Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[allright]

Please reconcile all inclusive with Jesus when asked saying only a few would be saved

 

[sojourner]

I disagree strongly with the idea that "the Law" can be summed up as "perfect love".

There is no love in slavery or in executing rape victims, to name two of the more distasteful parts of the Law.

I don't doubt that you do.
However, I didn't write the quotation -- I merely cite it as Jesus summarized it: Love God; love neighbor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't doubt that you do.
However, I didn't write the quotation -- I merely cite it as Jesus summarized it: Love God; love neighbor.

He also told his followers to "keep the commandments."

However Jesus phrased the "bumper sticker" version of his message, if you ignore things like the seven woes, cursing the fig tree, threatening people with fiery torment, and attacking money-changers with a bullwhip, you don't have a complete picture. Looked at in its entirety, I don't see how you can claim that Jesus' message was universal love.

In any case, my rejection of Jesus' message isn't based on allright or others with similar views; it's based on reading the Bible and seeing for myself what Jesus' message actually is.

 

[idav]

He also told his followers to "keep the commandments."

However Jesus phrased the "bumper sticker" version of his message, if you ignore things like the seven woes, cursing the fig tree, threatening people with fiery torment, and attacking money-changers with a bullwhip, you don't have a complete picture. Looked at in its entirety, I don't see how you can claim that Jesus' message was universal love.

In any case, my rejection of Jesus' message isn't based on allright or others with similar views; it's based on reading the Bible and seeing for myself what Jesus' message actually is.

Now I know Jesus hates trees that don't produce fruit (damned if that doesn't sound like a parable) but where did jesus try to harm anyone? Attacking them with bullwhips? I missed that part.

He was harsh with words and very orthodox (even thought police style) but seemed to give everyone a fair shot which was unprecedented for his day and culture.

.....OK I looked it up he used the whip for the animals in John. I rather like the Matthew rendition better personally but John is pretty interesting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now I know Jesus hates trees that don't produce fruit (damned if that doesn't sound like a parable) but where did jesus try to harm anyone? Attacking them with bullwhips? I missed that part.

He was harsh with words and very orthodox (even thought police style) but seemed to give everyone a fair shot which was unprecedented for his day and culture.

There's quite a gap between "harsh but fair for his day and culture" and "all-inclusive, all-encompassing love and acceptance."

.....OK I looked it up he used the whip for the animals in John. I rather like the Matthew rendition better personally but John is pretty interesting.

Not just for the animals - John 2:14-17:

14 He found in the temple courts those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables. 15 So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will devour me.”

 

[Ingledsva]

He also told his followers to "keep the commandments."

However Jesus phrased the "bumper sticker" version of his message, if you ignore things like the seven woes, cursing the fig tree, threatening people with fiery torment, and attacking money-changers with a bullwhip, you don't have a complete picture. Looked at in its entirety, I don't see how you can claim that Jesus' message was universal love.

In any case, my rejection of Jesus' message isn't based on allright or others with similar views; it's based on reading the Bible and seeing for myself what Jesus' message actually is.

And inciting riots and having to escape, and possibly having Guerrillas in his inner group, with close-combat fighting swords, etc.



*

 

[sojourner]

He also told his followers to "keep the commandments."

However Jesus phrased the "bumper sticker" version of his message, if you ignore things like the seven woes, cursing the fig tree, threatening people with fiery torment, and attacking money-changers with a bullwhip, you don't have a complete picture. Looked at in its entirety, I don't see how you can claim that Jesus' message was universal love.

In any case, my rejection of Jesus' message isn't based on allright or others with similar views; it's based on reading the Bible and seeing for myself what Jesus' message actually is.

You must be referring to Matthew 5:19. if you actually read the passage in the context of the whole sermon, Jesus is referring to the things he commands in the sermon -- not to the Halakhah, specifically.

 

[sojourner]

He also told his followers to "keep the commandments."

However Jesus phrased the "bumper sticker" version of his message, if you ignore things like the seven woes, cursing the fig tree, threatening people with fiery torment, and attacking money-changers with a bullwhip, you don't have a complete picture. Looked at in its entirety, I don't see how you can claim that Jesus' message was universal love.

