LGBT Christians, yeah we exist.

[Grenartia]

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.

No, I can't say I've ever had an opportunity to read it.

The thing is, you are shoving an identity down somebody's throats. As I've told you before, I am a theistic Christian who rejects Paul's teachings. I will therefore not have the label 'Paulinist' shoved down my throat. Note that I'm not saying you can't call yourself a Christian. I'm only saying you can't redefine the whole damn religion according to your beliefs about it (this is more or less what the LGBTQ-friendly churches are doing as well. They're not trying to shove it down the rest of Christianity's throats. They're just saying that the other sects can't define the whole religion based on a narrow set of beliefs.

Even though I´m not christian I wouldn´t accept LGBT members in the church, because if they thought for the last 2000 years that it is wrong there is no reason on changing their views. Otherwise they would be a bunch of hypocraths.

Its only hypocrisy if a person who holds one belief does something totally contrary to it. People can change or alter their beliefs at any time and not be hypocrites.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)

I'm not saying anything specific about my views, I just want to know what someone who would say that they're LGBT and Christian would think of this Bible passage.

I should mention that there is contest over the translation of 'arsenokoitai' as "homosexual". There is more than enough contextual evidence to point it to being a condemnation of boy temple-prostitutes; a practice not at all uncommon to the audience the passage would have been directed at.

^this.

I do not condemn of course, since I was born a sinner just like everyone else. Jesus himself said "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast the stone." Thtas the message of love and peace. But he also said "Now go and sin no more" making it obvious he didn't approve of the sin. My belief is that God created man for paradise, and then Adam gave us that sinful nature. If homosexuals are really born as such, then they have to deal with what everyone has to deal with, being born with a sinful nature. Then (this is my opinion) they can overcome it same way that all other Christians make a choice to overcome their sinful nature. But like I said, I'm no more righteous than anyone else, so I will not condemn.

So...basically, pray away the gay? That's been proven not to work. Plus, you're still assuming that its a sin. There's nothing reasonable to support that.

And therefore, since we are all born into sin, (something I can't quite grasp when looking at a newborn baby) there should be nothing to keep gay clergy out or condemn gay marriage. If God deals with all sinners alike and even clergy are sinners I can't find any logic in banning gay clergy.

But clergy and all Christians actually should attempt to rid themselves of sin, not wallow in it and accept it. Anything else would be hypocritical.

Again, you're going off the baseless assumption that homosexuality is a sin.

I have no problem with LGBT Christians. While I do despise the LGBT idea itself, being a very religious and God-fearing person, I feel that being LGBT doesn't mean your rights to a good life and devotion to God can simply be revoked. After all, they are still human beings just like all the non-LGBT people.

Why do you ''despise the LGBT idea'', if you don't mind my asking?

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

That's no sexual love at all!

If you read in context David's best friend had been slain.... the man who saved his life and was one of his only allies when everyone else hated him.

I see nothing sexual about it, David is simply saying that the deep emotional friendship they had was greater than that of a woman....... which if you think about the biblical marriage process.... isn't really much.

It reads almost exactly like a yaoi fanfic.

I'm not calling into question the context of anything. In fact, it seems to me that the context reinforces it. I've had EXTREMELY close friendships with people before. But never have I been moved to instantly give somebody my valuable possessions upon a first meeting. Nor can I think of any friendship where something similar has happened.

[Menassa]

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.

No, I can't say I've ever had an opportunity to read it.

The thing is, you are shoving an identity down somebody's throats. As I've told you before, I am a theistic Christian who rejects Paul's teachings. I will therefore not have the label 'Paulinist' shoved down my throat. Note that I'm not saying you can't call yourself a Christian. I'm only saying you can't redefine the whole damn religion according to your beliefs about it (this is more or less what the LGBTQ-friendly churches are doing as well. They're not trying to shove it down the rest of Christianity's throats. They're just saying that the other sects can't define the whole religion based on a narrow set of beliefs.

Even though I´m not christian I wouldn´t accept LGBT members in the church, because if they thought for the last 2000 years that it is wrong there is no reason on changing their views. Otherwise they would be a bunch of hypocraths.

