Thoughts on "God and the Gay Christian"?

[seer]

The primary thing I'm trying to convey is that when Christians are ready to be affirming, they'll be able to do so from general principles and the lack of Bible verses explicitly addressing same sex marriage. Vine's book is a taste of the future Christian mainstream.

Well who knows where the "Christian mainstream" will go, further from the explicit texts I assume. But the fact is Sea, we can affirm a person's humanity without affirming every behavior.

[NormATive]

The primary thing I'm trying to convey is that when Christians are ready to be affirming, they'll be able to do so from general principles and the lack of Bible verses explicitly addressing same sex marriage. Vine's book is a taste of the future Christian mainstream.

Again, I really applaud the effort of Vine and others who are seeking a compromise that will allow them to affirm the Bible (both Tanakh and Christian Testament) as "God's Word" and what their conscience is telling them is the right thing to do, but tradition and Biblical exegesis is on Seer's side.

Perhaps, the conscientious Christian can agree that the Biblical authors got it wrong on homosexuality and seek to end the stigmatization of a relatively small portion of humanity and stop calling how they are oriented as individuals "sinful" or deviant.

But, as is evidenced by those who hold a traditional view of scripture, I wouldn't hold my breath. I think the only safe thing for a homosexual person to do is to stay away from the more traditional Christian organizations for their own mental health.

There are a fair amount of progressive Christian communities who no longer view gays as modern day untouchables. I think, though, that maybe they should form an editorial committee and remove those sections of the Bible that are so offensive in order to be consistent with their worldview.

NORM

[Enjolras]

Again, I really applaud the effort of Vine and others who are seeking a compromise that will allow them to affirm the Bible (both Tanakh and Christian Testament) as "God's Word" and what their conscience is telling them is the right thing to do, but tradition and Biblical exegesis is on Seer's side.

Perhaps, the conscientious Christian can agree that the Biblical authors got it wrong on homosexuality and seek to end the stigmatization of a relatively small portion of humanity and stop calling how they are oriented as individuals "sinful" or deviant.

But, as is evidenced by those who hold a traditional view of scripture, I wouldn't hold my breath. I think the only safe thing for a homosexual person to do is to stay away from the more traditional Christian organizations for their own mental health.

There are a fair amount of progressive Christian communities who no longer view gays as modern day untouchables. I think, though, that maybe they should form an editorial committee and remove those sections of the Bible that are so offensive in order to be consistent with their worldview.

NORM

Slavery was once actively promoted by Christians too and there again, the Bible offers much support. Yet, few today find slavery acceptable. So you never know...

[NormATive]

Slavery was once actively promoted by Christians too and there again, the Bible offers much support. Yet, few today find slavery acceptable. So you never know...

The Biblical support for slavery in the Bible is that it doesn't come right out and condemn it (unless it's being perpetrated against the "Chosen People").

The Quran, Tanakh and Christian Testament authors go out of their way to condemn homosexuality - even calling it an "abomination," which is the mother of all condemnations.

So, for those who worship the Bible / Tanakh / Quran as God's / G-d's / Allah's Word, it's a deal breaker to accept homosexuality.

NORM

[Tassman]

You are right of course. But what the opposition is saying is that no matter how much pedophilia love may be natural to some, it is not deemed natural according to their understanding of God's law

Paedophilia is unacceptable because one of the party cannot give informed consent - just as women for many centuries under Christian rule were considered chattels of men and had little say re their well-being.

[Paprika]

Paedophilia is unacceptable because one of the party cannot give informed consent - just as women for many centuries under Christian rule were considered chattels of men and had little say re their well-being.

So you're saying that contemporary law treats children as slaves?

[seer]

Paedophilia is unacceptable because one of the party cannot give informed consent - just as women for many centuries under Christian rule were considered chattels of men and had little say re their well-being.

What does consent have to do with it? That is just an arbitrary distinction.

[seasanctuary]

The Quran, Tanakh and Christian Testament authors go out of their way to condemn homosexuality - even calling it an "abomination," which is the mother of all condemnations.

Actually, it's one of the lightest condemnations. "Inappropriate" would be a better English translation of term for how it's used. And quite a few things that were inappropriate for Jews became acceptable for Christians.

[MaxVel]

The Biblical support for slavery in the Bible is that it doesn't come right out and condemn it (unless it's being perpetrated against the "Chosen People").

NORM

Exodus 21:16 and 22:21 ??

[MaxVel]

You are right of course. But what the opposition is saying is that no matter how much homosexual love may be natural to some, it is not deemed natural according to their understanding of God's law. But God has often dragged the chain on social issues, e.g. racial discrimination, equal rights for women and slavery, but He usually gets it right in the end.

Slavery was once actively promoted by Christians too and there again, the Bible offers much support. Yet, few today find slavery acceptable. So you never know...

Wow....

[seasanctuary]

What does consent have to do with it? That is just an arbitrary distinction.

Well, it depends. If your notion of morality has to do with treating others well, consent is very important. If your notion of morality has to do with blindly following some rules without concern for others unless the rules say to do so, then I can see your point.

[Paprika]

The primary thing I'm trying to convey is that when Christians are ready to be affirming, they'll be able to do so from general principles and the lack of Bible verses explicitly addressing same sex marriage.

As you very well know, they cannot do that and remain true to Scripture. Vine's argument utterly fails.

[seer]

Well, it depends. If your notion of morality has to do with treating others well, consent is very important. If your notion of morality has to do with blindly following some rules without concern for others unless the rules say to do so, then I can see your point.

And that is key Sea - your notion.The Paedophilia has his notion of morality, and you have yours. No position is more correct or valid.

[seasanctuary]

As you very well know, they cannot do that and remain true to Scripture. Vine's argument utterly fails.

It--and similar arguments--have succeeded for a growing number of fundamentalist Christians. The difference has more to do with a person's empathy for LGBT people than with their stance toward the Bible.

[seasanctuary]

And that is key Sea - your notion.The Paedophilia has his notion of morality, and you have yours. No position is more correct or valid.

We shouldn't have to invent morality from scratch for you in every thread. :P