Christians finally start to embrace gay marriage.

ajmurphy62

The head of the United Church of Christ has thrown his support behind marriage equality, becoming the first mainstream Christian church to do so.

The church stands poised to consider an official resolution endorsing equal rights for same-sex couples.

"I believe the General Synod should affirm the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to have their covenanted relationships recognized by the state as marriages equal in name, privileges, and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples," the Rev. John H. Thomas, president and general minister, said in a speech on Tuesday in Atlanta.

Church delegates will consider a resolution in support of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples this weekend in Atlanta at the meeting of the General Synod of the UCC.

Some congregations have threatened to leave the denomination if it backs gay marriage, but the majority of congregations said they are in favour of backing the issue, according to the Associated Press.

The synod meets every two years to set national policy for the denomination, although those policies are not binding on individual congregations.

If the resolution passes, the UCC would be the first mainline Christian church in the United States to endorse equal rights for same gender couples, said the Rev. Bob Chase, communications director for the church.

In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association passed a resolution supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Media outlets have closely scrutinized the UCC since December when NBC and CBS rejected television ads from the church aimed at promoting the denomination as a welcoming place of worship.

The networks deemed the ads controversial and claimed they were designed to further the advocacy of gay marriage, something church officials vehemently denied.

The UCC was a pioneer 20 years ago when it recommended that its local congregations be open and welcoming to all people, including gay and lesbian members.

At the synod meeting in Atlanta, delegates will also consider two other marriage resolutions: One would urge further study before the church takes a position on same-sex marriage and the other would declare marriage to be strictly between one man and one woman.

The Rev. Bob Chase said Thomas has been studying the three proposed resolutions on marriage since late April, when they became public.

"He decided it was incumbent upon him in his role as a leader of the UCC to make a statement of his own personal convictions on this issue," Chase said.

Chase also noted that Thomas punched holes in the argument that the Bible prohibits marriage between same-sex couples.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," Chase said.

Nationwide, the church has 1.3 million members.

By Ross von Metzke, © 2005 GayWired.com, All Rights Reserved. Article provided by GayLinkContent.com. For more information, contact us at

Im glad. Its about time the church started to recognise our right to marry.

smidgy

I really cant see christians welcoming gay mariage in its entirity when the whole gay thing is described as an abomination in the bible. Allowing recognition by the state is the most christian thing that our beliefs will let us do and while I see this as the thin end of a wedge, it is something that I could be brought around to agree with.

Sapien

smidgy wrote:

I really cant see christians welcoming gay mariage in its entirity when the whole gay thing is described as an abomination in the bible. Allowing recognition by the state is the most christian thing that our beliefs will let us do and while I see this as the thin end of a wedge, it is something that I could be brought around to agree with.

It's described as an abomination with the same force and emphasis as one is forbidden from eating the flesh of the pig, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing fabrics composed of different kinds of thread.

So, biblically, if you've ever eaten a sausage, worn a polyester blend shirt, or practised crop rotation, you're as damned as any sodomite.

Shabadu

^^ post of the month for sapien

Excelsior

Sapien, have you read the book of Romans? Or the Sermon on the Mount?

Homosexual sex is not condoned in the New Testament.

Talliesin

Nor is men having long hair, just as bad as homosexuality as far as I can see from what's in the NT.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

Homosexual sex is not condoned in the New Testament.

Condoned? Whyever should it be condoned? Are internet bulletin boards condoned in the New Testament? Is crop rotation condoned?

Really! What do you mean?

Excelsior

In the sermon on the mount Jesus lays out sexual morality that excludes any sex outside of a traditional mom and pop who are wife and husband forever structure.

In many of Paul's letters but most explicitly in the first chapter of Romans, New Testament readers can see that sex outside of marriage is not an option for Christians.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

In the sermon on the mount Jesus lays out sexual morality that excludes any sex outside of a traditional mom and pop who are wife and husband forever structure.

In many of Paul's letters but most explicitly in the first chapter of Romans, New Testament readers can see that sex outside of marriage is not an option for Christians.

Granted. But this makes homosexuality no more sinful than fornication in general.

Excelsior

Of course!

"Being gay" is in no way a sin. Any nonsense proposed about gay people being destined to hell is heresy and completely contradicting the Bible that such bigots always seem to have "such a deep respect for."

According to Christianity, Homosexual sex is like any other sex outside of marriage- its wrong. It is no more or less wrong than any other sin- be it lying or arrogance or greed or what have you.

The teachings of Christ do not persecute anyone. Homosexuals can be Christians and have been Christians. Henrí Nouwen and John Henry Newman are two of my favourite theologians and both were celibate homosexual men whose faith and whose relationship with God made the lack of sex an easy absence. It is a shallow assumption that one can't be happy without sex.

NeilJ

I can't be happy without sex, does that mean I'm shallow???! But seriously I really don't think it's fair that Christains should be expected to accept homosexual marriages just for the sake of political correctness. At the same time I think it's Abominable that civil weddings between gay couples are not allowed. But hopefully people will eventually get around to accepting it.

Neil

pH

Im glad. Its about time the church started to recognise our right to marry.

