Gay Christian

Evangelicalhumanist · Jul 11, 2020

February-Saturday said:
It's not your issue either, although you're quick to judge my judgments. I find your lack of self-awareness about your own hypocrisy fascinating.

More interesting, I think, is the total lack of conversation we're having right now that's mostly filled by your vain, tangential hostility towards me. I'm not interested in your rubbish.

It is my issue, though. I am a gay man. Have been all my life. I'm not hypocritical about it either -- never claimed to be anything else, never claimed to be better or worse than any other person. Just me.

And, oh, I'm not vain, either -- just for the record. You oughtn't call people things you have no way of knowing. It's not nice.

eik · Jul 11, 2020

Mitty said:
It's still just imaginative stories in a book. And doesn't change the fact that biblical morality is obviously just man-made since the ten commandments etc did not apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, nor to our aborigines who arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was a girl.

God overlooked sin for a long time. The law was given only to the Israelites. Abraham was justified by faith, not law. Biblical morality is clearly not man made as it transcended by a long margin anything in operation in the surrounding nations.

Which is why the concept of the "gay Christian" is ludicrous. That could only ever be contemplated if Christianity was a branch of humanism. It reduces Christianity to humanism.

Anyway, if you reject God for your preference for humanism, that's your decision and you will be made to abide by the consequences.

eik · Jul 11, 2020

mikkel_the_dane said:
Stories proved true by history and archaeology. - All so for Islam.
Yet the sheer cohesiveness of the revelation of God through thousands of years culminating in Christ is undeniable and irrebuttable. - No, because there is no version version of Christianity and further for all of humanity, there is no one version of God as such.
Then there is the Christian experience which is likewise undeniable and irrebuttable. - The same for non-Christians or between different Christians.

All you are in effect saying is that you believe as you do. I accept that as it works for you and I accept that you properly don't accept that it works for me to believe differently.

You don't know what I believe, but I can tell you that I don't allow endless largely political quarrels between denominations of little faith that are not obedient to scripture get in the way of accepting scripture. In any case, there's far more commonality between Christians than you suppose.

February-Saturday · Jul 11, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
It is my issue, though. I am a gay man. Have been all my life. I'm not hypocritical about it either -- never claimed to be anything else, never claimed to be better or worse than any other person. Just me.

And, oh, I'm not vain, either -- just for the record. You oughtn't call people things you have no way of knowing. It's not nice.

Ah, I see. You think I'm not allowed an opinion because you assume that I'm not or never have been a gay man (or that I'm not even significantly close to gay men affected by the issue, thus becoming embroiled in it); it had nothing to do with me not being Christian. Your attempt at apologetics had me rather confused, especially given that they had nothing to do with what I was saying.

And just for the record, I never called you vain. I said your hostility towards me was vain. Now you've shown that it is indeed a personal grievance you have, and that's the reason for your tangential attempt to shut me down, which I think shows more vanity than I was accusing you of having to begin with.

I did accuse you of being a hypocrite, which I maintain now that you're going off about assumptions despite making piles of your own. This will be my last reply, because you're getting worse with each subsequent post.

Mitty · Jul 11, 2020

eik said:
God overlooked sin for a long time. The law was given only to the Israelites. Abraham was justified by faith, not law. Biblical morality is clearly not man made as it transcended by a long margin anything in operation in the surrounding nations.

So why did that particular god only give it's law to Moses, and why didn't it give it to Abraham et al and their ancestors, given that it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar? Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to butcher his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, given that the ten commandments etc didn't apply to them since biblical morality is obviously just man-made and changes as society changes.

Or are the biblical gods just imaginative fantasies that were created in the images and likenesses of the biblical writers?

Which is why the concept of the "gay Christian" is ludicrous. That could only ever be contemplated if Christianity was a branch of humanism. It reduces Christianity to humanism.
Anyway, if you reject God for your preference for humanism, that's your decision and you will be made to abide by the consequences.

Doesn't change the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuality, nor that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife.

