Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Vishvavajra]

The key is to understand that scripture exists to serve people, not the other way around.

 

[Hachan]

Sodomy is the original way to summon demons, that is why it is a sin, just like boiling a kid in its mother's milk is a sin and cross-dressing (according to the Torah) but if you can be gay without indulging in satanic marriage nor cross-dressing there is no sin upon you.

Marriage is sex, Gay Male Sex is Sodomy hence it is impossible for any cleric in any Torah-based religion to bless a marriage between two men. However, there are cases of two men who love each other closely like brothers (able to sleep in the same bed without indulging in any sexual activity being blessed as brothers forever just like a modern day civil union between two straight males. It is called adelphopoiesis in the eastern traditions.

Non-incestuous female homosexual activity is not forbidden (incestuous female homosexuality is prohibited) and there are several cases of girl-friend relationships between women in the Bible, for example Hagar and Sarah, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilah, the 500 concubines in Solomon's Harem etc.. However, the command for men and women to go forth together (and if possible multiply) indicates that although sexual activity between women is not prohibited, the absolute lesbian rejection of male partner is prohibited unless one adopts a consecrated life of celibacy. Otherwise we can see marriage should be one man and up to a maximum of few women, while there is no limit on how many female sexual partners those women may have at the same time (e.g. 500 in Solomon's Harem), though obviously those women must not be already married to any man. It is possible to be the lifelong girlfriend of a woman who is married without ever having sexual relations with your girlfriend's husband, but a strictly monogamous female female lifelong sexual relationship is apparently impossible from the Biblical perspective.

In the end though, as long as you feel sorry about your inability to meet the targets set in the Bible, you have salvation in Christ. But if you do not feel sorry about your sins (as defined by the Torah) then you have no chance at salvation.

 

[sojourner]

Sodomy is the original way to summon demons, that is why it is a sin, just like boiling a kid in its mother's milk is a sin and cross-dressing (according to the Torah) but if you can be gay without indulging in satanic marriage nor cross-dressing there is no sin upon you.

Marriage is sex, Gay Male Sex is Sodomy hence it is impossible for any cleric in any Torah-based religion to bless a marriage between two men. However, there are cases of two men who love each other closely like brothers (able to sleep in the same bed without indulging in any sexual activity being blessed as brothers forever just like a modern day civil union between two straight males. It is called adelphopoiesis in the eastern traditions.

Non-incestuous female homosexual activity is not forbidden (incestuous female homosexuality is prohibited) and there are several cases of girl-friend relationships between women in the Bible, for example Hagar and Sarah, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilah, the 500 concubines in Solomon's Harem etc.. However, the command for men and women to go forth together (and if possible multiply) indicates that although sexual activity between women is not prohibited, the absolute lesbian rejection of male partner is prohibited unless one adopts a consecrated life of celibacy. Otherwise we can see marriage should be one man and up to a maximum of few women, while there is no limit on how many female sexual partners those women may have at the same time (e.g. 500 in Solomon's Harem), though obviously those women must not be already married to any man. It is possible to be the lifelong girlfriend of a woman who is married without ever having sexual relations with your girlfriend's husband, but a strictly monogamous female female lifelong sexual relationship is apparently impossible from the Biblical perspective.

In the end though, as long as you feel sorry about your inability to meet the targets set in the Bible, you have salvation in Christ. But if you do not feel sorry about your sins (as defined by the Torah) then you have no chance at salvation.

Gee, didn't you just post this exact thing in the thread, "Why is being gay forbidden?" Too disenchanted to write a tailored response that fits each subject, or is this simply a case of propaganda-bombing?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sodomy is the original way to summon demons, that is why it is a sin, just like boiling a kid in its mother's milk is a sin and cross-dressing (according to the Torah) but if you can be gay without indulging in satanic marriage nor cross-dressing there is no sin upon you.

Marriage is sex, Gay Male Sex is Sodomy hence it is impossible for any cleric in any Torah-based religion to bless a marriage between two men. However, there are cases of two men who love each other closely like brothers (able to sleep in the same bed without indulging in any sexual activity being blessed as brothers forever just like a modern day civil union between two straight males. It is called adelphopoiesis in the eastern traditions.

