Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

I'm not sure what I said which you took to be ad hominem, however I apologize for writing anything which might have seemed a personal insult. I guess I did not make my question clear enough. You were arguing that Xians are blasting homosexuals as sinful in a way that suggests this was the only sin they were concentrating on. I was pointing out there are other groups slated for reproach and so asking why you have a hangup with homosexuals getting the slam over any other group?Appealing to the topic of this thread does not explain the nature of the argument you were making. And I would add that the question posed in the thread OP does beg the question why should homosexuality be of any greater concern than any other group? I did respond to that assertion on your part. Straights are told they are sinning when they have sex. All sex is sin. There is a mystical right which allows one type of act alone to be given a temporary reprieve for atonement, and that is based on its ability to produce offspring.If a straight couple is unmarried they are in sin. If they engage in any of the sexual acts that gays inherently employ (oral/anal/digital), they are in sin. If they wear protection, they are in sin. If they masturbate while thinking of a member of the opposite sex they are in sin.Ironically gays can and have engaged in the very sanctified act of which I speak in order to have offspring and so did not commit sin at that time. On the other hand, many if not most straights commit as many acts outside the bounds of scripture and so are just as sinful as gays sexually.Perhaps its easiest to put it this way, sex for pleasure is a sin, rather than sex alone being sinful. Of course even sex for reproduction is not inherently free of sin, it needs the mystical right to cleanse the act, and so it is somewhat easier to catch the full breadth of the laws by saying sex is sinful.Once again, I feel the point is rather clear to anyone reading our posts. If all you have to give is yet another repetition on your original assertion and refuse to address what I've said, I will not reply.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thank God for alternative interpretations.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I judge their self-reported actions to be sinful in "linguistically meaningful" fashion.

---

And if they say it isn't sinning?

quote:

---

I then judge Bible to tell me "linguistically meaningfully" that God is the one who determines certain actions to be sinful.

---

But then it isn't you. It's god. Again, how do you know? Your own book tells you that you don't, that you can't, that you are in no position to do so and if you attempt to do so, you'll fail tremendously. So why do you spend so much time worried about it? Why are you not more concerned with your own actions? Your book even tries to advise you about that: How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is a great plank in your own?

quote:

---

The above steps render me believing that homosex (for example) is sinful.

---

Even though the Bible never says so?

quote:

---

Suffice to say I judge the Bible to condemn homosex - in a linguistically meaningfully way.

---

But it doesn't say so. How can you find "linguistic meaning" when the words you claim to be there are literally not there.

quote:

---

It is clear from this standard that you can find someone who is not a sinner to compare sinners with.

---

Last time I checked, none of us were Christ.And again, by your own standard, even Christ was a sinner because, after all, Christ was human and all humans are sinners.

quote:

---

According to your standard perhaps. Clearly not according to mine.

---

So which part fails? Is the reason why Christ was a sinner because Christ wasn't human? Or is it possible to be human and not a sinner?And if it's possible to be human and not a sinner (and your Bible clearly indicates that Christ was not the only one...there are at least two others), then where do you get off judging if anybody else is?You do this for the glory of man, not god.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

You were arguing that Xians are blasting homosexuals as sinful in a way that suggests this was the only sin they were concentrating on.

---

I guess I need to repeat it:Huh? Do you not realize that the topic of the thread is, "Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?" It would seem to be the case that the question of sexual proscriptions would be the subject of the conversation.What part of "make peace with gay people" means we're talking about, oh, stealing? Or murder? Or any of the other possible "sins" out there? Are you trying to say that being gay means one does not keep the Sabbath? Spit it out. What are you trying to say?

quote:

---

Straights are told they are sinning when they have sex. All sex is sin.

---

Since when? "Be fruitful and multiply." Last time I checked, humans hadn't mastered parthenogenesis and the Catholic Church just declared cloning to be a sin. The Bible is filled with people desperately wanting to have a baby, praying to god to make it happen. The sin of Onan is that he didn't have sex (or, at least, didn't complete the act).Where does this idea that "all sex is sin" come from? Paul? We're going to trust Paul over god? Jesus doesn't say not to have sex. Are we going to trust Paul over Jesus?Yes, there are lots of ways straight people can engage in sex and sin, but as I've repeated over and over: That doesn't mean god loves them any less than the gays...just that they need more supervision.

quote:

---

Perhaps its easiest to put it this way, sex for pleasure is a sin

---

Ahem. The Song of Solomon.Where does this idea that sex for pleasure is a sin come from?

quote:

---

If all you have to give is yet another repetition on your original assertion and refuse to address what I've said, I will not reply.

