Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

Rahvin writesquote:The Bible is also explicitly anti-interracial mingling, anti-interfaith marriage, anti-women, and anti-shellfish.Oh...and anti-geology, anti-biology, anti-physics, and generally anti-science. That's exactly what I'm saying. Early potential Christian converts want to eat shellfish and pork, and dont want to be circumcised? Here comes Paul to have a vision and reinterpret everything to get rid of those pesky rules.Women want equal treatment and want to be able to speak up in Church? Clearly, that passage must have been about speaking in tongues, not in general (amusingly, this is still extremely sexist, and fundamentalist women who believe in "speaking in tongues" do so all the time, like in the Jesus Camp documentary).Can't have slaves any more? Obviously, Jesus coming broke all bonds and established a new Covenent.Gays are normal people, and homosexuality isnt really evil?I'm eagerly waiting to see how they'll eventually rationalize that one. Same horrific justification used for the COnquistadors and other mass murder of Native Americans and other non-Christians. Hell, it's also closely related to the justification of the Inquisition. Fortunately, most people no longer accept such nonsense.Though it's interesting...I read of a study not too long ago where subjects were asked whether an act of genocide was justified. They took one of the stories from the Bible (there are several technical genocides - it may have been Canaan, or perhaps one of the others), and changed enough words to make it look like a modern occurance. They gave the original, Biblical version to one group, and the altered version to another. Unsurprisingly, the group with the Biblical version found the genocide to be compeltely justified, while the group with the modern version of the same story found it to be abhorrent. It seems the Bible gets a free pass. I'll do some searching and see if I can find an article on it, maybe start another cognitive dissonance thread. That's be the one, and I'm watching for it as well.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Xian "sins" are defined by the xian text.It is quite explicit.Do you, as a xian, get to decide which sins are real and which are gobbledygook?If not, one must read the bible literally, yes?And that's a whole heapin load of sins you gots to watch out for.You'd best put down that brewski.Galatians 5:19-21Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God...

Just for clarification. You believe in a literal hell? And, if you were convinced that you were going to hell, you would commit suicide?

Mark Twain's take on some of the issues in this thread is here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm#BIBLEExcerpt: Another generation or two, and maybe we'll see similar progress on the sexual orientation front.....

quote:

---

Ironically, it could be that the easy availability of abortion services in England leaks pressure that might otherwise build up towards having the status quo here changed.

---

Very true.

If the sinner needs to give up the sin to be reconciled with God, then yes, that's what I'm saying. If God says that homosexual activity is sinful, then he is being unjust. There is no moral or ethical reason to object to homosexuality. If God objects, then he is in the wrong and he should buck his ideas up. That may sound arrogant to you, but I would expect God, if he were real, to adhere to a more rigorous moral regime than humanity, and not be a homophobic bigot. Only if Christian churches stop trying to force people to deny their sexual orientation will they make peace with homosexuals. It can be done, but there needs to be compromise, and that is increasing unlikely to gay people, who see no reason to compromise. Religion remains a source of prejudice against homosexuals. That has to end or it will just continue to propagate divisions. So does this change necessarily involve denying one's homosexuality or refraining from homosexual activity? Or could one enjoy a Christian relationship with God and still be gay? Let's hope that the echo continues to fade. Religion has no place in defining social policy in a democratic state.

---

Mutate and Survive

molbiogirl writes

quote:

---

You believe in a literal hell?

---

At this point in my life, I don't know.

quote:

---

And, if you were convinced that you were going to hell, you would commit suicide?

---

Nope. When I said I'd rather end my line right here right now, I meant signing up to go to Iraq or something. Or get a vasectomy ASAP.

If you could name one verse that clearly justifies slavery, racial discrimination, or unequal rights of women I would be happy to listen to your argument. It's easy to point fingers when you provide no evidence for your claims.

Please name one verse that shows that the Bible is anti-science.

Whoever those people were who acted that way to you were wrong. Being gay is a sin and they should have brought you into their discussion with open arms to help you with the issues you were facing. No single person who fully believes in the Bible hates gay people, but all of them would want to help you move away from sin.Edited by Lemkin, : No reason given.

Suicide by insurgent.That's not good, T4C.

I started a thread that is related to this here.

