Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

YES! I am. We all judge. All the time. It is just that some of us claim to know God and make the human choice to hide their judgement behind their human interpretation of a book written by humans a long time ago. But all they are really doing is passing judgement based on their own human morality, same as the rest of us.It is this environment that allows bigotry toward homesexuality to occur unchecked. And I'm not saying Iano is actively persecuting homosexuals or actively discriminating against them (he seems like a nice fellow) but it is still bigotry if you help to create a paradigm where bigotry towards homosexuals is accepted or even divinely required.And it may not yet be obvious, but my answer to the question in the OP is: Yes, absolutely. Mainstream xians have the power to reject the bigotry and to treat homosexuals as neighbors without judging. They've done it before and they can do it again.

You have a solid point about the unusual weight homosexuality gets treated with by some Xians. I honestly don't know iano's track record on this so I can't claim anything about him... you could be right.As far as this thread goes, his points seem to be appropriate and solid, regardless if he does not practice what he is preaching in theory. I have only been addressing the logic of his ethical system, not how he puts it into play across the board.One defense Xians have availed themselves to, which has some credibility, is that they can only address so many issues and that particular topic is something that is being pushed on them at this moment. Hence more weight is being put on that sin. After all they just lost a series of societal assumptions, traditions, and practices against homosexuality. I think they lost on the shellfish thingy years ago. You know I'd agree this assessment. If you notice it is essentially the same argument I gave to you about your position.As far as iano goes logically however, if someone did do what he claimed to be doing, then they would be fine. I just don't know iano enough to say if he has been heavily inconsistent. And for once you are right. Hahahahaha... just kidding. As an aside I thought we agreed a couple times in the past.

---

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'll answer your last two replies in this post I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. Let's start with one nit-picky issue... there is no such thing as an "evolved contemporary morality". You are simply slapping that rather convenient label on one moral system, which is not even a majority opinion at this time.So let's be accurate, Xians have over time let some passages in scripture fade away in importance, while retaining others. This has from time to time been done as cultural movements rose to effect religious people's convictions, rather than vice versa.That is a point taken, and it seriously contradicts the concept of absolute right and wrong that many Xians claim is set in the Bible. However, it in no way creates an argument that Xians SHOULD or MUST let any other rules go by the wayside. Nor does it create a valid argument that rules they have not changed yet must be because of personal bigotry.One can consider a reductio based on your own argument. Where then should the Xian stop? If your argument is correct then there is no place they should stop dropping rules and all becomes not sin. The only possible line might be whatever is popular right now. Well what kind of religion would that be?Further, I can attack your own morality. Given that secular people have also changed in the past (including on slavery and misogyny) why can't you accept group X? And then keep changing X with whatever group you haven't accepted yet. Don't you have things you simply will not change for because you simply don't like it and don't think it should be done based on your current internal system?I'd have to point out that there are PLENTY of things Xians still regard as sin and don't like, besides Homosexuality. To portray them as having given up on all proscriptions, except homosexuality, does not seem accurate. Well I'd certainly agree with you on this. First that there is no absolute morality from a real God, and religious types are discussing human fictions. Second that people may pick and choose from the menu of moral options in scripture so as to find justification for their own morality.That said, there really are people that believe in a God, and the Bible as his rule book. They derive their morality from what they see in that book. Yes it is likely to be an interpretation, but it may be based on what they were taught, rather than personal picking and choosing. I think the Amish are an excellent example of people that hold strong to an external set of rules, applying them as consistently as possible, rather than for personal convenience. Replace the word homosexuals in the statement above, with X. That statement will be true for everyone, as you have stated everyone judges. So why can't Xians dislike the group their text rather blatantly paints in a bad way, or why can't admittedly self-interested anti-homosexual people embrace Xian dogma as the justification for their personal opinion?The way iano stated his ethical system, he was right that a person would not be judging in that system. Whether he practices something other than he preaches, and so you are right about him personally, is another question.But more to the point here, how can you deride anyone for judging anyone else if you agree we all do it? So what if one set appeals to a fictional being for justification? Why would or should they change their opinion? So to some up against your summation... that Xians have rejected past rules creates no argument they need to for any other rule. It also does not suggest that Xians were correct to have changed in the past. And finally, a person pointing to the Bible and saying Xian theology holds that homosexuality is a sin, is NOT being a bigot. That is pretty much as statement of fact. I'd say the same thing and I happen to engage in homosexual sex acts, and am pro gay rights. If I can do it and not be a bigot, so can they.Also, I want to be able to judge others, be a bigot about things I don't like, so why can't they? I have no illusions that society has to agree with me on everything, nor like everything I do. Vice versa.Frankly I'd prefer it if it was kept out of laws, and left to people discussing such preferences in their churches and local communities. I mean who cares what iano thinks is sin?

