Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[Ingledsva]

Evidently Jesus' view was transmitted through human writers of the Bible.

At Corinthians 6:9,10 it reads...
9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

May I draw your attention to verse 11 which says..."that is what some of you were". So it appears that an individual would stop such practices and exercise faith in the sacrifice of Jesus.

Just one problem there!


It doesn't actually say that -


as was shown in previous posts,



*

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

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?

I'm bisexual. I'm also an ex-Christian. In the past, I've tried my hardest to reconcile the two together, but I found it impossible. We're just not welcome there. Even if you consider the Old Testament irrelevant, Paul still made some pretty harsh comments about them in the New Testament as well. He made it pretty clear that we are "abominations." You can't just pretend that those verses don't exist, because they do. I just take them with a grain of salt though, because I'm not Christian.

 

[Ingledsva]

female homosexuality is also condemned as is incest and beastiality. Any form of sex outside of Gods design is condemned because it is outside of Gods design.

As the creator, he has the right to put us in our respective postions. When we take ourselves out of that position and put ourselves in another situation, it is sin.

Actually they aren't. See # 42. Becoming a Sacred Prostitute is "against the natural use" in a patriarchal society, where women were handed from male to male, as broodmares.



The Qadesh and Qadeshah played the role of God and Goddess in the creation story. They had Sacred Sex in the Temple, with the common people.



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


~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are 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.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto their vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.


This is all Sacred Sex with the Qadesh and Qadeshah. It is Commemorative Sex to another God - thus a death sentence for the Hebrew.


It has nothing to do with homosexuals



*

 

[Looncall]

It is not so strange if we postulate that religion, or the idea of morality originating from God, is an evolutionary adaptation.

For instance, the value given to (female) virginity and sexual restrictions by Christianity has an obvious biological reason; to reduce the risks of the cuckoo effect: raising a child that is not yours, biologically, if you are a male. And if a particular religion is very male centric, then the conclusion follows inescapably.

Human females are pretty unique amongst other primate species in not giving any visual signs about their current state of fertility. If we completely turned red during our fertile days, like other primate females, there would be no need to give value to virginity or overly control sexual freedom: all you have to do would be to keep us home a couple of days per month during those days, to be sure about paternity.

So, all those moral familiar pseudo-values highjacked by religion are ultimately explainable by us not having particular rashes during fertility periods. And this applies to any (human) moral imperative: it is mainly biological.

Ergo, sexual morality coming from religion serves evolutionary pressure: optimizes energy consumption so that it is used only for your own genes ... in most cases

Ciao

- viole

I find it also makes sense if one notes that the attitude comes from tribes living in resource-poor environments where inheritance concerns trump human decency.

Liberal attitudes to sex are found in lusher environments.

It's unfortunate that the Abrahamic religions came from deserts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes I see.
And it's true what you say.

First of all girls naturally look prettier than boys. (It's harder to condemn a pretty person)

Another psychological explanation was given to me by my dutch gay brothers. They say boys naturally want more seks than girls.
For instance: when a straight couple live together the boy will be drawing his girl to do seks more often, while the girl actually does the opposite by putting her boy on a brake. They both have to sacrifice something: the boy gets a little less than he desires and the girl gives a little more to keep him satisfied. They are affecting eachother.
But when it comes to a gay couple those two boys won't have this brake influence, so they are going to give eachother a lot. When male straight people find out about it, they might get jealous.
A lesbian couple on the other hand will have few seks which may be seen as more glorious in comparison with other couples.

When you're not lesbian I advice you not to talk about your seks life except with your partner or else people WILL devalue.

Those are all absurd and false generalizations.

 

[RabbiO]

Welcome back. I'm also curious about your translation of the two Leviticus verses....

Thank you. Now I need to I beg your indulgence. Shabbat approaches and I have obligations as a Jew and responsibilities as a rabbi.

As I do not post on Shabbat, further reply will have to wait until Sunday.

 

[Ingledsva]

Thank you. Now I need to I beg your indulgence. Shabbat approaches and I have obligations as a Jew and responsibilities as a rabbi.

As I do not post on Shabbat, further reply will have to wait until Sunday.

Sounds Good - the weather here is in the 70's, and we're going camping for three or four days.



*

 

[sojourner]

Evidently Jesus' view was transmitted through human writers of the Bible.

At Corinthians 6:9,10 it reads...
9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

May I draw your attention to verse 11 which says..."that is what some of you were". So it appears that an individual would stop such practices and exercise faith in the sacrifice of Jesus.

Except that the Greek doesn't mention "homosexual."

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Plus, it can be argued that Paul was not referring to homosexuality, or referring to homosexuality as we understand it today.

I'm curious to know exactly what you mean by "homosexuality as we understand it today." What exactly is the difference between homosexuals/bisexuals from 2000 years ago vs today's homosexuals/bisexuals... other than the fact that we're not stoned to death anymore.

 

[sojourner]

I'm curious to know exactly what you mean by "homosexuality as we understand it today." What exactly is the difference between homosexuals/bisexuals from 2000 years ago vs today's homosexuals/bisexuals... other than the fact that we're not stoned to death anymore.

Homosexuality as a normal, healthy sexual orientation was unknown to the ancients. They thought it impossible for a man to be sexually attracted to another man in the same way that a man can be sexually attracted to a woman.

If you look in the DSM IV (and V), you will note a marked absence of homosexuality being listed as aberrant behavior. We know more about the human psyche than the ancients did.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm curious to know exactly what you mean by "homosexuality as we understand it today." What exactly is the difference between homosexuals/bisexuals from 2000 years ago vs today's homosexuals/bisexuals... other than the fact that we're not stoned to death anymore.