I'm not so sure about this. Surely a religion has the right to have whatever morals it wants as long as people are free at a civil level not to participate if they do not want to.

Let's say I have a religion, and in my book the preserving of fruit in sugar is sinful. I may well petition the state for the removal of strawberry jam from Tesco's shelves but as long as the state allows freedom then my religion should be free.

In this context, Jam lovers do not have a right to force my church to have a Jam blessing ceremony. They may try to change the church's rules from the inside (if the religion is tolerant to change), or leave the church and find a religion compatible with their own beliefs and morals.

Sapien

pH wrote:

I'm not so sure about this. Surely a religion has the right to have whatever morals it wants as long as people are free at a civil level not to participate if they do not want to.

Let's say I have a religion, and in my book the preserving of fruit in sugar is sinful. I may well petition the state for the removal of strawberry jam from Tesco's shelves but as long as the state allows freedom then my religion should be free.

In this context, Jam lovers do not have a right to force my church to have a Jam blessing ceremony. They may try to change the church's rules from the inside (if the religion is tolerant to change), or leave the church and find a religion compatible with their own beliefs and morals.

I know of no activists who are campaigning to have the government force the church, any church, into performing same-sex marriages. What they are campaigning for is to have civil marriage granted to gay couples, and for recognition of the fact that religious organisations have no ownership over word "marriage".

rsynnott

NeilJ wrote:

I can't be happy without sex, does that mean I'm shallow???! But seriously I really don't think it's fair that Christains should be expected to accept homosexual marriages just for the sake of political correctness. At the same time I think it's Abominable that civil weddings between gay couples are not allowed.

NO-ONE is trying to compel religions to perform gay marriages. No-one. Gay people are just looking for the legal right to marry; if any church, mosque, synagogue, jedi council etc. wants to marry them it can, but no-one is going to be forced into anything. Odd how often people miss this one.

The Church may certainly refuse to marry gay people; it has no right to a say in civil marriage law tho.

county

never heard of thet church?

rsynnott

county wrote:

never heard of thet church?

Which one now?

solice

rsynnott wrote:

The Church may certainly refuse to marry gay people; it has no right to a say in civil marriage law tho.

Except im sure that if the govt decided to put legislation to allow gay marriage (in the civil sense of the word marriage) to a public vote you would have 99% of the irish clergy preaching from the pulpit to all the grannies in the congregation that we will all end up in hell if this goes through.

The irish media may be forced to give equal time to both sides of an argument in the run up to a referendum but no such obligation exists for the hours of mass

The Fish

solice wrote:

Except im sure that if the govt decided to put legislation to allow gay marriage (in the civil sense of the word marriage) to a public vote you would have 99% of the irish clergy preaching from the pulpit to all the grannies in the congregation that we will all end up in hell if this goes through.

I agree entirely - you only have to look at referenda concerning the legalisation of abortion and divorce to see that the church will bend over backwards to try and impose ITS beliefs and morals on public opinion.

Besides, I don't believe that the original scriptures have to be (or indeed are)adhered to as strictly as "christians" like to make out. Religion simply acts as a mask for those ignorant few who simply don't like what homosexuals get up to. There are endless numbers of people who go through their daily lives oblivious to to the fact that they are contradicting biblical writings - yet when it come to homosexuality they cry "oh, that's wrong, it's in the bible!!!". I'm not suggesting this is the case across the board and I fully respect any person's right to choose their beliefs when it comes to religion, but there are a lot of hypocrites out there.

Rev Hellfire

It always amazes me that people get upset when ministers of a Christian church ( or other religion ) make a stand which is in line with the policies of their church. Is it is their job to provide moral guidance to their congregation; it is the decision of individual whether or not they follow that.
As for should homosexuals be granted the same legal entitlement as unions of heterosexual couples I would have to say yes ( although I do have misgiving myself as to the suitability of such unions for children but only because I believe that the ideal of both a male and female parent is preferred and as such preference should be given to heterosexual couples ahead of everyone else ).

Note I’m not saying homosexuals cannot make good or even great parents, as for single mothers (fathers will only ever get this through misfortune).

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It always amazes me that people get upset when ministers of a Christian church ( or other religion ) make a stand which is in line with the policies of their church.

That's somewhat a detached view isn't it?

Just because someone is preaching a policy line doesn't make them immune from the wrath of people who believe such policies to be oppressive. You can't hide behind the policy makers when you yourself always have the option not to implement these elements. The "I was only carrying out orders" argument doesn't work.

I'm talking in general terms here.

Rev Hellfire

Hardly. Church leaders are as entitled to voice their view as much as the liberal element in society. And I would suspect that if anything the Irish having a somewhat conservative view the idea that they are ramming it down the throats of the population is a bit of pot calling the kettle black.

If people are looking for the true 'villain' here than they should look no further than the mirror. If society wants gay marriage there will be gay marriage, if it doesn’t then there'll not be, the church has only what ever power society grants it.

But if we're honest I suspect most people just really don’t care one way or another about gay rights, if it doesn’t effect me, well it’s just not important.

Dades

Regardless of who the "villian" is the point I was making is that nobody is immune from rebuttal. Whether it's a preacher or a politician if you spout policy you will be judged on it. And if your policies are in any way contentious you must accept that people are going to get upset.

