-face and restrictive. Buyer beware, I guess. | ||||
|
Picked up a free copy of Helminiak's "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality." The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was really inhospitality, according to Helminiak. I suppose attempted rape of angels could be considered "inhospitable." Oh, brother! He performs many such other spiritual twists and yogas to make the lifestyle acceptable to Christians, such as claiming that the real abomination in Leviticus is "uncleanness." I just can't see common sense people falling for this. I wonder if Helminiak knows that the average Dutch gay "marriage" lasts a year and a half and involves twelve other "partners." It's an upside down world once the compromising begins and "heaven knows, anything goes!" veritas, mm <*)))))>< | ||||
|
He's not the only one doing that kind of exegesis, MM. What Helminiak and other scholars are doing is breaking open the meaning of the condemnatory words and analyzing them in terms of their meaning for those cultures. Supposedly, the scholarship is sound, but, like you, I don't think it follows that the Hebrews (or Paul) condoned homosexuality except for concerns about cleanliness. I've posted this link on a couple of other threads as I think it provides a good review of Hebrew and early Christian attitudes about sexuality. Don't be dissuaded from reading his other books because of this one. The two I mentioned are top-notch in scholarship and reasoning; that they draw from Lonergan's approach to philosophy and theology provides a solid foundation. ----- BTW, am I reading the time of your post above correctly?  Hopefully, you were just returning home from a fun outing somewhere.  | ||||
|
I've posted this link on a couple of other threads� That was a penetrating article. Butt seriously. Okay. Let me try again. I had read the first few paragraphs of that article before but read it entirely this time. There is certainly grist for the mill regarding reasons to oppose the left�s attempt to mainstream homosexuality. As a religious issues, I can see that it�s pretty cut-and-dried: Don�t do it but if you know some who does, hate the sin, love the sinner. But as a democratic legal issue, it gets a bit more complicated. I�ll grant you that we all are not nearly as sophisticated as we like to think we are in this culture. It�s easy enough to legalize and mainstream everything under the sun under the banner of egalitarianism, but real life offers real consequences and things are never as simple as our simplistic notions make them out to be. That said, we probably are a bit more sophisticated (and ought to be) than we were a few hundred or thousand years ago. As a legal issue I can see no need for laws banning homosexual behavior between consenting adults. Of course, I didn�t (really�I have to keep saying this�please believe me!) just fall off the turnip truck. The agenda of the gay people you may know who live just down the street probably little resembles the agenda of the gay lobby who wish not just for equal protection under the law but for special recognition, equal status morally with heterosexuality, and want the consequences and costs of this unhealthy lifestyle to be passed onto the rest of society. (Man, if the enlightened left ever approached homosexual behavior with the same hostility that they do smokers, you�d have all kinds of public service commercials warning of the dangers of anal sex. You might even have a $5.00 per pack tax on condoms and other devices that I�d rather not mention in polite company.) But, at least for me, the most amazing thing about that article was not the ammunition it provided regarding the ills of homosexuality, but how it puts into grand context the very idea of the sacred, of living to a higher standard, of committing one�s self to moral purpose, of committing one�s self to a good god. We can readily enough see if we squint hard (although it�s not TOO much of a stretch of the imagination) the utter bankruptcy and despondency of a pagan-like lifestyle that we are backsliding into today. Nothing has meaning. Nothing has purpose. All is profane because nothing is sacred. But today�s Gomorrah is surely not yet on par with the days of old. That article gave me a glimpse of something I had never seen before. I had no idea that we had the Jews to thank for so much, that such utter depravity was the NORM, not the exception. | ||||
|
I was out late with my boyfreind last night. Actually, what I did see was a man on the bus with his hand on another man's thigh in the seat next to him. You would not have seen this a few years ago, although occasionally you might see a man with his arm around another's shoulder. They are getting bolder, and there is no limit to how bold they will get. I've seen women kissing in public lately, and this is something new, a Public Display of Affection and political statement. I say get the lifestyle ALL OF THE WAY out of the closet. Show everyone what it really is.Then there will be no more pretending and everyone will know why it was in the closet in the first place. Brad, your post was indeed penetrating, butt try to B serious. "Exegesis is one of those big words. Does it mean to "X"-out-Jesus? someofmybestfreinds.com | ||||
|
. . . I had no idea that we had the Jews to thank for so much, that such utter depravity was the NORM, not the exception. Yes, good reflections, Brad. The Jews were quite countercultural through the ages, and were hated because of it. Same still goes . . . MM, exegesis is one of our chief allies against fundamentalism, and it almost always works for the good. I think Helminiak's exegesis is probably good (haven't read the book), but incomplete, which is why I introduced the article on sexuality and Jewish history. | ||||
