Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Scott C.]

Some of us aren't RCC and focus on universally-recognized definitions.

It doesn't matter what we call it. Christianity teaches no sex outside of marriage. I call that chastity. If you prefer, we can call it sexual purity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The majority of Catholics don't agree with the Church Fathers' teachings.

Most Say Homosexuality Should Be Accepted By Society | Pew Research Center

I know what polls say about Catholics and this issue.

 

[suncowiam]

By your definition, the belief that there is sin, is bigotry. Bigotry requires far more than that.

Why is homosexuality a sin? I bet you will only stop at scripture and text because the notion of sin is religiously based.

Do you know how horribly difficult this is for a 5 year old to comprehend the difference between sin and wrong? Sin == wrong for all practical purposes.

Now, in a perspective where sin == wrong, then I would have to ask to provide more tangible evidence that being homosexual is wrong versus being a sin.

If you can't provide the tangible evidence, then is that fair to the minority group be labeled as sinners or basically wrong-doers? Labelling is just a tip on iceberg. Then comes real discrimination like refusal of businesses, refusal of rights that are shared by other folks like marriage, adoption/child rearing...

Again, this to me is playing word soup and semantics.

 

[sojourner]

You are a bigot then in my perspective. Be annoyed all you want. You have some notion that is not shared universally nor proven universally to condemn a minority group in your specific community. Sinners are condemned in your religion. People will be born into your community being gay. And unfortunately for them, they will bear the blunt of your shared perspective until they can defend themselves if at all.

Dress it up all your want. Play schisms, word soup, semantics all you want. You are a bigot because of your beliefs.

That's patently unfair. Some Christian groups are discriminatory -- others are not. There is no "universal POV" where Xy is concerned on this issue. Just as there is no universal POV on the issue where the rest of society is concerned.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I know what polls say about Catholics and this issue.

I figured ya did.

But I wanted to mention it because you are sticking to Catholic-only definitions of terms. That's great to have such a scope, but the interpretation and application of those same terms by Catholics should be applicable to the discussion.

That's what I was going for. Enjoy the open discussion!

 

[sojourner]

No, not going to let you suggest that I'm the problem here, either. The problem is that some people choose to believe certain things about other people's sex lives and use that as an excuse to marginalize them. You bring up common ground for public policy, but public policy cannot be dictated by arbitrary prejudices coming from some people's subjective readings of ancient texts. This thread has already amply demonstrated how picking out homosexuality for condemnation is a choice people make based on their own desires and prejudices. It's just the latest in a long line of social stuff that people have gotten very wrong yet doubled down on in the name of religious belief. I hope I need not remind everyone that people have opposed interracial marriage based on their understanding of Biblical teachings. They have opposed the equality of women for the same reason. Hell, they opposed the abolition of slavery for that reason. Others continue to oppose the teaching of science is schools for that reason. There is no reasonable position of compromise on any of those subjects. There is no give-and-take. One side is right, and the other side is wrong.

When it comes to public policy, if something can't be demonstrated to be harmful in a way that is objectively evident to everyone, then there is no basis for curtailing people's freedom in that regard, or for marginalizing the people who do that thing. There is no discussion to be had. People don't require the approval of others in order to live their own private lives. You are free to privatey believe that homosexuality is sinful all you want. I'll still say it's irrational and immoral, but it's your choice. You start sniffing around public policy, on the other hand, and the gloves come off. Religion is a ****-poor excuse for the oppression of others, Christian religion most of all. Makes me sick, and it makes Jesus cry.

Hear, hear! This is one of the best posts on this subject I've read -- not just on this forum, but everywhere else, too.

 

[suncowiam]

That's patently unfair. Some Christian groups are discriminatory -- others are not. There is no "universal POV" where Xy is concerned on this issue. Just as there is no universal POV on the issue where the rest of society is concerned.

Hold on... I called him specifically a bigot. He wants to continue this rhetoric about sin and homosexuals being sinners, then let's continue that. I already responded.

In fact, I believe anyone that continues to label homsexuals as sinners are bigots. So if you think I'm unfair in this response, then I'm fine with that. That's my world view and you can continue to counter if you like.

 

[sojourner]

Hold on... I called him specifically a bigot. He wants to continue this rhetoric about sin and homosexuals being sinners, then let's continue that. I already responded.

In fact, I believe anyone that continues to label homsexuals as sinners are bigots. So if you think I'm unfair in this response, then I'm fine with that. That's my world view and you can continue to counter if you like.

I thought you were talking about some universal, Christian viewpoint.

 

[JoStories]

Speak for yourself! It's not important to you because you're not a Christian who is bisexual and trying to figure out the truth of the matter. So this is a very important topic to me and many others.

As it is to me as well because I, too, am bisexual. Having studied all faiths for years now, most reformed Jews don't believe that being gay is as its portrayed in the Tanakh. Many chrisitians don't either, but many do. I know some people who are opposed to oral sex because it's in the bible that 'spilling a man's seed' other than for procreation is also an abomination. It's my belief that God created me as I am, which is bi. Ain't a damn thing wrong with that. IMO.

