Homosexuality

[EnemyPartyII]

Many great people marry for the right reasons and receive and give fulfillment in an honourable way. It's not carnal or lustful.

But when people of God marry, they have a totally other dimension to their relationship, which is awesome! God-centered marriages are how God created them to be, and are the most fulfilling and most successful.

OK, cool.

Well, me and my partner are both Christians, I guess thats why we have such a great relationship, huh?

 

[Ohioprof]

Thinking is always good. God encourages it.



Yeah and but isnt' it true that God also wants us to not be independent of Him? Not that we are robots or anything, but when I 'think for myself' and then use the bible as my standard of living, it acutally improves my way of thinking. The consequence is that God, not me, gets the glory. Yes, I reap the good seed I've sown, but in the long run, it's never for myself. It's for others as well.


Think about that.

And if reading the Bible and thinking about it enhances your life, that's great. I don't use the Bible as my scripture. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. But if you do, and you find it a positive source of inspiration for you, wonderful.

 

[Ohioprof]

Yes it does, Starlight. Disobedience is the order of the day in such people. They obey their flesh, not God.

How do you know this? You don't know anything about gay people's relationships, do you?

 

[Ohioprof]

Yes but saved it also went where some of us Christians were reported by other Christians that we werent Christians as we believed differently than what another did...
I remember being reported many times for "Not" being a Christian...when indeed I am...just I didnt fit the persons model of one...

Anyhoo....nice to see you...hope all is well

My posts get reported regularly by people who think I am not a Christian. The moderators dismiss these reports.

Different people have different ideas about what it means to be a Christian. I call myself a Christian because I try to follow the teachings of Jesus. Some people insist that I am not a Christian because I do not adhere to what many regard as orthodox Christian doctrine. I do not believe faith hinges on believing in any doctrine. I believe faith is a practice, not a set of beliefs. I think the early Christians regarded faith as a practice also, and many were driven out of the church when doctrinal orthodoxy was insisted on by a few powerful men. However, many of the texts of these early Christians have survived, which is great. Also, Christians continue to emerge with beliefs that many church leaders regard as heresy. The Universalists in the 19th century, whose tradition I carry on, were frequently denounced as heretics because they believed in universal salvation. They interpreted the Bible differently from most other Christians, but they definitely saw themselves as Christians.

 

[Ohioprof]

So then why have the bible at all?

I think the Bible has great value as a historical source and as literature. The Bible provides valuable information about how early Christians and Jews thought about God, about their lives, about creation, about morals. The Bible has been a great influence on many cultures, often in different ways. Also, much of the Bible is beautiful. I recite the 23rd psalm every evening for my daughter before bed, as my grandmother did with me when I was a child. It's beautiful and inspirational. I don't regard the Bible as the word of God or as inspired by God, but I do think that many of the writers of the various books had great insights and were wonderful writers.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Also, Christians continue to emerge with beliefs that many church leaders regard as heresy. The Universalists in the 19th century, whose tradition I carry on, were frequently denounced as heretics because they believed in universal salvation. They interpreted the Bible differently from most other Christians, but they definitely saw themselves as Christians.

Hi prof,

How does one consider themselves a Christian when they don't believe that a Christ ever existed? The statement contradicts itself. In your belief, if Jesus was not the Christ (messiah), then He is only a human prophet or teacher. And if that is the case, He cannot be called the "Christ", since He is not the messiah. Therefore the term "Christ"ian is contradictory to your beliefs.
Just trying to help.

 

[Ohioprof]

Hi prof,

How does one consider themselves a Christian when they don't believe that a Christ ever existed? The statement contradicts itself. In your belief, if Jesus was not the Christ (messiah), then He is only a human prophet or teacher. And if that is the case, He cannot be called the "Christ", since He is not the messiah. Therefore the term "Christ"ian is contradictory to your beliefs.
Just trying to help.

Thanks for this and for all your thoughtful posts.

I don't believe in a messiah. I am a follower of Jesus. Many of the early Christians were also followers of Jesus, who focused on his teachings and his example, not on his death or his purported resurrection.

People can and do argue over what makes someone a Christian. I don't regard those arguments as bad, except when people seek to exclude from the dialogue those with different beliefs.

