Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Katzpur]

They've changed their mind on this before.
Their original marriage position was the most Scriptural one. Then they changed to the 19th century position. Soon they will change again to the 21st.

Just wondering how you know what the LDS position is going to be? Do you have some kind of an "in" I'm not aware of?

 

[columbus]

Just wondering how you know what the LDS position is going to be? Do you have some kind of an "in" I'm not aware of?

I know what the 21st century position on marriage is. An ideal marriage is a mutually supportive, exclusive, and committed relationship between two competent adults. And I expect that the family values and flexibility of teaching will lead them to this truth sooner than many other denominations.
Tom

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm not sure what Paul said about it if anything, but I think it might be a case of the moralist who wrote the gospels not wanting to deal with the problem. Actually I think the moralist probably met homosexual people in their lifetime and found them to be good upstanding people, and so basically they didn't write anything about it, they dodged it completely.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

You are joking, right? Why in the Gods' names would I want to marry someone I am not attracted to?

You are joking, right? Why in the Gods' names would try to marry a man when marriage is between a man and a woman?

Would you try to enter the Tour de France using a motorbike? That's not what the Tour de France is.

I don't think you could possibly have missed the point by a greater distance. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is this really such a major blind spot for you?
Even intentionally obtuse doesn't begin to cover this. There is no way you don't see what's wrong with this statement. My cat just saw it and made a face.

Do-you-understand-now?

The ancients were against homosexual acts -- not homosexuality.

Here we go again. They were against both. They just didn't think anyone could be that daft not to comprehend.

What's next, you going to tell us they were only against stealing, not borrowing with no intent to return? You are only fooling yourself. Did you bother to read Roman's 1:26? How do you reconcile that?

The Pope and a few radical fundigelicals aren't a broad cross-section of Xy.

The Pope is Christianity. There is no radicalism involved. The Pope is someone who has not only spent their lives in research, but spent it with other scholars, who have access to close-to/ original materials and studied and become fluent in these archaic languages. I'd say his interpretations carry more weight then some arm-chair liberal who learns a Hebrew word and thinks they can translate the Old Testament. "Look yada has 600 different possible meanings, I'll use the one that doesn't give verses anti-gay ramifications."

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.

If you notice most of the pro-gay side couldn't stay on topic. The topic is what the biblical narrative says about homosexuality. Not what liberals think. Not how normal being sodomized is. Not comparing homosexuality to racial minority discrimination. Not how the DSM removed homosexuality from list of mental disorders at the behest of liberal intimidation.

Almost all of the authoritarian bodies interpret the bible to not accept homosexuality. The reality is you can deduce this yourself just using common sense, which is clearly lacking on this thread.

Going on the pretense that the God of the bible exists, the bible is his inspired word and he did not have anything against homosexuals;

There would be nothing in the bible that singled out homosexuals at all!
There would not be laws and against same-gender sexual relationships at all!
There would not strict (death) penalties against same-gender sexual relationships at all!
There would not be repetitious negative mentioning of homosexuals or homosexual acts at all!
Finally if the god of the bible did exist, he would know his bible would have been interpreted this way and would have made changes to it otherwise.

 

[sojourner]

You are joking, right? Why in the Gods' names would try to marry a man when marriage is between a man and a woman?

Apparently it's not just that, because there are homosexual marriages in several states and countries.

Would you try to enter the Tour de France using a motorbike? That's not what the Tour de France is.

Wrong metaphor. The tour de France is open to people who ride Bianchi, Specialized, Orbea, Cannonade, Specialized, Trek, Giant. IOW: people who want to race bicycles. The Tour de France is a bicycle race, not a motocross. Marriage is marriage, not a sewing club. It's open to men & women, women & women, men & men. IOW: people who want to be married.

Here we go again. They were against both.

They couldn't be against what they didn't know existed.

