important question... please answer!

[K.Venugopal]

im gay will i ever be accepted by the christian faith?

If you are asking whether you would be permitted membership of an organization - that would depend on the membership rules of the organization. Otherwise, whatever anyone is, faith is a personal matter and there can be no bar to faith for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, i dont think you would to be honest, doesent the bible forbid it? If hte bible does, i belive a church cannot overrule the bible.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Oh dear, it also condemns polyester and being fat, and shrimp, and does anyone actually read the chapters that refer to homosexuality being bad?

Why gays, why aren't you pounding down the doors of seafood eating Christians who love shrimp and refuse to give it up?

All that stuff you listed except being fat are things we find in the Old Testament. Christians don't follow the Old Testament, we follow the New Testament. As to being fat, the New Testament does say gluttony is a sin.

Although you bring up an interesting point. Why is the act of homosexuality treated like it's so much worse than every other sin out there? In God's eyes all sins are equal. A liar is just as bad as a homosexual. A glutton is just as bad as a murderer. But if someone lied a lot, but said that it's ok for them to lie and that God doesn't care and that they can lie as much as they want, it's the same thing as someone saying all that about homosexuality. I wouldn't think a chronic liar who doesn't believe they are living in sin could be accepted into Christianity (biblically) anymore than a homosexual who doesn't believe how they are living is wrong could.

Oh, and I see your sig says you're from TN panicked, where at? I lived in Shelbyville for 2 years.

Leiper's Fork area.

A Christian is not suppose to judge someone else. To do so would bring the same judgment upon themselves.

You're absolutely right. So where do we draw the line? What is judging? How would we go about defining it? I'm afraid that saying we can tell who is a good Christian and who's not was judgmental of me, and if so, then that was very wrong and I apologise. But I'm interested to know what you think is judging and what is not. Is it judgmental for me to say that homosexuality is wrong? Is it judgmental for me to say that homosexuals are living in sin?

1. One thing the Bible never condemns whatsoever is lesbianism. Yet I'll bet you think it's a sin. On what did you base that, then?
2. It is not at all clear to scholars (of which I am not one) that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
a. Most scholars think this word has been mistranslated, and should refer to male temple prostitutes in Greek.
b. I think you'll agree we can disregard Leviticus, which only contains Jewish ritual taboos that most modern Christians, including, I bet, you, do not follow or consider part of their religious prohibitions.
c. Jesus never mentions it whatsoever.
d. Paul had his problems, and condemned things that you also probably do, such as allowing women to speak in church.
3. Many Christians (I am not one) believe that the central message of their religion is to love one another. Many Christian s believe that God doesn't make mistakes, and if God decided to make them gay, they should accept His will.
4.What the Bible, including Jesus himself, clearly and unequivocally condemns, in no uncertain terms, is divorce after remarriage. Yet most Christians do accept remarried people, and even vote for them. Why do you think that is?

1. Homosexuality is defined as "Being attracted to or aroused by members of the same gender." The Bible clearly tells us that homosexuality, be it between women or men, is wrong.
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

Romans 1:18-31
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the 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 vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[b] unmerciful;32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
I think that makes it pretty clear that women committing sexual acts with women is immoral, unrighteous, etc. in the eyes of God and that those who practice these things are deserving of death.

2a. Look in any version of the Bible you like, except for perhaps the Skeptic's Annotated. It seems to clearly condemn homosexuality, but whatever. I am not a scholar, either. Perhaps I could look up the original Greek terms for the verses dealing with homosexuality later and see what I can find out.

A sermon from my preacher deals somewhat with what the point you made about how the Bible was actually talking about male prostitution. Here you go:

Later in the article, the author decries the awful approach to Bible study called prooftexting, that is, pulling verses out of their Biblical context to make them say what we want. They say that in order to claim history says these two kinds of bad homosexuality mentioned above were really the only one’s Paul knew about and those were wrong. Had Paul known about real loving homosexuality, he would have approved. Thus the historical context makes these passages mean something other than what they seem to say on the surface. If we were neglecting the historical or biblical context of the passages and twisting them to say what we want, we would be wrong. However, just as wrong is adding context into the Biblical passages. Read them again and again and you see nothing in the contexts that says Paul was only dealing with prostitution, human trafficking or ritual homosexuality. These may have been done in the first century and these passages would condemn them. However, there is nothing either historically or biblically that says these were the only forms of homosexuality committed at the time of the Bible and there is nothing that says these passages are limited to that. In fact, the first century readers would have gotten from these verses exactly what we do. Homosexual activity in every form is sinful and those who practice it will not enter the kingdom of God.