Non-incestuous female homosexual activity is not forbidden (incestuous female homosexuality is prohibited) and there are several cases of girl-friend relationships between women in the Bible, for example Hagar and Sarah, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilah, the 500 concubines in Solomon's Harem etc.. However, the command for men and women to go forth together (and if possible multiply) indicates that although sexual activity between women is not prohibited, the absolute lesbian rejection of male partner is prohibited unless one adopts a consecrated life of celibacy. Otherwise we can see marriage should be one man and up to a maximum of few women, while there is no limit on how many female sexual partners those women may have at the same time (e.g. 500 in Solomon's Harem), though obviously those women must not be already married to any man. It is possible to be the lifelong girlfriend of a woman who is married without ever having sexual relations with your girlfriend's husband, but a strictly monogamous female female lifelong sexual relationship is apparently impossible from the Biblical perspective.

In the end though, as long as you feel sorry about your inability to meet the targets set in the Bible, you have salvation in Christ. But if you do not feel sorry about your sins (as defined by the Torah) then you have no chance at salvation.

Excuse me, but what church are you a part of? I Googled what you put in the "religion" field and couldn't find anything.

So you support polygamy and female homosexuality? Okay...That's not very Christian.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

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.

I wanted to address you first since you seem to have a greater sense of reason than that friend of ours.


Yes those things are irrelevant to the topic and perhaps I didn't convey my opinion clearly. I am not denying any of things are incompatible either. So yes if a Christian maintained a anti-gay stance yet still allowed women to speak freely in church that would make them hypocritical. Did I ever say it wouldn't? Did I ever say they could leave other issues on the table? Did I ever say they wouldn't have to adhere to those things?


You seem to be saying to the OP, since most mainstream Christians are, for lack of a better term, half-*** Christians, picking and choosing what they want, you can pick and choose (homosexual acceptance) and still be a full fledged Christian (albeit half -***) as well.


The issue is what the Christian position is. Not what the non-hypocritical position is or by the picker or choosers or by Regressive Christians. And I agree, by your reckoning and mine, most mainstream self-proclaimed Christians, are not Christians.


Regarding social ramifications, my lack of belief in Christianity is derived exclusively from a scientific conclusion devoid of social ramifications. If your belief or disbelief in a deity is contingent on whether or not the deity sociably accepts men sodomizing one another, your perception of humanity has achieved a all-time low.

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.

You and Sojourner continue to fail grasping the difference between ACCEPTING and UNDERSTANDING what the ancients believed pertaining to homosexuality. They understood some men wanted to have sex with other men. They understood some men exclusively wanted to have sex with other men. They understood some men wanted to marry other men. What they accepted, was completely different. So yes, in your example where the Greeks ACCPETED a homosexual in the dominate or masculine role but not receiving role doesn't illustrate they didn't UNDERSTAND the orientation...it's the degree of the orientation they ACCEPTED.


Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gay marriage[edit]

Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it.[119]Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[120] As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear.[121]


Various ancient sources state that the emperor Nero celebrated two public weddings with men, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedmanPythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride.[122] The ceremonies included traditional elements such as a dowry and the wearing of the Roman bridal veil.[123] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. Other mature men at his court had husbands, or said they had husbands in imitation of the emperor.[124] Although the sources are in general hostile, Dio Cassius implies that Nero's stage performances were regarded as more scandalous than his marriages to men.[125]


The earliest reference in Latin literature to a marriage between men occurs in the Philippics of Cicero, who insulted Mark Antony for being a **** in his youth until Curio "established you in a fixed and stable marriage (matrimonium), as if he had given you a stola," the traditional garment of a married woman.[126] Although Cicero's sexual implications are clear, the point of the passage is to cast Antony in the submissive role in the relationship and to impugn his manhood in various ways; there is no reason to think that actual marriage rites were performed.[127]

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.

Wrong once again. Leviticus makes no distinction to the role either party is in during the homosexual sex act. It clearly states the penalty which is the same for both parties. Here I was saying you were more reasonable and you are blatantly making things up like that friend of ours.


KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

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.

Let us know when you and Sojourner complete that.

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

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

So after showing that it has, which took less then 10 minutes of research, I'm guessing your scholastic research consisted of..

But did it take place before or after recess?


I know during a heated debate we make jabs at each others education or intelligence, so it's all in good fun, but you are being unreasonably obstinate when the facts are laid out right in front of you.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

"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.

We finally agree on something!

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

Yeah, when you use his logic, you really don't have to change anything.

