The church is in many ways homophobic-- your thoughts on this?

[Wish-4-8]

The same chapter in Leviticus, 20, that says a man that lays with another man shall be put to death, also gives the same fate to men who cheat on thier wives and the woman he cheated with, DEATH!
Also, if you have sex with a woman on her period, you shall be cut off from your people.
If you curse your mother or father, the punishment it DEATH!

Lev. Ch.20 vrs. 13. (The gay one) All these Christian wackos want to quote this but they conviniently forget the others, that have the same punishment, DEATH.

 

[musclemonkey5]

Tbh, the church has a lot of wrong views....
The idea behind things are good, but some are wrong and funny enough a lot are sex-related.

For example the-wear-no-condom-fact. The church believe that you should only make love to get a child but not for pleasure. That is because they believe nature wants it that way because all animals do it. So sex isn't for pleasure in their eyes.
Well what did science discovered: Bonobos (the monkeys) have sex for pleasure and not always for reproduction...
And that is also the issue with being homosexual. The bible says: love the one next too you. But no love for homosexuals because that is wrong... Hmmm
I think they have to look behind the words written in the Bible and don't take it that literal.

Erm... My Church very much believes sex is for pleasure... and only certain ocultic denominations believe sex is only for children and condoms are wrong and all that... I think you should study up on facts about Christianity and not just speak from your own religious encounters... You know, since Christianity is worldwide and all that.

 

[musclemonkey5]

The same chapter in Leviticus, 20, that says a man that lays with another man shall be put to death, also gives the same fate to men who cheat on thier wives and the woman he cheated with, DEATH!
Also, if you have sex with a woman on her period, you shall be cut off from your people.
If you curse your mother or father, the punishment it DEATH!

Lev. Ch.20 vrs. 13. (The gay one) All these Christian wackos want to quote this but they conveniently forget the others, that have the same punishment, DEATH.

.... There is so much wrong with this. Leviticus is a chapter describing Jewish Law. This was how God ordered his people (a.k.a the Jews) to live. Not EVERYBODY! God also told his people not to eat certain types of meat, and that was for health purposes and to test the obedience of his people. You can't just take scripture like this and spout it, you have to study it. That said, it is pretty obvious that there was something considered to be wrong with homosexuality in this passage..

 

[musclemonkey5]

There are many christian churches, some more tolerant than others. For me I personally think that the three desert religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are simply not true in the most basic way: that is, that there is a "Creator God". The rest of religion is pretty much common sense about how to live. But to me the fundamental premise isn't true. I think humans created "god" in their own image, so he's not a very pleasant character.

As far as homophobia goes, the christian belief system denigrates the body, and all things "material" and "of the flesh", so that's the reason for fear of gay/lesbian people who have sex just for the pleasure (and as all christians know, sex is bad, bad, bad! unless of course you're married to the person).

The Christian 'Religion' teaches that marriage was designed to be a union between a man and woman, and that that union would be blessed by God as long as the couple is following him. I wish people would stop quoting Church denominational propoganda and agenda. Christs words are those in the Bible, not those of a man in a pulpit who is seeking the power of controlling people. Only some Denominations teach that the flesh is unclean and all that shit about women being naturally evil and stuff. Most of that was left back in the medival era, though I suppose the Roman Catholic Order maintains it to keep its power via fear and false faith.

 

[musclemonkey5]

Do you have a problem with the twisted interpretation of men, or the Bible itself??? I would also like to point out that Christianity is not a religion :s. Catholisism is a religion and Judaism is one. Christianity is not a denomination, it is a term for a personal heart relationship with the creator. I am a Christian because I follow Christ and have a relationship with him, for no other reason. Most Catholics, Methodists, Evangelicals (etc.) are not Christians, they are just Church followers..

 

[deleted356736]

Erm... My Church very much believes sex is for pleasure... and only certain ocultic denominations believe sex is only for children and condoms are wrong and all that... I think you should study up on facts about Christianity and not just speak from your own religious encounters... You know, since Christianity is worldwide and all that.

From someone who has a father who studied theology, your statement is wrong. ALL Christian churches believe that sex is only for procreation, and they put on a veneer of tolerating sex for pleasure. But the theology has not changed and will not change, the Christian church only approves sex for procreation. This is the way it has been since the Dark Ages, and this is the way it will always be.