What Does the Bible Tell Us About Homosexuality?

2b. Yes, we can absolutely disregard Leviticus. As I pointed out earlier in this post, it in the Old Testament, and therefore obsolete. It binds no one today by law, unless they are Jewish.

2c. So now just because Jesus doesn't mention it, it must mean we don't have to abide by it? You see, I'm one of those crazy Christians who follows the whole Bible, excluding the Old Testament, and only because the New Testament commands me to do that. There are plenty of things Jesus didn't mention that we're supposed to follow.

2d. Actually, no. Like I said, I follow the whole Bible. Women are not allowed to hold authority over men in the church.

3. Ummm...? You've lost me on this one. I believe that the central message of my religion is to worship and obey God. And I also believe He doesn't make mistakes...

4. I also believe remarriage after a divorce is wrong, unless the divorcee's spouse cheated on them and committed adultery. That is the only Biblical reason for getting a divorce.

Well, i dont think you would to be honest, doesent the bible forbid it? If hte bible does, i belive a church cannot overrule the bible.

You think right. A church is not supposed to overrule the Bible, though it happens all the time.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I have read many apssages in which the bible clearly gives a no-no to homosexuality. But i think, worshipping god would be no differnt. At the end of the day, we are all human, we all have teh same earth, we breathe the same air...To me, we love teh same god.

 

[Autodidact]

1. Homosexuality is defined as "Being attracted to or aroused by members of the same gender." The Bible clearly tells us that homosexuality, be it between women or men, is wrong.

No, it doesn't. You've been told it does, but you're wrong. As I have typed at least 20 times in this forum, lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in either testament. It is never mentioned whatsoever in the OT, and it receives a grand total of one (1) mention in the NT, not a prohibition.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Assuming that passage is talking about lesbian sex, which is not at all clear, it is still not a prohibition--it's a consequence. Remember, this is Yahweh here. This God knows how to prohibit: "Thou shalt not..." No room for ambiguity there. This phrase never appears anywhere in the Bible connected with women loving women.

I think that makes it pretty clear that women committing sexual acts with women is immoral, unrighteous, etc. in the eyes of God and that those who practice these things are deserving of death.

Wow, that's really screwed up--it doesn't even mention death. Are you advocating the death penalty for lesbianism? That's one screwed up version of a screwed up religion you got there. Anyway, it's not clear. It could also be saying that for a heterosexual woman, lesbian sex would be unnatural. By the same token, heterosexual sex would be unnatural for a lesbian woman.

In any case, my point is not that one interpretation is right, and one wrong. Throughout history, Christians have interpreted their Bible to mean whatever they please, including completely contradictory interpretations on important issues. My point is that there is another interpretation, and it is not up to you to decide which is right for someone else. It is not for you to decide that the people who interpret it differently are bad Christians. They probably think you're a bad Christian, because, according to them, you're missing the central tenet of your religion, which is to love one another, as well as that God loves everyone, no exceptions.

2a. Look in any version of the Bible you like, except for perhaps the Skeptic's Annotated. It seems to clearly condemn homosexuality, but whatever. I am not a scholar, either. Perhaps I could look up the original Greek terms for the verses dealing with homosexuality later and see what I can find out.

Here are some Christians who do not think the Bible condemns homosexuality at all. The word in question is the Greek "arsenekoi" and frankly no one knows for sure what it meant. It could not have meant "homosexual," because that word was only invented around a century ago. Linguists believe that word means “male temple prostitute”, an element of Baal idolatry.

I don't know anything about koine Greek myself, so don't really have an opinion. Again, my point is that there exists another point of view which is also Christian.

2c. So now just because Jesus doesn't mention it, it must mean we don't have to abide by it? You see, I'm one of those crazy Christians who follows the whole Bible, excluding the Old Testament, and only because the New Testament commands me to do that. There are plenty of things Jesus didn't mention that we're supposed to follow.

I think it says something theologically, though, don't you. I mean, Christianity is supposed to be about Christ, so it seems important to look at what Christ actually said while He was on earth, including what He thought was important. So the idea is that what Jesus thought it was important to teach was not who not to have sex with, but to love one another.