Do you also think that it is ludicrous for remarried divorcees to be Christian, given that Jesus condemned ALL remarried divorcees to hell unless they remain celibate and repent their adulterous marriages (Matt 5:27-30 Mark 10:11-12 Exodus 20 Leviticus 20:10)?

eik · Jul 11, 2020

Mitty said:
So why did that particular god only give it's law to Moses, and why didn't it give it to Abraham et al and their ancestors, given that it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar? Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to butcher his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, given that the ten commandments etc didn't apply to them since biblical morality is obviously just man-made and changes as society changes.

The law was given to educate the Israelites in sin, i.e. right and wrong, to facilitate their adoption by God as a nation and fulfil the promises to Abraham. Romans 7:7-25. Sin is not imputed without law. Rom 5:13. It's not known whether Sarah was a full sister or a half sister or an adoptive sister. The law was the first step to universal salvation by faith for all mankind. WIth increasing moral sensibility comes increasing benefits from observing it, and increasining punishments for disobeying it. Since Christ the benefit of upholding the law by faith are extensive, even eternal life. The consequences for disobedience dire.

Mitty said:
Or are the biblical gods just imaginative fantasies that were created in the images and likenesses of the biblical writers?

You've answered that question for yourself.

Mitty said:
Doesn't change the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuality, nor that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife.

If you bothered to study the bible, the Greek word for love in John 21:20 is agapao, i.e. love in a social or moral sense, not eros.

Anyway I couldn't be bothered any longer to answer your endless questions when you are too lazy to study the bible for yourself, or even think through what the answer might be. After all, you can look up the answers on the WWW if you really wanted to know.

Mitty said:
Do you also think that it is ludicrous for remarried divorcees to be Christian, given that Jesus condemned ALL remarried divorcees to hell unless they remain celibate and repent their adulterous marriages (Matt 5:27-30 Mark 10:11-12 Exodus 20 Leviticus 20:10)?

Jesus did no such thing. He merely identified someone whom divorces for reasons other than unchastity as guilty of sin, and guilty of causing sin, and so a likely candidate for hell unless sins are repented of.

Mitty · Jul 11, 2020

eik said:
The law was given to educate the Israelites in sin, i.e. right and wrong, to facilitate their adoption by God as a nation and fulfil the promises to Abraham. Romans 7:7-25. Sin is not imputed without law. Rom 5:13. It's not known whether Sarah was a full sister or a half sister or an adoptive sister. The law was the first step to universal salvation by faith for all mankind. WIth increasing moral sensibility comes increasing benefits from observing it, and increasining punishments for disobeying it. Since Christ the benefit of upholding the law by faith are extensive, even eternal life. The consequences for disobedience dire.

In other words biblical morality, including the ten commandments, is just man-made.

If you bothered to study the bible, the Greek word for love in John 21:20 is agapao, i.e. love in a social or moral sense, not eros. Anyway I couldn't be bothered any longer to answer your endless questions when you are too lazy to study the bible for yourself, or even think through what the answer might be. After all, you can look up the answers on the WWW if you really wanted to know.

Doesn't change the fact that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife. Nor does the bible say that Jesus was a heterosexual. Nor does it change the fact that the bible says nothing about female homosexuality either.

Jesus did no such thing. He merely identified someone whom divorces for reasons other than unchastity as guilty of sin, and guilty of causing sin, and so a likely candidate for hell unless sins are repented of.

In other words remarried divorcees are tossed into the lake of fire unless they remain celibate and/or cut off their members and throw them away (Matt 5:27-30 Mark 10:11-12 Luke 16:18) and repent for their adulterous marriages.

JesusisLord777 · Jul 11, 2020

sun rise said:
I see it that way as well.

For a Christian, the answer is love no matter what the question is.

And that is a supreme challenge if there ever was one. I know that implies that no matter how wrong I think someone is in word and deed, my response should be to at least try to love them, truly love them.

