Can you be a Christian and still

[creativish]

After 2.5 years of graduate school, I have a 3.97 GPA at a Christian*seminary*. I find the "wink" patronizing. I do not have a problem "understanding" many scriptures. To say I have studied this topic would be an understatement.

 

Your understanding, and way of getting there, on the verses you think are about homosexuality apparently seem clear to you. I do not see those verses the same way.

 

Is there a website that shares your interpretation so I can learn more?

[SeekingHim77]

After 2.5 years of graduate school, I have a 3.97 GPA at a Christian*seminary*. I find the "wink" patronizing. I do not have a problem "understanding" many scriptures. To say I have studied this topic would be an understatement.

 

Your understanding, and way of getting there, on the verses you think are about homosexuality apparently seem clear to you. I do not see those verses the same way.

 

I apologize for making you feel that way. I'll admit it was a little tongue in cheek. I find myself wanting to get snippy but that would be wrong and would hurt this discussion, not help it.

 

I don't want to argue with anyone about their interpretation of scripture. That's a mine field. However, I feel that you are implying that I want to interpret the Bible in the way I do or that I'm fitting scripture to my own personal feelings on the topic. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are both saying the same thing-that we believe our understanding of the scriptures to be true. I can't imagine accusing someone of hatred for doing that.

[WishboneDawn]

It is in the Bible-therefore you are arguing against the Bible.

 

Maybe you're not arguing against the God you believe in but you are definitely arguing against the God I believe in.

 

I believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is. I do not pick and choose which scriptures I believe.

 

Besides, much of this misses the point. I believe if someone chooses to accept the finished work of Christ, they become a new creation and God changes them.

 

If a homosexual (or someone who engages in any other form of sin) becomes a Christian, God can and will change their heart and body to reflect His will.

 

God has delivered me of so many sinful desires I used to have. He accepted me the way I was and gave me the power, and the desire, to change.

 

There are LOTS of things in the Bible and all getting processed through our filters. Do YOU cover your head in church? If not, why not? It's in the Bible. Do you stone adulterers? If not, why not? It's in the Bible.

 

We understand that much of what's in there is interpreted through context and later scripture. People argue the Paul was writing to a specific community and so we do not all need to cover our heads. That's understanding the context of scripture and applying reason. People argue that we were freed from following Leviticus to a tee by Jesus who fulfilled the law. We understand that later scripture adds to our understanding of how we apply what's in earlier scripture and apply reason.

 

Why that process of interpretation and reason should stop at a few passages about gay male sex is beyond me. Why then saying, "It's in the Bible," is an acceptable response doesn't make sense to me.

[SeekingHim77]

I was going to stay out since I haven't contributed much useful to this discussion, but I just can't ignore that comment.

 

I've heard the above so much and it never fails to upset me.

 

No, the argument is not with the Bible. It is with the way ignorant people twist some of the things in the Bible. And I think we can see the destruction and hatred that happens as a result for themselves and those it is directed towards.

 

I don't even understand how one can accuse another of twisting the scriptures regarding this particular topic. The fact that the Bible calls homosexuality sin should not be a news flash to anyone.

[SeekingHim77]

There are LOTS of things in the Bible and all getting processed through our filters. Do YOU cover your head in church? If not, why not? It's in the Bible. Do you stone adulterers? If not, why not? It's in the Bible.

 

We understand that much of what's in there is interpreted through context and later scripture. People argue the Paul was writing to a specific community and so we do not all need to cover our heads. That's understanding the context of scripture and applying reason. People argue that we were freed from following Leviticus to a tee by Jesus who fulfilled the law. We understand that later scripture adds to our understanding of how we apply what's in earlier scripture and apply reason.

 

Why that process of interpretation and reason should stop at a few passages about gay male sex is beyond me. Why then saying, "It's in the Bible," is an acceptable response doesn't make sense to me.

 

Yes but the new testament is a new covenant so the stoning no longer applies and the head covering thing is not addressed as sin. Big difference in my opinion.

 

Yes we reason about scripture-yes, we may come to different understandings on scripture but when it says such and such is an abomination to the Lord-what is there to interpret?

[WishboneDawn]

It reminds me of a thread elsewhere that was started by an Orthodox Jew asking Christians why he should believe Jesus is the Messiah (as if he didn't already have his mind made up before posting the question!). The thread got somewhat heated and there were many Christians, Jews and others responding.

But the one thing that I saw was that many of the Jewish members were repeatedly saying that the Christians were being too harsh and mean. But I did not see that-- I saw Christians trying to quote the Bible and use words much like has been the case on this thread-- but people were still offended. :confused: It really took me for a loop that by making plain old statements from the Bible (words that we Christians are used to and have heard for years), would come across as offensive.

I think this issue of homosexuality is another similar situation where that same mis-communication can happen, where as a Christian we are simply trying to defend our beliefs by what the Bible says but it is interpreted harshly. :confused: I don't know.

 

It's the bolded that causes the problem for some of us I think, the idea that something is the Bible is, "plain, old" or by implication,plain and simple. I can see this as a problem especially with Jewish people because they have a great tradition of discussing and interpreting scripture. To imply that you can get the full meaning of God's intent from quote without measuring it against the rest of scripture is dubious.

[WishboneDawn]

Yes but the new testament is a new covenant so the stoning no longer applies and the head covering thing is not addressed as sin. Big difference in my opinion.

 

Yes we reason about scripture-yes, we may come to different understandings on scripture but when it says such and such is an abomination to the Lord-what is there to interpret?

 

You just justified your interpretation of very plain, simple and clear demands that scripture makes of us and then ask how others can do the same for different quotes? :001_smile:

[TheReader]

But it's not funny at all. It's incredibly sad and mean-spirited.

Homosexuals, according to the Bible can never, ever have a meaningful fulfilling sexual experience.

Heterosexuals can. . . so long as they can find someone to marry.

 

Homosexuals. Never. Never.

 

Not if they find someone compatible. Not if they find the love of their life.

 

No one. Ever.

