Gay Christian

[PruePhillip]

What makes you think this, other than self-aggrandizing stories told amongst themselves?


This has nothing whatever to do with their understanding of reproductive biology. But it does call into question the first half of your post.
Tom

It's a matter of historic record that some administrators, particularly economic ones, in
some countries were actually Jews. This is where the Rothschild's come from - a Jew
looking after the king's treasury. I suspect the "eunuch" in Acts, the Treasurer of Ethiopia,
was actually a Jew and not a native Ethiopian as he went to Jerusalem and was reading
the Jewish Tanakh. People have pointed out it was common for Jews to hold these jobs
in other countries millennium ago.
People didn't understand the full extent of reproductive biology until our era. But the Jews,
like most people of the Middle East in the Bronze and Iron Ages fulling understood that
sex between a man and a woman could result in pregnancy.

 

[PruePhillip]

According to the biblical writers, there was no such thing as a sexual orientation. And I think you're misreading the Bible. God made nature -- including human nature -- and it was "very good."

Why would God make someone to be a certain way, and then not allow them the same expression of love as other people in committed, loving, equitable and consensual ways? That's utterly dehumanizing.

Okay, suppose your sexual orientation is 'hypersexual' and you want to have sex
with as many women as you can. You argue that it's "natural" because you are
"born that way." Or you were into bestiality - having sex with dogs. You argue its
"normal" because you are "born that way." And yes, you love your dog.
Wouldn't wash with people back then, particularly religious Jews. Maybe today you
can celebrate these behaviors because they are "natural." But it's "natural" to be
racist or sexist too - but somehow that's different.
On one hand there's a way going on against human nature (greed, racist, sexism,
hierarchy, private property etc) but on the other all sorts of deviant behavior is
considered 'natural.' Is child sex 'natural'?

 

[February-Saturday]

Gee, I'm so sorry I've "bothered" you by daring to call you out and speak -- not to myself, but to you. I'm afraid you're just going to have to get mad and get glad in the same pants, my friend.

I'm not mad at you anymore. This is what I've come to expect from most Christians. They don't listen to anything I say and want to make assumptions about where I'm coming from because they're more interested in discrediting me to maintain their worldview than having an actual discussion. There are plenty who don't do this, some of my most interesting conversations have been with Christians I disagree with, but you're not among them.

You're not calling me out. Hell, you've barely given me much of an opportunity to explain anything about what I'm saying. As you yourself said, there's just no point in trying to have a discussion with somebody who's already set in their biases.

I was mad that you somehow thought you were "calling me out" while attempting to tarnish my reputation with your righteous fury, despite not actually caring about what my point is that you're arguing against. As I said, though, I've come to expect that from most Christians and I don't really think you're worth my time to try to convince otherwise.

So, honestly, tell yourself whatever you need to about me. You were going to do that anyway, regardless of my involvement.

 

[questfortruth]

Well, isn't this sweet and loving -- and an accurate reflection of Jesus, who said that the kin-dom belongs to children?

Aborted babies go to hell. Bad are abortions, not Jesus Christ.

 

[brian100]

Gey end up better than Atheist.. Gey will have his partner in hell? But the Athiest must be all alone ghost.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, suppose your sexual orientation is 'hypersexual' and you want to have sex
with as many women as you can. You argue that it's "natural" because you are
"born that way." Or you were into bestiality - having sex with dogs. You argue its
"normal" because you are "born that way." And yes, you love your dog.
Wouldn't wash with people back then, particularly religious Jews. Maybe today you
can celebrate these behaviors because they are "natural." But it's "natural" to be
racist or sexist too - but somehow that's different.
On one hand there's a way going on against human nature (greed, racist, sexism,
hierarchy, private property etc) but on the other all sorts of deviant behavior is
considered 'natural.' Is child sex 'natural'?

