I am a Christian but don't believe homosexuality is a sin.

[Runningmom80]

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe history proves its a book made by men for their personal reasons. :)

 

 

:iagree:

[TravelingChris]

I think that the Bible is clear that homosexual acts are sins but lots of things are sin including anger. It certainly isn't the worse sin but it also isn't anything I would celebrate.

 

IN terms of thorns to bear, I was just talking to a mother today who son got two very serious autoimmune diseases in college, had to transfer and take time off for repeated surgeries, graduated, worked for a while as an engineer before his diseases got so bad he couldn't work. Accept for two years at a college away from home, he has never been able to leave home. He is still alive over twenty years later but cannot leave his bed currently. Nothing happened to his mind- it all happened to his body, over and over again. Somehow I think this man, who is close to my age, has a greater cross to bear than a gay person who isn't having sex. He isn't having sex either and more than that, he can;t work, live alone, and is in perpetual risk of bleeding out.

[justamouse]

I think never being able to be who you truly are is a different kind of suffering than most.

 

We ALL aren't who we truly are. We are ALL trying to attain who we really are. Sometimes we're more satisfied with where we are at the moment, but eventually growth will come again. Some people call it midlife crisis.

 

I'm an artist. I have 7 kids. I'm not the artist I want to be, my life is now being sacrificed for those I love more than myself. But one thing I'm learning is that whatever it is I'm sacrificing, and whoever I'm sacrificing for, will make me more of who I genuinely am. That is the grace of being obedient.

 

No one is telling them they can't be gay. BE gay. BE who you are. Live your life, embrace your suffering. Its a path for the truly brave, the heroic, the saints. May we all live as such.

Edited July 23, 2012 by justamouse

[livetoread]

We had a guest priest for Mass tonight. He was severely facially disfigured.

 

And yet if people wanted to follow exactly what the Bible says about things, he would not be able to be a priest.

 

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. Lev. 21

 

Think about that. God said he couldn't be a priest because his very presence would desecrate his sanctuary. Not that he might trip or something - the reason given was because his defect desecrated the sanctuary. Think of how hearing something like that would affect how you treated people with birth defects. And yet there it is.

 

Now of course we look back and come up with all sorts of creative ways to explain that away. Believers do that all the time with inconvenient passages. So consider homosexuality in the same category as how we treat the topic of birth defects, or slavery, or the roles of women. We interpret them based on the rule of love. If the greatest commandment is to love God and your neighbor and if everything must be interpreted through that, then if something is unloving, even if it is ok in the Bible (like slavery, or genocide, or at any point in history telling someone who is lame that he would desecrate God's sanctuary if he tried to serve as a priest), maybe it's not the best approach.

[Ipsey]

Somehow I think this man, who is close to my age, has a greater cross to bear than a gay person who isn't having sex. He isn't having sex either and more than that, he can;t work, live alone, and is in perpetual risk of bleeding out.

 

 

Again, is this all about sex? We're talking about people who could potentially find partners they can love for their lives, cuddle with on the couch, laugh and eat ice cream with, take care of one another's final needs, etc. While sex is a nice part of any relationship, it's not all there is.

 

For homosexuals not to have a partner isn't just about not having sex, it's about not having a life mate. It's that they're _never_ _supposed_ to have one.

 

No, not everyone will find a life partner, no. But to say, "you can't have one, even if you find someone you want to spend your life with and who feels similarly about you because you're gay" EVER! is the agony.

 

The whole "elevating sex" over everything is incorrect. There are couples of all sorts who have to forgo sex for various reasons, and their relationships are meaningful to them.

[catz]

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe history proves its a book made by men for their personal reasons. :) It took a long time to admit to myself that's what I always felt during my years in the church including being the preacher's wife.

 

:iagree: It's a book ultimately written by man and translated and manipulated by man over many, many years. I was raised Catholic, but I am no longer Christian.

 

Anyway, I think anyone can believe the bible word for word if they want or feel free to pick and choose as most religions seem to (that razor and shellfish thing don't seem so popular anymore). Religions can try to pray the gay away if they want.

 

I just don't think we should be legislating the bible, or any other religious (or so called religious) book or document. We don't deny civil rights to other "sinners". It breaks my heart to think that some of the families and children we know don't have the same legal protections as my own.

 

livetoread - great example! Thank you!

[justamouse]

We had a guest priest for Mass tonight. He was severely facially disfigured.

 

And yet if people wanted to follow exactly what the Bible says about things, he would not be able to be a priest.

