Cracks appear

[voluptuary_manque]

Ahah! Even the Evangelicals are starting to grow up.

 

[Freefall_mc]

wow
Colorado has always been a little ahead on issue though.
But, amazing, allowing one to be an active (board) member as well.
Funny, daughter and I had indepth discussion two nights ago regarding this.
Very important share VM...thank you.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

wow
Colorado has always been a little ahead on issue though.
But, amazing, allowing one to be an active (board) member as well.
Funny, daughter and I had indepth discussion two nights ago regarding this.
Very important share VM...thank you.

My pleasure.

 

[TE999]

I cannot for the life of me understand why a Supreme Being (God or whoever) would give two hoots about his worshippers sexual orientation. If there is in fact such a condemnation of Gays and Lesbians in versions of the Bible, rest assured it was put there by Man.

 

[Freefall_mc]

Tom ...................

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Looked at from the viewpoint of the times involved, what is being condemned as homosexual behavior is far from it. St. Paul was deeply concerned that the newly converted might fall back into the worship of false gods. Ritual temple prostitution by either men or women fell directly under that heading and that's what he's condemning in Romans. The obsession with sexual behavior is a modern neurosis. In Classical times it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

 

[Stella_Omega]

One down, millions to go.

Highlands is completely independent of any evangelical group; This pastor was going to launch his little church as a satellite to a progressive congregation that claimed to welcome gays and lesbians;
Tidd took his beliefs in 2006 to a job as a pastor at Denver's Pathways Church, an urban evangelical congregation that prides itself as a safe place to ask questions. Tidd said he didn't hide his views from church leaders but didn't air them at length as a pastor, either; homosexuality was never a central issue for the church.

But behind the scenes, the societal debate over homosexuality and Pathways' welcoming posture had forced its hand. Ed Briscoe, a member of Pathways' board of elders, said leaders felt they needed guidance on whether gay and lesbian members not living in celibacy should be allowed in church leadership.

A church elder produced a nine-page case for the traditional evangelical stance. While making clear the church does not consider homosexuality "the worst sin or the most evil practice," the statement says the Bible uniformly condemns homosexual relationships and only permits sex between a man and woman united in marriage. "God made male and female to fit together," it says, and homosexual acts violate God's intent.

The door at Pathways would remain open to gays and lesbians. But with leadership had to come celibacy (Celibacy is not required for hetero church officials, you understand.)...

Tidd was to launch Highlands as a Pathways satellite in a gentrifying Denver neighborhood last year. Tidd said he was told his stance on homosexuality would not be a problem, but Briscoe said it wasn't clear what Tidd intended for the new site...

Tidd... began fielding questions about where he stood. Some Pathways members made it known they would stop donating if Tidd remained on staff, he said.

So Tidd and Pathways parted ways. Highlands become a stand-alone church no longer under Pathways' authority and Tidd announced it would be open and affirming to LGBT people...
...he also plans to give up his Christian Reformed Church ministerial credentials because his position conflicts with the denomination's.

The exodus from Highlands began as the reason for the break became known. Tidd said over two months, the church lost half its attendance and two-thirds of its financial support.

Of course, the new people that have slowly begun to trickle in are not mainstream evangelists. But some of them seem to believe in doing good for goodness's sake;

"We have no real reason to champion this thing, other than we think it's right," said DiPrince, a 34-year-old Web developer and artist. "I just didn't feel God would tell a person to deny a big part of who they are and to keep it a secret."

 

[BlackShanglan]

I cannot for the life of me understand why a Supreme Being (God or whoever) would give two hoots about his worshippers sexual orientation. If there is in fact such a condemnation of Gays and Lesbians in versions of the Bible, rest assured it was put there by Man.

