Are pro-gay Christians really Christian?

[Smoke]

2) Christians interpret biblical text differently. As more of a literalist when it comes to biblical text...I personally believe that homosexual activity isn't smiled upon by God. The world "abomination" is used within the Bible to describe homosexual acts. I personally couldn't biblically justify acting upon my attraction and desires for women.

Dawny, the Bible doesn't use that word to describe homosexual acts between females, just males.

 

[Autodidact]

Dawny, the Bible doesn't use that word to describe homosexual acts between females, just males.

Although out of a spirit of solidarity with your gay male Christian friends, you could forego lesbianism anyway.

 

[Sonic247]

A plain contradiction of your scriptures. "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Specifically, "the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." What was meet for Adam may not be meet for me.

That's a medieval legend that is not found in either the Bible or the Talmud.

Are you serious, it's talking about how Adam was made first then Eve to be his wife. But that doesn't mean men and woman weren't designed to be together-

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

Notice it doesn't say "wife or husband", if people want to say God thinks it's ok to be gay then go right ahead, but don't say the Bible supports your heresy.

 

[Smoke]

Are you serious, it's talking about how Adam was made first then Eve to be his wife. But that doesn't mean men and woman weren't designed to be together-

The New Testament plainly says -- and I quoted it -- that the woman was made for the man, and not the man for the woman. But if you don't believe the New Testament, that's no skin off my back.

Notice it doesn't say "wife or husband", if people want to say God thinks it's ok to be gay then go right ahead, but don't say the Bible supports your heresy.

I hope you're equally zealous about informing churches that allow divorce and remarriage that they're heretical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Notice it doesn't say "wife or husband", if people want to say God thinks it's ok to be gay then go right ahead, but don't say the Bible supports your heresy.

Ignoring (as you did) the fact that your quoted passage was part of a direct response to the question "is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" and should therefore, IMO, be read in that context, the passage leaves no more room for living as a bachelor than it does for being gay. Is it "heresy" to say that it's all right for a man to live on his own as a single person?


Or... is it more reasonable to conclude that Jesus was specifically talking about heterosexual married couples, and anything else (e.g. bachelors, same-sex couples, etc.) falls outside the limits of the discussion?

 

[UnTheist]

One word: Cherry-picking.

 

[lilithu]

One word: Cherry-picking.

Hey, I like cherries!

 

[Deut 13:1]

Acording to Deuteronomy 6:4 G-d is One and Only One. Does that mean you're not a christian since you don't follow the bible?

 

[sojourner]

In the title, I use pro-gay to refer to people who believe that either of the definitions of homosexuality on this thread are either "good" or "okay" (ie just not "wrong" or "sinful") in some situations.

Inspired by the following comment which was posted in the thread Christian: Homosexuality a sin? I don't think who said it is relevant to the debate but if they want me to and ask, I'll cite them as the source.


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 don't think it's up to any human being to judge whether or not one is "Christian." The first two enumerated points are garbage. The last two enumerated points only show that even many "real Christians" can't decide just what it is that is so deserving of the death penalty, as far as the Bible is concerned. Until there is solid consensus, what business do they have making those kinds of rash decisions?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Leviticus 18-22

Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Leviticus 20-13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


Romans 1-26,27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned with in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and received in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Deuteronomy 22-5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

1 Corinthians 6-9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not decieved: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Matthew 7-1,2

DO NOT judge, or you too will be judged. For the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it, it will be measured to you.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

 

[Autodidact]

Rick: That's a handy reference, thanks. Did you have a point or position as well?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick: That's a handy reference, thanks. Did you have a point or position as well?

Are you saying that I did not address the OP? Would you have prefered a simple yes?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, not in that post. I mean, O.K., there's some scriptures. As a conclusion, your position on the OP is: ?
(You may have addressed this earlier--I didn't review.)

 

[lizskid]

In the title, I use pro-gay to refer to people who believe that either of the definitions of homosexuality on this thread are either "good" or "okay" (ie just not "wrong" or "sinful") in some situations.

Inspired by the following comment which was posted in the thread Christian: Homosexuality a sin? I don't think who said it is relevant to the debate but if they want me to and ask, I'll cite them as the source.


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?

While you're setting parameters for Christianity, which version of the Bible is the correct one? The ones on the shelves now, KJV, NIV, Stan Revised, or the one before they inserted that famous "abomination" word? You know it never says the word sin in relationship to homosexuality. There are also some questionable same sex relationships in that same Bible.

I am Christian, raised in the Presbyterian denomination, famous for Amendment B or not allowing gays to be pastors or lay leaders in their churches for several years. I attended a Pres. seminary for a while and EVERY prof I had there told me in no uncertain terms that historical perspective, social issues of the times of various editing of the Bible, and incorrect translations of original manuscripts lead to a trail that makes them say it is not a sin...something I might not have expected there in that setting.

