Gay and Christian

[Lancaster of Wessex]

All right, let's just explain how you can be gay, bi, whatever, and still be a happy, loved, Christian.

It's really quite simple.

Does the Bible as a whole not smile on homosexuality? Yes.

Does the Bible consider homosexuality a sin? Yes.

Does the Bible also consider adultery, lust, theft, prostitution, swearing, lying, etc. sins? Yes.

Did Christ die for ALL sinners so that ALL may be forgiven and saved of ALL sins? YES.

So if an adulterer, a criminal, a liar can all be forgiven and loved - and Christ dined with prostitutes and tax collectors - He would this day dine with the same sorts of people, those who are persecuted and spat upon by society - including gays, and they too can be forgiven and loved.

End of story, and praise God for His love of ALL people.

It also basically says that when you turn to Christ you do not break the law.

God knows that's not realistic, try as we may. Why do you think we all repent and apologize for our sins every week in Church?

Because nobody is perfect.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Respectively, the Bible doesn't say, yes, and yes.

I have no idea if David and Jonathan were gay, or if they ever had sex. But it's not at all an unreasonable reading of the Bible to conclude that they might have been gay.



That is untrue. There is not a single passage in the Bible that declares homosexuality to be disgusting. There are a couple of disputed passages that can be read as declaring homosexual SEX to be disgusting, but that's not actually the same thing. (It's still stupid and I disagree with it, to be clear.)

I'm not a Christian, either, but I see no reason to support the worst elements of Christianity in hijacking a religion that is quite explicit about minding your own damn business and not being a dick to other people because you perceive them as being sexually immoral, and making it all about hating on gay people instead, and I find it stupid to suggest that "true Christians" should ignore things that Christ actually says in the Bible in favor of a couple of passages in Leviticus and the writings of Paul.

"I'm not a Christian, either, but I see no reason to support the worst elements of Christianity in hijacking a religion that is quite explicit about minding your own damn business and not being a dick to other people because you perceive them as being sexually immoral, and making it all about hating on gay people instead, and I find it stupid to suggest that "true Christians" should ignore things that Christ actually says in the Bible in favor of a couple of passages in Leviticus and the writings of Paul"

Clearly you dont understand teh Bible. He tells all his followers to follow Leviticus' teaching as it is the law. So your in favour of ignoring some of Christs actual teachings beacuse you dont like what they say. You pick and choose again.

No, I'm in favor of not particularly following the Bible in the first place. Hence "I'm not a Christian."

That said, if one is going to follow a book that repeatedly contradicts itself, the most reasonable way to do so seems to me to give specific instructions directly from the mouth of God precedence over things that are not specific instructions directly from the mouth of God. Further, absolutely every major Christian denomination holds that the Levitican laws need not be obeyed in their entirety, dating back to the very beginning of the Church. That's why Christians don't generally consider circumcision a sacrament or refuse to eat cheeseburgers. When Jesus is on the record saying, "Okay, you think this chick's sexually immoral, that's nice, and who here is perfect? No one? In that case, stop throwing rocks at her, douchebags," and when every father of the early Church is on the record saying, "You don't have to obey everything in Leviticus to be a Christian," it is frankly ridiculous to argue that "true Christians" should ignore those things and...well, be Jews, because that's what people who don't follow what Christ said and think you have to follow all the rules laid down in Leviticus are.

Of course, I also think you should be a reasonable human being in the first place, recognize that the Bible - whether or not it was divinely inspired - was written, edited, and compiled by normal, fallible men, with all their politics and their bias and their non-divine interests, and use your own judgment in deciding which bits of it actually sound like something a god worth worshiping would say. Perhaps the "truest" Christian is into raping women, paying their fathers some silver, and then forcing those women to marry him, but no one in their right mind thinks someone like that is a good person.

[Ravenvalles]

No one who gives birth is "sinful". The Bible doesn't use that word when describing the cleansing process.

Check the last line of Dakini's quoted passage:

12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

It's a known fact that women bleed after giving birth, and that their breast leak.

Strangely, there are no prohibitions regarding the ritual uncleanliness of wounded people or cows. If it were just a matter of blood and milk, those things would be "impure" and require shunning too, wouldn't you think?

Further, women do not bleed for MONTHS after giving birth, and they very definitely do not bleed twice as long when they have daughters as sons. The passage is very clear - giving birth is an "impure" act, and having a nasty icky GIRL is even worse.

This is why the law is dead people...because it was meant for Jews 3000 years ago.