I've never seen an attempt to justify the Catholic church's position (that most familiar to me, as a Catholic) that didn't go back to Leviticus - which, to me, is pretty much on par with going to Wikipedia for authority and a bowl of mud for clarity. I've been through Pope Benedict's encyclical on the topic and found it particularly disappointing; when you start by arguing that any interpretation of Scripture that doesn't fit into the past dogma of the church is wrong, you're really begging the "But what if we had it wrong from the START, as we clearly and repeatedly HAVE on various topics?" question. I can't see how even he can find that approach convincing.

I'm with you on this. I can't imagine why God would care. There's so much greed, cruelty, malice, theft, murder, hatred, and destruction in the world that it seems bizarre to focus on a private behavior that has no unambiguous prohibition against it and no obvious logic demonstrating it to be harmful. I think this is one of those cases in which people are letting their own social traditions masquerade as religious traditions, to the detriment of both society and the religion in question.

But there is good news for some. Anyone who goes to Leviticus can't avoid the fact that the prohibition is specifically against men laying with men. Leviticus is a very thorough and comprehensive text; when it gets into the incest prohibitions, you get a seperate listing for pretty much everyone - sister, mother, aunt, daughter-in-law - you're not supposed to have sex with. Since the author clearly does tend to spell out every single forbidden combination, and since he never mentions women laying with women, I can only assume that lesbians are God's chosen people.

 

[Guest]

deleted

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As soon as we embrace Islam its open season on gays. I mean, the Brits did, and now they have discussions on Brit tv about shooting gays.

 

[sadangel]

I've never seen an attempt to justify the Catholic church's position (that most familiar to me, as a Catholic) that didn't go back to Leviticus - which, to me, is pretty much on par with going to Wikipedia for authority and a bowl of mud for clarity. I've been through Pope Benedict's encyclical on the topic and found it particularly disappointing; when you start by arguing that any interpretation of Scripture that doesn't fit into the past dogma of the church is wrong, you're really begging the "But what if we had it wrong from the START, as we clearly and repeatedly HAVE on various topics?" question. I can't see how even he can find that approach convincing.

I'm with you on this. I can't imagine why God would care. There's so much greed, cruelty, malice, theft, murder, hatred, and destruction in the world that it seems bizarre to focus on a private behavior that has no unambiguous prohibition against it and no obvious logic demonstrating it to be harmful. I think this is one of those cases in which people are letting their own social traditions masquerade as religious traditions, to the detriment of both society and the religion in question.

But there is good news for some. Anyone who goes to Leviticus can't avoid the fact that the prohibition is specifically against men laying with men. Leviticus is a very thorough and comprehensive text; when it gets into the incest prohibitions, you get a seperate listing for pretty much everyone - sister, mother, aunt, daughter-in-law - you're not supposed to have sex with. Since the author clearly does tend to spell out every single forbidden combination, and since he never mentions women laying with women, I can only assume that lesbians are God's chosen people.

Actually, having spoken with two Rabbi's regarding Leviticus, both said that the verse in Leviticus has been mistranslated. That in the original Hebrew, had it been translated properly would state: "A man shall not lie with a man in a woman's bed, this is an abomination" so it wasn't the gay sex being condemned but rather the gay sex in a woman's bed. A woman was little more than property, and her bed was considered unclean most of the time due to her "feminine cycle" or having children.

Also, as Bear pointed out. The other verses in other places, if one takes to reading them completely, are condemning the ritual prostitution and the gay/lesbian sex that was taking place. Those who were "straight" were taking part in the "gay" sex and that is what was unnatural. They were doing it while committing idolatry. Nowhere does the Bible actually condemn loving same sex relationships. Only those that were done while committing idolatry.

As to the incest prohibition, have you noticed that there is not one condemning father/daughter incest? All the others are mentioned, including having sex with your father's wife. But not against having sex with your daughter if you are a man.

 

[jomar]

...Since the author clearly does tend to spell out every single forbidden combination, and since he never mentions women laying with women, I can only assume that lesbians are God's chosen people.