Its only hypocrisy if a person who holds one belief does something totally contrary to it. People can change or alter their beliefs at any time and not be hypocrites.

I should mention that there is contest over the translation of 'arsenokoitai' as "homosexual". There is more than enough contextual evidence to point it to being a condemnation of boy temple-prostitutes; a practice not at all uncommon to the audience the passage would have been directed at.

^this.

I do not condemn of course, since I was born a sinner just like everyone else. Jesus himself said "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast the stone." Thtas the message of love and peace. But he also said "Now go and sin no more" making it obvious he didn't approve of the sin. My belief is that God created man for paradise, and then Adam gave us that sinful nature. If homosexuals are really born as such, then they have to deal with what everyone has to deal with, being born with a sinful nature. Then (this is my opinion) they can overcome it same way that all other Christians make a choice to overcome their sinful nature. But like I said, I'm no more righteous than anyone else, so I will not condemn.

So...basically, pray away the gay? That's been proven not to work. Plus, you're still assuming that its a sin. There's nothing reasonable to support that.

But clergy and all Christians actually should attempt to rid themselves of sin, not wallow in it and accept it. Anything else would be hypocritical.

Again, you're going off the baseless assumption that homosexuality is a sin.

I have no problem with LGBT Christians. While I do despise the LGBT idea itself, being a very religious and God-fearing person, I feel that being LGBT doesn't mean your rights to a good life and devotion to God can simply be revoked. After all, they are still human beings just like all the non-LGBT people.

Why do you ''despise the LGBT idea'', if you don't mind my asking?

That's no sexual love at all!

If you read in context David's best friend had been slain.... the man who saved his life and was one of his only allies when everyone else hated him.

I see nothing sexual about it, David is simply saying that the deep emotional friendship they had was greater than that of a woman....... which if you think about the biblical marriage process.... isn't really much.

It reads almost exactly like a yaoi fanfic.

I'm not calling into question the context of anything. In fact, it seems to me that the context reinforces it. I've had EXTREMELY close friendships with people before. But never have I been moved to instantly give somebody my valuable possessions upon a first meeting. Nor can I think of any friendship where something similar has happened.

Then close friendships like that of David and Jonathon have escaped you.... and it wasn't on first meeting.... they had met each other many a time before.

Regardless the Law is the Law..... but you don't have to follow it now do you.

[Raeyh]

You think they would be excommunicated for heresy.

[Olivaero]

You think they would be excommunicated for heresy.

LGBT Christians? The Anglican communion Expressly allows them. Why would they excommunicate people they have as their clergy?

[Raeyh]

You think they would be excommunicated for heresy.

LGBT Christians? The Anglican communion Expressly allows them. Why would they excommunicate people they have as their clergy?

I mean the faiths where they view homosexuality as a sin.

[Tmutarakhan]

Then close friendships like that of David and Jonathon have escaped you.... and it wasn't on first meeting.... they had met each other many a time before.

On the first meeting, we are told that Jonathan's "bowels yearned" for David. On the occasion Grenartia was mentioning, it was not the first meeting, but the first time they were alone together, and Jonathan gives him "everything", including his underwear. When Saul wants to get rid of David, Jonathan establishes some code words so that he can signal David whether he needs to run away without David needing to get close to the palace, but when he signals David to run away... David immediately comes to the palace so that he and Jonathan can have a last hug before he goes away. When Saul rebukes Jonathan for the relationship, the phrase he uses to describe it, "You love David to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", is puzzling but difficult to construe in anything other than a sexual sense.

[Menassa]

Then close friendships like that of David and Jonathon have escaped you.... and it wasn't on first meeting.... they had met each other many a time before.

On the first meeting, we are told that Jonathan's "bowels yearned" for David. On the occasion Grenartia was mentioning, it was not the first meeting, but the first time they were alone together, and Jonathan gives him "everything", including his underwear. When Saul wants to get rid of David, Jonathan establishes some code words so that he can signal David whether he needs to run away without David needing to get close to the palace, but when he signals David to run away... David immediately comes to the palace so that he and Jonathan can have a last hug before he goes away. When Saul rebukes Jonathan for the relationship, the phrase he uses to describe it, "You love David to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", is puzzling but difficult to construe in anything other than a sexual sense.

