Christian priest defends gay people

[croxis]

How about peer reviewed papers then.

 

[Eukaryote]

What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:

Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.

Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

Answer in Scriptures

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."

As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.

What would Jesus do?

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).

Incrediable, I love it. A preist who faces reality and shares it with the world.

 

[Eukaryote]

Except that he is incorrect. The word that Paul uses in the New Testament does not translate to indicate pederasty at all. He also quantifies it as "most likely" which doesnt give 100% sureity to what he is saying either now does it? In my opinion, and that of others I have interviewed (my pastor and regional overseer for starters) its not "most likely" at all.

Also, the fact that it speaks to the non-religious and atheists tells people more than anything how accurate this is. Again, such a view is simply just another compromise and watering-down of the word of God in order to make the unacceptable, acceptable. The sin as not a sin.

I also see how eager the non-religious and atheists are to spread this "word" as well. That speaks to me as well.

Again, if the bible is the manual for our lives and our relations thereof - where are the examples in the bible of a homosexual union? Where is the advice concerning such? You see advice on how slaves should treat their masters - but none on how homosexuals are to treat their mates. Think about it.

Oh, come on! A preist has said some great arguments here and you still won't face the obvious reality? Have you ever even doubted your belifes? Are you just arrogent?

 

[Eukaryote]

He's not a real Christian.

It's ironic you should say that when you bear the name nonconformatist.

 

[Elrohir]

This is not a debate about science. We can have one in another thread if you want, but let's keep things here on the current matter, which is, "how can some Christians be so sure that their interpretation of the Scripture on homosexual matters is the correct one?"

I think it's relevant, as it's obvious you would prefer that we take our faith out of Christianity, and put it into science. Science is a human endeavor, and is thus flawed, and no better than the church at it's worst.

Problem is, that whole Church tradition and interpretation was based on what the Bible said. Period.

No, it's not. Do you know much about the Catholic church, or Christian history, Masquerogue? I'm starting to wonder. Answer me this: If all of Church tradition and interpetation is based upon the Bible, then why is the authority of Peter - the authority of the Popes - one that can be passed down? Why is it conveyed by the cardinals? Why in Rome, not Jerusalem? The answer to those things is legend and tradition - NOT the Bible. The Bible never mentions Peter's authority being passed down, never mentions cardinals doing anything, much less electing the pope, and never says that Rome should be the center of Christendom. The idea that the "whole of Church tradition and interpetation is based on the Bible" is patently absurd.

I see no real difference between Christians saying the Sun revolves around the Earth because the Bible says so, and Christians saying homosexuality is immoral because the Bible says so.
During the whole Galileo affair the Church used Bible "quotes" to defend its position (we know that because the Catholic Church is very good at archiving stuff).
Now during the whole homosexual affair we see Christians using Bible quotes to defend their position.

So I completely disagree with your premise that the Galileo affair was nothing but tradition and interpretation AS OPPOSED TO some Christian views on homosexuality today. Both are based on what the Bible says, and both are interpretations.

The Bible does not say that the sun revovles around the Earth, some people just thought it did. It does, however, quite plainly state that homosexuality is immoral. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. You can disagree with that all you want, but it won't change the facts.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

@Pasi Nurminen - Indeed, I see it that you are the one attacking me and my faith.

I'm sorry, what? You see that every time someone challenges something you have asserted, they're attacking your beliefs? Wow. I said nothing about you, I was pointing out the error in your view of a historical matter. I made no comment on any spiritual beliefs or anyone who might possess them.

Where, if I may ask, in any of these posts did I attack your beliefs?

Was it in this one?

Get your facts straight.


Quote:
Psalms 93:1; 96:10; 104:5, 1Chronicles 16:30 and Ecclesiastes 1:4,5 speak of the (in some sense) "firm" and "established" position of the earth. Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage too literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition [1], delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the center. The decree did not prevent Galileo from hypothesizing heliocentrism. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy




Quote:
Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy


Quote:
Copernicus, who is a Polish Catholic Monk, also disproved the ptolemeic system. However, Copernicus did NOT boldly go against the church and to disprove the Bible.

<snip>

Neither did Galileo. He merely attempted to update our understanding of Biblical context, since scientific knowledge of our universe had advanced greatly since the time of the apostles.

Or maybe it was this one:

You said he went against the church to attack theology and undermine in, when in fact he worked with it to improve people's understanding of it in conjunction with scientific advances

You are wrong.

Could you please bring some discussion to the table instead of more rolleyed smileys and backhanded insults?

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm sorry, what? You see that every time someone challenges something you have asserted, they're attacking your beliefs? Wow. I said nothing about you, I was pointing out the error in your view of a historical matter.

However your points you made are in an error. You simply boldly asserted that the Church held back science when in fact it did not. Now lets drop this topic because it does not even pertain to this thread.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

However your points you made are in an error. You simply boldly asserted that the Church held back science when in fact it did not. Now lets drop this topic because it does not even pertain to this thread.

No. Show me how I attacked your beliefs, or retract your statement in which you made such a claim.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

You know, i wonder what a gay christian would say on the topic, screw speulation!Now only if we could get a gay christian in here.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You think there's much incentive for a gay christian to post on this forum?

 

[MobBoss]

Oh, come on! A preist has said some great arguments here and you still won't face the obvious reality? Have you ever even doubted your belifes? Are you just arrogent?

The Parhisees were priests as well. Were they correct? Not at all. I have studied this part of the bible. I have done translations into the Greek and Hebrew. I dont agree with this guy. And I have brought this up before with my own Pastor and Rigional overseer. They dont agree with him as well.