Remember what Paul said: "All things are legal, but not all things are beneficial." This is the same sort of dynamic. Of course all these things are "natural," because the human being is "natural." But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's healthful. Lead is "natural" too, but not healthful.
Sex isn't primarily about self-gratification. It's primarily about relationship. In order for it to be, not only natural, but healthful for us, the sex relationship should be equitable, committed, loving, and consensual.

That being the case, please tell me in what way indiscriminate and anonymous sex, sex with animals, or sex with children meet any of the criteria above? No, in fact, all of these examples indicate a motive, not of relationship, but one of self-gratification. In fact, they objectify the partner.

No, sadly, I think you've gotten it all wrong. The Biblical writers were against same-sex relationships because they believed that such relationships were automatically inequitable (and they were in that culture). In our culture, such relationships can be quite equitable.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not mad at you anymore. This is what I've come to expect from most Christians. They don't listen to anything I say and want to make assumptions about where I'm coming from because they're more interested in discrediting me to maintain their worldview than having an actual discussion. There are plenty who don't do this, some of my most interesting conversations have been with Christians I disagree with, but you're not among them.

You're not calling me out. Hell, you've barely given me much of an opportunity to explain anything about what I'm saying. As you yourself said, there's just no point in trying to have a discussion with somebody who's already set in their biases.

I was mad that you somehow thought you were "calling me out" while attempting to tarnish my reputation with your righteous fury, despite not actually caring about what my point is that you're arguing against. As I said, though, I've come to expect that from most Christians and I don't really think you're worth my time to try to convince otherwise.

So, honestly, tell yourself whatever you need to about me. You were going to do that anyway, regardless of my involvement.

You know, I began by throwing out an olive branch. I said that normally I agree with your posts -- and that's true. I don't really give a rat's patoot what or whom you worship, or what kind of religion you practice. But let's be honest with ourselves here. You're not a Christian. I am. And, in fact, I am a learned and practiced Christian, having spent years studying the ancient texts on a professional level, and having spent years in serious personal and cultural reflection and deep spiritual formation, within the Christian Tradition. I also hold a position of ecclesial and spiritual authority within the religion, having an ordination and standing within a mainstream denomination. Which of us do you honestly think 1) has a greater interest in the religion, 2) has a greater authority to speak on behalf of the religion, 3) knows more about the religion, and, maybe most importantly, is more invested in the religion? This isn't an attempt to "tarnish your reputation." I'm frankly surprised that you would take it as such. But if you wish to saber-rattle about the legitimacy of a major world religion, which of us do you suppose should be imbued with greater "street cred" on the matter?

I have no "righteous fury" here. But I am speaking from a position of authority and investment. I sense (and this is not my first rodeo in the matter of discernment) that you're bitter about Xy. That's fine, but it creates a bias that clearly shows in your dismissal of Xy as a valid spiritual expression. The points you brought out were no more than your personal opinion, yet you presented those opinions as fact. Then you proceeded to say that you were "bothered" by my posts, and accuse me of "righteous fury." These accusations appear to me to be projection.

Yes, I did call out your dismissal of Xy based on colored opinion. But this is a debate forum; that calling out is not only allowed, but expected. I don't see why it should "bother" you -- or why it should appear to you as "righteous fury."

Here are some facts for you to chew on:
1) The Levitican Law concerns itself mostly with the equitable treatment of the vulnerable. That could be interpreted as a code that directs us to love our inferiors.
2) Jesus said that all the Law and prophets depend upon the laws of A) loving God, and B) loving one's neighbor as one loves one's self.
3) John's Gospel says that "God so loved the world..."
4) The Psalms speak of God as a mother eagle, a mother hen, a lover, one who "knew us before we were in our mothers' wombs."
5) Jesus said, "One has no greater love than when one sacrifices one's life for one's friends."
6) Jesus calls us, not "slaves," but "sisters and brothers."
7) The Bible, in several places, illustrates the religion as something that creates equity (lifting the lowly, bringing down the mountains). Isaiah invites, "Ho! You who hunger, come and buy milk without money and without price." Jesus admonished the rich, young ruler to "sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and come follow me."
8) Paul devotes a whole chapter of his first letter to First Church, Corinth, to love.

