-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ellen Page calls out Chris Pratt's "infamously anti-LGBTQ" church
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
how can something be bizarre if it's everywhere though
edit: i'm honestly confused not being a prick here
This has nothing to do with "agreeing."
if a person "disagrees" with homosexuality, they are homophobic trash. A person can't "disagree" with how another person is born.
Makes no difference to me whether you hate gays for fun or because your religion told you to. Let's not pretend these "personal beliefs" of yours never hurt anyone, shall we.
It isn't "hate" and actually I can, or do you agree with everything all people you love do?
Progressive outside of that large chunk of the Episcopal congregation that split off because they were against gay and women clergy, right?
And how leadership suspended the US Church because of same sex marriage?
I was raised Episcopalian myself, and while I agree they are progressive, there needs to be an asterisk that clarifies "in comparison to other Christian denominations".
I'm going to need some receipts. People say this, and when asked for evidence of horrible things that Pratt does, they have to scrape the barrel
This isn't a matter of not agreeing with a person in the LGBT community. Being gay is not an opinion or a stance. It's purely a state of being that can't be changed. As a member of the LGBT community I've found it frustrating to see this occassionally framed as if it's an opinion or choice (the phrasing "but respect people choices and their way of live is essential." seems to also reflect this). I believe you're coming from a place of trying to be empathetic to both perspectives here, but believing LGBT folks are sinful is not a disagreement with an opinion so much as a disdain of an inherent state of being that can't be changed and could never be chosen.
All churches ignore aspects of the scripture, particularly ones like how you should treat your slaves or how much to sell your daughter for.
Protestant churches are more willing to ignore aspects of the old testament since in many ways that was sort of the whole point of Christ dying to absolve humanity of the innate sinfulness that was supposed to be what made most of the old testament obligations necessary.
There's almost no reference to gay sex in the new testament, except to say you shouldn't do it as part of pagan rituals in a temple. Lots of rules for straight people, though. Weirdly a lot of those are overlooked.
OP
OP
You don't think that denying people's fundamental personhood is strange?
Follows Candace Owens and was all up in blue lives matter shit years ago.
Nah, the Bible tells you how to make a magic potion that you can force your wife to drink. If she cheated, it will cause an abortion.
That's not a joke.
From Numbers:
How exactly does one "disagree" with a person being gay? Like, I disagree that you are attracted to the same sex (?). Is it something you can even "agree" with.
This church isn't just "not Pro LGBT", it's extremely Anti-LGBT.
Not.
How.
It.
Works.
Saying you "disagree" with someone being attracted to the same sex is literally no different than if you were to "disagree" with someone for being black.
Disagreeing with homosexuality is hate. This is a fact and not up for debate.
That is a legit point. That wasn't the best. But better than Fallen Kingdom
"The Bible" is hardly the sole rule of faith for most denominations out there. That being said, as far as the USA are concerned, there are many large denominations that hold pro-LGBT stances. (the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Old Catholics...) With a religion as diverse and divided as Christianity, it's hard to single-handedly categorize the whole religion at once.
This is slightly off-topic, but: isn't the Hillsong Church that church that's really liked by celebrities? It sort of creeps me out. I'm geneally wary of big, wealthy churches like this, especially when a lot of rich people frequent them.
it is strange to me.
but ask somebody living in a country that throws you in prison for being gay (with little to no public outrage). surely that's their normal?
It is bizarre in the way that saying the earth is flat is bizarre or that climate change is not real is bizarre.
So, just like the last thread we had on this "controversy" I feel like people are missing some context.
Pratt's church, Hillsong, is a brand church. There are multiple congregations around the world. He does not attend the church parishioned by Carl Lentz who is the parishioner of the New York City church but does not set the doctrines of the church as it's a Christian church, not a Lentzian church.
So Pratt's specific church isn't necessarily anti-LGBT. It's the "celebrity church", the in church right now for celebrities. Christianity is overall rather anti-LGBT, but his specific church is no more or less.
Pratt's church, Hillsong, is a brand church. There are multiple congregations around the world. He does not attend the church parishioned by Carl Lentz who is the parishioner of the New York City church but does not set the doctrines of the church as it's a Christian church, not a Lentzian church.
So Pratt's specific church isn't necessarily anti-LGBT. It's the "celebrity church", the in church right now for celebrities. Christianity is overall rather anti-LGBT, but his specific church is no more or less.
I'm of the opinion that a good person must find it morally offensive to consider LGBT people "sinful." Sexual orientation is about more than love and sex, but even if we were to reduce it to that, the very idea that a form of love or a form of sex between consenting adults is wrong by some sort of objective divine and universal principle is outrageous. Not to mention cruel, dismissive of sound science, and contemptuous of one's fellow human beings.