The theology is that man was created in God's image, and as such is a divine being in his own right. Sex has animalistic undertones that are beneath the divinity of man or God, and therefore sex must be avoided unless absolutely necessary, which is for procreation. Of course sex is rather pleasurable and loving, as we know, and the religion was fighting a losing battle with it's opposition to recreational sex. But the theology has not changed, and this applies to all of the mainstream Christain churches.

 

[Jake90]

OK, I will say first off that I am a Christian - Bible-believing, born again, baptised etc. I've not shared this openly on here before except in PM with a couple of guys.

Can I unpack the question a bit?

First: what is 'the church'? If you mean institutionalised church like Roman Catholicism or most other big denominations, then they certainly do have a stance which can be very negative towards gay people. But 'the church' is really all about individual believers who have a real relationship with God. Those of us who count ourselves Christians in this way will know how much we are loved by God despite our many failings and will be less ready to condemn others, who are after all every bit in need of love and acceptance too.

Second: what does homophobic mean? The word gets used to mean a lot of things. If you mean 'homosexual hating' which is what most people seem to think it means, I would say in general no. There is of course a minority of so-called Christians (and I think more so in the US than in UK) who really do hate gay people. They are not being Biblical Christians, not behaving as Jesus would have them behave. However all the churches I have been part of teach loving all people unconditionally, as Jesus taught and practised, even if we do not necessarily approve of their lifestyle choices. But 'phobia' is really properly a fear not a hatred, and on that definition 'homosexual fearing', yes the church definitely fears homosexuals because it does not understand them, or what they feel and desire and does not know how to relate. (BTW I also think there is a lot of 'Christophobia' - hating Christians if you like, or at least misunderstanding and fearing them - amongst gay people which is equally wrong and unjustified.)

You will see that I describe myself as 99% gay. I have tried to be straight and have relationships with girls to fit in with people in church, but it has got me nowhere. The feelings I have for other guys are as strong as or stronger than ever. If I came out as gay, most Christians I know wouldn't know how to handle it. I believe they would still love me, but would back away through fear and ignorance. About 4 guys do know of the feelings I have, as I've been fairly open with them, but none of them know that I have started to experiment with gay sex.

I believe the Bible as the Word of God, but I am questioning whether we have misinterpreted its teaching on homosexuality. I have never been one to look for loopholes, but we have certainly blown it all out of proportion! I cannot believe that Jesus would exclude any group on the basis of sexual orientation which they neither asked for nor can they control, though the church has tended to do this and has not been a welcoming place for gay people. It's all very well for straight Christians to advocate life-long celibacy for gay people, but frankly they would not find that acceptable for themselves.

You can see from my posts on LPSG what a sexual person I am and I have started to be pretty vocal about my sexual experiences and desires. I am fed up with having to conceal this part of me from my friends in real life while feeling that if I talk about my faith I will be rejected by those I relate to on this site. My Christian faith and my sexuality are two very important parts of who I am. I cannot conveniently 'not believe' anymore, neither can I stop being attracted to men. Somehow I must balance the two, integrate the warring halves. Maybe once I have, I can help others do the same.

Please read this and accept it with the openness and sincerity I have tried to show.

 

[luka82]

Sorry, peeps. I find NOTHING endearing about organized religion. Homophobia is one thing on a long list of idiotic views based on ridiculous dogma that does nothing but keep human beings at each other's throats.

I'm an atheist and proud of it.

OMG,U`ll burn in hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(but i`ll bring u the cigarettes) :wink:

 

[B_Monster]

I wouldnt trust a church, pastor or priest as far as I could throw him. Its not organised religon, its organnised hate especially the mormon cult.

 

[Adrian69702006]

This has been an interesting discussion so far and I think it serves to highlight the dangers of quoting the Bible out of context. If my memory is correct, I understand that Leviticus was written at a time when the children of Israel were travelling to the Promised Land and were very much a nomadic people. A large part of Leviticus was written as law for a travelling group who had to maintain 'camp hygiene' at a very primitive time and without the benefits of a settled existence. In other words the rules were written for a specific group of people at a specific time in history.

