Current Events > 'Nowhere in the history of God's people has homosexual practice be acceptable..'

(+) Yeah! (+)

I've been secretly in contact with a LGBTQ group near where I live, and I mean secretly because my grandfather is vehemently against me making friends with anyone of any lifestyle he hates.

He'd kick me out of the house if he did, all because he's a "good Christian".

Mind you, he sneers at gay people on game shows, he uses the f-word (not "fuck") and the n-word on a regular basis and I've been told he's in early-onset dementia.

I hate the fact he is my legal guardian, because I get paranoid he's going to move us into a worse state like Florida or Missouri because he keeps talking about leaving the town we're in.

Garabandal posted...

@Anteaterking what are your thoughts? Your original comment was vague and I wasn't sure if you were defending the reviewer in the OP or not

So ultimately I take the secular approach, but you noted earlier that that wasn't satisfying to you, so I'll try to put things in a religious framework. Though it is worth noting that no matter who is "right" about the dogma of your religion between you and him, it is far more relevant to society that LGBT folks should have equal rights under the law, etc. etc.

Let's say our audience is a mainline Christian, not a "no denomination is pure enough" revival type but also not a "really whatever you believe is good with us" person either. Wouldn't you say it's a little convenient for you that you've found an interpretation of those verses that allows for things that society has generally accepted but were less accepting of in the past? How do you feel about prosperity gospel stuff (where rich Christians find a framework that says actually acquiring material wealth on Earth is a good thing)? This would be far from the first time that modern sensibilities have been applied to a document written thousands of years ago, but it's not as if homosexuality was an unknown quantity in Biblical times.

So let's split it into two categories, homosexual sexual relations being a sin and it not being a sin. If it's not a sin (say based on your arguments from before on how you interpret some verses), then obviously Christians should support "religious same sex marriage" (as opposed to the state recognizing it). Those relationships would still carry the same rules and regulations as heterosexual relationships (i.e. staying chaste until marriage, etc.).

If it is a sin, then you fall into some of the arguments that people posed earlier. You could reject everything Paul wrote if you want, but I think you need to be up front about that in religious discussions (if you're a gospel only person you might also have to remove Luke and John's gospels as well as they were cool with Paul and it seems unlikely that they would be tight with an apostate). You can quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" but endorsing a marriage through the church is more than just "not judging people". Matthew 5:30 also applies to the idea that even if we are without sin, that's not just carte blanche to just sin as much as you want and that your fellowship should just look the other way. You can angle for "why would I be born with these urges if they're sinful" but as sinful beings everyone is born with sinful urges even if some people feel stronger urges in some categories than others.

So it really all does come down to that original question. I think the person from the goodreads would say that those verses don't limit themselves to pederasty and homosexual rape and you would not. They have inertia on their side and you will be perceived to be at least potentially be choosing your interpretation to benefit yourself.

Will there ever be a place in the history of God's people for homosexual practice to be acceptable? There could be, but you'll have to convince people that your interpretation is the correct one.

Like I said at the beginning, none of this truly matters to me though, since all I have the power to do in society is to make the secular/governmental acceptance of LGBT folks higher. I think only the adherents of a religion really have the power to change their own religion and likely as has happened throughout time, there will be groups that splinter over beliefs and both groups will think the other isn't following the true faith.

Anteaterking posted...

So ultimately I take the secular approach, but you noted earlier that that wasn't satisfying to you, so I'll try to put things in a religious framework. Though it is worth noting that no matter who is "right" about the dogma of your religion between you and him, it is far more relevant to society that LGBT folks should have equal rights under the law, etc. etc.

Let's say our audience is a mainline Christian, not a "no denomination is pure enough" revival type but also not a "really whatever you believe is good with us" person either. Wouldn't you say it's a little convenient for you that you've found an interpretation of those verses that allows for things that society has generally accepted but were less accepting of in the past? How do you feel about prosperity gospel stuff (where rich Christians find a framework that says actually acquiring material wealth on Earth is a good thing)? This would be far from the first time that modern sensibilities have been applied to a document written thousands of years ago, but it's not as if homosexuality was an unknown quantity in Biblical times.

So let's split it into two categories, homosexual sexual relations being a sin and it not being a sin. If it's not a sin (say based on your arguments from before on how you interpret some verses), then obviously Christians should support "religious same sex marriage" (as opposed to the state recognizing it). Those relationships would still carry the same rules and regulations as heterosexual relationships (i.e. staying chaste until marriage, etc.).

If it is a sin, then you fall into some of the arguments that people posed earlier. You could reject everything Paul wrote if you want, but I think you need to be up front about that in religious discussions (if you're a gospel only person you might also have to remove Luke and John's gospels as well as they were cool with Paul and it seems unlikely that they would be tight with an apostate). You can quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" but endorsing a marriage through the church is more than just "not judging people". Matthew 5:30 also applies to the idea that even if we are without sin, that's not just carte blanche to just sin as much as you want and that your fellowship should just look the other way. You can angle for "why would I be born with these urges if they're sinful" but as sinful beings everyone is born with sinful urges even if some people feel stronger urges in some categories than others.

So it really all does come down to that original question. I think the person from the goodreads would say that those verses don't limit themselves to pederasty and homosexual rape and you would not. They have inertia on their side and you will be perceived to be at least potentially be choosing your interpretation to benefit yourself.

Will there ever be a place in the history of God's people for homosexual practice to be acceptable? There could be, but you'll have to convince people that your interpretation is the correct one.

Like I said at the beginning, none of this truly matters to me though, since all I have the power to do in society is to make the secular/governmental acceptance of LGBT folks higher. I think only the adherents of a religion really have the power to change their own religion and likely as has happened throughout time, there will be groups that splinter over beliefs and both groups will think the other isn't following the true faith.

That's what I'm afraid of and that's why I wanted to see if it could be debunked on Biblical terms. I guess ultimately I wonder if I'm a contradiction.

If the rule is "be like Christ", pretty sure Jesus didn't bang anyone, so Christians need to be asexual, not straight.

Garabandal posted...

That's what I'm afraid of and that's why I wanted to see if it could be debunked on Biblical terms. I guess ultimately I wonder if I'm a contradiction.

You're not a contradiction.

Christianity (if not all religion) is founded upon picking and choosing parts of dogma. The Bible itself is a product of people picking and choosing which documents to base that tradition on.

There's nothing invalid about trying to follow the good teachings of Christ while ignoring dumb shit like homophobia and misogyny

I do not personally recognize "god's people" as anything real or legitimate in concept or in reality.