Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

When dealing with the issue of calling someone a sinner, I don't need to know a thing about their activity. All I need to know is that they are a) a person b) not Christ. Once those two positions are satisfied then I can call them a sinner. The issue of calling a particular activity sinful is a different one and relies on the person telling me that they engage in that activity. Their engaging or not in that activity doesn't affect their being sinners or not. They are in any case. Perhaps you could explain how I get off the horns of a particular dilemma.You seem to be under the impression that I should not judge the Bible as the word of God nor the word of God as saying x, y, z is sinful (for if I do so judge then I conclude all are born sinners and that homosex is sinful).If I am not to do so then how am I meant to judge the meaning of the mote/plank passage? You repeat it so often I cannot but assume you intend I make some kind of judgement about it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not so jaded as to think that Iano chose his religion in order to foster and shelter some inherent bigotry, but I do believe that he has the choice, as a rational adult, to abandon the bigoted aspects that may have come with a religion that was either thrusted upon him or chosen voluntarily.

I'm sorry, then I did not understand your statement regarding X and Y. This is true according to your interpretation and definitions, but that is a bit unfair... or at least not logically valid... to judge his interpretation based on your own.Clearly many Xians and Jews for many centuries (adding up to millenia) have interpreted the meaning of scriptural proscriptions as referring to homosexuality. I am unaware of any Xian Bible... particularly english language Xian Bible, which has not used that specific language. You cannot make out that Iano is errant in his interpretation of english Biblical scripture, even if you want to launch an attack on whether the founding rules (in the original languages) were not so clear cut.We can boil this down to a very simple issue. Let's say for sake of argument that it was always about homosexuality in general. Then wouldn't you agree that an adherent pointing to the text as stating that homosexuality was a sin would not be making a personal judgment?The rest of your post attacks the validity of english language interpretations of OT and NT passages. These are besides the point in the context of this issue. But I would add that you are yourself making a similar error on meanings. The case for the extent of those proscriptions (whether just temple prostitutes or all homosexuality) is not nearly as clearcut or agreed upon academically as you make out.We've both been through at least two threads on this issue, and you have been unable to provide any greater evidence than that supporting a vague possibility the OT proscriptions limited to temple prostitution. And this does not address the other negative references to homosexuality (as an indicator of a slide into dissolution) which do not hinge on odd word choices. It seems beyond dispute that Paul was against homosexuality as he was against much sex all around. I'm not sure how indicting him for making up a word changes the reality of what his words and actions meant for Xian tenets on homosexuality.Finally, your reference to Xian homosexual marriages is essentially a bust. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assume you are referring to that single author's interpretations of a ceremony held for males? This had come up in an earlier thread. That author's ideas are in dispute, and even if granted as real, the practice was neither common nor recent even according to his work.

---

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

Why should he do that? This makes no sense other than to say all others must believe as you do. Even iano is not making that demand.Let me put this another way, if there is a God with a rulebook, then it is impersonal to point to that rulebook to discuss what is right or wrong to that God.You cannot logically say a God or its rulebook must be errant, if its rules do not match your own perceived ethical rules. In fact, it would be perfectly rational for iano to say homosexuality is a sin, provided he believes that the God of the Xian Bible is real and so is his text.Now in my case I don't believe in iano's God and so I don't care what that rulebook says regarding ethics. That said, I grew up studying the thing and know well enough that homosexuality is treated pretty negatively. As a rational person, who believes in neither his God nor the veracity of that book, I understand where iano is getting his statement.I might argue that iano should not believe in God or that rulebook, for many different reasons, but that I don't like its tenets (or many people no longer do) has no logical hook on which one can hang such a hat.

---

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

Whether he should or should not do something is immaterial to his ability to do something. No. Not really. I said I believe he has a choice, not what the correct choice was. Indeed my characterization of Iano's beliefs as bigotry is a judgment on my part, but the thrust of that comment is my argument that when Iano throws up his hands and says "I'm just saying/doing what the lord tells me", it's a cop out. There is plenty within that particular book that man has discarded when it has failed to serve his purpose. Why not this nugget?I guess I just don't understand how if it is possible for him to discard the belief, and he chooses not to, it's not a judgment on his part, but god's.If a white supremacist creates a cult and prints a book of doctrine filled with racist ideology and I choose to be a member of that cult and ascribe to those beliefs, am I not making the judgment that the racist ideology is acceptable and even desirable?I do think i get your point. And it is a good one, but I have a difficult (impossible?) time conceding that belief does not equal choice. I think we pick the beliefs that suit us whether they are right or wrong.