3. Ummm...? You've lost me on this one. I believe that the central message of my religion is to worship and obey God. And I also believe He doesn't make mistakes...

I lost you on saying that the central message of Christianity is to love one another? Well, as I say, there is really no such thing as Christianity, just a lot of different Christianities. Let's just say that many, many, Christians do believe that this was Christ's message. They may be wrong, but I don't think anyone died and put you in charge to decide that they're all "bad Christians" while you, who believe it's about worshipping and obeying God, are a good Christian. I think they would say that God commands us to love one another.

4. I also believe remarriage after a divorce is wrong, unless the divorcee's spouse cheated on them and committed adultery. That is the only Biblical reason for getting a divorce.

And I'm sure you're part of the huge national movement to outlaw second marriage? That one you read about in the news all the time, and that fundamentalist voters always ask their political leaders about--leaders like Newt Gingrich (divorced, remarried fornicator who cheated on his wives) and Ronald Reagan? (brought his harlot right on into the White House.)

What is your position on slavery? The Bible is in favor, as is Jesus. What about polygamy? The Bible is in favor of that as well.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You're absolutely right. So where do we draw the line? What is judging? How would we go about defining it? I'm afraid that saying we can tell who is a good Christian and who's not was judgmental of me, and if so, then that was very wrong and I apologise. But I'm interested to know what you think is judging and what is not. Is it judgmental for me to say that homosexuality is wrong? Is it judgmental for me to say that homosexuals are living in sin?

It's not wrong to make a general statement about what a good Christian is. Where it is wrong is to say, "You are a bad Christian and God is going to burn you in hell".

My personal opinion is, people who are remarried after divorce are in no position to believe they hold the higher spiritual ground above homosexuals. I will go further to say that believe Paul may had been a homosexual himself.

Now if the homosexual community wants a glowing endorsement, I would not hold my breath.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I dont think panicked is saying, burn homosexuals, i think she is just quoting from the bible.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

I will share what I believe. The Bible concludes all under sin. All are undeserving of salvation. We all are saved the same way, by the grace of God because he loves us and reconciled us by the death of his Son. When any sinner places their trust in Christ for salvation, they are freely pardoned. That is, any sinner. Once they have trusted Christ, the Holy Spirit moves in and teaches them. The Holy Spirit guides each individual and begins to conform them to be like Christ. He shows them areas of their life that are not pleasing to God. This can take a lot of time (years) and the willingness to yield and listen to the Spirit and being transformed by the renewing of one's mind. It is called growing in grace. I cannot speak for the "Christian Community", many of them do not except me (I'm not gay or lesbian, either! --there's other weaknesses some see in me...), but God will accept any sinner who has trusted completely in Christ to have saved them. After that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict and deliver one from various sins they have or may fall into. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[Darkness]

You will never be accepted by Christian who believe passages like:

"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."

...are the will of God. Your best bet is to search out Christians who are more humanistic. Contrary to popular belief, they do exist. I would talk with Angellous_Evangellous if I were you.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

This is what gets me:
I was taught in psychology, (and through the participation of an awsome gay/ lesbian panel we could ask questions) that it has been proven that a child knows their gender identity by age 3. Three years old is too young to condem, because the child is unaware of the implications of what they know, and too young to be influenced by the world into that lifestyle. It is just the way they are. I know that not all gay/ lesbians might be this way, or have experienced this, but from what I understand it is pretty common. I don't understand how christianity can condem something a person has no control over. I am not saying that gays/ lesbians are challenged (please don't think that! i just can't think of a better example), but it would be similar to condeming a person for being born with epilepsy, or with 1 arm instead of two.

To answer the OP:
I think it will always be a mixed thing. You must just follow your heart and look until you find the kind of church that spiritually uplifts you. They exist, you must just find them. I don't know if gays/ lesbians will ever be accepted across the board. Just don't get tricked into staying anywhere that "pulls you down," makes you uncomfortable, or pressures you to change. There are quite a few people on here with whom you can relate to though. Good luck! Let us know how it goes!

 

[Katzpur]

im gay will i ever be accepted by the christian faith?

Before I answer, could you tell me something? Is it important to you to be accepted by Christians? Do you consider yourself a Christian and want to be accepted as one, or is there some other reason why you are asking this question. If you're not a Christian, I'm not sure why it would even really matter to you.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I dont think he is coming back to the forum. Why post the question and never to return....