That was the comeback when Falwell and company said AIDS was Gods punishment for men being gay since lesbians had the lowest infection rates.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SADANGEL

Well! Your scholarship clears that up! But where along the way did the entire Jewish communion get it wrong when it was always okay to cornhole your buddy aywhere but a womans bed? I mean, there musta been a convention or something when the rabbis shouted "Ay yi yi! We got it wrong!"

Oh, you can kiss me on a Monday a Monday a Monday
is very very good
Or you can kiss me on a Tuesday a Tuesday a Tuesday
in fact I wish you would
Or you can kiss me on a Wednesday a Thursday a
Friday and Saturday is best
But never ever on a Sunday a Sunday a Sunday
cause that's my day of rest

Most anyday you can be my guest
Anyday you say but my day of rest
Just name the day that you like the best
Only stay away on my day of rest

Oh, you can kiss me on a cool day a hot day a wet day
which ever one you choose
Or try to kiss me on a grey day a May day a pay day
and see if I refuse

And if you make it on a bleake day a freak day or a week day
Well you can be my guest
But never ever on a Sunday a Sunday the one day
I need a little rest
Oh, you can kiss me on a week day a week day a week day
the day to be my guest

 

[ishtat]

Actually, having spoken with two Rabbi's regarding Leviticus, both said that the verse in Leviticus has been mistranslated. That in the original Hebrew, had it been translated properly would state: "A man shall not lie with a man in a woman's bed, this is an abomination" so it wasn't the gay sex being condemned but rather the gay sex in a woman's bed. A woman was little more than property, and her bed was considered unclean most of the time due to her "feminine cycle" or having children.

Also, as Bear pointed out. The other verses in other places, if one takes to reading them completely, are condemning the ritual prostitution and the gay/lesbian sex that was taking place. Those who were "straight" were taking part in the "gay" sex and that is what was unnatural. They were doing it while committing idolatry. Nowhere does the Bible actually condemn loving same sex relationships. Only those that were done while committing idolatry.

As to the incest prohibition, have you noticed that there is not one condemning father/daughter incest? All the others are mentioned, including having sex with your father's wife. But not against having sex with your daughter if you are a man.

I think the rabbis comment on translation is not unreasonable but am pretty certain their interpretation of it is questionable. A more conventional interpretation would be that a man may not lie with a man in a womans bed because he was married to that woman and owed her a legal obligation to only use her bed for sex with her.

I think your portrayal of women as property in ancient Israel is quite wrong. Whilst the governance of society was patriarchal the ownership of property and its inheritance was entirely matrilineal. For example Jacob had to live with Laban for seven years each to acquire Leah and Rachel as his wives. The property was tied to the women not the men. Note also the actual conduct of the Patriarch's wives. Sarah (who incidentally was Abrahams half sister) mocked him in public. Rachels connivings on behalf of her son showed she was no pushover. Rebecca stood up for her own interests as well.

Why did the priests constantly complain about Jewish women unless they were independent forces. Gomer prostituted herself, Jezebel was, well Jezebel. And Delilah?

The women of the city baked cakes for the Queen of Heaven (Ishtar) and one prophet after another complained about the women worshiping the asherim (represetitive figurines of the goddess).

Finally the lovers in the Song of Solomon were, both man and woman clearly expressing their independent views.

No, these ancient women were some pretty feisty characters.

 

[Boota]

It is only one church, but their bold action may inspire other churches to at least rethink the issue. And if their is one thing Christian churches can use is a little rethinking on issues.

Kind of sucks that in 2009 just not discriminating over sexual orientation is considered a bold action, but you gotta take what you can get.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What we're really discussing is the space between tyrrany and anarchy. The world isnt fucking Burger King where everyone gets it their way (The SADANGEL position) or the mob calls the shots.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It is only one church, but their bold action may inspire other churches to at least rethink the issue. And if their is one thing Christian churches can use is a little rethinking on issues.

Kind of sucks that in 2009 just not discriminating over sexual orientation is considered a bold action, but you gotta take what you can get.

Every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The journey is long but the first step shortens it.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And in the land of Machismo! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34514538/ns/world_news-americas/