Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Martin

I wasn't sure if your post was some kind of response to what I'd said, or if you just felt inspired to reveal your childhood attitudes, but I'm glad you changed.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
I didn't know whether to post on this thread or the other one on the Pastor's Testimony. But as this is a tangent to that and more generally about Homosexuality ad Christianity, I'm going for this one. Hope this is okay.

There's been an article in the Guardian about Vaughan Roberts testimony,

It starts by saying that: "A further layer of irony and pain is added to the situation because his interviewer, Julian Hardyman, leads a Cambridge Baptist church where his predecessor was chased out of the job for coming out and announcing he had a partner."

However, this is a deliberate obfuscating of the issue. Roy Clements apparently left his wife for another man (a member of his congregation), which led to him resigning as pastor. My question is, surely, everyone from both sides of the debate can agree that this sort of behaviour is incompatible with being a pastor of a church, whether the person he leaves his wife for is a man or a woman. Yet, now his case is being used as an example of homophobia within the evangelical church. Is this right?

Furthermore, regarding marriages in general, do people think that a Christian is allowed to leave their spouse without compunction if they are homosexual? Are the marriage vows invalidated if one of the partners is secretly homosexual when making them, or discovers their homosexual attractions later?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There is a different can of worms if he marries "for convenience" to a lady that doesn't want to do sex with him, while allowing him to do whatever on the side (and presumably for her to do the parallel activity)

That attitude to marriage would at least show honesty between the partners, unlike the church (generis) which often doesn't accept honesty.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Furthermore, regarding marriages in general, do people think that a Christian is allowed to leave their spouse without compunction if they are homosexual?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...I always had my money on the Mormons to flip from "gays can't marry" to being the first to say "Gays must get married and raids little Mormons"...

---

My impression of gay Mormons isn't that "gays can't marry", but rather that they are expected to marry heterosexually and raise a family like everyone else. But I must admit to be working from a very small sample set.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

He initiated an eight year attack, pitting a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority to prevent the democratic process from working in the minority’s favor.

---

quote:

---

I think it is instead like a man who has brutally tried to cripple and rob you, coming to shake hands after he has finally failed, congratulating himself on his attempt on your life. He even says he isn’t finished with you yet. But try not to be alienated. . . .

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

And so in Minnesota, a 17-year-old Catholic, Lennon Cihack, who goes to mass weekly, and who was diligently preparing for his confirmation, posted on his Facebook page a picture of himself and a poster opposing the Amendment. His mother is then called into the rectory by the local priest and told that the confirmation cannot occur. Then she is told that the entire family is now barred from communion. She appeals to the bishop. He tells her that if Lennon stands in front of the whole congregation and denounces marriage equality, he can be confirmed. The priest in question has denied barring Lennon from confirmation, but does not dispute any of the facts of the case. Meanwhile, of course, Lennon's Facebook page is brimming with likes from his class-mates who are still being confirmed

---

Now why would you think that there might be alienation?

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
More the latter. My niece introduced me to her girlfriend yesterday. They're very sweet. I hugged them both. Felt nothing but goodwill toward them. I haven't the FAINTEST idea WJWD. All I know is everything is redeemed and all will be well. How I explain it all to my 82 year old mother when they get engaged ... A duty put on me by muh sister, bless her.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

A mass for gay and lesbian Catholics has been held for the last time in central London because the Church says it goes against its views on sexuality.

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said it conflicted with religious teachings on sexuality.
*****
The masses have been held at Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Warwick Street, Soho, for the last six years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Saw this on the BBC news website.

quote:

---

A mass for gay and lesbian Catholics has been held for the last time in central London because the Church says it goes against its views on sexuality.

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said it conflicted with religious teachings on sexuality.
*****
The masses have been held at Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Warwick Street, Soho, for the last six years.

---

Seems strange to suddenly stop something that's been going on for more than half-a-decade. Is the RC church digging its heels in as same sex marriage starts to look more and more likely.

Anyone here a congregant there or have any thoughts?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Saw this on the BBC news website.

quote:

---

A mass for gay and lesbian Catholics has been held for the last time in central London because the Church says it goes against its views on sexuality.