 

They are condemned to a sexless, partnerless life from their birth.

 

How sad!

 

I will not laugh. I will rather weep for those poor men and women who are so cowed and frightened by religion as to live their lives alone beseeching their god to change them so they, too, can be loved.

 

Fie on it!

 

 

Or who take their own life out of despondency and despair.

Or worse, those who are brutalized and left to die as Matthew Shepard was, simply because of his sexual orientation.

 

How utterly senseless and cruel.

 

astrid

 

Yes, it is sad. Weeping with both of you.

 

I'm truly amazed that some people think this thread is sad or see hatred in any of the posts (at least the ones I've read). I think it's a very civilized conversation. We all have the right to our own opinions/beliefs.

 

Christians are commanded to love, to treat others like they want to be treated, to share the gospel. Never are we commanded to hurt, kill or humiliate someone because they disagree with us. The hatred, the killing, the humiliation towards homosexuals (and anyone else who lives a lifestyle that the Bible states is sinful) is not from true Christians. I think this discussion is evidence that true Christians would never behave in such a manner.

 

If I say being a drunkard is a sin, noone is going to accuse me of hate mongering. If I say fornication is a sin, I'm not going to be accused of it either. Why is the hate mongering card pulled out only when Christians call homosexuality a sin?

 

While I don't have any close homesexual friends, I do have homosexual acquaintances and I treat them with the same love and respect that I extend to all people.

 

Melanie, Ipsey was referring originally to verses in the Bible that say homosexuals should be put to death. THAT is sad. That is hateful. That is the hurt, humiliation, etc. that she was originally referring to (near the beginning of this thread). And, it is hurtful.

 

Saying you believe the Bible about homosexuality is saying you agree that homosexuals deserve death (Romans 1). The thing is, Romans 2 says even more clearly "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass the judgement do the same things."

 

(note: "do the same things" refers back to the end of Romans ch 1 where he says "they are gossips, slanderesrs, ...boastful...disobey their parents..." -- ie, stuff each and every one of us has done)

 

We, as Christians, have got to stop judging. Period.

 

Okay, to a point.

 

As a Christian I am not solely concerned with my responsibility as an individual.

 

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

 

There's a call to community implicit in Christianity. To me that's a call to be responsible to and responsible for that community. I put that together with the Samaritan story and I think we should not simply be talking about how loving we are as individuals but we should be holding other Christians to account for their hateful actions.

 

I see a LOT of talk about how those Christians aren't true Christians or those are just a few. But then the talk stops. I don't think that's where our obligations end. If Fred Phelps shows up with his "God Hates Fags" signs where are the local churches, conservative and liberal alike with their "God Loves You" signs? Why are we not extending love to the gay people affected (and even Phelps for that matter - THERE'S a challenge!). We can't afford to distance ourselves from people like him. It makes us look petty to those outside and it shirks that communal responsibility that's intrinsic to Christianity.

 

I DO applaud those who despite their view that homosexuality is a sin choose to love their gay friends and family. But as Christians that's the very least of what we're called to do.

 

Exactly. Well stated, Dawn.

 

(somewhere in here I thought I quoted twoforjoy's post as well....I meant to; it was/is an awesome post)

 

:iagree:

 

I've said it before in similar threads. I see the "homosexuality is a sin" or "acting on homosexual orientation is a sin" as on the same continuum of active, violent hate.

 

It is hate if homosexuals are told (or thought of) as willfully continuing in sin, and therefore are going to hell. It is *hate* to tell anyone they are going to hell. Particularly so when you are condemning them to hell for the way they love.

 

It *is* hate to tell an entire group of people that God considers them an "abomination". It *is* hate to say "Hate the sin, love the sinner" when the "sin" you hate is part of their core, their being, their intimacy, their connection, their love, their affection.

 

It *is* hate to speak of "homosexual lifestyle" as if that communicates anything about their behavior, character, or values. It *is* hate to say "it's between them and God" when homosexuals aren't given the same protection by the laws of the land for property rights, medical access, financial benefits, insurance coverage. It *is* hate when you say "I don't mind homosexuals but I want them to keep their PDA private" and you aren't comfortable with the same level of affection as you would be with a heterosexual couple.

 

It *is* hate when believing homosexuals can't serve in Christian settings as Leaders, Pastors, volunteers. It *is* hate when people don't proclaim loud and clear that homosexual is not synonymous with promiscuity, or perversion of sexuality.

 

It *is* hate when marriage is defined as "man and woman". Or when the Christian Bible has ideas superimposed onto it such as because God's biology creates children out of heterosexual engagement, *homosexual physical engagement* is not God's design (also).

 

It *is* hate when sexual minorites have a higher rate of suicide, addiction, and other mental health issues. Research shows this is not because of their orientation (or gender related issues) but because of the culture's and their family's reaction to it.

 

This too. Excellent post, Joanne.

 

After 2.5 years of graduate school, I have a 3.97 GPA at a Christian*seminary*. I find the "wink" patronizing. I do not have a problem "understanding" many scriptures. To say I have studied this topic would be an understatement.

 

Your understanding, and way of getting there, on the verses you think are about homosexuality apparently seem clear to you. I do not see those verses the same way.

 

This too. Winks and "gee, what bible are YOU reading???" sorts of comments are really a bit uncalled for. This thread is full of various Christians with various beliefs on this topic. To say (Melanie) that your interpretation is THE right interpretation and the rest of us is wrong is a bit presumptious and, yes, patronizing.

[catz]

There are LOTS of things in the Bible and all getting processed through our filters. Do YOU cover your head in church? If not, why not? It's in the Bible. Do you stone adulterers? If not, why not? It's in the Bible.

 

We understand that much of what's in there is interpreted through context and later scripture. People argue the Paul was writing to a specific community and so we do not all need to cover our heads. That's understanding the context of scripture and applying reason. People argue that we were freed from following Leviticus to a tee by Jesus who fulfilled the law. We understand that later scripture adds to our understanding of how we apply what's in earlier scripture and apply reason.