---

Strange, that's my argument to you: You do nothing but repeat the same non-answers to my points. If you have nothing to contribut but repetition of the same non sequiturs, then perhaps you should not reply.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I can't see that it matters much to the issue at hand - Which is how I arrive at stating homosex sinful. No objection to Step 1?- Whoa!The sentence starts out with "I judge.." so it is me judging that God determines certain things. The judgement is a [i]linguistically meaningful[i] one and not, according to you, a mote/plank kind of judgement. No objection to Step 2?-You missed out Step 3 which is the bit where I say that "I believe the Bible to be the word of God". You don't register an objection there either.- I think it does, but like I say, I have no interest in debating the linguistic meanings I draw from the Bible with you. The issue is how I arrive at stating people sinners and that involves the linguistic meaning I draw from the Bible. Not the linguistic meaning you draw from it.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

The topic is Xianity v gays. That does not explain statements suggesting that homosexuality is the only remaining thing Xians care about sin wise, and so they give heteros some free pass.The exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" does not remove the sin of sex by heterosexuals. Again, the best that would theoretically remove condemnation of is vaginal sex, which not all heteros enjoy as their main sexual outlet. However, it doesn't remove the stain from that act either. Any and all vaginal sex must have been consecrated beforehand by a joining of the two people in front of God. Mr. Peeper needs to bless them, before they have vaginal sex, so that they can have children.If you want to discuss conflicting statements within the Bible (i.e. the song of solomon), that is another topic altogether.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

quote:

---

So, the question is this. Can you see in the foreseeable future any chance of mainstream christianity coming to term with gay rights? Or is this an issue that will be faced by my grand children?

---

The church has harbored intolerance for so long I'm not really sure. I'd heard one plausible theory that said people who were thought to be gay were often encouraged to be part of the church, thusly preventing homosexuality from happening. Or.. well not.For some reason though, society has always shunned acceptance of well, anything considered to be diverse by the existing social mores, and often religion is used as a tool to justify such a behavior. I blame the fear of change for this occurrance, people are afraid something might change thier mind, thier way of being, thier sense of security, thier surroundings. I can't say that its a bad thing or a good thing, as often social mores and values exist to preserve a society.But perhaps if the church were to re-evaluate the reason for the existance of such judgemental mores, it could happen. Its important I suppose to say that society is not what it used to be, because of the benefits of science and technology. Medical practices which prevent disease which were once prevented by practices of theistic belief systems is a good example of that, and not to mention science and technology is a much more efficient means of doing so (take tirpanning for example).I'm not here to argue though whether or not the church oppresses homosexuality. I'm sure theres evidence to support claims on both sides of that argument. I'm simply trying to answer a question, is it possible for homosexuality to be maybe not endorsed, but accepted by mainstream christianity? I think so long as there are judgemental minds in a system of self sustaining hatred, this will continue to be an issue. But I dont think all christians, are judgemental.One of my high school instructors actually used to work a lot with teens, as a part of the church, who were homosexual. He was not a judgemental man, he was in fact one of the more enlightening teachers I'd had to be around. I'd say because of that experience, that we can definaitely stratify the levels of corruption within the church, by correlating the level of tolerance with the level of responsability in a church. I'd say that because it seems to me, that such persons who are not judgemental such as that man do not often make it very far in terms of obtaining power within a church system.With all of that said, I can say that I still dont know! I'm not much on predicting the future but if anything I said can be used as a means of establishing a causality, then so be it.Edited by OurCynic, : No reason given.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I can't see that it matters much to the issue at hand

---

It's the entire point of the discussion, friend. You have made a judgement. They have made the opposite one.

quote:

---

No objection to Step 1?

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 1.

quote:

---

The sentence starts out with "I judge.." so it is me judging that God determines certain things.

---

But you don't have that right. Who are you to tell god what to do?

quote:

---

No objection to Step 2?

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 2.

quote:

---

You missed out Step 3 which is the bit where I say that "I believe the Bible to be the word of God". You don't register an objection there either.

---

You can believe whatever you wish. This isn't about your beliefs. It's about your judgements. That you base your beliefs upon your judgements isn't the problem. It's the judgements that you have made that are the problem.Note: I am assuming you "believe" the Bible. Therefore, I assume that you "believe" that you are not supposed to make judgements.But then you immediately turn around and make them.

quote:

---

I think it does, but like I say, I have no interest in debating the linguistic meanings I draw from the Bible with you.