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said it conflicted with religious teachings on sexuality.
*****
The masses have been held at Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Warwick Street, Soho, for the last six years.

---

Seems strange to suddenly stop something that's been going on for more than half-a-decade. Is the RC church digging its heels in as same sex marriage starts to look more and more likely.

Anyone here a congregant there or have any thoughts?

---

quote:

---

(this) church will be dedicated during Lent to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, a group set up by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011 for Anglicans who defect to Roman Catholicism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

"The emphasis is on pastoral care. Sometimes people come here and have tears in their eyes, because for the first time, two really important parts of their lives have come together: their Catholicism and their sexual identity."
from the earlier article, linked to in this post

---

quote:

---

The Archbishop of Westminster has asked organisers of the service in Soho to instead concentrate on providing pastoral care.
from today's article, linked to in my earlier post

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
How common do people reckon lavender marriages actually were(/are?)?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Sigh...apparently supporting civil same-sex marriages warrants being denied the Sacraments:

Catholic teen denied confirmation

---

Wow, that's awful and horribly zealous of the Priest. I did a Diploma in RE at a Catholic University and the Lecturer said that gay civil marriage was a question of social justice and therefore, should be supported BUT that the Catholic sacrament was always between a man and a woman. THat seemed like a very sensible position to take-sounds like some Priests would excommunicate her for that.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
WARNING! LONG POST!

Sorry, Calvin's granny, the on-line Mardi Gras kind of obscured your qu.

There's much theological writing out there on the subject, so I'm only going to be able to summarize the arguments, rather than actually argue properly (that would take an even looooooonger post!). Further reading at the end.

The 'bible bullets' commonly used against gays are:

1) Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman - that is detestable"

On a personal note, I have no problem with this. Lying with women is fine by me
More seriously, this is part of the Jewish Holiness Code. We are not Jews, we're Christians. As Paul says repeatedly, we don't follow Jewish Law (cf allowing in uncircumsised Gentiles as Christians in NT churches, Peter's dream about eating non-Kosher food "That which I have made clean you shall not call unclean", etc.).

2) Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestible."

Ditto as for 1). Also, look at verse 18:it prohibits sleeping with a woman during her period on the same terms. There's also prohibitions against wearing mixed fibre clothing. Anyone got a polycotton shirt on?

3)Genesis 18-19: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The sin isn't one of sodomy, it's about abuse of hospitality and gang-rape. If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning? Also, you have to talk very hard to try and get a prohibition against homosexuality out of a judgement against homosexual AND heterosexual gang rapes.

4) Deuteronomy 23:17: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute"
5) 1 Kings 14:24: "There were even male shrine-prostitutes in the landl the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites"
6) 1 Kings 15:12: "He expelled the male shrine-prostitutes from the land"

These all talk about prostitution rather than committed relationships, so say nothing about homosexuality per se.

7) Romans 1:26-17: "Even their women exhanged natural ralations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men"

Finally, something that talks about lesbians!
Paul in Romans is talking mainly to the Jews, and is showing how Christianity is a natural extension of Judaeism, and the law of love the successor to the law of Moses. He starts off by trying to puncture the Jews sense that they are justified by their works by showing that they don't follow even their own laws. Basically, he says: look at these nasty heathen who did all these things that Mosaic Law prohibits (that's the bit where the quote comes from), aren't they bad, oh by the way you're like that. He's using the Jews' ideas against themselves (remember, Paul was VERY well-trained theologically): it would need quite a lot of argument to show from this that he thought homosexuality was wrong.
Other points made are: Paul's talking about hets who do homo practices, ie go against their own natures. And he might be talking about the homosexual practices that went on in Pagan temples.

8) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homsexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There is a translation problem here. The relevant bits are: male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. The Greek is 'malakoi arsenokoitai'. 'Malakoi' means 'soft', but no-one knows what 'arsenokoitai' means - the meaning has been lost. 'Arsen' means 'male', and 'koites' means 'bed' or 'sexual intercourse', but there is no recorded use of 'arsenokoitai' before Paul, so we don't know to what it was referring - temple prostitutes, call-boys, child male prostitutes or what? Taking it to mean simply 'male homosexual' (again, there's nothing about lesbianism here) is a very large assumption. Here, the two words have been translated separately: malakoi as male prositiute, arsenokoitai as homosexual offender, but no-one really knows how to translate it.