I'd say the religion is based in love and has love as both it's modus operendi and its chief aim. That various leaders and followers have fu(#@! that up at times is just normal, human failing. Xtians aren't perfect, after all. They are perfectly human, with all the warts intact. You point out those failings and lift them up as if they were central tenets of the Faith. Yes, there's much wrong with the Christian engine -- but there's also much right with it. Obviously, it doesn't work for you -- and I'm OK with that; I'm not here to convert you. But you don't get to falsely tear down my religion and not expect to hear from it.

 

[sojourner]

Aborted babies go to hell. Bad are abortions, not Jesus Christ.

Yet, the kin-dom belongs to such as they. Forbid them not to come. That's what Jesus says. Genesis tells us that God heard the cry of Ishmael, who had been banished and abandoned, and saved him. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated explicitly that "aborted babies go to hell." Nowhere. Why not give God's love and justice the benefit of the doubt, especially given the importance of equity and protection of the vulnerable in both written and oral Tradition?

 

[February-Saturday]

You know, I began by throwing out an olive branch. I said that normally I agree with your posts -- and that's true. I don't really give a rat's patoot what or whom you worship, or what kind of religion you practice. But let's be honest with ourselves here. You're not a Christian. I am. And, in fact, I am a learned and practiced Christian, having spent years studying the ancient texts on a professional level, and having spent years in serious personal and cultural reflection and deep spiritual formation, within the Christian Tradition. I also hold a position of ecclesial and spiritual authority within the religion, having an ordination and standing within a mainstream denomination. Which of us do you honestly think 1) has a greater interest in the religion, 2) has a greater authority to speak on behalf of the religion, 3) knows more about the religion, and, maybe most importantly, is more invested in the religion? This isn't an attempt to "tarnish your reputation." I'm frankly surprised that you would take it as such. But if you wish to saber-rattle about the legitimacy of a major world religion, which of us do you suppose should be imbued with greater "street cred" on the matter?

Probably the many, many other extremely learned and practiced Christians I've discussed Christianity with that also hold high (or even higher) ranks than you in the tradition. I can earnestly say you don't understand the underlying concepts of Christianity.

The reason homosexuality is seen as an abomination before the lord is pretty simple. Jesus's teachings all surround detachment from the material world. One of those attachments is lust. That's why, in almost all of Christianity and ESPECIALLY the Christians who take the teachings to be allegorical and metaphorical, you're only supposed to give into lust for the purposes of procreation. The act of creation makes the sin of lust less. That's why marriage was only supposed to be had between fertile men and women. Even then, you're still not supposed to do this.

Because, again, ultimately it's about worldly attachment. It's not that dissimilar to other mystic traditions in that sense. And that was my point. If you're doing same-sex marriages, you don't understand the purpose of marriage in Christianity according to the majority of Christians alive today and in the past and especially according to the most academically learned ones.

Your "street cred" doesn't mean anything here because I'm arguing from perspectives that come from people with just as much (actually, far more, in my opinion) "street cred" as you. People that are just as invested.

And, look, I wasn't acting like my word was law. You weren't letting me get to my point and you weren't giving me any justifications that really addressed what my underlying point was. You were just arguing to argue. I have no interest in that.

I have no "righteous fury" here. But I am speaking from a position of authority and investment. I sense (and this is not my first rodeo in the matter of discernment) that you're bitter about Xy. That's fine, but it creates a bias that clearly shows in your dismissal of Xy as a valid spiritual expression. The points you brought out were no more than your personal opinion, yet you presented those opinions as fact. Then you proceeded to say that you were "bothered" by my posts, and accuse me of "righteous fury." These accusations appear to me to be projection.

Yes, I did call out your dismissal of Xy based on colored opinion. But this is a debate forum; that calling out is not only allowed, but expected. I don't see why it should "bother" you -- or why it should appear to you as "righteous fury."

You could have fooled me.