In any case, my rejection of Jesus' message isn't based on allright or others with similar views; it's based on reading the Bible and seeing for myself what Jesus' message actually is.

Of course you don't see, Penguin. yo've probably never had a real good explanation of it. You generally don't get that explanation by going to Sunday School -- or even by attending a college lecture course, and certainly not by "reading the bible and seeing for [yourself] what Jesus' message 'actually is.'" And I doubt, from what I generally see from you here, that you've taken the time to seek out any serious study of the gospels, of Christian theology, or ecclesiology. Perhaps you have, but it don't appear that way here. Most of your thoughts seem to simply skim the empirical surface and call it "good."
So I'm not at all surprised that you don't see, and that you reject that message.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course you don't see, Penguin. yo've probably never had a real good explanation of it.

Well, I have only been reading your posts for the past seven years.

You generally don't get that explanation by going to Sunday School -- or even by attending a college lecture course, and certainly not by "reading the bible and seeing for [yourself] what Jesus' message 'actually is.'" And I doubt, from what I generally see from you here, that you've taken the time to seek out any serious study of the gospels, of Christian theology, or ecclesiology. Perhaps you have, but it don't appear that way here.

On the contrary. I spent several years trying to find any way I could reasonably accept any interpretation of Christianity while still preserving my moral and intellectual integrity.

I would have been very happy to find a way to stop my (now ex-) wife from crying on a regular basis because she thought I was going to Hell... to find some way - any way - that I could bring myself to be baptized without thinking I was living a lie. I studied the Bible on my own, I attended everything I could find locally from a Catholic church to a Quaker meeting and explored other denominations and faith traditions, earnestly trying to find a way of looking at the Christian message that didn't repel me.

If you don't think that I explored Christianity "seriously", too bad. I explored all the Christianity I was able to find and found all of it lacking. If what I studied wasn't "serious", then take it up with the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, Pentecostals, Mormons, Christian UUs, and the Bible itself.

Most of your thoughts seem to simply skim the empirical surface and call it "good."
So I'm not at all surprised that you don't see, and that you reject that message.

I haven't bought into your spin, if that's what you mean.

 

[sojourner]

Well, I have only been reading your posts for the past seven years.

My posts aren't intended to qualify as such. It's simply the wrong venue.

On the contrary. I spent several years trying to find any way I could reasonably accept any interpretation of Christianity while still preserving my moral and intellectual integrity.

Good! I'm glad! I have a very dear friend who's a RAGING atheist who did the same thing. Xy isn't for everybody -- and probably not for you. I'm glad you didn't compromise yourself.

I would have been very happy to find a way to stop my (now ex-) wife from crying on a regular basis because she thought I was going to Hell... to find some way - any way - that I could bring myself to be baptized without thinking I was living a lie. I studied the Bible on my own, I attended everything I could find locally from a Catholic church to a Quaker meeting and explored other denominations and faith traditions, earnestly trying to find a way of looking at the Christian message that didn't repel me.

That's sad (and I mean that seriously). But I have a feeling the alternative would have ended up even sadder for you, had you compromised yourself.

If you don't think that I explored Christianity "seriously", too bad. I explored all the Christianity I was able to find and found all of it lacking. If what I studied wasn't "serious", then take it up with the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, Pentecostals, Mormons, Christian UUs, and the Bible itself.

Well, as I say, it's not for everyone. It's too bad that you were unable to find an explanation that jibes with your sense of what's real and what's right. I hold out hope that it's there, if people can only get past narrowly-held perspectives.

I haven't bought into your spin, if that's what you mean.

I don't think it's "my spin." From what I'm reading here, you simply seem convicted in the viewpoint you've decided to take. Unfortunately, I don't think that viewpoint reflects an adequate critique of the Jesus Event. What it does reflect is a superficial nod to the material and the Tradition.

Unfortunate. You seem so much intellectually better than a superficial nod...

 

[idav]

There's quite a gap between "harsh but fair for his day and culture" and "all-inclusive, all-encompassing love and acceptance."

It doesnt get more clear than love your enemy in the philosophy.

Not just for the animals - John 2:14-17:

That comma belong there? He drove them out with the animals sounds like.

