Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Saint Frankenstein]

If this thread isn't moved to Comparative Religion, I'm going to disown it and let you all continue to wreck it with your off topic nonsense. I'm fed up with this ****.

 

[sojourner]

Actually i dont really give a toss about what Jews did or didnt. What Bible says is importanter than what jews did or didnt.

The texts reflect the perspectives and beliefs of the Jews at the time of writing.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem with this approach is that it can change back to a more perverse form. The process is still the same, interpration and faith. This is the foundation of religion. If the process does not change, then the same errors will occur in future generations. Maybe not with homosexuals or trans, but some other unfortunate minority group or minority beliefs.

That will only happen if we allow it to happen. It's a risk, but it can be mitigated.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not arguing that Christians should own slaves, but I have been trying to point out this hypocrisy.

It was routine in my ex's Catholic church for women to do readings during mass, despite the fact that the Bible says that women should stay silent in church and not teach men. I'm sure that, given enough time, they'll come up with some revisionist interpretation to let them claim that "authentic" Christianity was never really anti-gay the same way they've done with slavery and the nastier misogyny from the Church's past that they now conveniently ignore.

The ancient church was never "anti-gay," because, for the ancients, there was no such thing as a gay orientation.

 

[suncowiam]

If this thread isn't moved to Comparative Religion, I'm going to disown it and let you all continue to wreck it with your off topic nonsense. I'm fed up with this ****.

First of all, you have to take responsibility for your misaction of how you structured this post and where you placed it.

You've let others give their opinions that also are not on point of your supposed topic which I can easily point out. Instead of publicly griping over the troubles that you initiated why don't you corner down an admin and let him/her hear your issues. Let the system work itself out. Otherwise, I see you simply trying to censor the discussion and mute all opposing angles.

Until this is moved, then I appreciate you following the multiple narratives.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

First of all, you have to take responsibility for your misaction of how you structured this post and where you placed it.

You've let others give their opinions that also are not on point of your supposed topic which I can easily point out. Instead of publicly griping over the troubles that you initiated why don't you corner down an admin and let him/her hear your issues. Let the system work itself out. Otherwise, I see you simply trying to censor the discussion and mute all opposing angles.

Until this is moved, then I appreciate you following the multiple narratives.

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.

 

[suncowiam]

You're going on ignore.

You're not censoring and yet you mute me?

Nice...

 

[Scott C.]

There is actually far more support in the gospels for (religious) anti-Semitism than there is for homophobia...

The Bible does not teach homophobia. This discussion surrounds if it teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Did you mean to equate the former with the latter?

 

[gsa]

The Bible does not teach homophobia. This discussion surrounds if it teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Did you mean to equate the former with the latter?

Homophobia is overused given that it usually implies an extreme stance. Certainly, the belief that homosexuals should be executed (Lev. 20:13) and the belief that they will burn in hell are extremist, hateful, irrational and anti-gay beliefs. Do you really care if I call it homophobia or not?

 

[suncowiam]

Of course. But the same question still applies. Wouldn't you rather a less awful form now, even accounting for the future possibility of change, over a more awful form now that is resolute to not change?

I mean I think this entire question sort of misses the point in that change is not optional, but inevitable. There never was nor will there ever be a single "real" Christianity that is unchanging. The entire idea is a category error, a misunderstanding of religion, basically. It's as inevitable that religions can and do change as it is that cultures can and do change, or politics, or everything else.

it's sort of like saying "the problem with wanting the Democratic party to be less perverse is that it can change back to a more perverse form."

Yes, of course, I would like a more moderate accepting religion. But that to me is still "comparing the lesser of two evils". Please, please, excuse the pun.

If you truly want to fix something, then you fix it at the root of the problem. If you don't do that, the problem will rear its ugly head back.

I made my point early in this discussion, that religion has no merit to judge the ethical notion of homosexuality. No one challenged me on this. Then I see a bunch of comments basing text, scripture, opinions on homosexuality. What fundamental merit do any of these sources have to do with homosexuality?

What about social statistics? Crimes rates commited by gays? Children upbringing from same sex couples and how they do in life? Where are the correlations? Genetics/biology?

On yahoo and facebook threads, I get the comments that compare gays to pedophiles and rapists. How the heck do people come this conclusion?!?!?!

That will only happen if we allow it to happen. It's a risk, but it can be mitigated.

Are you absolutely sure it can be mitigated?

 

[lovemuffin]

Yes, of course, I would like a more moderate accepting religion. But that to me is still "comparing the lesser of two evils". Please, please, excuse the pun.

If you truly want to fix something, then you fix it at the root of the problem. If you don't do that, the problem will rear its ugly head back.

Sure. But my point was explicitly pragmatic. I would also say that, unless you're prepared to enforce some sort of draconian totalitarianism, there is no "fixing" the root of the problem in such a way as to preclude the problem of it "rearing its ugly head" again. And I would suggest then the solution will be worse than the problem. In other words, given the realities, I can't see any reason for an atheist to be scandalized by the "hypocrisy" of Christians who don't read the Bible in the most fundamentalist way possible, or ascribe to it that sort of authority, rather than seeing it as at least an improvement. Obviously it's not my opinion that religion is an "evil" in any absolute sense, I'm religious. There has been plenty of religiously motivated evil. I was exaggerating my terms ("awful", "perverse") mostly for the sake of the point, where, even if those descriptions are accurate, it still doesn't really make sense to complain if some Christians "conveniently" change their views.

