Are pro-gay Christians really Christian?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the response comes from Genesis were it says how the woman was made for the man.

The passage in Genesis gives Adam's decree as the reason that man and woman will "become one flesh"... is Adam infallible?

Also because they looked at the whole word of God and the whether or not homosexuality was approved by God was too obvious of a point to even come up.

In first-Century Judaism, perhaps, but the Bible describes Jesus declaring that quite a bit from first-Century Judaism was now changed. What makes you think that under the new covenant that homosexuality is considered a sin?

If that's the case then you look for other places in the Bible that mention homosexuality to get mor details on it, you're right sometimes one verse isn't enough to be conclusive.

Well, a few passage have been dealt with here that are usually pulled out by the anti-homosexuality crowd. Maybe you could discuss the passages you're thinking of.

Maybe so, but humans physical design also shows that men and woman are more easily attached.

Lots of other people, both heterosexual and homosexual, use different "attachment" points than the pair you're slyly referring to, and they seem to like them okay. Maybe you're just speaking from personal preference.

It's not and he didn't.

By "it's not", do you mean that homosexuals don't fall in love the same way that heterosexuals do? That seems to be quite a claim to make... what foundation do you have for it?

And by "he didn't", do you mean that God does not join homosexuals together? Is there any other source of love? The Bible strongly hints that there isn't, IMO.

No it just means that men and woman are designed for a unique kind of relationship, like I said if it is not conclusive you can go to other parts of the Bible to get more details, in Corinthians it says a man or woman can choose to be unmarried if they wish.

What you call "more details", some might call "contradictions". Fact of the matter is that if you choose to interpret the passage the way you have to in order to use it in a claim against homosexuality (i.e. that the joining of male and female is ordained and commanded by God, and nothing else is good or holy), then no living arrangement other than an individual man living married with an individual woman is acceptable. This condemns what Paul teaches in the Epistles, and the life of Jesus as described in the Gospels, which leads me to think that just maybe, your interpretation is incorrect.

I thought you said that just because other options weren't given doesn't mean they didn't exist.

By chopping up my quote, you got rid of the first part of my conditional statement. I was starting with your claim (i.e. that the passage you cited condemns homosexuality) and taking it to its logical conclusion.

If the man does cleave to someone it will be to his wife, but God gives an exception for those who wish to remain single which can be supported by other verses, however him cleaving to another man doesn't have any scriptual support but instead he is warned not to.

Ah... I see... you're using a different version of the Bible than is available to the rest of us. I trust that in yours, there's an extra line after "for this cause, he shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife" that goes something like "unless he feels like bumming around on his own for a bit."

Well I'm glad you at least believe that Jesus did choose that life for himself, the verse in Genesis shows man and womens complimentary design and it applies to all men and woman, however Adam was observing what the nature of what God created was, not giving a command from God, however to marry another man is both against nature and God's commands.Perhaps if these were the only passages I considered.

What do you mean by the conclusion that you drawing in your first sentence above? Are you referring to the Da Vinci Code-style allegations that Jesus married Mary Magdalene or something?

So... we're to trust the judgements and observations of the man who purportedly judged the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be good to eat, hmm?

"Against nature" is your own opinion, clearly. "Against God's commands" is still very much based in opinion (as well as based on a type of interpretation of the Bible that isn't common to all Christian denominations), but hopefully we can get something out of further discussion. You mentioned other passages - maybe you can talk about them further.

 

[roli]

Because Homosexual feelings are beyond one's control.

So that is the line of defense,that you take, or project on to those who are homosexual
I could'nt help it ,that's the thoughts and feelings that just entered into my mind.I was born that way,that justifies the practice but does not accurately assess the root cause
Maybe you should consider the outside influence,such as media ,tv etc,peer pressure or personal experential practices, lifestyles ,associations and even childhood break downs in the family unit that may have contributed to these feelings.
Maybe the key problem is man's perverse nature and society is the catalyst leading to indulgent,perverse ,greedy,selfish,angry,sensual pursuits.

Christianity in the true sense of the word ,that being follower's of Christ, do have their natures changed and their thoughts and feelings should follow.
Those who still live in or endorse those lifestyles may either have a shallow view of holiness and understanding of God's word ,maybe they are just merely religious or spiritual with an actual relationship with Christ .
Jesus talks much to those religious leaders who worshipped with their mouths ,but their lifes and heart were far from God.

Just a thought !!!

 

[roli]

One thing I have come to learn here on RF, is that homosexuality is not a choice. God made some folks that way. He also made people with violent tempers, alcoholics, and even child abusers.

