LGBT Christians, yeah we exist.

[Asterdan]

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?

The Bible is where "as a tree falls, so shall it lay" is from, and again, it speaks of turning those over to a reprobate mind and being damned. And in Rev. 3, it says that "I would rather ye were hot or cold, but because ye are lukewarm, I will spew the from my mouth". (Not an exact quote).

[Tsuntion]

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.

Fair enough. I disagree with you on that, but I can't source it either 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 don't understand what this "drawing" is. God chooses a time to save you and you have to accept or deny at that time? That's contrary to what I've been taught (though that doesn't mean it's wrong!), which is that God may reach out to people but people can come to him at any time and he will accept them.

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.

Fair enough.

God makes people gay.

:palm:

Another person who I'd like to ask to elaborate.

[Tmutarakhan]

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?

In the first part he is insinuating that maybe his wife slept around, since Jonathan couldn't possibly be his son. In the second half, your translator chooses "shame" for bosheth where elsewhere it seems to be "damage; injury" (KJV has "confusion").

[Menassa]

Where in that bible?

The Bible is where "as a tree falls, so shall it lay" is from, and again, it speaks of turning those over to a reprobate mind and being damned. And in Rev. 3, it says that "I would rather ye were hot or cold, but because ye are lukewarm, I will spew the from my mouth". (Not an exact quote).

What is this? I don't even.

[The Alexanderians]

This whole thread went to crap real fast. As for the OP however, I have no issue with homosexual or bisexual Christians. Clergy? Never thought about it before, but I'm fine with it too. Thinking about it, I find the thought of female clergy stranger than homosexual clergy in the Christian church...I'm not opposed to female clergy per se it just seems...out of place or jarring is the best way to describe my feelings on it. Kind of like the feeling you'd get if you were to see someone painted purple walking down the street. It all probably stems from the fact that my Church is "Liberally Traditional" (read: keeping with traditional practices but taking liberal attitudes); policy and doctrine is shifting to full acceptance of Homosexual and Bisexuals but it is very unlikely to see female priests anytime soon. The monastic order on the other hand is VERY conservative and bar any LGBT individuals from joining but monks aren't the most progressive of people. Still though beliefs on certain matters can vary wildly between different parishes, dioceses, and individuals.

[Asterdan]

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.

Fair enough. I disagree with you on that, but I can't source it either 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 don't understand what this "drawing" is. God chooses a time to save you and you have to accept or deny at that time? That's contrary to what I've been taught (though that doesn't mean it's wrong!), which is that God may reach out to people but people can come to him at any time and he will accept them.

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.

Fair enough.

Another person who I'd like to ask to elaborate.

God (The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, these three are One) calls out to them, and they may accept Jesus or reject him. He is only obligated to call once, but often (not always, but often) comes back more than once. As long as he is calling them, they can be saved, eventually, however, he will stop calling. That's how I was taught, but it is one of the more minor parts I believe, like how the end will come.

[Tsuntion]

God (The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, these three are One) calls out to them, and they may accept Jesus or reject him. He is only obligated to call once, but often (not always, but often) comes back more than once. As long as he is calling them, they can be saved, eventually, however, he will stop calling. That's how I was taught, but it is one of the more minor parts I believe, like how the end will come.

Fair enough. As I said, I was not taught that, but it doesn't have much influence over LGBT-related discussion as opposed to anything else some Christians consider sin.

[Menassa]

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?

In the first part he is insinuating that maybe his wife slept around, since Jonathan couldn't possibly be his son. In the second half, your translator chooses "shame" for bosheth where elsewhere it seems to be "damage; injury" (KJV has "confusion").

My translator?

My good man that's a translation direct from the hebrew.... if you want I may show you other places where bosheth means shame.

However there is a category of injury called bosheth the assailant must pay the victim how much they embarrassed them.

Fye upon the KJV.

[Asterdan]

God (The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, these three are One) calls out to them, and they may accept Jesus or reject him. He is only obligated to call once, but often (not always, but often) comes back more than once. As long as he is calling them, they can be saved, eventually, however, he will stop calling. That's how I was taught, but it is one of the more minor parts I believe, like how the end will come.

Fair enough. As I said, I was not taught that, but it doesn't have much influence over LGBT-related discussion as opposed to anything else some Christians consider sin.

Point taken. So shall we end that topic of debate?

Also, to OP, I just caught her second-strike... According to Timothy (I believe the second book of Timothy) chapter 3, a bishop (aka Preacher, etc) is to be the husband of one wife. Please explain how a woman can be a husband?

And please do not relate this to sexism, I think women are far more capable at some areas in the Church (Sunday School especially) than most men, and most are far better singers. I just go with what the Bible says.

[Menassa]

Fair enough. As I said, I was not taught that, but it doesn't have much influence over LGBT-related discussion as opposed to anything else some Christians consider sin.

Point taken. So shall we end that topic of debate?