---

But that's the entire point. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says and yet you seem to think you have the right to make declarations about god's opinion.That's judgement.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

The topic is Xianity v gays. That does not explain statements suggesting that homosexuality is the only remaining thing Xians care about sin wise

---

And since no such statements have been made, one wonders why you are attacking a strawman.

quote:

---

The exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" does not remove the sin of sex by heterosexuals.

---

But where is the sin of sex to begin with? The problem is not the sex: It's the rituals surrounding it. When the great elders of the Bible have hundreds of wives, then there is clearly no sin with regard to sex in and of itself.As I said before: Yes, there are lots of ways straight people can engage in sex and sin, but as I've repeated over and over: That doesn't mean god loves them any less than the gays...just that they need more supervision.

quote:

---

Again, the best that would theoretically remove condemnation of is vaginal sex, which not all heteros enjoy as their main sexual outlet.

---

But there is nothing in the Bible that says any such thing. The Bible is very quiet on the mechanics. Even the sin of Onan, supposedly about masturbation, isn't about that: It's that he was supposed to conceive a child for his dead brother and couldn't bring himself to do it. If sex were sinful, why on earth would he be ritually required to have sex with his sister-in-law?But when the Bible does talk about mechanics, it talks about oral sex and declares it wonderful:Sol 2:3: As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.Sol 4:16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.And then there's this passage which is a bit difficult to consider:Sol 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.I'm pretty sure they don't mean fisting, but clearly there is some form of masturbatory action going on.

quote:

---

If you want to discuss conflicting statements within the Bible (i.e. the song of solomon), that is another topic altogether.

---

Ahem. You're the one who brought it up. No, not the Song of Solomon; the claim that sex for pleasure is a sin.You have yet to show where the Bible ever says sex for pleasure is a sin. Since the Bible contains an erotic poem covering an entire book, you have yet to meet your burden of proof.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

So? The basis on which I say homosex is sinful doesn't refer in anyway to how others judge. I thought you were objecting to the basis on which I state homosex sinful.- And that objection is?- No right to judge (in linguistically meaningful fashion) what the Bible says God has decided is sinful?Could you explain how my judging the linguistic meaning of the Bible is "telling God what to do"?- It would be helpful if you could quote the step and tie your objection to it.- Okay. That narrows things down a bit.- Earlier you said this...

quote:

---

"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."

---

I understand the Bible to frown on judgements involving the latter of the two kinds of judgement you describe above (for logical reasons).It doesn't appear to condemn the former kind of judgement (for logical reasons). The former kind of judgement is the judgement involved in steps 1 and 2.- I think the Bible does say what I think it says. And that is the basis for my stating that homosex is sinful. The only judgement involved islinguistic meaningful judgement - which is not mote/plank territoryI do think I have the right to express my opinion on what I think God thinks.Are we done?

What does polygamy have to do with proscriptions on sexuality? You can consistently allow a person many wives, and yet maintain that sex with any of them is illegitimate (sinful) without being married.I'm not going to get into a debate regarding proscriptions on the mechanics. This will devolve, or collapse, into the same issue which is inconsistency (or differing interpretations) of biblical passages. Neither of our positions are helped by the existence of such passages.As it is I did not raise the issue of inconsistency to support my position. I'm not sure how you can point to your own evidence as proof I raised the issue to support my position.That all sex outside of marriage is proscribed, does mean that heterosexuality is not inherently given a free pass. That many Xians maintain that nonvaginal sex is proscribed, means that for them heterosexuality is not given a free pass inside marriage.As you have repeatedly pointed out over the years, there was no concept of homosexuality at that time. Hence it seems odd to suggest that the Bible gives heteros any free ride. Unless they could conceive of one but not the other? What was proscribed was sex outside of marriage. And as many believe, within marriage, only potentially procreative acts allowed.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

The basis on which I say homosex is sinful doesn't refer in anyway to how others judge.

---

Irrelevant. This isn't about them. It's about YOU. YOU are the one that made the judgement. That is not your place. You are in no position to tell god what to do or to tell anybody else what god thinks. You are not god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 1.

---

​

And that objection is?

---

You've got to be kidding me. Read the very first two words in your "Step 1": You are in no position to judge anything. Therefore, big objection to Step 1.

quote:

---

No right to judge (in linguistically meaningful fashion) what the Bible says God has decided is sinful?

---

When the Bible doesn't say anything, how do you come up with "linguistically meaningful" anything? You are making up stuff out of whole cloth. Thus, you are putting yourself in god's place.

quote:

---

Could you explain how my judging the linguistic meaning of the Bible is "telling God what to do"?

---

Because the text literally does not say what you think it says. There are no passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality.None.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Big objection to Step 2.