Being Gay is not a sin no more than having a bad temper. People are going to make mistakes and everyone falls short of the grace of God. We must strive to control our urges and repent when we fail. People backslide all the time because we are not perfect. We are saved by grace and grace alone. All of us are sinners. Each and everyone of us have faults. We are not to judge one another and we cannot control how we are born or what urges we have inside us all. We cannot lead a perfect life and we all sin each and every day. Let us not shun the Lord because of this. Jesus paid the price for our sins and all we have to do is accept the gift of everlasting life from him. It cost nothing and we do not have to lead a perfect life.

I see no reason why a Gay person cannot see the kingdom of heaven and to think otherwise is unchristian.

I'm not sure what bible you read ,but I would encourage you to read 1 jOHN , where John talks about those who are "in " Christ do not sin ,that does not mean sinless perfection ,because he latter says' that if we say we have not sinned we lie ,but he goes on to say that the one who is in Christ and loves God will not sin ,meaning we will not ahve a desire to sin and when we do sin ,the Holy Spirit will convict us and bring us to our knees in repentance.
If there is no sensitivity or conviction of sin then one needs to really consider if they don't just have a title of Christian ,but have not the spirit of God.
The bible than says ,if you have not the spirit ,then you are not his.


The problem why you can't see that a gay person can't see the kingdom is because you are using your reason ,rather then the Holy Spirit to assure you of these things.

It seems to me that many people disregard purposelyfully and even ignorantly the presence and power of the Holy Spirit when they talk of Christianity ,for without him ,one's Christianity or religion according to scripture is only a form of Godliness
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
A true Christian does not follow the law for obedience ,but Christ ,for in him is the fullness of the law met.

Paul aslso mentions that who are we to judge those outside the faith ,we are only to judge those in the faith ,but only according to righteousness and only after we take the plank out of our own eyes

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A lot to deal with here, but I'll just respond to one point before I have to run:

Paul aslso mentions that who are we to judge those outside the faith ,we are only to judge those in the faith ,but only according to righteousness and only after we take the plank out of our own eyes

Interesting interpretation. I assume you're speaking about the passage in Romans where Paul asks "who are you to judge the servant of another?" In my reading, I see it as fairly clearly speaking out against anyone who judges someone who is not their own servant... judging other servants of God seems to be prohibited: your fellow Christians, i.e. "servants of God", are "the servants of another"... unless you are God, of course.

In any case, I'm not so sure of your foundation for claiming that you are allowed to judge fellow Christians.

 

[Smoke]

Maybe you should consider the outside influence,such as media ,tv etc,peer pressure or personal experential practices, lifestyles ,associations and even childhood break downs in the family unit that may have contributed to these feelings.

Television and other media: Yeah, they were so gay-positive in the 1960s. Right. Peer pressure. Freaking peer pressure? You insult your readers; only a moron would believe that. LIfestyles and associations? You mean reading, watching cartoons, or going to church? You'd have to be more specific; as it stands, it doesn't really mean anything. I do have gay relatives, but I never met any of them till long after I knew I was gay. Personal experiential practices? Wrong again! Never did any sexual experimentation with males (or females either) until years after I knew I was gay. Childhood breakdowns in the family unit. Let's see: my parents are still married, none of my aunts or uncles or neighbors was divorced, but it's the only thing on your list that's worth considering, so let's think about it: Could it be ...

Yes! I think that's it! My family unit broke down every day when I was a child! My father actually used to leave us, almost every day! He would run off to his job at the National Cash Register Company, as many as five days a week, leaving Mom and me alone.

You're an absolute genius! You've hit on the true cause of homosexuality! I'll bet, if you did a study, you'd find that a majority of homosexuals from my generation had a parent who worked outside the house! Oh, my God, you need to publish this! You'll be the toast of the psychological profession! All your long hours of careful reflection on homosexuality will be rewarded!

How fortunate am I, how blessed, to have read your brilliant, insightful, tightly-reasoned thoughts!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How fortunate am I, how blessed, to have read your brilliant, insightful, tightly-reasoned thoughts!

Actually I think that it's regurgitated homophobic propaganda.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are two issues here:
1) If you don't follow the Bible then you aren't Christian
2) If you follow the Bible then it is necessary to believe that homosexuality is wrong

Also, since in any homosexuality thread semantic arguments will abound, I want to draw everyone's attention to the multiple definitions of homosexuality:
1) An attraction (romantic and/or sexual) to people of the same sex
2) Sex with people of the same sex

So, what do you think?