You misunderstand that last phrase.... Saul is basically saying. "How dare you betray my like your mother's nakedness." Essentially attacking Jonathon by attacking his mother... the Ancient 'Son of a Bitch' if you will.

[Tmutarakhan]

On the first meeting, we are told that Jonathan's "bowels yearned" for David. On the occasion Grenartia was mentioning, it was not the first meeting, but the first time they were alone together, and Jonathan gives him "everything", including his underwear. When Saul wants to get rid of David, Jonathan establishes some code words so that he can signal David whether he needs to run away without David needing to get close to the palace, but when he signals David to run away... David immediately comes to the palace so that he and Jonathan can have a last hug before he goes away. When Saul rebukes Jonathan for the relationship, the phrase he uses to describe it, "You love David to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", is puzzling but difficult to construe in anything other than a sexual sense.

You misunderstand that last phrase.... Saul is basically saying. "How dare you betray my like your mother's nakedness." Essentially attacking Jonathon by attacking his mother... the Ancient 'Son of a Bitch' if you will.

That's an exceedingly bizarre reading of the phrase, and unlike any scholarly suggestion I have ever heard: did you just make that up yourself? The most usual suggestion is that what is wrong is here is Jonathan's failure to do his duty as the royal heir, and procreate a further generation of heirs (note later the Mephibosheth incident where it is disclosed that Jonathan did finally have a son, a few months before he died-- that is, after Saul forcibly separated him from David). That is, he was betraying the genetic lineage by failing to propagate it further.

[Asterdan]

I agree that LGBT believers exist. But that's all they are, believers, not Christians. There is a distinct difference.

[Tsuntion]

I agree that LGBT believers exist. But that's all they are, believers, not Christians. There is a distinct difference.

A Christian is someone who believes in God (Bluth, please don't respond to that) and accepts Jesus as their saviour, right? I don't see how being L, G, B, or T contradicts this and means they are believers but not Christians. Saying that more is needed to be a Christian is getting into salvation-through-works.

[Menassa]

You misunderstand that last phrase.... Saul is basically saying. "How dare you betray my like your mother's nakedness." Essentially attacking Jonathon by attacking his mother... the Ancient 'Son of a Bitch' if you will.

That's an exceedingly bizarre reading of the phrase, and unlike any scholarly suggestion I have ever heard: did you just make that up yourself? The most usual suggestion is that what is wrong is here is Jonathan's failure to do his duty as the royal heir, and procreate a further generation of heirs (note later the Mephibosheth incident where it is disclosed that Jonathan did finally have a son, a few months before he died-- that is, after Saul forcibly separated him from David). That is, he was betraying the genetic lineage by failing to propagate it further.

ל. וַיִּחַר אַף שָׁאוּל בִּיהוֹנָתָן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ בֶּן נַעֲוַת הַמַּרְדּוּת הֲלוֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בֹחֵר אַתָּה לְבֶן יִשַׁי וּלְבשֶׁת לְבָשְׁתְּךָ עֶרְוַת אִמֶּךָ:

30. And Saul's wrath was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a straying woman deserving of punishment! Did I not know that you choose the son of Jesse, to your shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?

[Menassa]

I agree that LGBT believers exist. But that's all they are, believers, not Christians. There is a distinct difference.

Why do you not believe they are Christian?

[Asterdan]

I agree that LGBT believers exist. But that's all they are, believers, not Christians. There is a distinct difference.

A Christian is someone who believes in God (Bluth, please don't respond to that) and accepts Jesus as their saviour, right? I don't see how being L, G, B, or T contradicts this and means they are believers but not Christians. Saying that more is needed to be a Christian is getting into salvation-through-works.

Before one can be saved, Jesus must draw you. That is not part of my answer, just stating it.

