Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

iano,How do you get around the idea that by relying on your interpretation of the bible, you are in fact claiming to "know God"?Why is your interpretation better/worse than your neighbors? Does one of you know God better/worse? Clearly this is attempting to make a much larger leap than you give credit.

Any neighbor who harbors a different interpretation of the bible than you.Perhaps instead of "know God" I should have typed "know the mind of God".

You admit then that there is room for error in your interpretation? And yet you claim that you are not judging when you "point out" sin. Hoping to know God and then judging others based on that interpretation/hope does not serve God, it serves only your arrogance and ego.Either only God can know sin and judge it thus, OR both God and YOU are capable of knowing and judging sin.It is arrogant for you to assume the latter, to assume that you know God's mind. And it results in a very unchristianlike bigotry toward homosexuality.

Well. I'm not saying it, but one could add: "You are a bigot, according to your belief." What is the difference?"According to my belief" does not mitigate anything.

Xianity also appears to be blatantly pro slavery and pro misogyny yet many xians implicitly claim to know god well enough to redefine and interpret the statements in the bible to better conform to a more evolved contemporary human morality. They go to such great lengths to equivocate away those passages but actively choose to leave homesexuality alone, because it suits their bigotry.

double postEdited by PMOC, : double post

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Easy isn't fun or interesting.Since I've muddied the discussion a bit by trying to deal with both issues at once, let me attempt to clarify.I think an interpretation is personal and a choice. By interpreting you are making a personal judgment based on your experiences, knowledge, and preconceptions. In the case of the Bible re: Homosexuality, you are making a personal interpretation that it says homosexuality is a sin. I believe that you can't know that, only God can. You can only hope to be correct, but can not be absolute in the knowledge of God. Even I, when I interpret that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, am making a personal judgment.I believe the condemnation occurs when you "believe the bible." When you make the leap from "I interpret the bible to say homosexuality is a sin" to "I believe homosexuality is a sin because the bible tells me so and I believe the bible." In that case, you are actively condemning and not just reporting.God hasn't done any condemning. All that has happened is you have interpreted him/her/it doing so. It's your condemnation when you say something is a sin.