---

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

Awesome story. That response of their's just defines who they are right off the bat. I am sure Jesus would have stayed and talked to them.When you say "make peace with homosexuality", define peace.

Oops meant as a response to Silent H.Thanks for the very clear response. I just want to clarify that my position was less about the judgment that Iano makes, and more about the fact the he is in fact making a judgment. Whether or not he is bigoted wasn't the main issue. What interested me in this debate was his claim that he wasn't in fact making judgments. How he comes to his judgment doesnt concern me as much as the fact that he is attempting to deflect it as something other than a personal decision or interpretation.To (over)simplify it, what gets at me is that a bigot can hide and say "I'm not the one who hates homosexuals, it's God" or "I'm not the one who hates Jews, it's God" or "i'm not the one who hates X, it's God. No, its not God. It's man. The issue, for me, isnt secular vs religion, or that all religions are bigoted, it's that all choices are made by man, not preordained by God. If one wants to be a bigot, fine. Just be a man about it and quit hiding behind God.Edited by PMOC, : To address it to SH and ramble a bit more.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

what is incorrect in iano stating that according to God's rule book X is a sin, and if they want to follow Xianity, they need to keep that in mind?

---

There is a difference between saying, "This book has X to say about action Y," and saying, "You are engaging in action Y."Especially concerning homosexuality which the Bible is pretty quiet about, as we understand the concept.

---

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.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

Anyone doing the above is now in a position to tell another person that they are a sinner

---

However, you are not in a position to say for what. Unless you're going to say that everything humans do is necessarily a sin (which makes the entire concept of "sin" meaningless), then you are in no position to say if anything anybody does is actually a sin. That is for god.

quote:

---

Clearly step 2) can be expanded upon to include statements on specific sins.

---

No, only god can say that. You can say that god says that, but you are in no position to determine if someone is or is not living up to god's standards. You are not god.How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own?

---

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 was dealing with the specific objection you made that said I was not in a position to tell someone they are a sinner. According to the 2 step process outlined I am in a position to do that. You seem to accept that yourself. The same two step process applies to specific areas of human activity as it does to them being sinners. 1)Believe the Bible to be the word of God 2) Interpret passages that indicate x a sin as meaning precisely that.If you accept that this 2 step process puts me in a position to tell a person they are a sinnner, then that same process will put me in a position to tell them that a particular area of activity of theirs is sinful. As pointed out before, I could attach "I believe that this is what God says through a book I believe is his word" onto every statement I make. I assume folk are smart enough to conclude that for themselves though.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I suppose it depend very much on your concept of homosexual acts - which the Bible is not at all silent about.

Which shifts the goalposts slightly. I am making a judgement as to whether the Bible is the word of God or not. And I am making a judgment as to the accuracy of my interpretation. The conclusion of those judgements is (in this case) that God considers homosexual acts to be sinful.That is a different kettle of fish to the "speck of dust/plank of wood" judgement that Rrhain (for example) is referring to. Such judgement is a condemning / finger pointing / holier-than-thou kind of judgement. Given that I am a sinner too (by the same exercise of judgement as above), I try to steer clear of this quite different category of judgement.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I was dealing with the specific objection you made that said I was not in a position to tell someone they are a sinner.

---

Let's not be disingenuous, shall we? If you don't know what someone has sinned for, you're not really in a position to say that they have sinned.How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own?

quote:

---

You seem to accept that yourself.

---

No, I don't. You are not in any position to say anything about anybody else's life. Only your own. Your own book tells you this.How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own?

quote:

---

If you accept that this 2 step process

---

And I don't. So now what?

quote:

---

As pointed out before, I could attach "I believe that this is what God says through a book I believe is his word" onto every statement I make.

