Being Gay and Christian...is this possible?

[Gregory Thompson]

Just be careful to differentiate between loving the world and loving people...there is a difference.

Christians love the person and hate the sin. Worldly folks tend to rationalize the sin away in order to love the person.

hedging your bets spiritually is a poor theology and ministry model .

 

[Jase]

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait...either.

Yes, actually there is. Gay brains are physically different than straight brains for example on PET scans. Twin studies have shown a biological component. And the fact that 450+ animal species have homosexuals, indicates it's inborn. Penguins cannot choose to be gay.

 

[mwood30]

nah, it is just the hip way to believe. Listen, simple litmus test. If your beliefs are more "intune" with the way the world believes than you are not in tune with God. These two things are opposites. Always have been. The world is not getting closer and closer to perfection or to Christian morality, it is making sins of the flesh acceptable and building a real hatred for God's written word and anyone who follows it.

The spirit wants one thing, and one thing only: the welfare of others. The flesh will do anything it can to stop the spirit from getting what it wants.

The world and the spirit are opposite. The world is selfish. The spirit wants what is best for others. Liberal Christianity strives to walk in the spirit and therefore never gets closer and closer to the world.

One of the flesh's most deceptive tricks is religion. Through religion it can trick people to ignore the spirit. Through religion, the flesh can make people fight against equality for minorities, while feeling like they are serving God at the same time. Yes, the flesh is tricky. And religious ideology is its master creation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, actually there is. Gay brains are physically different than straight brains for example on PET scans. Twin studies have shown a biological component. And the fact that 450+ animal species have homosexuals, indicates it's inborn. Penguins cannot choose to be gay.

yeah the brainwave patterns are totally different . as an empath i can totally notice the difference in my brain and nervous system . also in my eyes . people look prettier when i'm catching their wavelength .

 

[Jase]

nah, it is just the hip way to believe. Listen, simple litmus test. If your beliefs are more "intune" with the way the world believes than you are not in tune with God. These two things are opposites. Always have been. The world is not getting closer and closer to perfection or to Christian morality, it is making sins of the flesh acceptable and building a real hatred for God's written word and anyone who follows it.

So you are perfectly fine with ignoring the millions of gay people who testify all the time that they never chose to be that way, huh? Many of whom attempted to kill themselves just to get rid of it.

 

[Jase]

NO DOUBT! somtimes simply posting scripture on this board alone can make all hell break out, since when can the straight forward reading of scripture be so offensive to those who claim to follow Jesus?

When it's posted out of context in the wrong language without any consideration for culture or original meaning. Which is what Sealacamp so egregiously did by "clobbering" the OP with random verses that he doesn't have any understanding of. Hence why they're called the gay "clobber" passages.

 

[Jase]

Just be careful to differentiate between loving the world and loving people...there is a difference.

Christians love the person and hate the sin. Worldly folks tend to rationalize the sin away in order to love the person.

No, certain groups of Christians hate one sin, and ignore all the others so rampant in their communities.

 

[mwood30]

NO DOUBT! somtimes simply posting scripture on this board alone can make all hell break out, since when can the straight forward reading of scripture be so offensive to those who claim to follow Jesus?

Maybe the reason "all hell breaks out" is not the quoting of scripture. Perhaps its the misquoting of it?

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "Everyone knows the Greek Bible has a liberal bias." So let's just write some brand new conservative ones in English and scratch our heads in bewilderment when liberals vehemently reject our rewrites.

I'm grateful to know how many people are aware of the differences between the original Biblical text and the propagandist rewrites currently marketed to the masses. It gives me hope that the original message of the Bible might actually win out in my lifetime. One can hope and pray.

 

[paintedgoldfish]

I have two friends who both have male and female genitals. No one can deny that they were born that way. They both live as Gay individuals. Seems like they have no choice in the matter. Surely God doesnt see them as sinning?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I apologize to the OP that the thread has become some big fight .

i'm going to unsubscribe from this thread so as to not add any more fuel to this fire . feel free to PM me anytime .

