Homo for the Holidays: A Gay Religion Survival Guide

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:43 PM GMT
    Homos for the Holidays: A Religion Survival Guide

    Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D., an Episcopal priest and professor, Graduate of Union Theological Seminary in NYC gives tips on calmly and authoritatively debunking common myths/truisms about the Bible and sexuality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:02 PM GMT
    Very well written, pretty much how I would explain it. They even mentioned David and Jonathan in there too!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:12 PM GMT
    Very nice except for the dumb ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:14 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidVery nice except for the stupid ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).


    You obviously never heard that whole deal about Jesus and the poor and oppressed, did you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidVery nice except for the stupid ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).


    You obviously never heard that whole deal about Jesus and the poor and oppressed, did you?


    Individual and community compassion and helping the needy, poor and oppressed has zero to do with the notion of structuring society in a way that seems like it's in the best interest of the poor and inadvertently ends up with North Korea's Kim Jong Eun.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:22 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidVery nice except for the stupid ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).


    You obviously never heard that whole deal about Jesus and the poor and oppressed, did you?


    Individual and community compassion and helping the needy, poor and oppressed has zero to do with the notion of structuring society in a way that seems like it's in the best interest of the poor and inadvertently ends up with North Korea's Kim Jung Eun.


    Yes, because Canada and North Korea are the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:23 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidVery nice except for the stupid ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).


    You obviously never heard that whole deal about Jesus and the poor and oppressed, did you?


    Individual and community compassion and helping the needy, poor and oppressed has zero to do with the notion of structuring society in a way that seems like it's in the best interest of the poor and inadvertently ends up with North Korea's Kim Jung Eun.


    But the writer of the article is clearly not advocating that. Nobody is advocating that. Perhaps there is some room in your worldview for things other than black and white, hmmm?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:27 PM GMT
    RedheadedRy said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidVery nice except for the stupid ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).


    You obviously never heard that whole deal about Jesus and the poor and oppressed, did you?


    Individual and community compassion and helping the needy, poor and oppressed has zero to do with the notion of structuring society in a way that seems like it's in the best interest of the poor and inadvertently ends up with North Korea's Kim Jung Eun.


    Yes, because Canada and North Korea are the same.


    Did I say that?

    The point is that individual responsibility to our fellow human being has nothing to do with a society's economic structure.

    When certain people allude to Jesus or helping the poor they are usually insinuating that unless someone is interested in extrapolating that idea into some kind of proposed healthcare structure that they are cruel and not following the "example of Jesus".

    Pretty silly and simple-minded if you ask me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:30 PM GMT
    Leave it to the twinkie to trash a perfectly good thread with his feeble little immature mind. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:31 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidLeave it to the twinkie to trash a perfectly good thread with his feeble little immature mind. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    I didn't trash it, I said how nice it was, except I wanted to be clear which two minor insertions were not part of my overall recommendation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    The point is that individual responsibility to our fellow human being has nothing to do with a society's economic structure.

    When certain people allude to Jesus or helping the poor they are usually insinuating that unless someone is interested in extrapolating that idea into some kind of proposed healthcare structure that they are cruel and not following the "example of Jesus".

    Pretty silly and simple-minded if you ask me.


    It's not really possible to divide economics from people in the way you claim. Poverty is manifestly intimately connected to economics, and it's ludicrous to claim that it's not.

    Unfortunately, MT, Jesus was not a Libertarian. And Ayn Rand was an atheist. :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:39 PM GMT
    So much for keeping religion out of govt. :

    Jesus's examples were primarily left to be followed by individuals or groups of co-believing individuals (the ekklesia or "church", note the small "c").

    The insinuation that the government is or is not following the examples of Jesus is irrelevant since governments are not persons that can believe (or non-believe) in a personal Saviour.

