LGBT Christians, yeah we exist.

[Vazdania]

The Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) is QUITE Christian.

Go ahead, argue with Bluth about Christianity. I'll make popcorn.

D: make some for me!!!!

[Farnhamia]

Go ahead, argue with Bluth about Christianity. I'll make popcorn.

D: make some for me!!!!

[Vazdania]

D: make some for me!!!!

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY *NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM*

Anyways. Yes Lutherans are quite Christian.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY *NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM*

Anyways. Yes Lutherans are quite Christian.

No, they're not.

For one, they're theists.

[Orcoa]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY *NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM*

Anyways. Yes Lutherans are quite Christian.

No, they're not.

For one, they're theists.

Oh boy

It has begun....

[Grenartia]

Actually, when one realizes that what is being condemned is temple prostitution, sex without love, rape, and pedophilia, the underlined is totally possible.

Cherry picking the parts of the bible you like to suit your arguments is not very honest. You may want to read these versus.

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Note how it not only condemns the action, but the concept of lust as well.

Corinithians 6:9-10
Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10 will share in God’s kingdom.

Again, the action is not only condemned, but simply "behaving" like a homosexual is enough to keep you out of heaven, whether you believe it is a sin or not.

Timothy 1: 8-10
We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching

Note how murdererers of parents and homosexuals are equated as the same wicked people.

Actually, I have read those verses (or at least the KJV translation, not sure which one you're using), and they are specifically the ones I mentioned (at least when I speak of the New Testament) when I referred to the verses only referring to temple prostitution and pedophilia (which often occurred at the same time) and sex without love. But allow me to address these on a point by point basis.

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Here we see usage of the 'natural/unnatural' dichotomy. I won't point out the glaring argument from nature fallacy that most people use in context with this verse, however. I will point out the following, however. Most Christians (with the exception of Bluth and maybe a few others) believe that God created everything, including man. And, as science has proven that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice, any Christian who accepts scientific fact must also admit that God created some people with other sexual orientations. From here, seeing as most people are heterosexual, it can be argued that 'natural relations' simply means having sex with people you are attracted to. So all this verse basically says is that people were fucking people they had no attraction to.

Corinithians 6:9-10
Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10 will share in God’s kingdom.

I'm not exactly sure what translation you're using, but there are many that use inaccurate translations, and I'm fairly sure most of the accurate ones (especially the KJV) seem to dance around the issue of coming right out and talking about men fucking other men. However, taking my logic from the above verse, let me ask, why would a loving God create people who were not heterosexual, and condemn sex without love, and then go right around and say that non-heterosexuals are inherently evil, compare them with idol worshippers and cheaters, perverts (I'm going to assume that perverts here means pedophiles), and have no place in His/Her/Their kingdom?

Timothy 1: 8-10
We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching

I think we can safely apply appropriate parts of the arguments used above to this passage as well.

[Menassa]

Cherry picking the parts of the bible you like to suit your arguments is not very honest. You may want to read these versus.

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Note how it not only condemns the action, but the concept of lust as well.

Corinithians 6:9-10
Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10 will share in God’s kingdom.

Again, the action is not only condemned, but simply "behaving" like a homosexual is enough to keep you out of heaven, whether you believe it is a sin or not.

Timothy 1: 8-10
We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching

Note how murdererers of parents and homosexuals are equated as the same wicked people.

Actually, I have read those verses (or at least the KJV translation, not sure which one you're using), and they are specifically the ones I mentioned (at least when I speak of the New Testament) when I referred to the verses only referring to temple prostitution and pedophilia (which often occurred at the same time) and sex without love. But allow me to address these on a point by point basis.

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Here we see usage of the 'natural/unnatural' dichotomy. I won't point out the glaring argument from nature fallacy that most people use in context with this verse, however. I will point out the following, however. Most Christians (with the exception of Bluth and maybe a few others) believe that God created everything, including man. And, as science has proven that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice, any Christian who accepts scientific fact must also admit that God created some people with other sexual orientations. From here, seeing as most people are heterosexual, it can be argued that 'natural relations' simply means having sex with people you are attracted to. So all this verse basically says is that people were fucking people they had no attraction to.

Corinithians 6:9-10
Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10 will share in God’s kingdom.