"You're a sinner but we love you anyway" is patronizing and breathtakingly insulting at the same time. It conveys a worldview that segregates people by their natures, implying a hierarchy of human worth and legitimacy--with "normal" people obviously enjoying the view from the top.
The very format of the question "Is being LGBTQ sinful?" rejects modern fact-based, research-supported understandings of orientation, gender, and biological sex. These things can't be wrong, or right for that matter. They just are. Their healthy and consensual expression is a basic human right.
As for the trans issue, which might be thornier for people with entrenched religious views about gender and the body, I respectfully submit that they should educate themselves and get with the times. Anyone with a phone or computer has access to a wealth of free or inexpensive resources to learn all about trans experiences, gender dysphoria, and relevant topics. Being uninformed is excusable, if a person makes a genuine effort to fill in their knowledge gaps and consider new points of view. Being willfully ignorant to preserve hateful opinions? Not so much.
Last edited:
Eh. Social Media follows is honestly bottom of the barrel, for horrible tranasgressions. Unless he is actually shouting blue lives matter, which I would find problematic, I've never seen that (Yes he supports the Police and other first responders, his brother is a police officer)
I guess that what that poster is trying to say is that, if most people around you believe the Earth is flat, isn't not bizarre, just the norm.
This doesn't make homophobia any less reprehensible, of course. Depending on where you're from, however, homophobia being a bizarre (as in, uncommon) thing might not ring true at all, sadly. Same reason why some posters were like "well, yeah, what can you expect from the church".
lol you've got me fucked up by your use of the word bizarre
I'm not, at all. I'd have been more pleasantly surprised if he wasn't.
Not entirely true. UCC, or United Church of Christ, is one of the most wonderful churches I've ever been to. It may vary based upon your particular location, but even in OC, the red heart of socal, my local UCC was incredibly open minded and warm and welcoming. It's mostly old white people though, so I ran into a sprinkling of very light but good hearted racism. lol.
A lot of churches these days have taken the stance that you can be innately gay but you must choose not to act upon your desires. I.e. die alone as a virgin or force yourself to marry the opposite sex instead.
I'm not kidding. I spent 25 years in the evangelical church culture and I'm now same sex married, unable to find common ground with friends who expected me to remain the lonely martyr gay man whose "thorn in his side" (a common phrase for a sin that stays with you your whole life) gay urges are considered a challenge that makes you more reliant on God and prayer to make it through your day-to-day. And one day when you marry your wife, you can cry, confessing your gay urges to her so you both can pray for your marriage to succeed in the midst of your sinful urges.
So glad I'm away from that rhetoric now
Jesus did define marriage as a union between a man and his wife, and specifically cites Adam and Eve as what God intended, which excludes same sex marriage and thus makes homosexual sex sinful because it's fornication.
That's how I've seen most Christian explain it anyway. How do queer pastors get around this? I'm assuming they just say the scriptures where Jesus talks about marriage don't exclude homosexuals but I haven't actually heard what their stance is.
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
Last edited:
Ok wow he just seems so phony and the way he deflected the marriage equality question jeez I really don't understand how a guy like him can have followers.
It feels like another shoe is just waiting to be dropped on Pratt and a lot of progressives are going to have a hard time dealing with it.
That's not what I meant. I know you like to view and twist everything as the most extremely negative thing possible but let's not play that game and instead just be real. By "edgy atheist" I meant not pushing my beliefs onto others like a lot of Christians do onto Atheists and people of other religions. I'm not into being like the people I dislike/hate. I believe in peace above all else.
Now that I've learned more about this particular church I can say I dislike them. They can get fucked.
I'm not the quoted poster, but I think there's a big difference between conservatism and chauvinism, and a failure to make that distinction is worthy of being condemned and identified for what it is, even if (or especially because) it happens a lot.
Did Joseph Seed shave?
Oh this guy? Yeah he always gave me the skeevies. carl Lentz
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.
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.
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.
Dude come on you literally said you aren't an edgy atheist so you don't care if a church is anti-gay as long as they aren't loud about it.
It's not forcing your beliefs to say that being anti-gay at any level is unacceptable and it's certainly not comparable to trying to force religion on people.
Well now that you told me I do. Imposing their will on people who don't want them to is super shitty.
When I was posting in that thread, I recall it being unclear whether it was just a stance particular to the NY branch, or a brand wide teaching. Didn't see what the rest of the discussion turned up though.