Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[columbus]

But if time proves me wrong, I'll admit it and we can have a beer together or maybe even smoke a joint. Because the rules on alcohol and drugs will change long before the rules on sex. Haha.

I expect that teachings about drugs will last longer than teachings about marriage, for two fundamental reasons. Drugs are harder to police, nobody is expecting nonusers to bless their private habits, and everyone can distinguish between a beer or coffee now and again and self destructive addiction.
Not so with sex and marriage, everyone agrees that marriage is a good thing and sex within a marriage is righteous. Homophobes are losing the battle concerning marriage equality because more and more people see that marriage is better for everyone, not just breeding pairs.

You and I will never share a joint. I've been there and done that. Bad idea, this is the voice of experience talking. But I expect that having a beer with you would be fun.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

No, but I teach high school math in an urban school in Texas. I know what young latino Catholics actually believe, and they could care less about traditional church doctrines or negative religious views of homosexuality.

The original question of this thread is about as relevant at phrenology is to cognitive psychology.

Actually, that's another good point. I read somewhere that the newer generation are not as attracted or committed to religion...

 

[dgirl1986]

I am not sure if it matters anymore. There are a lot of laws that seem to be translated correctly but are no longer adhered to by modern christians because they seem more culture based.

 

[Tumah]

I don’t see any difference if divorce was still talked about beyond what I posted; I feel satisfied that I made my point.

You kind of should, because you haven't established this idea as fact, while the existence of later arguments suggest that there is little to your claim and that the passage isn't saying more than it appears to be.

I was a Jew before I joined The Church of Jesus Chrst of Latter Day Saints. You do not know me enough to know what I am educated in.

Whether it is true that you were a Jew or not is irrelevant. Nor did I make any comment towards what you know about Judaism. Although, From the following comment, I can tell that the answer is: not much.

Just as there were different schools of Judaism in the New Testament, it is the same today. What school of Judaism do you affiliate with? For example,

Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic Jews, Haredi Jews, Jews for Jesus, Orthodox Judaism, Modern Orthodox Jews, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Conservative Judaism, Reformed Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, Flexidox Judaism, Chasidism, or Reconstructionist Judaism? Are you a Ashkenazi Khazar Jew? Or Sephardim .or Sephardic Jew, Spanish Jew?

"Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic Jew" is a sub-branch of "Chassidim". Itself a subsect of "Haredi" which is synonymous with "Ultra-Orthodox". "Ultra-Orthodox" fit into the category of "Orthodox Judaism" together with "Modern Orthodox". Technically "flexidox" does as well.
"Jews for Jesus" is not a branch of Judaism, it is a subsect of Baptist Christianity.
Calling Ashkenazi Jews "Khazars", is an antisemitic label not based on reality as borne out by genetic research.
Sephardic Jews are Spanish Jews. Sephard means Spain in Hebrew.
Both Ashkenaz and Sephardic Jews are not branches of Judaism, but of ethnicity. Alongside many others.

Source:

Jesus the Christ Chapter 6: The Meridian of Time

New Testament: Student Study guide Matthew 12: Pharisees Oppose Jesus

Pharisees

Not sure what you wanted me to do with those.

 

[Curious George]

Don't know if you have been referred here but consider reading the thread:

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 | ReligiousForums.com

Member fallingblood did somewhat extensive research into this area, you might want to peruse through his posts.

 

[sojourner]

"Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic Jew" is a sub-branch of "Chassidim". Itself a subsect of "Haredi" which is synonymous with "Ultra-Orthodox". "Ultra-Orthodox" fit into the category of "Orthodox Judaism" together with "Modern Orthodox". Technically "flexidox" does as well.
"Jews for Jesus" is not a branch of Judaism, it is a subsect of Baptist Christianity.
Calling Ashkenazi Jews "Khazars", is an antisemitic label not based on reality as borne out by genetic research.
Sephardic Jews are Spanish Jews. Sephard means Spain in Hebrew.
Both Ashkenaz and Sephardic Jews are not branches of Judaism, but of ethnicity. Alongside many others.

