Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Imaginary_Friends]

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

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.

Oh ok. So not only do you get to move the goal post, you then get to define the point at which the goal posts become static again. So it's open to 1 on 1 persons? Why not 2 men and one woman? 1 man and 4 women? 1 woman and a horse?

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

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

I don't know if you are trolling or obtuse beyond reasoning. Paul and other biblical contributors may have conflated homosexual acts with homosexuals, but it is ridiculous to think they did not understand homosexuality. The surrounding civilizations at that time understood it quite well. I would even contend the Hebrews took a strong stance on the matter to differentiate themselves from those who potentially would be encroaching on their civilization.

They simply conflated the two because there was no logical reason not too.

The biblical narrative doesn't address homosexuality.

You're a special one aren't you?

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.

Seventh printing of the DSM-II, 1974[edit]
As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”[27]

This activism occurred in the context of a broader anti-psychiatry movement that had come to the fore in the 1960s and was challenging the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis. Anti-psychiatry activists protested at the same APA conventions, with some shared slogans and intellectual foundations.[28][29]

Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey (homosexual) and Evelyn Hooker, (Jewess) the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of “sexual orientation disturbance”.[30]

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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

Because the OP is a Christian asking questions to a biblical narrative, not whether the bible's standing is true or not. Comprehend now? Obviously someone who is Christian believes the bible was inspired by the deity conceptualized by it. You would have to be a imbecile to think the bible was created by men on their own and still believe in the deity conceptualized by it.

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 ...

I wish I could say this the first time but there is seems to be some comprehension issues with some other posters. I am an Atheist. I believe the bible holds no truth in the existence of the deity conceptualized therein. The bible is full of scientific errors amongst many. Nor does it matter what my personal secular beliefs are towards homosexuality.

The only relevant issue here is, what the OP asked in regards to, is being a pro-gay a tenable Christian position. No. That position is obviously based on the biblical narrative. All the other things about slavery and genocide are red herrings and irrelevant. That's not what the OP is asking. Not to mention those are poor analogies because its not a sin to NOT possess slaves or its not a sin to NOT commit genocide. You guys keep trying to conflate and shame the OP's position that if he/she accepts the anti-gay aspect they must accept the pro-slavery ect ect positions. No one gives a **** what you conclusion is. Nor do they care what you're opinion is on the scientific inaccuracies of the bible are.

The only relevant issue here is, what the OP asked in regards to, is being a pro-gay a tenable Christian position.

I wish I could say you were the first person I've encountered who does not possess critical thinking skills, but sadly...

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.

Don't worry, you hang in there and you'll get it!

 

[sojourner]

Oh ok. So not only do you get to move the goal post, you then get to define the point at which the goal posts become static again. So it's open to 1 on 1 persons? Why not 2 men and one woman? 1 man and 4 women?

What a ding-dong thing to say. The Tour de France is open to multiple-rider teams.

Jordan fades back... he shoots... and that's the ball game!

I don't know if you are trolling or obtuse beyond reasoning.

Pot, meet Kettle.

it is ridiculous to think they did not understand homosexuality.

Just as it's ridiculous to think they thought that people's emotions lay in the heart.

The surrounding civilizations at that time understood it quite well.

I don't think so. Not as an orientation.

I would even contend the Hebrews took a strong stance on the matter to differentiate themselves from those who potentially would be encroaching on their civilization.

You would be mistaken.

They simply conflated the two because there was no logical reason not too.

Oh, you mean like the reason that they didn't know the orientation existed?

You're a special one aren't you?

Only to the extent that I've obviously spent more time dealing with the bible on a scholastic level than you have.

Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey (homosexual) and Evelyn Hooker, (Jewess) the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of “sexual orientation disturbance”.[30]

This doesn't support your argument.

Because the OP is a Christian asking questions to a biblical narrative, not whether the bible's standing is true or not. Comprehend now? Obviously someone who is Christian believes the bible was inspired by the deity conceptualized by it. You would have to be a imbecile to think the bible was created by men on their own and still believe in the deity conceptualized by it.

Why? There are many ways to conceptualize God, and absolutely no plausible reason to think "God wrote the bible." Are you being obtuse just to hear your own head rattle, or are you a fundamentalist-atheist by accident?

I am an Atheist. I believe the bible holds no truth in the existence of the deity conceptualized therein. The bible is full of scientific errors amongst many. Nor does it matter what my personal secular beliefs are towards homosexuality.

And yet you argue inanely for the other side. Which is like Edwin Hubbell arguing for a flat earth.