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

No, it doesn't. You've been told it does, but you're wrong. As I have typed at least 20 times in this forum, lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in either testament. It is never mentioned whatsoever in the OT, and it receives a grand total of one (1) mention in the NT, not a prohibition.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Assuming that passage is talking about lesbian sex, which is not at all clear, it is still not a prohibition--it's a consequence. Remember, this is Yahweh here. This God knows how to prohibit: "Thou shalt not..." No room for ambiguity there. This phrase never appears anywhere in the Bible connected with women loving women.

Do you agree that lesbianism falls under the category of homosexual? If so, then I really don't see how you can say lesbianism isn't prohibities since homosexuality is prohibited.
Now going back to the passage we're discussing here, you pointed out that the passage talks about a consequence rather than a prohibition. That's really not a good argument. For one thing, is there is a penalty for something where the Bible is concerned, that would suggest that the something in question is wrong, and therefore prohibited. Wouldn't you think? The passage also says that they are in error. We are prohibited from making errors, the Bible tells us to do all we can to be perfect, like Christ.
You also mentioned that this is only mentioned once in the Bible, but why is that a valid point? It wouldn't matter if it were mentioned one time or a hundred. Christians can't just go around picking the things they want to choose to follow out of the Bible. It's all or nothing, no matter how many times it's in there.

Wow, that's really screwed up--it doesn't even mention death. Are you advocating the death penalty for lesbianism? That's one screwed up version of a screwed up religion you got there. Anyway, it's not clear. It could also be saying that for a heterosexual woman, lesbian sex would be unnatural. By the same token, heterosexual sex would be unnatural for a lesbian woman.

In any case, my point is not that one interpretation is right, and one wrong. Throughout history, Christians have interpreted their Bible to mean whatever they please, including completely contradictory interpretations on important issues. My point is that there is another interpretation, and it is not up to you to decide which is right for someone else. It is not for you to decide that the people who interpret it differently are bad Christians. They probably think you're a bad Christian, because, according to them, you're missing the central tenet of your religion, which is to love one another, as well as that God loves everyone, no exceptions.

Actually, it does mention death. If you will refer back to the passage, at the very end, it says they are deserving of death. I'm not advocating the death penalty for lesbianism, I'm just saying they are deserving of death...as are all sinners, myself included. We all deserve death according to my screwed religion. You know, a lot of people say it could be, might be, just maybe is saying such and such and so and so but why can't we take the Bible at face-value for what it says? The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The End.
Everyone is going to interpret the Bible differently. But only one interpretation can be the right one. It's up to us to learn all that we can and decide for ourselves which interpretation is right. It's not up to me to decide anything, it's all up to God. Maybe you missed my previous post where I said I was being judgmental for saying people are bad Christians or whatever? Well, I'm sorry for making myself appear to be a judgmental bigot. Of course it's not up to me to decide who is and isn't a good Christian. That whole judge not that ye be judged thing? I apparently need to work on that.
Moving on, though, you said, or rather implied that I don't love other Christians and that I don't think God loves everyone no matter what? I'm not exactly sure what would make you say that. I think I've already said several times that Christians are supposed to love everyone, and God certainly loves everyone.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l1.htm

Here are some Christians who do not think the Bible condemns homosexuality at all. The word in question is the Greek "arsenekoi" and frankly no one knows for sure what it meant. It could not have meant "homosexual," because that word was only invented around a century ago. Linguists believe that word means “male temple prostitute”, an element of Baal idolatry.

I don't know anything about koine Greek myself, so don't really have an opinion. Again, my point is that there exists another point of view which is also Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l1.htm

I don't know, either. I've studied Greek very little. I would be willing to look into it more, though. I've heard this take on the original Greek word before, and seem to be hearing it more and more often.

I lost you on saying that the central message of Christianity is to love one another? Well, as I say, there is really no such thing as Christianity, just a lot of different Christianities. Let's just say that many, many, Christians do believe that this was Christ's message. They may be wrong, but I don't think anyone died and put you in charge to decide that they're all "bad Christians" while you, who believe it's about worshipping and obeying God, are a good Christian. I think they would say that God commands us to love one another.

God commands us to love one another, but I don't believe that's neccessarily the "central message" of Christianity. It's very important, but to me the most important thing is to do what God wants. Which encompasses and goes beyond loving one another.