 

Why that process of interpretation and reason should stop at a few passages about gay male sex is beyond me. Why then saying, "It's in the Bible," is an acceptable response doesn't make sense to me.

 

:iagree:

[Ellesmere]

I don't even understand how one can accuse another of twisting the scriptures regarding this particular topic. The fact that the Bible calls homosexuality sin should not be a news flash to anyone.

 

If you don't understand it yet (and I have hope that someday you will) then I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation. I wish we could. You don't know how much I wish we could!

 

But if, in your eyes, I'm not reading the "right" version of the Bible or agreeing with some private interpretation of Scripture, then do I even have a chance? (Sincere, not sarcastic question here. I hope you take the time to get back to me.)

 

I'm going to kindly and gently suggest that you take the time to explore, if you have ever had doubts, some questions about what the Bible says to you that shouldn't be a news flash to me, yet is so out of line with what many loving, faithful Christians believe.

[Joanne]

If you don't understand it yet (and I have hope that someday you will) then I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation. I wish we could. You don't know how much I wish we could!

 

But if, in your eyes, I'm not reading the "right" version of the Bible or agreeing with some private interpretation of Scripture, then do I even have a chance? (Sincere, not sarcastic question here. I hope you take the time to get back to me.)

 

I'm going to kindly and gently suggest that you take the time to explore, if you have ever had doubts, some questions about what the Bible says to you that shouldn't be a news flash to me, yet is so out of line with what many loving, faithful Christians believe.

 

:iagree: I "get" how people can believe that the Bible/God are against homosexuality. I don't agree, but I get it.

 

I can't understand how people can read this thread, and other prose about this topic, and not *get* that thinking, believing, on fire Christians can read the same words from the same book and have a different view.

 

Actually, I guess it is not the "same words" and "same book" now that I am typing. To me, ALL scripture is interpretation. From the oral traditions, to the scribes, to the transliterations, to the translations and to the people reading, and teaching it. It is ALL interpretation.

[Lovedtodeath]

Disclaimer: I stopped reading this thread around the last time I posted. I was done with the topic.

I can't understand how people can read this thread, and other prose about this topic, and not *get* that thinking, believing, on fire Christians can read the same words from the same book and have a different view.

I will be honest about why I don't get it, and this is on many topics, not this one in particular. I don't get how true Christians can have entirely different views because of the way I understand being born-again and walking in Spirit. It seems to me that if every true Christian is born-again and walks in the Spirit then they should be getting their views on things from the Spirit and therefore they would agree with one another.

 

As a "newborn" who listens to the Holy Spirit and feels the changes in my thinking since my birth, I honestly have a lot of confusion about this right now.

[Joanne]

I will be honest about why I don't get it, and this is on many topics, not this one in particular. I don't get how true Christians can have entirely different views because of the way I understand being born-again and walking in Spirit. It seems to me that if every true Christian is born-again and walks in the Spirit then they should be getting their views on things from the Spirit and therefore they would agree with one another.

 

As a "newborn" who listens to the Holy Spirit and feels the changes in my thinking since my birth, I honestly have a lot of confusion about this right now.

 

Stages of faith. Fowler's work on stages of faith may help you.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you Joanne.

 

I read the last few posts and I agree with most of what Melanie and Dawn are saying, so how about that. :001_huh:

[scrapbookbuzz]

I am a Christian and believe that God is clear that it is a sin. (And this is after studying the Bible in my younger days, hoping it would say something else.) I don't think it's my job to convert them any more than any other sin. I think we all need God and He takes care of the sin in His own time and ways once we all get that straight.

 

 

:iagree:

[creativish]

If you don't understand it yet (and I have hope that someday you will) then I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation. I wish we could. You don't know how much I wish we could!

 

But if, in your eyes, I'm not reading the "right" version of the Bible or agreeing with some private interpretation of Scripture, then do I even have a chance? (Sincere, not sarcastic question here. I hope you take the time to get back to me.)

 

I'm going to kindly and gently suggest that you take the time to explore, if you have ever had doubts, some questions about what the Bible says to you that shouldn't be a news flash to me, yet is so out of line with what many loving, faithful Christians believe.

 

Yet her thoughts are consistent with what many other loving, faithful Christians believe as well.

 

You could ask yourself those same questions but from her perspective and the answers you posted here would still apply the in the other direction.

 

I do not agree that to view homosexuality as a sin equates hate. That is the fallacy. You can still love even though there is sin.

[Enough]

I personally sometimes think that if God has any opinion on homosexuality it's to be a test on His followers on how to treat others. And many would fail.

 

This.

[krisperry]

Joanne, thank you for your posts. I agree with you.

 

Welcome Beck!

[Ellesmere]

Disclaimer: I stopped reading this thread around the last time I posted. I was done with the topic.I will be honest about why I don't get it, and this is on many topics, not this one in particular. I don't get how true Christians can have entirely different views because of the way I understand being born-again and walking in Spirit. It seems to me that if every true Christian is born-again and walks in the Spirit then they should be getting their views on things from the Spirit and therefore they would agree with one another.

 

As a "newborn" who listens to the Holy Spirit and feels the changes in my thinking since my birth, I honestly have a lot of confusion about this right now.

 

There's no shame in being honest about why you don't get it. :)

 

(Please don't let this be a point of derailment, but your comment about "true Christians" being "born again" is important because you are going to, if you ever dig in this direction, find contention about what that phrase means to a Christian. Some will say they can't believe it's a news flash that "born again" means what it seems to mean to them while a lot of others are saying "But you keep saying those words. They do not mean what you think they mean!)

 

I sympathize with your confusion, and I trust you will get through this. Changes in thinking are not a bad thing, but you have to ask if you are agreeing with a private (that has become widespread amongst certain groups) interpretation of the Bible or something that came from some, yes, widespread ignorant twisting of the Scriptures. The reason that both make sense for awhile is that one can make strong, although flawed arguments on a Bible-alone, literal basis about this topic.

