“Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”

My response was to come up with a similar term that i think best applies to Sullivan and his ilk:

“Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Homosexualist is in no way designed to label people in the homosexual rights movement as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Homosexualist the view that homosexuality is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that sexual orientation dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, homosexual and non-homosexual alike.”

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/176511.php

Except for that little thing about being gay.

I’ve done a lot of research on the matter of Christianity and Homosexuality over the years. A lot of the material out there “supporting” homosexuality from a “Biblical” standpoint is grabbing at straws, and I’m kind of embarrassed that people could be so sloppy with it, but I’ve come to the conclusion that a defensible and reasonable case can be made that the Bible does in fact support (and not condemn) homosexuality. I say this, having grown up in an anti-homosexual, very right-wing family. I should mention that I’m from California, and how “fun” it was with my family during the Prop 8 voting.

I’m kind of a rare bird, as it were, being theologically reformed and “orthodox”, politically conservative, and gay. Triangulating those three things doesn’t seem to be a very common combination. I think there are more out there who believe as I do, but often times, ads like this can make a person cut off from others who, otherwise, believe like he does.

I guess what distresses me the most, is that their entire platform of propaganda is based on centuries-long misinformation and “translation by tradition” that doesn’t hold up to a more than cursory glance without presupposition, and meaningless “slippery slope” attacks such as, “What’s next? Bestiality?”

This, even ASIDE from the numerous social arguments in favor of accepting homosexual relationships.

I’m not a Republican myself, I’m actually moderate Libertarian. I believe big government is bad government, and that our current government has long overstepped its role in our nation. Nonetheless, it does strike me as amusing that recently I heard a pastor preach on how America was a Republic, specifically to protect the minorities from being oppressed by the majority. That America was not formed as a “Democracy” but as a “Republic” so that there would be the “Rule of Law” instead of “Rule by the Majority,” so that things like civil rights, and oppression of minorities would be overturned by justice. And then quickly went on to clarify that didn’t apply to people like homosexuals.

It’s interesting to note that the Roman Catholic church doesn’t condemn homosexuality on the basis of Scripture. They also agree that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we understand it today. They condemn homosexuality because it is non-procreative. (See their Catechism–nary a Scripture reference to be found on the subject.)

Have the hard copy, purdy dark green cover too. The CC teaches that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” but unlike some Protestant groups such an orientation (a word the CC generally avoids) isn’t in itself sinful. To the CC only homosexual behavior is sinful. A more reasonable approach than many others, but problematic as well.

It would be nice if people read the Human Sexuality document I’ve linked to or Gay Christian 101 which I’ve linked to because I think that both of those do such a good job of explaining homosexuality in a Christian context.

I have the book and while some of it is very interesting, I’m skeptical of other parts of it. Pharsea isn’t a bad site to look at either:

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/

Artist, Lowell Bruce Bennett

© 2002 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the USA

You know, ILC, it’s simply not true that most Christians think of the Bible as the direct literal dictation from God

But I never said they did. Man, are you slippery with all the red herrings! Let’s review.

First, you had said “almost all Christians” would agree with my position on the necessity for intensive human interpretation of the Bible. Now, what is “almost all”? It’s open to interpretation (heh) – but very roughly, we are talking 95%? 99%? Assuming so, and out of 2 billion Christians, then by your account, only 20-100 million would disagree with my position on Bible interpretation.

In answer to that, I said: No, “hundreds of millions” of Christians would disagree with my position on Bible interpretation. Now, what is “hundreds of millions”? Again it’s open, but probably something like 300 million, 500 million, or more (700 million? 900 million?) of the world’s 2 billion Christians. I could have meant 900 million – and it would still only be a minority of Christians. I could have meant 1.1 billion or 1.3 billion, a majority – but it would still be far short of “most Christians”.

In other words, I quite intentionally DID NOT make the extreme claim that “most Christians think of the Bible as the direct literal dictation from God”. Not even close.

Yet you, stuffing words into my mouth (or ‘bearing false witness’ as they say), try to pretend I did. Life with Ash!!

Though Roman Catholic in origin, you might google Newman’s Development of Doctrine which would be the way most Christians see revelation. Through this process, the Holy Spirit is now making available truths about homosexuality which weren’t clearly seen before. The Holy Spirit has been guiding the church step-by-step into the fullness of the truth, and the good news about homosexuality appears to be the next step on the Holy Spirit’s agenda.

The fact that something is consensual doesn’t make it “right” in the absolute sense. Sure, society can permit consenting adults to do whatever they want. But Christians believe that God paid for our bodies with a price, and now God owns our bodies, so we’re called to honor God with our bodies. I, as a gay man, can only honor God in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship.

What’s the argument against lifelong? What’s the argument against monogamous? What’s the argument against publicly accountable?

I don’t think any reasonable person is against any of those things, so the question is a red herring.

let’s look at the essence of what makes a homosexual relationship morally right

If something isn’t morally wrong, then it’s morally right or at least morally neutral (i.e., acceptable if not the ultimate ideal). That’s what makes a consensual, respectful relationship morally right – whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Among sane people, “homosexual relationships” are not a special animal needing extra moral justification.

Wow! Something we agree on!

Wow! A comment from Ash that didn’t just try to insult me in blind, laughable ignorance of my background in religion!

and, gee, almost all Christians.

Bzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Hundreds of millions of Christians in the world today, Ash, either view the Bible as God’s literal word, or/and, at least as the one and only possible source of moral truth. Why, I believe you present yourself as one of them – when it suits you, that is. (You change so much from post to post.)

Now for what I came to say – More for DDGR:

I’d be curious to see cited (and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask this) the passages that admonish me not to have sex before marriage.

The Christian Testament admonishes against a Greek word (pornea or porneia) that English translators have traditionally rendered as “fornication”. And the strict definition of the latter is, any extra-marital sex. However: That translation is open to debate; as is the use, context, etc. of the relevant passages in the 21st century even if the translation is right. In other words: Human interpretation is required.

Wow! Something we agree on! And Augustine, Aquinas, Teresa, Luther, Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Barth, Tillich, Chittister, and, gee, almost all Christians.

It’s interesting to note that the Roman Catholic church doesn’t condemn homosexuality on the basis of Scripture. They also agree that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we understand it today. They condemn homosexuality because it is non-procreative. (See their Catechism–nary a Scripture reference to be found on the subject.)

It would be nice if people read the Human Sexuality document I’ve linked to or Gay Christian 101 which I’ve linked to because I think that both of those do such a good job of explaining homosexuality in a Christian context.

Rather than discuss the Lutheran part, let’s look at the essence of what makes a homosexual relationship morally right. Again–because I’m curious–

What’s the argument against lifelong?

What’s the argument against monogamous?

What’s the argument against publicly accountable?

And the Catholic Church has always been concerned about we poor wayward Protestant sheep. Why not extend the courtesy to the MSynod?

I didn’t recall saying that they were the biggest, just pointing out that the ELCA isn’t the last word (or the largest) in Lutheran-land

21: If memory serves the LCMS wrote the ELCA off as heretical back in 2002 or so over the Justification Agreement with the Catholic Church. It seems unlikely that the LCMS is suddenly concerned about the ELCA’s welfare now…

24: The ILC is only the largest group of Lutherans if one ignores the LWF.