About 10 years ago, I shared my beliefs with our college chaplain, who is a Christian minister, and I asked him whether in his view I can legitimately call myself a Christian given the fact that my beliefs do not match those of many churches. He answered that yes, I can, and my beliefs are very similar to his. He said that there are many Christians who believe as I do. They are a minority of Christians, but they exist.

Most Unitarian Universalist Christians seem to hold beliefs similar to mine, from what I can gather from surveys of people in our faith. Two summers ago, at church camp, I participated in a workshop on the New Testament led by a UU minister. There were about 40 people taking this workshop, and most regarded themselves as UU Christians. The minister at one point during the workshop decided to poll the participants about our beliefs. He asked how many of us believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe in a virgin birth. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe that the Bible is the word of God. 1 person said yes. He asked us how many of us believe in following the teachings of Jesus. Nearly everyone said yes.

Those of us who reject what is commonly considered Christian orthodoxy are a minority among Christians, but we exist. I am not the only Christian who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and not as the messiah. Our college chaplain and the associate chaplain both believe that also, and they are ordained Christian ministers.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Thanks for this and for all your thoughtful posts.

I don't believe in a messiah. I am a follower of Jesus. Many of the early Christians were also followers of Jesus, who focused on his teachings and his example, not on his death or his purported resurrection.

Using the term "Christian" while not believing that the Christ exists/existed is misleading. If you are using it as a generalized term then possibly "Jesus Follower" applies better, as it defines anyone who follows Jesus, regardless of His divinity.

People can and do argue over what makes someone a Christian. I don't regard those arguments as bad, except when people seek to exclude from the dialogue those with different beliefs.

I agree completely, if one is strong in their faith, then they have nothing to fear from an open mind.

About 10 years ago, I shared my beliefs with our college chaplain, who is a Christian minister, and I asked him whether in his view I can legitimately call myself a Christian given the fact that my beliefs do not match those of many churches. He answered that yes, I can, and my beliefs are very similar to his. He said that there are many Christians who believe as I do. They are a minority of Christians, but they exist.

Yes you can call yourself whatever you want, but when you define yourself into a category, it really should reflect your beliefs. If you want to avoid conflict with people who are less than understanding, then you can just generalize it.

Most Unitarian Universalist Christians seem to hold beliefs similar to mine, from what I can gather from surveys of people in our faith. Two summers ago, at church camp, I participated in a workshop on the New Testament led by a UU minister. There were about 40 people taking this workshop, and most regarded themselves as UU Christians. The minister at one point during the workshop decided to poll the participants about our beliefs. He asked how many of us believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe in a virgin birth. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe that the Bible is the word of God. 1 person said yes. He asked us how many of us believe in following the teachings of Jesus. Nearly everyone said yes.

From this testimony, a descriptive definition that conveys their beliefs would be "Jesus Followers"

Those of us who reject what is commonly considered Christian orthodoxy are a minority among Christians, but we exist. I am not the only Christian who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and not as the messiah. Our college chaplain and the associate chaplain both believe that also, and they are ordained Christian ministers.

Why would someone be ordained in something that they don't even believe is real? Thats like me being a certified ectoplasmic specialist dealing with antigravitational interstellar quasi dimensional space unicorns and their effects on global warming.

 

[Ohioprof]

Using the term "Christian" while not believing that the Christ exists/existed is misleading. If you are using it as a generalized term then possibly "Jesus Follower" applies better, as it defines anyone who follows Jesus, regardless of His divinity.


I agree completely, if one is strong in their faith, then they have nothing to fear from an open mind.


Yes you can call yourself whatever you want, but when you define yourself into a category, it really should reflect your beliefs. If you want to avoid conflict with people who are less than understanding, then you can just generalize it.



From this testimony, a descriptive definition that conveys their beliefs would be "Jesus Followers"

Why would someone be ordained in something that they don't even believe is real? Thats like me being a certified ectoplasmic specialist dealing with antigravitational interstellar quasi dimensional space unicorns and their effects on global warming.

It's because people have different beliefs about what makes someone a Christian. I call myself a Christian because I believe in following the teachings of Jesus. You regard that as being a "Jesus follower." I think that being a Christians means being a Jesus follower.

