Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[suncowiam]

Transsexualism has nothing to do with homosexuality or sexual orientation. That's an entirely different topic.

This topic has nothing to do with what the majority of Christians believe now, but what ancient Jews and Christians believed about it.

I didn't say it was. It's not an entirely different subject in the case of religion. Religion is anti-gay and anti-trans. Gays happen to be more populous then Trans.

Once this civil movement is done and accepted for Gays, the next will be for Trans. I care not about sexual orientation here. I only care that there is a human being being discriminated against.

Then you are trying to disprove current generation of religious folks concerning how they translate the source compared to generations ago. But then again, what confirmed generations ago that they were correct on any stance? They might have accepted homosexuality and yet they could have been wrong in their translation of the source. So it makes it a better argument that "traditional" religion was pro-gay/trans?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I didn't say it was. It's not an entirely different subject in the case of religion. Religion is anti-gay and anti-trans. Gays happen to be more populous then Trans.

Once this civil movement is done and accepted for Gays, the next will be for Trans. I care not about sexual orientation here. I only care that there is a human being being discriminated against.

This has nothing to do with the thread and, as I said, transsexualism is an entirely different topic.

Then you are trying to disprove current generation of religious folks concerning how they translate the source compared to generations ago. But then again, what confirmed generations ago that they were correct on any stance? They might have accepted homosexuality and yet they could have been wrong in their translation of the source. So it makes it a better argument that "traditional" religion was pro-gay/trans?

No, I'm asking for information so I can check the foundations of a certain argument. Is that a problem?

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm pretty sure he just wants to know what the original manuscripts and traditions actually say.
He's just looking for knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

If that were possible it would have been done already, and all these debates among biblical scholars would be nothing more than something to fill up their day.

 

[Jainarayan]

Norman: Hi Saint Frankenstein, Jesus is quoting from Genesis. I don't know if this will answer your question, but in my opinion Jesus set the record straight that marriage is between one man and one woman. Matthew 19:3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away‍ his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them‍ at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave‍ to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined‍ together, let not man put asunder.

But it doesn't rule out anything else. Where is the word 'only'? They were not asking about something else, they were asking very specifically about a man divorcing his wife.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

It is true that it does not matter all that much to me directly, but I stand by what I said. Sorry if I made it appear like I am minimizing the importance of the matter to you. That was not at all my intention.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If that were possible it would have been done already, and all these debates among biblical scholars would be nothing more than something to fill up their day.

Well that's exactly what they are...

And regardless of that last point, should all personal curiosity just wither away because some higher level scholars came to a few conclusions? He's just asking a question and there are a multitude of people on this forum who can help him find the answers he's looking for.

Trying to pick apart his reasons for doing so, or the folly in doing so, or whatever is kind of pointless, isn't it?

 

[suncowiam]

This has nothing to do with the thread and, as I said, transsexualism is an entirely different topic.


No, I'm asking for information so I can check the foundations of a certain argument. Is that a problem?

Your certain argument is to prove that Religion can sustain homosexuality. You want to prove with dogma from ages ago? that is the problem.

That reasoning is wrong because you have no way to prove that the reasoning for generations past was correct in the first place.

So to answer a question of a "tenable position," where tenable means:
"able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection."

Tradition does not equate to being right. So that stance will not create a pro-gay acceptance in current religion.

I want to create a pro-gay stance on religion as a first step. However, the right way to do it is to assert their source is wrong concerning anti-gay dogmas.

I answered your question. Now disprove it or you're just filtering your responses.

Hey, if you post in public forums then you should expect honest open responses. Do you want to cherry pick your answers or something?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your certain argument is to prove that Religion can sustain homosexuality. You want to prove with dogma from ages ago? that is the problem.

That reasoning is wrong because you have no way to prove that the reasoning for generations past was correct in the first place.

So to answer a question of a "tenable position," where tenable means:
"able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection."

Tradition does not equate to being right. So that stance will not create a pro-gay acceptance in current religion.

I want to create a pro-gay stance on religion as a first step. However, the right way to do it is to assert their source is wrong concerning anti-gay dogmans.

I answered your question. Now disprove it or you're just filtering your responses.

Hey, if you post in public forums then you should expect honest open responses. Do you want to cherry pick your answers or something?

I have no idea what you're blithering about. I created this thread to ask for information, not to defend any view. I don't have a clear view on this at the moment because I'm trying to figure out what the truth of the matter is. So I'm neither pro nor anti homosexuality. Maybe I shouldn't have put it in the debate section.

 

[suncowiam]

Well that's exactly what they are...

And regardless of that last point, should all personal curiosity just wither away because some higher level scholars came to a few conclusions? He's just asking a question and there are a multitude of people on this forum who can help him find the answers he's looking for.

Trying to pick apart his reasons for doing so, or the folly in doing so, or whatever is kind of pointless, isn't it?

My reasoning here is to ensure that the pro-gay stance is asserted correclty. It is not based on religion's acceptance or 180 degree turn on a translation of the bible.