Have you read the Bible?

quote:

---

Exoldus 21:2-24 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself

---

quote:

---

1Tim. 6:1-5 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

---

quote:

---

Eph. 6:5-6 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

---

Slavery is clearly a-okay in the Bible.

quote:

---

racial discrimination,

---

This can go all over the place, from commandments to the Hebrews that they should not intermarry with non-Jews, to passages that have at various times in the past been used to justify more general racism.

quote:

---

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

---

The Curse of Ham as this came to be called was eventually interpreted to mean that Ham and his descendants carried the mark of their curse with dark skin. This was used to justify African slavery.I'll admit, I find it to be a stretch myself, but it was used for a few hundred years to justify African slavery. This one is easy. Paul really, really didn't like women:

quote:

---

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

---

The natural use of women?

quote:

---

1 Corinth. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

---

Men are in charge of women.

quote:

---

1 Corinth. 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

---

Shave a woman's head if she dares enter a church with her head uncovered.

quote:

---

1 Corinth. 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

---

Women should shut up in church and take their direction from men.We wont even mention the general unimportance of women throughout the Bible (only men are mentioned in the genealogies, for instance, and ALL of the sons, but no women, ever, except for notable wives), of that they were often treated as sex slaves and taken as forced brides after various genocidal campaigns (that would be called rape, btw, and was apparently supported by God).Is that enough, Lemkin, or should I continue? Note that I've spanned both the Old and New Testaments. Forgive me for assuming that Christians would actually read the book they profess to be literally true.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

The question "what if homosexual activity is sinful?" was intended rhetorically. The implication I was dealing with was that the church would have to relent on it being a sin in order for peace between church and practicing homosexual. Lest there be confusion, I read homosexual activity is being sinful. Clearly so. Does God within me have any say in what I consider sin or no? Besides, I'm free from the law in the matter of sin. That Galatians passage doesn't refer to me (in terms of going to Hell) whether I sin those sins or not. But that's off topic.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The sinner doesn't need to give up his sins in order to be reconciled to God. The fact that he cannot do so is the reason why the gospel is a gospel of Gods grace - not a gospel of mans effort to make himself right with God. When a sinner is saved, gay or no, all his sins: past, present and future are forgiven. He is reconciled to God forever. According to your definition of morality perhaps. But God is also entitled to a view about what is moral and not. Someone's view counts. Ands it's not yours. Same point as above. Gods definition of right and wrong revolves around whether your actions align God's will or not. If they do not then you are wrong. By definition. You might not agree with the definition. You might not like it. But that doesn't alter the definition You seem to be debating the following system: individual > church > God. As if the issue of a persons orientation is primarily a matter between the church and the individual. The Roman Catholic church typifies such a system, for example.But that is not what I am proposing is the case. A persons homosexual activity (which is, I am assuming for the sake of argument, sinful) is primarily a matter between them and God. Not between them and a church.There is the issue of how a church would deal with any Christians persistant sinful activity: be it homosexual activity or any other sinful activity. This merely from a church order and discipline point of view. And the church should be consistant in it's application of discipline and not pick out homosexual activity for special treatment. The first thing to query is your apparent assumption that homosexual orientation be considered on a par with hetrosexual orientation. That it, like hetrosexuality, belongs to the order set up by God.It may well be that a person is born homosexual but that in itself doesn't alter homosexual orientation being disorientation in fact. Disorientated w.r.t. the order that God set up pre-fall. If a homosexual becomes a Christian (and is thus reconciled to God) then God will deal with ALL the disorientation in that person - sexual disorientation being just one of the myriad of disorientations that need dealing with. We all come to God disorientated to our very core.Does this mean refraining from homosexual activity? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps not yet. All Christians engage in sinful behaviour. All Christians will die whilst still engaging in sinful behaviour. I don't think there is any general statement that can be made about all homosexuals. Can a gay person engage in homosexual activity and enjoy a relationship with God? Insofar as any sinner can continue to engage in sinful behaviour and enjoy a relationship with God I am sure they can - God help us if we could only enjoy a relationship with God once we have refrained from ongoing sin patterns.Now if God happens to turn the wick up on a particular area of sin-to-be-dealt-with then things might alter somewhat. But in principle, yes, God can be enjoyed by Christian gays. Which is a completely undemocratic thing to say. The religious voice is a voice that is entitled to be heard in a democracy. Just like any other voice.Edited by iano, : No reason given.