LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

My biggest issue with that wall of text is that I don't see too many homosexuals trying to convert Christians and telling them being a Christian is wrong and they should stop. I have seen quite a bit of the opposite. It usually involves the Christian telling the homosexual about a place of vaguely defined eternal torment they will go to unless they stop. So this hypothetical pastor has some nerve claiming his identity is under attack.

Also that last point rings hollow to anyone who's experienced bullying from people who identify as Christian and use the bible to justify it. Then there's people who have opposed efforts to crack down on bullying (which has led to suicide) because it might lead to "religious persecution".

edited 25th Dec '13 4:30:37 AM by Morgikit

I'm going to try to be fair to that hypothetical pastor. There's simply no way to maintain Jesus' brand integrity when anyone can say "what Jesus really wants out of you is this." It's not like Christians can maintain a definitive Christian teaching by force of arms anymore.

And I don't think it's fair to say "Christians should not preach that homosexuality is sinful, because other Christians say 'homosexuals should be persecuted,'" for the reason above. If you want to say "Christians should not preach that homosexuality is sinful, because that position is wrong and needs to die in a fire," that's different. (Our society's moral consensus takes a dim view of trying to squelch opposing views, however. At least in theory.)

But since there's no unifying authority or consensus about anything in Christianity, one Christian should not be held accountable for memes or actions that he dissents from.

edited 25th Dec '13 4:47:51 AM by Ramidel

Frankly I find it difficult to get worked up over being labeled as sinful for anything, as the phrase means about as much to me as saying my actions are displeasing to the planet Neptune.

This is one of the biggest sticks in my craw as far as Christianity is concerned: the idea that sex, in any form, is inherently wrong unless you ask God's permission first.

And I know that gets back into, "Parents want what's best for their children and try to shape them in the right direction and blah blah blah," but here's the thing: part of raising a child is knowing when to back off and let them live their own life, and part of growing up is shirking off your parents' governance of you and taking control of your own life into your own hands. There comes a point in your life where God has to faff off and let you make your own decisions, and looking in your window and sternly glaring until you apologize for offending his precious sensibilities is way over the line as far as parenting goes.

No parent wants to think about their kids having sex, but it happens, God, so deal with it.

edited 25th Dec '13 9:41:34 AM by TobiasDrake

Some questions I notice the pastor wasn't asked:

1. "How do you feel about other Christians who don't believe a homosexual relationship is automatically a sin? Especially in the case of a long-term committed relationship?"

2. "What is your opinion on the efforts of certain political organizations using the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman to prevent government recognition of committed homosexual couples?"

3. "What is your opinion on the same organizations trying to prevent the adoption of children by homosexuals?"

I'd ask about bullying, only he's indicated that he's against that, but doesn't seem to see a connection between his religion and bullying. Nothing I can do about that.

On the mock interview bit that Soban did, how many interviews actually have it where the interviewer asks the subject about their position on homosexuality without the subject having already made a thing out of it?

Here is how I would answer it, it might not be the same way he would answer it.

1. Like you said, we differ on it. As a Christian, I have a responsibility to faithfully present the word of God the way I understand it. They also have that responsibility. I can't abandon the responsibility to call something God calls sin, sin. Just like I can't abandon the responsibility to point to Jesus as the answer to all sinfulness.

2/3. I don't think that government recognition or adoption is the real problem. If the government forces you to not do this, or forces you to do that, it's not addressing the real problem in yours, mine, and all of our lives of sin. We've all sinned and fallen short of what God requires of us. God calls us to repentance from sin. Jesus is the one who addresses the real problem.

I'm sure love your neighbor as your self has nothing to say about bullying.

edited 25th Dec '13 10:59:45 AM by Soban

As it's Christmas time I was wondering, anyone who went to church either today or last night have their sermon mention anything to do with LGBT people?

edited 25th Dec '13 11:16:19 AM by Silasw

First off, kudos on actually knowing so much (I'll admit that I didn't know the impersonation one.)

But saying, "God didn't mean them for people today," isn't enough. Humans aren't allowed to modify any of this. It's literally a crime to do so. Jesus was, if Christians are right, the exception, and any laws he didn't revoke are still canon. You don't have the right. It's bad to look at a sin, like doing pretty much anything on Shabbat or using the word, "God," as a vulgarity, and say, "Hey, that's fine, now," no? Just like with homosexuality—when a human views a sin as acceptable, that human is wrong, and should repent. These are the rules you established, farshtaist?

And more due to pedantry than anything else, I'd like to point out that some of the commandments give authority, such as, "This is what you have to do to get a divorce." I don't know if it's even possible to violate those commandments, so unless I'm seriously mistaken (which I often am, if it makes a difference,) they're not related to sin.

edited 25th Dec '13 3:06:49 PM by Rem

Keep in mind, many of the Old Testament laws apply specifically to Jewish people. They were never supposed to be extended to everyone else. There are specific laws that mention non-Jewish people (Gentiles), but most scholars (both Jewish and Christian) agree that the OT laws are only supposed to apply to Jewish people.