And no, I am not arrogant, rather I look at the whole bible as a document that is consistent on the issue of homosexuality - from old testament to new testament.

Bottom line Jesus did not have to be explicit in mentioning homosexuality. Homosexuality was just one of many sins covered under sexual immorality for the Hebrews. And Jesus did talk about sexual immorality.

Also, this Priest leaves and omits other parts of the new testament, not written by Paul that also refers to homosexuality as a sin. Ask yourself why does he omit that?

 

[GenMarshall]

The Parhisees were priests as well. Were they correct? Not at all. I have studied this part of the bible. I have done translations into the Greek and Hebrew. I dont agree with this guy. And I have brought this up before with my own Pastor and Rigional overseer. They dont agree with him as well.

And no, I am not arrogant, rather I look at the whole bible as a document that is consistent on the issue of homosexuality - from old testament to new testament.

Bottom line Jesus did not have to be explicit in mentioning homosexuality. Homosexuality was just one of many sins covered under sexual immorality for the Hebrews. And Jesus did talk about sexual immorality.

Also, this Priest leaves and omits other parts of the new testament, not written by Paul that also refers to homosexuality as a sin. Ask yourself why does he omit that?

I most certanly agree with you on this statements and I most certanly dont believe in what this priest has to say in regards to homosexuality. Homosexual act is still a sin no matter how many times you flip it around.

You know, i wonder what a gay christian would say on the topic, screw speulation!Now only if we could get a gay christian in here.

Good luck finding a Gay Christian anywhere, Many of them have comitted apostasy and deconverted into atheism because they cannot accept the fact that they should practace abstanance and not practace homosexual acts.

No. Show me how I attacked your beliefs, or retract your statement in which you made such a claim.

Keep your panties on for goodness sakes! . Its evident in both your threads that you attacked me by saying that I am wrong even though I am right on that issue. You even denied the story from the Catholic side .

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good luck finding a Gay Christian anywhere, Many of them have comitted apostasy and deconverted into atheism because they cannot accept the fact that they should practace abstanance and not practace homosexual acts.

I know one in real life, and a couple on other forums.

The one I know in real life is married

 

[GenMarshall]

I know one in real life, and a couple on other forums.

The one I know in real life is married

O rly? Some how if the ones (the homosexual couple) you know in real life are married. I would not recognize their marriage that is tainted with sin .

 

[Grisu]

Good luck finding a Gay Christian anywhere, Many of them have comitted apostasy and deconverted into atheism because they cannot accept the fact that they should practace abstanance and not practace homosexual acts.

actually, there happen to be quite a few gay priests, not every christian church is as 'conservative' as yours. hell, there was even a large quite the catholic scandal here when the bishop fired a priest who openly criticized the church on some matters (including homosexuality). the priest happens to be gay himself. the majority of his congregation voted to defy the bishop and keep the priest

O rly? Some how if the ones (the homosexual couple) you know in real life are married. I would not recognize their marriage that is tainted with sin .

and how does that have anything to do with it? he just showed your assertion that it'll be hard to find any gay priests as wrong...

 

[Turner]

O rly? Some how if the ones (the homosexual couple) you know in real life are married. I would not recognize their marriage that is tainted with sin .

Good thing it's not up to you then.

 

[GenMarshall]

hell, there was even a large quite the catholic scandal here when the bishop fired a priest who openly criticized the church on some matters (including homosexuality). the priest happens to be gay himself. the majority of his congregation voted to defy the bishop and keep the priest

Somehow, the bishop should have reported this to the Vatican and gain permision to kick the priest out for not being in communion with Rome.

and how does that have anything to do with it? he just showed your assertion that it'll be hard to find any gay priests as wrong...

They should just keep quiet on these manners and just accept the fact that in the Catholic Church, Homosexual sex acts are a sin, no ifs and or butts. If they dont like it, well then they can pack their bags and join some liberal Protestant denomination.

Good thing it's not up to you then.

No, the only good thing would be if it is up to me .

 

[Gingerbread Man]

I think it's relevant, as it's obvious you would prefer that we take our faith out of Christianity, and put it into science. Science is a human endeavor, and is thus flawed, and no better than the church at it's worst.

And biblical interpretation isn't flawed? I mean, humans have failed at it more than once.

The Bible does not say that the sun revovles around the Earth, some people just thought it did. It does, however, quite plainly state that homosexuality is immoral. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. You can disagree with that all you want, but it won't change the facts.

That's very flawed logic. The people who believed the bible said the Sun revolves around the Earth believed it to be fact as much as you believe the bible says that homosexuality is wrong. What makes you right, and them wrong?

You are so certain that what you have now is the ultimate truth. You might as well make a religion out of an interpretation of the Bible, instead of around the love of Jesus. Because that is all you've got right now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

O rly? Some how if the ones (the homosexual couple) you know in real life are married. I would not recognize their marriage that is tainted with sin .

I think they care little wether you recognize the marriage or if you think it's tainted with sin.

Just telling you there are many gay christians.

They should just keep quiet on these manners and just accept the fact that in the Catholic Church, Homosexual sex acts are a sin, no ifs and or butts.

In your most humble of opinions.

You amuse me

 

[GenMarshall]

I think they care little wether you recognize the marriage or if you think it's tainted with sin.

Oh well, not my fault that they are going to hell because they did not repent and turned away from their sinful lifestyle . We tried to warn them.

Just telling you there are many gay christians.
In your most humble of opinions.

However these gay Christians should at least practace abstanance and refrain from any such homosexual sexual contact.