I honestly do not care if some people don't like me calling myself a Christian.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

It's because people have different beliefs about what makes someone a Christian. I call myself a Christian because I believe in following the teachings of Jesus. You regard that as being a "Jesus follower." I think that being a Christians means being a Jesus follower.

I honestly do not care if some people don't like me calling myself a Christian.

Prof, I think you are missing my point. You can call yourself whatever you want, I believe we all have the freedom to do that.

I'm not talking about what it takes for someone to be Christian. I'm speaking of the definition of "Christian".

If you deny that Jesus is Christ, then Christ must not exist, right? If that is the case, then if you define yourself as a "Christ"ian, you are claiming belief in something that you believe does not exist. See the contradiction? Are you coining the term "Christian" just so your beliefs will blend in better ? I just don't see another reason for the deception/misdirection.

 

[Ohioprof]

Prof, I think you are missing my point. You can call yourself whatever you want, I believe we all have the freedom to do that.

I'm not talking about what it takes for someone to be Christian. I'm speaking of the definition of "Christian".

If you deny that Jesus is Christ, then Christ must not exist, right? If that is the case, then if you define yourself as a "Christ"ian, you are claiming belief in something that you believe does not exist. See the contradiction? Are you coining the term "Christian" just so your beliefs will blend in better ? I just don't see another reason for the deception/misdirection.

There is no deception or misdirection. It's just a term.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Hi again,

Yes it is a term. One used in this case to describe what particular beliefs you are aligned with. The term Christian is very general, but in the sense that anyone with the title Christian is one who follows Christ. Thats why I believe its misleading, but forgive me as I don't believe you are doing so with any bad intentions. Have a good day.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This term

/tɜrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[turm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a word or group of words designating something, esp. in a particular field, as atom in physics, quietism in theology, adze in carpentry, or district leader in politics. 2.any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance.

 

[JayJay77]

I came across a story about Michael Glatze, former Young Gay America editor, who denounced homosexuality for reasons disclosed in his article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487

 

[Ohioprof]

I came across a story about Michael Glatze, former Young Gay America editor, who denounced homosexuality for reasons disclosed in his article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487

Here is an open letter to Michael Glatze, written by blogger Daniel DeRito. Read it for a different perspective. The letter itself is a quotation, and it’s in blue:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/07/an_open_letter_to_michael_glatze.php

