Well, no, but I’m not sure how I’d apply that basis to the Bible? There’s no scene in the bible where a lesbian presides over the marriage between two men, AFAIK. Certainly, there are Christians who hold values that aren’t really represented in the Bible. Being against slavery, for example, is something most Christians profess, despite the Bible being generally in favor of it, so I don’t see the problem with a progressive church being fully supportive of LGBT people, regardless of what the Bible says.
I can’t speak to whatever misapprehensions the OP is laboring under, but there are absolutely a significant number of progressive Christians who don’t believe that God has a problem with homosexuality, which seems like an entirely uncontroversial claim to me, and something they have every right to claim about their own faith, just as much as homophobic Christians can try to define Christianity as fundamentally bigoted in nature.
As a non-Christian, my take is the extent to which the Bible endorses homophobia is vastly overstated by the homophobes, but I don’t really get a say in what doctrines Christians adopt. Certainly, I hope the progressive position wins out in the end, but I wouldn’t really expect either side of the issue to pay too much attention to what I think, since I’m not part of their faith.
To be clear, the uncontroversial claim here being that these sort of Christians exist. The extent to which God hates queer people is, obviously, highly controversial.
I totally agree. Unfortunately, the OP - as well summarized in the title - is unanswerable. The better part of the OP is that @Velocity recognized that the number of people he personally talks to is too small to make an extrapolation from and is asking for others’ experiences. That absolutely is the proper way to frame an OP, and something that should be universal.
More that it should be and if they are too far on the opposite they’re christianing wrong. And of course as noted before the feeling’s mutual.
I remember back during the big debate on Marriage Equality, that one of the arguments from supporters (such as I) was that this was about the legal civil condition of marriage, and that your religious denomination could keep doing what it always did about the sacramental aspect, implicitly conceding they would continue to morally censure LGBTQ if that’s what their thing was. That we were not going to be forcing any Southern Baptist, Russian Orthodox or whatever to go “Yay for Gay!!” and at worst would want cake-makers and tux rental shops to have to be nondiscriminatory.
…
Meanwhile, yeah, if you’re dealing in Biblical textualism, the places across Scripture where anything that could be translated as homosexual conduct comes up in the actual text, it’s not in a positive way. Sure, “Jesus never spoke against it” (actually never even spoke about it) but Moses and Paul wrote against it even if at time most briefly. No use pretending otherwise.
Not personally no, but its a nice way to insult people because deep down inside a lot of deeply religious people are shitty people (mean, selfish, entitled) and they know it. Reminding them know their Jesus/Allah would be disappointed in them is enjoyable.
Another fun one is saying ‘I hope heaven is full of people who act exactly like you’.
The Torah forbids male-on-male sex. The closest it comes to forbidding lesbian activity is a line somewhere (which is maybe in the Talmud and not the Torah) saying something like, “don’t do what they did in Egypt”. And that’s pretty much all it says on the topic. There’s a lot more there about how you should treat your slaves than about homosexual sex.
And honestly, there’s a lot more about exactly what woods, sourced from where, were used to build the Temple and its accoutrements than about sexual activity.
As a non-Christian, I guess I’ve never had a personal incentive to try to twist the teachings, and so I’ve always sort of figured it’s covered.
That is, if I were a Christian, and I could ask Jesus whether I’m allowed to cast a stone at someone for being gay, I wouldn’t have to ask; I’ve already been told that the answer is no. And if I could ask whether I’m allowed to even hit back if a gay guy smacks me upside the head, I still wouldn’t have to ask; I already got told whether to let him hit me again. And before I even get to the question of how I should treat actual gay people who don’t trespass against me, I should’ve already reached the asked-and-answered part when it comes to hypothetical gay people who do trespass against me.
I also double-taked (double-took?) at this, but I think while it might be stated in an odd way, there is a really valid point in that different denominations of Christianity claim, sometimes softly and sometimes loudly, that their interpretation of what Christianity is is the “actually correct” one.
I think where @Velocity 's approach is off is with the implication that these sorts of statements are coming from outside the house. I don’t think there are meaningful numbers of non-Christian progressives who are telling Christians that their religion is actually “pro-LGBT” (or whatever). What is happening, and I assume happens all the time, is that within religions or cultures there are disagreements over what the culture or religion does or does not stand for.
Foundational texts and the actions of practitioners are both important tools in accurately describing what a religion “is”, and the fact that not all practitioners agree makes it a pretty complicated endeavor.
I’ve seen examples of biblical scholars trying to make a point about such and such thing not meaning what some Christians think it means, but in those cases it was a discussion among Christians. Most non-Christians don’t care enough about the Bible to get into it.
It’s how I’ve reached an impasse with some of my religious acquaintances. “The Bible says XYZ.”
My only real response to this must be “So what? The Bible is incorrect.”
I mean that was my take about gay rights even when I was a Christian. I didn’t necessarily have a textual basis for my opinion, I just knew that homophobes were wrong. That was the start of unraveling my faith.
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Leviticus 18:22
So yeah, if you’re going to accept the Torah as completely authoritative, it’s tough to work around this. The best attempt I’ve heard goes as follows: It really means that you should joyfully embrace your queer identity and celebrate all the awesome gay sex you’re having. Lying with a man “as one lies with a woman” is when you deny your sexuality to yourself and/or others, claiming you’re really only settling for this because no opposite-sex partners are available. You should be lying with men as you lie with men.
It’s pretty strained, but I guess if you feel like the only other choices are to be homophobic or abandon your religion, it’ll do.
Also… “the Bible says” represents a failure to recognize the human factor in this. Even setting aside the not-insignificant questions of textual origins and translation, as well as how historical and geographical context might have played a role in what and how and why God “said what he said”, the fact of the matter is that even a Christian fully versed in the Bible is making personal choices about what is more important, what is less important, and what can be ignored.
If the Bible says X and you care about it, but the Bible also says Y and you don’t, then all of a sudden this is not actually about what the Bible says, but what you happen to think is important.
There’s a lot in the new testament about how bad it is to be rich, and an awful lot of American Christians are comfortable ignoring those lines. I think most people just ignore the stuff that they find abhorrent.
That being said, i found it helpful to quote the Bible to observant Christians who were voting Republican because they thought abortion was murder.
There are arguments made by some Christians as to why they should obey that line in Leviticus while ignoring others, such as the one about not wearing clothing made up of more than one kind of fiber. I don’t find the arguments convincing, but then I’m not any kind of Christian. I believe there are Christians who don’t find them convincing either.
(I’ve read the arguments, not engaged in them personally. I try to avoid getting in religious arguments with most people.)
There’s a good deal in both about feeding the poor. And there’s that whole business about returning everybody’s land every forty nine years. That’s in Leviticus, too.
Religious people claim they get their authority from the bible. Evidence is to the contrary. They grant authority to the bible based on whatever suits them.
Judaism has a whole story (not worth going into here) about why that’s okay. Sometimes religions actually grapple with the awkward bits. Mostly, they just ignore them.
Unfortunately, too many times their argument turns out to be, “if you just believed what it says, then you would believe what it says!”. It may be circular reasoning, but they don’t even see the wheel.