I'm not Jewish, and maybe I'm sticking my big, fat foot in my mouth, but this line of argument sounds a whole lot like "You say 'tomato'; I say 'tomahto'."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, there's "hellfire and brimstone" traditionalist Catholics and "do what you want, God still loves you" liberal Catholics (who are often at odds with the Church's teachings). I don't see what this has to do with what the early Church believed.

If you really want to use the early church as a model, you should be celebrating the Eucharist in graveyards and performing baptisms very differently (i.e. holding the person under water to the point where they feel that they've *literally* "died with Christ").

You'd also have trouble figuring out their views on same-sex marriage, since marriage wasn't celebrated as a sacrament until the Middle Ages.

 

[suncowiam]

Well, I label myself a sinner for all that I do which is contrary to God's will. Yet, I'm not a bigot against myself, nor do I despise myself, nor do I wish myself harm or unhappiness. It's unreasonable to label someone as a bigot simply because they believe in sin, regardless of how they feel about or treat sinners. Again, we're all sinners.

If we are all sinners which I believe is also true in a Christian doctrine, then couldn't a religious business owner deny business to anyone?

How do you draw the line between homsexual sin and innate sin? I see religious business owners inviting you and happily servicing you given your religious background as opposed to homosexuals. Yet, according to yourself and your doctine, everyone should be denied service.

Am I missing something?

 

[suncowiam]

I'm not trying to censor ****. You can take your rambling to any number of other threads about this general topic. Don't try to play games with me. You have an issue but it's not mine. You're going on ignore.

I thought long and hard about this.

You are in fact censoring me by muting. If I broke the rules then I appreciate a designation of the rules or a moderation from an admin or moderator. None of which has occured.

I now find it unethical of you to mute a view that you definitely disagree with and probably find annoying. The emotional part of any debate is irrelevant. It is the logical rhetoric that one puts forward in a debate which I respectfully have done with you. Which I can reiterate with you. What you found off-topic was on topic in a debate form. Your method was misleading and wrong. I asserted that several times with clear examples and reasons as to why.

For you to mute me, is ensuring that you have a one way process of voicing your opinions then shielding yourself from scrutiny and criticism. That is the unethical notion I find in a debate forum.

I'm being very open, straight-forward, and honest with you. I hope we can handle this on our own before moderation comes around.

 

[Scott C.]

If we are all sinners which I believe is also true in a Christian doctrine, then couldn't a religious business owner deny business to anyone?

How do you draw the line between homsexual sin and innate sin? I see religious business owners inviting you and happily servicing you given your religious background as opposed to homosexuals. Yet, according to yourself and your doctine, everyone should be denied service.

Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something. I feel strongly that business are morally obligated and should be legally obligated to serve homosexuals and just about anyone else from any walk of life.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes you are missing something. I feel strongly that business are morally obligated and should be legally obligated to serve homosexuals and just about anyone else from any walk of life.

I appreciate and I agree with your response. I like to continue with another topic if you don't mind.

Concerning marriage. I'm not religious and I'm married to a beautiful wife with 2 kids and another kid on the way. I married my wife not because of a religious belief but because of a traditional upbringing that actually had no religion in it.

I grew up believing that I can join union with another person to form a family unit. I'm just lucky that my wife and I do not have fertility issues. So it just happens that our actions aligned with a religious belief but we didn't act due to religious beliefs. Does that make us right or wrong?

Does marriage have to be a definition defined by religion? If so, then why? What fundamental merit does Religion have to define marriage? History has been wrong plenty of times. Doctrines have been wrong plenty of time. Much of it is defined with the times and the maturity of the generation. What fundamental concept of man-kind now prevents any two individuals regardless of sex from choosing to marry each due to their love for one another?

 

[columbus]

You are in fact censoring me by muting.

He is not really censoring you. He is indulging in the weakest lamest kind of censorship. He is censoring himself.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

He is not really censoring you. He is indulging in the weakest lamest kind of censorship. He is censoring himself.
Tom

I really don't want to get personal with this. =)

If one gets on a debate forum, one needs to expect opposing views. That's all I'm saying. Otherwise, save it for the DIRs...