My open letter to Michael:
Dear Michael,
I read your posting at World Net Daily and I wanted to share some of my own thoughts on your thoughts and the larger subjects of sexuality, religion, and authenticity.
First, let me say that your words express an inner anguish that seems to have been your companion for many years. I have great sympathy for your heartache. Your attempt to resolve that anguish is noble, however your efforts to extrapolate your own journey as a tonic for all that ails others within the gay community is sadly misguided.
I don’t know you so I hesitate to offer my observations without one important caveat. Your life has been lived by and large in the public sphere…first when you embraced homosexuality through YGA and your many other activities…and now as you embrace an alternate reality that you have chosen to share through World Net Daily. Therefore, I make the assumption that both then and now, it has been your choice to submit yourself to the scrutiny of others. If I’m wrong, my apologies.
You note that YGA “was meant to fill a void” for young gay Americans…something not so “pornographic”. Is it possible that YGA was meant to first and foremost fill your own void and to combat your own issues with pornography? Let me elaborate. You see pornography is not the unique domain of homosexuals…it is available to virtually all sexual persuasions and curiosities…and one has the free will to partake or to pass.
I’ve read gay newspapers and periodicals for many years and I’ve always known I had the discretion to read and view those articles, advertisements, and photographs of my choosing. When you speak of homosexuality as being “by its very nature pornographic” isn’t it plausible that what you are actually explaining is how you elected to define your own affiliation with homosexuality? Keep in mind that one can affiliate with heterosexuality in the very same manner…maybe you have yet to discover that prerogative.
You also state that “homosexuality is not exactly ‘virtuous’”. Clearly, virtue is not innate to any sexual preference…just as it isn’t innate to Italians, Caucasians, tall people, people near the equator, or people who drive yellow cars. Virtue is a chosen state of being that is available to all humans. Your proximity to virtue during your homosexuality was a function of your actions as a human being with free will…not something one can definitively obtain or be denied as a result of some affiliation. If you lacked virtue, YOU lacked virtue…being gay need not separate one from virtue.
You indicate that “homosexuality prevents US from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we’re blinded by homosexuality.” The quest to find ones self should never be sought through affiliations. The fact that you couldn’t find communion with your self while you identified as a homosexual is not an indictment of homosexuality…it is an indication of your own internal conflicts…conflicts you played out in the public arena then and conflicts you now purport to have resolved in an alternate reality…once again seeking to air your process on the public stage. Unfortunately, your process now is not necessarily any more authentic than your process then.
What remains consistent is your need for others to affirm who and what you are whenever and wherever you tell us what you are. Don’t take this wrong, but I recall a time when I would fret about eating in a restaurant by myself…all I could think about was what others may be thinking it said about me. In a conversation with a wise friend, I mentioned my hesitation and she offered this observation, “Daniel, what makes you think you’re that important or that relevant in the minds of other diners? Why you are there eating alone is only meaningful to you.”
You see it was my perception that was flawed, not my situation. I was living outside of myself and relying on outside feedback to affirm myself…an exercise in futility. May I suggest you remain in the same predicament though you’ve altered your scenery? You proceed to state that you became aware of your homosexuality when you “noticed that I looked at other guys” and that you resolved your desires by paying attention to yourself. You continue by stating, “Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it.” Your words are clues to your own flawed perception. How you see other men…lustfully…is of your making…it is the perception you brought to your experience with homosexuality. The men you lusted after were not the issue…it was what you carried within.
Unfortunately, you attempt to apply your reality to all other homosexuals…once again illuminating your need for external affirmation…and in your current circumstances you need to vilify that which you no longer want to inhabit your psyche. Sadly, electing to announce your heterosexual affiliation is not the equivalent of extinguishing your flawed perceptions nor does it mean you will approach your heterosexuality any differently than you did your homosexuality. The healing of the heart is not an external event that is subject too, or a function of, ones proximity to any particular societal construct…in this instance heterosexuality.
You then pivot towards religion and your search for, and discovery of, your “God-given self”. Lacking in that observation is the realization that others may already be in harmony with their god-given selves. You see, may I regrettably suggest that you suffer the belief held by so many who identify as born again…you presume that everyone else must have lost sight of their god-given identities and is therefore in need of rebirth. May I posit that this is once again demonstrative of your need for external validation of your processes, your identity, and all that you experience? In other words, you are still a victim of your inability to embrace an identity of your own volition absent reinforcing feedback.
Your words provide further insight into your struggle. You state, “Lust takes us out of our bodies, “attaching” our psyche onto someone else’s physical form”. More telling words may have never been uttered. What you describe is your own persistent psychic wound that manifests itself in the objectification of others in order to fill an internal void…one you must believe to be insatiable and outside your capacity to repair. You see, your demons are just that…your demons. While you may find comfort in believing that every other homosexual has the same demons…that belief is merely a defense mechanism your ego employs to assuage the pain.
I would also speculate that the mindset you held put you in contact with people suffering similar struggles…thereby allowing you to reach your misguided conclusion that all homosexuals were like you. As difficult as this may be to hear, the friends I have would have little difficulty identifying you and your particular perceptions and the flawed judgments that they foster. That reality likely limited your exposure…but it certainly did not serve as a legitimate basis for your current hypothesis. You see, all that you have identified in your diatribe against homosexuality is that portion of your identity that you subconsciously find detestable. I’m sorry for your dilemma but I reject your conclusion.
Near the end of your essay, you state that “homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another”. Shame on you. That statement is an affront to everything else you ask us to embrace. At what point will you take personal responsibility for your own behavior? The pursuit of truth is not a construct you get to strap on when it serves you and pine for when you lack the wherewithal to seek it.
What you need to strive for is authenticity. Your persona as a cheerleader in the latest and greatest uniform of your liking is simply the measure of your inauthentic self. Your predicament is sad and I feel for you…but your carelessness and your cavalier capacity to tear down whatever no longer serves your fragile identity is indefensible and unacceptable.
The fact that you now wrap yourself in the glorious guise of god may once again serve your masked and manipulative inner master but it puts you no closer to truth. You contend that god wins in the end because you have chosen to co-opt god to augment your own disenfranchisement from self-truth. While you have hitched your wagon to this particular iteration of truth, it doesn’t mean you have found truth. You have simply found a new mechanism of certainty that can be substituted for the ever elusive identity that in the end has ironically come to define who you are and who you aren’t.
Michael, I hope you’re able to find peace…but I have to implore you to do so without attacking those who have journeyed much further along the path.
Regards,
Daniel

 

[Floatingaxe]

OK, cool.