So, to answer your question, yes, I AM a Christian, a follower of the teaching of Christ (which by the way was all about love and salvation for EVERYONE>>>>that was everyone!). God is everyone's parent and made some of His children gay, it can't be a sin. Praise God.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you saying that I did not address the OP? Would you have prefered a simple yes?

Oops, now I see you had addressed the OP, I was looking at one post only. Please accept my apology.

 

[Sonic247]

Ignoring (as you did) the fact that your quoted passage was part of a direct response to the question "is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" and should therefore, IMO, be read in that context, the passage leaves no more room for living as a bachelor than it does for being gay. Is it "heresy" to say that it's all right for a man to live on his own as a single person?


Or... is it more reasonable to conclude that Jesus was specifically talking about heterosexual married couples, and anything else (e.g. bachelors, same-sex couples, etc.) falls outside the limits of the discussion?

But he was quoting from Genesis were it says that a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And they will be one flesh, Adam was not only talking about himself but for the people who would be born after him, and Jesus saying "Have you not read he which made them from the beginning made them male and female" which implies by itself that there is a diffrence between males and females that makes the suited for marrying eachother. If it was equally likely that the people that would be born could marry either the same or opposite sex he would have said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to another. And to it's clear that there is a diffrence in males and females and that they are designed for eachother, they compliment eachother, I don't want to sound like I endorse taoism but it's kind of like yin and yang, to me there is something obviously diffrent between a straight and gay relationship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But he was quoting from Genesis were it says that a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And they will be one flesh, Adam was not only talking about himself but for the people who would be born after him, and Jesus saying "Have you not read he which made them from the beginning made them male and female" which implies by itself that there is a diffrence between males and females that makes the suited for marrying eachother. If it was equally likely that the people that would be born could marry either the same or opposite sex he would have said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to another.

First, as I mentioned before, the response specifically addresses men divorcing women. It's taken as given that all the people that both the Pharisees and Jesus are referring to are heterosexuals in opposite-sex marriages because of the way the question was framed. The fact that Jesus didn't specifically mention other permissible living arrangmements doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that they aren't relevant to the conversation at hand.

Second, how do you think God joins a man and woman together? Personally, I'd argue it's through love, if anything... and if this love is present in same-sex couples, who are you to argue with it? As it says later in the passage you quoted, "therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And to it's clear that there is a diffrence in males and females and that they are designed for eachother, they compliment eachother, I don't want to sound like I endorse taoism but it's kind of like yin and yang, to me there is something obviously diffrent between a straight and gay relationship.

So, back to my other point: if man and woman are meant to complement each other as you say, then it's just as contrary to God's design to be single as it is to be gay, and Jesus' words, when read literally, give only two options: living with parents or living with a spouse. If this can be used as you have to condemn same-sex marriage (or same-sex living arrangements), why should it not condemn just as much those who live as bachelors?

If you contend that "a man" and "a woman" in Genesis 2:24 and in Mark refers to "all men" and "all women", then it logically follows from your position that every single person has been given a duty by God to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. No other options are allowed, including the life of unmarried chastity that Paul later advocates in his Epistles (as well as the life that Jesus chose for Himself!).

However, if you're willing (as I suspect you are) to concede that it is not an abominable sin for a man to live unmarried for some time after he leaves his parents, then you must also concede that this passage is not the absolute prohibition on non-opposite-sex-marriage living arrangements that you make it out to be.

 

[Sonic247]

First, as I mentioned before, the response specifically addresses men divorcing women.

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

It's taken as given that all the people that both the Pharisees and Jesus are referring to are heterosexuals in opposite-sex marriages because of the way the question was framed.

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.

The fact that Jesus didn't specifically mention other permissible living arrangmements doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that they aren't relevant to the conversation at hand.

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.

Second, how do you think God joins a man and woman together? Personally, I'd argue it's through love, if anything...

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

and if this love is present in same-sex couples, who are you to argue with it? As it says later in the passage you quoted, "therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It's not and he didn't.

So, back to my other point: if man and woman are meant to complement each other as you say, then it's just as contrary to God's design to be single as it is to be gay,

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.

and Jesus' words, when read literally, give only two options: living with parents or living with a spouse.

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

If this can be used as you have to condemn same-sex marriage (or same-sex living arrangements), why should it not condemn just as much those who live as bachelors?

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.

If you contend that "a man" and "a woman" in Genesis 2:24 and in Mark refers to "all men" and "all women", then it logically follows from your position that every single person has been given a duty by God to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. No other options are allowed, including the life of unmarried chastity that Paul later advocates in his Epistles (as well as the life that Jesus chose for Himself!).

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.

However, if you're willing (as I suspect you are) to concede that it is not an abominable sin for a man to live unmarried for some time after he leaves his parents, then you must also concede that this passage is not the absolute prohibition on non-opposite-sex-marriage living arrangements that you make it out to be

Perhaps if these were the only passages I considered.

 

[Autodidact]

However, as I said, for two women to love each other violates nothing. Go figure.