 

Or we can realize that a lot of people who actually do believe the Bible and are Christians and will not agree that someone's orientation is a sin.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Clairelise

[Ellesmere]

Yet her thoughts are consistent with what many other loving, faithful Christians believe as well.

 

You could ask yourself those same questions but from her perspective and the answers you posted here would still apply the in the other direction.

 

I do not agree that to view homosexuality as a sin equates hate. That is the fallacy. You can still love even though there is sin.

 

Sure, I could and I have asked those same questions from her perspective. It was once my own view, believe it or not. I know why her thoughts seem consistent.

 

I'm not looking down on anyone and I stop short of saying she or anyone who has her views is trying to or wanting to promote hatred. I realize that most people who hold what seems to be your view (I'm guessing you think it's a sin because I'm catching up here, so I'm not trying to assume that I know your opinion on this) feel they are loving. Most honestly don't get that their view, perhaps indirectly, contributes towards discrimination and sometimes misery for people of a so-called "sinful" orientation.

 

FWIW, I don't question your love, but it seems like mine for the Lord gets questioned by some people (not saying by you) because I do not agree with a particular interpretation. Thank you for discussing. It's always healthy to talk with smart people that disagree :)

[SeekingHim77]

I am very sorry for getting snarky. :001_smile: I'm going to just reiterate this statement I made earlier because I regret not stopping there.

 

I don't want to argue with anyone about their interpretation of scripture. That's a mine field. However, I feel that you are implying that I want to interpret the Bible in the way I do or that I'm fitting scripture to my own personal feelings on the topic. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are both saying the same thing-that we believe our understanding of the scriptures to be true. I can't imagine accusing someone of hatred for doing that.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Melanie32
edit

[mommaduck]

I have a question as to what various people (Joanne et al) think about what is said in this video. I'm asking honestly. (it's of a priest talking about transgendered people and the differences in brain chemistry vs physical/chromosonal...I'm guessing that there is a difference between transgender and homosexual, yes?)

 

 

[nmoira]

 

I'm guessing that there is a difference between transgender and homosexual, yes?

Yes. Gender identity vs sexual orientation.

[mommaduck]

Yes. Gender identity vs sexual orientation.

 

That's what I thought. Thank you for responding kindly to the question :)

[creativish]

Sure, I could and I have asked those same questions from her perspective. It was once my own view, believe it or not. I know why her thoughts seem consistent.

 

I'm not looking down on anyone and I stop short of saying she or anyone who has her views is trying to or wanting to promote hatred. I realize that most people who hold what seems to be your view (I'm guessing you think it's a sin because I'm catching up here, so I'm not trying to assume that I know your opinion on this) feel they are loving. Most honestly don't get that their view, perhaps indirectly, contributes towards discrimination and sometimes misery for people of a so-called "sinful" orientation.

 

FWIW, I don't question your love, but it seems like mine for the Lord gets questioned by some people (not saying by you) because I do not agree with a particular interpretation. Thank you for discussing. It's always healthy to talk with smart people that disagree :)

 

:001_smile: Thanks! I appreciate your kindness.

 

I understand there are a lot of hateful people that also hold similar interpretations to me on this but that doesn't automatically make it the wrong interpretation. Just that there are a lot of hateful people in this world. :(

[nmoira]

 

That's what I thought. Thank you for responding kindly to the question :)

It's confusing in no small part many of the because many people don't understand the difference between sex (XX, XY, XXY, etc.) and gender. Throw in a bunch of similar labels -- transgender, transsexual, transvestite -- and they start to sound the same.

[Ipsey]

I've looked at one of Joann's previous posts to try to show those who don't understand, how saying "homosexuality is a sin--but I still love gays" is not hateful. I've replaced "gay/homosexual and "sin" with "Christian" and "evil" or "dangerous" in most places. I know it's not perfect, but perhaps there's a sense of the flavor.

 

It's kind of hard to get the full impact, especially when Christians are the minority who typically get to make the rules in the US and gays are a small 10%, but perhaps it will help bit.

 

Here it starts. . .

 

The saying a "Christian is evil" or "acting on Christian beliefs is wrong" is a dangerous. I view these as. . .on the same continuum of active, violent hate.

 

It *is* hate to say "Hate the Christianity, love the Christian" when the "evil religion" you hate is part of their core, their being, their intimacy, their connection, their love, their affection.

 

It *is* hate to speak of "Christian sexlife" as if that communicates anything about their behavior, character, or values. It *is* hate to say "it's between them and God" if Christians weren't given the same protection by the laws of the land for property rights, medical access, financial benefits, insurance coverage. It *is* hate when you say "I don't mind Christians but I want them to keep their PDA private." (for instance, they should never talk about their spouse. I don't want to know if they're married or not).

 

It *is* when you tacitly agree with the statement that being a Christian heterosexual is synonymous with promiscuity, or perversion of sexuality.

 

It *is* hate when marriage is defined as only non-Christian man and woman. Or when infertile Christians are forbidden to marry because they can't have children.

 

It would be hate if Christians had a higher rate of suicide, addiction, and other mental health issues and other people said, "oh, that's just because of the guilt and pain of their being Christian. That's the way it is when you're religious."

 

These things are hateful! It doesn't matter if your god things these are the greatest things in the world!

 

Hate the Christianity, love the Christian. Doesn't that seem hateful?

Hate the blackness, love the black person.

Hate the whiteness, love the white person.

 

Hate the homosexuality, love the homosexual. . .

 

Oh, that's ok.

 

I think it's really important to remember that there's a particular word for a bigotry that's rooted in very personal, important, deeply held religious beliefs.

 

"Bigotry"

[SeekingHim77]

If you don't understand it yet (and I have hope that someday you will) then I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation. I wish we could. You don't know how much I wish we could!

 

But if, in your eyes, I'm not reading the "right" version of the Bible or agreeing with some private interpretation of Scripture, then do I even have a chance? (Sincere, not sarcastic question here. I hope you take the time to get back to me.)

