That’s like saying that if I don’t like [insert American political party] and I think [insert American politician] is a homophobic prick, I hate America (or at least do a good impression of someone who does).
But inasmuch as I don’t hate religion, there are only a very few religions that I don’t think are worthy of scorn based on what their dogma and how they encourage their followers to express that dogma and to allow beliefs which are at best of unknown veracity and at worst demonstrably false to influence their interactions with other people.
I hate bad ideas, and if a religion is full of them, well… what do you expect? Unlike you, I am NOT a member of a church supposedly founded on the words of a guy who (again, supposedly) preached love. I guess I’m comfortably unencumbered in that regard.
I probably couldn’t have put it much better, so I will simply echo this. In addition the Church are the people of God who have for a little less than 2000 years been interpreting Holy Scripture. These interpretations have ebbed and flowed and changed and taken on new forms. After all, we are reading (or more often in Christian history, hearing) Scripture in non-perfect human languages trying to describe encounters with a perfect divinity. 200 years rival interpretations of Scripture were arguing for and against human slavery - we take it for granted that the Bible passages speak against slavery, but that is because that interpretation won out. I feel the same will occur with LGBTQ. The Holy Spirit still moves, helping God’s Word take root.
And, of course, there were Churches before there was New Testament Scripture (the oldest of the New Testament we have are Paul’s letters to various churches in the 50s). FWIW, Paul, himself, is quick to point out that he is not perfect, and how many of his letters make up the New Testament (I wonder if he’d be slightly embarrassed by how many take his letters as the literal word of God).
There have been more than a few jokes about the drunkeness of Catholics and Episcopalians (I like the whereever there are 4 Episcopalians there is always a 5th). I don’t hear a lot of repentance called for or offered for their prodigious drinking and drunkenness (as long as no one gets hurt, of course).
And I can assure that at our Easter Vigil (Lutheran - no stranger to alcohol), there are more than few people who leave quite a bit tipsy.
Wisconsin Synod still exists. They are still more conservative than the Missouri Synod (which I find super conservative). The NALC is the Lutheran denomination who broke off when the ELCA affirmed same sex relationships among our Pastors (and Bishops - of which we now have 2 LGBTQ Bishops).
And I would imagine that those who want to leave would vote to do so.
it may have won out but plenty of bible passages do not speak out against slavery. Even the 10th commandment says not to covet your neighbors slave. If god wanted to speak out against slavery one would think the 10 commandments would be the place to do it. The bible supports slavery and most Christian’s just ignore the fact. They pick and choose what they want. Some want to support gays some don’t so the UMC is probably splitting over that. People use religion to support what they want. Clearly the bible is not the word of god but the word of lots of humans made up over many years to influence other humans.
Churches make sense as social institutions, not so much as scientific institutions. Being a church/mosque/temple/coven member give you community and support - except for the local Methodist women’s group my MIL supported for decades but that ignored her when she lay dying. When your social group turns on you, you’re fucked.
“Interpret” is the weak point here. If biblical texts are Divine Wisdom but are coded, misunderstood, even products of fallible writers, then the divinity didn’t communicate very well, and whatever is written can be re-interpreted to mean whatever is desired. Is 666 The Mark Of The Beast or just an old way to say “zillions”? Is it really joyful to smash your enemies children against the rocks or was that only a social comment? Must Jesus’s followers abandon their families and all they own and live communally with fellow-believers or was that instruction metaphorical? I’ll start a sect where the rich are only saved after they’ve become miniature camels. Jesus said so!
Words meaning whatever you want possess no meaning at all. But they’re fun to play with.
Almost everybody else’s religion sucks. If not, why not worship with THEM, not US? My Quaker grandparents didn’t much care for the Baptists across the street.
Sorry, I’m like a city permitting office. Present me with the plans, and I’ll tell g-you if it meets code. I can tell you, specifically, though that your religion as you’ve described it fails on a number of grounds. See above for details.
Oh, and of course that’s not what this thread is about. I mean, my own personal list of acceptable religions. It’s about the Methodist church, which can’t even seem to decide among its own members what is and is not god’s will.
Hell, the Catholics’ll give you a drink right there in the middle of the Mass.
(One of the more interesting classes I ever took when I was a good Catholic boy, before I stopped pretending I believed in God, was a nuts-and-bolts view of the parish, from the pastor. He gave us a behind-the-scenes tour, explaining things like who vacuumed the carpets and how the light bill got paid. One of the tidbits he told us was where the Communion wine came from. Can’t remember the brand, but it was a cheap, very sweet white.
Always liked Fr Churchwell - unlike some other priests I knew, he wasn’t in love with the uniform.)