• He acknowledges the bible says that men that engage in sodomy with one another are sinful and is severely punishable.
• But, or in his case butt, since they only understood homosexual sex but not homosexuality...
• It's ok to be actively homosexual and engage in sodomy.

Using that logic, you can dismiss or accepting anything in the bible and still be a Christian. Drink a lot? That's ok you can still go to heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:10 ESV

Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now see the ancients saw people drink but they didn't understand alcoholism the way we do now. They didn't know about the hereditary aspect so feel free to drink and indulge at your leisure.

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

Don't ya know every rose has its thorn?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Imaginary_Friends, @sojourner and @Vishvavajra

I'm really enjoying reading this exchange between you three. Keep it up. *munches popcorn*

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

@Imaginary_Friends, @sojourner and @Vishvavajra

I'm really enjoying reading this exchange between you three. Keep it up. *munches popcorn*

Lol.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Lol.

I know we've gotten into it before on the issue of race, but I've grown to enjoy reading your posts on this topic. Lol.

Also, if you could take a look at the article in this link: http://www.well.com/~aquarius/rome.htm

I'd like to hear your opinion on that. It's a pretty persuasive argument, imo, and is more along the lines of what I wanted from this thread.

I had started an identical thread in the Christian DIR (because this one is pretty FUBAR) and there were some other links posted there, if you want to take a look: Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position? (DIR thread) | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Nietzsche]

We finally agree on something!

So what is the argument about..? Because I'm only interested in the "gay people can't get married" bit, the "is that a viable Christian perspective" bit is meaningless to me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

the "is that a viable Christian perspective" bit is meaningless to me.

That's what this thread was originally all about. The off-topic bickering is why I largely abandoned this thread and started a new one.

 

[Vishvavajra]

You seem to be saying to the OP, since most mainstream Christians are, for lack of a better term, half-*** Christians, picking and choosing what they want, you can pick and choose (homosexual acceptance) and still be a full fledged Christian (albeit half -***) as well.

The issue is what the Christian position is. Not what the non-hypocritical position is or by the picker or choosers or by Regressive Christians. And I agree, by your reckoning and mine, most mainstream self-proclaimed Christians, are not Christians.

According to you, any Christian who isn't an orthodox 1st-temple Jew is a half-assed Christian. Leave aside Leviticus for a moment; Christians aren't bound by purity laws to begin with, or any of the rest of the old Judaic law code. They're also not bound to own slaves or marry multiple wives (or their dead brothers' wives) or conduct sacrifices of "clean" animals for this or that reason. Their women are allowed out while menstruating, and few Christians accept any kind of dietary restrictions even when it really would be better for them.

I've said before that judging Christians by a fundamentalist standard is a non-starter. Of course fundamentalists say they're the only real Christians; that's what "fundamentalist" means. But the fact remains that they're the fringe, and taking them as the measuring stick is all kinds of problematic, to say the least. You can say that non-fundamentalists aren't real Christians or are half-assed, but that just positions you out on the fringes with them. Mainstream Christianity is a thing that exists and that must be reckoned with. Saying they don't get to use the name isn't helpful; they're still going to be there and will still be defining what it means to be Christian.

And yes, to some extent religious cultures are what people within them say they are. They're not dead letters on a page; they're living traditions made up of living people. Any definition of, e.g., Christianity that requires the erasure of the vast majority of self-identified Christians is a faulty definition. That's what Jehovah's Witnesses do, but nobody takes them seriously.

Regarding social ramifications, my lack of belief in Christianity is derived exclusively from a scientific conclusion devoid of social ramifications. If your belief or disbelief in a deity is contingent on whether or not the deity sociably accepts men sodomizing one another, your perception of humanity has achieved a all-time low.

Religion isn't really about belief. But as far as reverence for a deities goes, any deity that has a problem with love isn't worth revering. I'm not about to honor a being that displays considerably less moral development than I do. That's not a low perception of humanity; it's a basic moral standard. I also wouldn't have time for any being who was racist or sexist, regardless of their stature. I'm not terribly impressed by claims of awesome power, etc. Show me the wisdom, the compassion, the proof that your understanding is greater than mine, not lesser, and you'll have my respect and even reverence. Discriminate against people or try to enforce arbitrary rules that cause people pain... that sort of god would need our help, not the other way around.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

Sorry, I'm not going to read all the responses, only going to give my response to the OP! First, I find my self in an odd position that I am admittedly a homophobe and at he same time a vehement proponent of gay rights? Not sure how to express that, but it is what it is!!!

