Gay theology (i.e. Mel White, Soulforce) why even try?

[Polycarp_fan]

Do you think gay people sit around saying, "Let's corrupt society and cause the death of Western civilisation"?

Some yes, most no.

Or do you think their motives for doing whatever you think it is they're doing, albeit misguided in your opinion, are well-meaning?

No, they are not well-meaning. Misguided perhaps, but that is being to delicate. Literally the definition of the word misguided is what I think is appropriate. As in "orientation."

BTW, I have never said that these kinds of people should not pursue a Christian life, unless its opposition is the basis of their involvment in it.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Even if we go on your twin dubious assumptions that these societies were (A) "founded" on homosexuality, whatever that means and (B) are the only societies in history in which people normatively engaged in same-sex love, sex and relationships (I still can't post links, but feel free to do a Google Scholar search for "The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior" by Kirkpatrick for a litany of cultures who historically accepted homosexuality before Christian imperialism took over) -- even if we accept these two assumptions to be true, why assume that homosexuality destroyed these societies? Didn't they do some pretty awesome stuff and exist for quite a long time -- longer than, say, the United States has? Didn't the Romans have a rather impressive military record? Didn't the Greeks give us logic and democracy? Couldn't you just as easily say, "Homosexuality is responsible for cultural endurance, triumph in war and populist rule" as "Homosexuality is responsible for the destruction of civilization" based on your assertions? "These societies had gay people and since they're all dead now it must be bad to be gay" is a rather shallow point even for you. They probably all ate bread, too, but mysteriously you fail to attribute their ultimate demise to bread...

I recall having a history professor who presented a very convincing argument that the rise and fall of great civilizations could be linked to the destruction of the family (e.g. mom, dad & kids), and that we are trodding a dangerous path ourselves given the lack of committment to marriage and children demonstrated by adults today. (seriously loose paraphrase, as I'm working from memory here) I don't know how you would link that up with a gay agenda, though.

I do think that society as a whole, straight and gay, has lost sight of the value of stable relationships. It's all about the great "I".

(having my own little off-topic ramble)

 

[wanderingone]

I recall having a history professor who presented a very convincing argument that the rise and fall of great civilizations could be linked to the destruction of the family (e.g. mom, dad & kids), and that we are trodding a dangerous path ourselves given the lack of committment to marriage and children demonstrated by adults today. (seriously loose paraphrase, as I'm working from memory here) I don't know how you would link that up with a gay agenda, though.

I do think that society as a whole, straight and gay, has lost sight of the value of stable relationships. It's all about the great "I".

(having my own little off-topic ramble)

I don't disagree that stable relationships (that are happy) are valuable, I'd say any number of people over time have been denied the freedom to pursue relationships if that that's what they wanted - being denied the freedom to form commitments, and denied community support for those commitments has long term negative implications.

 

[David Brider]

Some yes, most no.

If most gay people don't make such plans (i.e., for "the corruption of a society and a civilization"), then in what way can it be said to be their "agenda"?

No, they are not well-meaning.

What makes you think that?

David.

 

[morningstar2651]

I don't disagree that stable relationships (that are happy) are valuable, I'd say any number of people over time have been denied the freedom to pursue relationships if that that's what they wanted - being denied the freedom to form commitments, and denied community support for those commitments has long term negative implications.

One of the reasons I'm glad that arranged marriages have, for the most part, gone by the wayside in the US.

I'm reposting this from another thread:

This is Thomas and Robert. They met in 1968 and have been together for 40 years. They legally married Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at the Old Court House in Indio, California at 10:45 a.m. Thomas and Robert are retired IBM employees of 30 years, having moved to Palm Springs in 2000 after their retirement in 1999 in San Francisco.


These two men never thought they'd live to see the day they'd legally marry.

 

[PassionFruit]

Some yes, most no.

Some? Did you sit in a meeting where gay people were saying they're going to corrupt Western civilization?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Originally Posted by cantata

Do you think gay people sit around saying, "Let's corrupt society and cause the death of Western civilisation"?
​

Some yes, most no.

How about NONE say yes, and ALL think that you are attempting to villify completely normal people who are not the homogenous evil group you think?

 

[morningstar2651]

How about NONE say yes, and ALL think that you are attempting to villify completely normal people who are not the homogenous evil group you think?

I dunno...Dean and Al look pretty diabolical...like they've been planning the downfall of civilization for the last 40 years they've been together.

They're getting married in September.

 

[Big Empty Circle]

I recall having a history professor who presented a very convincing argument that the rise and fall of great civilizations could be linked to the destruction of the family (e.g. mom, dad & kids), and that we are trodding a dangerous path ourselves given the lack of committment to marriage and children demonstrated by adults today. (seriously loose paraphrase, as I'm working from memory here) I don't know how you would link that up with a gay agenda, though.