 

[dgirl1986]

There's quite a gap between "harsh but fair for his day and culture" and "all-inclusive, all-encompassing love and acceptance."

I remember listening to a unitarian sermon that spoke about the two different types of jesus thought about today. The "historical" jesus and the "all-inclusive, all-encompassing love" kinda jesus.

 

[sojourner]

I remember listening to a unitarian sermon that spoke about the two different types of jesus thought about today. The "historical" jesus and the "all-inclusive, all-encompassing love" kinda jesus.

Penguin's partially right, although I think his conclusion is ill-considered. Sometimes love is tough. Very, very tough, depending upon what it takes to get the truth spoken. Jesus loved everyone and wanted people to know God passionately. And he was willing to do what it took to shake some of them up enough to see what they needed to see.

 

[dgirl1986]

Penguin's partially right, although I think his conclusion is ill-considered. Sometimes love is tough. Very, very tough, depending upon what it takes to get the truth spoken. Jesus loved everyone and wanted people to know God passionately. And he was willing to do what it took to shake some of them up enough to see what they needed to see.

Many people have interesting views of jesus. I tend to put him in the same catetgory as buddha. Probably existed and probably had a good message to teach.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My posts aren't intended to qualify as such. It's simply the wrong venue.

Good! I'm glad! I have a very dear friend who's a RAGING atheist who did the same thing. Xy isn't for everybody -- and probably not for you. I'm glad you didn't compromise yourself.

That's sad (and I mean that seriously). But I have a feeling the alternative would have ended up even sadder for you, had you compromised yourself.

Well, as I say, it's not for everyone. It's too bad that you were unable to find an explanation that jibes with your sense of what's real and what's right. I hold out hope that it's there, if people can only get past narrowly-held perspectives.

You're officially the first Christian I've ever heard say that Christianity is "not for everyone".

I've heard plenty of them talk about the "narrow door" and their expectation that most people won't accept Jesus, but none suggest that someone not try to accept him.

I don't think it's "my spin." From what I'm reading here, you simply seem convicted in the viewpoint you've decided to take.

Again, you're badly misreading me. When I started exploring religion in general and Christianity in particular, I didn't have any strong viewpoint at all. The views I hold now were developed by honest exploration.

And if you don't believe that, then I'd suggest that you explore your own viewpoint to try and recognize your prejudices.

Unfortunately, I don't think that viewpoint reflects an adequate critique of the Jesus Event. What it does reflect is a superficial nod to the material and the Tradition.

The "Jesus Event"? I can critique it just fine, though I'm sure you'll disagree with my position yet again.

Unfortunate. You seem so much intellectually better than a superficial nod...

And you seem better than dismissive insults, but what can we do?

 

[sojourner]

You're officially the first Christian I've ever heard say that Christianity is "not for everyone".

I'm not surprised. But there are more like me out there -- more than you realize. Many of us do not assert that Xy is the "right" religion. Many of us believe that there are many legitimate paths to God. I think Xy is "right" for me; it may not be right for you.

I've heard plenty of them talk about the "narrow door" and their expectation that most people won't accept Jesus, but none suggest that someone not try to accept him.

"Accepting Jesus" is accomplished in any number of ways. Even (in my estimation) by atheists.

Again, you're badly misreading me. When I started exploring religion in general and Christianity in particular, I didn't have any strong viewpoint at all. The views I hold now were developed by honest exploration.

Mkay. That's fair. You don't buy the mythos. But I still think you have dismissed it based upon some sort of misapprehension, for your arguments against it are all arguments against a very superficial theological construction.

The "Jesus Event"? I can critique it just fine, though I'm sure you'll disagree with my position yet again.

I don't think you've considered the deeper theological considerations. Your critiques here seem very single-faceted. But maybe that's just the nature of the forum, and I'm missing the full picture.

And you seem better than dismissive insults, but what can we do?

I didn't mean the statement as a "dismissive insult." I meant it as a matter of objective observation. What we can do is listen to each other.

 

[idav]

Very, very tough, depending upon what it takes to get the truth spoken. Jesus loved everyone and wanted people to know God passionately. And he was willing to do what it took to shake some of them up enough to see what they needed to see.