Here are some facts for you to chew on:
1) The Levitican Law concerns itself mostly with the equitable treatment of the vulnerable. That could be interpreted as a code that directs us to love our inferiors.
2) Jesus said that all the Law and prophets depend upon the laws of A) loving God, and B) loving one's neighbor as one loves one's self.
3) John's Gospel says that "God so loved the world..."
4) The Psalms speak of God as a mother eagle, a mother hen, a lover, one who "knew us before we were in our mothers' wombs."
5) Jesus said, "One has no greater love than when one sacrifices one's life for one's friends."
6) Jesus calls us, not "slaves," but "sisters and brothers."
7) The Bible, in several places, illustrates the religion as something that creates equity (lifting the lowly, bringing down the mountains). Isaiah invites, "Ho! You who hunger, come and buy milk without money and without price." Jesus admonished the rich, young ruler to "sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and come follow me."
8) Paul devotes a whole chapter of his first letter to First Church, Corinth, to love.

I'd say the religion is based in love and has love as both it's modus operendi and its chief aim. That various leaders and followers have fu(#@! that up at times is just normal, human failing. Xtians aren't perfect, after all. They are perfectly human, with all the warts intact. You point out those failings and lift them up as if they were central tenets of the Faith. Yes, there's much wrong with the Christian engine -- but there's also much right with it. Obviously, it doesn't work for you -- and I'm OK with that; I'm not here to convert you. But you don't get to falsely tear down my religion and not expect to hear from it.

I'm not saying that love isn't a central part of Christianity. I'm just saying there's a lot more to it than that, and I feel like you're intentionally ignoring it. I could just as easily quote Jesus saying he came not to bring peace but the sword, or the Old Testament God claiming to create evil. Or, the scripture I was quoting when I said the tradition views gay people as abhorrent, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 1:6. That's the New Testament, even.

Again, look at the language it's using. They're going astray from the natural use of women and giving into lust. That's not "we don't know gay people exist," that's "we oppose giving into lust and tentatively allow sex if it's for reproduction," which is a pretty common theme throughout the Bible. Again, it's about detachment from the material world in a very similar manner to asceticism and mysticism, and that's what it's been interpreted as by pretty much all reputable esoteric Christians looking for the deeper allegorical messages and practices in the scriptures. Your fundamental lack of understanding about this disqualifies any street cred you might have, in my opinion. Leading a community is not the same as being right.

Indeed, the love you're talking about (or agape in most of the original texts) is not love how we see it today. It's its own distinct theological concept, referring to God's love of the people. It's an unconditional and all-encompassing acceptance and compassion. It's not the romantic love you find between partners, and it's definitely not lustful, sexual love, either.

But you're right, I have no horse in this race. I have no interest in debating scripture with you. I just figured I would finally make my point now that I've gotten a word in edge wise. Feel free to tear it apart, this is all I wanted to say.

ETA: And, I guess to clarify its connection to what I was saying in my original post, I think this particular teaching makes it pretty odd to believe that God is love when he's ready to chuck you under the bus as soon as you express your romantic love towards the wrong person physically. I stand by that.

 

[questfortruth]

"aborted babies go to hell." Nowhere. Why not give God's love and justice the benefit of the doubt

If every woman would be threatened, that her aborted baby is in hell, then there will be much less abortions.

 

[sojourner]

The reason homosexuality is seen as an abomination before the lord is pretty simple. Jesus's teachings all surround detachment from the material world. One of those attachments is lust.

I disagree. The reason why homosexuality is seen as an abomination is complicated. If you think it's "pretty simple," you haven't done your homework. The Apostles' teaching makes clear that love is about relationship, not self-gratification -- even the eros you will shortly mention. In the culture of ancient, Middle-Eastern Judaic people, Shame and honor are embedded sexually. That is, men embody honor and women embody shame. It was considered dishonorable for a man to treat another (equal) man as one would treat a woman. It was also considered shameful for a man to "bend over and take it like a woman." One reason for the prohibition is a cultural reason that simply does not apply to modern, Euro-American culture. A love relationship is to be committed, equitable, and consensual. In that culture, homosexual relationships could not be that. There also was the procreation factor, but that's not the sole factor.