 

I'm going to kindly and gently suggest that you take the time to explore, if you have ever had doubts, some questions about what the Bible says to you that shouldn't be a news flash to me, yet is so out of line with what many loving, faithful Christians believe.

 

The "right version" thing was just a joke. I think our view of how to interpret the scriptures is where we differ here-hence the confusion, at least on my part.

 

I would love to hear your interpretation about the scriptures we're talking about here and why you interpret them in the way that you do.

[creativish]

I would love to hear your interpretation about the scriptures we're talking about here and why you interpret them in the way that you do.

 

:iagree: me too!:)

[Joanne]

I have a question as to what various people (Joanne et al) think about what is said in this video. I'm asking honestly. (it's of a priest talking about transgendered people and the differences in brain chemistry vs physical/chromosonal...I'm guessing that there is a difference between transgender and homosexual, yes?)

 

 

I tried, but the audio cut out right after he established clear boundaries about the questions he'd entertain.

 

Just wanted you to know I did try. :)

[SeekingHim77]

I understand there are a lot of hateful people that also hold similar interpretations to me on this but that doesn't automatically make it the wrong interpretation. Just that there are a lot of hateful people in this world. :(

 

:iagree:

[ElizaG]

I don't even understand how one can accuse another of twisting the scriptures regarding this particular topic. The fact that the Bible calls homosexuality sin should not be a news flash to anyone.

I was raised in Canada and had gay friends throughout high school and college. This was the most difficult issue during my conversion/reversion to Christianity, and more specifically to Catholicism. There were a lot of things that helped me understand the reasons for the Church's teaching, but the biggest step came after I'd been praying about it for a long time, then opened the Bible and there was Romans 1. Can't argue with that. Well, you can, but as it happens, I had previously studied this passage in a (secular) religious studies course, and even as a non-practicing Christian, I thought the modernist interpretations were very weak. It was clear to me that if this was up for grabs, so was almost everything else in the New Testament, and that wasn't an approach to faith that interested me.

 

Regarding the OP, Catholics believe that a Christian is someone who's been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and accepts the historic creeds. This includes many denominations and individuals who hold different views about this specific issue, and, more broadly, about traditional vs. modern Biblical interpretation. It's not for me to say that they're not Christians. Just that they're a bunch of heretics. And I say that in a technical and somewhat joking way, with no intent to convey a sense of hatred, bashing, intolerance, or anything else that might harm someone's self-esteem. ;)

 

ETA: Was looking for a link to the Onion article, "Pope Calls for Greater Understanding Between Catholics, Hellbound." Alas, it seems to be offline. Although it misrepresents Catholic teaching and Church history in some ways, it's a pointed reminder of the challenges we face in trying to have civil discourse about such controversial and important topics.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Eleanor

[mommaduck]

I tried, but the audio cut out right after he established clear boundaries about the questions he'd entertain.

 

Just wanted you to know I did try. :)

 

Thank you. I don't know why, but some of the videos are done well and some have terrible audio issues.

[kalanamak]

A very long thread, pleasantly civil!

 

I'm just posting to show off the quote in my sig, which I picked today in honor of this thread. The original "it" is lesbianism, but I love this quote because "it" could be anything, including a religious belief. :)

 

I also want to note that of the people I consider my IRL friends, the only two couples who go to church are same sex. My husband, raised very fundamentally, was never around anyone except the very closeted until he was over 50. I asked him the other day how he felt about Mr and Mr So and so, and Mrs and Mrs So and So, and he said "I can't imagine any of them with anyone else."

[Ipsey]

:iagree: me too!:)

 

I'm not Joanne, but here's a site that you might find interesting and give a different perspective.

 

It's subentitled "By God's grace we affirm Sola Scriptura and Authentic Biblical Christianity."

 

http://www.gaychristian101.com

 

"Giving voice to Conservative Gay Evangelicals"

 

You can find Evangelical, Bible-based, answers to all of your questions about gay-negative Bible passages, including the story of Sodom and Paul's text in Romans, etc. It may give you a different view of how people can see the passages differently from you.

 

Oooh, ick. Um, this is probably something . . . anyway, they use a Ray Comfort tract to share the gospel message in the "good news" section of the site. So, I don't care for Mr. Comfort at all, so if you go there (any non-believers who might take a peek), do so knowing that. :)

 

Best!

 

I.

 

Ohh, if you do go, please come back and share if it helped you to see from the other side a little more. I'd be interested in your experience, even if it didn't speak to you.

 

P.S.S. Oh, um, I just noticed that in the "good news" section, there's a Ray Comfort tract. I'm not a fan of Mr. Comfort--so any nonbelievers who want to check out the site. . .just be aware ;)

Edited September 10, 2011 by Ipsey
Come back and share!

[Ellesmere]

The "right version" thing was just a joke. I think our view of how to interpret the scriptures is where we differ here-hence the confusion, at least on my part.

 

I would love to hear your interpretation about the scriptures we're talking about here and why you interpret them in the way that you do.

 

I know you were kidding but it joke that was taken to be condescending. I'm not going to presume, but many people pull out that line (about versions) and the "you're arguing with the Bible" point when they also have vehement disagreement about Bible versions/translations. And there you have my reticence about going too far into this with you as much as I'd like to. I wish we could have a reasonable discussion but I was quite serious when I asked because I'm not even going to get into it if there's first going to be a problem with what Bible translation I read or what denomination I belong or don't belong to.

 

And I do not have an interpretation about those Scriptures, so I can't answer you on that. And there we probably have another impasse. If I'm talking with someone who thinks "Bible-alone", I respectfully retreat and understand it's not up to me to argue because when I was in that mindset, no one was going to get me to see it from another, worthy perspective. We stay friends, talk about the family and the weather, and leave it that. I hope that makes sense, but if it doesn't, let me know.

 

I did not mean to imply that I think you follow your very own, individual interpretation. I'm aware you are not alone in your following of that particular interpretation (which I do maintain began as a private interpretation out of an ignorant twisting of Scripture. And I don't mean ignorant in a condescending manner) and that many of you who believe that way are loving people I would actually sit down and have a nice cup of coffee with. (Even if we drive each other nuts.)

