Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[Sonofason]

People often do though.
Who said anything about lying?

Well, I did of course.

 

[dgirl1986]

Well, I did of course.

Not sure how it fits.

 

[Sonofason]

Not sure how it fits.

Note what Freducator had said. He said:

Or simply put, when Scripture condemns homosexuality, it is wrong. While the Bible is inspired, it was written by men; men are fallible, and so not all of Scripture is the word of God. Some is the misguided word of men.

And you agreed.
He acknowledges that the Bible is inspired. Yet when it comes to those verses he doesn't like, he concludes that the writers of the Bible were wrong, and fallible. So, only parts of Scripture is the word of God, but not the parts that are inconvenient for his own particular life. That is what I call a lie. And calling God a liar does not bode well for one's eternal existence.

 

[dgirl1986]

Note what Freducator had said. He said:


And you agreed.
He acknowledges that the Bible is inspired. Yet when it comes to those verses he doesn't like, he concludes that the writers of the Bible were wrong, and fallible. So, only parts of Scripture is the word of God, but not the parts that are inconvenient for his own particular life. That is what I call a lie. And calling God a liar does not bode well for one's eternal existence.

Pointing out that it was written by men and men are fallible does not call god a liar because the statement points to it being inspired by god rather than being the literal word of god.

 

[Ingledsva]

Note what Freducator had said. He said:


And you agreed.
He acknowledges that the Bible is inspired. Yet when it comes to those verses he doesn't like, he concludes that the writers of the Bible were wrong, and fallible. So, only parts of Scripture is the word of God, but not the parts that are inconvenient for his own particular life. That is what I call a lie. And calling God a liar does not bode well for one's eternal existence.

The writers were humans, writing long after the supposed events.


Thus they obviously are fallible.


As also can be the translations.



*

 

[Sonofason]

Pointing out that it was written by men and men are fallible does not call god a liar because the statement points to it being inspired by god rather than being the literal word of god.

I disagree. It most certainly does.

 

[Ingledsva]

Pointing out that it was written by men and men are fallible does not call god a liar because the statement points to it being inspired by god rather than being the literal word of god.

I disagree. It most certainly does.

HOW?


Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, were written, and then gathered together long after the supposed events, by patriarchal males, with an agenda. And Christian scholars have pointed out additions, and changes, and we know there are translation problems, etc.


Not fallible? LOL! They obviously are.


*

 

[Sonofason]

HOW?


Both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, were written, and then gathered together long after the supposed events, by patriarchal males, with an agenda. And Christian scholars have pointed out additions, and changes, and we know there are translation problems, etc.


Not fallible? LOL! They obviously are.


*

You have mentioned a few things here, and I'd like to point out that most of what you have pointed out is moot. The fact that the scriptures were written is a moot point. The fact that scripture has been gathered together is a moot point, unless you are trying to suggest that particular scriptures that have been chosen to be included in the canon of scripture that make up the Bible is somehow tainted or flawed. If so, I think you should be providing evidence to go along with this claim of yours.

The fact that a particular scripture has been in existence for a long period of time before it was included into the Biblical Canon is also a moot point, unless you are trying to suggest that the particular scripture in question has been somehow tainted or changed in some significant way so as to lose it's original meaning and intent. If so, I believe you should be providing some evidence to prove such a claim. Prove that each book has been changed significantly from it's original form.

Whether or not patriarchal males authored the documents that later became canonized into the Bible is a moot point, unless you are suggesting that males are somehow more untrustworthy than females. If that is the case, I'd like to see some evidence for such a bigoted opinion.

I believe the men who canonized the texts of the Bible did indeed have an agenda. I believe that agenda was to put together the cannon of God inspired scriptures in order to clearly set forth what books had been received by them through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which they and I believe were divinely inspired, and also to dispel the heretics of the day that were quoting from apocryphal writings giving rise to heretical sects such as Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Marcionism and Montanism, etc.

I believe the Bible was put into it's present canonical form for the good of us all. Heretics don't go to heaven. Those who distort the truth don't go to heaven.

Telling me that "Christian scholars have pointed out additions, and changes, and we know there are translation problems..." says nothing to me. Don't you think you should provide evidence of your claim? How can I refute what you say if you don't give me anything to refute. Give me the names of these Christian scholars you hold so dearly, give me the verses of scripture that they dispute. Tell me what changes were made to the biblical texts. Prove what you say is true.

 

[Ingledsva]

You have mentioned a few things here, and I'd like to point out that most of what you have pointed out is moot. The fact that the scriptures were written is a moot point. The fact that scripture has been gathered together is a moot point, unless you are trying to suggest that particular scriptures that have been chosen to be included in the canon of scripture that make up the Bible is somehow tainted or flawed. If so, I think you should be providing evidence to go along with this claim of yours.


ING - I don't have to prove it. They tells us they chose, and discarded. Nicene Councils, etc.