But you're right in that most of us don't really care one way or the other.

solice

I know alot of people who care about the fact that they treated as second class citizens, denied very basic rights.

The church is entitled to its opinion. The church can say whatever it likes. But ultimately its all going to lead to the churches own demise. Its intolerant views toward homosexuality, single mothers, the use of condoms are pushing people further and further away from the church. Not to mind its views on abortion and divorce. Was it 8 people left Maynooth this year as priests?

The catholic church for me is something that i can never accept in its present form. Im stuck behind a glass window. I can see what is going on but i can never take part. To be called "evil" for loving someone. For someone to say that if i was to look after a child it would be equivalent to child abuse. Is this if I raise a child to the best of my ability or if i baby-sit my nephew? I love my nephew and i would never hurt him. But for it to be assumed that it is child abuse for him to be in my care. It leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the horses mouth, vatican.va

I find it ironic that the catholic church is of the opinion that homosexuality is not something that one chooses. They agree that it is not a lifestyle “choice” but something that is fundamentally part of someone. The agree that you are either born gay or born straight. (bisexuality doesn’t even get a look in as usual) But they don’t phrase it so nicely, instead they say:

A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.

But they still insist on calling me evil and saying that I am a risk to children.

The church is entitled to its opinions, it can spread hatred as much as it wants and everyone accepts this? People accept it because the church has been around for 2000 years, it must know what its on about. This is the same church that burned people at the stake for being protestant (that was accepted), this is the same church that condoned the slaughter of thousands of muslims in the crusades (that was accepted), this is the same church whose leader met with Hitler but I wont say anymore for fear of enacting Godwins. All these were acceptable but the church changed its opinions and views on those.

I do think that the church will eventually “condone” homosexual acts but not for a very long time. Alot of wounds have to be healed first.

Rev Hellfire

I think you do the majority of Christian churches (catholic included) a disservice to say they view a homosexual evil; it is the act that is deemed evil. A case of love the sinner and condemn the sin.

Rev Hellfire

No, it says the act you commit is evil. Not you for doing so, at least thats my understanding.

Excelsior

solice wrote:

I do think that the church will eventually “condone” homosexual acts but not for a very long time. Alot of wounds have to be healed first.

I don't think you understand the perspective of Christianity on homosexuality if you think that it will "eventually condone" it. I am almost certain the priests you are in contact with don't understand it.

There is no basis in the Bible for describing gay people as "evil". There is equally no basis for saying that homosexual acts are not clearly regarded as sinful by the Biblical texts. A lot of people who have a very religious interpretation of Christianity get confused by this apparent contradiction but it lies at the very heart of Grace.

The doctrine of Grace is that all people are born with the inevitable tendency of sinning- of being self absorbed, self focused, self obbsessed and that leads to greed and pride and lust and sloth and all the other mistakes we have all made in our lives. There is no way for any human to live a perfect life and yet the perfect Creator God who is truly Just can't accept anything less than perfection.

So in Jesus, the physical embodiment of God, the perfection is gifted to us. The consequence of our sin is seperation from God. Jesus paid that price by being seperated from God on the cross. By rising again on Easter he liberated us from the karmic expectation that our benefits would be decided based on our actions- since we all know that in honesty our actions don't stack up.

So Grace, which is the core of Christianity, says that salvation or liberation or enlightenment or whatever you want to call true communion with Ultimate Existence comes at the cost of that Ultimate Creator instead of our cost. Faith is simply the acknowledgment of this event.

Grace illuminates the issue of homosexuality within the Christian church then. We are all born with strong tendencies that we can't possibly fully control- the tendency to put ourselves first, the tendency to take what we want and a tendency to do both those things in the sexual arena. The homosexual man and the heterosexual man are in the same boat- they both have sexual urges that they are compelled to control for their greater good; delayed satisfaction of a higher kind can be sought.

So I as a straight man have an urge to spread my seed and sleep with whoever will permit it (and depending on the evolutionary biologist you talk to, permission may not even come into our urges) but instead I commit myself to one woman, my wife. A gay man must commit himself to celibacy in the faithful expectation that the promises of God of the fullest life will come to bear fruit. This is not pie-in-the-sky impossible nonsense. The history of Christianity (indeed, although they aren't advertising it, particularly Roman Catholicism) is filled with celibate homosexuals.

I don't write this in any effort to insult or demean homosexuals. What I actually want to do is clarify that there is no grounds for any Christian to ever refer to a homosexual as evil. There is space for everyone in Christianity, but for everyone, the path to being a disciple of Jesus will involve sacrifice.

I find it strange that on a Christianity forum, so many people seem to equate one church with the whole of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is not the beginning and the end of Christianity.

solice

Rev Hellfire wrote:

No, it says the act you commit is evil. Not you for doing so, at least thats my understanding.

Sorry, my bad there. I deleted a post that i wrote. Please forgive me!

solice

Excelsior wrote:

I find it strange that on a Christianity forum, so many people seem to equate one church with the whole of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is not the beginning and the end of Christianity.