 

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. Lev. 21

 

Think about that. God said he couldn't be a priest because his very presence would desecrate his sanctuary. Not that he might trip or something - the reason given was because his defect desecrated the sanctuary. Think of how hearing something like that would affect how you treated people with birth defects. And yet there it is.

 

Now of course we look back and come up with all sorts of creative ways to explain that away. Believers do that all the time with inconvenient passages. So consider homosexuality in the same category as how we treat the topic of birth defects, or slavery, or the roles of women. We interpret them based on the rule of love. If the greatest commandment is to love God and your neighbor and if everything must be interpreted through that, then if something is unloving, even if it is ok in the Bible (like slavery, or genocide, or at any point in history telling someone who is lame that he would desecrate God's sanctuary if he tried to serve as a priest), maybe it's not the best approach.

 

Perhaps you don't know that I fully believe in civil unions, with full rights, so, in your 34 posts, please don't assign me motives.

 

That said, proof texting isn't good for proving your point, and a Christian would look upon those verses differently.

[Kathryn]

Again, is this all about sex? We're talking about people who could potentially find partners they can love for their lives, cuddle with on the couch, laugh and eat ice cream with, take care of one another's final needs, etc. While sex is a nice part of any relationship, it's not all there is.

 

For homosexuals not to have a partner isn't just about not having sex, it's about not having a life mate. It's that they're _never_ _supposed_ to have one.

 

No, not everyone will find a life partner, no. But to say, "you can't have one, even if you find someone you want to spend your life with and who feels similarly about you because you're gay" EVER! is the agony.

 

The whole "elevating sex" over everything is incorrect. There are couples of all sorts who have to forgo sex for various reasons, and their relationships are meaningful to them.

 

But it IS all about sex. The Biblical passages in question all have to do with SEX, not relationships.

[justamouse]

Again, is this all about sex? We're talking about people who could potentially find partners they can love for their lives, cuddle with on the couch, laugh and eat ice cream with, take care of one another's final needs, etc. While sex is a nice part of any relationship, it's not all there is.

 

For homosexuals not to have a partner isn't just about not having sex, it's about not having a life mate. It's that they're _never_ _supposed_ to have one.

 

No, not everyone will find a life partner, no. But to say, "you can't have one, even if you find someone you want to spend your life with and who feels similarly about you because you're gay" EVER! is the agony.

 

The whole "elevating sex" over everything is incorrect. There are couples of all sorts who have to forgo sex for various reasons, and their relationships are meaningful to them.

 

And yet priests and religious give up truly loving relationships with other people for a life of celibacy. They walk away from men and women they were fully in love with, because the call on their life was higher.

 

Now we're starting to go round the mulberry bush again.

 

I invite you to listen to lectures from The Society for Classical Learning. :D

[lionfamily1999]

Again, is this all about sex? We're talking about people who could potentially find partners they can love for their lives, cuddle with on the couch, laugh and eat ice cream with, take care of one another's final needs, etc. While sex is a nice part of any relationship, it's not all there is.

 

For homosexuals not to have a partner isn't just about not having sex, it's about not having a life mate. It's that they're _never_ _supposed_ to have one.

 

No, not everyone will find a life partner, no. But to say, "you can't have one, even if you find someone you want to spend your life with and who feels similarly about you because you're gay" EVER! is the agony.

 

The whole "elevating sex" over everything is incorrect. There are couples of all sorts who have to forgo sex for various reasons, and their relationships are meaningful to them.

That is just it. Cuddle, laugh, support and love each other. The one thing the Bible prohibits is sex (lust). All that other stuff you can have without sex. Be best friends forever.

But it IS all about sex. The Biblical passages in question all have to do with SEX, not relationships.

:iagree:

[livetoread]

 

Perhaps you don't know that I fully believe in civil unions, with full rights, so, in your 34 posts, please don't assign me motives.

 

That said, proof texting isn't good for proving your point, and a Christian would look upon those verses differently.

 

I apologize if it came across that way - I really didn't mean to assign any motives to you or anyone else. I was just using your example of the disfigured priest rather tangentially as a way for the OP to think about the Bible and homosexuality.

[Halcyon]

First, I don't believe we were created to find satisfaction in sex, friendships, or even our marriages. We were created to find complete satisfaction in Christ.

 

..... I really have a problem with Christian pastors who are little more than motivational speakers. Our purpose in life isn't to have our best life now. To me, THAT is flippant and trite. It contains no help for anyone who is struggling. I think in this country religion has become just another commodity for fulfilling our own desires.