I also disagree that Jesus' teachings all surround detachment from the material world. Whatever else he may have been, Jesus was a man of his time, of his culture, and of his world. Sounds like you've been talking to a lot of Gnostics to me. Most of Jesus' teaching illustrations were filled with earthly scenes and circumstances. The mustard seed, the wheat and the weeds, the leaven, the talents, the bridesmaids, the coin, the pearl of great price. Jesus referred to himself as "bread," "shepherd," "bridegroom." Jesus spoke of blood and of water. Jesus commanded us to "feed his sheep," to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give the thirsty something to drink, visit the lonely, tend the sick, cure the diseased. These are all material things. What Jesus taught was not "detachment from the material world," but detachment from the status quo that only served to create division and inequity -- the "powers of this world." That status quo would prevent people from building right relationship -- love relationship. I'm afraid that it does all come down to love.

you're only supposed to give into lust for the purposes of procreation.

Not so. Here's a great statement of purpose of marriage, advocated by the mainstream Faith: the union of two people is created in " heart, mind, and body." It is intended "for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord."

That's why marriage was only supposed to be had between fertile men and women.

See above. Abram and Sarai were married. She was barren.

If you're doing same-sex marriages, you don't understand the purpose of marriage in Christianity according to the majority of Christians alive today and in the past and especially according to the most academically learned ones.

Again, see above. Marriage "signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church."

You could have fooled me.

Apparently that happened.

I'm not saying that love isn't a central part of Christianity. I'm just saying there's a lot more to it than that, and I feel like you're intentionally ignoring it. I could just as easily quote Jesus saying he came not to bring peace but the sword, or the Old Testament God claiming to create evil. Or, the scripture I was quoting when I said the tradition views gay people as abhorrent, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 1:6. That's the New Testament, even.

I'm ignoring nothing. There's a difference between "ignoring" and "prioritizing." Everyone weighs texts and prioritizes what's most important. Even Jesus did that. Additionally, the texts don't "view gay people as abhorrent." For the ancients, "homosexual" wasn't on the radar. They knew nothing of sexual orientation. All they knew were acts. They viewed the acts as abhorrent, for reasons given above. It's a big mistake to say that the texts condemn homosexuality. There is no such term in any of the texts.

Again, look at the language it's using. They're going astray from the natural use of women and giving into lust. That's not "we don't know gay people exist," that's "we oppose giving into lust and tentatively allow sex if it's for reproduction," which is a pretty common theme throughout the Bible.

Yes, because they did not realize that such acts could be natural. Just as they did not know that the earth was not the center of the universe. It's because they didn't know that people could have different sexual orientations.

Again, it's about detachment from the material world in a very similar manner to asceticism and mysticism, and that's what it's been interpreted as by pretty much all reputable esoteric Christians looking for the deeper allegorical messages and practices in the scriptures. Your fundamental lack of understanding about this disqualifies any street cred you might have, in my opinion. Leading a community is not the same as being right.

No. It's not. At least, not in the mainstream Christian view. My street cred is firmly in that camp.

It's an unconditional and all-encompassing acceptance and compassion. It's not the romantic love you find between partners, and it's definitely not lustful, sexual love, either.

But the marriage relationship includes agape' love.

I think this particular teaching makes it pretty odd to believe that God is love when he's ready to chuck you under the bus as soon as you express your romantic love towards the wrong person physically.

God isn't ready to chuck anyone under the bus; people are ready to chuck others under the bus. God didn't write the texts; people wrote them -- and they wrote them within the context of their own cultures and understanding, and for specific audiences.

 

[sojourner]

If every woman would be threatened, that her aborted baby is in hell, then there will be much less abortions.

Threats have no truck with the Christian Faith that values love, truth, and equity. Your statement is incongruent with the tenets of the Faith.

