Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[Pegg]

Humans wrote the Bible. God did not dictate it to them. The people who wrote it, while still being inspired by the Holy Spirit and imparting spiritual truths, were still products of their cultures.

Humans cannot accurately foretell future events yet what we see written in the bible does so again and again.

That is not possible for man to do unless he is guided.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

You just place things in their historical context. Just because some things written about don't apply to us in this era doesn't mean you just throw the whole thing out.

Placing things in historical context? Couldn't that also apply to the idea of Jesus' divinity, as well as the Resurrection, the Trinity, the ascension, Heaven and Hell, et cetera? Aren't all of those ideas a product of the culture of their time as well?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Placing things in historical context? Couldn't that also apply to the idea of Jesus' divinity, as well as the Resurrection, the Trinity, the ascension, Heaven and Hell, et cetera? Aren't all of those ideas a product of the culture of their time as well?

No, those are theological dogmas. Matters of social issues and daily morality are dealt with in a separate category.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, those are theological dogmas. Matters of social issues and daily morality are dealt with in a separate category.

In fact Jesus changed the whole moral landscape. There is to be no more judging and throwing rocks at people who are different from you like they had in Mosaic Law. Jesus circumvented all that and create a New Law and a New Covenant.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Placing things in historical context? Couldn't that also apply to the idea of Jesus' divinity, as well as the Resurrection, the Trinity, the ascension, Heaven and Hell, et cetera? Aren't all of those ideas a product of the culture of their time as well?

Should we also throw out "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Judge not" while we are at it too?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Assuming (as most Christians probably would) that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is sinful, I suppose it would be just as logical for a non-celibate gay person to identify as a Christian as it would be for a person to lies, gossips, cheats or uses crude or vulgar language to identify as a Christian. Your question makes it sound like you think Christians are supposed to be without sin. I don't think there would be very many Christians around if that were the case.

I see your point.

However, you have interpreted more into that statement you are criticizing than what I intended. Perhaps I was not clear.

For one claiming any set of values whatsoever to make a bad decision that violates the value they claim, that is evidence of mere human fallibility.

There is a big difference between human fallibility and willful intent.

Thus: "Assuming (as most Christians probably would) that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is sinful, I suppose it would be just as logical for a non-celibate gay person to identify as a Christian as it would be for a person to lies, gossips, cheats or uses crude or vulgar language to identify as a Christian"; if these acts are committed with consistency and willful intent, it is not logical to identify as a Christian.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Should we also throw out "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Judge not" while we are at it too?

Wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't need a book to tell me that. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't need a book to tell me that. It's a pretty simple concept.

If you do need a book to tell you that, I would seriously consider the possibility that there is something ... incomplete ... in your sense of morality.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't need a book to tell me that. It's a pretty simple concept.

It's not that simple, it took a very long time for us to get there and we got to that concept because of people like Jesus dared to say and believe such things. And their are still people who just don't get that concept at all.

We know these concepts because Jesus helped created them, he might have not originated them but he infuse them with new meaning. We are not only supposed to love our neighbors but Jesus enjoins us to love are enemies as well and to do good for them. No other philosopher or religious teacher save perhaps the Buddha himself has ever said such a thing. Some even believe that it was Jesus who solidified the concepts of forgiveness and brotherly and sisterly love of humanity. He taught us that an eye for an eye is wrong, and that was the prevailing notion in most cultures and instead to turn the other cheek.

And no these things might seem like simple concept to you now, but I highly doubt that you would be practicing them let alone even heard of them without Jesus promoting them.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not that simple, it took a very long time for us to get there and we got to that concept because of people like Jesus dared to say and believe such things. And their are still people who just don't get that concept at all.

We know these concepts because Jesus helped created them, he might have not originated them but he infuse them with new meaning. We are not only supposed to love our neighbors but Jesus enjoins us to love are enemies as well and to do good for them. No other philosopher or religious teacher save perhaps the Buddha himself has ever said such a thing. Some even believe that it was Jesus who solidified the concepts of forgiveness and brotherly and sisterly love of humanity. He taught us that an eye for an eye is wrong, and that was the prevailing notion in most cultures and instead to turn the other cheek.

And no these things might seem like simple concept to you now, but I highly doubt that you would be practicing them let alone even heard of them without Jesus promoting them.

No offence, but the values you refer to come long before Jesus. You say that no other philosopher or religious leader ever said such things - well Socrates is one example.

And not only did Socrates hold such values before Jesus, he also came about them by reason and knowledge alone.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No offence, but the values you refer to come long before Jesus. You say that no other philosopher or religious leader ever said such things - well Socrates is one example.

