• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can any true Christian not accept a gay Bishop?

Ordeet

Member
This thread is a direct counter-attack to the thread with the opposite name.

To be a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ. Jesus never said one word about homosexuality being wrong, but he did say, "love your neighbor" not "hate your neighbor because he is different". In that respect, the gay or lesbian Christians are better Christians as they are not the ones spewing hatred.

Also since Christians take the Bible to be unerring, there are THREE examples of same-sex relationships in the Bible: They appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship. The individuals are: Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.

Interpretation: Biblical Scholars believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are:

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.


1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."


1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.


1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.


1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Daniel and Ashpenaz

Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.

Various English translations differ greatly:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)

Also, please read this link and learn its premises:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
 

Duck

Well-Known Member
Don't hold your breath for any changes from the right wingers.

I mean Obviously, those phrases between Ruth and Naomi are TOTALLY allegorical and completely refer to just the fact that they were really close friends who hadn't found the right guy yet. I mean, didn't you swear undying love for and to follow your high school quarterback where ever he went, all in a completely hetero NOT gay way? And if you did and your relationship was like that of David and Jonathan, it would TOTALLY be normal for one or the other of you to completely strip naked with the other, right, I mean of course in a completely hetero way like at the TOTALLY NOT gay showers right? :rolleyes:

/snark
 

Hyperborean

Cultural Conservative
Ordeet,

What's it to you? You're a Hindu. Why do you care what Christians believe anyhow? Does Hinduism teach you to interfere with other people's beliefs?
 

Ordeet

Member
Ordeet,

What's it to you? You're a Hindu. Why do you care what Christians believe anyhow? Does Hinduism teach you to interfere with other people's beliefs?

Because I believe in real justice. Because as a human being, I care about how all my fellow human beings are treated. Because I reject your Islamic taqiyya and believe in equality, truth and fairness. Because I think that human rights are paramount. And because I agree that, according to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere".

Does Islam teach you to interfere with other people's human rights?
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
The question is "who did Jesus teach?" Jesus taught tax collectors, prostitutes, a woman who been married five times, and a host of such things. So even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then even more so should that person be a follower of Jesus. If homosexuality is not a sin, then the same can be said. Christians believe we all have sin. :)
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
A focus on the Chrsitian doctrines of calling and grace would be more productive than the texts presented in the OP.

The nature of the Christian Gospel will dictate who is qualified to administer it.
 

Ordeet

Member
A focus on the Chrsitian doctrines of calling and grace would be more productive than the texts presented in the OP.

The nature of the Christian Gospel will dictate who is qualified to administer it.

Can you please explain this more?

I am not a Christian, and the best I can do is read the Bible and draw textual conclusions from it. I wonder how many Christians actually know that Jesus preached tolerance for all as the highest virtue of mankind? That he said "thou shalt not judge, let ye be judged"?

Who can really say that he is perfect. I mean, I'm sure that there is not a single person here who has never told a lie, cheated on a test, or perhaps even stolen something. Those are all actions which indirectly harm others. Yet being gay doesn't harm anyone any more than, say, wearing blue jeans. But there are Christians who think it is wrong merely because they need a scapegoat.

If anything, Christians need to focus on the HETEROSEXUAL MEN who are perpetrating child abuse, or the people like Bishop Richardson and Mel Gibson who deny the Holocaust or hold extremist views (not that mainstream Catholicism isn't extreme enough).
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Ordeet,

What's it to you? You're a Hindu. Why do you care what Christians believe anyhow? Does Hinduism teach you to interfere with other people's beliefs?


Everyone lives in the same world. It is everyone's duty to be aware of others' beliefs and to understand them to the best of their ability.

That is the only way of reaching some sort of understanding, and without understanding it is not possible to have true respect.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Don't hold your breath for any changes from the right wingers.

I mean Obviously, those phrases between Ruth and Naomi are TOTALLY allegorical and completely refer to just the fact that they were really close friends who hadn't found the right guy yet. I mean, didn't you swear undying love for and to follow your high school quarterback where ever he went, all in a completely hetero NOT gay way? And if you did and your relationship was like that of David and Jonathan, it would TOTALLY be normal for one or the other of you to completely strip naked with the other, right, I mean of course in a completely hetero way like at the TOTALLY NOT gay showers right? :rolleyes:

/snark

Er, I'm pretty sure that Ruth and Naomi wouldn't have been homosexual, considering that they would have been put to death if they were found out, not to mention that Ruth later remarried. And that Naomi was like Ruth's mother or something (I think... I forget what she was, but she was family), and incest was also given the death penalty in ancient Israel.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Can you please explain this more?

I am not a Christian, and the best I can do is read the Bible and draw textual conclusions from it. I wonder how many Christians actually know that Jesus preached tolerance for all as the highest virtue of mankind? That he said "thou shalt not judge, let ye be judged"?

Who can really say that he is perfect. I mean, I'm sure that there is not a single person here who has never told a lie, cheated on a test, or perhaps even stolen something. Those are all actions which indirectly harm others. Yet being gay doesn't harm anyone any more than, say, wearing blue jeans. But there are Christians who think it is wrong merely because they need a scapegoat.