Also, to OP, I just caught her second-strike... According to Timothy (I believe the second book of Timothy) chapter 3, a bishop (aka Preacher, etc) is to be the husband of one wife. Please explain how a woman can be a husband?

And please do not relate this to sexism, I think women are far more capable at some areas in the Church (Sunday School especially) than most men, and most are far better singers. I just go with what the Bible says.

So you think women are better at teaching young children than leading a community?

How very interesting.

[Tekania]

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

The power of God is no more behind the KJV than any other translation.

[Pope Joan]

Fair enough. As I said, I was not taught that, but it doesn't have much influence over LGBT-related discussion as opposed to anything else some Christians consider sin.

Point taken. So shall we end that topic of debate?

Also, to OP, I just caught her second-strike... According to Timothy (I believe the second book of Timothy) chapter 3, a bishop (aka Preacher, etc) is to be the husband of one wife. Please explain how a woman can be a husband?

And please do not relate this to sexism, I think women are far more capable at some areas in the Church (Sunday School especially) than most men, and most are far better singers. I just go with what the Bible says.

My sect have no bishops.

Problem solved.

I think you are citing First Timothy, which I do not believe is Paul's. It sounds very second-century, with its references to ecclesiastical offices which did not exist in Paul's day.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/1Tim.htm

[Tmutarakhan]

In the first part he is insinuating that maybe his wife slept around, since Jonathan couldn't possibly be his son. In the second half, your translator chooses "shame" for bosheth where elsewhere it seems to be "damage; injury" (KJV has "confusion").

My translator?

My good man that's a translation direct from the hebrew

Uh, yeah, that's why I referred to a "translator", you know, a person who chooses a translation?

.... if you want I may show you other places where bosheth means shame.

Do you mean passages where the context makes it clear that this is correct? Or other passages where whatever translator you are relying on has made that word-choice?

However there is a category of injury called bosheth the assailant must pay the victim how much they embarrassed them.

Uh, no: bosheth is the general word for "damage".

Fye upon the KJV.

At least we find something to agree on. In any case, why do you think Saul is saying that Jonathan's relation with David "shames" his mother's nakedness?

[Menassa]

My translator?

My good man that's a translation direct from the hebrew

Uh, yeah, that's why I referred to a "translator", you know, a person who chooses a translation?

.... if you want I may show you other places where bosheth means shame.

Do you mean passages where the context makes it clear that this is correct? Or other passages where whatever translator you are relying on has made that word-choice?

However there is a category of injury called bosheth the assailant must pay the victim how much they embarrassed them.

Uh, no: bosheth is the general word for "damage".

Fye upon the KJV.

At least we find something to agree on. In any case, why do you think Saul is saying that Jonathan's relation with David "shames" his mother's nakedness?

Probably because David is public enemy No. 1. imagine if Bush found out his son was best friends with Bin Laden.

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/1322.htm

[Tmutarakhan]

Uh, yeah, that's why I referred to a "translator", you know, a person who chooses a translation?

Do you mean passages where the context makes it clear that this is correct? Or other passages where whatever translator you are relying on has made that word-choice?

Uh, no: bosheth is the general word for "damage".

At least we find something to agree on. In any case, why do you think Saul is saying that Jonathan's relation with David "shames" his mother's nakedness?

Probably because David is public enemy No. 1.

But WHY was David public enemy no. 1? WHAT was Saul upset about?

imagine if Bush found out his son was best friends with Bin Laden

Would he say it "shamed Laura's nakedness"? What exactly would that have to do with Laura's nakedness?

[Menassa]

Probably because David is public enemy No. 1.

But WHY was David public enemy no. 1? WHAT was Saul upset about?

imagine if Bush found out his son was best friends with Bin Laden

Would he say it "shamed Laura's nakedness"? What exactly would that have to do with Laura's nakedness?

Obviously he wasn't as connected to Jonathon's mother because the king had many, many wives.

I believe people started liking David more than they liked King Saul, and Saul saw that as an attempt on his throne.

[Tmutarakhan]

But WHY was David public enemy no. 1? WHAT was Saul upset about?

Would he say it "shamed Laura's nakedness"? What exactly would that have to do with Laura's nakedness?

Obviously he wasn't as connected to Jonathon's mother because the king had many, many wives.

You are not answering the question at all. Why would he make a completely random remark that had nothing to do with anything?

[Menassa]

Obviously he wasn't as connected to Jonathon's mother because the king had many, many wives.

You are not answering the question at all. Why would he make a completely random remark that had nothing to do with anything?

Saul was talking to Jonoathan... if I remember correctly it was at a dinner about how Jonathan had betrayed Saul and helped David.....

Did ya even take a glance at the story?

I mean even in the NIV it would have been fine.

[Antiliberalbis]

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?

First off, the King James version of the bible has to be the most poorly translated book out of any bible you can read. There are lines in there so butchered that you can't even possibly believe that is what they meant to say if they were to have spoken english. For example, there is a line that says something to the effect of "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven image. " Brilliant! Guess that means you can't draw pictures. sculpt statues, or take photographs or you will go to hell. Not to mention lines in exodus were translated so badly that it could be interpreted that the jews must sacrifice their first-born son on Passover.