I'll defer to the best book that I've read on the subject. It's a compilation of essays written by biblical interpreters called Homosexuality, Science, and the 'Plain Sense' of Scripture. In it, Balch concludes that Christians accept homosexuality and homosexual acts as legitimate expressions of human love not on the basis of interpreting biblical texts regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts but on compassion for fellow human beings.

The Bible's treatment of homosexuality is just as much a product of its economy, misguided biology, and family structures as any other writing, and it's insane to believe that the Bible gives a timeless theological basis for everything else in its ancient culture. That is, if Christians are against homosexuality (etc) today, then we are inconsistent if we do not wear the same clothes, have the same economy (eg, slaves and children working), and exactly the same family structures, technology, and laws as the first century. Seeing as we've made some progress since then, we should also abandon everything else that has made the lives of people absolutely miserable.

 

[roli]

A lot to deal with here, but I'll just respond to one point before I have to run:


Interesting interpretation. I assume you're speaking about the passage in Romans where Paul asks "who are you to judge the servant of another?" In my reading, I see it as fairly clearly speaking out against anyone who judges someone who is not their own servant... judging other servants of God seems to be prohibited: your fellow Christians, i.e. "servants of God", are "the servants of another"... unless you are God, of course.

In any case, I'm not so sure of your foundation for claiming that you are allowed to judge fellow Christians.

I am talking about judging according to the flesh by mere appearance, and based on some self attained authority as if I were a judge ,but according to the standard Jesus and Paul speak of in 1Cr 5:13 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person

Paul here says if he continues to sin he is to be expelled
Matt 18 Jesus is saying warn him ,the evil person,confront him hold him accountable ,if he does not listen .cast him out

Peter speaks in 1Pe 4:17
For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Jesus speaks of it to religious rulers,this is a rule of thumb for beleivers ,how else could Paul judge those inside
Jhn 7:24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

[Autodidact]

So that is the line of defense,that you take, or project on to those who are homosexual
I could'nt help it ,that's the thoughts and feelings that just entered into my mind.I was born that way,that justifies the practice but does not accurately assess the root cause
Maybe you should consider the outside influence,such as media ,tv etc,peer pressure or personal experential practices, lifestyles ,associations and even childhood break downs in the family unit that may have contributed to these feelings.
Maybe the key problem is man's perverse nature and society is the catalyst leading to indulgent,perverse ,greedy,selfish,angry,sensual pursuits.

Christianity in the true sense of the word ,that being follower's of Christ, do have their natures changed and their thoughts and feelings should follow.
Those who still live in or endorse those lifestyles may either have a shallow view of holiness and understanding of God's word ,maybe they are just merely religious or spiritual with an actual relationship with Christ .
Jesus talks much to those religious leaders who worshipped with their mouths ,but their lifes and heart were far from God.

Just a thought !!!

Stop and think, roli, about "media ,tv etc,peer pressure or personal experential practices, lifestyles ,associations and even childhood break downs in the family unit". They are all strongly heterosexual. And despite the strong heterosexual influence from all these different directions, some people are homosexual.

I do not believe that homosexuality requires a defense. On the contrary, I believe it is a morally neutral or beneficial behavior. It is neither "indulgent,perverse ,greedy,selfish,angry," or even necessarily "sensual." .The question in the thread is whether you think that Christianity prohibits it. As I have pointed out, neither Christianity nor Judaism prohibit lesbian behavior.

One problem you have with the position that Christianity does prohibit it, is the obvious fact that God seems to have created homosexuals, and who are we to question His divine purpose in doing so?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As I have pointed out, neither Christianity nor Judaism prohibit lesbian behavior.

I'm not sure why this myth is still being propogated.

As for the NT, Romans 1 clearly lumps lesbianism together with male homosexuality, exactly as other Greco-Romans did.

Romans 1:24-27 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[roli]

Television and other media: Yeah, they were so gay-positive in the 1960s. Right. Peer pressure. Freaking peer pressure? You insult your readers; only a moron would believe that. LIfestyles and associations? You mean reading, watching cartoons, or going to church? You'd have to be more specific; as it stands, it doesn't really mean anything. I do have gay relatives, but I never met any of them till long after I knew I was gay. Personal experiential practices? Wrong again! Never did any sexual experimentation with males (or females either) until years after I knew I was gay. Childhood breakdowns in the family unit. Let's see: my parents are still married, none of my aunts or uncles or neighbors was divorced, but it's the only thing on your list that's worth considering, so let's think about it: Could it be ...

Yes! I think that's it! My family unit broke down every day when I was a child! My father actually used to leave us, almost every day! He would run off to his job at the National Cash Register Company, as many as five days a week, leaving Mom and me alone.

