Ellen Page calls out Chris Pratt's "infamously anti-LGBTQ" church

Oct 27, 2017
383
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

many people have attempted to twist this, but the bible would be straight up less anti-LGBTQ if these verses was removed
I really wish I knew Hebrew and had access to the original texts cause I want to know how much of that nasty shit was added by the 'translators'.

Either way I completely agree.
 
Feb 2, 2019
21
France
Good on her. Pratt needs to broach this if he's going to go on talk shows talking about how great his church is when it promotes such vileness.

Common misconception. Transness is not broached at all. Transphobic Christians point to anti-crossdressing passages as proof of that, but as we know, trans women are women and trans men are men. One could argue crossdressing being said to br sinful is problematic on it's own, which I totally and 100% agree with, but it's not got anything to do with transness.

Homosexuality is only broached in Leviticus, and all Leviticus laws were scrapped by Jesus- what in the New Testament is called homosexuality in English was actually originally a word better translated as "poor morality", or something like that. It was interpreted as meaning homosexuality when translating from Hebrew to Latin. This is further proven by how, historically, there were a lot of gay unions in the Christian church (note that marriages at the time were not about love so having such a union was actually more special and akin to modern marriage) until about the middle ages when the Latin translation took hold.

Abortion is not broached at all, and in fact until very recently many churches actually totally backed abortion, particularly for out of wedlock pregnancy.

Now, there ARE many anti-LGBT and pro-lifer churches due to how they choose to (poorly, imo) interpret the Bible. But Christianity is not inherently bigoted against LGBTQ people or inherently anti-choice, and in fact many churches and Christians accept and even promote progressive social causes.
Please allow me to add clarifications. "Homosexuality", as in, a sexual orientation toward the same sex, is completely absent from the Bible. What is referred to is only same-sex sexual acts, and even then the understanding is not of a loving relationship, but basically a man (or woman) being so unable to contain their lust that even the opposite sex doesn't satisfy them anymore and therefore they go for other things. That is why few churches today have managed to find a clear-cut and "obvious" answer to the modern issue of homosexuality. Some point to natural law theory, some point to sacramental theology, some point to experience and reason (and compassion), but in all cases there isn't a clear cut answer in the Bible (or even in the historical tradition of Christianity) because "homosexuality", as we define it today, is simply not addressed at all.

However, your claim that "there were a lot of gay unions in the Christian church until the middle ages" is going to need some proof...
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,525
Miami
Very up for interpretation and the result of translation upon translation.
Yeah, there's quite a lot of verses in the Bible that were deliberately changed (especially in the King James version) for social/political reasons. A good example right at the start is Eve being reduced to a rib from the original translation of "half" as that made women equal to men. I'm not sure about Leviticus though.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,188
which is another way of saying that millions of contemporary bibles from which entire populations of people derive their faith have anti-LGBTQ language in them
Right I'm not going to get into bible scholarship in this thread (tomes have been written about these verses), but I will say that "the bible is anti-LGBTQ," the statement I responded to, is simplistic and reductive.
 
Oct 27, 2017
933
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

many people have attempted to twist this, but the bible would be straight up less anti-LGBTQ if these verses was removed
Hermeneutics are always complex, even religious Biblical scholarship would seem to require some kind of historical analysis, even if a really meager or doxastic one. For example, charging interest used to be considered taboo, but IIRC that was because interest based loans had a negative effect on the economic system of the time. But now that's not so apparently, so that's why really no one is mad about us doing it now, because it clearly doesn't serve much use for us anymore. The function of religion, or the cultural dialogue that we have with religion as a human concern, is closely related to the needs and desires of its adherents at the time.

IIRC, a lot of the strange excesses of the earlier Abhramaic purity codes in the Bible might be explained by the Jews being a people beset on all sides by other tribes, which maybe created a circumstance that required them to be exemplary models of 'purity'. A lot of it now, we, myself included, can't see as anything but (male) chauvinism. But then all the more reason to abandon it like we've abandoned other things in the past.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,042
I don't see that way because a person not agreeing with another, doesn't mean that don't have respect as a human being.

People think differently, I don't think you can force anyone to be in favour of same sex relationship or abortion as an exemple, but respect people choices and their way of live is essential.
It is disrespecting someone as a human being when you deny a part of their humanity, which is what being anti-lgbtq is.
 