The fact that a particular scripture has been in existence for a long period of time before it was included into the Biblical Canon is also a moot point, unless you are trying to suggest that the particular scripture in question has been somehow tainted or changed in some significant way so as to lose it's original meaning and intent. If so, I believe you should be providing some evidence to prove such a claim. Prove that each book has been changed significantly from it's original form.


ING - Again - History tells us they gathered materials, and then decided what to keep, and what to discard. This speaks for itself.

Whether or not patriarchal males authored the documents that later became canonized into the Bible is a moot point, unless you are suggesting that males are somehow more untrustworthy than females. If that is the case, I'd like to see some evidence for such a bigoted opinion.


ING - Patriarchal males create for themselves at the expense of others. The laws they made up concerning woman are proof of this. God does NOT say you can own people, control women, keep sex slaves, rape captured women, etc. Patriarchal males write such absolute self-serving CRAP!


I believe the men who canonized the texts of the Bible did indeed have an agenda. I believe that agenda was to put together the cannon of God inspired scriptures in order to clearly set forth what books had been received by them through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which they and I believe were divinely inspired, and also to dispel the heretics of the day that were quoting from apocryphal writings giving rise to heretical sects such as Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Marcionism and Montanism, etc.

I believe the Bible was put into it's present canonical form for the good of us all. Heretics don't go to heaven. Those who distort the truth don't go to heaven.


ING - And I disagree with you for the very obvious reasons stated above!


Telling me that "Christian scholars have pointed out additions, and changes, and we know there are translation problems..." says nothing to me. Don't you think you should provide evidence of your claim? How can I refute what you say if you don't give me anything to refute. Give me the names of these Christian scholars you hold so dearly, give me the verses of scripture that they dispute. Tell me what changes were made to the biblical texts. Prove what you say is true.

I've given multiple examples in many of these posts. Go back and read them. Such as there being no Pierced hands and feet (of a future Jesus) in Psalm 22:16.


Psalms 22:16, which in Hebrew says, ... "k'ari b'yadai v'raglai" ("Like a lion (the enemies) are at my hands and feet"). ....

And the translators know that is what it says as they write in 21 -


Psa 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.




*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I know it's six months late, but I thought I'd answer. I am lesbian and practiced Catholicism for the past three years. Although I don't practice now, this is how I "rationalized it" from years of being in a Christian environment.

All references to homosexuality in the Bible has to do with sexually immoral behavior. A lot of people who engaged in "homosexual" activity where not homosexual. They were just heterosexuals (or bi, or whatever) who decided to disobey and use their bodies to displease God.

On the other hand, a Christian homosexual couple who are entirely committed to each other as friends and as girlfriends or boyfriends will not sleep with each other (hopefully) with lustful intentions.

The Bible does not speak against this type of relationship. It doesn't talk about this type of relationship at all. What it does say is "specific" actions are immoral and when one puts their flesh (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, alike) over God--that is what it is a sin, not the relationship itself.

Also, Christianity is a cultural faith. In many cultures, Christian parents chose their mate for their child. Normally, that mate is the opposite gender. Culture and religion go hand in hand.

Many I won't say all gay people who are or become Christian may not have the cultural upbringing that prehibits them from being with someone they love. I have not.

The only way I'd see my relationship is a sin is if A. I did it outside of marriage, and B. the intention was lust (sexual immoral behavior putting flesh over God)

Other than that, the Bible speaks nothing of relationships between people of the same-gender. It doesn't mention sexual orientation either.

I am gay, I am atheist, but I grew up in a "devout Christian home".

I understand that behavior is a choice; so I certainly understand that a celibate gay can be a Christian.

What I do not understand is the idea that a gay who is engaging in same sex relationships could, or would, identify themselves as Christian. It is a paradox to me.

We are well aware of the scriptures used to condemn homosexuality. The Old Testament, of course, condemned it. In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle called it "unnatural", made references towards homosexuality in the destruction of Sodom, and made it quite clear that "blah blah blah blah would not inherit the kingdom of Heaven", with homosexuality being on that list of blah blah blahs.

So: Gay Christians, specifically (it feels odd to type that; I feel like I'm typing an oxy moron), with the tenets of Christianity apparently so condemning of homosexuality, why do you find yourself drawn to it and how to you reconcile the apparent Christian doctrines that condemns us for what we are?

 

[leibowde84]

I am gay, I am atheist, but I grew up in a "devout Christian home".

I understand that behavior is a choice; so I certainly understand that a celibate gay can be a Christian.

What I do not understand is the idea that a gay who is engaging in same sex relationships could, or would, identify themselves as Christian. It is a paradox to me.

We are well aware of the scriptures used to condemn homosexuality. The Old Testament, of course, condemned it. In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle called it "unnatural", made references towards homosexuality in the destruction of Sodom, and made it quite clear that "blah blah blah blah would not inherit the kingdom of Heaven", with homosexuality being on that list of blah blah blahs.