|
I'm a recovering fundy, and aim to make amends to all those I have harmed through my beliefs, including gay and lesbian peoplem whom I love dearly. Most of them know where I stand, so if I get "busted" by someone I know reading this, great big hugs and CARITAS! Jesus loves U & so do !  Hows that 4 a tenth step? I really believe that we are barely past the tadpole stage in understanding much of anything about human sexuality, so room to grow and hopefully, but not "hypefully" to grow up. Here's a gay mystic I have read: http://www.lighthousewoods.com/andrew_harvey.html Helminiak seems to be a gentle and caring soul, but he may have come down with a touch of Boomeritis. Achoo! More later. I will read the book as part of my thenthitivity twaining... | ||||
|
From page 49: "There are other less direst biblical references to Sodom: Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14 and Zephaniah 2:8-11. The sins listed in those places are injustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies and encouraging evildoers." Hey, it seems that Sodom has a great deal in common with America! There is a section in the book on literal verses historical-critical biblical interperetation. If there is a yellow-meme interperetation forming, Helminiak and others like him will likely get there first. Still, most liberal theologians have a political agenda determined in advance, and though the literalists seem to be gaining in acceptance at the present time, we are bound to go back and forth for years until a higher perspective is reached. There are many sins, of course, and we all have our blind spots, usually where our own are concerned. page 50: "So those who oppress homosexuals because of the supposed 'sin of Sodom' may themselves be the real 'sodomites,' as the bible understands it." hmmm... have to think that one over... | ||||
|
"So those who oppress homosexuals because of the supposed 'sin of Sodom' may themselves be the real 'sodomites,' as the bible understands it." It sounds more like someone is trying to suck up the gay community than to do any heaving thinking. Oh�I suppose I should rephrase that. | ||||
|
Helminiak is like Willie Wonka at the Chocolate Factory. Dress up this pig and maybe we can take it out to dinner. Maybe I'm being a little too hard on the guy, but it seems to me that the minimizing of the severity of the addictive behavior, dodging, excusing, shifting of blame to society, alibis, justifications, and explaining away and avoidance of the harsh reality of the consequences of "homogenitality," a word he uses a couple of hundred times, as though he wishes to break down our resistance to it, and which the bible nowhere specifically condemns, according to the good doctor's opinion, seems a tad bit extreme to me. He attempts to strike some sort of middle ground or compromise. There is a "good" homogenitality and a "less than perfect" homogenitality. He suggests gay relationships between the usual suspects, David and Saul, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, the centurion and his "servant." At least he avoids the extreme liberal views about Jesus and John. Thanks for that, Daniel! When Satan appeared to Eve and to Christ, he used the old, "Hath God said" line and it's still working quite well for him. My hat's off to Helminiak. I don't believe I will ever provide spiritual counseling to gay people, but I guess someone has to do it. I know God loves them and they are treated with cruelty by society, and this must grieve the Holy Spirit. There is a wrench to fit every nut, and I suppose 50,000 purchasers of the book must have seen some fixative value in it, but it didn't fix me that much.  Still, "live and let live" is a good motto sometimes. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." Patience, patience, patience. God bless Helminiak, and I'm sure he is a better man than I. I won't judge him only by this book, and I may yet look into his spiritual psychology. No doubt he is a very compassionate soul, which is his unique gift. caritas, mm <*)))))>< | ||||
|
Not to change the subject, but I want to share the following. Just received another enticement to join the One Spirit book club. 4 books offered for $1.00. Among the books of the ever smiling Dalai Lama, I find books on sorcery, spells, witchcraft, new age authors like Deepok Chopra, together with books within the sexual arena, like Kama Sutra etc. The few Christian books offered are mostly represented in an unfavorable light, like a new one "Jesus and the lost goddess", Da Vinci Code and controversal books about Mary Magdalene. This the call One Spirit?. | ||||
|
�a word he uses a couple of hundred times, as though he wishes to break down our resistance to it� Yes. It�s this "breaking down the resistance" part that is interesting. Chip away long enough and you can create a hole in concrete with a knitting needle. The question is, ought we? Might we be better served to appeal to people�s compassion, love, and sense of fair play and just say "Love gays because they are" instead of fashioning a bogus and contrived reality where gays are all victims and Christian heterosexuals are all themselves "the real sodomites". When you see the truth being so badly battered, no matter the cause, you can be pretty sure of one thing: If the batterers are successful they will see their technique of battering as inherently righteous. The connection to truth is then further lost as passion fills the void vacated by introspection, moderation, and reason. | ||||
|