 

A

 

 

Good post. Very thoughtful and I appreciate it, especially the above.

[Halcyon]

I tend to agree with you. I don't think it is a sin in the first place. One of the more famously quoted verses that people quote to "prove" that is supposed to be bad is not, in fact, about loving, committed relationships. If you read the entire section of that chapter, know your ancient history and a bit of the language and how it was translated, and understand the culture from which it was written, you can see that what was actually going on around that section was that some men were being approached by the men of the town in anger and being threatened by (euphemism coming) "group violence of same-gender TEA."

 

That is a long, long way from two people forming a committed, single couple relationship, and the verses condemning the actions have nothing to do with a couple forming a lasting union, the way I read it and the way our local church reads it.

 

Much great harm has come, historically, from people reading isolated verses from the Bible rather than reading and understanding the greater context, in order to separate the world into "us" and "them" in order to feel good about being part of the "us."

 

Secondly, as I understand my personal faith at this time, we are not meant to separate ourselves from our fellow men and women. Jesus paid attention to the poor, the lepers, the untouchables of his time. He ministered to those who the people in his time said were abominations to their God, and said, "No, these too are God's children." He never made any statements about marriage being man and woman, in any part of the Bible that I have ever read. He said to love one another, to love thy neighbor.

 

I have a relative who is gay. She knew from the time she was very, very small. It is not a 'decision' she made. To have to refute that part of herself would be to forgo normal, loving relationships in her life to which the rest of the world is entitled, or else to enter a relationship with a male, and lie about who she is. Either condition would be wrong, and create a separation from God. Anything that creates a breach in your relationship with yourself, with the others around you, or with your spirituality causes a breach with God, and that is pretty much the definition of sin. So in that way of looking at things, denying her the chance to have what is for her a natural relationship with another woman would in fact, be the sin.

 

So in my faith, it is a very clear matter to accept homosexuality and to be a Christian. We are not supposed to create sin. I don't believe the Bible forbids loving relationships or denying your true nature. I don't believe God wishes us to divide ourselves into the "inner circle" and "those outside." I think he wants everyone to be on the inside.

 

 

This is a lovely post. :)

[justamouse]

I apologize if it came across that way - I really didn't mean to assign any motives to you or anyone else. I was just using your example of the disfigured priest rather tangentially as a way for the OP to think about the Bible and homosexuality.

 

I didn't mean to be snippy, sorry. (I'm listening to a lecture on Paradise Lost).

 

Anyway, we'd interpret that differently. None of us would be able to live by the standard of the Law. Hence our need for a savior.

 

Ok REALLY need to pay attention to this lecture! I'm bowing out.

 

Pax.

[Halcyon]

We had a guest priest for Mass tonight. He was severely facially disfigured.

 

And yet if people wanted to follow exactly what the Bible says about things, he would not be able to be a priest.

 

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. Lev. 21

 

Think about that. God said he couldn't be a priest because his very presence would desecrate his sanctuary. Not that he might trip or something - the reason given was because his defect desecrated the sanctuary. Think of how hearing something like that would affect how you treated people with birth defects. And yet there it is.

 

Now of course we look back and come up with all sorts of creative ways to explain that away. Believers do that all the time with inconvenient passages. So consider homosexuality in the same category as how we treat the topic of birth defects, or slavery, or the roles of women. We interpret them based on the rule of love. If the greatest commandment is to love God and your neighbor and if everything must be interpreted through that, then if something is unloving, even if it is ok in the Bible (like slavery, or genocide, or at any point in history telling someone who is lame that he would desecrate God's sanctuary if he tried to serve as a priest), maybe it's not the best approach.

 

This is a great post. It really helps to think of things from a new perspective, and I never realized that those with deformities were not (according to the Bible) allowed to approach the communion.

 

Why aren't there Anti-Facial-Deformity groups like there are Anti-Gay groups? I would posit because of two reasons: 1) there is still a widely held belief that homosexuals "chose" to be gay, and therefore, "it's their own fault" if they aren't accepted by the church and 2) our culture has grown beyond faulting people for their personal appearance, or the color of their skin, or whether they were born with all their limbs or not.... even though the Bible TELLS them they SHOULD disctriminate based on someone's personal appearance (as evidenced by the passage quoted above).