In the post I was replying to, you claimed that there was nothing problematic about those Old Testament laws. Make up your mind. Either they're all hunky-dory or people are right to say that some of them are ridiculous, sexist, and dangerous.

Nowadays, you're still unclean abit, but much less so. You get to shower and put on a tampon. Than goodness Jesus cleared that up.

....no, you're not unclean by virtue of having had a daughter two months ago, not even a bit, and I'm pretty sure Jesus never once spoke about tampons. Good grief.

The period of purification after birth was just to keep her husband of her for a while. It is just good sense

[Ravenvalles]

They show the History of the Jews.

Leviticus doesn't really. It's just a bunch of rules which apparently became irrelevant.

It also includes such gems as

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

and

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Which are scientifically inaccurate (hares don't chew cud, bats aren't birds).

I do not know about hares, but rabbits chew cud.

[Eskandapolis]

Those who want to know how you can actually be a gay christian, google John Shore and you'll find a blog by some guy, go to where it says Gays and Lesbians/LGB or something like that, read it for some minutes, meditate and reflex, it may open your mind a little

Why does it always say "LGB" and not "LGBT"?

Cause he is talking about HOMO not TRANS-sexuality

[The Norwegian Blue]

Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 seem reasonably sexist to me, all that submission that I believe you now denounce.

First, there has to be one person who is responsible for making the final decision in any household.

No, there doesn't. You can act like adults and reach a consensus.

Second, it is tempered by the statement to love your wife as Christ loved the church.

That is SO not "tempering" it. That passage is one of the creepiest things ever. I adore my boyfriend, but my relationship with him is not even remotely comparable to humans' relationship with an omnipotent, omniscient god. He's just a guy. He's a wonderful guy, but he is not the guiding, all-powerful deity to my frail, fallible humanity. Ick.

The needs of men and women are different. A man craves respect, a woman craves love. If done right this satisfies both.

Most people actually like both in a relationship - go figure! The idea that women somehow don't want to be respected by their partners is sick, and the idea that men don't want to be loved is, if anything, even sicker.

Anything written by Paul concerning the relationships of men and women has to be taken with a grain of salt. Many scolars believe that he was probably latent homosexual (non-practicing), and a bit of a misogynist.

No kidding.

[Ceannairceach]

Why does it always say "LGB" and not "LGBT"?

Cause he is talking about HOMO not TRANS-sexuality

No, not on the blog--which I find both interesting and odd. I speak generally. With many Christians I speak to, they seem to never tack on the T. Its quite strange to me.

[Mosasauria]

As I have stated before, it's possible, and I have known a few.

[Ravenvalles]

How was church?

The patriarchal nature of the old testament religion (father worship) was suplanting the matriarcal religion (nature worship). So of course the woman would be submissive to the man. That is a common theme across the middle east and europe. Odin, Zeus, and Jehovah rose to power, the mother/wife was dominated.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

You notice it starts with women turning to women, that leads to men turning to men.

And what about (the Virgin) Mary or Mary Magdalene (in old Christianism), both were giving a f high place in Christianity, with Magdalene being considered (in early gospels) the superior of the disciples, in a role equal or superior to the one of Peter

Women had a better role in the Christian church than the old Jewish.

[Ravenvalles]

I'm not a Christian, either, but I see no reason to support the worst elements of Christianity in hijacking a religion that is quite explicit about minding your own damn business and not being a dick to other people because you perceive them as being sexually immoral, and making it all about hating on gay people instead, and I find it stupid to suggest that "true Christians" should ignore things that Christ actually says in the Bible in favor of a couple of passages in Leviticus and the writings of Paul.

I am a Christian, and I agree with this^

[Lancaster of Wessex]

As I have stated before, it's possible, and I have known a few.

Absolutely.

[Eskandapolis]

As I have stated before, it's possible, and I have known a few.

Absolutely.

I know of.... of... well I just know I'm a Christian and I'm bisexual

[Gagatron]

Absolutely.

I know of.... of... well I just know I'm a Christian and I'm bisexual

There seem to be many bisexual Christians here.

[Ravenvalles]

First, there has to be one person who is responsible for making the final decision in any household. Second, it is tempered by the statement to love your wife as Christ loved the church. That is love unconditionally, and if need be give your life for her. Love is when another's pleasure,security, and desires are very important to the individual. That is not being the boss, a man is expected to lead. no man worth having would want to boss his wife around. To me it is a very wise recommendation. The needs of men and women are different. A man craves respect, a woman craves love. If done right this satisfies both.

Anything written by Paul concerning the relationships of men and women has to be taken with a grain of salt. Many scolars believe that he was probably latent homosexual (non-practicing), and a bit of a misogynist.