Secondly to answer your question. It's simple. There is no real god (especially not a loving one as he is never implied to be loving in the bible.) He is only invention of bronze age men who wanted to enforce what they thought was moral on the whole world with the threat of burning in hell. That's why there are so many bizzare contradictions that still have to be followed in faith to this day and why Christianity's doctrines and homosexuality are not compatible.

[Tmutarakhan]

You are not answering the question at all. Why would he make a completely random remark that had nothing to do with anything?

Saul was talking to Jonoathan... if I remember correctly it was at a dinner about how Jonathan had betrayed Saul and helped David.....

Did ya even take a glance at the story?

I mean even in the NIV it would have been fine.

OF COURSE I have read the story. I am asking you: what in the world does "his mother's nakedness" have to do with anything, in your version of the story? Why would Jonathan's "friendship" with David be a "shame" to anyone, according to the version you believe?

[Menassa]

Saul was talking to Jonoathan... if I remember correctly it was at a dinner about how Jonathan had betrayed Saul and helped David.....

Did ya even take a glance at the story?

I mean even in the NIV it would have been fine.

OF COURSE I have read the story. I am asking you: what in the world does "his mother's nakedness" have to do with anything, in your version of the story? Why would Jonathan's "friendship" with David be a "shame" to anyone, according to the version you believe?

Because Jonathan betrayed Saul by helping David........ has anyone in an effort to attack you ever insulted your mother?

Have you ever head of the less-than-popular show 'Yo Mamma!' ?

[Tmutarakhan]

OF COURSE I have read the story. I am asking you: what in the world does "his mother's nakedness" have to do with anything, in your version of the story? Why would Jonathan's "friendship" with David be a "shame" to anyone, according to the version you believe?

Because Jonathan betrayed Saul by helping David........

And the only reason Saul considered it a "betrayal" to help David is because David was like by Jonathan? This is all very circular.

has anyone in an effort to attack you ever insulted your mother?

Have you ever head of the less-than-popular show 'Yo Mamma!' ?

Well, no and no, but I do not get how it is that telling Jonathan he has shamed his mother is insulting his mother. I do not get how, in your version, anything that Saul says is coherent at all.

[Menassa]

Because Jonathan betrayed Saul by helping David........

And the only reason Saul considered it a "betrayal" to help David is because David was like by Jonathan? This is all very circular.

has anyone in an effort to attack you ever insulted your mother?

Have you ever head of the less-than-popular show 'Yo Mamma!' ?

Well, no and no, but I do not get how it is that telling Jonathan he has shamed his mother is insulting his mother. I do not get how, in your version, anything that Saul says is coherent at all.

It's very simple.... Saul hates David.... Jonathon helps David.... Saul finds out..... Saul verbally attacks Jonathon.

[Tmutarakhan]

And the only reason Saul considered it a "betrayal" to help David is because David was like by Jonathan? This is all very circular.

Well, no and no, but I do not get how it is that telling Jonathan he has shamed his mother is insulting his mother. I do not get how, in your version, anything that Saul says is coherent at all.

It's very simple.... Saul hates David.... Jonathon helps David.... Saul finds out..... Saul verbally attacks Jonathon.

Saul does not hate David for any reason except that Jonathan likes him. Saul attacks Jonathan by saying something that makes no sense. This is your version?

Now, what I have proposed is that the reason Saul hates the relationship between Jonathan and David is that it will likely end up with Jonathan not giving him grandchildren, and the throne passing to David instead of to Saul's line, and therefore he tells Jonathan that he is hurting his mother as well as his father. This makes sense to me, particularly given that every other episode in the David/Jonathan story also emphasizes the physicality of the relationship. If you want me to persuade that this isn't the best reading, then you need to come up with some more coherent account.

[Menassa]

It's very simple.... Saul hates David.... Jonathon helps David.... Saul finds out..... Saul verbally attacks Jonathon.

Saul does not hate David for any reason except that Jonathan likes him. Saul attacks Jonathan by saying something that makes no sense. This is your version?

Now, what I have proposed is that the reason Saul hates the relationship between Jonathan and David is that it will likely end up with Jonathan not giving him grandchildren, and the throne passing to David instead of to Saul's line, and therefore he tells Jonathan that he is hurting his mother as well as his father. This makes sense to me, particularly given that every other episode in the David/Jonathan story also emphasizes the physicality of the relationship. If you want me to persuade that this isn't the best reading, then you need to come up with some more coherent account.

Saul hates David because he is Jealous that David is a better warrior and is afraid is he might usurp the throne.

Jonathon helped David, and he knew his father hated David.

The betrayed Saul verbally attacked Jonathon. "Yo mama's such a whore you should be ashamed."

This is the best explanation there is... if you find yourself at a loss of understanding.

Here's some pretty pictures.