And I'm sure you're part of the huge national movement to outlaw second marriage? That one you read about in the news all the time, and that fundamentalist voters always ask their political leaders about--leaders like Newt Gingrich (divorced, remarried fornicator who cheated on his wives) and Ronald Reagan? (brought his harlot right on into the White House.)

What is your position on slavery? The Bible is in favor, as is Jesus. What about polygamy? The Bible is in favor of that as well.

Um...no, I'm actually not. For one who is rebuking me for passing judgment on others, you seem to be rather prone to judging others as well. Honestly, I have no idea what movement you're talking about...
But since you bring it up, my take on something like that is the same as it is on gay marriage. I would not personally marry a second time, but if others want to do so, it's not mine or the government's place to tell them that they can't.
Could you cite your sources stating that the Bible/Jesus are in favor of slavery and polygamy? That might be helpful.

It's not wrong to make a general statement about what a good Christian is. Where it is wrong is to say, "You are a bad Christian and God is going to burn you in hell".

My personal opinion is, people who are remarried after divorce are in no position to believe they hold the higher spiritual ground above homosexuals. I will go further to say that believe Paul may had been a homosexual himself.

Now if the homosexual community wants a glowing endorsement, I would not hold my breath.

Oh, well I wasn't trying to do that! Maybe it came off that way, but I would never tell someone they're going to burn in hell for something.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

*echo* This thread feels so lonely...

 

[Autodidact]

Do you agree that lesbianism falls under the category of homosexual? If so, then I really don't see how you can say lesbianism isn't prohibities since homosexuality is prohibited.

But the Bible doesn't prohibit homosexuality. It prohibits "arsenekoi" or "man man lay bed woman." (translated as, "Thou shalt not lay with a man..." You know that the ANE was not a gender-neutral time or civilization.

Now going back to the passage we're discussing here, you pointed out that the passage talks about a consequence rather than a prohibition. That's really not a good argument. For one thing, is there is a penalty for something where the Bible is concerned, that would suggest that the something in question is wrong, and therefore prohibited. Wouldn't you think? The passage also says that they are in error. We are prohibited from making errors, the Bible tells us to do all we can to be perfect, like Christ.

No, there is no consequence for the "unnatural" acts, whatever they may have been. (It's not clear, as I have said.) The unnatural acts are the consequence of having turned away from God. I agree it's a negative comment, but it's not a prohibition, and does not in fact prescribe a consequence. As I said, it's just plain not prohibited.

You also mentioned that this is only mentioned once in the Bible, but why is that a valid point? It wouldn't matter if it were mentioned one time or a hundred. Christians can't just go around picking the things they want to choose to follow out of the Bible. It's all or nothing, no matter how many times it's in there.

It's obviously not important.

I was raised Jewish. In my religion, it's just plain never mentioned. Period.

Actually, it does mention death. If you will refer back to the passage, at the very end, it says they are deserving of death. I'm not advocating the death penalty for lesbianism, I'm just saying they are deserving of death...as are all sinners, myself included. We all deserve death according to my screwed religion. You know, a lot of people say it could be, might be, just maybe is saying such and such and so and so but why can't we take the Bible at face-value for what it says? The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The End.

Well, that's kind of like saying nothing, then. We're all deserving of death. duh. And we all die.

Everyone is going to interpret the Bible differently. But only one interpretation can be the right one. It's up to us to learn all that we can and decide for ourselves which interpretation is right. It's not up to me to decide anything, it's all up to God. Maybe you missed my previous post where I said I was being judgmental for saying people are bad Christians or whatever? Well, I'm sorry for making myself appear to be a judgmental bigot. Of course it's not up to me to decide who is and isn't a good Christian. That whole judge not that ye be judged thing? I apparently need to work on that.

Sounds good.

Moving on, though, you said, or rather implied that I don't love other Christians and that I don't think God loves everyone no matter what? I'm not exactly sure what would make you say that. I think I've already said several times that Christians are supposed to love everyone, and God certainly loves everyone.

No, what I'm saying is that there are other Christians whose theology is different from yours. They believe that Christ's central message was to love one another, and that real love cannot therefore be a sin, whether between two people of the same or different gender.

God commands us to love one another, but I don't believe that's neccessarily the "central message" of Christianity. It's very important, but to me the most important thing is to do what God wants. Which encompasses and goes beyond loving one another.

As a non-Christian, I have no position. I'm just saying that there is more than one Christian position, that's all.

Um...no, I'm actually not. For one who is rebuking me for passing judgment on others, you seem to be rather prone to judging others as well. Honestly, I have no idea what movement you're talking about...