Yup even unconditional love doesnt mean having to like everything they do and we can help people who we love. Just as long as there aren't conditions for the love. Loving your enemy means there are no conditions for love.

 

[McNap]

Christians always have two catergories; Obliging and free christians.
Usually there are more obliging ones. They want to show favors to God.
There are only a few free ones. They just listen to God and follow him.

What I often have seen is that the free ones are suppressed by the obliging ones. The same happens in the story of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42).
You don't have to work for God because another brother says so.

For example: I used to evangelize with another brother, because he was worried about the faitless, so I helped him spreading the word in the streets once in a week. This is a hard job and after several months I became depressed. Now I was the one who needed help. When I asked my brother to come along and keep company with me he was still worried about the faitless and said: "No, I won't come. God wants me to save people. I have to continue my task".

This can also happen among gay christians.
I've seen insecure gay christians who said: "What if it's wrong to have one gay partner to make fun with? I rather stay single in case it's truly forbidden for us". They were affecting the gay christians with a partner.
Free christians are alone, but the obliging christians support each other mutually as long as they are obliging.
Once I stopped obliging there was no more support for me, though I became free.
Which I will always be.

 

[Thruve]

Christians always have two catergories; Obliging and free christians.
Usually there are more obliging ones. They want to show favors to God.
There are only a few free ones. They just listen to God and follow him.

What I often have seen is that the free ones are suppressed by the obliging ones. The same happens in the story of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42).
You don't have to work for God because another brother says so.

For example: I used to evangelize with another brother, because he was worried about the faitless, so I helped him spreading the word in the streets once in a week. This is a hard job and after several months I became depressed. Now I was the one who needed help. When I asked my brother to come along and keep company with me he was still worried about the faitless and said: "No, I won't come. God wants me to save people. I have to continue my task".

This can also happen among gay christians.
I've seen insecure gay christians who said: "What if it's wrong to have one gay partner to make fun with? I rather stay single in case it's truly forbidden for us". They were affecting the gay christians with a partner.
Free christians are alone, but the obliging christians support each other mutually as long as they are obliging.
Once I stopped obliging there was no more support for me, though I became free.
Which I will always be.

Interesting you should tell such a story. Down here in south Florida, more specifically Wilton Manners (Google to understand its history to gays), there's 1-2 gay churches to which one, I've been told, preaches that it is entirely possible for a gay man to happily preside in a relationship with a female. The abstinence required, mainly if children are considered, would be quite tough, but that the pastor had acknowledged it is possible, especially with a female who is also gay. I guess this was brought up because there are gay males who desire children, mainly a son. This story always caught my attention because though I too like men, I very much would like to raise a DAM FAMILY and raise a son, and perhaps a daughter. I want children so dam bad, but im sexually attracted to men. What do I do.. What do I do..

So =) I came across a Lesbian once That I was best friends with in highschool for some time, and after we both graduated, we became hella close. Our relationship as friends became stronger because of our faith in God, and our view on homosexuality, given we were both gay but almost entirely opposites on how we each perceived the man, and the woman. We agreed that in the near future that we COULD.. get married, have children, and if everything became rough around the edges due to our sexuality, we would have bf/gfs on the side, that the mother/father aspect would simply be the mask to our children encase we interpreted that it was not right.. to raise children under such a circumstance.

After a few years, we both got boyfriends/girlfriends to which we loved and as of now we no longer communicate at all. Our relationship has dwindled to nodda, but I anticipate that to change sometime in the future. I feel our business for one another isn't over yet.

Anyhow, as of late, I decided that me having children, but yet wanting a BF for sexual/emotional reasons, whether im married to a female/lesbian female or not, would be very selfish of me. Whether my children eventually agreed with my attempt to raise a family and deal my sexuality at the same time or not, that I could never assume that my children would psychologically turn out alright. I told myself on the other hand to wait just one minute.. Divorce.. affairs... drugs... etc, that all these things occur within families that often turn children off to a dangerous path, that how could my attempt to raise a family given my sexuality even be compared to other families where kids end up on a dark path, especially when Im confident that I could raise one hell of an amazing family thats strong, faithful, etc.