In the fwiw dept., Helminiak isn't the only Christian theologian raising these kinds of questions and speaking out favorably on the morality of same-sex unions. As some of you already know from other discussions on this topic, I oppose gay marriage, mostly because it would render the institution of marriage meaningless by opening the door to all sorts of "arrangements" which the state would be hard-pressed to deny. That said, the "morality" of homosexuality is an issue that I've mostly avoided discussing, as the topic is unbelievably complicated, imo. Here, for example, is the position of a gay Australian Judge, writing on the topic of the Churches, homosexuality and social justice: That's a pretty common opinion, even among conservative Catholics. And because so many gay people will attest to its truth, it becomes difficult (not just un-pc) to assert the Catholic Church's position that homosexual acts are "intrinsically evil." Saying this while affirming "that is how God meant you to be" feels like uttering contradictions. So many ministers just don't talk about it -- same as with birth control and other related issues. So what to do? Helminiak's approach to spirituality emphasizes authenticity as foundational for faith. What should a gay person striving for authentiticy do? The Church says to be celibate or else place your salvation at risk if you choose to indluge "intrinsically evil acts." That's a tough place to be . . . for anyone! | ||||
|
From the �Social Justice� article (modified by me): You job here is to fill in the blanks. Originally it was filled by �gays and lesbians�. Perhaps I could fill it with �polygamists,� �smokers�, �red necks,� �SUV owners,� �meat eaters,� or even �tax evaders�. I don�t wish to unnecessarily defame gays by putting in words like �child molester� or �Nazi� because I don�t think that�s a reasonable comparison. But what an exercise like this forces us to do is to remind us that we are indeed trying to instill our own sense of morality onto others, which is the point of laws � and in this case it is by labeling something as normal, not only despite a minority status but seemingly because of it. Of course, normal is no defense since, indeed, child molesters do likely own pets, have families and mortgages. And being in the minority is not an inherent sin since certainly a guy like Albert Einstein was a minority of one. So how do we pick and choose? If we take a bunch or words and plug them into the sample paragraph we�re going to find one�s that fit and that don�t fit according to our own sense of morality. For me �no better or worse than other people� does not fit �Nazis�. But it does fit smokers, although the punitive hits that group has been taking lately surely rates them as a persecuted group and one that is being persecuted by the state. So what is that okay? Is it because second hand smoke is harmful? Okay, but gays are doing deadly harm to themselves and each other all the time. So by what formula do we decide such things? It seems to me that the acceptance of gays is often promoted for all the wrong reasons using techniques and reasoning that are often disingenuous at best. And this leaves one feeling very queasy in regards to embracing their agenda in the first place because it�s not often presented in a solid, rational fashion. But still, in this evolving pluralistic society I think we can call the acceptance of gayness a real advance (while hopefully leaving behind their often dishonest advocacy techniques). What we ought not to accept along with it is the notion that life is not a constant Utopic buzz because somewhere out there is some anal-retentive spoilsport who wishes to crush our fun. As that article Phil posted mentioned, the promotion of the exclusive male/female relationship was a HUGE advance for society. But like anything in this world, there is a down side. The down side could rightly be said that society has been too tough on gays. But we should note that we are about to witness the reverse. Society is on the verge of approving a number of things including homosexuality and drug use. As these issues are mainstreamed this will be at the distinct expense of notions such as (but nowhere limited to) the family, monogamy, sexual responsibility (the promiscuity among gay males is a noted phenomenon), and the exclusive male/female relationship. And society will suffer. It is already suffering greatly in this country due to the policies of the Great Society. In particular, the instance of single-parent families among African Americans is devastating. So the fact is that as one new set of rules comes in there will be a price to be paid. And we�re likely to find out we�re not nearly as sophisticated as we thought we were and that those old customs and laws were not nearly as stodgy and arbitrary as we once thought they were. And we will perhaps again pay a price because of those rushing headlong into �modernity� without bringing enough of their reason along for the ride. | ||||
|
Hard to find an equivalency with those terms and homosexuality, Brad, as it's quite a stretch to say an "SUV owner," for example, is a biological orientation. I share the same kinds of concerns you do, but want to take seriously the conundrum in which homosexuals (especially Christian ones) find themselves. One can do just fine without an SUV, as your needs for transportation (even stylish options) can be satisfied without an SUV. Telling a person they cannot have a sexual or marriage partner without risking eternal damnation is another matter altogether. Requiring them to be celibate as the "cross" they must bear for having a sexual orientation they feel they have no choice about is also asking a lot. I've not really understood the concern about "family, monogamy, sexual responsibility and the exclusive male/female relationship." Heterosexuals won't be dissuaded from their orientation, from marrying, etc. And sexual responsibility has always been a matter of values, whether one is homosexual or not. So I just don't see how this would affect the family, although approving gay marriage would drastically change our understanding of the institution of marriage. All that said, I think you voice the concerns of many and, as noted above, I have some of the same. | ||||
