Skip to main content

View Diary: Even among evangelicals, marriage equality is gaining ground (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Bible is problematic regarding homosexuality: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, HudsonValleyMark, G2geek

    Jesus specifically released his followers from Mosaic Law (with the exception of the 10 commandments, apparently) but St. Paul did write about homosexuality though many New Testament scholars believe the Greek he used referred to pagan ritual homosexuality and male prostitutes who disguised themselves as women with the sole intent of defrauding their Johns. Which would make the speech you reference about the Bible not condemning ALL forms of homosexuality make sense.

    It is nice to see young Evangelicals getting to the place where their Lutheran and Episcopalian and even Calvinist Presbyterians and UCC cousins have already dared to tread.

    Gay Christians--and especially gay clergy--is nothing new.  


    by commonmass on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:08:26 AM PDT

    •  St. Paul (5+ / 0-)

      is not authoritative, is he?  I ask in all seriousness. I'm very interested in ancient history, but not religious.  It seems to me that once a person got out of the arid backwater of rural Judea and into the Hellenistic world of the wider Mediterranean, same-sex relationships were pretty much a normal phenomena. Just as Christianity adapted to allow flexibility with dietary laws, absorbed Roman ideas of divinity and lesser deities (angels, etc), so early Christianity could easily have adapted to ideas about partnerships. It seems like St. Paul had issues with women, too?

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:22:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  really complicated question (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, sfbob, ivorybill, commonmass, G2geek

        Evangelicals typically argue that everything in the Bible is authoritative. But what does that actually mean? The answers change over time. What the Bible says about slavery used to be hotly debated; today, not so much.

        Most evangelicals — certainly almost all the evangelicals I know — would say that Paul is authoritative, but that his comments about why women should cover their heads in church can and should be understood as 'for their time and place.' Evangelicals are increasingly likely to extend that logic to Paul's comments on... homosexuality, or whatever he is actually talking about in those various passages. (I'm not an evangelical, but I think those statements are safe.)

        "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

        by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:45:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  as a woman i am a tad jealous that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StevenWells, Silencio

        the persecution of LGBT is fading. treatment of  women seems to be going the opposite way.
        part of me knows that when one segment finds justice and equality others who are discriminated against start seeing a change for the better. i just dont see it and i just dont feel happy right  now.

        and sorry if i am changing the subject. didnt mean too

        •  Feminism won a lot of big fights (0+ / 0-)

          now it's onto economic fights.

          1) Right to own property?  Settled

          2) Right to work in all trades? Settled

          3) Right to divorce?  Settled.

          There are issues for wage parity and the contraception
          thing is boiling up and abortion is a constant fight,
          but, most of thats really a metaphor for poverty.

          The battle is shafting poor women, not women generally.

    •  No, Jesus said that not the smallest letter nor (0+ / 0-)

      the tiniest pen stroke (not a jot or tittle) would pass away from Torah until all had been fulfilled, and the Jerusalem Christians after his death taught that Christians had to follow Jewish Law. It was Paul who taught that the Old Covenant had been superseded, and that converts needed to be circumcised in the spirit, not the flesh.

      Neither Jesus nor Paul addressed the question of homosexuality directly. There is no evidence that either would have condoned homosexuality, given their attitudes to sex in general.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:10:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there is no evidence? i beg to differ (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Krotor, Silencio

        Paul did address homosexuality directly, depending on what translation you read.  Paul used a word that we really don't know a precise meaning for--it could have meant homosexuals, it could have meant (male) temple prostitutes, it could have meant slave boys or men who also provided sex. and Paul was unhappy with them.

        However, I worship Jesus, not Paul.  And there IS evidence, lots of it, that Jesus welcomed and embraced those whom rule-following religious authorities claimed were unworthy and outcast.

        So the haters are stuck--either Jesus didn't say anything about gays because he didn't have a problem with them

        or gays were marginalized people who were not accepted, in which case Jesus probably hung out with them just as he welcomed others whom society cast out

        and I'm interested in what you think was Jesus's "attitude to[ward] sex in general..."

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:50:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Paul's word in Greek was (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          arsenokoites and the bottom line is nobody really knows exactly what it means. Paul used it twice and apparently he coined the term since the few other uses of it post-date Paul. Most commonly scholars consider it like TBM said above, something like "male temple prostitute" (many ancient cults were of the fertility style, where the local god delighted in amorous offerings amongst his priests and followers).

          What is pretty clear is that Paul wasn't talking about conventional gays or their relationships. Homosexual sex and love were pretty common back then in the eastern Mediterranean cultures where Greek language and culture had dominated for centuries. Greek had a variety of terms for such things and Paul was well educated so he would have used those Greek terms had he wanted to talk about homosexuals and homosexual acts in general.

 Preferred by all discerning plutocrats and religious corporations

          by Krotor on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:03:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus said, in another context (0+ / 0-)
          Go, and sin no more.
          You might wish it were otherwise, but again I see no evidence that his views on what constituted sexual transgressions differed in any way from those of the Torah, except where it came to punishments.

          The best I can see is that he would have welcomed non-practicing homosexuals.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:05:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site