So far as the Christian Church is concerned, different denominations and theological traditions have diferent views on homosexuality, and it's important to distinguish between them. As a Christian of the 'liberal catholic' variety within the Church of England, I well remember the debates about 'human sexuality' (meaning homosexuality) which the Anglicans and Methodists had in the 1980s and 90's. In the end the Methodists settled on a liberal/inclusive stance and the Anglicans produced a typical 'Anglican fudge' by declaring that lay people could please themselves but that gay clergy had to be celibate, a policy which isn't entirely honest and has, sadly, produced casualties.

Also I think it's important to remember that people can - and do - change their minds. In my younger and more foolish days it wasn't unknown for me to use my religious views in order to try and justify what would nowadays probably be regarded as homophobic views. However I like to think that I've 'grown up' a bit since then. Nowadays I take the view that I don't mind what consenting adults do in private so long as they're comfortable with it and not hurting anyone. It's my privilege to have a variety of good friends, some of whom are straight, some of whom are bi and some of whom are gay. Although straight in the main, I've recently begun to acknowledge that a small part of me is bi-curious too. It's taken a long time to reach that realisation though.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Any number of churches need targets. In the 40's and 50's, blacks were a target of Christian NIMBYs, and that target practice is now shifted to gays.

Can't churches support themselves through giving and not hating?

 

[Adrian69702006]

Any number of churches need targets. In the 40's and 50's, blacks were a target of Christian NIMBYs, and that target practice is now shifted to gays.

Can't churches support themselves through giving and not hating?

That's a valid point so far as it goes, but I wouldn't tar all churches with the same brush! There are plenty of Anglo-Catholic (high Anglican) churches on both sides of the pond where gay individuals and couples are made extremely welcome and accepted without question.

As part of my church life, I'm a bellringer and I take a weekly magazine called the Ringing World. At one time it would only have carried reports of marriages of ringers under the appropriate section but, since the introduction of civil partnerships, that paper's been happy to include reports of those too, including detailed accounts of the celebrations. There is also a ringing society known as FODS (The Friends of Dorothy) and peals rung by that group are also listed. In a recent copy, there was a report about a six bell peal (Bob Minor) rung by three male couples who'd recently entered into civil partnerships. Although the Ringing World isn't a church paper by any means, ringing is very much a church activity though. The carrying of such reports in that paper would have been unheard of not so very long ago. However their appearance proves that times can and do change.

 

[Ramsey]

From someone who has a father who studied theology, your statement is wrong. ALL Christian churches believe that sex is only for procreation, and they put on a veneer of tolerating sex for pleasure. But the theology has not changed and will not change, the Christian church only approves sex for procreation. This is the way it has been since the Dark Ages, and this is the way it will always be.

The theology is that man was created in God's image, and as such is a divine being in his own right. Sex has animalistic undertones that are beneath the divinity of man or God, and therefore sex must be avoided unless absolutely necessary, which is for procreation. Of course sex is rather pleasurable and loving, as we know, and the religion was fighting a losing battle with it's opposition to recreational sex. But the theology has not changed, and this applies to all of the mainstream Christain churches.

I don't think your dad was studying theology if he came away with these ideas.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

Do you have a problem with the twisted interpretation of men, or the Bible itself??? I would also like to point out that Christianity is not a religion :s. Catholisism is a religion and Judaism is one. Christianity is not a denomination, it is a term for a personal heart relationship with the creator. I am a Christian because I follow Christ and have a relationship with him, for no other reason. Most Catholics, Methodists, Evangelicals (etc.) are not Christians, they are just Church followers..

I think this is all basically semantics. Evangelical christians say that it's necessary to have a "relationship" with Jesus or whomever. The real issue to me isn't how people believe but rather THAT they believe in anything that eventually can be call "God" or the Creator. To me this divine being is a projection of what humans need and want to give their lives meaning. As I said before, human beings created "God" and they can uncreate him just as easily.

 

[Jason]

As I said before, human beings created "God" and they can uncreate him just as easily.

If your definition of God is an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud then yes I agree with you - human beings have created this "God".

If you want to take a cosmological view and see God as the causeless cause, then you have defined God as the big bang - and yes human beings can create this "God" with some very complicated equations.