    However, increasing cost effectiveness of health care and expanding its coverage to otherwise uncovered persons is in the best interests of the people, and perhaps individual believers in positions of power may be influenced by their faith to advocate for better health care administration reform (not necessarily ObamaCare either).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:44 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidSo much for keeping religion out of govt. :

    Jesus's examples were primarily left to be followed by individuals or groups of co-believing individuals (the ekklesia or "church", note the small "c").

    The insinuation that the government is or is not following the examples of Jesus is irrelevant since governments are not persons that can believe (or non-believe) in a personal Saviour.

    However, increasing cost effectiveness of health care and expanding its coverage to otherwise uncovered persons is in the best interests of the people, and perhaps individual believers in positions of power may be influenced by their faith to advocate for better health care administration reform (not necessarily ObamaCare either).


    You don't seem to understand what a State Religion actually is. I'm not advocating for one [I'm not a Christian].
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:45 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark saidLeave it to the twinkie to trash a perfectly good thread with his feeble little immature mind. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    I didn't trash it, I said how nice it was, except I wanted to be clear which two minor insertions were not part of my overall recommendation.
    Well then maybe you should have discussed that in another thread.. this one is about how we as gay people condemned to hell by the 'church' deal with Christmas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:49 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark saidLeave it to the twinkie to trash a perfectly good thread with his feeble little immature mind. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    I didn't trash it, I said how nice it was, except I wanted to be clear which two minor insertions were not part of my overall recommendation.
    Well then maybe you should have discussed that in another thread.. this one is about how we as gay people condemned to hell by the 'church' deal with Christmas.


    It is I think, always very funny to meet a Libertarian Christian. They're such an obvious contradiction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 7:15 PM GMT
    When I hear the term "state religion", I think of entities such as the Church of England or perhaps even the Evangelisch Kirche in Germany.

    What I was thinking of us how Jesus (and some of his disciples early on who knew him first hand or second hand) wrote of him, that following him was more of a matter of growing relationship with Christ and not merely doing "Christian work".

    That is, a Christian individually seeks to please God and honour him and works because of the salvation given thru Christ to him.

    The religionists (those who claim to be of some religion or denomination) often work in an attempt to prove themselves righteous enough to earn God's favour, which in Biblical terms is not possible.

    And of course, if you are a non-believer, then all of that is really a moot point anyway. ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 7:33 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidWhen I hear the term "state religion", I think of entities such as the Church of England or perhaps even the Evangelisch Kirche in Germany.

    What I was thinking of us how Jesus (and some of his disciples early on who knew him first hand or second hand) wrote of him, that following him was more of a matter of growing relationship with Christ and not merely doing "Christian work".

    That is, a Christian individually seeks to please God and honour him and works because of the salvation given thru Christ to him.

    The religionists (those who claim to be of some religion or denomination) often work in an attempt to prove themselves righteous enough to earn God's favour, which in Biblical terms is not possible.

    And of course, if you are a non-believer, then all of that is really a moot point anyway. ;)
    The GOP is fast becoming the COP.
    (Christian old party)
    And dont go there with the "Christian individually seeks to please God and honour him and works because of the salvation given thru Christ to him." crap.. That aint reality in this country today.
  • LaxJock26

    Posts: 36

    Dec 21, 2011 8:08 PM GMT
    Awesome article! Even though I'm not very religious, this is super helpful for dealing with people who are more religious than I am!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 8:55 PM GMT
    TM:

    I'm not accounting for such denominations or political action groups that advocate for a more "Theonomist" approach to policy.

    I'm just saying what I see in the New Testament and how Jesus relates his message; it is for the most part a deeply personal message (that is, God/Jesus tends to speak to as if addressing people in the singular second person, "thou", and less so in the plural, "ye").

    The way I see it, his message to emulate his example and to receive the gift of salvation is not to churches or corporations or labour unions or nations even... but to individual people.