|
I've not really understood the concern about "family, monogamy, sexual responsibility and the exclusive male/female relationship." Heterosexuals won't be dissuaded from their orientation, from marrying, etc. Well, that article, "Judaism�s Sexual Revolution", that you posted mentioned what it was like before the Jews put the kibosh on homosexuality. After they did it strengthened the family, strengthened the female's role in society, and strengthened all those things I mentioned. And because it seems CLEAR to me that homosexual practices (especially from the article you cited) are rampant among men if there are no restraints, if homosexuality is accepted on par with heterosexuality then we will backslide and it will undermine all those things we depend on for a functional society (and that's why I noted the tragedy of the breakup of the African American family�and AA kids have the crime rate to show for it). And you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be more than a few people who would have otherwise married who will now tilt the other way (and leading to the instability and recklessness that MM cited regarding the gay male lifestyle). If this isn't so then that article re: "Judaism�s Sexual Revolution" was not accurate then. Telling a person they cannot have a sexual or marriage partner without risking eternal damnation is another matter altogether. Well, then maybe we just have to get together and admit that the Bible is wrong on this point. | ||||
|
In the first chapter of Romans, before Paul condemns these practices, which were much more out in the open than they are now, he also condemns worship of the creature more than the Creator. It all stems from this. Any man or woman who is obsessed with a man's mind/body as the source of father love is missing the entire point, the Father Heart of God which sent the Son to cover a vast multitude of sin and perversity, sexual and otherwise. They are seeking happiness where it is not, rather than at the Source. End of rant... caritas, mm <*)))))>< | ||||
|
Very good point MM, and same is so applicable not only to homo, bi, and heterosexual expressions. The ladder of sexual experiences in all of our expressions can run from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest starting with the lusts and perversions of the flesh and all it's gross desires, and reaching a level of expressing sex in the confines of marriage as a holy sacrament. The libido who is centered in love can also take us to the point of finally letting go of the desires of the flesh, surrendering our sexual life in sacrifice to God by embracing celibacy and finding the true love within the center of our being, God. Depravity of the libido can be found in every area of sexual expression. Bisexuals are not true to anyone, including themselves, and can spread Aids not only in the homosexual community, but in the heterosexual community as well. High voltage indeed. | ||||
|
I take your points, MM and Freebird, that there are inherently healthy ways of expressing sexuality and inherently unhealthy ways. We might even be able to fashion the idea that a monogamous, faithful, matrimonial homosexual relationship between truly gay people meets the requirements of healthy, even if it doesn�t meet Biblical requirements. But first we would have to deal with this point from the article, Judaism�s Sexual Revolution: I don�t think we have to blanch from the fact that we might have a different opinion today of such acts than we used to thousands of years ago. We might feel queasy re-writing the Bible, but we no longer do indeed stone people for gathering wood on the Sabbath. So just as we might say, "Who are we to say what we can throw out regarding the Bible?" we might just as easily say, particularly given past practices, "Who are we to say what has to remain literal?" That said, I do think that in the vast majority of cases that living a homosexual lifestyle is inherently harmful and that living a monogamous, matrimonial heterosexual one is preferred. And I do not think this is so simply because society offers resistance to the homosexual lifestyle. I think this is so because nature offers resistance to the homosexual lifestyle. That is to say, people will not find themselves any happier living openly gay lives when all traces of resistance and prejudice are removed. There are inherent problems with this mode of living and, all else being equal (or even slightly unequal), it would be best to treat homosexuality as something to be transcended rather than to be given into. | ||||
|
Brad, I must take a stand and clarify my previous post. I stand behind God's word 100 per cent. I am not wishy washy about my beliefs at all. I adhere to the Bible's stand on homosexuality. I do not judge homosexuals, nor do I approve of their expressions of sex. but I do love them and say that they are accountable to God for what they do, just as we heterosexuals must be centered in the holieness of expressing our sexuality in the confines of marriage. We all have choices. Being a widow, I abstain from sexual expression having sacrificed same to God. Hopefully many homosexuals will be able to do the same. | ||||
|
Transferring (re-named) thread to Christian Morality and Theology forum. | ||||
|