 

[suncowiam]

I thought you were talking about some universal, Christian viewpoint.

No... To me labelling a group as sinners is like racially profiling a specific race. Just throw them into a bucket of this and that.

It's already being labeled before you get to breathe your first breath or actually do something harmful to society.

This issue is so fundamentally wrong yet some religious folks believe they are above societal norms because of God and religious text.

 

[Vishvavajra]

By your definition, the belief that there is sin, is bigotry. Bigotry requires far more than that.

Bigotry is a sin. Sin is dividing people up and treating some as unclean. Sin is justifying that by citing texts without understanding or Love. Sin is hiding behind religion to justify bigotry.

Sin is any act predicated on delusion and the absence of Love--for example, the delusion that sin is properly defined as the failure to obey a code of laws. That sin led people to oppose interracial marriage, based on their reading of the Bible. They insisted they weren't bigots and got really upset when people suggested they were. It was just God's Law, after all. They hid their bigotry behind the smokescreen of religion and claimed it was therefore beyond reproach.

Nope, doesn't work that way. There's no "just following orders" when it comes to believing morally reprehensible things. That's on you.

 

[Norman]

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus mentions eunuchs in the context of whether it is good to marry. He says, “There are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus identifies three types of “eunuchs” here: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).

Natural eunuchs include those who are born with a physical defect, but they also comprise those who are born with no real desire for marriage or sex. Forced eunuchs are those who have been castrated for whatever reason. Voluntary eunuchs are those who, in order to better serve the Lord in some capacity, choose to forego marriage. God calls some people to remain single (and therefore celibate). Paul speaks of those who serve the Lord in their unmarried state in 1 Corinthians 7:7—9.

Norman: Hi Eliab ben Benjamin,This in my opinion on Matthew 19:12 They made Themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s Sake” From verse 12 in Matthew 19, it may appear that the Savior approved of celibacy or self-mutilation. However, anciently some people held the false belief that a life of celibacy was to be sought after: “Apparently those who made themselves eunuchs were men who in false pagan worship had deliberately mutilated themselves in the apostate notion that such would further their salvation. It is clear that such was not a true gospel requirement of any sort. There is no such thing in the gospel as wilful emasculation; such a notion violates every true principle of procreation.

Read more: What is a eunuch in the Bible? What does the Bible say about eunuchs?

Norman: Corinthians 7 is about Paul who answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions. Why is it better for marriage to come after a mission? Paul praises self-discipline of those who are not married or are widows or widower. Paul was married but his wife died. This is what some of the things Paul was talking about in this whole chapter. 1 Corinthians 7:29–33—“They That Have Wives Be as Though They Had None. when Paul counseled “they that have wives be as though they had none” in (1 Corinthians 7:29) he was speaking to “you who are called unto the ministry … for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord’s work” In other words, those who were married would be without their wives during their missions.
As you read 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, a substitute the word divorce‍ fcould be “depart” (“put away” also means divorce), and in verses 12–13 a substitute word could be a "nonmember"r‍ for the phrase “that believeth not.”

 

[Norman]

What in the name of all that's holy and pure?!?!?

Norman: Your question or comment?

 

[McBell]

Yeah. Very seriously indeed. Didn't you know?

I cannot help but wonder if he picks and chooses from the Bible like he picks and chooses from the Forum Rules...?

 

[columbus]

What annoys me, is that the mere belief that homosexual sex is a sin, often gets lumped in with hateful bigotry.

I wish that there was a feasible way to make this bet with you.
I'd bet a dollar that within your lifetime the LDS church will hold its finger up to the prevailing winds of morality and homophobia will go the way of polygamy and racism.
Tom

 

[gsa]

I wish that there was a feasible way to make this bet with you.
I'd bet a dollar that within your lifetime the LDS church will hold its finger up to the prevailing winds of morality and homophobia will go the way of polygamy and racism.
Tom

To be fair, the OP asked whether pro-gay Christianity is tenable; I am not sure that SF doubts the ability of Mormonism to discover a new revelation when the timing is right.

 

[Tumah]

Norman: Your question or comment?

Pharisees don't ask non-Rabbis to solve their disagreements. There are already methods in place for solving disputes. And the argument about divorce still existed after Jesus. That was pure uneducated speculation.

 

[leibowde84]

With all respect, do you truly know God's will? Or the next man?

Nope. Never said that I did. No one really does. That is why we have to keep reasoning/thinking about it to discover what it truly is.

 

[suncowiam]

Nope. Never said that I did. No one really does. That is why we have to keep reasoning/thinking about it to discover what it truly is.

With all respect again, there is no reasoning or thinking until you meet him and ask him yourself.

Otherwise its the same process of interpretation, hearsay, and conjectures.

 

[sojourner]

With all respect again, there is no reasoning or thinking until you meet him and ask him yourself.

Otherwise its the same process of interpretation, hearsay, and conjectures.

And when one runs into such interpretation, hearsay and conjecture, one hopes to fill in holes using the best scientific evidence we can muster.