True Love, as defined in the Bible, would be to preach to them. Let's say your brother is in a burning house (trapped in Sin). In these backward times, the "moral" thing would mean to let him be, because it is his right to live his life and make his own decisions. What most Christians don't want to believe is that God's morals don't change with the times. If a Christian truly loves according to the Scriptures, they would "Feed [His] Sheep" and try to guide all the lost to Christ. No matter how harsh it sounds, it would glorify God. If God doesn't like Homosexuality, a Christian should speak out against the Sin and not condemn the sinner because only God has the power to do that. Sadly, preaching the Gospel and condemning sin is viewed as hate speech.

King Phenomenon · Jul 11, 2020

JesusisLord777 said:
True Love, as defined in the Bible, would be to preach to them. Let's say your brother is in a burning house (trapped in Sin). In these backward times, the "moral" thing would mean to let him be, because it is his right to live his life and make his own decisions. What most Christians don't want to believe is that God's morals don't change with the times. If a Christian truly loves according to the Scriptures, they would "Feed [His] Sheep" and try to guide all the lost to Christ. No matter how harsh it sounds, it would glorify God. If God doesn't like Homosexuality, a Christian should speak out against the Sin and not condemn the sinner because only God has the power to do that. Sadly, preaching the Gospel and condemning sin is viewed as hate speech.

It's not sad. It is hate speech to gay people. Most gay people ignore it anyway

Sand Dancer · Jul 11, 2020

blü 2 said:
Yup. Poor old Paul! He really couldn't handle anything to do with sex.

Sometimes I think I know what his "thorn" was.

Mitty · Jul 11, 2020

Thirza Fallen said:
Sometimes I think I know what his "thorn" was.

Which is presumably why he remained celibate after unsuccessfully trying three times to overcome his sinful gift ("thorn in the flesh") from the devil, and why some gay Christians choose to become celibate priests (Matt 19:12).

blü 2 · Jul 11, 2020

Thirza Fallen said:
Sometimes I think I know what his "thorn" was.

Oh, it's spelt with a t, is it?

JesusisLord777 · Jul 11, 2020

Power Stone said:
It's not sad. It is hate speech to gay people. Most gay people ignore it anyway

If you take it in the perspective of a Christian, it isn't hate speech, it is love. I know there are many Christians that condemn and hate Gay people. However, the bible says to love them enough to try and save them from the eternal wrath that will befall them. The people that kill and assault gay people aren't real Christians. Real Christians actually know that free will is a thing and wouldn't try to force gay people into being straight. The bible tells people to hate the sin and not the sinner. In the Christian POV, we don't want them to go to hell, so we give them the Gospel : that Jesus came to die for us, so that we may have the chance to repent of our sins and get salvation. People that hate gay people don't give them a chance to change of their own will, which is hatred.

Jesus didn't tolerate sin, he hated it, but not the people that sinned.

King Phenomenon · Jul 11, 2020

JesusisLord777 said:
If you take it in the perspective of a Christian, it isn't hate speech, it is love. I know there are many Christians that condemn and hate Gay people. However, the bible says to love them enough to try and save them from the eternal wrath that will befall them. The people that kill and assault gay people aren't real Christians. Real Christians actually know that free will is a thing and wouldn't try to force gay people into being straight. The bible tells people to hate the sin and not the sinner. In the Christian POV, we don't want them to go to hell, so we give them the Gospel : that Jesus came to die for us, so that we may have the chance to repent of our sins and get salvation. People that hate gay people don't give them a chance to change of their own will, which is hatred.

Jesus didn't tolerate sin, he hated it, but not the people that sinned.

Yeah I know
Doesn't really matter anyway because most gay people don't even pay attention to the Bible or Christianity or Christ or any of it

PruePhillip · Jul 11, 2020

blü 2 said:
No, that's simply untrue. There's never a moment when the angel taps you on the shoulder and says, Here's the list, do you want to be straight or gay or bi, prefer vanilla or strawberry, be six foot or five foot, have red or blond or dark hair ... You get the kit you're born with.

Even were you correct, it would still be none of your concern anyway; but it's not correct. Occasionally it's visible from an early age ─ have you never met a child about eight or nine and thought he (more rarely she) is going to be gay? A boy who lived on our block when our kids were young used to come round to our house and play; and my wife and I compared notes after a while and each of us had had the same thought. So it proved ─ as I mentioned to KenS in a post recently, I remember drinks at our place when he graduated; his boyfriend was with him. Wherever he is now, I hope he's traveling well.