What's next, you going to tell us they were only against stealing, not borrowing with no intent to return? You are only fooling yourself. Did you bother to read Roman's 1:26? How do you reconcile that?

Paul thought it was unnatural, because he didn't know a homosexual orientation existed.

The Pope is Christianity. There is no radicalism involved. The Pope is someone who has not only spent their lives in research, but spent it with other scholars, who have access to close-to/ original materials and studied and become fluent in these archaic languages. I'd say his interpretations carry more weight then some arm-chair liberal who learns a Hebrew word and thinks they can translate the Old Testament. "Look yada has 600 different possible meanings, I'll use the one that doesn't give verses anti-gay ramifications."

The pope isn't Xy. The Pope is the bishop of Rome. And I'd be more than willing to bet that the people I studied with know more Greek and more Hebrew (and are less biased) than he. The Pope is constrained to maintain the party line. He is less free to to be unbiased.

The topic is what the biblical narrative says about homosexuality.

The biblical narrative doesn't address homosexuality.

Not what liberals think.

It's not "what liberals think," it's "what's appropriate given today's scientific and cultural climate."

Not how the DSM removed homosexuality from list of mental disorders at the behest of liberal intimidation.

Oh, so it was OK for the church to persecute ancient astronomers to insist that the earth was round and orbited around the sun -- because that's what the bible says? Forget what science is saying. And, as to your obtuse comment about "liberal intimidation" where the DSM IV is concerned, it's completely delusional to think that's the case.

Almost all of the authoritarian bodies interpret the bible to not accept homosexuality.

It took a long time for them to accept that the world was round, too. Doesn't mean it's not round.

Going on the pretense that the bible is [God's] inspired word

Why would you want to proceed on a pretense that is not supported by the evidence?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Do-you-understand-now?

All I understand is that you're a legendary master of begging the question. "Marriage is between a man and a woman; therefore we can conclude that it's between a man and a woman." Why is logic a foreign language to reactionaries?

Almost all of the authoritarian bodies interpret the bible to not accept homosexuality.

True, but something tells me what you said wasn't what you meant to say.

Finally if the god of the bible did exist, he would know his bible would have been interpreted this way and would have made changes to it otherwise.

He didn't come down and change the endorsement of slavery or the subjugation of women. He didn't change the parts that would be used to justify violence. He didn't remove the bits that people would later use to justify racial discrimination and apartheid. Why would he have changed this one thing? All this line of argument can lead to is the conclusion that he doesn't exist. Or perhaps a recognition that the fundamentalist views of God and the Bible simply can't be true to begin with. In fact I would say that atheism is the only logical end point when one starts with the premises of the fundamentalist.

The fact is that there are a lot of Christians who recognize that there are a lot of hateful things in the Bible—a.k.a. the ones who actually read it. The fundamentalist approach to the Bible is not only not the sole approach in the Christian tradition, it's not even mainstream. Even the Pope doesn't buy it. You use him in one breath while pushing a theory of God and the Bible that traditional Christianity doesn't endorse. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it, right up to implying that a religion you claim not to believe in should trump empirical evidence. Galileo's ghost would like a word with you.

I wish I could say you were the first Christian fundamentalist atheist I've encountered, but sadly ...

 

[JoStories]

You are joking, right? Why in the Gods' names would try to marry a man when marriage is between a man and a woman?

Would you try to enter the Tour de France using a motorbike? That's not what the Tour de France is.



Do-you-understand-now?




Here we go again. They were against both. They just didn't think anyone could be that daft not to comprehend.

What's next, you going to tell us they were only against stealing, not borrowing with no intent to return? You are only fooling yourself. Did you bother to read Roman's 1:26? How do you reconcile that?



The Pope is Christianity. There is no radicalism involved. The Pope is someone who has not only spent their lives in research, but spent it with other scholars, who have access to close-to/ original materials and studied and become fluent in these archaic languages. I'd say his interpretations carry more weight then some arm-chair liberal who learns a Hebrew word and thinks they can translate the Old Testament. "Look yada has 600 different possible meanings, I'll use the one that doesn't give verses anti-gay ramifications."