You're an absolute genius! You've hit on the true cause of homosexuality! I'll bet, if you did a study, you'd find that a majority of homosexuals from my generation had a parent who worked outside the house! Oh, my God, you need to publish this! You'll be the toast of the psychological profession! All your long hours of careful reflection on homosexuality will be rewarded!

How fortunate am I, how blessed, to have read your brilliant, insightful, tightly-reasoned thoughts!

So what your saying is that there were absolutely no influences in all of society and your circle of influence that may have contributed to your " choice " to be gay.
There is no proof of gay genes, you might as well rule that out,a man has a male organ ,his purpose is self explanatory, likewise a woman.
Anything else ,as I have seen ,but not personally encountered in my past lifetsyle practices where perversions of what was meant to be natural where so apparent, please just read some stats on gay men and there quality of living.

It's intersting what some seem to exploit as natural ,evidence says differently regarding disease, certain conditions with gay men, such as, not to mention aids but also those who I have read about who have to wear diapers because they can't control the muscles around the , FOR lack of better terms. Sphincter .

So what your saying is you were born to naturally have sex with men and therefore be gay,then you must also be saying the disease and aids and diaper thing is also natural ,you can't have it both ways.

Talk to a doctor and you will see that everything about homosexuality is contrary to nature and bodily functions,but of course they have it wrong and your reason and logic have it right .


Listen , in the past I had a very indulgent lifestyle, where I lived quite vicariously and was involved with numerous activities that where vehemently opposed to the mainstream ,oh natuarl .!!! which by the way include women only, but not to say I never had homosexual thoughts, but that was rooted from the perversion that I was around and personally involved with ,just because I had the thoughts It did'nt mean that I was suppose to indulge in everything that I notioned in my thoughts.
We all have some pretty twisted and perverted thoughts that if we could read some minds of people who we knew ,we would be very shocked as to what we would find

When I opened myself to such lifestlye practices many things followed that influenced my thought process ,but everything I did ,whether ,under the influence or sober ,was my choice,why ? because it either was my means of venting my deep anger and rage or me venting my pain through sexual and perverted practices ,all of these where choices and all of these where forms of escapisms, in hind sight looking back ,which is always 20/20
I made sexual choices ,as we all do, anthingelse would be denial, we are resposible for our choices ,someday ,somwhere ,somehow we will expereince the consequences

If logic should accept such reasoning then we are in trouble and have opened the door to an influx of sexual practices among other choices ,why should it stop at homosexuality, i was born to be a pedophile , I was born to have sex when and where and how I want. I was born to rob banks , use people etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure why this myth is still being propogated.

As for the NT, Romans 1 clearly lumps lesbianism together with male homosexuality, exactly as other Greco-Romans did.

That interpretation is only clear if you start with the assumption that "natural" is heterosexual and "unnatural" is homosexual.

I think it's just as reasonable to assume that "natural" means just that: a person's natural orientation (which would therefore be where a person would look for romantic companionship), and "unnatural" would mean activities that were entered into for the sake of lust and physical gratification alone.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

man has a male organ ,his purpose is self explanatory

Quite so.

I don't think that there's much debate about what one is supposed to do with a penis. Homosexuals have been getting just as much pleasure out of it - or more - as heteros for quite some time now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That interpretation is only clear if you start with the assumption that "natural" is heterosexual and "unnatural" is homosexual.

Quite right, and any other assumption is completely baseless.

You may not know that Greek writers from Aristotle to Plutarch (a contemporary of Paul) referred to homosexual acts in precisely the same terms. See my thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/47922-some-notes-paul-homosexuality.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what your saying is that there were absolutely no influences in all of society and your circle of influence that may have contributed to your " choice " to be gay.
There is no proof of gay genes, you might as well rule that out,a man has a male organ ,his purpose is self explanatory, likewise a woman. Anything else ,as I have seen ,but not personally encountered in my past lifetsyle practices where perversions of what was meant to be natural, please just read some stats on gay men and there quality of living.

Just so you can see the inflammatory nature of what you're writing, consider the same approach to something closer to your heart:

So what you're saying is that there were absolutely no influences in all of society and your circle of influence that may have contributed to your "choice" to be Christian.

There is no proof of Christian genes. [edited out a bit of rambling here... if you want to rephrase your point better, feel free]. Please just read some stats on religious belief and its relation to quality of living.

Actually, your claim that there is no evidence of "gay genes" is false: I'll have to do some digging to re-find it, but there is quite a bit of scientific evidence linking homosexuality and genetics, and quite a bit more that shows that orientation is at the very least fixed before birth (which could either be a consequence of genetics or in utero environment, but still negates the idea that orientation is chosen or learned).