Oct 30, 2017
5,291
Hermeneutics are always complex, even religious Biblical scholarship would seem to require some kind of historical analysis, even if a really meager or doxastic one. Charging interest used to be considered taboo, but IIRC that was because interest based loans had a negative effect on the economic system of the time. Now that's not as apparent, so it's no surprise that we completely ignore the thing about charging interest, because it doesn't serve much use for us anymore. The function of religion, or the cultural dialogue that we have with religion as a broad field or concern, is closely related to the needs and desires of its adherents at the time.

IIRC, a lot of the strange excesses of the earlier Abhramaic purity codes in the Bible might be explained by the Jews being a people beset on all sides by other tribes, which maybe created a circumstance that required them to be exemplary models of 'purity'. A lot of it we we can't see as anything but (male) chauvinism in our present time. Then all the more reason we should abandon it like we've abandoned other things in the past. We don't need it anymore.
But how will I know it's wrong to kill people and right to hate the gays (isn't it?) if a book doesn't tell me so! I'm a lost lamb with no moral instincts of my own.
 
Oct 25, 2017
636
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

many people have attempted to twist this, but the bible would be straight up less anti-LGBTQ if these verses was removed
Yeah, there's quite a lot of verses in the Bible that were deliberately changed (especially in the King James version) for social/political reasons. A good example right at the start is Eve being reduced to a rib from the original translation of "half" as that made women equal to men. I'm not sure about Leviticus though.
The language Leviticus indicates that revisions removed endorsement of same-sex relations:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opinion/sunday/bible-prohibit-gay-sex.html

As I argue in an article published in the latest issue of the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men. In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.
 
Oct 30, 2017
5,291
I don't see that way because a person not agreeing with another, doesn't mean that don't have respect as a human being.

People think differently, I don't think you can force anyone to be in favour of same sex relationship or abortion as an exemple, but respect people choices and their way of live is essential.
No one's asking people to "agree with" standing at the bedside and watching men pound other men in their unwashed poopholes. LGBTQ acceptance is not about conjuring images that ick you out and then pretending your sense of revulsion does not exist.

It's about first understanding that a sexual orientation encompasses a person's whole being, tinges their thoughts like a colored lens over a light, informs what they find beautiful and moving, profoundly affects how they relate to other people, runs all through their subjective point of view. In short, being gay or straight--or however we choose to refer to someone's personal mix of mental traits--is nothing less than being a full person, with a vast array of preferences and behaviors that we label for the sake of convenience, not perfect accuracy.

What I'm saying is you can't separate or isolate the "gay part" of a gay person.

Secondly it's about embracing and accepting other humans who are different than yourself as just that: different from you, with different likes and turn-ons than you, but human and worthy. You can't respect a person if you don't accept a core aspect of their being.
 
Last edited:

Yams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,565
Like I said in the other thread. When it comes to Pratt and his beliefs It’s not not there you just have to look and pay attention to what he says
 

Harp

Member
Oct 27, 2017
397
Young upstart hipster churches are just the worst. It is the religious version of overt atheists ramming "god isn't real!" down your throat. Everyone is so happy to be there. And 80% of them are totally fake.

Also, good luck keeping this thread open with Pratt + religion.
This is a very generalized view. I was born and raised in LA/Orange County and sent to Christian schooling my whole life. You'd be surprised how incredibly progressive a lot of the kids I grew up with were, even when our parents and teachers weren't, and many of my old classmates have started community youth groups, and many of my former teachers that were in the younger generation have gone off to work with or even start churches, and nearly all of them are incredibly welcoming of LGBTQ congregation members. They tend to make it a point not to cover that element of scripture for much the same reason they don't cover Paul discussing women in positions of power in the church (most of these churches have female pastors, and were even started by women, or at least husband/wife teams).

Obviously that's my anecdotal experience in a progressive area of a progressive state, and I can't speak to places like the midwest and south, where I assume it's much worse. I just wanted to throw out that there are plenty of places that choose to view the biblical interpretation of homosexuality as antiquated for the same reason that most churches view things like stoning adulterers, etc. as antiquated.

I may have long since lost my faith and stopped giving a shit about spirituality or religion, but there are still plenty of good folk.
 

yado

Member
Oct 25, 2017
348
Pratt’s Los Angeles church does not promote gay conversion therapy as far as I can find.
I don't see why that matters. As a famous member of the church who's actively promoting it surely their anti LGBT stance/history of conversion therapy doesn't bother him.
 
Nov 11, 2017
2,483
Please allow me to add clarifications. "Homosexuality", as in, a sexual orientation toward the same sex, is completely absent from the Bible. What is referred to is only same-sex sexual acts, and even then the understanding is not of a loving relationship, but basically a man (or woman) being so unable to contain their lust that even the opposite sex doesn't satisfy them anymore and therefore they go for other things. That is why few churches today have managed to find a clear-cut and "obvious" answer to the modern issue of homosexuality. Some point to natural law theory, some point to sacramental theology, some point to experience and reason (and compassion), but in all cases there isn't a clear cut answer in the Bible (or even in the historical tradition of Christianity) because "homosexuality", as we define it today, is simply not addressed at all.