 

[sojourner]

The only relevant issue here is, what the OP asked in regards to, is being a pro-gay a tenable Christian position. No. That position is obviously based on the biblical narrative.

That position is obviously based on one particular understanding of the biblical narrative. Since a) the texts, themselves, are polyvalent, 2) Xy is hardly cohesive or unified in its various theological and doctrinal understandings, and 3) the church has never historically given the bible complete authority, I don't see how stating one position, based entirely on a tenuous reading of 3 or 4 passages can even begin to constitute "what the church believes," or even "what must be believed to be a Xian." So, your argument fails on that reality alone. Perhaps a pro-gay stance among those denominations who 1) hold a very narrow view of theological meaning, 2) give the bible fully authority, 3) practice a strenuous piety might not be feasible, but you have to realize that those denominations are neither in the mainstream, nor in the majority.

The only relevant issue here is, what the OP asked in regards to, is being a pro-gay a tenable Christian position.

Yes. It is. Especially if one considers that Jesus placed a very high priority on loving acts (and even said that those acts encompassed all the law).

All the other things about slavery and genocide are red herrings and irrelevant.

No, they're not, because they're cogent to the argument that very little in the bible is cut-and-dried, with only one possible interpretation. They're also cogent to the argument that, as societal norms shift, interpretations of the texts tend to shift, as well.

I wish I could say you were the first person I've encountered who does not possess critical thinking skills, but sadly...

Aaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! I... Oh!... <gasps for breath, wipes eyes, slaps knee, holds side> I just blew milk out my nose when I read that. "Does not possess critical thinking skills, indeed!" This is the poorest excuse for an ad hominem I may have ever seen! Aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

 

[McBell]

Aaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! I... Oh!... <gasps for breath, wipes eyes, slaps knee, holds side> I just blew milk out my nose when I read that. "Does not possess critical thinking skills, indeed!" This is the poorest excuse for an ad hominem I may have ever seen! Aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Come now, Sojourner, EVERYONE knows if you disagree with imaginary friends you are clearly not in possession of critical thinking skills.

 

[sojourner]

Come now, Sojourner, EVERYONE knows if you disagree with imaginary friends you are clearly not in possession of critical thinking skills.

And here I was under the impression that everyone knows she's just a second-hand Rose...

 

[Vishvavajra]

I don't know if you are trolling or obtuse beyond reasoning. Paul and other biblical contributors may have conflated homosexual acts with homosexuals, but it is ridiculous to think they did not understand homosexuality. The surrounding civilizations at that time understood it quite well. I would even contend the Hebrews took a strong stance on the matter to differentiate themselves from those who potentially would be encroaching on their civilization.

They simply conflated the two because there was no logical reason not too.[sic]

Far from trolling or obtuse, what Sojourner is saying is in line with classical scholarship. The surrounding cultures (which at the time of Jesus and Paul pretty much means the Hellenic culture) did not have an understanding of homosexuality that resembles ours. My department offers a course on Greek homosexuality, incidentally, and it tends to be a paradigm shift for students, since the basic conceptual framework that ancient people were using to approach the issue was quite different from the one that people employ today. Their concept of marriage was also radically different. These sorts of attitudes can't be lifted from one time period and culture and simply plugged into another.

On top of that, there's the fact that the laws of Leviticus prohibit exactly the same kind of homosexual practice that was considered shameful in Hellenic culture (i.e. for a man to play the "feminine" role) and no others, which indicates that far from setting thems apart, the Hebrews' attitude towards sex and gender roles was very typical for the ancient Mediterranean.

There's a great deal of scholarly literature on the subject. People ought to educate themselves about it if they're going to start making claims about what ancient people thought.

 

[sojourner]

Far from trolling or obtuse, what Sojourner is saying is in line with classical scholarship. The surrounding cultures (which at the time of Jesus and Paul pretty much means the Hellenic culture) did not have an understanding of homosexuality that resembles ours. My department offers a course on Greek homosexuality, incidentally, and it tends to be a paradigm shift for students, since the basic conceptual framework that ancient people were using to approach the issue was quite different from the one that people employ today. Their concept of marriage was also radically different. These sorts of attitudes can't be lifted from one time period and culture and simply plugged into another.

On top of that, there's the fact that the laws of Leviticus prohibit exactly the same kind of homosexual practice that was considered shameful in Hellenic culture (i.e. for a man to play the "feminine" role) and no others, which indicates that far from setting thems apart, the Hebrews' attitude towards sex and gender roles was very typical for the ancient Mediterranean.

There's a great deal of scholarly literature on the subject. People ought to educate themselves about it if they're going to start making claims about what ancient people thought.