 

[QuakerOats]

nah, it is just the hip way to believe. Listen, simple litmus test. If your beliefs are more "intune" with the way the world believes than you are not in tune with God. These two things are opposites. Always have been. The world is not getting closer and closer to perfection or to Christian morality, it is making sins of the flesh acceptable and building a real hatred for God's written word and anyone who follows it.

Jesus taught that 'You will know them by their fruits' to the summation of 'In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the law and the prophets.' (Matthew 7) I prefer to use this as my litmus test.

As a person's sexual orientation, therefore, bares no relation to how they treat others, I can only conclude that yes, a person can indeed be gay and Christian. I believe the biblical verses which appear to be in opposition are questionable in light of this, and can be accurately explained through historical and cultural context.

 

[trek4fr]

Is it really necessary to spell out the bleeding obvious? I am not gay and I am not any better than anyone else. So, I'm not gay but I have other vices. Like we all do. We all have our own crosses and burdens to bear. Homosexuality is one of many things that we all need to repent of. Please stop this nonsense of attempting to justify this on skewed Biblical interpretation. The Bible is crystal clear on this.

I think it is fairly safe to say that most liberal Christians do not view the Bible as you do, BlackSabb. Most of us don't view it as "God's Instruction Book" for everyone for all time, as a 'morality encyclopedia' where we can find once-and-for-all answers to any subject. Many of us, if not most, would say that the Bible is a collection of writings by the ancient Jews and the early Christians that reflect, not how God sees things, but how they saw things in relationship to their understanding of God, their culture and times, and each other.

The Bible is, in your words, "crystal clear" on a number of things that most people today would not accept as relevant, timeless truth. Most of us enjoy the freedom to eat shellfish or pork, going against what the ancient Jews considered to be God's word. We also have no problems wearing clothes made of blends or planting two or more different kinds of crops in one field, again, going against what the Jews believed to be the word of the Lord.

Likewise, most of us would consider slavery to be, if not evil, at least wrong, clearly going against what Paul taught about slaves being obedient to their masters. And even in the most conservative of Christian churches where women are not allowed to preach (because these churches feel that God spoke through the apostle Paul to forbid it), they don't truly follow Paul's command that women should not speak in church, that they should be silent. These churches allow their women to sing, to teach Sunday School, to pray, to speak in tongues, etc.

The bottom line is, if we are going to prohibit something that either the Old Testament or the New Testament prohibits (or, on the positive side, to continue something found there), we need to ask why we are doing so. Simply quoting the Bible as the authoritative source is ludicrous and, in by-passing our God-given reason, does more damage than anything else. Furthermore, such "proof-texting" nullifies the Spirit of God. If the apostle Paul had stayed with "the word of the Lord" that was "crystal clear" about the necessity of God's people being circumcised or keeping the Law, it's doubtful that very many Gentiles would have come into the church.

The cry of the conservative is, "God has spoken once and for all and it is found only in the Bible."

Liberals, in contrast, often say, "God is still speaking. There is more truth to be revealed, known, and lived out. The Spirit continues to lead us into that truth."

What is "bleeding obvious" is that Jesus never once condemned homosexuality. Not once.

Take your stand based on the Old Testament or the writings of a slavery-supporting, misogynistic ("it is good for a man not to touch a woman") disciple-wanna-be if you want, but I, for one, follow Jesus, not Moses or Paul. I have the freedom to say that Moses and Paul were just plain wrong about some things.

I'm deep in the poo now, aren't I?

 

[Mixolydian]

MOD HAT ON​

Folks, everyone should read and heed the following rules before posting further in this thread:​

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[paintedgoldfish]

Thank you QO. This is helpful and a perspective I haven't considered.

 

[paintedgoldfish]

trek4fr, Your post makes a lot of sense.