I agree and i only referenced the Roman Catholic Church, not christianity as a whole. The information i supplied above is all from the Holy Sees own website www.vatican.va

You say that the there is no grounds for calling a homosexual evil. But that is what the catholic church are doing. If a straight man or woman has sex with more than one person or has sex before marriage they would not be referred to as "evil". I have found no evidence of this on the vaticans website. It would be classed as adultery and the person would be seen to be a sinner until that person repented.

However homosexuals are referred to as "evil" for having sex. This is not based on any teaching from the bible but is the opinion of the Holy See. See my above post.
The Catholic church (i only speak of the catholic church because that is all i know, i wouldnt mean to speak about a faith i know nothing of) say that homosexuals should be treated with respect and not discriminated against in any way. But they still call us evil for showing affection for somebody we love.

I wont even start on the other point i made, according to the catholic church a child in the care of a homosexual is in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Excelsior

solice wrote:

If a straight man or woman has sex with more than one person or has sex before marriage they would not be referred to as "evil"... It would be classed as adultery

Adultery properly means all sex outside of marriage. So when I had sex with my girlfriend that is the exact same as a gay couple having sex. All sin is infinite in its magnitude. There is not formal way of talking about one instance of sin being somehow "worse" than another.

solice wrote:

the person would be seen to be a sinner until that person repented.

Tangent: That is a common misconception but Christianity would hold that we won't ever stop making mistakes and hurting ourselves and others so we're all equally sinners. Christianity should leave no space for self-righteousness.

Solice, I understand your anger. Christians in many quarters have systematically abused and humiliated homosexuals. An apology from me, a stranger, over an internet forum seems preposterous but I offer it anyway. Jesus did not intend for any gay person to ever feel that the way was not open for them to follow Him. The greatest tragedy in the history of the Church (all of them, not just RCC) is that we have so often behaved in a disgustingly exclusive way while proclaiming it to be in the name of the one who accepts every person.

Flukey

Let's look at the two issues, and the way they are seen by some:

Contrary to popular belief, gays can marry. Lots of gay men have wives and lots of Lesbians have husbands, so they can, and do, get married. No one is stopping them. As to gay couples, gays should have the right to legally join and have rights as couples. They should be allowed to do that. They are looking for the right to marry, but as pointed out, they already have that, so it is a non-issue. What we are really looking at is the recognition of same sex relationships. That is the real issue and that is what we should be looking to address.


As to sex before marriage, it is a complex yet very simple one. This is the way it is seen:

The greatest commitment any human can give, is to be a parent. It is not something that should be entered into lightly. Intentionally or not, by having sex, that is what you are doing, taking the step to creating a child with someone. Sex is fun, but that is to encourage us to do it, but ultimately it is to bring new life into the world. So if you are prepared to do that, you should be able to permanently commit yourself to an individual to have children with. It makes perfect sense to make that lesser commitment first, together, before making the biggest one of all.

Sex is the most intimate thing that two people can share. It should not be taken lightly, so it should not just be given to anyone. If you do find that someone special what more can you give to them if you have already given the most intimate thing to many others? You can't set that special person apart and give them something that you have given to no one else, the most special and intimate thing you can give. That already undermines any relationship you can have with them, no matter how much more you love them. The love of your life is in effect no more special than some one night stand because you gave them the same thing.


I am not saying I share these views, but that is the way many people see it. I'll leave them with you to discuss.

rsynnott

Flukey wrote:

Let's look at the two issues, and the way they are seen by some:

Contrary to popular belief, gays can marry. Lots of gay men have wives and lots of Lesbians have husbands, so they can, and do, get married. No one is stopping them. As to gay couples, gays should have the right to legally join and have rights as couples. They should be allowed to do that. They are looking for the right to marry, but as pointed out, they already have that, so it is a non-issue. What we are really looking at is the recognition of same sex relationships. That is the real issue and that is what we should be looking to address.

This reads like an attempt to justify laws against interracial marriage, tbh. Except even sillier.

Flukey

I am just playing devil's advocate here Rsynott. In simple terms the view given is that people opposed to gay marriage see marriage as the joining of a man and a woman and so object to the joining of same sexes as being a marriage. If someone comes up to you and said they were married, you would immediately picture the opposite sex of the person that you are talking to as being the person they are referring to. Even most gays and lesbians would have that image, so that is what people see marriage as being. So some would say that you can't have a same sex "marriage".

Others that view marriage in the same way would say that gay men/lesbians can have a wife/husband and surmise that they can in fact get married in the same way as anyone else can and see it as a non-issue. They would see that while they may never want to, they can get married and there is nothing in law that says they can't. They'd say that therefore they are not discriminated against and that a gay man or lesbian can indeed get married.

As the piece says, the most important thing is not the ceremony or whether they are "married" or not, but the rights that come with it, like inheritance, tax, being seen as family or next of kin, etc. and having their relationship formally and legally recognised. It is more on that side of it that the issues revolve. It is more a case of gay couples having the same rights that heterosexual couples have in the legal areas of their relationship. With or without peoples consent, they will continue with their relationship and love each other. They just want more recognition of it and the equivalent legal rights that a married couple have, once they make a formal and legal commitment to each other.

