Very up for interpretation and the result of translation upon translation.
-
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
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
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.
Pratt's Los Angeles church does not promote gay conversion therapy as far as I can find.
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...
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.
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.
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.
It is disrespecting someone as a human being when you deny a part of their humanity, which is what being anti-lgbtq is.
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.
There are indeed churches that are welcoming all kinds of people.
Not that many, though. Which is sad.
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
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:
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.
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.
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 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
I'M SEEING DOUBLE HERE! FOUR ELLENS!
Also good on Ellen Page calling this shit out
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.
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.
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.
this dude looks like 1000% pure concentrated conman
Oh this guy? Yeah he always gave me the skeevies. carl Lentz
The #brand doesn't, there's nothing in the churches public language that actively promotes conversion therapy.
Ha, this fucking freak is such a red flag.
Oh this guy? Yeah he always gave me the skeevies. carl Lentz
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.
I've read that men was actually boys in the original, but I don't remember the source.
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.
On a lighter note, the picture from the tweet in the OP really highlights his next level forehead.
Oh this guy? Yeah he always gave me the skeevies. carl Lentz
What part did this guy have to play in Fyre Festival?
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.
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.
Did I miss an update where he responded in a respectful and thoughtful way?
Or are you just trolling the thread?
And good on him for choosing to join a highly questionable church too, I guess.
Fucking LMAO at someone confusing Ellen DeGeneres with Ellen Page on the first page. I can't stop laughing.
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.