And not only did Socrates hold such values before Jesus, he also came about them by reason and knowledge alone.

I disagree. And this is a debate for another thread. I never heard that Socrates told people not to throw rocks at people for being different or because they messed up though.

 

[s2a]

I was going to respond but ran out of quotation marks. Can I have some of yours back?

I am curious about the scare quotes around gay/straight/conservative, etc.

As you wish, ask away

 

[Bunyip]

I disagree. And this is a debate for another thread. I never heard that Socrates told people not to throw rocks at people for being different or because they messed up though.

Disagree all you like, the fact remains that the values you identified predate Jesus.

The positive values and morals of Jesus in the NT all predate Jesus.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Disagree all you like, the fact remains that the values you identified predate Jesus.

The positive values and morals of Jesus in the NT all predate Jesus.

And I acknowledged that in my initial post. I merely stated that Jesus gave these concepts new life, he put them into practice, he showed us how it is done.

By the way there is no actual evidence that Socrates actually existed. This whole Hey-sus vs Sockraytes debate i.e derailment is over in this thread. It's another debate for another thread.

 

[Bunyip]

And I acknowledged that in my initial post. I merely stated that Jesus gave these concepts new life, he put them into practice, he showed us how it is done.

By the way there is no actual evidence that Socrates actually existed. This whole Hey-sus vs Sockraytes debate i.e derailment is over in this thread. It's another debate for another thread.

No evidence of Socrates? LOL

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evidently Jesus' view was transmitted through human writers of the Bible.

At Corinthians 6:9,10 it reads...
9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

May I draw your attention to verse 11 which says..."that is what some of you were". So it appears that an individual would stop such practices and exercise faith in the sacrifice of Jesus.

I always enjoy the irony when I see someone quote a passage that condemns both revilers and homosexuals to justify reviling homosexuality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They had no concept of sexual orientation back then. That is a modern understanding and the word "homosexual" didn't even exist until the 19th century. To them, sexuality was almost completely about behavior and it was bound up in social mores, including gender roles. Men were to be masculine, to be leaders, to be the head of the household. To be viewed as womanly in any way was a great insult. Part of this masculinity was that they were always to be the one who penetrates. To be penetrated is to be like a woman, and is a great shame. So the one who penetrated in homosexual sex was still viewed as manly, but the one who let himself be penetrated was seen as feminizing himself and so was looked down upon. (We see reflections of this in modern culture when we look down on gay male bottoms and ridicule them more than we do the tops, such as stereotyping them as being feminine. There's a reluctence to identify as a bottom and many gay men still want to be seen as "straight acting". Also, there's still an idea in some men's minds that as long as you're on the receiving end of oral sex or in the penetrative role in anal sex, you're not "really" being gay.)

This was tied up into a warrior culture where battlefield rape to humiliate your opponent was a common thing. So this added a further sense of shame to allowing yourself to be penetrated by a man.

So, in Greco-Roman culture, the only times it was socially acceptable to be penetrated were when you were an adolescent boy or a slave. Boys and slaves weren't viewed as having manhood so it wasn't a big deal. But when you became an adult male citizen, you were expected to always be the one who penetrates.

This thinking was widespread throughout Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and European culture. The Germanic peoples had the same ideas about it.

Obviously this is very outdated and we have much more mature ideas of sexuality today. But there's still remnants of such thinking in our collective psyche, as I noted above, since our culture descends from those cultures.

You have to be careful throwing around terms like "Greco-Roman culture". While the Romans did borrow quite a bit from the Greeks, it was also very common in ancient Rome for the Romans to see themselves as an *improvement* on Greek culture and to view the Greeks as decadent. Greek and Roman ideas about gender and what it meant "to be a man" were often quite different.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You have to be careful throwing around terms like "Greco-Roman culture". While the Romans did borrow quite a bit from the Greeks, it was also very common in ancient Rome for the Romans to see themselves as an *improvement* on Greek culture and to view the Greeks as decadent. Greek and Roman ideas about gender and what it meant "to be a man" were often quite different.

Could you provide evidence that their views were so different?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

By the way there is no actual evidence that Socrates actually existed. This whole Hey-sus vs Sockraytes debate i.e derailment is over in this thread. It's another debate for another thread.

I realize that this statement is not going to help this already derailed thread, but even if Socrates did not exist, the ideas attributed to him at the time still did.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I realize that this statement is not going to help this already derailed thread, but even if Socrates did not exist, the ideas attributed to him at the time still did.

Do you realize that neither Socrates or Plato taught us that we should not throw rocks at people? But that was a Jesus and Buddha thing?