I'm not exactly sure what translation you're using, but there are many that use inaccurate translations, and I'm fairly sure most of the accurate ones (especially the KJV) seem to dance around the issue of coming right out and talking about men fucking other men. However, taking my logic from the above verse, let me ask, why would a loving God create people who were not heterosexual, and condemn sex without love, and then go right around and say that non-heterosexuals are inherently evil, compare them with idol worshippers and cheaters, perverts (I'm going to assume that perverts here means pedophiles), and have no place in His/Her/Their kingdom?

Timothy 1: 8-10
We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching

I think we can safely apply appropriate parts of the arguments used above to this passage as well.

*Shamelessly mentions Leviticus*

[Nova_Ravenna]

no , actually you do not exsist. by indulging in such acts, you remove yourself from the lord.

[Grenartia]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY *NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM*

Anyways. Yes Lutherans are quite Christian.

No, they're not.

For one, they're theists.

Dammit, stop shoving your 'Christianity is an inherently atheist concept' down everybody's throats, and accept that you don't get to fucking redefine the term "Christianity". Just call it Blutheranism, for fuck's sakes. It'll save a shitload of time and space from all the eventual threadjacks.

[Grenartia]

Actually, I have read those verses (or at least the KJV translation, not sure which one you're using), and they are specifically the ones I mentioned (at least when I speak of the New Testament) when I referred to the verses only referring to temple prostitution and pedophilia (which often occurred at the same time) and sex without love. But allow me to address these on a point by point basis.



Here we see usage of the 'natural/unnatural' dichotomy. I won't point out the glaring argument from nature fallacy that most people use in context with this verse, however. I will point out the following, however. Most Christians (with the exception of Bluth and maybe a few others) believe that God created everything, including man. And, as science has proven that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice, any Christian who accepts scientific fact must also admit that God created some people with other sexual orientations. From here, seeing as most people are heterosexual, it can be argued that 'natural relations' simply means having sex with people you are attracted to. So all this verse basically says is that people were fucking people they had no attraction to.



I'm not exactly sure what translation you're using, but there are many that use inaccurate translations, and I'm fairly sure most of the accurate ones (especially the KJV) seem to dance around the issue of coming right out and talking about men fucking other men. However, taking my logic from the above verse, let me ask, why would a loving God create people who were not heterosexual, and condemn sex without love, and then go right around and say that non-heterosexuals are inherently evil, compare them with idol worshippers and cheaters, perverts (I'm going to assume that perverts here means pedophiles), and have no place in His/Her/Their kingdom?




I think we can safely apply appropriate parts of the arguments used above to this passage as well.

*Shamelessly mentions Leviticus*

*shamelessly points out that the story of David and Jonathon is actually a celebration of homosexual love*

no , actually you do not exsist. by indulging in such acts, you remove yourself from the lord.

See all of my posts in this thread for reasons why you're wrong.

[Menassa]

*Shamelessly mentions Leviticus*

*shamelessly points out that the story of David and Jonathon is actually a celebration of homosexual love*

no , actually you do not exsist. by indulging in such acts, you remove yourself from the lord.

See all of my posts in this thread for reasons why you're wrong.

You can look at a story and say it was one of homosexual love..... but I can also say that the Golden calf was really God's child he was angry that the Calf had gone out to play without his permission.

And even if you would be right..... that just puts King David in the wrong... and doesn't make it right.

[Grenartia]

*shamelessly points out that the story of David and Jonathon is actually a celebration of homosexual love*



See all of my posts in this thread for reasons why you're wrong.

You can look at a story and say it was one of homosexual love..... but I can also say that the Golden calf was really God's child he was angry that the Calf had gone out to play without his permission.

And even if you would be right..... that just puts King David in the wrong... and doesn't make it right.

Can you read the story and honestly tell me it doesn't sound gay? Besides, the Bible doesn't seem to condemn the actions or love of David or Jonathon at all. In fact, it rather seems to celebrate their love.

[Menassa]

You can look at a story and say it was one of homosexual love..... but I can also say that the Golden calf was really God's child he was angry that the Calf had gone out to play without his permission.

And even if you would be right..... that just puts King David in the wrong... and doesn't make it right.

Can you read the story and honestly tell me it doesn't sound gay? Besides, the Bible doesn't seem to condemn the actions or love of David or Jonathon at all. In fact, it rather seems to celebrate their love.

Yes I've read the story and it does not sound homosexual at all, it sounds like two men who share a deep friendship for each other.

