Is refusing to belong to any non-egalitarian and non-LGBT affirming church a progressive stance?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This forum has always perplexed me because many seem to think that it's not and it's inherently wrong to leave a church you were raised in because of political disagreements or a "checklist of issues", which I've always found strange because this is like the one place on the Internet where people believe this at all. No one ever argued this on like DailyKos if someone made a diary entry about converting to Episcopalian or ELCA Lutheran or whatever because they were more liberal, I've already covered how no one on Reddit thinks like this even outside of the stereotypical Reddit neckbeard atheist type places, and I can't find anyone arguing this even on woke Twitter, which seemed like a logical place to look, not because wokies are so fond of non-egalitarian and non-affirming religious groups obviously but because that corner of Twitter is full of so many blazing takes if something is strange you can probably find it there.

So...why is here so different from the rest of the Internet?

[afleitch]

So...why is here so different from the rest of the Internet?

Its talkelectionsdotorg.

In all seriousness, I don't have much of an issue if you affirm LGBT people (which for the sake of this argument is affirming their relationships within the same framework as one would a heterosexual relationship, even if that is itself a conservative framework) and choose to remain in a church or religion you were brought up in. Joining one, ore more accurately, moving out of an affirming one to a non affirming one I do think, requires some degree of cognitive dissonance particularly if you intend to hold to the same views (though that might not be your intent in moving or converting).

That might not have been the case some years back when there wasn't more than a cigarette papers difference between church positions and in all honesty it's still linked more closely to an individual church than say a broad denomination.

But I'm not going to affirm a non affirming church, so my views shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

That was in the Old Testament though. I was raised Christian, fortunately the kind that actually treats everyone like human beings just as Jesus told them to.  Sad to see so many "Christians" who disregard that and try to strip innocent people of their rights. I hope you one day see the light and renounce your religion.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

No, it's not specifically about pedophilia/pederasty, that's always been an extremely minority position both within the religious and scholar communities, except arguably for malakoi in  1 Corinthians 6:9

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No, the progressive stance in this case to to reject religion entirely.

[Big Abraham]

No, the progressive stance in this case to to reject religion entirely.

Ayn Rand was a progressive girl boss.

[If my soul was made of stone]

No, the progressive stance in this case to to reject religion entirely.

Ayn Rand was a progressive girl boss.

Carl Benjamin is basically a Kropotkinite.

[vitoNova]

The most "meaningful" church service I ever attended was a Universitarian homosexual one during college, because I had this incredibly woke idea during Journalism 101 (I had to take the course to fulfill one of my writing intensive requirements) to go deep cover during an assignment.

Half the dudes openly flirted with me because I'm pretty goddamn sexy, if I say so myself.   The other half I could sense were highly distrustful and thought I was like like a cop or something and refused to speak to me.  I interviewed the lesbian pastor.

A chick in my class was so impressed with my wokeness (before wokeness was even a thing), and we ended up dating.   It pays to be woke, bro.   I just didn't want to interview someone boring like a cop or firefighter, or some dumbass jarhead, like 99.9999% of my classmates.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

It's okay to ignore teachings in the bible that you don't like. For instance, plenty avoid the fact that Jesus was basically a socialist. For instance, he teaches against worship of wealth and the pursuit of money above all in Matthew 19:23 and Matthew 6:24, the latter saying that you can't serve both money and God.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

It's okay to ignore teachings in the bible that you don't like. For instance, plenty avoid the fact that Jesus was basically a socialist. For instance, he teaches against worship of wealth and the pursuit of money above all in Matthew 19:23 and Matthew 6:24, the latter saying that you can't serve both money and God.

Worshiping money is a sin.  Idolizing anything is a sin, because we are replacing God with something of this world.  Not worshiping money isn't the same thing as socialism or progressive economic policies, though.  Likewise, having money isn't bad- it's the love of money (at the expense of loving God) that is bad.

[°Leprechaun]

"It's okay to ignore teachings in the Bible you don't like."

Definitely an interesting statement.

Considering how difficult it is to be believe ideas that conflict with each other it would seem impossible not to ignore certain things in the Bible if you want to believe others.

[DaleCooper]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

[DaleCooper]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

It's okay to ignore teachings in the bible that you don't like. For instance, plenty avoid the fact that Jesus was basically a socialist. For instance, he teaches against worship of wealth and the pursuit of money above all in Matthew 19:23 and Matthew 6:24, the latter saying that you can't serve both money and God.

Worshiping money is a sin.  Idolizing anything is a sin, because we are replacing God with something of this world.  Not worshiping money isn't the same thing as socialism or progressive economic policies, though.  Likewise, having money isn't bad- it's the love of money (at the expense of loving God) that is bad.

This is a deliberately skewed interpretation of Christ's commentary on money that is specifically designed to accommodate greedy people. Jesus Christ made very clear that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, and let's also not forget the exchange he had in which he explicitly rejected the rich man as a follower because he refused to give up his material wealth. Peter took it even further and snuffed the life out of that rotten fake Christian couple that was withholding their funds from the church's collection in Acts. The idea that an affluent glutton in the suburbs is in any way serving Christ (regardless of whether or not he made a meaningless confession of faith at a Billy Graham Crusade) by kicking back and chillaxing on overpriced furniture while watching TV flies in the face of everything Christ ever said regarding service and wealth. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

[Mopsus]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

While the incident with the Sodomites and the angels definitely stands out in the narrative, Genesis does not explicitly say why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, except to accuse them of “wickedness” broadly. Specific charges brought by later prophets include arrogance, mistreatment of the poor, and adultery, which one could connect to homosexuality if one was ideologically inclined to do so, but scripture itself does not self-evidently support the view that that’s why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

[DaleCooper]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

There are numerous references to homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.  And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, where God found the practice of homosexuality so detestable that He destroyed the cities.