And also if they're going to set about to curtail the complete socialization and acceptance of others.

As a curious addition to all this, there are certain tactics that have been historically utilized in perpetrating violence against both blacks, on the part of the US, and Jews, on the part of the NAZIs. These selfsame tactics are also currently being utilized in perpetrating violence against the LGBT+ community and same sex couples.

 

[Vishvavajra]

As a curious addition to all this, there are certain tactics that have been historically utilized in perpetrating violence against both blacks, on the part of the US, and Jews, on the part of the NAZIs. These selfsame tactics are also currently being utilized in perpetrating violence against the LGBT+ community and same sex couples.

Agreed, and this deserves emphasis. When people say that the stuff about slavery, anti-Semitism, and racial segregation is irrelevant to this topic, they're not looking at the totality of the situation. This is the same song, slightly different words. And yes, the social ramifications are relevant, because if Christianity really were incompatible with social justice, then people with any moral backbone would be forced to conclude that Christianity was a false religion and needed to die. In fact, I think that's why some atheists in this thread are so interested in arguing that it is incompatible.

But the fact is that if Christianity is incompatible with full acceptance of homosexuals, then it's also incompatible with accepting women as equal citizens, it's incompatible with the abolition of slavery, and one could argue (as people have) that it's also incompatible with desegregation and "race mixing." People don't get to pick out one thing and say that's still off the table while simultaneously admitting that the other things were just social conventions of the time. And while we're at it, what about the fundamentalist claim that Christianity is incompatible with anything other than young-earth creationism? In fact, if we take Genesis literally, the earth is flat, and the sky is a solid dome that keeps the water above it from coming in and flushing us all away into the Deep.

Contrary to the fundamentalist view, which is the only one that's truly untenable, Christianity is what Christians say it is, and millions of Christians today say that it's perfectly accommodating to the love and acceptance of people who happen to have a minority sexual orientation and that there is in fact no inherent harm in what they do. The only argument against that position requires a fundamentalist approach that is ultimately self-defeating, since the Bible says a lot of things that fundamentalists need to ignore in order to keep living their lives the way they want to. As for the Christians who see clearly, they're not bound to the letter of a text written thousands of years ago by people who didn't understand things the way we do and so weren't even speaking in our terms. Love is supposed to be the guide. Those who are guided by the Spirit make decisions based on Love, not on words.

 

[Nietzsche]

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?

"Marriage" is a social construct far more ancient than Christianity or Judaism, and it exists independently of religion in general. It was a monetary arrangement only, where a father would be paid in some way for the loss of a woman or a son to another family. "Marriage" is whatever society says it is, not whatever the Abrahamics feel like enforcing today.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And also if they're going to set about to curtail the complete socialization and acceptance of others.

As a curious addition to all this, there are certain tactics that have been historically utilized in perpetrating violence against both blacks, on the part of the US, and Jews, on the part of the NAZIs. These selfsame tactics are also currently being utilized in perpetrating violence against the LGBT+ community and same sex couples.

And I must say this. When some Christians put Muslims to task for denouncing extremist Islamic rhetoric and behavior, but then look the other way or offer quaint platitudes when hateful dehumanizing rhetoric or behavior occurs toward women and LGBTQs from the Christian community, the hypocrisy and silence is deafening.

 

[Vishvavajra]

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.

It's a huge problem. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone claim inspiration from the Holy Spirit to justify their hateful, self-righteous, narrow-minded interpretation...

If the Holy Spirit is anything, it's the part of us that is greater than us, that can go beyond our petty prejudices and self-referential biases. It's the part that is capable of infinite love without discrimination, the part that knows deep down that we are not truly separate from other people or the world we live in. In short, it's our capacity to be more than we think we are, to the point where even pain and death cannot touch us. Buddhists would call this "Buddha Nature." Paul calls it "God within us."

If people think that the Holy Spirit is telling them to discriminate against people, or behave in an unloving manner in any respect, then they are simply wrong. What they are mistaking for the Holy Spirit is just a gut-level feeling arising from their unexamined biases and emotional impulses. Feeling very strongly about something is not a sign of the Holy Spirit, which precedes emotion altogether. This distinction is crucial, and there would be much less awfulness in Christianity if more people understood it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Fun fact time: when the Tour de France started, it was a 5-stage race held mostly at night. Team members were not allowed to pace each other, and nobody was allowed to repair the bikes but the riders. Woodrn wheel rims were required for "safety" reasons for the first 30 years of the race.

Is this anything like the Tour de France today?

The Tour de France has changed with the times... to a remarkable degree when you think about it.