If you notice most of the pro-gay side couldn't stay on topic. The topic is what the biblical narrative says about homosexuality. Not what liberals think. Not how normal being sodomized is. Not comparing homosexuality to racial minority discrimination. Not how the DSM removed homosexuality from list of mental disorders at the behest of liberal intimidation.

Almost all of the authoritarian bodies interpret the bible to not accept homosexuality. The reality is you can deduce this yourself just using common sense, which is clearly lacking on this thread.

Going on the pretense that the God of the bible exists, the bible is his inspired word and he did not have anything against homosexuals;

There would be nothing in the bible that singled out homosexuals at all!
There would not be laws and against same-gender sexual relationships at all!
There would not strict (death) penalties against same-gender sexual relationships at all!
There would not be repetitious negative mentioning of homosexuals or homosexual acts at all!
Finally if the god of the bible did exist, he would know his bible would have been interpreted this way and would have made changes to it otherwise.

Every single word of this post is opinion and not fact. There are laws against gays only in countries such as those in the Middle East, which is largely Muslim and that faith is going through the same thing that chrisitianity did 500 or so years ago. Or iow, they will either grow out of that or people will leave the faith. Further, the only thing mentioned is Leviticus is male to make sex. NOT homosexuality. You do realize there is a difference, non? Do you think that marriage is ONLY about sex? If so, I feel very sorry for your partner. And if you make a statement such as 'most authoritative bodies' you need to provide a reference for same. What authoritative bodies? Mostly those who are Christian apologists? And if that is the case, they do not count here as they are very clearly biased. Over 1/2 of the states in the U.S. Accept and support SSM as constitutionally a right of all peoples, including those who are gay. Even those states in the southeast are now accepting this. Again, your post is opinion and nothing more.

 

[sojourner]

All I understand is that you're a legendary master of begging the question. "Marriage is between a man and a woman; therefore we can conclude that it's between a man and a woman." Why is logic a foreign language to reactionaries?


True, but something tells me what you said wasn't what you meant to say.


He didn't come down and change the endorsement of slavery or the subjugation of women. He didn't change the parts that would be used to justify violence. He didn't remove the bits that people would later use to justify racial discrimination and apartheid. Why would he have changed this one thing? All this line of argument can lead to is the conclusion that he doesn't exist. Or perhaps a recognition that the fundamentalist views of God and the Bible simply can't be true to begin with. In fact I would say that atheism is the only logical end point when one starts with the premises of the fundamentalist.

The fact is that there are a lot of Christians who recognize that there are a lot of hateful things in the Bible—a.k.a. the ones who actually read it. The fundamentalist approach to the Bible is not only not the sole approach in the Christian tradition, it's not even mainstream. Even the Pope doesn't buy it. You use him in one breath while pushing a theory of God and the Bible that traditional Christianity doesn't endorse. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it, right up to implying that a religion you claim not to believe in should trump empirical evidence. Galileo's ghost would like a word with you.

I wish I could say you were the first Christian fundamentalist atheist I've encountered, but sadly ...

BOO-YAH!!

 

[Muffled]

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.

I don't believe that past history guarantees correct interpretation, There certainly enough aberrant views even in anciient times, gnostics for instance.

I don't believe the modern intrepretations that homosexuality is OK are correct. I believe the interpretations are based on wishful thinking .

 

[Muffled]

Tradition is important to me as a Catholic. I'm not a fan of changing things just because the modern world thinks we should. (I know you disagree with that and I vehemently disagree with you on that point, so let's not get bogged down with that.) Either way, I would like to see if my question can be answered.