TBH, I did not say that. You forgot my very next sentence. "However, the principles that the law was founded on are the same." The specific command that you are talking about warns about two kinds of errors. Taking away, and adding to. I feel that we do not commit those errors by seeking to understand the principles that underlay the law and apply them to our current time frame. For example, I think almost everyone would agree it is wrong to speed excessively. You become a danger to yourselves and others. However, the law of Moses has no speed limits in it. Are we then to take that speed limits are anti-god? No, there is the principle that we find time and again in many places in the law that life is important and valuable. So we apply the principle of life being valuable to the different situation of cars that can go a hundred miles an hour.

You bring up the divorce law, while we might not follow the exact law for divorces we do still have laws for it. Also there is a principle that we learn, marriage is important and not to be taken lightly. Your view of marriage deeply impacts the LGBT rights issues. If you don't think that LGBT relationships can be recognized by God as a valid marriage then why should the state? On the other hand, if you have another understanding of what marriage is then preventing two people who love each other, no matter what their genders are, from getting married is equally wrong. So your understanding of the importance and place of marriage is very important for talking about what sin is.

Christians view the Hebrew bible as canon. Jesus might have altered a few laws here or there, but when he didn't, it's safe to assume that the laws still apply. Do I believe that laws from several millennia ago should be followed to the letter today without question? No. But it's hypocritical to say, "Homosexuality is a sin because of the Bible," and ignore all of the other crimes in the Bible just because it'd be inconvenient to have to pray all Saturday or read the Bible in full.

Ignoring the whole, "Keep the Sabbath holy," thing without Jesus' consent is pretty clearly a sin. You can't just say, "Oh, I'm sure he doesn't care any more." Either the Bible is wrong, Christians who work on Saturday are unrepentant sinners, or Jesus removed the Sabbath law. Which one is it?

To the best of my knowledge, speeding laws are almost never included in Biblical canon. They're national. As in, enforced by the government. Sure, there countries out there associated with certain religions, but usually they don't actually amend the Bible to include their laws. Seeing as how the Torah laws in question only apply to amending the actual Torah, this is fine.

I'm not sure what you're going on about with the divorce law thing. I was just being an annoying little pedant and pointing out that there are laws like, "Divorce only happens when you do this; otherwise you're still married," and, "These guys decide what the Calendar is; if anyone else says something different, they are wrong." It's impossible to break these commandments, and thus impossible to sin by breaking them.

Well I can't enter holly ground for reasons I can't go into but local Metropolitan Community Church in Petersham was flying the rainbow flag high on Christmas Day.

I like what you doing MCC but I think you're trying a bit too hard there.

To my knowledge, my church has never once mentioned homosexuality in a sermon in my entire lifetime, and at the Christmas mass in particular they typically have other rather specific priorities about a certain guy being born. So, no.

Actually, almost none of the Hebrew laws we repealed were done by Jesus. With relatively few exceptions they were done by ecumenical councils over the next several centuries.

edited 28th Dec '13 7:31:45 PM by Pykrete

The way I understood it is that Jesus's teachings implied that the Hebrew Law was not necessarily binding, but that did not mean that all the prohibitions were invalid. A lot of squabbling in the early Christian church was about that, I gather; there were those who wanted Christianity to be "Judaism, reformed", and those who wanted something rather more radical, and it ended up somewhere in between those.

Pretty much.

Correct. However, several of Jesus' words to the Pharisees, along with His dream admonition to St. Peter in Acts, established a solid precedent and some clues for the Church to act upon later.

Jesus said that what goes into your mouth doesn't make you unclean. Is there any reason why that shouldn't extend to...other orifices?

Either way it sounds like blowjobs get a free pass.

Good article on loving the sinner and hating the sin in regards to LGBT issues

It's an extremely thin line between doing that and hating the sinner. In a society (Christianity) that tends to view itself as a bastion of light against a world flooded with the darkness of sin, it is way too easy to slip to the wrong side of the line. It is extraordinarily difficult for humans to separate someone from their actions.

" In a society (Christianity) that tends to view itself as a bastion of light against a world flooded with the darkness of sin"

Holy shit do you miss the point of Christianity. The point of it is we're all sinners and can only be forgiven by God. Seeing being gay as just another sin means your no different than the rest of us.

Come down here in the south Joe.

You'll see what he is talking about.

^^^ Actually most people are very good at separating the action from the person when they feel like doing so. You do it everyday with yourself and the people you love.

edited 2nd Jan '14 6:43:09 PM by Madrugada

Well I don't live in the south, I'm not baptist, pentecostal, ect. Majority of Christians arn't. I'm Catholic. If they see it differently then they're not following what the bible says. Certainly not a change of pace for them.