Is it an unforgivable sin to be gay?

Evangelical working group of the Union: Homos? Sick and abnormal!

Thieleke 1964:

"Not in harmony with creation

Thielicke sees it embedded in order

Homosexuality [...]. Though

he is moving in the direction of decriminalizing homosexual acts between adults, but theologically he interprets them as

Sign of the favor of creation. The homosexual as a human being should not be rejected; Church and pastoral care would have to devote themselves entirely to him and his conflicts, sufferings, needs, and hostility. All chances are open

"Healing" to use, with Thielicke

speak less of “illness” than of “perversion” in the sense of “perversion”

would like to. He finds the distinction [...] between male and female homosexuality completely incomprehensible. The reasoning that male homosexuality corrodes society and is criminal should be reversed: Because male homosexuality is criminalized and thus constantly imprisoned

Shadow realm of secrecy, hay

cheating and blackmail move,

decompose society; the non-criminalized female variant is just not perceived as a threat. "

Trillhaas 1965:

"In this sense, Trillhaas evaluates marriage

and family on the one hand as a “place where we encounter the primordial good of creation” [...]. On the other hand, they are “nothing last”. They have “only one mediating, one transitory value.” In terms of natural sexuality, according to Trillhaas, “with homosexuality, the concept of unnaturalness, abnormality, cannot be avoided.” Nonetheless

it must be admitted that "ethics is not a definitive but only a provisional word".

Measured against the time in which these texts were written, one can only understand these passages as progressive, assuming historical instinct and knowledge of the church.

To make such a bogus out of it borders on methods of the unfortunate limp foot!

  • Klaus F.

    @ 849 (profile deleted) to atalaya:

    "Measured against the time in which these texts were written, one can only understand these passages as progressive, assuming historical sensitivity and knowledge of the church."

    When my nephew learned how to make "pipikacka" jokes, it was progress for him too. If he was still doing that today at the age of twenty, it would still be just embarrassing.

    Anyone who clearly warms up homophobic interpretations of the past without classifying them in a distant manner must rightly be accused of sympathy for reactionary homophobic attitudes.

  • 10130 (profile deleted)

    guest

    @ 849 (profile deleted) ... "When it comes to homosexuality, don't avoid the term unnatural, abnormal." ..

    Right, Bernd Lucke, Hans Olaf Henkel, Frauke Petry and Beatrix von Storch would certainly agree with you. How can you make a bogey out of it! It was progressive back then and some Christians in this country are still in their reactionary worldview at the level of 1965. So the "Emo eighth grader" Beck should not be so outraged in the Bundestag. How can he!

    • 849 (profile deleted)

      guest

      @ 10130 (profile deleted) Have you actually understood that these are quotes from the 60s and that the author of the article does not indicate in the least that he shares their content?

      • 10130 (profile deleted)

        guest

        @ 849 (profile deleted) There is no distancing!

        "No distancing: The text is a treatise on the change in the concept of the creation story, but which does not dare to distance itself from the homophobic theses. An indication that a sexual orientation cannot be" cured "according to scientific knowledge can be found in the text about not.

        Instead, the EKD orientation aid is assumed to be "theologically little reflected and justified" and complains that no distinction is made between "tolerance of other forms of life (...) and their 'equality' with marriage and family". In the end, the authors attest that there is no reason to disclose the concept of the order of creation. Also, (heterosexual) marriage and family are biblically upheld, "whose appreciation and preservation remains an important task for theology and the church".

        Criticism of the education plan

        Immediately after this article there is a text by the Baden-Württemberg member of the state parliament, Sabine Kurtz, in which she warns of the educational plan. The CDU politician warns that if homosexuality and transsexuality are taught in lessons, as planned by the green-red state government, the "stable framework conditions" for heterosexual students are at risk.

        The fact that "different forms of human coexistence should be juxtaposed with each other in a value-free manner" undermines "the special importance of marriage and family and their protection enshrined in the Basic Law," said Kurtz. The aim of the curriculum is to "confuse schoolchildren in their gender identity". "

        Source: http://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=23306

        • 849 (profile deleted)

          guest

          @ 10130 (profile deleted) "The text is a treatise on the change in the concept of the creation story, but which does not dare to distance itself from the homophobic theses."

          What for? That was and is not the subject. This is a theological essay. Why should the author or authors feel compelled to distance themselves from something, especially from something they are referring to, in order to clarify the dimension of the topic?

          And what does the following article have to do with what has been incriminated by the author?

          When it comes to the attitude of the (Protestant) church to these questions, one can neither refer to quotations from the 60s nor to the individual opinion of a CDU politician.

          • Dr. McSchreck

            @ 849 (profile deleted) the point is that you can also comment in the taz (apparently even write articles) without ever having come into contact with scientific texts. Therefore I see an excessive demand in understanding the text. If someone who writes an essay and quotes older texts in it had to distance himself every time from terms in these old texts, that would be just ridiculous. The article under attack is far from scandalous.

            • 2097 (profile deleted)

              guest

              @Dr. McSchreck Very curious and simple-minded to call these scientific texts. More like a pseudoscience!

            • 2097 (profile deleted)

              guest

              @Dr. McSchreck comment by Klaus F.: "Anyone who warms up crystal clear homophobic interpretations of the past without classifying them in a distant manner must rightly be accused of sympathy for reactionary homophobic attitudes."