Brad, I must take a stand and clarify my previous post. I stand behind God's word 100 per cent. I am not wishy washy about my beliefs at all. I adhere to the Bible's stand on homosexuality. I do not judge homosexuals� Well, that�s me in a nutshell, Freebird, drawing lines in the sand and forcing clarity, even if accidentally. But I�m not sure how one can stand by the Bible 100% (which unambiguously condemns homosexuality) and say that one does not judge homosexuals. That seems like trying to have one�s cake and eat it too. But then I do admit that this is a difficult issue and if it leads to paradoxes then so be it.But what I would unequivocally say is that as a pluralistic democratic society that we ought not to penalize regarding sexual behavior between consenting adults. And whether gays should be allowed to be married or not ought to be a legislative question, not a judicial one; which is to say, gay marriage ought to evolve out of a consensus, not be yet another thing imposed on us by a judiciary that has begun acting like the monarchy we threw out of this country over 200 years ago. On the other had, we also ought not to ask out neighbors to pay for the inherently risky behavior of the typical male homosexual lifestyle. One pays more for insurance if one is a smoker. Should not this be the same if one also hang-glides, is an astronaut, or a homosexual? If we mean TRUE equality then we can�t whitewash over such obvious facts as these. As long as homosexuality is treated like some protected and endangered species of owl then it will never be equal, it will simply be somebody�s pet project or cause, meant more to show how compassionate one is rather than one�s desire to be just or to solve a problem of inequity. Although we ought to be tolerant of those who are truly gay, that is no reason to whitewash the many other truths such as that living as a heterosexual is inherently more desirable and (apparently, at least to my knowledge) can empirically be shown to be the healthier way of living, if this is at all possible, and if we dispense with the heavy gay community propaganda, it IS possible in a great many cases. We ought to also forthrightly, even if we accept such things as gay marriage, address such things as gay adoption. Again, it might not be politically correct to say so, but it is not by accident that we are male and female and thus it should come as not surprise if children are better off with both male and female role models. And while we�re at it, we might address forthrightly the enormous costs of an eminently preventable disease such as AIDS. Particularly because of the human, social, and monetary costs we ought not to blanch when discussing the clear benefits of abstinence. And if one chooses anyway to engage in highly risky behavior then we also ought to discuss why the rest of us should pay for this. | ||||
|
From the Michael Kirby article: For someone trying to rebut the supposed �all or nothing� thinking of the Bible (and presumably, and I think inaccurately, of most religious people), the statement above surely represents all-or-nothing, black and white thinking. Perhaps we should well back off of the �intrinsically evil� notion. But -- and this is going to come as a big disappointment to the gay movement -- this does not then mean accepting the gay lobby�s position on things lock, stock and barrel. There is a more rational �center� position which, for example, might state that there are, indeed, intrinsically gay people in this world but that there are a number of others who could fall one way or another and that it would be best for them if they fell on the heterosexual side of the equation. Kirby adds credence to the argument that the homosexual issue should be approached with some caution and restraint (and that those promoting gay rights often go off half-cocked, no pun intended). This is evidenced by the fact that Kirby so readily, carelessly, (and I would say), maliciously assesses those who view homosexuality as not normal and as harmful (and it is not difficult at all to make a case for either, and it should be noted that usually one will be filled with compassion and care, not hate, when doing so) with responsibility for someone catching AIDS which is a ridiculous and counterproductive statement (Does not he himself facilitate the spread of AIDS with such an irresponsible statement? I think he does. How many lives could have been saved if some good, old-fashioned stigma had been attached to just the idea of promiscuity, which is to say nothing of the idea of homosexuality itself. But since those familiar with, at least, male homosexuality know that they go practically hand-in-hand, they are loath to state the obvious for fear of appearing to be judgmental�as if that were worse than preventing some poor kid from needlessly catching AIDS. ) I really have not lost hope in this country (or this world) that people can advocate for causes they believe in without doing violence to the truth. But I�m starting to wonder. | ||||
|
This is a popular book by Daniel Helminiak, whose writings on spirituality I've really enjoyed and have even promoted on this site. Helminiak, an ex-Catholic priest, is a good scholar, and he happens to be gay. Using the approach to spirituality advocated in his books, he decided that the most authentic approach for him was to publically affirm his sexual orientation. Given my admiration for his past works, I decided to check this one out, and it was a huge disappointment. Here's the review I posted on Amazon.com. Please note that my remarks above pertain only to what I understand the Bible to be teaching about human sexuality. They are not intended to justify any kind of perverse homophobia. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Daniel Helminiak's books and the morality of homosexuality