I believe this is contrary to the way Jesus viewed tradition. He figured that a wrong tradition should be thrown out in favor of the truth. However I believe modernity does not guarantee truth any more than tradition.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I don't believe the modern intrepretations that homosexuality is OK are correct. I believe the interpretations are based on wishful thinking .

I, on the other hand, have yet to see a cogent argument that it's not OK. "I think I read it in a book somewhere" doesn't hold water as a moral rubric. In fact that's one one of the main points of Jesus's sermons.

I believe this is contrary to the way Jesus viewed tradition. He figured that a wrong tradition should be thrown out in favor of the truth. However I believe modernity does not guarantee truth any more than tradition.

True. The real rubric is whether the tradition expresses love, which is the true foundation of morality and, according to Jesus, the whole of the law. If it's not an expression of love, throw it out and replace it with something that is. Modern attitudes can often be just as unloving as ancient ones, but the trend towards greater civil rights for minorities, homosexuals included, is definitely a step in the direction of love.

 

[Jainarayan]

Would you try to enter the Tour de France using a motorbike? That's not what the Tour de France is.

I scarcely know where to begin to point out the epic fail in that comment. Epic fail is epic.

If I were not a cyclist I would not be entering the Tour de France using anything, so as a man attracted to other men, why would I marry a woman? It would make a mockery of the very thing people are trying to "preserve"? That's not what marriage is.

 

[Nakosis]

I think people interpret the Bible according to their needs and there is no true earthly authority to say otherwise.

If you want to argue against homosexuality you can interpret the Bible against it. To argue for it, you can interpret the Bible to support it or at least not denounce it.

Christians usually claim the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretations. This just gives leave for people to interpret according to their "feelings" and claim guidance from the HS whether there is any truth to it or not.

Your looking for the truth of the biblical position, I really don't think there is any to be found, just opinion. So you follow Christ to the best of your ability according to what you feel is right.

If your best is not good enough for God, too bad. If you did your best to understand and follow the truth, can even God expect more from you?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are joking, right? Why in the Gods' names would try to marry a man when marriage is between a man and a woman?

That is one definition of Christian marriage. We have all manor of non-christian, Non-Jewish and non-Islamic marriages. We have secular marriages. We have pagan marriages, we have Hindu, Buddhist, star wars you name it. Just because your narrow definition of marriage excludes homosexuals it does not mean that the term "marriage" excludes homosexuals. The only term that really matters is legally married. That is where things get important. And that is a purely secular notion in America.

 

[columbus]

I believe this is contrary to the way Jesus viewed tradition. He figured that a wrong tradition should be thrown out in favor of the truth. However I believe modernity does not guarantee truth any more than tradition.

One of my favorite things about Jesus is His willingness to contradict Scripture and traditional human authorities when they're wrong.

Modern Christians don't get that any better than the Pharisees of His day. And for the same reasons.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I believe this is contrary to the way Jesus viewed tradition. He figured that a wrong tradition should be thrown out in favor of the truth. However I believe modernity does not guarantee truth any more than tradition.

One of my favorite things about Jesus is His willingness to contradict Scripture and traditional human authorities when they're wrong.

Modern Christians don't get that any better than the Pharisees of His day. And for the same reasons.
Tom

 

[Katzpur]

We have all manor of non-christian, Non-Jewish and non-Islamic marriages.

Monk of Reason, you're clearly not a Monk of Spelling.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Monk of Reason, you're clearly not a Monk of Spelling.

I am not. I am actually dyslexic. You should see what my posts look like before I review them with spellcheck.

 

[Katzpur]

I am not. I am actually dyslexic. You should see what my posts look like before I review them with spellcheck.

LOL! You're forgiven then. Spellcheck wouldn't have picked up "manor" as being incorrect and it wouldn't have suggested "manner" as an alternative spelling.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

LOL! You're forgiven then. Spellcheck wouldn't have picked up "manor" as being incorrect and it wouldn't have suggested "manner" as an alternative spelling.

Ah. Good catch. thank you.