xkatz
Well-Known Member
Its not a straw-man because people actually believe this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
This is logical and I agree with you. The next step, however, is for the informed person to prove himself and then be accepted by others. It's two fold, there's a definition process and there's an acceptance process.
In religion's case, the definition process is a book and interpretations of this book. The acceptance process is faith and/or the interpretation of this book.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
You two are talking past each other when you ought to be allies in this. Sojourner's (and my) point about the lack of modern ideas about sexual orientation in ancient times is relevant insofar as people claim that the Bible is anti-homosexual in general terms, as people in this very thread have done, not to mention the wide world out there.
When it comes to the claim that the Bible universally condemns homosexual acts (i.e. not the orientation itself), then it's time to zoom in and point out that the ancient understanding of those acts and their social consequences was radically different, so that it's still not really talking about homosexuality as we understand it today.
To address something you said earlier, I think it's important to understand that pointing these things out does not constitute erasure of homosexuals in ancient times. Nobody is actually saying that there weren't ancient people who were more attracted to members of their own sex than the opposite one. What we're saying is that the discourse of the time didn't understand that in the way that modern people do, in terms of innate orientation, and the laws and taboos were not constructed with that model in mind. (The closest we get to a recognition that something like sexual orientation exists is in Plato's Symposium, but that's a philosophical text with no relation to civil or religious policies of the time.)
To give just one example, we're talking about a time when a man's being attracted to young boys was considered normal and not gay at all, since he was presumed to delight in their smoothness and resemblance to girls, and there would be no shame attached to taking the masculine role in that relationship. To desire to be penetrated by a boy, on the other hand, or even to perform oral sex on a woman (to be orally penetrated by her, in the ancient way of thinking), was terribly shameful, since it meant one was taking the feminine role, which was contrary to nature. In case that wasn't clear: cunnilingus was thought to be on the same level of "gayness" as buggery.
The point is not that people didn't have basically the same feelings and desires that people today do, but they categorized them differently, according to a very different rubric. Projecting modern ideas of sexual orientation back onto antiquity will put out bizarre results, as authors seem to be praising some instances of a thing while condemning others (because in they're eyes they're not the same thing), and most people don't seem to fall neatly into categories of "gay" or "straight."
Last edited:
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Then those people are working from a mistaken apprehension that who one is on the inside is meaningfully different from what one does. However, your posting that image in the context of this thread in particular was no mere bland statement to that effect, and the implications in this context are distasteful and terribly presumptuous.
This is one of the reasons why I walked away and continue to stay away. I don't see the church as ever legitimizing my orientation as being as human and acceptable as heterosexuality.
And after 20 years of staying as far away from the mindset of when I was trying to be a good Christian, I can attest to quality of life being far and away better than when I was engaged in 24-hour-a-day repression.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Perfect isn't a point on a spectrum with good. Perfect means complete, fulfilled, truly and utterly oneself. That's both the literal meaning of the Latin word from which our word perfect is derived, and also the Greek τέλειος, which is the word in the Bible that people translate as perfect.
Unlike goodness, perfection has nothing directly to do with what one does; it is entirely a matter of what one is.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
I don't think anybody would disagree with you there. The question isn't so much whether the church has persecuted homosexuals for a very long time, which I think everyone would admit, but rather whether that should mean that the Christian tradition is inherently and irrevocably anti-gay. I think it's pretty clear that it's not, although there are just enough modern Christians who think that it is (or should be) to make life very unpleasant for a lot of people who would otherwise like to be members of their communities. And that's a damned shame.
Christians have to make a decision: double down on this gay thing and be another nail in the coffin of an already declining religious tradition, or get over it and look past cultural prejudices to the spirit of the teachings—revitalizing the tradition in the process. Of course some people don't want to see the latter happen, but what's interesting is that there are some of those people on both sides of the divide. I guess from an atheist standpoint it sounds good in theory that Christianity might crumble under its own weight and cease to exist as a force in the world, but it's not clear to me that that would magically result in an end to homophobia. In fact, progressive Christians can be a major force when mobilized, as we've seen with the abolitionist movement, civil rights, and a number of causes since then.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
What is a "pro-gay religion"? I honestly don't even have a clue what you're referring to.
I'm so sick of people repeating this tosh. It's the liberal denominations, such as the dying Episcopal "church", which are leading the decay and decline. They'll be the first to go as people leave them in droves. The conservative ones may lose some members, but they'll hold on to the people who actually believe and so will maintain a presence while perhaps having smaller numbers than they have now.
So it really seems that if you want to kill off your church, then become pro-gay, pro-women's ordination and pro-abortion. It's a recipe for success... if you define "success" by dying out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html
Why IS liberal Protestantism dying, anyway?