But neither of these is God. God has to be revealed to everyone through a personal experience. People can talk about this revelation, but unless you have it yourself it probably doesn't mean all that much. God is every bit as real as the chair I'm sitting on or the laptop I'm typing on.

 

[popgoes7]

Of course, the most homophobic clergy are those who are closeted homosexuals themselves. Self-loathing and resentful of liberated gays, these closeted homosexuals use bitchy back-biting techniques that only true queens possess. They stir up fear and loathing among heterosexuals towards gays with techniques like whining from the pulpit and penning nasty encyclicals to their followers.

Like pawns in this homo-on-homo fight, American heterosexuals get played. Liberal heterosexuals side with the liberated gays. Conservatives heterosexuals side with the closeted clergy. Lots of people get in a lather.

Ted Haggard is one obvious example. He turned his internal struggle with man-sex into a New Life Church hate-campaign. How weird: He got an entire evangelical church worked up about homosexuals, because Haggard, himself, secretly wanted to shag gay-muscle-boys-for-hire. In the end, he encouraged his followers to hate, and he harmed liberated gays. So pathetic.

Then, there is Pope Benedict. [If you're a devout Catholic, you may want to stop reading now.] Sorry, but this guy makes my gaydar go off. He is the nelliest thing I've ever seen in a (choir) dress. He is way too interested in homosexuals to be anything other than one himself. I've never slept with him, so I can't be sure, but if it whines like a queen, bitches like a queen, and pouts like a queen, it's probably a queen. He's really good at playing the heterosexuals, too. Let's see how harmful to the Church he can be as Benedict tries to solve his own internal struggles.

 

[OzCock2009]

As you know, i am a christian, and my religion states that being gay is wrong.

This statement is not entirely correct. Christianity does not state that begin gay is wrong. The basic precepts of Christianity do not condemn homosexuality. There is no direct evidence in the New Testament indicating homosexuality is a sin and the word "homosexual" never appears in the New Testament. (If you open your New Testament and find the word it is the result not only of questionable translation but also of a biased interpretation.)

Various individual denominations condemn being gay but their Biblical evidence, their theological method, and their logic/reasoning is faulty. They essentially have decided they think being gay is wrong then seek to legitimize their dislike by claiming their pov is God's pov.

Just one example of their horribly faulty theology can be found when discussing the marriage issue. They claim that because Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. They're on theologically thin ice immediately because the Bible doesn't directly state this. They are inferring something based on the test, infusing their point of view into the Biblical story. Essentially they've decided, seperate form the Bible, what they believe and are combinb the Bible looking for anything at all they can use to bolster their pov. Using the same faulty logic one could also say Because Adam and Eve had Caine and Abel that all families should consist of 2 sons.

So it's quite a massive exaggeration/over generalization to say that Christianity says being gay is wrong. The reality is that he Bible is virtually silent on the issue and that none of the most basic tenants of the Christian faith address human sexuality at all (I'm referring here to the various historical creeds that have been passed down from the early church fathers).

 

[OzCock2009]

But it's true that the bible is VERY CLEAR about hommosexualy and comdamn it.

This statement is simply incorrect. There is no evidence in the Bible that indicated homosexuality is condemned. I'd be really interested to know which passages you think condemn being gay. Let's take a look at them.

 

[dreamer20]

...horribly faulty theology can be found when discussing the marriage issue. They claim that because Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. They're on theologically thin ice immediately because the Bible doesn't state this. They are ..infusing their point of view into the Biblical story...combing the Bible looking for anything at all they can use to bolster their pov. Using the same faulty logic one could also say Because Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel that all families should consist of 2 sons.

Good points. Adam and Eve had 3 sons though, the third being Seth.:smile:

 

[deleted356736]

I don't think your dad was studying theology if he came away with these ideas.

He also learned that the whole Jesus story and stables and mangers and so on was a story, myth or fairytale, depending on how cruel you want to be. So he gave it up because he didn't want to preach somethng that he knew was false. He was studying to be an Anglican priest, but I got most of this information from my Godfather who was one of his mates and who was an ordained preist.

More bizarre, my Godfather was gay, although he stayed in the closet for his parishoners. Nonetheless we had some good discussions on sex as it would apply to a heterosexual man, and I learned a lot from him.