 

[Episaw]

If you look at the whole revelation of scripture you will find that all sex outside of marriage is forbidden for the simple reason that God created us biologically, psychologically and emotionally to enjot sex in that context.

Any sex outside of it will damage the people involved.

However, we see the love of God manifest in the scripture that lists numerous sins, including homosexuality, and says that some of the hearers were like that (such were some of you) but they had been washed and sanctified which all indicate they are no longer...homosexual.

I do not believe that God bestows this state of being to some and not others as the scriptures say that if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness so every homosexual who comes to God in repentance can find forgivness and change.

In respect to the lady you live with. You can continue to live with her as long as there is no sexual component. If there is you will find that you will struggle as a christian. A friend of ours who has never married lives with another single friend and they care for each other but there is no sexual component.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I would say it depends on the desire you have.
Do you desire to follow Christ as best you can? Then yes, I would argue that you can.

The call is to follow Him. To make Him your first priority. If you are in a loving relationship that is committed and withstanding and you follow Him and do your best to follow His teachings, then I find it hard to believe that Christ would do anything but claim you as His.

Only the Lord can know anything for certain, as pertaining to scripture and salvation. And only you and Him know if you are saved and under Grace. Don't let others try to deny you that relationship based on their interpretations and readings.

 

[mwood30]

Stupidest thing I've read. Are you trying to be clever or something? Because it's not working.

Huh?

I'm very serious. I am showing you that the context of Romans 1 has nothing to do with the context of modern gay monogamous couples. Sorry you find that stupid, but that's what the Bible says. Do you consider the Bible stupid? Or do you believe it's smart to take a verse about people who receive STD's in their pagan temple orgies and then claim it discusses a spiritual penalty for monogamous gay couples? That's what's smart to you? Brilliant!

 

[lux et lex]

Yes, the Bible is really clear on this. 100%. It agrees perfectly with the same thing the first century historians wrote about. The men and women were engaged is so much idolatrous sex in their pagan temples that they began to desire sex beyond their natural born instincts. They craved each other. And in their constant, continual orgies, they received STD's in their bodies for their unrestrained sexual escapades.

Now, let's see if this perfectly matches Romans. And then let's see if the passage applies to homosexual marriage today:

1. They were idol worshipers: They exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. On account of this, God handed them over to dishonorable passions.
2. Who abandoned their natural born instincts: For both their females quit instinctual function for one contrary to instinct. And in the same way, indeed, the males quit the instinctual use of the female burning away in their lust for one another – males with males – resulting in disgraceful acts,
3. And received the full penalty (STD's) in their bodies: and they received in themselves the full penalty necessary for their error.

Yup, the Bible matches history. Now, what does this have to do with a God fearing homosexual couple whose natural instincts are gay who want a monogamous marriage? If the full penalty of the gay orgies was STD's, then a monogamous gay couple won't have such a physical penalty, will they? And if there is no spiritual penalty, which the Bible is very clear on the matter, then they won't have any penalty at all.

Yup, the Bible is very clear on the matter. All monogamous gay relationships won't incur any penalty: physical or spiritual. The Bible's really cool when you pay attention to what it actually says.

Stupidest thing I've read. Are you trying to be clever or something? Because it's not working.

What mwood wrote was actually very smart. It contextualizes why those particular verses were included in the Bible.

 

[QuakerOats]

The cry of the conservative is, "God has spoken once and for all and it is found only in the Bible."

Liberals, in contrast, often say, "God is still speaking. There is more truth to be revealed, known, and lived out. The Spirit continues to lead us into that truth."

I think that's a fairly accurate description, generally speaking of course. There are conservatives more mystically inclined, but many of them hold fast instead to tradition as opposed to continuing revelation, at least in any individual sense. That's not to say that tradition doesn't have its place, only that liberals seem to be more about the individual and their personal connection to God.

Thank you QO. This is helpful and a perspective I haven't considered.

You're quite welcome.