Now, I do not believe in eternal security. According to what I have read in the Bible, if one dies in a sin that they have not TRULY repented of, they will go to Hell, and if one continually sins without TRULY repenting (there's a difference between saying sorry and being sorry), then they CAN be cut off, turned over to a reprobate mind and be damned. I believe that is what has happened to most LGBT "Christians" because according to Romans Chapter 1, homosexuality is a sin.

[Menassa]

A Christian is someone who believes in God (Bluth, please don't respond to that) and accepts Jesus as their saviour, right? I don't see how being L, G, B, or T contradicts this and means they are believers but not Christians. Saying that more is needed to be a Christian is getting into salvation-through-works.

Before one can be saved, Jesus must draw you. That is not part of my answer, just stating it.

Now, I do not believe in eternal security. According to what I have read in the Bible, if one dies in a sin that they have not TRULY repented of, they will go to Hell, and if one continually sins without TRULY repenting (there's a difference between saying sorry and being sorry), then they CAN be cut off, turned over to a reprobate mind and be damned. I believe that is what has happened to most LGBT "Christians" because according to Romans Chapter 1, homosexuality is a sin.

Which Bible?

[Zarvarza]

No

[Kuhlfros]

God makes people gay. I have no problem with gay people being Christian, at all.

I am catholic and I stand with this God made woman to be with man. Unless people can discover homosexuality as a gene or a mutation I do not understand it... I treat them as people and treat them well but I won't get them

[Tsuntion]

A Christian is someone who believes in God (Bluth, please don't respond to that) and accepts Jesus as their saviour, right? I don't see how being L, G, B, or T contradicts this and means they are believers but not Christians. Saying that more is needed to be a Christian is getting into salvation-through-works.

Before one can be saved, Jesus must draw you. That is not part of my answer, just stating it.

Now, I do not believe in eternal security. According to what I have read in the Bible, if one dies in a sin that they have not TRULY repented of, they will go to Hell, and if one continually sins without TRULY repenting (there's a difference between saying sorry and being sorry), then they CAN be cut off, turned over to a reprobate mind and be damned. I believe that is what has happened to most LGBT "Christians" because according to Romans Chapter 1, homosexuality is a sin.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by Jesus drawing someone nor how that connects; it isn't a concept I'm familiar with.

I don't believe in eternal security either; otherwise, you'd end up with atheists who were once Christian in Heaven, which they wouldn't be very happy about! However, I still don't get the distinction between being a believer and being a Christian. Does a believer believe God exists but sin without repentance? If that's the case, and heterosexuals are sometimes to only be called believers as well as homo/bisexuals if they, say, commit adultery and do not repent, then fair enough.

As for the next bit, I'll plagarise from Grenartia. :P I don't see a reason to adress the use of T in your post with LGB, since my guess is that you used LGBT as a phrase rather than thinking about the T and including it deliberately.

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.

---

No

Care to elaborate?

[Asterdan]

Before one can be saved, Jesus must draw you. That is not part of my answer, just stating it.

Now, I do not believe in eternal security. According to what I have read in the Bible, if one dies in a sin that they have not TRULY repented of, they will go to Hell, and if one continually sins without TRULY repenting (there's a difference between saying sorry and being sorry), then they CAN be cut off, turned over to a reprobate mind and be damned. I believe that is what has happened to most LGBT "Christians" because according to Romans Chapter 1, homosexuality is a sin.

Which Bible?

The 1611 Authorized King James Version, the only version in English with the power of God behind it. Everything else is watered-down to suit peoples needs. Each new version is more watered-down than the last. Plus, it was written on a 5th-Grade reading level!:D

[Grenartia]

A Christian is someone who believes in God (Bluth, please don't respond to that) and accepts Jesus as their saviour, right? I don't see how being L, G, B, or T contradicts this and means they are believers but not Christians. Saying that more is needed to be a Christian is getting into salvation-through-works.

Before one can be saved, Jesus must draw you. That is not part of my answer, just stating it.

Now, I do not believe in eternal security. According to what I have read in the Bible, if one dies in a sin that they have not TRULY repented of, they will go to Hell, and if one continually sins without TRULY repenting (there's a difference between saying sorry and being sorry), then they CAN be cut off, turned over to a reprobate mind and be damned. I believe that is what has happened to most LGBT "Christians" because according to Romans Chapter 1, homosexuality is a sin.

