Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Vishvavajra]

With all respect again, there is no reasoning or thinking until you meet him and ask him yourself.

Otherwise its the same process of interpretation, hearsay, and conjectures.

I think the problem is two conflicting ideas of what "God's will" means. There's a camp that takes it literally, as if God is a person with an anthropomorphic consciousness, desires, and opinions, who has decided that he wants certain things and not others. Contrasted with them are those who understand "God's will" as a conventional expression referring to our underlying nature and the actions which most clearly express an understanding of that nature, thus bringing us closer to God, as it were.

The first model is one in which people are either right or wrong, with no way of knowing outside of blind belief. The second is a process of growing and maturing along the path.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I cannot help but wonder if he picks and chooses from the Bible like he picks and chooses from the Forum Rules...?

Excuse me? Do you have a problem?

 

[suncowiam]

And when one runs into such interpretation, hearsay and conjecture, one hopes to fill in holes using the best scientific evidence we can muster.

Do you really think so? Because at what point in our timeline should this be happening?

Why then are gays being subjected to such bigotry now in the name of God? Where's the scientific evidence that I have been asking for?

This whole thread is based on intepretation, hearsay and conjecture. We're talking about real people. We're not talking how to process meat or how to celebrate Sundays or certain holidays...

 

[suncowiam]

I think the problem is two conflicting ideas of what "God's will" means. There's a camp that takes it literally, as if God is a person with an anthropomorphic consciousness, desires, and opinions, who has decided that he wants certain things and not others. Contrasted with them are those who understand "God's will" as a conventional expression referring to our underlying nature and the actions which most clearly express an understanding of that nature, thus bringing us closer to God, as it were.

The first model is one in which people are either right or wrong, with no way of knowing outside of blind belief. The second is a process of growing and maturing along the path.

Personal growth I have no issues with. The issue I have is imposing some arbitrary will on others.

 

[sojourner]

Do you really think so? Because at what point in our timeline should this be happening?

Whenever misguided "faith" begins to hurt people.

Why then are gays being subjected to such bigotry now in the name of God?

Because, for many people, belief is worth more than human beings.

Where's the scientific evidence that I have been asking for?

Read the DSM IV, published over 20 years ago. Homosexuality is not listed as aberrant behavior. It is considered by the health community to be a normal orientation.

This whole thread is based on intepretation, hearsay and conjecture.

Much of religion is based on those things.

We're talking about real people.

Yes we are!

We're not talking how to process meat or how to celebrate Sundays or certain holidays...

Right, which is why when holes such as the gulf between perceived piety and equitable and fair treatment of people are created, we need to fill those gaps with science, such as the DSM IV.

 

[sojourner]

Personal growth I have no issues with. The issue I have is imposing some arbitrary will on others.

Yup.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

The difference between being gay and being an alcoholic is that the former, as far as we can tell, is such a constitutive element of human identity that for a person so constituted to deny it is almost to deny his or her entire being. On the other hand, alcoholics, even accepting a genetic predisposition, can abstain from alcohol without completely destroying their humanity.

If you believe that two men refraining from inserting objects (phallus or otherwise) into their refuse orifice's is destroying their humanity, I think you really need to reflect on your religion and morality.

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.

No one is promoting discrimination against gays. Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Any man, gay or otherwise, is free to marry any woman he chooses.

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

Thank you for an example of the sort of revisionism I was talking about.

- you're presenting a red herring, since as several posters here have pointed out, it's the acts and not the orientation that the Catholic Church considers sinful. I'm saying that condemning same-sex acts is in and of itself anti-gay, and the early Christian church certainly condemned same-sex acts.

He (sojourner) has been making this infantile argument for years. So what he tries to do is make a play-on-words with, they are against sodomy, not gay relationships. To Bronze Age men they are one and the same and that's why it was conveyed that way. What he is trying to do is rationale his liberal pro-gay beliefs with a theology that is blatantly against same sex relationships and inherently conservative. Not only is Christain theology not pro-gay, it addresses people that promote homosexuality, even explaining the penalty for such action. Romans 1:26

Romans 1:26-27New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.