---

Which would make everything you say meaningless to the question at hand. This isn't about you. You are in no place to judge anything. That may, indeed, be what the book says. And it may, indeed, be god's opinion. But what does that have to do with anybody outside of the book? You are in no position to say it applies to anybody anywhere because that is judgement and judgement is god's responsibility, not yours.How can you remove the mote in your brothers' eye when there is this great plank in your own?

---

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.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I suppose it depend very much on your concept of homosexual acts - which the Bible is not at all silent about.

---

Incorrect. The Bible is pretty quiet about it. It makes no mention of same-sex sexual activity for the sake of same-sex sexual activity. It always puts it in the context of ritualistic practices. Last time I checked, most people didn't have sex with temple prostitutes.

---

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.

Sorry, been busy...I agree that what you say is a possibility. I'm just saying I cannot say iano is doing what you say. And to me it is not judgmental to say this particular cosmic rulebook states that X is a sin.In a way I think this point to a slight difference between our positions, related to where ethical and metaphysical claims come from. While we may agree that they are all man made, I do believe people can trust in the reality of external rules and so are not exhibiting personal standards (by which to say personally created).For a hypothetical deconstruction iano may have grown up in a Xian culture and as such believes in the metaphysical reality of God, and his rulebook (and the specific interpretation he now uses). It isn't necessarily the case that he chose the religion or the interpretation because of his bigotry, but rather he was raised up in such a way that he believes the cultural bigotry is metaphysically real and external to himself.In that case iano would not be judging and may not even dislike gays, just stating what external rules say about gays. Any judging would be cultural not individual. Heck, he might even judge gays to be quite nice and he likes them... that wouldn't change their ethical position in relation to God (according to the cultural dogma iano might believe exists).

---

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

Sorry been busy... I'll answer your last reply to me and iano in this post. I agree with your statement, but I have not seen iano claim that someone is gay. For those that are gay, he points out that a common Xian conception is that homosexuality is a sin. While there is a valid theory that OT proscriptions were predominately formed as direct attacks on temple prostitution, or to indirectly effect that practice by a larger wholesale ban on homosexuality altogether, it seems errant to claim the Bible as a whole is quiet on homosexuality.Outside the OT proscriptions (which we can agree for sake of argument mean temple prostitution), there are statements against homosexuality in the NT which are not in dispute as to what they mean, and in both sections homosexuality is projected as a negative practice which God does not support.It would be an interesting idea that Xian NT writers did not understand that the original proscriptions in the OT... and that is possible. But homosexuality is pretty clearly a negative feature of human life, according to all of them. Personally, I found the most compelling arguments to be the authors who said that it was a general ban on homosexuality to fight the temple prostitution as well as form a symbol of cultural identity. That is not only do they not do the temple thing, they won't do anything like what is done there.

---

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

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

I agree with your statement, but I have not seen iano claim that someone is gay.

---

Non sequitur. Nobody is talking about whether or not iano is claiming somebody is gay.

quote:

---

For those that are gay, he points out that a common Xian conception is that homosexuality is a sin.

---

Incorrect. Iano is not simply pointing out that there are people who claim to be Christian who claim that the Bible says that being gay is a sin.Iano is directly stating that being gay is a sin. That, however, is both judgement and unjustified as there is nothing in the Bible that says that.And that's why his attempts to tell others so are necessarily judgement. He has gone beyond merely stating that there are passages to stating what it is that they mean.

quote:

---

it seems errant to claim the Bible as a whole is quiet on homosexuality.

---

Well, it does celebrate David and Jonathan, yes, but on the whole, it doesn't talk about homosexuality as we understand it. Thus, the old joke: There are four passages in the Bible regulating same-sex sexual activity while there are hundreds regulating mixed-sex sexual activity. This doesn't mean god loves straight people any less than gay people...just that straights need more supervision.

quote:

---

there are statements against homosexuality in the NT which are not in dispute as to what they mean

---

Actually, those refer to temple prostitution, too. "Arsenkoitai" is a word that Paul made up.

quote:

---

But homosexuality is pretty clearly a negative feature of human life, according to all of them.

---

No, not to all of them. There are many Christian sects who don't have this problem. Let us not forget, the Catholic church was performing same-sex marriage ceremonies up until the recent past.

---

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.