That actually refers to temple prostitution, not loving, consensual homosexuality.

[Uiiop]

Which Bible?

The 1611 Authorized King James Version, the only version in English with the power of God behind it. Everything else is watered-down to suit peoples needs. Each new version is more watered-down than the last. Plus, it was written on a 5th-Grade reading level!:D

What makes this version so pure? How do you know that it wasn't watered down? What evidence do you have of the others being watered down for people's interests?

[Menassa]

Which Bible?

The 1611 Authorized King James Version, the only version in English with the power of God behind it. Everything else is watered-down to suit peoples needs. Each new version is more watered-down than the last. Plus, it was written on a 5th-Grade reading level!:D

Where in that bible?

[Asterdan]

Before one can be saved, Jesus must draw you. That is not part of my answer, just stating it.

Now, I do not believe in eternal security. According to what I have read in the Bible, if one dies in a sin that they have not TRULY repented of, they will go to Hell, and if one continually sins without TRULY repenting (there's a difference between saying sorry and being sorry), then they CAN be cut off, turned over to a reprobate mind and be damned. I believe that is what has happened to most LGBT "Christians" because according to Romans Chapter 1, homosexuality is a sin.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by Jesus drawing someone nor how that connects; it isn't a concept I'm familiar with.

I don't believe in eternal security either; otherwise, you'd end up with atheists who were once Christian in Heaven, which they wouldn't be very happy about! However, I still don't get the distinction between being a believer and being a Christian. Does a believer believe God exists but sin without repentance? If that's the case, and heterosexuals are sometimes to only be called believers as well as homo/bisexuals if they, say, commit adultery and do not repent, then fair enough.

As for the next bit, I'll plagarise from Grenartia. I don't see a reason to adress the use of T in your post with LGB, since my guess is that you used LGBT as a phrase rather than thinking about the T and including it deliberately.

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.

---

No

Care to elaborate?

I believe it to be a choice, similar to alcoholism. I won't deny some people may be predispositioned for it, but that does not mean they will become that way.

Also, unless the Spirit draws (yes, I said Jesus, but these three are one), a person cannot be saved. It can't happen whenever you feel like it. You are given a chance, and you are only obligated one, but the Lord loves us so much, he often returns to deal with your heart.

I agree, a majority of so-called Christians today believe in God and Jesus, but most have been turned over to a reprobate mind. Perhaps not for homosexuality, but for other sins they refuse to repent of or that they have convinced themselves is okay.

[Petrovsegratsk]

God makes people gay.

[Tsuntion]

Which Bible?

The 1611 Authorized King James Version, the only version in English with the power of God behind it. Everything else is watered-down to suit peoples needs. Each new version is more watered-down than the last. Plus, it was written on a 5th-Grade reading level!:D

First, can I have proof that they're watered down and are not godly? Reading the lengthy preface to my NIV shows a lot of work is put into accuracy and all, especially since there is now access to texts not discovered in the time of the KJV. Second, it confuses me that the KJV is apparrantly not watered down yet is a fifth grade reading level. :P

[Grenartia]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by Jesus drawing someone nor how that connects; it isn't a concept I'm familiar with.

I don't believe in eternal security either; otherwise, you'd end up with atheists who were once Christian in Heaven, which they wouldn't be very happy about! However, I still don't get the distinction between being a believer and being a Christian. Does a believer believe God exists but sin without repentance? If that's the case, and heterosexuals are sometimes to only be called believers as well as homo/bisexuals if they, say, commit adultery and do not repent, then fair enough.

As for the next bit, I'll plagarise from Grenartia. I don't see a reason to adress the use of T in your post with LGB, since my guess is that you used LGBT as a phrase rather than thinking about the T and including it deliberately.

---

Care to elaborate?

I believe it to be a choice, similar to alcoholism. I won't deny some people may be predispositioned for it, but that does not mean they will become that way.

First of all, science has effectively proven the underlined to be false. Secondly, even if it was a choice, comparing it to alcoholism is like comparing eating a sandwich to doing bath salts.