---

​

It would be helpful if you could quote the step and tie your objection to it.

---

Don't play dumb. I have already answered this. Do you need me to repeat it?Your understanding of god does not give you the right to tell anybody else if what they are doing is sinful. And that is what you are doing. Ergo, big objection to Step 2.

quote:

---

I understand the Bible to frown on judgements involving the latter of the two kinds of judgement you describe above (for logical reasons).

---

But there is nothing in the Bible referring to the topic at hand. Therefore, where do you get off making any sort of claim as to what god thinks?

quote:

---

I think the Bible does say what I think it says.

---

Then were is it? There is nothing in the text referring to homosexuality. There are a small handful of passages referring to ritualistic sex. Last time I checked, gay people weren't having sex in a fertility rite in order to have a good harvest. That isn't what being gay is all about.

quote:

---

I do think I have the right to express my opinion on what I think God thinks.

​

Are we done?

---

No.You certainly have a freedom of expression right to say whatever you wish. But if you truly believed the Bible, then you have absolutely no right to ever say anything about what god thinks. That is judgement. You are not god. You have absolutely no idea what god thinks or wants.Not only is it judgement, it's arrogance. That's the sin of pride.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

What does polygamy have to do with proscriptions on sexuality?

---

You're kidding me, right? What do you think Solomon was doing with those wives? Playing triple-deck, chunk-deal, mega-pass Hearts?

quote:

---

That all sex outside of marriage is proscribed, does mean that heterosexuality is not inherently given a free pass.

---

(*sigh*) You don't even remember your own argument, do you?Your argument is that all sex is sinful.If there is a way to have sex without sin (i.e., get married) and if that path is given to heterosexuals, then heterosexuals are given a pass.A way to have sex without sin is a pass.
That way is given to heterosexuals.
Therefore, heterosexuals are given a pass.This is your argument. You're the one who claimed that all sex was sinful. You now seem to be backtracking. So which is it? Is all sex sinful?Yes or no. Simple question, simple answer.Is all sex sinful?

quote:

---

That many Xians maintain that nonvaginal sex is proscribed, means that for them heterosexuality is not given a free pass inside marriage.

---

Huh? Are they still having sex? Are they not sinning? Are they heterosexual? Then the heterosexuals have been given a pass.Is all sex sinful?

quote:

---

Hence it seems odd to suggest that the Bible gives heteros any free ride.

---

Who said anything about the Bible? We're talking about Christians and the last time I checked, Christians were not the Bible.

quote:

---

What was proscribed was sex outside of marriage.

---

Not always.Onan.His sin was not that he had sex. It was not that he masturbated. It was that he refused to complete the sex act with his brother's widow. He was REQUIRED to have sex in order to NOT sin. Because he refused, god smote him where he stood.So if one is required to have sex, how can it be sinful?Is all sex sinful?

quote:

---

And as many believe, within marriage, only potentially procreative acts allowed.

---

Where does the Bible ever say that?Is all sex sinful?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

What's irrelevant? The fact that the basis of my saying what I say is not about them but about me? Not only is that relevant but er..that point is mine. One made in reponse to you introducing them. Get your own points will you?- I can't see what would stop me judging things on a linguistically meaningfully basis: the ability to read puts me in a postion to do so.Certainly nothing in the Bible prevents me doing so - indeed, I would need to utilise judgements as to linguistic meaning in order to glean anything the Bible says (or to glean what your posts say).- I judge that there are. You judge that there are not. But that is not the issue. The issue has to do with you saying I am not permitted to judge linguistically meaningfully - for that would be mote/plank.- Another example of not dealing with the point. Step 2 doesn't involve rights. It involves how I come to concluding as I do. The right to tell someone they are sinning arises out of rights involving free speech within the strictures imposed by the forum rules. If Percy removed those rights then I wouldn't have the right.If you'd done as I asked and placed your objection to step 2 under a quote of step 2 then it would be easier for you to see whether you have an actual objection to it. You tend to object to things other than the steps I've given.- You quote one point of mine and respond with an unrelated point. I'm going to have to insist you tighten things up Rrhain. As already mentioned, I'm not getting into the relative merits of this or that linguistic meaning with you. Sorry.- I truly believe the Bible and nothing that I see in it prevents me from saying what I believe God thinks. I've got your word for it but am not inclined to accept that.Arriving at a belief about what God thinks involves the 3 steps outlined and I am eager to hear specific objections to step 1 and 2 (3 being already accepted by you).I would be particularily keen to hear from you how you propose to eliminate my right to arrive at linguistic meaning (central to steps 1 and 2) without sawing the legs off your own right to do the same.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.