Right now I have no plans to start a family as I have no freaking idea how to go about it, and because I feel such an attempt would be selfish of me but the Lord knows how bad I want a son/or daughter in my hands after birth knowing I am to raise and set him/her off into the world prepared for what it throws at them. Just two days ago a women brought in her baby girl and was letting my coworkers hold the baby, when the baby was offered up for me to hold I decline knowing it would tease my soul lol I whimpered a bit, sucked it up, and went about my day. Meh. People think homosexuals don't have issues as a result of their faith, though their "Free" as you described in the passage above, but I assure you we do.

 

[firedragon]

Interesting you should tell such a story. Down here in south Florida, more specifically Wilton Manners (Google to understand its history to gays), there's 1-2 gay churches to which one, I've been told, preaches that it is entirely possible for a gay man to happily preside in a relationship with a female. The abstinence required, mainly if children are considered, would be quite tough, but that the pastor had acknowledged it is possible, especially with a female who is also gay. I guess this was brought up because there are gay males who desire children, mainly a son. This story always caught my attention because though I too like men, I very much would like to raise a DAM FAMILY and raise a son, and perhaps a daughter. I want children so dam bad, but im sexually attracted to men. What do I do.. What do I do..

So =) I came across a Lesbian once That I was best friends with in highschool for some time, and after we both graduated, we became hella close. Our relationship as friends became stronger because of our faith in God, and our view on homosexuality, given we were both gay but almost entirely opposites on how we each perceived the man, and the woman. We agreed that in the near future that we COULD.. get married, have children, and if everything became rough around the edges due to our sexuality, we would have bf/gfs on the side, that the mother/father aspect would simply be the mask to our children encase we interpreted that it was not right.. to raise children under such a circumstance.

After a few years, we both got boyfriends/girlfriends to which we loved and as of now we no longer communicate at all. Our relationship has dwindled to nodda, but I anticipate that to change sometime in the future. I feel our business for one another isn't over yet.

Anyhow, as of late, I decided that me having children, but yet wanting a BF for sexual/emotional reasons, whether im married to a female/lesbian female or not, would be very selfish of me. Whether my children eventually agreed with my attempt to raise a family and deal my sexuality at the same time or not, that I could never assume that my children would psychologically turn out alright. I told myself on the other hand to wait just one minute.. Divorce.. affairs... drugs... etc, that all these things occur within families that often turn children off to a dangerous path, that how could my attempt to raise a family given my sexuality even be compared to other families where kids end up on a dark path, especially when Im confident that I could raise one hell of an amazing family thats strong, faithful, etc.

Right now I have no plans to start a family as I have no freaking idea how to go about it, and because I feel such an attempt would be selfish of me but the Lord knows how bad I want a son/or daughter in my hands after birth knowing I am to raise and set him/her off into the world prepared for what it throws at them. Just two days ago a women brought in her baby girl and was letting my coworkers hold the baby, when the baby was offered up for me to hold I decline knowing it would tease my soul lol I whimpered a bit, sucked it up, and went about my day. Meh. People think homosexuals don't have issues as a result of their faith, though their "Free" as you described in the passage above, but I assure you we do.

Brother, maybe I don't have a right to comment here for two reasons, one being the fact that I am no expert and the second being me heterosexual.

But I feel that you, especially a person who talks like you must raise a child. What's wrong with it? If the society is liberal now in the future they might be more liberal. Anyway as a person you should take that step and look in the face of the world with no doubt.

I don't know brother, maybe you can adopt if you are having a male partner. This world is rampant with bad parenting, shot gun weddings that sometimes leave the child stranded because the parents didn't intend to have a child and sometimes the parents are simply not good parents because they don't yearn for a child. I personally believe that wanting a child is human nature and there is nothing wrong with it. And someone who says what you said in this post will be a fantastic parent (I believe) and a child in this world deserves to have you as a parent. I just can picture you looking at a co-workers baby and thinking holding the child would tease your soul. Now I say, that't the type of parent any child needs. Bloody hell, you gonna be one hell of a parent and you should go about it.

Screw every thing else.

Peace