Heheheh... well I believe we pick the ethical beliefs that suit us which is exactly why there is no such thing as objective right or wrong at all.But I'd put in one big potential caveat. For those that truly hold tradition as an important principle (agreed that that itself might be a choice) then some amount of ethical principles are external and to a large extent not chosen.A good example would be being a modern day American. There are certain traditions which come with that. Now one can choose to not be an American, but usually people choose to stick with it despite having to put up with things they don't agree with. It would not be judgmental of me to say that using drugs is illegal and wrong in American society, such persecution is a tradition at this point, though I have no personal issue with it and did not choose that reality.Same goes with religion. Iano was likely born into it. But even if not, once he embraced the reality of it (which is too much for me) then the rest sort of follows as a package deal. You are raising an excellent question in general for anyone believing in a religion. If the texts regarding ethics are inerrant, why do the practices (and interpretations) change with time?Ironically, to my mind that does not suggest that they should drop the proscription on homosexuality, but rather they should pick back up everything they've given up so far... or give up the religion altogether.Iano likely does not feel he has a choice (ie it is not possible for him to discard that belief). And as I argued earlier, that other rules have been dropped in the past in no way creates an argument that more should be dropped, particularly now. One might look through past rules that have been dropped and see in what way they compare to the homosexuality issue... if at all.

---

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

I think this illustrates the issue well.There are two necessary conditions.1)That you believe that American society creates a condition where drugs are wrong
2)You agree with the interpretation of society (I realize you do not)In this case, we can just concede Condition 1. Condition 2 is a choice. That is what makes it a personal judgment. Condition 1 without Condition 2 is just reporting. My position is that iano, by choosing to believe in the bible, is doing more than just simply reporting and is making a judgment. They do not demonstrate that it "should" be dropped, but that it "could" be droppedFor me, the major issue is accountability. If the choice is not in man's hands it becomes far to easy to justify some horrible realities. Why are you able to disagree with society's interpretation about drugs, but iano is not capable of doing the same regarding interpretations of the bible? Very well put. I agree.

But I do choose to be an American and while I do not agree with the anti-drug position, have accepted it as part of the reality of this culture. Indeed, I choose to stay an American despite things I may feel differently about. Yet I can and do state what those things are.In iano's case he already admits to being a sinner so clearly there is something that he likes or wants to do which is ALSO not kosher under his God. If he isn't giving himself a break on his own issue, why is it thought odd for him not to excuse others? Or that he is bigoted against them in accepting that doctrine?What's more, religion is slightly more complex in that while a democracy might mean certain traditions can be changed over time (and that is an okay thing), that is not the case for religion. If there is a God and that is his rulebook, then them are the rules... period. If you believe in that God then those are the traditions you must keep.Heck, let's say it is proven that the Abrahamic God is real. Then I would have to say homosexuality really is sinful. My disliking that point would not strike against his reality. What I'd be left with then is whether to accept and worship such a God. If for some reason I found enough benefits, maybe I would, just as I accept being an American even if some irritating facets will be around forever. Actually my point was stronger than what you have taken from it. There are two levels you need to address. First is that homosexuality proscriptions can be dropped. Just because others have been, and so "could", does not mean this one can. Once that is determined, we can move on to whether it should.This is why I mentioned comparing what tenets had been dropped in the past. Why could they be dropped according to those generations which did so? Would homosexual proscriptions fit in the same context?It really does get a negative treatment in the Bible, such that it is hard to think of it as a plank easily dropped.If a person believes in the existence of that God, I don't see getting away from those particular tenets. Then again I do wonder how many have been dropped anyway, and some added with no Biblical support. That wouldn't argue homosexual proscriptions can or should be changed, but that Xians have been wrong in altering the text previously.