Always figured it would be red wine, you know, blood colored. of course if one is catholic it doesn’t matter the color of the wine since it turns into blood after it is consumed:rolleyes:
Many seem not to grok the US Constitution’s First Amendment. Banning establishment of a state religion protect religions from governments, not vice-versa. Welcome to the US Dept of Religious Affairs (DRA), with all the conviviality of a Motor Vehicles waiting room and the efficiency of a Pentagon procurement office. Some religions are now effectively illegal because their rituals or sacraments are outlawed. The DRA would “regulate” faiths by arbitrary bureaucracy and probably bribery. How to out-spend Scientology?
Lets just note that the entire Judeo-Christian tradition up until a few decades ago was “homophobic”. that Moses & Paul are the Go-To Guys for that, and that anyone who says that Jesus was an outlier has the burden of proof on them, though He wouldn’t have stoned anyone over it.
As for, “What did he (or He) say about homosexuality?”- Well, the same as he said about bestiality & incest, which are also forbidden in the same section of Leviticus (which is apart from the kosher food, mixed fabric, beard trimming sections).
It’s true that Jews, Christians, Muslims, most governments, etc., were homophobic up until a few decades ago. Some of those groups and governments got better and some are still bigots.
Can you tell me more about the Leviticus thing? I’m sincerely asking – you probably have it closer at hand than I do. I could do the research, I guess, but if you have it handy, I’d appreciate it. My understanding was that there’s a list of laws in Leviticus and you’re supposed to follow them, not just some of them. Some of those, however, require a Temple, so it’s impossible to follow some of them right now, but the rest are still applicable, and (maybe?) Orthodox Jews still do.
On the Paul side, does he separate out the no gays part from the no women speaking in church part?
The sexual taboos are in Leviticus 18 & 20. The early Apostolic Church seemed to hold those as also applying to Gentile believers while the more ceremonial aspects which distinqued Jews & Gentiles, such as kosher diet, Sabbath & festival keeping, priesthood & animal sacrifice, were not. (Acts 15: 19-29)
Jesus’s earthly ministry was basically to the Jews in Galilee & Judea, the Samaritans, and whatever Gentiles were in those territories. There was no debate on issues of sexuality or gender within the Judaic circles of the time & whatever Greeks & Romans were in those areas did not add to the debate. Thus, Jesus spoke against adultery & casual divorce/remarriage which were issues among those Jews.
When Paul set out at Apostle to the Gentiles (that is Greeks & Romans), that’s when the issue of same-sex relations arose, which he addressed in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-11. He didn’t make any lengthy pronouncements- he basically just said “Don’t do anything sexual outside of male-female marriage & if you are doing it, stop it & turn to Jesus”.
The women in church passages are I Corinthians 11:2-16 (in which women were allowed to pray & prophesy/preach in public in the church assembly within limits), 14: 34-35 (which seems to be a total prohibition if it weren’t for the context allowed in Ch 11), and I Timothy 2: 11-15 (which may be more a matter of husbands & wives in the church assembly than men & woman in general).
Pretty much all religions and everyone was, and many remain so. Other than a few scattered groups, people have been not accepting of homosexuality for millennia.
All your first paragraph tells me is that the early church was as adept at picking and choosing the parts they like as later churches are. That is, there’s nothing in the Old Testament that says that these laws must be followed but those don’t have to be. So, I don’t see how Leviticus is in any way a guide for Christians who don’t follow the rest of the laws.
Your second and third paragraphs relate to Paul and it seems to me that lots of people do things outside of male/female marriage and no churches are schisming over that. The part about the women speaking in church in Timothy is crystal clear, however.
Here’s Timothy 2, 9:15:
I don’t see churches schisming over that either. At least I don’t remember the schism over Christian women wearing jewelry.
As you say, Jesus didn’t really say anything about homosexuals. He did say something about divorce, though, and spoke out strongly against that, and yet Christian homophobes seem to get divorced all the time.
That’s a cultural misconception. I’m sure that practices outlawed by some religions also caused/causes visceral revulsion to adherents like certain hairstyles, clothing or dietary customs. And that’s not even a strictly religious phenomenon, rather a sociological. I heard that many people REALLY didn’t like the Beatles’ mop tops, let alone punk hairstyles ten years later.
I get that some people are squicked out by homosexuality. Why don’t they just say that they are separating from the United Methodist Church because gay people gross them out? Instead, they quote a few rules from the bible, no different from any of the other rules that they routinely ignore, and use those to discriminate against homosexuals.
Why, I’d be willing to bet that on any given Sunday, there are more women speaking (horrors!) and wearing jewelry (gasp!) in a Methodist church than there are gay people getting married there. I bet there are even…I almost can’t say it…divorced people!!!