The hang-up comes around the term "marriage" itself and what it means, as in the example I gave if someone says they are married and what way you picture the person they are married to. What gay couples want and should have is the recognition of their relationships, whatever term you want to give to that recognition and/or to the relationship. When they say they want to be married, for many it is the rights that come with a marriage that they want. A solution to that can be found.

rsynnott

Flukey wrote:

So some would say that you can't have a same sex "marriage".

Those people are, of course, idiots. (Please note that I am talking about, and in general people advocating gay marriage are talking about civil marriage).

Flukey wrote:

Others that view marriage in the same way would say that gay men/lesbians can have a wife/husband and surmise that they can in fact get married in the same way as anyone else can and see it as a non-issue. They would see that while they may never want to, they can get married and there is nothing in law that says they can't. They'd say that therefore they are not discriminated against and that a gay man or lesbian can indeed get married.

Those people are also idiots. A marriage is a loving relationship. It is not in the nature of gay people to have romantic feelings for the opposite sex; any such marriage is a sham at best. Gay people are certainly being denied a meaningful marriage.

Flukey wrote:

As the piece says, the most important thing is not the ceremony or whether they are "married" or not, but the rights that come with it, like inheritance, tax, being seen as family or next of kin, etc. and having their relationship formally and legally recognised. It is more on that side of it that the issues revolve. It is more a case of gay couples having the same rights that heterosexual couples have in the legal areas of their relationship. With or without peoples consent, they will continue with their relationship and love each other. They just want more recognition of it and the equivalent legal rights that a married couple have, once they make a formal and legal commitment to each other.

This is indeed the case. A civil union is a decent short-term goal. But see below.

Flukey wrote:

The hang-up comes around the term "marriage" itself and what it means, as in the example I gave if someone says they are married and what way you picture the person they are married to. What gay couples want and should have is the recognition of their relationships, whatever term you want to give to that recognition and/or to the relationship. When they say they want to be married, for many it is the rights that come with a marriage that they want. A solution to that can be found.

And for many of us, it is also the desire to be treated equally. There is no reason whatever to deny civil marriage to gay people (and religions that wish to, like the Unitarians and some reform Jewish congregations, can give church marriage). If we get full-strength civil unions, then it is a purely symbolic issue, but a purely symbolic issue can be important.

smidgy

As excelsior said we are all sinners, we sin and we repent if we are truely sorry in the christian tradition. As a hetrosexual christian this is what I do when I mess up. One of the members posted about how the catholic church has changed its opinions in the aftermath of events over the years. In the context of gay marriage how can the process of sin and repentance coexist in the reality of a person commiting their life to a sinful existence? There is no coexistence between these two processes, and I really cant see how time will change this. I am no better or no worse than the homosexual when I sin but I do not flaunt my sexuality and sinfulness from the hilltops with a kind of pride that seems to dominate the homosexual expression and I do not desire that other people recogise the sins I commit and say its ok for me to commit them.

thatkindofgirl

Has it even occured to you, smidgy, that homosexual christians might disagree that homosexual acts within the context of a commited relationship (seeing as marriage isn't an option) is a sin?

I mean, ditch the holiness codes and references to temple prostitutes, and you don't actually have anything in the bible that specifically references homosexual sexual acts, and certainly not within a commited relationship.

You don't think straight people "flaunt" their sexuality and the freedom they have to express it daily? Holding hands in public, a kiss when parting -- tiny things, but things that homosexuals cannot do on a regular basis without the fear of being beaten to a pulp by small-minded thugs.

Excelsior

thatkindofgirl wrote:

Has it even occured to you, smidgy, that homosexual christians might disagree that homosexual acts within the context of a commited relationship (seeing as marriage isn't an option) is a sin

If you believe that Jesus was the Christ then his belief that the scripture was authoritative for his followers is actually completely binding. However, the Christians you speak of do not believe Jesus is the Christ but that Jesus was a great moral teacher. In that case, scripture, including the scripture about Jesus the one they follow, can be reinterpreted as convenience demands. If they do not believe Jesus to be the Christ, maybe we should stop calling them followers of Christ, which is what Christian means and instead call them what they are, which is Jesusians.

TKOG wrote:

I mean, ditch the holiness codes and references to temple prostitutes, and you don't actually have anything in the bible that specifically references homosexual sexual acts, and certainly not within a commited relationship.

Romans 1 references exactly that. Paul is talking directly to the whole gamut of homosexual behaviours. If you want to state such sweeping generalisations, at least show us the respect of backing it up.

TKOG wrote:

but things that homosexuals cannot do on a regular basis without the fear of being beaten to a pulp by small-minded thugs.

Those small-minded thugs cannot ever claim to be acting as Christians and introducing the implication that the orthodox Christian view permits or even encourages it is a little bit alarming but also plainly ridiculous.

Playboy

Excelsior wrote:

In that case, scripture, including the scripture about Jesus the one they follow, can be reinterpreted as convenience demands.

At least try and hide your contempt for these people. If you bothered to try and see another point of view you might see that convenience has very little to do with it. You choose to believe in your meta-physical divine being and others choose to believe in a "great moral teacher". If I choose to believe that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual act it doesnt have anything to do with convenience.

thatkindofgirl

_

The homophobic mod has deleted my post pointing out that he conveniently obliterated my post that addressed his points carefully.