So: Gay Christians, specifically (it feels odd to type that; I feel like I'm typing an oxy moron), with the tenets of Christianity apparently so condemning of homosexuality, why do you find yourself drawn to it and how to you reconcile the apparent Christian doctrines that condemns us for what we are?

1. Paul never even met Jesus. He merely claimed to have a "vision," which made him keel over and convulse. Seems to me that he was after influence more than anything, but he is certainly not a good source for the feelings of Jesus, whom he had no real contact with.
2. Homosexual acts are the sin (although I don't agree with this), but it is no more damaging than any other sexual sin (which, I don't agree with either). So, pretty much all Christians are sinning, yet they still identify as Christian. I always found it puzzling that a drug-addict would be welcomed in a church, but a sexually active homosexual would be ridiculed. I can guarantee that even every priest sins, so it cannot be a huge deal.
3. All sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin, so, obviously, homosexual activities would fall into this category (again, I disagree with this).

 

[Ingledsva]

1. Paul never even met Jesus. He merely claimed to have a "vision," which made him keel over and convulse. Seems to me that he was after influence more than anything, but he is certainly not a good source for the feelings of Jesus, whom he had no real contact with.
2. Homosexual acts are the sin (although I don't agree with this), but it is no more damaging than any other sexual sin (which, I don't agree with either). So, pretty much all Christians are sinning, yet they still identify as Christian. I always found it puzzling that a drug-addict would be welcomed in a church, but a sexually active homosexual would be ridiculed. I can guarantee that even every priest sins, so it cannot be a huge deal.
3. All sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin, so, obviously, homosexual activities would fall into this category (again, I disagree with this).

Actually it would appear that IDOLATRY is the sin, as most, if not ALL, of the so-called homosexual verses, are actually about SACRED SEX, which for the Hebrew was Idolatry, and thus worthy of death.

*

 

[leibowde84]

Actually it would appear that IDOLATRY is the sin, as most, if not ALL, of the so-called homosexual verses, are actually about SACRED SEX, which for the Hebrew was Idolatry, and thus worthy of death.

*

Whoa, you said a lot there. Can you explain a bit more what you mean by Idolatry as the sin and what that has to do with sacred sex? I'm curious.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually it would appear that IDOLATRY is the sin, as most, if not ALL, of the so-called homosexual verses, are actually about SACRED SEX, which for the Hebrew was Idolatry, and thus worthy of death.

*

Oh, I see what you mean. I completely agree and have felt the same way for a very long time. Not sure whether that came across in my original post though. It seems to me that it was merely an indication that people were living permiscuously which is always wrong according to the OT. So, one could reason that God would be in favor of the commitment present in same-sex marriage.

 

[Ingledsva]

Whoa, you said a lot there. Can you explain a bit more what you mean by Idolatry as the sin and what that has to do with sacred sex? I'm curious.

When you read most of these so-called anti-homosexual verses, they are actually talking about prohibitions against Sacred Sex practices, usually associated with Baal worship, and the Qadesh.

For instance - Christians usually use Romans 1 - as an anti-homosexuality text - but it TELLS US it is about Sacred Sex = Idolatry.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, art the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Very obvious Sacred Sex, = Idolatry.
*

Or they try to use 1Co 6:8, which translates ARSENOKOITAI as homosexual sex, - however there are NO know ancient uses of the word as such until the church starts using it as such.

The ancient uses seem to mean sexual crimes against men and WOMEN, - such as rape.

I found one reference to arsenokoitai as Temple prostitutes (who were sold to the temple, or given/dedicated by a family,)

Specific pairs of words did exist to describe active and passive homosexual partners: "drwntes and paschontes", and "paiderastai and paidika,"and these were NOT used in the Bible text!

*
They try to use Leviticus 18:22 - not even noticing that it changes to Molech worship, which is Sacred Sex with the Qadesh, at 18:21.

Lev 18:21 And your semen don’t give in copulation to MOLECH, and don’t desecrate/prostitute yourself, honor Elohiym, I am YHVH!

Lev 18:22 And with/for males, don't lie down in the beds/for intercourse woman, idolatry is this.

Note the strange wording, and NO "as with a" in 22.

Lev 18:23 And hence/also with any beasts don’t lay carnally defiling yourself. As/thus also woman shall not be employed to serve beasts in copulation! Unnatural/Bestiality it is!

Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

That word translated "customs" is chuqqah - STATUTES/LAWS/RITES

Homosexuality is not a LAW-STATUTE-RITE, etc, that they PRACTICED BEFORE!!!!!

However, Sacred Sex with the Qadeshah and Qadesh WAS!

Once again - we are talking about the Qadesh and Sacred Sex! Not homosexuals!

It is idolatry because they are having Sacred Sex as worship of a God.

I could go on-and-on, but you get the idea.

*