Vishvavajra
Active Member
What you're describing is the result of deep polarization. Conservatives have been beating the fundamentalist drum for long enough that people think you can't really be a part of the Christian community without believing a bunch of reactionary, homophobic rubbish. The result is that the conservatives double down and dig in, while the progressives often end up leaving the religion altogether, having been made to feel alienated by their coreligionists and embarrassed to affiliate with them in the eyes of the general public.
And that's not to mention how the biggest single threat to mainline churches is that the conservatives always threaten to secede from the church or the denomination if it comes out in support of the oppressed. That can instantly cut the congregation in half thanks to some people's religious objection to being decent human beings. See also: abolitionism, opposition to fascism, desegregation, etc.
The best way to ensure demographic stability is indeed to take a hardline reactionary stance on issues of civil rights. The popular thing within the community is usually the safer bet than the right thing, at least in the short term. But while that might keep asses in pews on Sunday, when it comes to society at large it's contributing to the continued decline of Christian moral authority and the continued alienation of Christian communities from mainstream society. Those who get off on thinking of themselves as a persecuted minority (despite their actually being the ones doing the oppressing) will no doubt love the idea of ghettoizing themselves in this way and valiantly standing against the tide of modernity, but it's a losing battle in the end and only serves to reduce Christianity to a punchline on the wrong side of history, which it has already been on far too many occasions.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is the same kind of thinking that spawned Jim Crow. "No one is promoting discrimination against blacks. Marriage is for people of the same race. Any black man may marry any black woman he chooses."
He (Imaginary Friends) has been making this infantile rebuttal for years.
The ancients were against homosexual acts -- not homosexuality.
1) I don't have "liberal pro-gay beliefs." I advocate for equal treatment of all people, without regard to race, color, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, which is not only congruent with the spirit of our country's founding documents, it also is congruent with biblical tenets of welcome, hospitality, inclusion, and unconditional love.
2) There is no biblical theology that is "blatantly against same-sex relationships." Not all valid theological constructs or doctrines are "inherently conservative."
3) Xy, as a whole, is not "inherently conservative." In its inception, it was quite radical and liberal.
Christian theology is neither "pro" or "anti" gay. Some doctrinal statements and apologetic constructs are such. Xy is not of a uniform theology or practice -- never has been. To present it as such is disingenuous.
No, it addresses people who engage in actions which the writers, in their scientific and social ignorance, thought was perverse. We know better now.
The Pope and a few radical fundigelicals aren't a broad cross-section of Xy.
Yeah, no. It's more to do with the fact that those liberal churches don't give members much of a reason to stay since they turn into social clubs with religious trappings instead of actual churches. Why would I continue going to a church where God is simply a fixture? The second link I posted explains why conservative churches are more successful. The simple answer is that they're more in-tune with human psychology. (Also, it's not exactly surprising that a "church" that has a married lesbian "priest" that praises abortion as a "blessing" has dwindling numbers. It would be the height of irony if it didn't.)
Also, those religious conservatives you hate so much tend to have higher birth rates than your secular atheistic ilk. So it's them who will eventually inherit the culture while the (post)modernists die out due to their lack of making babies. Oops.
Religiosity and Fertility in the United States: The Role of Fertility Intentions
Think religion is in decline? Look at who is ‘going forth and multiplying’ | Vancouver Sun
Atheism is doomed: the contraceptive Pill is secularism's cyanide tablet – Telegraph Blogs
Sounds like you have a choice between bland and bitter. As you point out, bland doesn't sell well, but neither option has good long-term chances for success, IMO.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We are working within a system in which people have already been systemically hurt for a long time. Any answer to that is necessarily remedial and reactive. At the same time, there are always steps being taken to be proactive (because that's the nature of Xy).
Whenever people are discriminated against based upon who they are, it is true.
They're rejecting it as "machinations of men" (insinuating that scientific research -- where it clashes with their perception of the bible -- is wrong).
I wouldn't be too worried about the non-religious. IMO, conservative religion is one of the best ways to produce atheists.
And I think you know as well as I do that birth rates don't mean a whole lot when you have people like "cultural Catholics" who might go to church for baptisms and weddings but are quite happy to disregard the Church's teachings on contraception, premarital sex, same-sex marriage, and anything else where they and the Pope don't see eye-to-eye. IIRC, contraception usage among Catholics is only a bit lower than among the non-religious.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If I think you've insisted that the ancients think as we do, and that's not what you think, then your post was poorly-written and is in need of revision. My attention span is just fine. When you can learn to say what you really think, I may deem it not a waste of my time to reply to your other "thoughts."
Not necessarily. Retention rates are best for groups whose members have more to lose when they leave. Retention rates are lowest among atheists.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. If they don't have kids, they'll just get crowded out eventually by those Catholics that do.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, it's not "anti-gay." It's "anti-homosexual acts." Since there was no such thing as "gay," how could it be "anti-what-doesn't-exist????"