I do think that society as a whole, straight and gay, has lost sight of the value of stable relationships. It's all about the great "I".

(having my own little off-topic ramble)

I wouldn't rule it out, but it's hard to be convinced by the mere assertion that there's a convincing argument out there somewhere.

I definitely agree in general that there's a disturbing trend in our society of people neglecting, abandoning or devaluing their family ties, including, but not limited to, those with children. Does it not make sense, then, that we as a society should encourage people of ALL genders, sexualities, religions etc. to settle down and cling to and care for their families, whatever those families may look like, and look after the children who need them (whether from their own loins or from someone else's who failed to do so)? Is a fierce political struggle over the right to have our relationships, our families, validated, protected, and supported by the government, the same as those of heterosexuals, not a pretty good demonstration of an understanding of the value of stable relationships? Marriage of course isn't essential to holding a family together, but it sure makes things easier in a thousand and one ways.

In other words, isn't same-sex marriage an intensely PRO-family concept? It is in that it would encourage the formation of stable, lasting families -- they may not look like your family or Beaver Cleaver's, but maybe one reason some people stop appreciating and nurturing their family ties is this constant conservative war cry that "THIS is what a family is SUPPOSED to look like -- anything different from THIS traditional ideal of family is a disgusting, illegitimate mockery" -- such that if someone happens to be attached to a family that DOESN'T look like that (a young pregnant unmarried couple, a single mother, queer folks) it's easy to say, "Huh, guess this isn't really a family so it doesn't matter to me." It's just a conjecture, but it would hardly be the first time conservatives were actually causing the problems they profess to combat. I've yet to see any of the crowd shrieking that gay marriage will destroy (heteronormative) families give a clear explanation of how exactly this would happen -- are all the mommies and daddies going to wake up one day and say, "Wait a minute, there are people of the SAME SEX out there somewhere MARRYING each other? Screw taking care of our kids! Let's flee to Bora Bora until this blows over!"?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I recall having a history professor who presented a very convincing argument that the rise and fall of great civilizations could be linked to the destruction of the family (e.g. mom, dad & kids),

Sparta?

Um, seriously, the case has been made that for every civilisation that has fallen after a paradigm shift AWAY from the family as we know it, there is also an example of a civilisation that has fallen after embracing it.

Either way, modern homosexual equality is NOT about changing basic paradigms or altering the standard pattern of "family", it is merely about extending equal recognition to people who do not fit into the current paradigm. Even if every long term homosexual couple in the world married tommorrow, they would still only account for about 1% of all marriages. Thats hardly going to undermine the nuclear family of "one man, one woman + kids."

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Sparta?

Um, seriously, the case has been made that for every civilisation that has fallen after a paradigm shift AWAY from the family as we know it, there is also an example of a civilisation that has fallen after embracing it.

Either way, modern homosexual equality is NOT about changing basic paradigms or altering the standard pattern of "family", it is merely about extending equal recognition to people who do not fit into the current paradigm. Even if every long term homosexual couple in the world married tommorrow, they would still only account for about 1% of all marriages. Thats hardly going to undermine the nuclear family of "one man, one woman + kids."

I wasn't arguing that homosexual marriage would destroy the nuclear heterosexual family. I was responding to a post that posited whether bread was the downfall, and sharing something I found interesting. You'll note that I ended by stating "I don't see how you would link that up with a gay agenda though."

Although I don't believe that homosexuality is part of God's plan for his children, I also don't believe that 1001 things that I do or have done are part of his plan either. Nor do I think that my beliefs give me the right to bash other people for believing differently or to pass judgment on them.

 

[cantata]

More to the point, society changes and stopping it from doing so is impossible - and social conservatism is not a good reason to deny reasonable, ordinary people with real feelings the rights that they deserve.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I wasn't arguing that homosexual marriage would destroy the nuclear heterosexual family. I was responding to a post that posited whether bread was the downfall, and sharing something I found interesting. You'll note that I ended by stating "I don't see how you would link that up with a gay agenda though."

Although I don't believe that homosexuality is part of God's plan for his children, I also don't believe that 1001 things that I do or have done are part of his plan either. Nor do I think that my beliefs give me the right to bash other people for believing differently or to pass judgment on them.

Hey, thats cool. Lets all step away from the defensiveness... its easy to go that way around here sometimes.

I'm just really tired of the "homosexuality has led to the downfall of EVERY civilisation that has embraced it" bit of revisionism one occasionally sees tossed around. Not so common here these days, most of the regulars now know that blatant falsehoods will be pointed out really quickly, but some people have been told this and swallowed it without a second's consideration as to whether or not it was really true or accurate.