What translation do you refer to as a mistranslation?  It's not unique to one translation.

While the incident with the Sodomites and the angels definitely stands out in the narrative, Genesis does not explicitly say why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, except to accuse them of “wickedness” broadly. Specific charges brought by later prophets include arrogance, mistreatment of the poor, and adultery, which one could connect to homosexuality if one was ideologically inclined to do so, but scripture itself does not self-evidently support the view that that’s why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

It's pretty heavily implied to be the case a couple of different times, though it should also be noted that Jesus Christ said humanity was far more wicked in his day than Sodom and Gomorrah were, and Christ never mentions homosexuality.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

     I was reading Joseph Sciambra, someone formerly active in the LGBT Catholic sphere, about this recently, and he theorized that these sorts of ideas don't function as serious arguments that historical Christianity was affirming (which it obviously wasn't), but rather exist because they appeal on an intuitive level to people who are confused about their sexuality. As such it was never meant to persuade, but rather to comfort.

[afleitch]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

I was reading Joseph Sciambra, someone formerly active in the LGBT Catholic sphere.

What an inventive description of him.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

I was reading Joseph Sciambra, someone formerly active in the LGBT Catholic sphere.

What an inventive description of him.

     What do you propose? I never heard of him until recently.

[afleitch]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

I was reading Joseph Sciambra, someone formerly active in the LGBT Catholic sphere.

What an inventive description of him.

 What do you propose? I never heard of him until recently.

Self loathing?

I really don't have time for the whole, 'I did sex, I did parties, I did drugs. That's what ALL THE GAYS DO. Gay is bad' and how he 'escaped' and 'survived' when I've been married for ten f-cking years. It's an appeal to Christian titillation over what 'the gays' are up to.

It's interesting that sort of schlock appeals to you.

Though 'Swallowed by Satan' is a great name for a book, but the irony might be lost on him.

EDIT; I forgot this gem; 'Anal sex releases into the world rare demonic entities and that even in the body could be conceived as the devil and that would be given birth to anally.'

[Associate Justice PiT]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

I was reading Joseph Sciambra, someone formerly active in the LGBT Catholic sphere.

What an inventive description of him.

 What do you propose? I never heard of him until recently.

Self loathing?

I really don't have time for the whole, 'I did sex, I did parties, I did drugs. That's what ALL THE GAYS DO. Gay is bad' and how he 'escaped' and 'survived' when I've been married for ten f-cking years. It's an appeal to Christian titillation over what 'the gays' are up to.

It's interesting that sort of schlock appeals to you.

Though 'Swallowed by Satan' is a great name for a book, but the irony might be lost on him.

EDIT; I forgot this gem; 'Anal sex releases into the world rare demonic entities and that even in the body could be conceived as the devil and that would be given birth to anally.'

     The reason I bring him up is that, while his involvement in the LGBT community is now far into the past, he was a part of it and his experience with that overlapped with his experience of Catholicism. He has more insight into that scene than "random person preaching against homosexuality", even if his point of view is not the most favorable to them.

     I figure I ought to mention that I started reading him not because of his insights into gay Catholics, but because he is converting to the Orthodox Church and friends of mine mentioned him to me for that reason. Reading the comments on his tweets is a fascinating experience, because the tradcaths who loved him while he was a Catholic railing against homosexuality in the Catholic Church hate him now that he is quoting Orthodox writers.

[afleitch]

Those are theological issues, not political issues.  I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't complementarian and that didn't believe in Biblical sexual morality.  The Bible is clear on those issues.

It's a mistranslation form the 1940s and y'all are making it out to refer to homosexuality when it actually refers to pedophilia, which is a different thing entirely. Stop using your Christian beliefs as an excuse.

The Bible never condemns pedophilia or child molestation. It's an unfortunate moral failing that it has in common with most ancient documents.

I always wonder what people advancing the "mistranslation from the 1940s" talking point think about why Christian societies tended to be more institutionally homophobic before mid-century than after. Are we to believe that Paul or Jerome or Augustine or someone just spun the Wheel of Bigotry and won bigly on the "homophobia" slot?

I was reading Joseph Sciambra, someone formerly active in the LGBT Catholic sphere.

What an inventive description of him.

 What do you propose? I never heard of him until recently.

Self loathing?

I really don't have time for the whole, 'I did sex, I did parties, I did drugs. That's what ALL THE GAYS DO. Gay is bad' and how he 'escaped' and 'survived' when I've been married for ten f-cking years. It's an appeal to Christian titillation over what 'the gays' are up to.

It's interesting that sort of schlock appeals to you.

Though 'Swallowed by Satan' is a great name for a book, but the irony might be lost on him.

EDIT; I forgot this gem; 'Anal sex releases into the world rare demonic entities and that even in the body could be conceived as the devil and that would be given birth to anally.'

     The reason I bring him up is that, while his involvement in the LGBT community is now far into the past, he was a part of it and his experience with that overlapped with his experience of Catholicism. He has more insight into that scene than "random person preaching against homosexuality", even if his point of view is not the most favorable to them.

     I figure I ought to mention that I started reading him not because of his insights into gay Catholics, but because he is converting to the Orthodox Church and friends of mine mentioned him to me for that reason. Reading the comments on his tweets is a fascinating experience, because the tradcaths who loved him while he was a Catholic railing against homosexuality in the Catholic Church hate him now that he is quoting Orthodox writers.

He's not exactly a prize.

And you are in touching distance of people who can give a less self aggrandising, muggish and purile discussion of their experiences as a gay Catholic on this very forum.