 

I am very sorry for getting snarky. :001_smile: I'm going to just reiterate this statement I made earlier because I regret not stopping there.

 

I don't want to argue with anyone about their interpretation of scripture. That's a mine field. However, I feel that you are implying that I want to interpret the Bible in the way I do or that I'm fitting scripture to my own personal feelings on the topic. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are both saying the same thing-that we believe our understanding of the scriptures to be true. I can't imagine accusing someone of hatred for doing that.

 

No, I do not think you are making up your own interpretation or making it fit your own feelings.

 

I don't accuse you of hatred, FWIW. I really understand that someone can hold your beliefs and not see at as hateful or harmful. But, and I'm trying to be gently honest, it is harmful

[lionfamily1999]

accept and believe that homose*uality is ok?

 

IOW, if you have friends that lead this lifestyle do you feel you need to save them from sin? Or can you just be friends with them without any judgement?

Late to the party, extreme weather ;)

 

I can't save anyone from sin. I am not Christ ;) If they are not saved, then the first concern would be just that. After all, you can't expect an unsaved person to live as a saved one. If they are saved, then I do think that love would dictate showing them their stumbling block. I love my children, that doesn't mean I happily assist them in every endeavor or gleefully agree that 2+2=3. I love them, so I tell them when they're in error and try to show them how to find the truth. I expect, hope, and for the most part am satisfied that my brothers and sisters in Christ do the same for me.

 

The closer I get to Christ the more excited I am to find I was wrong, it means that soon I will be right :D Correction is a blessing, if it wasn't there I would feel as though no one loved me enough to take the time.

 

I don't have the exact verses at my fingertips I'm afraid, but you'll find in Isaiah and Proverbs (probably in most every book, but I KNOW it's in those two) that a lack of judgement, refusing to render judgement or to call things right or wrong and steer people in the right direction to be a reason for lamentations. It's probably in that book too. When we stop correcting each other and allow instead for our brothers and sisters to be led by their animal instincts then we've stopped loving each other (Jude). When we leave them in the care of false teachers that teach sensuality, we aren't showing love, we're showing we don't care (love) enough.

 

So, homosexual sex is wrong, I know people argue that the Bible doesn't mean consensual homosexual sex and I disagree. Christ didn't come so that we could twist his words into a license for immorality (also Jude). We are not granted forgiveness to go out and sin some more (Romans). We should not just strive to keep ourselves from sin, but to strengthen our siblings as well.

[Ellesmere]

:001_smile: Thanks! I appreciate your kindness.

 

I understand there are a lot of hateful people that also hold similar interpretations to me on this but that doesn't automatically make it the wrong interpretation. Just that there are a lot of hateful people in this world. :(

And I thank you for yours.

 

I agree. Hateful people holding a similar interpretation does not automatically make it wrong. It's not like I think everyone that holds a particular view are going to commit hate crimes.

 

Here's where we part ways: It's still wrong. Just not for that reason. But things are going so well between us, let's not go there. Not now, anyway. :)

[Ellesmere]

:iagree: I "get" how people can believe that the Bible/God are against homosexuality. I don't agree, but I get it.

 

I can't understand how people can read this thread, and other prose about this topic, and not *get* that thinking, believing, on fire Christians can read the same words from the same book and have a different view.

 

Actually, I guess it is not the "same words" and "same book" now that I am typing. To me, ALL scripture is interpretation. From the oral traditions, to the scribes, to the transliterations, to the translations and to the people reading, and teaching it. It is ALL interpretation.

nm

[TheReader]

I'm not Joanne, but here's a site that you might find interesting and give a different perspective.

 

It's subentitled "By God's grace we affirm Sola Scriptura and Authentic Biblical Christianity."

 

http://www.gaychristian101.com

 

"Giving voice to Conservative Gay Evangelicals"

 

You can find Evangelical, Bible-based, answers to all of your questions about gay-negative Bible passages, including the story of Sodom and Paul's text in Romans, etc. It may give you a different view of how people can see the passages differently from you.

 

Oooh, ick. Um, this is probably something . . . anyway, they use a Ray Comfort tract to share the gospel message in the "good news" section of the site. So, I don't care for Mr. Comfort at all, so if you go there (any non-believers who might take a peek), do so knowing that. :)

 

Best!

 

I.

 

Ohh, if you do go, please come back and share if it helped you to see from the other side a little more. I'd be interested in your experience, even if it didn't speak to you.

 

P.S.S. Oh, um, I just noticed that in the "good news" section, there's a Ray Comfort tract. I'm not a fan of Mr. Comfort--so any nonbelievers who want to check out the site. . .just be aware ;)

 

Ipsey, I don't have time right now to go to the sight, but I've clicked over, bookmarked and will go to it later on. It's the weekend, I'm supposed to be hanging out with my family ;) so have to get off the computer.

 

But I am going to read the link you gave. I waffle on my view, if the actual act is a sin or not. I also kind of grant leeway to "within the bounds of marriage" to include "within the bounds of a committed relationship" since as of right now most states prevent a committed gay couple from marrying.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say -- I will look at your link. Thank you for posting it.

[mommaduck]

Ipsey, I don't have time right now to go to the sight, but I've clicked over, bookmarked and will go to it later on. It's the weekend, I'm supposed to be hanging out with my family ;) so have to get off the computer.

 

But I am going to read the link you gave. I waffle on my view, if the actual act is a sin or not. I also kind of grant leeway to "within the bounds of marriage" to include "within the bounds of a committed relationship" since as of right now most states prevent a committed gay couple from marrying.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say -- I will look at your link. Thank you for posting it.

 

I also glanced at the site and have to say that there are some things stated that I can't agree with (specifically, the view of eunuchs), simply because I was taught otherwise (both through history and religion). I will look at it further, later, and ask certain people that are even more knowledgeable from an academic standpoint of the culture and eras. Thank you for the link.