 

[Sand Dancer]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

The Bible is man made and subject to the culture and knowledge of its authors, so at the time, they had a reason for their beliefs. IMO, science has refuted some of the Bible, so why hang on to outdated ideas? Homosexuality is not a choice, and if someone wants to pretend the Bible is literal and discriminate against gays, then their lives will be shallow because of it.

 

[JoStories]

There’s no tolerance for homosexual acts in the Bible or in private revelation and no support for homosexuality in ancient Jewish or Christian societies, even though it seems to have been okay with people in ancient pagan cultures. There is support for it in much of contemporary secular society, and even growing support within certain Christian Churches. In fact, here’s a cut and paste from a news article:

DETROIT (AP) 20 Jun 14 - The top legislative body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has voted by large margins to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian in the church constitution, adding language that marriage can be the union of "two people," not just "a man and a woman." …

So there’s some pro-gay Christianity, but it‘s people in a church voting on whether God is right or wrong. One more reason to love the Catholic Church, in my opinion -- societal indoctrination doesn’t get to supersede the Holy Spirit. And what's the point anyway of making a church conform to public opinion? Redefining a truth does not make a new truth.

A bright side of the Catholic Church for gays could be that they are welcome in it. We have categories of sin for everyone. Heterosexual pleasures of the flesh are sins too, outside of marriage. The love of a man’s life might be a woman he can’t have, can’t touch, can’t even desire without sinning. No slack will be given. There’s no getting a pass for lying, stealing, pride, envy, gluttony, or any other of our innumerable sins and potential sins.

We’re all a bunch of sinners, each with his or her own particular temptations, weaknesses, and sinful attachments. We can only fight against ours, support others fighting against theirs, ask for forgiveness as needed, and trust in the Divine Mercy. We can help each other get to heaven.

I really wish some would stop,with the all inclusive 'we' when they make statements such as 'we're all a bunch of sinners'. I do not believe in sin. It's a man made concept invented to coerce people into doing what a bunch of elder church members about 2000 years ago thought were good societal rules. Furthermore, until you can prove these is a 'heaven', you cannot speak for all of us about getting there. As for what the bible had to say about sex and gender, it, too, was written by men and I don't live my life by a book written by men 2000 years ago.

 

[JoStories]

If I may, is there any clear reason to believe that Church doctrine is not meant to develop and improve as social understanding does?

An excellent question. And one wonders by they have not done so. We saw some progress with John Paul 2 but it was then undermined by Benedict. And as I just stated, why is society living by rules made by men 2000 years ago? IMO, it makes no sense.

 

[JoStories]

Yes, there is a clear reason. Social understanding is very changeable and not necessarily right. God never changes and is always right. Church doctrine is infallible on matters of faith and morals because it is always guided by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said it would be.

Which God? Yours? Speaking incredibly frankly, I find your version of God, which I further believe to be bunk, is monstrous. God, IMO, is better and bigger than that and fully capable of endearing He/She/It to all faiths. And church doctrine does not apply to the laws of this land nor my life. It might to you, and mores the power to you if you wish to live by those standards. I prefer a life of compassion, love and giving and not one spent tap dancing trying to live up to rules made by men.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He is not really censoring you. He is indulging in the weakest lamest kind of censorship. He is censoring himself.
Tom

???

 

[JoStories]

How have his credentials been called into question? The guy is a professor of the New Testament and has a Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary.

And he responded to that here: http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNardelliResponse.pdf

I have to agree with the first poster, gsa. Gagnon' spot is biased IMO. My approach to my studies comes from a less biased POV, as I am not really a me,her of any particular faith. Once you are, scholarly work is biased automatically. I try to leave my opinions out, as much as possible and gagnon does not.

 

[JoStories]

I was also going to approach it from this same angle, so thank you for bringing this up.

Homosexuals say their orientation is not a choice. I honestly don't know. I haven't read any research to suggest anything. Going solely with this which I agree with actually, because I didn't choose to be a heterosexual, then this is innate to the individual. They cannot change it.

Correct. Psychologists have tried via myriad methods to 'cure' gays but all to no avail. And there is some belief in a genetic component to being gay.