 

[ReverendDG]

The same agenda that created Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon and Rome. Greece too probably. The corruption of a society and a civilization. This position is nothing new.

as it's been pointed out to you many times, no where in the bible does it say S&G fell because of homosexuality.
Babylon? come off it, babylon was taken by Cyrus, are you telling me that the city fell because of gays? you mean a vast army undermining the city didn't do anything?
rome fell for many reasons that had nothing to do with homosexuality, i believe it had something to do with rome stretching itself too thin and getting over run by barbarians?

greece was absorbed by rome, you fail!

yeah lets rewrite history! its all about the gay people that had nothing to do with running empires. the empires just fall because they have gay people that live in the countries, theres some magical properties of gay folks that collapse empires!

mostly i just see you making up imaginary threats, even though not one modern country that allows gays to be out in the open getting married has had problems.

 

[ReverendDG]

Some yes, most no.

lies, you have no proof of this, just more lies

No, they are not well-meaning. Misguided perhaps, but that is being to delicate. Literally the definition of the word misguided is what I think is appropriate. As in "orientation."

how do you know they aren't well meaning, maybe they believe equality is more important than some random nuts feelings about homosexuality?

BTW, I have never said that these kinds of people should not pursue a Christian life, unless its opposition is the basis of their involvment in it.

well yes, you don't see anything wrong with it, if it fits your interpretation of the bible.
if it steps outside what you believe.. then its fair game to call them anything you want to

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Hey, thats cool. Lets all step away from the defensiveness... its easy to go that way around here sometimes.

I'm just really tired of the "homosexuality has led to the downfall of EVERY civilisation that has embraced it" bit of revisionism one occasionally sees tossed around. Not so common here these days, most of the regulars now know that blatant falsehoods will be pointed out really quickly, but some people have been told this and swallowed it without a second's consideration as to whether or not it was really true or accurate.

Stepping away. Just don't lump me in with a group - I don't want to use the big letters.

As best I can recall, particular sexual orientation wasn't a big feature in my professor's theory. It had more to do with the societies as a whole becoming more hedonistic and focused upon sensual pleasures to the detriment of the family.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

rome fell for many reasons that had nothing to do with homosexuality, i believe it had something to do with rome stretching itself too thin and getting over run by barbarians?

Not to mention that Rome fell AFTER embracing Christianity...

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Not to mention that Rome fell AFTER embracing Christianity...

I think Rome embraced just about everything. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Quoting Spong in referenced to Christian reality is like asking a pimp to run an abstinence program. Spong is not a Christian BY comparing what the Apostles wrote and what he writes.

lies, you have no proof of this, just more lies

I was aked my opinion and I gave it. I'd tell you where to shove your accusation but I'm betting it won't have the effect on you that it would other kinds of people.

how do you know they aren't well meaning, maybe they believe equality is more important than some random nuts feelings about homosexuality?

There is no such thing as same-gender marriage "IN" thye Bible. I state my positions as a Christian not as a spaghetti-integrity progressive. (I'm sure you can work out what I mean by spaghetti-integrity.)

well yes, you don't see anything wrong with it, if it fits your interpretation of the bible.

My "interpretation of the Bible comes from the opinions of the Apostles. You know, the guys taughht by Jesus.

if it steps outside what you believe.. then its fair game to call them anything you want to

I believe Jesus referred to "them" as "Pagans and tax collectors." A very apt description of the liberals and progressives like Spong "and his ilk."

Gay theology is not supported by Biblical theology. It's something rather new and altogether foreign to the Church. Usally pagans do not wrap themselves up in the Biblical witness so oddly.

If you will, would you please present ANY "gay" supporting scriptures. The ones gay theologians offer are extremely creepy.

The scriptures (BTW) ones that come right out and state promotion of same-gender unions as something "a believer" should engage in? Is that such a hard question to answer.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I think Rome embraced just about everything. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Even more reason to hold the position that it was because of the sexually licentious that would not "do the right thing."

When looking at Greece, the pederasty embraced by the educated elites could also be seen as a factor in Greece "being absorbed" by Rome. Nero comes to mind when thinking about the fruit of Rome.

Christians are to "test all things."

The "gay thing" (modern day neologism and all) has been tested and rejected. But as Jesus and the Apostles warned, ther would be false teachers throughout the Church and you will know them by the fruits. Marriage to Jesus AND all of the writers of the New Testament (Apostles and Disciples) held that marriage (proper sexuality without doubt) was a man and a woman.

Keep that in focus when dealing with the fruit of any sound Church teaching.