According to the Pope and some interpretations of works versus faith, you may have a better chance in salvation as a conservative Atheist than a pro-gay, eh-hem, "Christian".

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! - Living Faith - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

What must you do to be saved?

Demographic collapse is what will make humanity die out in agony. Mad Max, here we come! This century and I guess the next two will make the violence of the previous ones pale in comparison. I'd bet on it. We're only in the opening stages of WWIII. This is a picnic compared to what's coming as dying nations take one last gasp.

I wouldn't worry about what religion says in regards to the adversity you are facing. You obviously have a right-wing perspective, which means a clear, pragmatic view of the world. I'll reply in more detail when I get home later.

 

[suncowiam]

Whenever misguided "faith" begins to hurt people.

Because, for many people, belief is worth more than human beings.

Read the DSM IV, published over 20 years ago. Homosexuality is not listed as aberrant behavior. It is considered by the health community to be a normal orientation.

Much of religion is based on those things.

Yes we are!

Right, which is why when holes such as the gulf between perceived piety and equitable and fair treatment of people are created, we need to fill those gaps with science, such as the DSM IV.

[Edited]
"Whenever misguided "faith" begins to hurt people."
This is a reactive approach versus a preventive approach. Why then I have to ask should we let people get hurt in the first place?
[/Edited]

"Because, for many people, belief is worth more than human beings."
Not sure if this is completely true, but if you feel this way then I can argue how dangerous this is to society from many angles. Not sure if want to do that in this thread.

"Read the DSM IV, published over 20 years ago. Homosexuality is not listed as aberrant behavior. It is considered by the health community to be a normal orientation."
"Right, which is why when holes such as the gulf between perceived piety and equitable and fair treatment of people are created, we need to fill those gaps with science, such as the DSM IV."
Either other religious people are not reading this, they're not intepreting it the same as you, or they are rejecting this. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in this thread arguing for homosexuality.

I'm not here to end religion. I'm here to stop the hate that is disguised by religion, btw.

 

[suncowiam]

If you believe that two men refraining from inserting objects (phallus or otherwise) into their refuse orifice's is destroying their humanity, I think you really need to reflect on your religion and morality.




No one is promoting discrimination against gays. Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Any man, gay or otherwise, is free to marry any woman he chooses.





He (sojourner) has been making this infantile argument for years. So what he tries to do is make a play-on-words with, they are against sodomy, not gay relationships. To Bronze Age men they are one and the same and that's why it was conveyed that way. What he is trying to do is rationale his liberal pro-gay beliefs with a theology that is blatantly against same sex relationships and inherently conservative. Not only is Christain theology not pro-gay, it addresses people that promote homosexuality, even explaining the penalty for such action. Romans 1:26

Romans 1:26-27New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.



According to the Pope and some interpretations of works versus faith, you may have a better chance in salvation as a conservative Atheist than a pro-gay, eh-hem, "Christian".

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! - Living Faith - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

What must you do to be saved?



I wouldn't worry about what religion says in regards to the adversity you are facing. You obviously have a right-wing perspective, which means a clear, pragmatic view of the world. I'll reply in more detail when I get home later.

Let's make this simple.
Do you believe it is wrong to be homosexual and why? I used the word wrong as opposed to being a sin, so please note that.

 

[lovemuffin]

If you believe that two men refraining from inserting objects (phallus or otherwise) into their refuse orifice's is destroying their humanity, I think you really need to reflect on your religion and morality.

I'm not sure you really understood what I was trying to say, or perhaps I didn't say it very well, but I was speaking about homosexuality as an orientation as a constitutive element of a person's very identity and self. As such, it's about a lot more than just sex. Just as being heterosexual, or heterosexual marriage, is about more than just sex. It's about love and human relationships with are certainly more than sexual. I'm saying that to be gay, and be forced to try to deny it and pretend as though you are not, is something that may be enormously destructive to a person's well-being, which goes beyond sex.