[Ipsey]

I also glanced at the site and have to say that there are some things stated that I can't agree with (specifically, the view of eunuchs), simply because I was taught otherwise (both through history and religion). I will look at it further, later, and ask certain people that are even more knowledgeable from an academic standpoint of the culture and eras. Thank you for the link.

 

Sure!

I don't agree with most of it myself, but I think it's helpful to see how other people can look at the same things, and both trying to be intellectually honest, come to different perspectives.

I don't know if it's the best resource out there, some others might be more hermeneutically based, but this one of the most comprehensive I came up with on short notice ;)

[Mommy22alyns]

:iagree:

 

I've said it before in similar threads. I see the "homosexuality is a sin" or "acting on homosexual orientation is a sin" as on the same continuum of active, violent hate.

 

It is hate if homosexuals are told (or thought of) as willfully continuing in sin, and therefore are going to hell. It is *hate* to tell anyone they are going to hell. Particularly so when you are condemning them to hell for the way they love.

 

It *is* hate to tell an entire group of people that God considers them an "abomination". It *is* hate to say "Hate the sin, love the sinner" when the "sin" you hate is part of their core, their being, their intimacy, their connection, their love, their affection.

 

It *is* hate to speak of "homosexual lifestyle" as if that communicates anything about their behavior, character, or values. It *is* hate to say "it's between them and God" when homosexuals aren't given the same protection by the laws of the land for property rights, medical access, financial benefits, insurance coverage. It *is* hate when you say "I don't mind homosexuals but I want them to keep their PDA private" and you aren't comfortable with the same level of affection as you would be with a heterosexual couple.

 

It *is* hate when believing homosexuals can't serve in Christian settings as Leaders, Pastors, volunteers. It *is* hate when people don't proclaim loud and clear that homosexual is not synonymous with promiscuity, or perversion of sexuality.

 

It *is* hate when marriage is defined as "man and woman". Or when the Christian Bible has ideas superimposed onto it such as because God's biology creates children out of heterosexual engagement, *homosexual physical engagement* is not God's design (also).

 

It *is* hate when sexual minorites have a higher rate of suicide, addiction, and other mental health issues. Research shows this is not because of their orientation (or gender related issues) but because of the culture's and their family's reaction to it.

 

 

 

SO well said!! :iagree:

[akmommy]

For those who believe that it is the s*x outside marriage that is the sin in homosexual relationships what do you believe is required to be married in the eyes of God? Is it the lisence issued by the state? Most states do not allow for homosexuals to get married. Would two people who make vows in front of family, friends, and god to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives be considered married?

 

To me the piece of paper has more to do with legal protection should the union end and also does allows for certain perks (taxes and insurance) but says absolutely nothing about the commitment two people have made to one another.

[mommaduck]

For those who believe that it is the s*x outside marriage that is the sin in homosexual relationships what do you believe is required to be married in the eyes of God? Is it the lisence issued by the state? Most states do not allow for homosexuals to get married. Would two people who make vows in front of family, friends, and god to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives be considered married?

 

To me the piece of paper has more to do with legal protection should the union end and also does allows for certain perks (taxes and insurance) but says absolutely nothing about the commitment two people have made to one another.

 

Through much of history, it was never a piece of paper, let alone a government issue (enter Rome, Reformation, and Puritans). It was contractual though in various cultures. Usually such was handled on a personal level, a religious rite, or a local communal event. Not sure how to word this.

 

Personally, I think the government should stay out of it. If it's handled independently, then each faith (or non-faith) may handle it how they believe. The only issue that seems to involve the government is when we are discussing insurance, beneficiaries, decision making for another, etc. Again, this becomes contractual and a legal matter.

 

I probably butchered the wording on all of that...hopefully it's slightly clearer than mud.

[Lovedtodeath]

I sympathize with your confusion, and I trust you will get through this. Changes in thinking are not a bad thing, but you have to ask if you are agreeing with a private (that has become widespread amongst certain groups) interpretation of the Bible or something that came from some, yes, widespread ignorant twisting of the Scriptures. The reason that both make sense for awhile is that one can make strong, although flawed arguments on a Bible-alone, literal basis about this topic.

I don't listen to anyone's interpretation. One is our Leader, Teacher and Mediator. I have a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike calling me stiff-necked because I will not ever submit to authority other than Christ. NEVER NEVER. I don't care what their claim.

 

The Spirit has been changing my viewpoint on a great many things and this is one of them. As long as I stay away from man's wisdom, whether my own or someone else's I fair much better.

 

As for those that argue about this and that scripture and telling others that they are not interpreting them correctly, and telling me that I need to learn from them... yada, yada... I have this to say:

 

You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Christ! Yet you refuse to come to Him to receive this life. Your approval means nothing to me, because I know you don’t have God’s love within you. --John 5:39

Edited September 10, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Mom in High Heels]

The views of many people here are one of the many reasons I'm not a Christian. I can't agree with a religion that thinks it's okay to decide what's right and wrong for another person.

 

I do not believe it is ok according to the Word of God. Neither is over eating, drinking in excess, driving over the speed limit, saying something snitty to someone, etc. Sin is sin and the Word says that we all have fallen short of the Glory of God. I don't put my stamp of approval on Homose. any more than I do any of the other things listed. I also can not say that I have been innocent in all those areas.

 

I wasn't aware the Bible had any such views on driving over the speed limit.

 

A Christian marriage IS a covenant. The conditions are not dependent on the other party upholding their own end of the bargain. A secular marriage however, is most definitely not as evidenced by liberal divorce policies and pre-nuptials agreements. Secular marriages are also much older then Christian ones. The early Christian church took awhile to get in on the whole marriage thing.

 

I tend to think this is why any church has the right to determie who they marry but when it comes to state sanctioned marriages they should keep their noses out of the matter.

