Pope says Christians should apologize for marginalization of gays

[Cow Poke]

Hmm. Ok. I still think I'm missing something then, because if you agree that both orphans and widows are marginalized and need to be treated a particular way, then why question whether there is such a class of persons?

I don't question that there is such a class, but who we place in it for the purpose of this discussion. I don't think it actually defines the group of people very well, as people are "marginalized" for various reasons, some rightfully so.

[Adrift]

I don't question that there is such a class, but who we place in it for the purpose of this discussion. I don't think it actually defines the group of people very well, as people are "marginalized" for various reasons, some rightfully so.

Oh, ok. So you're actually looking for where the Bible might actually put certain people in a list of so-called "marginalized". I think the word "marginalized" is simply a catch-all for those on the fringe, or the outcasts, and while the Bible may not specifically offer a verbatim definition of those who belong in a category called "marginalized", the Bible certainly does say something about reaching out and helping those who are on the periphery, or who are outcasts. So, to hear Christians use the word "marginalized" doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I think most of our greatest theologians and pastors have used it or something like it to refer to those lost, and on the periphery that the Bible speaks about.

[Spartacus]

Gays aren't being marginalized in society. You lost me at that point. Sure, many in society want to act like they're being marginalized. But, to the contrary, gay lifestyle is now chic in pop culture, and society has bent over backwards to accommodate their lifestyle in pretty much every aspect of it, even, in many cases, at the expense of religious freedom (i.e. lawsuits against Christian bakeries, et al).

You're talking about the situation in America today, and this has really only been the status quo for 2-3 decades at most. If we look at certain areas in Africa, at Russia, or at the West 40+ years ago, we do see some rather distasteful treatment of gays (as well as other groups in the last case, including the mentally and physically disabled). Lobotomies, chemical castrations, getting fired from gov't jobs because of a fear that the Soviets could blackmail them more easily... Does that all sound like justice to you?

[KingsGambit]

Another general scripture to keep in mind is what Jesus said about the first being last, and vice versa. I think this allows us to generalize somewhat how we approach society's downtrodden without a strict requirement to define this set.

And I would even argue that those who are in this category due to their own sin can still qualify. Consider John 4, Jesus's interaction with the adulterous woman at the well. Part of her scandal was self inflicted, part was not (her social standing as a Samaritan woman), but Jesus reached out - while not neglecting to speak up about her sin (and that's the part I think some modern Christians want to overlook).

[Spartacus]

Preparing to get slammed, I'll venture in .... LBGT people are not in the same class as persons who, through no choice of their own, are poor or handicapped or marginalized because they weren't born white, etc....

Do you know much about how gay people were treated in the US in the years leading up to the Stonewall riots?

So, let me ask another question -- while I believe it's proper to treat LBGT persons with dignity, should I be under any pressure whatsoever to put them in positions of leadership in my Church? deacons, assistant pastors, sunday school teachers, disciplers....?

If they are qualified in every way except their sexual attractions (leaving the question of activities aside), why not?

[KingsGambit]

Everybody else ignored Obsidian's post earlier but it has been on my mind: How do we reconcile the general mindset of human dignity with the fact that the Bible did, in fact, call for stoning of gays at one point?

[Adrift]

Another general scripture to keep in mind is what Jesus said about the first being last, and vice versa. I think this allows us to generalize somewhat how we approach society's downtrodden without a strict requirement to define this set.

And I would even argue that those who are in this category due to their own sin can still qualify. Consider John 4, Jesus's interaction with the adulterous woman at the well. Part of her scandal was self inflicted, part was not (her social standing as a Samaritan woman), but Jesus reached out - while not neglecting to speak up about her sin (and that's the part I think some modern Christians want to overlook).

Well I think that's where being light to a dark world comes into play, where we don't separate ourselves from the outside / We don't judge those on the outside, rather we attempt to win them to Christ, and show them how sin is destructive, and how Christ offers a better way. You'll notice that, while Jesus doesn't neglect to reach out to the adulterous woman, he doesn't tolerate her sinful behavior either. He doesn't even forgive her. He tells her to go and sin no more. But those unrepentant in the church, are, as Paul might say, without excuse. They know better, and if they don't get their act together, then the consequences ought to be a separation (or marginalizing) from the body (after working through Jesus's instructions in Matthew of course).