Obviously, this will get me banned, but hey -- why not go out with a bang?

This "jesusian" stuff is a pile of poo. Just because somebody doesn't believe exactly what you believe, doesn't make them less of a Christian.

Christians like you make the rest of us look bad.

Excelsior

Playboy wrote:

If you bothered to try and see another point of view you might see that convenience has very little to do with it. ... If I choose to believe that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual act it doesnt have anything to do with convenience.

At least try to hide your contempt for my point of view.

Playboy, I should have been clearer in making my point that the convienience with which the Bible can be taken up or discarded by moral-teacher followers does not imply that the rights of homosexuals in society is simply a "convienience". The Jesusian builds their picture of Jesus based on the Scriptures but their assumptions are such that the very same books that are proof texts for the interpretation of the Carpenter can be read in contradictory ways or even discarded when brought to bear on related issues because the position is rife with errors.

In no way do I suggest that the very serious issue of homosexual rights are in any way resolved through undisciplined "convenience".

Rather, the Jesusian picture permits undisciplined convenience-driven interpretations of scripture such as the plainly ahistorical claim that the New Testament does not condemn homosexual actions.

It comes back to the old CS Lewis chestnut about how Jesus can be viewed. JC is either who he claims to be or a mad hatter on a par with someone who claims to be a fried egg or something very much worse than that.

But a man who claims to be who he claims to be and advises people the way he advises people on false grounds is not a good moral teacher. To get the Bible to wrap around that prior assumption, you need to warp it.

pooka

thatkindofgirl wrote:

The homophobic mod has deleted my post pointing out that he conveniently obliterated my post that addressed his points carefully.

I think it's clear that this was a mistake. Take this up with me privately if you feel otherwise. But please don't post people's PM apologies in here. ) And the other mod isn't in the slightest bit homophobic, I assure you.

Er. That sounds like I am. I'm not. I mean, maybe I am a little bit, but only in the same sense that I'm a little bit racist - everyone has their minor irrational prejudices to overcome. ;o)

Obviously, this will get me banned, but hey -- why not go out with a bang?

There's no need to ban anyone. Just play nice.

This "jesusian" stuff is a pile of poo. Just because somebody doesn't believe exactly what you believe, doesn't make them less of a Christian.

Well, it kind of depends on how you define 'Christian'. The word Christ, from Christos, is a direct translation of Messiah, the Hebrew word meaning 'Anointed One'. This traditionally meant the Davidic king of the Jews, God's annointed king. Clearly, what the early Christians meant when they referred to themselves as such was that they believed Jesus to be that king.

So, if one believes this about Jesus - with all the (eminently debatable) odd stuff being the Davidic king entails - it is reasonable to talk about Christians being those who believe Jesus to be Christ, and Jesusians being those who believe Jesus to be groovy. Frankly, the term 'Jesusian' kind of irritates me too, not least because it's so hard to say, but I can see it as a valid distinction and an interesting point of debate. )

Christians like you make the rest of us look bad.

I think it's fair to say most Christians make Christians look bad. Remember, disagreement isn't a problem - even extreme, irreconcilable disagreement. Consider G.K. Chesterton and G.B. Shaw, who agreed on almost nothing but were the best of friends. The problem is when we (especially those of us who profess Christian belief) forget to put love first.

And I mean that in the non-steamy, covenental Biblical sense. ;o)

Cian

thatkindofgirl

The problem I have is with "kristians".

People who are really religious and forget that Jesus never spoke out about "sexual morality" (the favourite bug-bear of the churches at the moment).

He DID mention things that would keep people from him and the The Father, but "sexual morality" wasn't among them at all -- corrupted power, pride, and wealth are the culprits according to the messiah, the anointed one.

And, to be honest, I don't know many women who keep their heads covered in church ala Paul. Can they possibly be Christian? Of course they can -- it would be lunacy to believe otherwise.

In the great creative tension between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Paul, I'll err on the side of the Son of God, thanks. Not some wet-behind-the-ears mysoginist administrator.

I do believe in Jesus the saviour, but I also think his actions speak a lot louder even than evangelists' church services are. And he was a heck of a lot more complex than popular evangelical religion ever delves. I think Jesus would be puzzled out of his mind on this whole obsession with sexual morality. To him, this wasn't really a biggie. There were bigger fish to fry than people who loved the wrong people.

And who the HELL are you to say who is a Christian and who isn't? You forget Jesus' example...

Excelsior

thatkindofgirl wrote:

People who are really religious and forget that Jesus never spoke out about "sexual morality" (the favourite bug-bear of the churches at the moment).

I am not a religious person at all, but should I deny that Jesus did talk about sexual morality before you'd take that seriously?

Jesus never explicitly mentions homosexuality. You will find that declared repeatedly in my posts on this board and others for the last 5 years.

Churches in Ireland are certainly not het up about sexuality issues. In fact, it would be a clear and uncontested fact that the major preoccupation of churches across the spectrum for the last six months is the capaign to finally complete Wilberforce's work.