Well, me and my partner are both Christians, I guess thats why we have such a great relationship, huh?

God deosn't recognize homosexual marriages.

 

[Floatingaxe]

How do you know this? You don't know anything about gay people's relationships, do you?

I know that they are an abomination to God, which is all I need to know, thanks.

 

[Floatingaxe]

My posts get reported regularly by people who think I am not a Christian. The moderators dismiss these reports.

Different people have different ideas about what it means to be a Christian. I call myself a Christian because I try to follow the teachings of Jesus. Some people insist that I am not a Christian because I do not adhere to what many regard as orthodox Christian doctrine. I do not believe faith hinges on believing in any doctrine. I believe faith is a practice, not a set of beliefs. I think the early Christians regarded faith as a practice also, and many were driven out of the church when doctrinal orthodoxy was insisted on by a few powerful men. However, many of the texts of these early Christians have survived, which is great. Also, Christians continue to emerge with beliefs that many church leaders regard as heresy. The Universalists in the 19th century, whose tradition I carry on, were frequently denounced as heretics because they believed in universal salvation. They interpreted the Bible differently from most other Christians, but they definitely saw themselves as Christians.

Here's God's Word, the only authority on that:

1 John 3:4-10
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God. And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him. Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on sinning does not know him or understand who he is.
Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.



Consider yourself refuted.

 

[David Brider]

God deosn't recognize homosexual marriages.

Some churches don't. I'm yet to be convinced that God doesn't, though.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Here's God's Word, the only authority on that:

Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God. And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him. Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on sinning does not know him or understand who he is.

Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.

Consider yourself refuted.

So are you saying that Ohioprof "makes a practice of sinning" and "keeps on sinning"? How do you know, have you got some sort of spycam set up in her house?

David.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Thanks for this and for all your thoughtful posts.

I don't believe in a messiah. I am a follower of Jesus. Many of the early Christians were also followers of Jesus, who focused on his teachings and his example, not on his death or his purported resurrection.

People can and do argue over what makes someone a Christian. I don't regard those arguments as bad, except when people seek to exclude from the dialogue those with different beliefs.

About 10 years ago, I shared my beliefs with our college chaplain, who is a Christian minister, and I asked him whether in his view I can legitimately call myself a Christian given the fact that my beliefs do not match those of many churches. He answered that yes, I can, and my beliefs are very similar to his. He said that there are many Christians who believe as I do. They are a minority of Christians, but they exist.

Most Unitarian Universalist Christians seem to hold beliefs similar to mine, from what I can gather from surveys of people in our faith. Two summers ago, at church camp, I participated in a workshop on the New Testament led by a UU minister. There were about 40 people taking this workshop, and most regarded themselves as UU Christians. The minister at one point during the workshop decided to poll the participants about our beliefs. He asked how many of us believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe in a virgin birth. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. No one said yes. He asked how many of us believe that the Bible is the word of God. 1 person said yes. He asked us how many of us believe in following the teachings of Jesus. Nearly everyone said yes.

Those of us who reject what is commonly considered Christian orthodoxy are a minority among Christians, but we exist. I am not the only Christian who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and not as the messiah. Our college chaplain and the associate chaplain both believe that also, and they are ordained Christian ministers.

Those "ordained Christian ministers" must have got their certification out of a Cracker Jacks box!

They are no more Christian in their beliefs than my shoe.

Only people who have had a life-changing, regenerating meeting with the living God through the resurrected Jesus Christ, the Messiah, can call themselves Christians.

Those examples you gave of early times reveal men and women who also were not Christians if they denied the resurrection.

One cannot deny the basic truths of the Lord Jesus Christ and take the name of Christian and actually BE one. It is a spiritual work of God that changes a person--makes them new so that they no longer are slaves to sin. Homosexuals are a case in point--they are unregenerated and reveal that they are not Christians because they have not renounced their sin (refer to scripture given previously).

I have no idea why people would bother to teach the New Testament and not embrace its truth. You are following after blind guides. What a waste of time.