I think you should re-read those passages.

I did
Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

Did you?

[Eskandapolis]

Cause he is talking about HOMO not TRANS-sexuality

No, not on the blog--which I find both interesting and odd. I speak generally. With many Christians I speak to, they seem to never tack on the T. Its quite strange to me.

Personally, I use LGB when I'm talking about something related to homosexuality/bisexuality and LGBT either for the movement (LGBT rights movement) as a movement or as an abreviation of LGBTTQQAA...
And I would say it's used in the same way by Christians as by nonchristians

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I know of.... of... well I just know I'm a Christian and I'm bisexual

There seem to be many bisexual Christians here.

For the record, I'm not lol I just defend and vigorously agree with the "you can be gay and Christian" idea, b/c it's 100% true if you know the meaning of Christ and what He stands for: love and forgiveness for all.

[Gagatron]

No, not on the blog--which I find both interesting and odd. I speak generally. With many Christians I speak to, they seem to never tack on the T. Its quite strange to me.

Personally, I use LGB when I'm talking about something related to homosexuality/bisexuality and LGBT either for the movement (LGBT rights movement) as a movement or as an abreviation of LGBTTQQAA...
And I would say it's used in the same way by Christians as by nonchristians

I'm not sure whether I support the transexual movement. I don't really understand it.

[Ceannairceach]

Personally, I use LGB when I'm talking about something related to homosexuality/bisexuality and LGBT either for the movement (LGBT rights movement) as a movement or as an abreviation of LGBTTQQAA...
And I would say it's used in the same way by Christians as by nonchristians

I'm not sure whether I support the transexual movement. I don't really understand it.

What don't you understand about it?

[Ravenvalles]

All right, let's just explain how you can be gay, bi, whatever, and still be a happy, loved, Christian.

It's really quite simple.

Does the Bible as a whole not smile on homosexuality? Yes.

Does the Bible consider homosexuality a sin? Yes.

Does the Bible also consider adultery, lust, theft, prostitution, swearing, lying, etc. sins? Yes.

Did Christ die for ALL sinners so that ALL may be forgiven and saved of ALL sins? YES.

So if an adulterer, a criminal, a liar can all be forgiven and loved - and Christ dined with prostitutes and tax collectors - He would this day dine with the same sorts of people, those who are persecuted and spat upon by society - including gays, and they too can be forgiven and loved.

End of story, and praise God for His love of ALL people.

It also basically says that when you turn to Christ you do not break the law.

That was Paul waffling. How do you tell people that they are free from the consequences of their actions and keep them from doing evil things. His solution was to tell the brethren, that they did not have to follow the law, but if they were born again they would want to act like they were bound by the law.

[South East Europe]

What does it have to do with you? If you dislike it, don't do it.

I disagree with others doing it too. And to be honest, if Gagatron and I are both Christians, the Bible says that I should reprimand him. *shrugs* That's my point. But I'm kind of...lasseiz-faire these days, so Gagatron can do what he wants. He just has to suffer the consequences.

We all sin and all sin is equal. Judge not lest ye be judged.

[Farnhamia]

Not a historian here, but... Yeah, undergarments have been around since Roman times I believe, so I think they were probably also around in early Jewish communities.

No, I think they were known for being naked behind their cloaks.

Bullshit. Once again, you demonstrate your astonishing lack of anything to do with women. Do you really think women went around "dripping on the ground while walking"? But wait ... you aren't even 16 yet. Why do I think you have any idea about how the adult world works, or did work, even 3,000 years ago?

Oh yeah, who was known for being naked under whose cloaks?

[Gagatron]

I'm not sure whether I support the transexual movement. I don't really understand it.

What don't you understand about it?

The purpose, the psychology...The general meaning behind dressing in the clothing of the opposite gender.

[Ceannairceach]

I disagree with others doing it too. And to be honest, if Gagatron and I are both Christians, the Bible says that I should reprimand him. *shrugs* That's my point. But I'm kind of...lasseiz-faire these days, so Gagatron can do what he wants. He just has to suffer the consequences.

We all sin and all sin is equal.

Another crime of God; judging all sin, from the smallest infraction to the largest crime, as equal.

[Ceannairceach]

What don't you understand about it?

The purpose, the psychology...The general meaning behind dressing in the clothing of the opposite gender.

Why do you wear 'boys' clothing?

[Gagatron]

The purpose, the psychology...The general meaning behind dressing in the clothing of the opposite gender.

Why do you wear 'boys' clothing?

Because if I wore girls clothing I'd look like a freak?