I'd go so far as to say that the church doesn't emphasise sex issues nearly enough in its preaching and its campaigning. Sexual hypocrisy and hidden sin is pandemic. x3church.com's figures would suggest that a massive proportion of church leaders and pastors and ministers have a porn habit. Adultery and divorce are in some cases more common in the church than out of it. Within the church, sex is a place where there is a lot of heat but not much light. If there is a bee in our bonnet, we are dealing with it by warning others that bees can sting. Its almost just like what Jesus said here

TKOG wrote:

He DID mention things that would keep people from him and the The Father, but "sexual morality" wasn't among them at all -- corrupted power, pride, and wealth are the culprits according to the messiah, the anointed one.

I propose that Jesus views sin as the barrier between Man and God. All sin finds its root in pride. The Beatitudes give a pretty clear example of how Jesus regarded sex as capable of being twisted to sin as ambition could be twisted into self-obbsessed pride.

TKOG wrote:

And, to be honest, I don't know many women who keep their heads covered in church ala Paul. Can they possibly be Christian? Of course they can -- it would be lunacy to believe otherwise.

But the Corinthian passage you are referring to is a localised warning to the localised context of Corinth. That is why the only church I've ever gone to where my friends had to wear hats was a Council of Trent era Catholic church. I'm not proposing reading the Bible literally. I am proposing reading the Bible responsibly; trying to figure out what the original author meant the original reader to understand and then and only then trying to figure out what it means for us today as a society and as individuals.

Apply that to Paul's comments in Corinthians and Timothy and you see that he is speaking to those local congregations in Corinth and Ephesus.

TKOG wrote:

In the great creative tension between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Paul, I'll err on the side of the Son of God, thanks. Not some wet-behind-the-ears mysoginist administrator.

Well I'm glad you leave Paul the status of administrator and don't declare him a full charlatan like Wells et al. On the testament that I take Jesus to be the Son of God, I will take Paul to be his apostle to the Gentiles. I'll actually go all controversial on you and say I'll take my pointers from NT Wright on how to interpret Paul. (Shock horror, the evangelical strays from party line!!!)

These comments are helpful for me in understanding how easily you disregard the Pauline comments on sexual sin, obviously enough.

TKOG wrote:

I do believe in Jesus the saviour, but I also think his actions speak a lot louder even than evangelists' church services are. And he was a heck of a lot more complex than popular evangelical religion ever delves.

I completely agree with you here.

I think the most satisfactory approach to Christ is made recognising the Incarnation as the distinctive for this element in the Trinity- he is a man. He is not a religion. He is not a way. He is a man and a discipling relationship is what he asks for. But even on that path followed by my heroes like Lewis and Bonhoeffer, the complex truth was not even close to grasped.

TKOG wrote:

I think Jesus would be puzzled out of his mind on this whole obsession with sexual morality. To him, this wasn't really a biggie. There were bigger fish to fry than people who loved the wrong people.

I think he would find the intense promulgations of the evangelical church in America confusing. The more earnest participants in the Anglican discussion would probably cheer him up no end.

But for Jesus, all sin was a biggie. His morality would be insane if either of these propositions weren't true:
a) He was the Son of God
b) Sin is infinite in magnitude

They are the only things that justify such declarations as lust is adultery and anger is murder. More concretely, his advice to reasonably good men like the Rich Young Ruler is disgusting if a) and b) don't apply.

My understanding of Jesus in the Gospels is that in the face of the never-ending loving provision of Grace from God, any sin whatsoever can't be counted for its scale is infinite. There is no big sin or small sin. God loves the murderer as much as the murdered even though both have sinned. It makes no difference if you have accumulated more sins than the other person, for an infinity * infinity equals infinity.

Understanding the scope of our sin, (the Bad News section of Romans we're always debating) is the only way to make sense of the cost of the Cross. This is all a less than interesting personal digression though.

TKOG wrote:

... than people who loved the wrong people.

I propose that you are making a mistake in allowing the terms and traditions of the most aggressive aspects of the American church on this issue to be forced onto your dialogue. What I mean to say is that Jesus would surely point out that love is a whole lot more than sex. Love (even romantic love) can exist independently of sex. You are compelled by Christ to love everyone (not all romantically). But sex with everyone would not be an attractive proposition.

But as I write this I realise I completely agree with you on one level. Given the choice between joyless self-righteousness, cold depression induced apathy or a celebration of the sensual pleasures of love- sex hedonism is surely the best choice. Sex is a joyous gift. From the perspective of human rationale there is no argument that can be formulated that concludes with sex somehow being equal with or worse than any other crime. Sex within a loving relationship is even better again.

But it comes back then to the person of Jesus. If human rationale had intended to invade the occupied territory of Earth and liberate its people, it wouldn't have begun with an ugly Jewish carpenter from Nazareth. It most certainly wouldn't have ended with that man at the height of his power and at the peak of his physical ability hanging on a cross humiliated and dead for all to examine. Christianity, from Abraham through Job and up to Christ (even up to Paul for me but not maybe for you(even up to me!)) shows a God working on decisions from a different perspective.

TKOG wrote:

And who the HELL are you to say who is a Christian and who isn't? You forget Jesus' example...