If they were homosexual the bible would have said it outright and not tiptoed around it.

King David kept The Law so I doubt he was homosexual.

Do you believe two men can't share a deep bond and not be homosexual? That's pretty closed minded if you think like that.

[Tmutarakhan]

*shamelessly points out that the story of David and Jonathon is actually a celebration of homosexual love*



See all of my posts in this thread for reasons why you're wrong.

You can look at a story and say it was one of homosexual love..... but I can also say that the Golden calf was really God's child he was angry that the Calf had gone out to play without his permission.

And even if you would be right..... that just puts King David in the wrong... and doesn't make it right.

Why would it put David in the wrong? All it means is that not all the Biblical authors had the same attitudes.

Yes I've read the story and it does not sound homosexual at all, it sounds like two men who share a deep friendship for each other.

No, every single time the two are together, the text goes out of its way to emphasize the physicality of their feelings.

If they were homosexual the bible would have said it outright and not tiptoed around it.

Except by going off into porno, I don't see how much more "outright" the text could have been.

King David kept The Law so I doubt he was homosexual.

That's a completely circular argument. Rather, you should say: David kept the Law, so, obviously the Law has nothing against homosexuals.

Do you believe two men can't share a deep bond and not be homosexual?

Of course they can. That just doesn't seem to be this particular case.

[Menassa]

You can look at a story and say it was one of homosexual love..... but I can also say that the Golden calf was really God's child he was angry that the Calf had gone out to play without his permission.

And even if you would be right..... that just puts King David in the wrong... and doesn't make it right.

Why would it put David in the wrong? All it means is that not all the Biblical authors had the same attitudes.

I happen to believe the bible was written by the same person..... not different people.

[Tmutarakhan]

Why would it put David in the wrong? All it means is that not all the Biblical authors had the same attitudes.

I happen to believe the bible was written by the same person..... not different people.

Then you have no hope of ever understanding a bit of it.

[Menassa]

I happen to believe the bible was written by the same person..... not different people.

Then you have no hope of ever understanding a bit of it.

I'll bet I don't.

[The Merchant Republics]

I've come a long way on the road to accepting LGBT, surprisingly I'm sure to some my faith has helped not hinder that path.

Alone, honestly the concept especially of transsexualism creeps me the hell out, but realizing that God created you this way, loved you all the same, it gave me pause. Then I saw myself, let us suppose homosexuality was a sin, was I any less a sinner than an LGBT?
Worse, could as I have been in my life, hold any moral authority over a loving faithful marriage between two men or women? Absolutely not.

First my views on gay marriage changed, I disagreed with it because of the rather empty and stupid argument that marriage "should be between a man and a woman" but couldn't find an acceptable reason to oppose it as a Libertarian.

Then, I came to see that homosexuals weren't really different from heterosexuals at all, we are both capable of sin and finding grace, the size of that sin is immaterial to God. I did some looking, nowhere could I find in the Bible a condemnation of gay marriage, or homosexuality that was not in the same breath added to a list of things that didn't have a more accurate interpretation than the commonly held one.

Now, I've come to much more radical position. I personally think Christians should not just accept gay marriage but endorse it! Let me give it to you straight (no pun intended) just because you fancy boys instead of girls or girls instead of boys, or being a girl instead of a boy, doesn't mean you're automatically exempt from the "whole chastity" thing.
If homosexuality is a sin, it's only a sin in the same way adultery is a sin, it's a sin to have sex with a person other than the one you have promised yourself to, back in ancient days it was a forgone conclusion that it would be a woman and a man, nowadays you can marry whomever you want. So you better damn well do it!

And yes, yes I am being mildly satirical, but I believe in the message.

[Tmutarakhan]

Then you have no hope of ever understanding a bit of it.

I'll bet I don't.

You could easily learn to understand it. All you need to do is shed the aura of unreality.

[Menassa]

I'll bet I don't.

You could easily learn to understand it. All you need to do is shed the aura of unreality.

Mhm..... and I assume this is coming from a great scholar of Biblical Hebrew?

[Tires Rock]

I'm not gay, but if the Bible says we're all sinners, who gives a baboon's ass about gays?

[Grenartia]

Can you read the story and honestly tell me it doesn't sound gay? Besides, the Bible doesn't seem to condemn the actions or love of David or Jonathon at all. In fact, it rather seems to celebrate their love.