[Cow Poke]

Everybody else ignored Obsidian's post earlier but it has been on my mind: How do we reconcile the general mindset of human dignity with the fact that the Bible did, in fact, call for stoning of gays at one point?

We consider Jesus telling the religious right "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

[Cow Poke]

If they are qualified in every way except their sexual attractions (leaving the question of activities aside), why not?

It would not be due to their "sexual attraction", it would be due to their conscious decision to continue living in sin.

[KingsGambit]

We consider Jesus telling the religious right "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

Putting aside the fact that that story wasn't in the original manuscripts of John for a second, I'm not sure that completely solves the issue. I think it puts forward a case against capital punishment, but it still doesn't really explain why the original commandment was there and how we deal with its continued existence today. Gay people are very aware of those verses and point to them as a continued attack on their dignity as people by Christians.

I think 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 does make a better case for dignity, but I won't lie and say I'm not still uncomfortable with the tension here.

[Adrift]

Everybody else ignored Obsidian's post earlier but it has been on my mind: How do we reconcile the general mindset of human dignity with the fact that the Bible did, in fact, call for stoning of gays at one point?

That's because Obsidian usually says cooky stuff, and he's not worth paying much mind to most of the time.

We reconcile the mindset of human dignity with the methods of the Old Testament by recognizing that ancient Israel was in holy covenant with God under a theocracy, without a divine intercessor, and without a Holy Spirit to help guide people in correct thought and action. When you live in a world where one bad apple may spoil the bunch, or as Paul might say, a little yeast makes the whole batch rise, then only a few may lead all of society into eternal death. That's also if we're assuming that the exact punishment was always handed out all the time, rather than it being the most severe penalty offered by the court. I don't believe it was, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

[KingsGambit]

That's also if we're assuming that the exact punishment was always handed out all the time, rather than it being the most severe penalty offered by the court. I don't believe it was, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

That is my general understanding; that in most cases a sin offering was an acceptable alternative, but I don't remember where I heard this. I know Teal has mentioned this as well.

[seanD]

I give Obsidian the benefit of the doubt and think what he was doing was using hyperbole to show the stark contrast with scripture and what the pope is saying. The church is in a very sensitive catch-22 here. Homosexuality is sin as is clearly described in scripture, on one hand, but on the other, the church is commanded not to judge. The best the church can do is remain neutral or tolerate the behavior the best way it can as it functions in a modern generation that has made the behavior more than acceptable. But society has taken the other extreme and is practically forcing the church to not just tolerate the behavior but accept the behavior as society has accepted it. This seems to be the direction the pope is going, or this is how it's inevitably perceived (based on other things he's said about the issue), and that's taking it way too far. I think that's what Obsidian was pointing out.

[KingsGambit]

I give Obsidian the benefit of the doubt and think what he was doing was using hyperbole to show the stark contrast with scripture and what the pope is saying.

He has called for the stoning of gays today previously on here and doubled down on it when challenged, so I'm pretty sure he was being serious.

I think that might have been the same debate where somebody other than him proceeded to accuse me of the Marcionite heresy when I said that I didn't think we should execute them today.

[Darth Executor]

You're talking about the situation in America today, and this has really only been the status quo for 2-3 decades at most. If we look at certain areas in Africa, at Russia, or at the West 40+ years ago, we do see some rather distasteful treatment of gays (as well as other groups in the last case, including the mentally and physically disabled). Lobotomies, chemical castrations, getting fired from gov't jobs because of a fear that the Soviets could blackmail them more easily... Does that all sound like justice to you?

It sure sounded like justice to God when He had them executed.

BTW I know how hard it must be to do apologetics for this worthless motormouth pope, and I just want you to know that I'm enjoying every minute of it. Anti-catholic apologetics hasn't been this easy since the Borgias.