Ah I'm always forgetting Jesus' example. Sure you could mathematically define my existence in those terms since it is such a constant! I am no one to say who is Christian. But I have proposed an interesting distinction that can be debated if you wish that says those who don't view Jesus as Christ aren't Christ-ians.

Sorry for the length.

Playboy

Excelsior wrote:

In the sermon on the mount Jesus lays out sexual morality that excludes any sex outside of a traditional mom and pop who are wife and husband forever structure.

In many of Paul's letters but most explicitly in the first chapter of Romans, New Testament readers can see that sex outside of marriage is not an option for Christians.

Afaik Paul only saw Jesus in visions. Is it not strange that most of the sexual morality in the bible comes from a person who never even saw Jesus but only claimed to have had visions of him?

Excelsior

Playboy wrote:

Afaik Paul only saw Jesus in visions. Is it not strange that most of the sexual morality in the bible comes from a person who never even saw Jesus but only claimed to have had visions of him?

Most of the sexual morality in the Bible comes from the Hebrew scriptures- from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Proverbs.

Saul becoming Paul is dealt with by Luke in the book of Acts and by Paul himself in the first letter he sent to the church at Corinth (the whole of chapter 15 is worth having a look at though- packed with fascinating stuff).

Looking at the Corinth testimony, Paul is admanant that he had seen Jesus in the same way that the apostles and disciples had. His encounter is after the ascension but is refrerred to in the same way that all the other "ordinary time" sightings are. The language he uses is not the language of a mystical vision, of spiritual or religious experiences without any definite object referent. Paul did not think he went on seeing Jesus in this way in his subsequent Christian experience although he spoke of being sustained by and conscious of his love and presence (interestingly, in different terms). Paul uses the language of actual seeing.

Luke talks about the Damascus Road experience in physical terms. The 2 assistants experience the chaos and confusion without seeing the figure that Saul refers to as Lord. He falls to the ground. He is blinded. He needs to be led by the hand into the city. And finally he is introduced to Ananais who has been visited by the Lord in a vision . Luke is distinguishing the spiritual insight granted by revelation that is offered to Ananais from the physical interaction that Saul the Pharisee had which turned him into Paul the apostle.

So I think Luke and Paul are both clear that they want you to understand that Saul saw Jesus in the same way that anyone else did post-Easter.

And fundamentally Playboy, its not nearly as strange as the idea that the Creator God became a Palestinian Jewish carpenter and brought about liberation for the universe by being executed by the Romans.

U$ername

Gay marriage? Of course you can have gay marriage our numbers are dwindling...you know strange things happen when numbers are down....Remember the incestual orgies after the flood?...

Wait, no....that was a metaphorical thing...Disregard this post..

Excelsior

"Our numbers are down" is not a very good reason to accept gay marriage. In fact, those two things are not connected.

"Our numbers" must only refer to the Roman Catholic church since it is the only mainline Christian church in Ireland that isn't growing.

AndyWarhol

rsynnott wrote:

Those people are, of course, idiots. (Please note that I am talking about, and in general people advocating gay marriage are talking about civil marriage).



Those people are also idiots. A marriage is a loving relationship. It is not in the nature of gay people to have romantic feelings for the opposite sex; any such marriage is a sham at best. Gay people are certainly being denied a meaningful marriage.



This is indeed the case. A civil union is a decent short-term goal. But see below.



And for many of us, it is also the desire to be treated equally. There is no reason whatever to deny civil marriage to gay people (and religions that wish to, like the Unitarians and some reform Jewish congregations, can give church marriage). If we get full-strength civil unions, then it is a purely symbolic issue, but a purely symbolic issue can be important.

You pass off people who don't subscribe to the liberal status-quo as being idiots, when in fact most people are disgusted by the homosexual act of sticking your penis up somebody else's anal passage (indeed, with complete disregard to the long-term health aspects of this). Just because such 'idiots' don't conform to the politically correct garbage that one reads in the Irish media doesn't mean they are idiots.

As far as I'm concerned, gay people can have all the civil arrangements with each other as they like, and can have sex with each other as much as they like in the privacy of their own home. They cannot however be expected to be warmly welcomed into the Catholic Church if they are living in sin. That said, the Catholic church will always welcome people no matter what their predicament, but if you engage in homosexual acts, then you are living in sin, and should not take communion. There certainly is not, and hopefully never will be (God willing), any scope to marry others of the same sex.

There are loads of hybrid churches that will 'marry' gay people; if you think being gay is righteous, you cannot be a Catholic since you ignore the teachings of Christ. There are however gays within the Catholic church who have homosexual tendencies in the knowledge of what they are doing is wrong, just as there are hetrosexual individuals who engage in pre-marital sex in the knowledge that they are committing a sin. Catholics believe in forgiveness, but if you call yourself a Catholic and do not accept the teachings of Christ through the church, you are a heretic.

Boston

ffs you know nothing about gay sex, so don't talk about it please.

Playboy

lol dude .... do you know anything about Andy Warhol or is the name sarcastic?

Boston

I do.

Playboy

LiouVille wrote:

I do.

That was directed at the poster b4 you whose name happens to be Andy Warhol.