---

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

Hi Silent H God told Moses what to tell the children of Israel in the 20th chapter of Levicitus His rules concerning same sex and other types of sex. I would like to point out that xians can do anything they want.Christ-ians (Christ Like) can not do anything they want and please God.I point out in Message 69 what sin is and why people will spend eternity in the lake of fire.It has nothing to do with lifestyle. It only has to do with what you do about the free pardon offered by God.I have several friends that are gay, they know I do not approve of their lifestyle. They also know I would fight that they could have the right to choose their own lifestyle.I do not have the right to judge anybody that is reserved for Jesus.The only difference between me and the vilest person that has ever lived on the face of the earth is I have asked for and received the free pardon offered by God. Maybe he did too.Do I deserve it? NoI think most of the people on here get people who have been born again mixed up with religious folks that call themselves christians.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Would disagreeing with the interpretation also be a judgement? And your disbelieving it?There are judgements made of course but they are not the kind of judgments made which I think you are talking about. Judgements unto condemnation or holier-than-thou.My choosing to believe that a Ford are in a postion to write a workshop manual that will accurately decribe the Ford car I am investigating does not mean I am judging the merits or demerits of what I find under the bonnet. I can disagree with others interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with interpretations that say homosex is okay for instance.I'm a mechanical engineer and find the Bible to be quite mechanical in it's construction. Which means you cannot simply remove componants here and there without upsetting the workings of the overall structure. Structure and coherancy and understanding the mechanism are uppermost in terms of priority. Personal preferance is best kept out of it.It is easy for me to appreciate why I am not beholden to instructions about ritual cleansing practices - the Bible mechanism itself explains the function and place of those things and tells me that they are are not appropriate to my case as a Christian.It's also easy to see why I ought not go lusting after all and sundry - the Bible mechanism tells me those 'rules' are appropriate to my case.

No you wouldn't have to say that at all. You're not compelled to do any such thing. Even if the Abrahamic God is real at this very moment and the KJV Bible is 100 percent inerrant, I could still sit here before you and choose to not believe that particular tenant of the Bible. Under this ridiculous set of assumptions, I would be wrong. But I have the ability to be wrong. That does not follow. If man has the ability to drop some proscriptions, and that ability is demonstrated by the fact that they have done so, to argue that man might not have the ability to drop this proscription is just to argue the merits of one proscription vs the others. You would be elevating this biblical proscription to special status. You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that this is a "special" proscription that can't be dropped without discussing the merits. Haven't even some anglicans demonstrated that it too has been dropped? I think there is in fact a rift. Some Anglicans "chose" to drop this proscription and some Anglicans "chose" to condemn that practice.

Yes. Yes. Also a personal judgment. My position is that your choice to interpret the bible in such a way is a "personal" judgment on your part. You can't then leap and say that "But I am not condemning" when the text you interpret in such a manner condemns homosexuality as immoral. I feel like you've just made my entire point for me. You can agree or you can disagree. You CHOSE to agree. That's why it's personal judgment. You chose.

Hi PMOC, PMOC if you are going down the interstate and the posted speed limit is 70 mph. You decide that you disagree and it should be 90 mph.
You speed up to 90 mph a few minutes later those blue lights tell you to stop. The man writes you a prescription to be filled by a judge.My question did your deciding the law was not right and that 90 mph was right make it right.You are saying Christians should be able to change God's Law's makes just as much sense. Just because some people have changed what they believe God says does not change the fact God said it and that He is not pleased with certain actions.Everyone is going to be judged according to what God said not what they think God said, or what they say He said.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If I chose to interpret the rules of the road to say it is illegal to drive over 70mph on a motorway then the interpretation is a personal one. If I tell someone else that their driving over 70mph on a motorway is illegal then I am reporting and not condemning. The way of disagreement is to compare another interpretation with mine. If it doesn't concur with mine then I disagree with it - per definition. There is no choice involved.Unless of course, one is suppose I chose to interpret anothers interpretation as disagreeing with my own - when the possibility was open to me to chose to interpret their interpretation as agreeing with my interpretation (or some such silliness).Why don't you chose to interpret me as reporting and not condemning? It would be so much easier for all concerned Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm going to briefly concede this point for the sake of argument, because I think it is perfectly in line with Condition 1 and, by itself, insufficient to amount to condemnation (under this context). You also need Condition 2, the belief that driving above the speed limit is an illegal/immoral act.Do you think there is a difference between the following two statements?1) The Bible says homosexuality is a sin.2) Homosexuality is a sin.In my opinion it's all the difference in the world. Statement 1 alone doesn't bother me so much, even if it is a personal judgment based in interpretation. Statement 2 is in effect saying "The bible says homosexuality is a sin and I believe the bible." Big difference. I think what you are trying to do, correctly or incorrectly, is conflate the two statements as identical. They are not. One of them most certainly involves "you". The other does not.Since I don't want to completely ignore the interpration issue... (rescinding my concession) Semantics. What is the basis of your interpretation? The basis is YOUR thoughts, YOUR experiences, YOUR opinions.A better analogy than the speed limit law would be the Second Amendment. Can we keep our guns or is it only applicable to militias? Which interpretation do you CHOOSE?You can argue that maybe the bible is less ambiguous about homosexuality, so you strongly think your interpretation is correct, but you can't KNOW. Only God can know. You can just make the personal judgment that you are on the right track.I apologize for the disorganization in my post. It appears we are really debating two related but separate issues.Edited by PMOC, : one of the typos