9) 1 Timothy 1:9: "We know that law is made not for the righteous but for law-breakers and rebels... for adulterers and perverts,... and whatever else is contrary to sound the sound doctrine"

Again, this is the NIV translation. Again we have 'arsenokoita', translated in this passage as 'perverts'. See above.

10) Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion"

See 3). Also, Jude does not specify the perversion - it may be referring to the legend that the women of Sodom had sex with angels. Basically, Sodom became a byword for lust and perversion: how you can get from that to a prohibition on loving and monogomous homosexual relations where there is no compulsion or exploitation is beyond me.

AFAIK this is all the bible says that could possibly be interpreted as refering to homosexuality. Do let me know if I've missed anything.

FURTHER READING:
What the bible says about homosexuality

Difference is not a sin

Chapter 2 of 'Issues in Human Sexuality' by the House of Bishops, 1991.

Finally, here's a few other bible quotes to ponder:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16

"God, who knows the heart, showed that He accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us." --Acts 15:8

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28

"The voice spoke to him a second time, ' Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" -- Acts 10: 15

"By your fruits will you know them" --- [can't remember]

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." -- Romans 7:4

"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery'...[etc]... and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbour as yourself."

And from the liturgy: "We are the Body of Christ; by one Spirit we were all baptised."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:


On a slightly more serious note, please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
- but some people have changed their opinion. Some people have posted on this thread over the years it's been running and said so, so maybe some people do listen. I think I've probably moved over time to a different number (or combination of numbers) on this list, also posted by Joan the Outlaw Dwarf in 2001 . I know I've used the post Eutychus quoted as a quick reference or even just linked straight to it in the past, so it's been a handy resource for me, so maybe it bears repetition.

This bit from Joan's post I just linked to probably also bears repeating...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:


On a slightly more serious note, please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.

---

...although it does seems that you're right that some of those who appear to be the most in need of listening appear to be the least open to doing so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am skeptical simply because it takes so much -work- to tease out even the possibility. This is the kind of work that no one of sense would ever put into anything in daily life. Occam's razor rules.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.

Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.

Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Duhhhh. Om confused. Apart from generally. If Luke, a gentile writing for gentiles, deliberately used a neutral term and the first of your three posts apparently agrees with the proposition, then your piercingly scholarly disagreement with the link is on his reasoning, but not his conclusion?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Martin--

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.

Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.

---

Wow! I'd never heard of this. Thanks for the link.

---

quote:

---

the anti-gay side cannot prove their contention that the centurion and his pais-servant, were not same sex lovers. It is equally impossible to prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that this was a gay centurion and his pais-beloved-gay lover.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
Call me a skeptic - but if a particular interpretation of a writing analysed to varying extents for nearly 2000 years has only gained any sense of currency in the last century or less, maybe the interpretation is a reflection of the reader rather than the writer.

Trust me, I'd love that passage to be a slam dunk to challenge bible-bashers with. I'm not getting it though

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Joesaphat the writer of the article themselves admits it doesn't prove things either way. This looks like a classic case of reading our current cultural bugbears back into the text. Arguments on the basis of one word in one passage are hazardous at best.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
Call me a skeptic - but if a particular interpretation of a writing analysed to varying extents for nearly 2000 years has only gained any sense of currency in the last century or less, maybe the interpretation is a reflection of the reader rather than the writer.

Trust me, I'd love that passage to be a slam dunk to challenge bible-bashers with. I'm not getting it though

---

Truly? Like the notion that death did not after all enter the world because of human sin? That women need not be forbidden to teach? That slavery is a grievous evil and slaves should not virtuously remain in their position? That there aren't seven heavens corresponding to the seven planetary spheres? that demons do not cause illnesses or exorcism cure anything? The list would be very long, Oh, and that the Jews are not a 'synagogue of Satan.'

---