However, your claim that "there were a lot of gay unions in the Christian church until the middle ages" is going to need some proof...
Thank you for your clarification.

The latter, I cite the book Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. I understand it has as much criticism as it does support by other scholars, but from what I can recall of it, it sounded about right to me. If it's incorrect, of course, I understand.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,643
Right I'm not going to get into bible scholarship in this thread (tomes have been written about these verses), but I will say that "the bible is anti-LGBTQ," the statement I responded to, is simplistic and reductive.
I should change my statement to "the version of the bible that everyone has been following for the last 2000+ years is anti lgbt" i guess
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,972
I don't see why that matters. As a famous member of the church who's actively promoting it surely their anti LGBT stance/history of conversion therapy doesn't bother him.
That's quite the leap. Churches are personal experiences and what he's promoting is his church, not the NY branch or the Australian branch. I'm sure if he were asked about Carl Lentz's previous statements on homosexuality he'd have some bland but acceptable response.
 
Nov 18, 2018
445
I should change my statement to "the version of the bible that everyone has been following for the last 2000+ years is anti lgbt" i guess
The modern canon was only codified between the 3rd and 5th century. Early Christianity, especially during the first to second century, was a mishmash of various cults with different books and beliefs.
 
Feb 2, 2019
21
France
Thank you for your clarification.

The latter, I cite the book Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. I understand it has as much criticism as it does support by other scholars, but from what I can recall of it, it sounded about right to me. If it's incorrect, of course, I understand.
I don't know what's in that book. I just wanted to know if you had the service of adelphopoiesis in mind. It's a service that recognizes the friendship of two people (usually of the same sex) and blesses it. Some time ago, scholars found out that such a thing was done in the early Church, and therefore interpreted it as a proof of homosexual marriage, and this is sometimes used as an argument online; but the problem is that this service still exists in the Orthodox Church (it was still performed as late as the 20th century) and is obviously not a rite of homosexual marriage.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,074
tag yourself i'm the totally cool with The Gays church that maintains its affiliation with church #brand that actively promotes conversion therapy
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,972
tag yourself i'm the totally cool with The Gays church that maintains its affiliation with church #brand that actively promotes conversion therapy
The #brand doesn't, there's nothing in the churches public language that actively promotes conversion therapy.
 
Nov 14, 2017
1,232
That's quite the leap. Churches are personal experiences and what he's promoting is his church, not the NY branch or the Australian branch. I'm sure if he were asked about Carl Lentz's previous statements on homosexuality he'd have some bland but acceptable response.
I don't get why churches and faith are the only personal experience that's defended and anything else is game. That shit ain't special.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,972
I don't get why churches and faith are the only personal experience that's defended and anything else is game. That shit ain't special.
Otherwise we'd have to hold billions of religious people accountable for something a practitioner of their faith had done. Pratt is a self-professed christian, not a self-professed Lentzian. We can only assume beyond that.
 
May 27, 2018
789
Also: Justin Bieber, who attends the same church, is married to Hailey Baldwin, whose father Stephen Baldwin (brother of Alec), is a hardcore Christian and Trump supporter that filed for bankruptcy a few years ago and then started his own religious ministry.

It is not surprising that someone in deep financial trouble would start a religious business, since these types of businesses have a potential to be lucrative.

Ultimately, this is all about money.
 

eZn

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
999
User Banned (1 Month): Homophobic Trolling. History of inflammatory posts.
Props to Chris Pratt for enjoying his faith.
 
Oct 27, 2017
970
Forgive my ignorance as I don’t know the LA area well at all. But are there other churches that are more open to LGBTQ people around Hollywood? What attracts younger stars to this church?
 
Oct 25, 2017
417
Forgive my ignorance as I don’t know the LA area well at all. But are there other churches that are more open to LGBTQ people around Hollywood? What attracts younger stars to this church?
There are plenty of churches in the USA that openly recruit LGBTQ people by hanging pride flags outside.

LA is the biggest metropolitan area in the country.

Pratt has choices about where he chooses to worship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,062
Reading about this church gives me the shivers. They sell themselves as some kind of hip, cool kind of place with a rockstar vibe.

It's just another fucking cult to lure people in. The anti-LGBTQ stance is the cherry on the shit pile