Sure, people are born with all sorts of sexual inclinations. Being born with something doesn't make
it right. What if you believe you are born "hyper sexual" or "nymphomaniac" and should excuse your
lack of marital fidelity?
I grew up hearing that "drinking, smoking and gambling" were "sins." No anymore. If anything they
are health or economic issues. Seems we have transferred our "sins" for all the things once held to
be right. We are seeing the terrifying results of this as we allow people to pull down our culture.

PruePhillip · Jul 11, 2020

mikkel_the_dane said:
Yes and no, because everything in the Bible is not Jesus and even how to interpret the meaning of Jesus is subjective. Further you still have to make a leap of Faith only to rely on Jesus and not other religious sources or indeed try to combine them.

I see everything in the bible that was inspirational as pointing to Christ.
And there's little to "interpret" when we are given his life's story.

blü 2 · Jul 11, 2020

PruePhillip said:
Sure, people are born with all sorts of sexual inclinations. Being born with something doesn't make it right.

As Housman (who was closet gay) wrote, with Oscar Wilde's recent conviction in mind:

’Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;
In the good old time ’twas hanging for the colour that it is;
Though hanging isn’t bad enough and flaying would be fair
For the nameless and abominable colour of his hair.

PruePhillip said:
What if you believe you are born "hyper sexual" or "nymphomaniac" and should excuse your lack of marital fidelity?

If you have a medical condition you should seek medical advice. Homosexuality is not a medical condition. If you doubt me, ask your own medical practitioner.

PruePhillip said:
I grew up hearing that "drinking, smoking and gambling" were "sins." No anymore. If anything they are health or economic issues.

Addiction is a medical condition, whether physical or psychological. Homosexuality is not an addiction. Again, if you doubt, ask your medical practitioner. (Make sure your medical practitioner is free of religious bigotry, of course.) I wouldn't oppose restrictions on the advertising of gambling: it's another thing I don't think children can give informed consent to engage in; but banning it outright would be silly, as would the loss to public revenue when it continued underground.

PruePhillip said:
Seems we have transferred our "sins" for all the things once held to be right. We are seeing the terrifying results of this as we allow people to pull down our culture.

Phooey.

mikkel_the_dane · Jul 12, 2020

eik said:
I didn't say that, But an education devoid of morality (unless you study law or religion) that the current world is in love with is not what used to be the case. It's no wonder that our education systems churn out atheists in abundance.

They can't even understand the Koran. Note I didn't extend my praise to the whole bible. Just some parts that are sublime and far superior to anything in the Koran.

I mean intellectually unsurpassable. Of course there are many good books. I even like the Tao Te Ching myself. The Chinese are wise in their own way. Every major nation has its wisdom books. But I think that parts of the New Testament are so superlative in spiritual insight that they cannot ever be surpassed by mere human wisdom.

Yeah, read your own post and notice where you are subjective and use emotions. That is okay, I do that to. But I don't claim that arguments based on my subjective emotions must be true for all humans.

You want intellect for how to make a society: Original position - Wikipedia
That is not only one, but it is one you have to do if you claim intellectual.

mikkel_the_dane · Jul 12, 2020

PruePhillip said:
I see everything in the bible that was inspirational as pointing to Christ.
And there's little to "interpret" when we are given his life's story.

And you reject all other approaches to what God is. And in effect all other interpretations of the Bible.

Don't you understand that your rejection of any other interpretation is an interpretation itself?

PruePhillip · Jul 12, 2020

mikkel_the_dane said:
And you reject all other approaches to what God is. And in effect all other interpretations of the Bible.

Don't you understand that your rejection of any other interpretation is an interpretation itself?

What other "approaches" are there?

Gay Christian

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Active Member

Active Member

Devil Worshiper

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Crazy Cat Lady

Active Member

Veteran Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

My own religion

My own religion

Well-Known Member