 

[PruePhillip]

Remember what Paul said: "All things are legal, but not all things are beneficial." This is the same sort of dynamic. Of course all these things are "natural," because the human being is "natural." But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's healthful. Lead is "natural" too, but not healthful.
Sex isn't primarily about self-gratification. It's primarily about relationship. In order for it to be, not only natural, but healthful for us, the sex relationship should be equitable, committed, loving, and consensual.

That being the case, please tell me in what way indiscriminate and anonymous sex, sex with animals, or sex with children meet any of the criteria above? No, in fact, all of these examples indicate a motive, not of relationship, but one of self-gratification. In fact, they objectify the partner.

No, sadly, I think you've gotten it all wrong. The Biblical writers were against same-sex relationships because they believed that such relationships were automatically inequitable (and they were in that culture). In our culture, such relationships can be quite equitable.

So are the cops going to arrest gays loitering around public toilets at night because
they aren't there for "relationships"?
Would Liberace be arrested for having a new "relationship" every night?

 

[RabbiO]

Why not give God's love and justice the benefit of the doubt, especially given the importance of equity and protection of the vulnerable in both written and oral Tradition?

Some people have small brains, small hearts, and even smaller souls.

 

[sojourner]

So are the cops going to arrest gays loitering around public toilets at night because
they aren't there for "relationships"?
Would Liberace be arrested for having a new "relationship" every night?

Why would anyone be arrested? This simply isn’t cogent to my point.

 

[columbus]

So are the cops going to arrest gays loitering around public toilets at night because
they aren't there for "relationships"?
Would Liberace be arrested for having a new "relationship" every night?

Frankly, I'm rather a prude.

I find all those behaviors irresponsible and self-destructive. In a word, immoral. I firmly believe that the best thing for virtually all competent adults is to find a compatible mate and found a relationship. That's exactly why I support state recognition of gay marriages. It helps enormously to cement those relationships into a lifetime commitment.

People who oppose such commitments are clearly opposed to moral behavior. To me, that makes your(very common) attitude immoral. And frankly, the conclusion I've come to is that "traditional" Christians don't want a resolution to social issues like irresponsible sex and abortion. They prefer to keep the problems because it gives them reasons to feel superior and Self-righteous and the opportunity to punish people and feel good about it.

I find that attitude extremely ugly and immoral. I cannot believe in such a petty God. But I can easily believe that petty people can create a God in their own image.
Tom

 

[PruePhillip]

Frankly, I'm rather a prude.

I find all those behaviors irresponsible and self-destructive. In a word, immoral. I firmly believe that the best thing for virtually all competent adults is to find a compatible mate and found a relationship. That's exactly why I support state recognition of gay marriages. It helps enormously to cement those relationships into a lifetime commitment.

People who oppose such commitments are clearly opposed to moral behavior. To me, that makes your(very common) attitude immoral. And frankly, the conclusion I've come to is that "traditional" Christians don't want a resolution to social issues like irresponsible sex and abortion. They prefer to keep the problems because it gives them reasons to feel superior and Self-righteous and the opportunity to punish people and feel good about it.

I find that attitude extremely ugly and immoral. I cannot believe in such a petty God. But I can easily believe that petty people can create a God in their own image.
Tom

You might need to read the Old Testament re "petty God." Lots of Jews back then thought God
was "petty" for all His commandments - including adultery, relationships with other nations,
"fornication", sex with animals etc..
But I don't think the Liberace style casual sex, predominant in the "gay community" has anything
to do with relationship. Why don't we allow gay marriage and punish gay-toilet-block behavior?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why would anyone be arrested? This simply isn’t cogent to my point.

Gay-sex-in-the-bushes has not nothing to do with "relationships."

 

[eik]

Why don't we allow gay marriage?

Marriage is to do with regulating the one-in-flesh relation between men and women.

It has nothing to do with any other type of relationship. Put simply, the very idea of "gay marriage" is biblically speaking, nonsense. You can call it what you want, but biblical marriage is monogenes. To be classed as marriage at all, it must involve a man and a woman.