Second? Why on earth do you think it's more important that some reatard 1800 years ago believed than what you believed? Yes! I USED THE WORD RETARD! I wouldn't use it to describe anyone todyay, including the intellectual challenges...except I have no problem calling someone that accepts 1900 year old literature as an authority of common sense or reason, as ratard...?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

Why is it posted in terms of "is PRO-gay christianity? Why isn't it posted in terms of human sexuality TOLERANT christianity? Why? What? How? is the difference between salvation and eternal sinner? Why is the one, doing WHAT GOD MADE HIM/HER TO DO going to hell, and the other, an ignorant machinist *******, going to heaven?

Please explain?

 

[Nietzsche]

That's what this thread was originally all about. The off-topic bickering is why I largely abandoned this thread and started a new one.

Oh. In that case, I'm sorry. I wasn't a part of it until just then, though..

 

[gsa]

Why is it posted in terms of "is PRO-gay christianity? Why isn't it posted in terms of human sexuality TOLERANT christianity? Why? What? How? is the difference between salvation and eternal sinner? Why is the one, doing WHAT GOD MADE HIM/HER TO DO going to hell, and the other, an ignorant machinist *******, going to heaven?

Please explain?

I think you would have a very difficult time arguing the Christianity is remotely favorable to human sexual expression, even within these so-called traditional marriage context celebrated by Christians today. Certainly Paul tolerated that only as a lesser evil, preferring his disciples to remain celibate in anticipation of the apocalypse. Although it is possible that he permitted men to be more sexually free than women, fairly consistent with the surrounding culture.

Incidentally, this appears to be a significant difference between Christianity on the one hand and Judaism and Islam on the other hand. They may only allow limited forms of human sexual expression, but they don't appear to condemn virtually all forms.

 

[sojourner]

Don't ya know every rose has its thorn?

I know that love, it is a razor...

 

[sojourner]

Using that logic, you can dismiss or accepting anything in the bible and still be a Christian. Drink a lot? That's ok you can still go to heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:10 ESV

Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now see the ancients saw people drink but they didn't understand alcoholism the way we do now. They didn't know about the hereditary aspect so feel free to drink and indulge at your leisure.

None of this is about rejecting or accepting any text. The first Anointed-believers didn't have a text -- few of them could even read, and there was no "bible" to begin with. Xy isn't about reading, or following rules. It's about building loving relationships with God, with self, and with others. Therefore, I'd have to say that respecting, loving, and accepting those who identify as homosexual is not only tenable, but desirable for Xy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've said before that judging Christians by a fundamentalist standard is a non-starter. Of course fundamentalists say they're the only real Christians; that's what "fundamentalist" means. But the fact remains that they're the fringe, and taking them as the measuring stick is all kinds of problematic, to say the least. You can say that non-fundamentalists aren't real Christians or are half-assed, but that just positions you out on the fringes with them. Mainstream Christianity is a thing that exists and that must be reckoned with. Saying they don't get to use the name isn't helpful; they're still going to be there and will still be defining what it means to be Christian.

Personally, I wouldn't argue that mainstream or liberal Christians aren't actually Christian. However, I do think it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions (to fundamentalists and liberals alike) like "what are your criteria for what parts of the Bible you accept and what you reject?"

The Biblical inerrantists' response of "we accept all of it!" runs into problems when we ask whether it's justified, but more often than not, when it comes to liberal Christians, we can't even get to the point of asking whether their criteria are justified, because those criteria are either non-existent or so incoherent that they can't be evaluated.

Which one's better? I can't say. Is it better to take one solid step before dropping off a logical cliff, or to drop off the cliff on your first step? Either way, you still end up falling off a cliff.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

None of this is about rejecting or accepting any text. The first Anointed-believers didn't have a text -- few of them could even read, and there was no "bible" to begin with. Xy isn't about reading, or following rules. It's about building loving relationships with God, with self, and with others. Therefore, I'd have to say that respecting, loving, and accepting those who identify as homosexual is not only tenable, but desirable for Xy.

I realized that this thread is just one instance of a larger question: is compassionate Christianity a tenable position?

While I recognize that Christianity has a fair bit of baggage on the issue of sexuality, I'm surprised to see so many Christians answer "no - it isn't a tenable position."