And what I said about religion and quality of living is true. If you'd like, I can find that graph of national religious adherence vs. GDP.

I made sexual choices ,as we all do, anything other than that is denial.

So then, you specifically and continually choose not to be gay?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what you're saying is that there were absolutely no influences in all of society and your circle of influence that may have contributed to your "choice" to be Christian.

There is no proof of Christian genes. [edited out a bit of rambling here... if you want to rephrase your point better, feel free]. Please just read some stats on religious belief and its relation to quality of living.

I see your point here, but I think that it would be more logically consistent if you applied it to heterosexuality rather than the choice to be Christian.

Actually, your claim that there is no evidence of "gay genes" is false: I'll have to do some digging to re-find it, but there is quite a bit of scientific evidence linking homosexuality and genetics, and quite a bit more that shows that orientation is at the very least fixed before birth (which could either be a consequence of genetics or in utero environment, but still negates the idea that orientation is chosen or learned).


So then, you specifically and continually choose not to be gay?

I wonder if heterosexuality is supported by genetics as well, or if it is a rather clumsy and artless pointing at the genitalia and saying that heterosexuality is the only way because it produces children. The paradox, of course, is that there is pleasure involved in many types of sexual contact that don't produce children, and that would need to be explained too - there are at least two completely unrelated functions of sexual touch: reproduction and pleasure.

These two purposes have confused religious leaders for some time. :biglaugh:

 

[roli]

I'm not sure why this myth is still being propogated.

As for the NT, Romans 1 clearly lumps lesbianism together with male homosexuality, exactly as other Greco-Romans did.

Romans 1:24-27 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

But those who are pro gay and who do not see the technical and actual term "homosexuality or lesbianism " in these and other contexts ,and therefore conclude that is was never mentioned in scripture,
I must conclude it really is nothing more than wilful ignorance and a bias defense at best

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see your point here, but I think that it would be more logically consistent if you applied it to heterosexuality rather than the choice to be Christian.

I chose religion on purpose, mainly to demonstrate that the mere fact that something is genetic or not does not automatically determine its importance or whether it is "natural" or "unnatural" (especially when a moral judgement is based on this determination).

i.e. if not having a genetic cause would make homosexuality "unnatural" or immoral, then we must also recognize that religion does not have a genetic cause either and apply our principles consistently.

Personally, I think that the entire argument that homosexuality shouldn't be protected because it is a "choice" is based on faulty reasoning, even disregarding for the moment the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Society protects lots of things that are choices, from religion to political affiliation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I chose religion on purpose, mainly to demonstrate that the mere fact that something is genetic or not does not automatically determine its importance or whether it is "natural" or "unnatural" (especially when a moral judgement is based on this determination).

i.e. if not having a genetic cause would make homosexuality "unnatural" or immoral, then we must also recognize that religion does not have a genetic cause either and apply our principles consistently.

Personally, I think that the entire argument that homosexuality shouldn't be protected because it is a "choice" is based on faulty reasoning, even disregarding for the moment the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Society protects lots of things that are choices, from religion to political affiliation.

I agree.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not sure why this myth is still being propogated.

As for the NT, Romans 1 clearly lumps lesbianism together with male homosexuality, exactly as other Greco-Romans did.

Romans 1:24-27 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Because it's true. This is the only (possible, depending on interpretation) of lesbianism anywhere in either testament. It is not a prohibition. For heaven's sakes, the Bible knows how to prohibit things: "Thou shalt not X; punishment for X is death." It is an historical description. And that's it. Period. All other mentions of homosexuality anywhere else are Greek or Hebrew words that clearly refer only to male-male relations, often consort or prostitution type relationships, and never include or refer to women in any way. Those are the facts. If you believe that female-female relationships are somewhere prohibited in the Bible, please cite the passage prohibiting them.

I say interpretation because it is not at all clear even from this translation what natural or unnatural relations were meant to be. It's not spelled out as the men's actions in the following statement are.

Now, bear in mind, Jesus explicitly and repeatedly prohibits divorce. No ambiguity, no translation issues. The OT explicity and repeatedly prohibits eating this, that, and the other, wearing this, working then, etc. etc. Thousands of pages. 613 commandments in the OT alone. And nowhere, never, not once a prohibition of lesbianism. Ever. It's clearly either permitted or, let's face it, not contemplated. Women didn't matter to the authors except in relation to men, which lesbians aren't.

This does not prevent hypocritical and heretical Christians, many of them divorced, and all of them eating their Barbecue pork ribs, from condemning it. Clearly, they have no problem for substituting their own prejudice for the actual commandments of their purported God.