There isn't one. That's my point. I have no problem judging people; I do it all the time. Some judgments are legitimate, and some are not. Divorced/remarried Christians who seek to prohibit gay marriage are hypocrites, and I judge them as such. Protestant Christians have the highest divorce/remarriage rate of any religious group, including atheists. They would do well to check out that log in their own eye before they start worrying about whether gay people get married. And I have a positive bug up my posterior about the fact that they would vote for Newt Gingrich, who lives in flagrant and unrepentant sin (according to them) and still vote against gay marriage.

But since you bring it up, my take on something like that is the same as it is on gay marriage. I would not personally marry a second time, but if others want to do so, it's not mine or the government's place to tell them that they can't.

Love this attitude. I'd like to see more of it.

Could you cite your sources stating that the Bible/Jesus are in favor of slavery and polygamy? That might be helpful.

Yes but it's a long derail. Shall we start another thread?

Oh, well I wasn't trying to do that! Maybe it came off that way, but I would never tell someone they're going to burn in hell for something.

Cool. Very cool.

 

[kadzbiz]

im gay will i ever be accepted by the christian faith?

Y'know, I've never understood why you wouldn't considering there are so many gays in the clergy......(c'mon, we all know there are) ....... and welcome to the forums by the way. Enjoy your time here.

 

[Autodidact]

Y'know, I've never understood why you wouldn't considering there are so many gays in the clergy......(c'mon, we all know there are) ....... and welcome to the forums by the way. Enjoy your time here.

Oh you're always accepted--if you're willing to lie.

 

[tomspug]

im gay will i ever be accepted by the christian faith?

The God of Christianity accepts everyone. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

Now, whether or not you will be accepted by a church is a different question. The Bible speaks against homosexuality "as a practice". Some churches accept this. A few don't.

But no matter who you are, you will always be accepted by God and have the opportunity to receive salvation through Christ.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Before I answer, could you tell me something? Is it important to you to be accepted by Christians? Do you consider yourself a Christian and want to be accepted as one, or is there some other reason why you are asking this question. If you're not a Christian, I'm not sure why it would even really matter to you.

I was wondering the same thing. Sad, though, that Palys90 hasn't returned.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

But the Bible doesn't prohibit homosexuality. It prohibits "arsenekoi" or "man man lay bed woman." (translated as, "Thou shalt not lay with a man..." You know that the ANE was not a gender-neutral time or civilization.

With aresnkoi, I believe you may be referring to a similar word, arsenokoites? In any case, Paul uses two words to (supposedly) define homosexuality in his writings. The words are arsenokoites and malakos. According to the Greek-English Lexicon compiled by Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, both malakos and arsenokoites are defined as "homosexual". A more detailed description of malakos is "the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse". Some people say that arsenokoites is referring to the active partner in homosexual intercourse in certain passages, but I don't know. The Bible prohibits homosexuality.

No, there is no consequence for the "unnatural" acts, whatever they may have been. (It's not clear, as I have said.) The unnatural acts are the consequence of having turned away from God. I agree it's a negative comment, but it's not a prohibition, and does not in fact prescribe a consequence. As I said, it's just plain not prohibited.

If the unnatural acts are a consequence of turning away from God, then the consequence of turning away from God is death. A spiritual death, and an eternity in hell.

Let's look at another passage as well:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9

This passage points out that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God as a result of being homosexual, and ultimately, a result from turning away from God. If not inheriting the kingdom of Heaven is not a consequence of one's actions, then I don't know what is.

Well, that's kind of like saying nothing, then. We're all deserving of death. duh. And we all die.

I always believed that it was talking about spiritual death. Being seperated from God is a spiritual death. Jesus came to die for this "death". So not all of us die spiritually.

There isn't one. That's my point. I have no problem judging people; I do it all the time. Some judgments are legitimate, and some are not. Divorced/remarried Christians who seek to prohibit gay marriage are hypocrites, and I judge them as such. Protestant Christians have the highest divorce/remarriage rate of any religious group, including atheists. They would do well to check out that log in their own eye before they start worrying about whether gay people get married. And I have a positive bug up my posterior about the fact that they would vote for Newt Gingrich, who lives in flagrant and unrepentant sin (according to them) and still vote against gay marriage.

Ok, I can understand that.

Yes but it's a long derail. Shall we start another thread?

Sounds good to me.