I made my point early in this discussion, that religion has no merit to judge the ethical notion of homosexuality. No one challenged me on this. Then I see a bunch of comments basing text, scripture, opinions on homosexuality. What fundamental merit do any of these sources have to do with homosexuality?

The purpose of the thread for Frank was to try to figure out a way to understand the question from within his own tradition. The entire premise of the thread assumes the value and authority of that tradition. it's not a general question about the moral standing of homosexuality, although obviously it's a related question. The reason why responses deal with scripture and church tradition is because that is the context in which he was asking his question.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The Bible does not teach homophobia. This discussion surrounds if it teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Did you mean to equate the former with the latter?

The purity laws of Leviticus can certainly engender homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, etc., if taken to be authoritative. And let's face it, as much as certain people want to separate the two, there's no rational basis for condemning homosexual sex apart from a deep-seated and fundamentally irrational fear and loathing of the concept. And that's pretty much what homophobia means. So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, people don't get to weasel out of that one. Condemning homosexuality is homophobic, just like condemning miscegenation is racist and condemning women's equality is misogynistic.

 

[gsa]

This article has a pretty thorough discussion about what the Jews and Jesus probably thought from the 'no' perspective.

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ChristianSexualityArticle2003.pdf

Robert Gagnon's "scholarly" credentials have been called into question by actual experts in the fields he claims to be an expert in. His work is pure hackery. NT Wright and others don't make the mistake of imposing an untenable reading of texts even though they take an anti-gay stance. Please read this excellent rebuttal of Gagnon's "scholarship" to see how incredibly flawed it is.

Gagnon is taken seriously by Calvinists and other extremist Christians, but he is pretty unseemly.

 

[suncowiam]

Sure. But my point was explicitly pragmatic. I would also say that, unless you're prepared to enforce some sort of draconian totalitarianism, there is no "fixing" the root of the problem in such a way as to preclude the problem of it "rearing its ugly head" again. And I would suggest then the solution will be worse than the problem. In other words, given the realities, I can't see any reason for an atheist to be scandalized by the "hypocrisy" of Christians who don't read the Bible in the most fundamentalist way possible, or ascribe to it that sort of authority, rather than seeing it as at least an improvement. Obviously it's not my opinion that religion is an "evil" in any absolute sense, I'm religious. There has been plenty of religiously motivated evil. I was exaggerating my terms ("awful", "perverse") mostly for the sake of the point, where, even if those descriptions are accurate, it still doesn't really make sense to complain if some Christians "conveniently" change their views.



The purpose of the thread for Frank was to try to figure out a way to understand the question from within his own tradition. The entire premise of the thread assumes the value and authority of that tradition. it's not a general question about the moral standing of homosexuality, although obviously it's a related question. The reason why responses deal with scripture and church tradition is because that is the context in which he was asking his question.

Your first paragraph is a fair point. Religion is so indoctrined that there has to be baby steps first. Fine...

Concerning the second point...
Well, he opened the door when it got into the debate section. Although, I can be more respectful to his original intent, I prioritize my agenda if you will, to continue to defend homosexuality where I can. Plus, he easily gets offended so I don't cater to a "walking on eggshells" mode when I see faulty logic especially those that will IMO continue to promote discrimination.

 

[xkatz]

Is anti-gay Christianity really a tenable position, given Christ's teachings on unconditional love?

Unconditional love of people, not of their actions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Robert Gagnon's "scholarly" credentials have been called into question by actual experts in the fields he claims to be an expert in. His work is pure hackery. NT Wright and others don't make the mistake of imposing an untenable reading of texts even though they take an anti-gay stance. Please read this excellent rebuttal of Gagnon's "scholarship" to see how incredibly flawed it is.

Gagnon is taken seriously by Calvinists and other extremist Christians, but he is pretty unseemly.

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

 

[suncowiam]

The Bible does not teach homophobia. This discussion surrounds if it teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Did you mean to equate the former with the latter?

Your translation of the Bible does not teach homophobia. How do you counter argue another translation of the Bible?

Mainstream religions are clear on the homosexual stance. If not, then there wouldn't be such a media and political storm from business and state leaders.

 

[gsa]

Nardelli also responded, and Gagnon eventually abandoned the back and forth. You can read the entire discussion on Box Turtle Bulletin.

Gagnon is not contributing much in the way of peer reviewed scholarship these days, if he produces any at all. He is a full time anti-gay extremist in his off time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nardelli also responded, and Gagnon eventually abandoned the back and forth. You can read the entire discussion on Box Turtle Bulletin.

Gagnon is not contributing much in the way of peer reviewed scholarship these days, if he produces any at all. He is a full time anti-gay extremist in his off time.

Okay. But I still want to check out his book to see for myself what he has to say about it.

 

[gsa]

Okay. But I still want to check out his book to see for myself what he has to say about it.

By all means. But believe me, it is littered with anti-gay stereotypes, including the assertion that male homosexuality is correlated with pedophilia. These are of course all areas well outside of his expertise and backed up with the typical junk science of the Christian right, but it is very telling that he is not content to make a textual case for his position. He needs to make a sociological and political one as well.