1. Yes I've read the story and it does not sound homosexual at all, it sounds like two men who share a deep friendship for each other.

2. If they were homosexual the bible would have said it outright and not tiptoed around it.

3. King David kept The Law so I doubt he was homosexual.

4. Do you believe two men can't share a deep bond and not be homosexual? That's pretty closed minded if you think like that.

1. I've never heard any completely heterosexual man ever say that another man's love was better than the love of women. Seriously. The entire story sounds like an ancient yaoi fanfic. Except its canon.

2. Then why did David say that Jonathon's love was better than that of women? Why did Jonathon effectively give up the throne to David?
David and Jonathon
3. Except that time he committed adultery.

4. I never said that at all. I will defend the concept of a 'bromance' wholeheartedly. But when one says to a group of people that the other's love was better than that of women, I have an extremely fucking hard time (read: impossible) trying to justify it as purely platonic.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... athan.html

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Grenartia: Ever read Through the Looking-Glass? Remember how the exchange between Humpty-Dumpty and Alice ended?

In case you don't, I'll remind you: Humpty said something to the effect of, "The question is who Master is, that's all."

He was right, of course. Words (other signifiers too, but here we're concerned with words) don't refer to fixed, objective, immutable objects in the real world. This is why--as Ferdinand de Saussure crucially realized nearly a century ago--it is often impossible to translate with perfect accuracy from one language to another.

Instead, what words signify is networks of differences. And precisely the reason exact translation is very difficult if not impossible is because these networks are socially and culturally constructed: the specific differences that are relevant, to what degree, and how they interact vary from one social group to the next.

And because these networks are socially constructed, they are susceptible to social power. Thus, the reason that the word "Christianity" has historically excluded, say, Arianism is not because there is some fixed and unchanging "Christianity" with which Arianism is incompatible but because a lot of years ago a bunch of people got together and decided it didn't suit them to have Arianism be part of Christianity and they had the power to force their preferred network of differences on the world at large (or at least the part of it that cared).

This is, of course, the same lineage of power hierarchy that is also responsible (with the aid of some lingering outside cultural influences) for the historical belief that homosexual acts, and to an extent even homosexuals themselves, are incompatible with Christianity.

Thus, the efforts by modern (especially in the last century or so) mainstream churches to make Christianity more friendly are able to work because they finally possess the power to stand up against that ancient hierarchy and start shifting the network of differences to something more welcoming to LGBTQ persons. It is no doubt a positive, praiseworthy act, but it is also a political act.

And that's all I'm doing when I declare Christianity to be non-Pauline, non-theistic: trying to reassert power from those who have historically held it. It's fundamentally no different from what the mainstream LGBTQ-friendly church has been trying to do. It is true that they're not therefore declaring certain groups to be outside of Christianity altogether as I am, but that's not because they're doing anything fundamentally different: they've just chosen for instrumental purposes to support a network of differences that does not exclude those groups historically considered Christian, while I have.

So please stop pretending that what I'm doing is essentially any different from what more mainstream LGBTQ-friendly Christian movements are doing. It's not. It's perhaps to a different degree, and goes in a slightly different direction, but it is qualitatively the same. It is a political act--it is a radical act--is is, in my view, a NECESSARY act if Christianity can ever be universally LGBTQ-positive.

[Pope Joan]

When I listen to the Gospels, I hear a voice that champions fidelity in relationships and has nothing at all to say about sexuality.

So gay marriage is fine, I've got my source supporting me.

My sect places the Gospels ahead of all other scripture.

[Tsuntion]

<snip>

Words are sounds (or letter combinations) that we as people associate with meanings. To claim the sounds mean something completely other than what they are accepted to mean renders them meaningless. To claim that "Christianity", which means in the minds of the vast majority of people a monotheistic Abrahamic religion with focus on Jesus, is atheistic, does not work. I am fine with you claiming your meaning of Christianity as a homonym (same spelling, same pronunciation, different meaning) to the main meaning, with them being separate words, but to claim the main meaning is not what it means does not work.

When I listen to the Gospels, I hear a voice that champions fidelity in relationships and has nothing at all to say about sexuality.

So gay marriage is fine, I've got my source supporting me.

My sect places the Gospels ahead of all other scripture.

Out of interest, does that include the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Judas (that I can think of; I've never read them)?