They had no concept of sexual orientation back then. That is a modern understanding and the word "homosexual" didn't even exist until the 19th century. To them, sexuality was almost completely about behavior and it was bound up in social mores, including gender roles. Men were to be masculine, to be leaders, to be the head of the household. To be viewed as womanly in any way was a great insult. Part of this masculinity was that they were always to be the one who penetrates. To be penetrated is to be like a woman, and is a great shame. So the one who penetrated in homosexual sex was still viewed as manly, but the one who let himself be penetrated was seen as feminizing himself and so was looked down upon. (We see reflections of this in modern culture when we look down on gay male bottoms and ridicule them more than we do the tops, such as stereotyping them as being feminine. There's a reluctence to identify as a bottom and many gay men still want to be seen as "straight acting". Also, there's still an idea in some men's minds that as long as you're on the receiving end of oral sex or in the penetrative role in anal sex, you're not "really" being gay.)

This was tied up into a warrior culture where battlefield rape to humiliate your opponent was a common thing. So this added a further sense of shame to allowing yourself to be penetrated by a man.

So, in Greco-Roman culture, the only times it was socially acceptable to be penetrated were when you were an adolescent boy or a slave. Boys and slaves weren't viewed as having manhood so it wasn't a big deal. But when you became an adult male citizen, you were expected to always be the one who penetrates.

This thinking was widespread throughout Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and European culture. The Germanic peoples had the same ideas about it.

Obviously this is very outdated and we have much more mature ideas of sexuality today. But there's still remnants of such thinking in our collective psyche, as I noted above, since our culture descends from those cultures.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Homosexuality as a normal, healthy sexual orientation was unknown to the ancients. They thought it impossible for a man to be sexually attracted to another man in the same way that a man can be sexually attracted to a woman.

If you look in the DSM IV (and V), you will note a marked absence of homosexuality being listed as aberrant behavior. We know more about the human psyche than the ancients did.

My question now is why would a book claiming to be "divinely inspired" get the wrong idea of sexual orientation to begin with?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The conversation is continuing as if the Eurasian continent is the only continent where people had sex and marriage; and as if these cultures should be the soul sources of information.

Here are some articles about Africa:
The idea that African homosexuality was a colonial import is a myth | Bernardine Evaristo | Comment is free | theguardian.com
African myths about homosexuality | Blessing-Miles Tendi | Comment is free | theguardian.com
21 varieties of traditional African homosexuality | 76 CRIMES

And the North American Navajo:
The 'two-spirit' people of indigenous North Americans | Music | theguardian.com

 

[Katzpur]

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.

Assuming (as most Christians probably would) that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is sinful, I suppose it would be just as logical for a non-celibate gay person to identify as a Christian as it would be for a person to lies, gossips, cheats or uses crude or vulgar language to identify as a Christian. Your question makes it sound like you think Christians are supposed to be without sin. I don't think there would be very many Christians around if that were the case.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The conversation is continuing as if the Eurasian continent is the only continent where people had sex and marriage; and as if these cultures should be the soul sources of information.

That's because we're talking about the Bible and the cultures it was written in.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My question now is why would a book claiming to be "divinely inspired" get the wrong idea of sexual orientation to begin with?

Humans wrote the Bible. God did not dictate it to them. The people who wrote it, while still being inspired by the Holy Spirit and imparting spiritual truths, were still products of their cultures.

 

[columbus]

My question now is why would a book claiming to be "divinely inspired" get the wrong idea of sexual orientation to begin with?

It's just a hoot isn't it?

The people who don't know about sexual orientation, the age of the planet, why slavery is flat out evil, or climate change....
Will tell you all about The Creator, Ethics, and the Afterlife!

I have to laugh or I'd get violent.

Tom

 

[Pegg]

If the Bible has to be read literally, then incest was necessarily a part of God's design. Think of Adam and Eve or Noah family. Not to speak of the animals after the flood.

thats true. Mankind were created in perfection...their genetic material did not mutate nor did it pass on congenital deformities in the beginning. Thats likely why the genesis account shows that people lived for several hundreds of years..... it is even said of Moses that at 120 years of age his strength had not left him nor had his eyes grown dim.

But thats not the case anymore... and Gods law given in the 15th century BCE stipulated that close relations were not to be together. Obedience to that law protects future offspring from the congenital deformities that we see today. (obviously not everyone adheres to Gods laws)

Positions? What positions?

Ciao

- viole

male and female marriages. A woman was expected to be with a man and a man was expected to be with a woman.

That is Gods design.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Humans wrote the Bible. God did not dictate it to them. The people who wrote it, while still being inspired by the Holy Spirit and imparting spiritual truths, were still products of their cultures.

I'm not one to usually bring up the whole "slippery slope" idea, but if that one specific part of the Bible is wrong due to fallible humans, then what other parts could have also been fallibly written? The divinity of Jesus? The Resurrection? His Ascension into Heaven? The very idea of God's existence itself? How do you determine what parts of it are true and which parts are not without simply picking the parts you want to be true?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not one to usually bring up the whole "slippery slope" idea, but if that one specific part of the Bible is wrong due to fallible humans, then what other parts could have also been fallibly written? The divinity of Jesus? The Resurrection? His Ascension into Heaven? The very idea of God's existence itself? How do you determine what parts of it are true and which parts are not without simply picking the parts you want to be true?

You just place things in their historical context. Just because some things written about don't apply to us in this era doesn't mean you just throw the whole thing out.