 

If it's is a covenant, why don't so many keep to it? I know many, many, many Christians who are divorced and remarried, yet attend church regularly and feel free to judge gays and lesbians. My own parents are examples of this. They are divorced (they divorced when I was 25) and both now remarried to people who have also been divorced. Yet they attend church on a regular basis and yet they are not shunned or told they are living in sin. Both are against homes*xuality BTW, and were horrified when I double majored in English and Theatre, where I had many gay friends.

 

If it's church issue why is it that even if you're married in the church, you aren't considered legally married until you have that piece of paper from the state? Did those of you who married and believe it's an issue and covenant of the church decide not to get a legal, state recognized marriage license? If so, I would consider you not married and by your own definition "living in sin."

 

TwoforJoy, I loved your post and ♥ you big time.

 

I wonder how many Christians who define homs*xuality as sin would feel should any of their children turn out to be gay. I wonder what my parents would do if one of my boys turned out to be gay. It would break my heart and make me angry beyond reason if they decided to shun my child because of his s*xual orientation. It would effectively end any relationship I had with my parents. I love my children unconditionally. If one were gay, I would accept him and love him with my whole heart.

[Lovedtodeath]

The views of many people here are one of the many reasons I'm not a Christian. I can't agree with a religion that thinks it's okay to decide what's right and wrong for another person.

 

 

 

I wasn't aware the Bible had any such views on driving over the speed limit.

 

 

 

If it's is a covenant, why don't so many keep to it? I know many, many, many Christians who are divorced and remarried, yet attend church regularly and feel free to judge gays and lesbians. My own parents are examples of this. They are divorced (they divorced when I was 25) and both now remarried to people who have also been divorced. Yet they attend church on a regular basis and yet they are not shunned or told they are living in sin. Both are against homes*xuality BTW, and were horrified when I double majored in English and Theatre, where I had many gay friends.

 

If it's church issue why is it that even if you're married in the church, you aren't considered legally married until you have that piece of paper from the state? Did those of you who married and believe it's an issue and covenant of the church decide not to get a legal, state recognized marriage license? If so, I would consider you not married and by your own definition "living in sin."

 

TwoforJoy, I loved your post and ♥ you big time.

 

I wonder how many Christians who define homs*xuality as sin would feel should any of their children turn out to be gay. I wonder what my parents would do if one of my boys turned out to be gay. It would break my heart and make me angry beyond reason if they decided to shun my child because of his s*xual orientation. It would effectively end any relationship I had with my parents. I love my children unconditionally. If one were gay, I would accept him and love him with my whole heart.

What churches do is not always synonymous with Christianity... and they also cannot expect perfection from their members. It is a delicate balance.

 

I have two family members who are homosexual. I believe that they are committing a sin. I love them and don't shun them. The family members who commit fornication or live as drunkards are also committing sins. I am here for them when they need me. I do know some Christians and non-Christians that shun homosexuals. I think that they are not making the right choice in the matter, but I love them and I am here for them too.

 

I love my children unconditionally. If one were gay, I would accept him and love him with my whole heart.

:hurray: Edited September 10, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[ElizaG]

For those who believe that it is the s*x outside marriage that is the sin in homosexual relationships what do you believe is required to be married in the eyes of God?

Slightly OT, but it's my understanding that from a traditional Christian perspective, same-sex acts would not really be considered "sexual intercourse." That term was limited to a specific act between a man and a woman, often referred to as "the marital act" (whether or not the people involved were married). From this perspective, it would be impossible for members of the same sex to perform this act. It would be like trying to serve tEa with just two teapots.

 

Every other type of, shall we say, completed carnal act -- whether done with one's spouse, with another person of the same or opposite sex, alone, or in any of the myriad other ways humans have come up with -- was traditionally seen as a violation of chastity. This is because these behaviors were considered to be inherently disordered. By contrast, "sex outside marriage" involved an act that wasn't disordered in itself, but was being done in disordered circumstances.

 

Of course, in our time, there are Christian denominations that no longer believe that completed carnal acts other than "the marital act" are inherently disordered. Some even teach that all types of consensual behaviors are acceptable within marriage, even ones that used to be illegal in many parts of the United States. This does confuse the issue.

 

Sincerely,

Moral Theology Nerds 'R' Us

[ma23peas]

That is the key word here. Judgement. So, on one hand I know the Bible says it is an abomination. OTOH, the Bible says "Judge Not, Lest not be Judged".

 

I have straight friends who have stabbed me in the back.

 

I have g** friends who are a couple, and have never done that to me. Actually, two g** couples. They have been there for me unconditionally. How can you turn your back on them because of their lifestyle? Isn't what is in their hearts, or the INTENT of their heart, that matters?

 

Isn't it up to the Lord to determine what happens, and not me?

 

**confused****

 

ETA: I have no plans on giving up these freindships. But it makes it difficult to have to keep explaining my position on this to certain people.

 

I'll try and help...this is a tough subject, but biblically, it is very clear how we should respond.

If we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly with honesty and justice, His judgment of us will reflect that, too, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other ignoble means, our judgment will reflect it and judging with fairness and compassion will garner likewise in His judgment of us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness...

 

This explains the 'judge not lest ye be judged'...God calls us to judge!! But he calls us to do it with honesty, justice and nobly...reflecting His will not our own.

 

I have had gay friends, but they know that I can not condone their lifestyle and that is where they have the problem. I will continue to love them through their sin...but they want me to accept/condone/or even promote their lifestyle...I serve my God not the desires of man. I would do the same for a friend who is committing adultery or other sin. It is our responsibility to help our fallen brothers/sisters in Christ see their sin and pray for them to be seeking Him not the sin.

 

I have never ended a friendship with a gay person, but they choose not to pursue a deeper one with me because then they would have many questions to face that many do not want to. I have never rejected anyone for their sin, struggling with that right now b/c I have a family issue where my mom is being criminally harassed and when you see your family hurt, it's hard not to want to cut those people from your 'friend/family list'...my heart is heavily burdened in such situations, but I honestly do not think if they sought me out I could refuse anyone...but will I seek them out (those that have harmed my family)..probably not.

 

Hope this helps