It is because Gays are human beings with civil rights that have shown no harm to society irregardless of any religion or scripture.

 

[suncowiam]

I have no idea what you're blithering about. I created this thread to ask for information, not to defend any view. I don't have a clear view on this at the moment because I'm trying to figure out what the truth of the matter is. So I'm neither pro nor anti homosexuality. Maybe I shouldn't have put it in the debate section.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't put in the DEBATE section if you don't want to get into a discussion about it then get all defensive about it...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't put in the DEBATE section if you don't want to get into a discussion about it then get all defensive about it...

Or maybe you could get on topic and stop rambling about things that have nothing to do with this thread. Or you could leave the thread. Either one is fine with me.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well that's exactly what they are...

And regardless of that last point, should all personal curiosity just wither away because some higher level scholars came to a few conclusions? He's just asking a question and there are a multitude of people on this forum who can help him find the answers he's looking for.

Trying to pick apart his reasons for doing so, or the folly in doing so, or whatever is kind of pointless, isn't it?

No, it's not pointless. My point is that there is no answer. There is no one to give that answer. The RCC and EOC don't say, never have said, being gay is a sin. They both say that (as of right now) marriage is between a man and a woman. Any sex, gay or straight, outside of marriage is sinful. That includes cracking one off. That's it, nothing more. If you're not married, it's a sin to have sex. Do I agree with that? Now, what do you think?

What's pointless is to tilt against that, because no matter what the answer given here is (not that I believe there is one) who's going to Rome? If you don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic, then you have to play by their rules. This isn't Burger King... you can't have it your way. Accept it all, reject it all, or make your own rules and negotiate them with God.

 

[suncowiam]

Or maybe you could get on topic and stop rambling about things that have nothing to do with this thread. Or you could leave the thread. Either one is fine with me.

Tradition does not equate to being right.

Counter argument please?

 

[Mindmaster]

I think this has really transcended the point where the the bible matters and really comes to a question of what each sect believes -- most of them believe their unique faith points are as important as the bible. That being said some denominations believe in a harder stance, some have no tolerance, and some are indifferent or even supportive. I would worry more about that than the old book...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Tradition does not equate to being right.

Counter argument please?

That's not what the thread is about. Go make your own thread.

 

[gsa]

In spite of what many gays (want to) believe, I think David and Jonathan had a very intense 'bromance', but nothing more.

Some of the passages are overstated, but the "love for you that surpasses the love of a woman" passage is what sticks out for many secular scholars, including Saul Olyan, who holds to a fairly traditional interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (in terms of redactors' intent anyway). From an online article about this:

Ackerman notes how David “repudiates his marital relationship with Michal in favor of his relationship with Jonathan,” and she sides with Saul Olyan in viewing David’s comparison of Jonathan’s love to that of women in his eulogy as “extremely peculiar in a covenant context,” leading one inevitably to a “sexual or sexual-emotional interpretation” of that love.

Nothing dispositive. We should remember though that a flat out prohibition on anal sex might have no other implications for other forms of sexual activity, particularly since we know that the Onan incident has nothing to do with the traditional Catholic interpretation.

Like I said, I think that the traditionalists are on slightly firmer ground depending on what kind of assumptions you are making about tradition and intent, but an overstated one. The most liberal interpretations are not, I think, sustainable.

But really I'm mostly a third party outsider to this debate.

 

[gsa]

Thanks. I'll look into what Johnson has to say about it.

Here is a link for you to get started. I think he is pretty intellectually honest about the endeavor, and it comes from a Catholic perspective. Hope it helps.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, it's not pointless. My point is that there is no answer. There is no one to give that answer. The RCC and EOC don't say, never have said, being gay is a sin. They both say that (as of right now) marriage is between a man and a woman. Any sex, gay or straight, outside of marriage is sinful. That includes cracking one off. That's it, nothing more. If you're not married, it's a sin to have sex. Do I agree with that? Now, what do you think?

What's pointless is to tilt against that, because no matter what the answer given here is (not that I believe there is one) who's going to Rome? If you don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic, then you have to play by their rules. This isn't Burger King... you can't have it your way. Accept it all, reject it all, or make your own rules and negotiate them with God.

I gave you a like because I enjoy the humor.

But I disagree with the premise.

I don't think this guy is trying to change the world, or planning to march on the Vatican. He's just gathering information for personal argument's sake, it seem. You and I and everyone else deal with a lot more personal religious beliefs than we will ever encounter on the formal, level, right? What's wrong with having a solid, substantiated, argument prepared for when he has to deal with devout and pious bigots?

I think he nailed it when he said he chose the wrong subforum.

 

[Tumah]

If this helps:
Lev. 18:22
ואת - and
זכר - male
לא - not
תשכב - [second person, male, future tense prefix] lay
משכבי - layings of
אשה - woman
תועבה - abomination
הוא - it

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Staff, please move this thread to Comparative Religion.