 

[sojourner]

Here ya go. This is interesting:
Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

The opinions vary down a liberal/conservative split. Fundamentalists/evangelicals against, mainline/liberals for. Even Orthodox, RCC and Jews voted mostly for. And RCCs are, by far, the largest slice of Xy. Looks like, as far as the numbers go, pro-gay is a tenable position.

 

[Izdaari]

Hi! I'm coming in late to this thread, having been away a year or so. I have some experience with this subject, having been an openly bisexual woman for all my adult life, and a Christian for all but the first few years of that. I definitely think it's possible to be a Christian who accepts gays, and even to be a gay Christian, since I do exist. That's all I wanted to say for now, and I'll read the rest of the thread before commenting further, but I suspect most of what I have to contribute has already been said. Maybe... we shall see.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fun fact time: when the Tour de France started, it was a 5-stage race held mostly at night. Team members were not allowed to pace each other, and nobody was allowed to repair the bikes but the riders. Woodrn wheel rims were required for "safety" reasons for the first 30 years of the race.

Is this anything like the Tour de France today?

The Tour de France has changed with the times... to a remarkable degree when you think about it.

Heh... the more I think about the Tour de France, the more I think that it's an excellent metaphor.

Imagine if, back when the race was first proposed, the reaction was "no! The intended purpose of French roads is the transport of people and goods by horse and wagon! We aren't going to 'redefine roads' by closing them to traffic - their true purpose - just to let cyclists ride in a big circle."

 

[sojourner]

Heh... the more I think about the Tour de France, the more I think that it's an excellent metaphor.

Imagine if, back when the race was first proposed, the reaction was "no! The intended purpose of French roads is the transport of people and goods by horse and wagon! We aren't going to 'redefine roads' by closing them to traffic - their true purpose - just to let cyclists ride in a big circle."

Problem is, it works against the one who used it to prove his argument...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I feel that anything that is constituted of, as it's basis, "belief" is tenable, yes. Humanity has been defending all manner of beliefs with a "you can't disprove it!" attitude for millennia. It seems to have worked (more or less) so far...

For instance, let's say you're gay and want to open up a church that openly accepts homosexuals, and even go so far as to publish your own works that state that homosexuality is not a sin. I don't know what the rules are for editing The Bible itself anymore - that sort of thing was done pretty heavily throughout history for quite some time, but there may be some modern "rule" against publishing works that openly plagiarize much of The Bible, and make their own edits - I have no idea (nor do I want to). At any rate - my main point being: You want a church that says homosexuality is okay? Start one. Done. Who is to stop you? Who cares what all the others say? Honestly? Your beliefs are not up to them. And if you can publish an altered Bible - rip out all those parts you don't like! Rest assured that plenty of people did this same sort of thing before you.

 

[sojourner]

I feel that anything that is constituted of, as it's basis, "belief" is tenable, yes. Humanity has been defending all manner of beliefs with a "you can't disprove it!" attitude for millennia. It seems to have worked (more or less) so far...

For instance, let's say you're gay and want to open up a church that openly accepts homosexuals, and even go so far as to publish your own works that state that homosexuality is not a sin. I don't know what the rules are for editing The Bible itself anymore - that sort of thing was done pretty heavily throughout history for quite some time, but there may be some modern "rule" against publishing works that openly plagiarize much of The Bible, and make their own edits - I have no idea (nor do I want to). At any rate - my main point being: You want a church that says homosexuality is okay? Start one. Done. Who is to stop you? Who cares what all the others say? Honestly? Your beliefs are not up to them. And if you can publish an altered Bible - rip out all those parts you don't like! Rest assured that plenty of people did this same sort of thing before you.

I'm having trouble understanding why anything would have to be changed, rewritten, edited, or plagiarized in order to have a church that's openly welcoming?

 

[Izdaari]

I'm having trouble understanding why anything would have to be changed, rewritten, edited, or plagiarized in order to have a church that's openly welcoming?

I'm having trouble understanding why anything would have to be changed, rewritten, edited, or plagiarized in order to have a church that's openly welcoming?

"Open and affirming" churches, such as my Episcopalian and Lutheran (ELCA) church, do in fact use the standard Bible with no changes. Any legit translation will do, though we Anglican folk tend to prefer the NRSV.

 

[sojourner]

"Open and affirming" churches, such as my Episcopalian and Lutheran (ELCA) church, do in fact use the standard Bible with no changes. Any legit translation will do, though we Anglican folk tend to prefer the NRSV.

Right! No need for "changes." Just a need to prioritize what we hold as allegiances.