If anything, Christians need to focus on the HETEROSEXUAL MEN who are perpetrating child abuse, or the people like Bishop Richardson and Mel Gibson who deny the Holocaust or hold extremist views (not that mainstream Catholicism isn't extreme enough).
"Any honest reading of the Bible makes it clear that it takes sins like greed, hatred, and lack of compassion much more seriously than [it takes homosexuality]..." -- placher; Jesus, the Savior; p 100
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Can you please explain this more?

I am not a Christian, and the best I can do is read the Bible and draw textual conclusions from it. I wonder how many Christians actually know that Jesus preached tolerance for all as the highest virtue of mankind? That he said "thou shalt not judge, let ye be judged"?

The nature of the Gospel determines its minister.

That is, our understanding // misunderstanding of the nature of the Gospel determines who we will ordain to carry out its ministry.

Like you hint above... you think that tolerance is the highest value of mankind - that's your understanding of the Gospel, so acceptance of homosexuality is ok.

I understand the Gospel as the redemption of humanity through suffering - turn the other cheek, give without charging interest, forgiving others, etc. The power is not in tolerance but in acceptance and peace from a heart that is vulnerable.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
all i can say is that as Jesus was a follower of the Mosaic law, he also accepted the laws as they were. The laws against homosexual activity are undeniable.

Leviticus 20:13 “When a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.”

The christians maintained their belief that the practice of homosexuality (and other forms of sexual misconduct) was against Gods will at
Romans 1:26-28 26 "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting"

So i really cant see how a christian could justify the idea that homosexuality is permitted in christianity. Christianity is about following Jesus and living by Gods standards of morality. Gods view is what a christian needs to take into consideration.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Er, I'm pretty sure that Ruth and Naomi wouldn't have been homosexual, considering that they would have been put to death if they were found out, not to mention that Ruth later remarried. And that Naomi was like Ruth's mother or something (I think... I forget what she was, but she was family), and incest was also given the death penalty in ancient Israel.

Naomi was Ruths mother in law.

Ruth was married to one of Naomi's sons and after he had died...along with Naomi's husband and her other son, they travelled together back to Judah to live. Initially Naomi tried to prevent Ruth from coming to Judah but Ruth spoke those beautiful words 'where you go I shall go and where you stay I shall stay, your people will become my people...' because she had developed a very close bond with her mother in law.


they certainly were not in a romantic relationship lol
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
So i really cant see how a christian could justify the idea that homosexuality is permitted in Christianity.

I don't see how a christian could justify the idea that people can remarry after divorce, but it is all to common in many churches today.

How do you feel about disrespectful children, eating shellfish, and gluttons?

It's not that I am promoting homosexuality, I just see the blatant hypocrisy in many churches today.

Why single out homosexuals while looking the other way on second and third marriages?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I don't see how a christian could justify the idea that people can remarry after divorce, but it is all to common in many churches today.

How do you feel about disrespectful children, eating shellfish, and gluttons?

It's not that I am promoting homosexuality, I just see the blatant hypocrisy in many churches today.

Why single out homosexuals while looking the other way on second and third marriages?

yeah well i think you're right, the church's do turn a blind eye to many of the immoralities that the NT condemns...except for homosexuality which does seem unfair. Im pretty sure they'll be held to account for that considering they are supposed to be leading the flock of God 'in their care'

with regard to remarriage, there are 2 circumstances in which it is perfectly acceptable for a christian to remarry. The first obvious condition is if the spouse dies...then the widow is free to remarry.
The second is in the case that either mate committed adultery, then the innocent mate was free to remarry as Jesus said in Matthew 5:31:32 "I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, EXCEPT ON ACCOUNT OF FORNICATION, makes her a subject for adultery"

It shows just how much God hates adultery...he makes the allowance for divorce in this case even though he 'hates' (Malachi 2:16) divorces.

In Gods eyes, if its adultery or fornication or a liar or greedy person or a murderer...they will all equally be punished for these things. Gods view is not mans view...obviously man views homosexuality as worse then any other sin but thats simply not the case. And if the church's were trully being led by the holy spirit then they would uphold Gods view on such matters.
 

McBell

Unbound
In Gods eyes, if its adultery or fornication or a liar or greedy person or a murderer...they will all equally be punished for these things.
I cannot help but wonder why God would have us mere humans dish out a variety of punishments for the various sins, but then only have one punishment when he dishes out his particular brand of "justice"...
 

McBell

Unbound
with regard to remarriage, there are 2 circumstances in which it is perfectly acceptable for a christian to remarry. The first obvious condition is if the spouse dies...then the widow is free to remarry.
The second is in the case that either mate committed adultery, then the innocent mate was free to remarry as Jesus said in Matthew 5:31:32 "I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, EXCEPT ON ACCOUNT OF FORNICATION, makes her a subject for adultery"
I find it rather interesting that you can divorce over idolatry but not for your spouse beating the hell out you.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I cannot help but wonder why God would have us mere humans dish out a variety of punishments for the various sins, but then only have one punishment when he dishes out his particular brand of "justice"...

if a person persists in 'willful' sins, then it is the same punishment for all no matter what the sin is...the reason being that God cannot forgive someone who is not seeking forgiveness. If a person willfully sins, they cannot also be seeking forgiveness....to seek forgiveness means to turn away from sin.

Its as Hebrews 10:26-31 says “For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment...”
 
Top