    The party politics in my opinion strays awfully close to actually taking his name in vain (meaning here is not "oath-taking" or "cussing", but to bring reproach upon his name by acting in a manner that brings shame to upon it).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 9:04 PM GMT
    In the class my BF and I are mentoring, the text implies that a lot of the context of the New Testament refers to "salvation" the Roman occupation of Israel. There are many who feel that when Jesus said things like "There are those alive today who will not taste death until they see the coming of the Kingdom with power" referred to an overthrow of the Romans and the restoration of the Israeli state.

    Jesus, when he was cornered by the Pharisees who tried to get him to blaspheme the Emperor, neatly sidestepped the question by asking "whose head is on the coin". The Israelis considered the Roman currency "dirty" and thus there were money-changers in the temple court so that contributions could be made in the Hebrew currency.

    And yet Pilate (Roman governor) and Herod (Hebrew high priest) became friends after Jesus' crucifixion, and -- up until the revolt and the destruction of the Temple, Jews did not suffer the persecution Christians did under Roman rule.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
    njmeanwhile saidIn the class my BF and I are mentoring, the text implies that a lot of the context of the New Testament refers to "salvation" the Roman occupation of Israel. There are many who feel that when Jesus said things like "There are those alive today who will not taste death until they see the coming of the Kingdom with power" referred to an overthrow of the Romans and the restoration of the Israeli state.

    Jesus, when he was cornered by the Pharisees who tried to get him to blaspheme the Emperor, neatly sidestepped the question by asking "whose head is on the coin". The Israelis considered the Roman currency "dirty" and thus there were money-changers in the temple court so that contributions could be made in the Hebrew currency.

    And yet Pilate (Roman governor) and Herod (Hebrew high priest) became friends after Jesus' crucifixion, and -- up until the revolt and the destruction of the Temple, Jews did not suffer the persecution Christians did under Roman rule.



    There is something to this:

    Paul wrote that salvation was to come to the Jew first, and then to the Greek (which had a larger context than the native Hellenic people, but rather to the entire "world" that spoke the then "lengua mundi" of Koine Greek.

    The sack of Jerusalem in 69-70 CE and it's utter destruction some 50 years later during the Bar Kochba revolt lead to the next great diaspora of Jewry and with it, the Gospel (via the largely Jewish Christian churches) into the rest of Asia Minor, North Africa, and Mediterranean Europe.

    By this time, the Churches in Asia Minor were well established, but the influx of the Jerusalem Christians helped increase the spread of the faith.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 10:00 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark saidLeave it to the twinkie to trash a perfectly good thread with his feeble little immature mind. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    I didn't trash it, I said how nice it was, except I wanted to be clear which two minor insertions were not part of my overall recommendation.
    Well then maybe you should have discussed that in another thread.. this one is about how we as gay people condemned to hell by the 'church' deal with Christmas.


    Right, but then it tried to insert economic philosophy in there, not just settling at refuting the anti-gay mindset.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 10:01 PM GMT
    Just don't bring a fruitcake, and you should be fine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 10:10 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidVery nice except for the dumb ending leftwing talking points on the first two responses about wallstreet moguls and "immigration reform" (code for amnesty).


    The quote is "immigration policy," not immigration reform.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie said
    The point is that individual responsibility to our fellow human being has nothing to do with a society's economic structure.

    When certain people allude to Jesus or helping the poor they are usually insinuating that unless someone is interested in extrapolating that idea into some kind of proposed healthcare structure that they are cruel and not following the "example of Jesus".

    Pretty silly and simple-minded if you ask me.


    It's not really possible to divide economics from people in the way you claim. Poverty is manifestly intimately connected to economics, and it's ludicrous to claim that it's not.

    Unfortunately, MT, Jesus was not a Libertarian. And Ayn Rand was an atheist. :-)


    I don't know what Jesus was, but there's no reason why he couldn't have been a libertarian. What makes you think being a libertarian automatically means you aren't interested in helping or advocating for the oppressed or poor or economically disadvantaged? The whole idea is that people and communities are more efficient than government, it has nothing to do with one side being "pro" and the other side being "anti". You want everything to fit into this pre-definition you've created and it doesn't work.