 

[xkatz]

This thread reminds me so much of this:

 

[Jainarayan]

Wwwwwellll... if you're a good person, what could you be doing that's wrong?

 

[lovemuffin]

In at least some sense, the reduction of the commandments to "love one another" could be heard as a rebuttal to that image meme. Of course, loving is something you do as well as something which describes what you are "deep down inside".

 

[Vishvavajra]

If you believe that two men refraining from inserting objects (phallus or otherwise) into their refuse orifice's is destroying their humanity, I think you really need to reflect on your religion and morality.

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?

No one is promoting discrimination against gays. Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Any man, gay or otherwise, is free to marry any woman he chooses.

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.

"No one is promoting racial discrimination. Marriage is a union between two people of the same race. Anyone, black or white or otherwise, is free to marry anyone of the same color."

Along the same lines, one might as well assert that the Spanish Inquisition didn't persecute Jews, since they were free to convert to Christianity at any time.

Never mind that marriage is whatever society says it is, which has changed radically over the millennia. The marriage practices that were the norm when the Biblical texts were written bear no meaningful resemblance to those practiced by the people of any developed nation today. Anyone who believes otherwise has no knowledge of history to speak of.

According to the Pope and some interpretations of works versus faith, you may have a better chance in salvation as a conservative Atheist than a pro-gay, eh-hem, "Christian"...
You obviously have a right-wing perspective, which means a clear, pragmatic view of the world.

So you're going for the "worst of both worlds" approach, huh? Not a common choice, but I guess someone had to occupy that hill.

But rather than a "clear, pragmatic view of the world," I'd call it a view that is so thoroughly clouded and non-introspective that it utterly fails to recognize its own cognitive biases and prejudices. For example, there's no pragmatic argument for denying marriage equality or forcing people to either marry people they're not attracted to or remain celibate. It's about as rational as banning licorice because you think it's icky. In other words, not at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong. Simply wrong. The ancients didn't think about orientation. And all your "logical" conjecture doesn't change that. What's "revisionist" is to insist that the ancients thought the same as we do -- kind like you're exhibiting here.

If you think I've "insisted that the ancients think as we do", then you haven't bern paying attention.

Do you also have straw men for my other two points that you ignored?

 

[Vishvavajra]

This thread reminds me so much of this:

I'd like to suggest some additional hash tags:

#thingsnobodyeversaidtobeginwith
#strawmenthatpeopleliketobeatoninsteadofactuallyexaminingthemselves
#stuffthatmakesunlovingpeoplefeelself-righteousandjustified

 

[atpollard]

Actually, while I acknowledge that cultural definitions of 'what is normal/expected' has changed over time, I suspect that people are actually pretty much the same now as they have always been.

Today, some husbands love their wives and some husbands are emotionally exploitative of their wives and some husbands are physically abusive.
[I have too little experience to be certain, but I suspect that homosexual relationships cover the same range of ground.]

A hundred years ago, in my grandfather's days, some men loved their wives and some men were emotionally abusive and some men beat their wives with hoses.

I suspect that a millennium ago, some husbands loved their wives and some husbands were emotionally exploitative of their wives and some husbands were physically abusive.

Times change, people ... not so much.
YMMV

 

[leibowde84]

With all respect again, there is no reasoning or thinking until you meet him and ask him yourself.

Otherwise its the same process of interpretation, hearsay, and conjectures.

My point is that, what makes the interpretations of men long ago with minimal (if any) understanding of the physical world we live in be given more weight than intelligent, passionate, and honest people today? If they are all interpretations, wouldn't the more informed person be the best one to "call the shots"?

 

[xkatz]

Wwwwwellll... if you're a good person, what could you be doing that's wrong?

Being a good person doesn't mean that your perfect.

 

[Jainarayan]

Any man, gay or otherwise, is free to marry any woman he chooses.

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