 

So this says something to me: that there is something inherent about HOMOSEXUALITY itself...something "distasteful", something about the sex aspect which just completely freaks people out that allows "Christians" to continue to condemn their behavior and fight against their having full and complete rights under the law. And this was probably similar to the behavior that earlier Christians had towards slaves, those with deformities, prostitutes, lepers. And then Jesus came, and he said "Love them".

 

I just think our culture hasn't evolved enough yet. But we will, with time. And just as Christians came to accept "women's rights", the rights of the disabled and the disfigured, the rights of blacks and the rights of the mentally disabled, so will we come to accept and embrace gay people.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Halcyon

[Halcyon]

I apologize if it came across that way - I really didn't mean to assign any motives to you or anyone else. I was just using your example of the disfigured priest rather tangentially as a way for the OP to think about the Bible and homosexuality.

 

And I appreciate it!

 

Actually, I appreciate EVERYONE's input on this thread. It has been so enlightening and I really appreciate the civility.

[ma23peas]

While on the treadmill, the thoughts of this topic came around and around to me, the underlying problem I have with logic/feelings expressed are that they come from man....but yet, when claiming Christianity..are we not seeking to remove ourselves from man's understanding and seek God's? If there was a creator (lead engineer) for a computer program...would we go around asking all the users to give us a definition of why something is? Or would we get the best answer from the one that created it? I just rely on God to reveal these answers to me, not man...

[Cindy in FL.]

I Corinthians 6:9,10 contains a list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuals are on that list. If you are a liar and don't repent of your lying you don't inherit the kingdom, etc. This applies to all the sins listed. If homosexuals do not repent of their homosexuality they will not inherit the kingdom. It's pretty clear.

 

Cindy

[livetoread]

I didn't mean to be snippy, sorry. (I'm listening to a lecture on Paradise Lost).

 

Anyway, we'd interpret that differently. None of us would be able to live by the standard of the Law. Hence our need for a savior.

 

Ok REALLY need to pay attention to this lecture! I'm bowing out.

 

Pax.

 

No problem. It pays to keep newbies on a short leash until we can show we're civil :lol: As a veteran of other blogs, I understand that, and I'll try and be more clear in future posts.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I just rely on God to reveal these answers to me, not man...

AMEN!:thumbup:

[Cindy in FL.]

In Matthew 10:34,35 Jesus said that he didn't come to unite us, but came with a sword to divide. Dividing fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. Jesus cares ultimately for the glory of God.

 

Cindy

 

I tend to agree with you. I don't think it is a sin in the first place. One of the more famously quoted verses that people quote to "prove" that is supposed to be bad is not, in fact, about loving, committed relationships. If you read the entire section of that chapter, know your ancient history and a bit of the language and how it was translated, and understand the culture from which it was written, you can see that what was actually going on around that section was that some men were being approached by the men of the town in anger and being threatened by (euphemism coming) "group violence of same-gender TEA."

 

That is a long, long way from two people forming a committed, single couple relationship, and the verses condemning the actions have nothing to do with a couple forming a lasting union, the way I read it and the way our local church reads it.

 

Much great harm has come, historically, from people reading isolated verses from the Bible rather than reading and understanding the greater context, in order to separate the world into "us" and "them" in order to feel good about being part of the "us."

 

Secondly, as I understand my personal faith at this time, we are not meant to separate ourselves from our fellow men and women. Jesus paid attention to the poor, the lepers, the untouchables of his time. He ministered to those who the people in his time said were abominations to their God, and said, "No, these too are God's children." He never made any statements about marriage being man and woman, in any part of the Bible that I have ever read. He said to love one another, to love thy neighbor.

 

I have a relative who is gay. She knew from the time she was very, very small. It is not a 'decision' she made. To have to refute that part of herself would be to forgo normal, loving relationships in her life to which the rest of the world is entitled, or else to enter a relationship with a male, and lie about who she is. Either condition would be wrong, and create a separation from God. Anything that creates a breach in your relationship with yourself, with the others around you, or with your spirituality causes a breach with God, and that is pretty much the definition of sin. So in that way of looking at things, denying her the chance to have what is for her a natural relationship with another woman would in fact, be the sin.

 

So in my faith, it is a very clear matter to accept homosexuality and to be a Christian. We are not supposed to create sin. I don't believe the Bible forbids loving relationships or denying your true nature. I don't believe God wishes us to divide ourselves into the "inner circle" and "those outside." I think he wants everyone to be on the inside.

[Mrs Mungo]

I Corinthians 6:9,10 contains a list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuals are on that list. If you are a liar and don't repent of your lying you don't inherit the kingdom, etc. This applies to all the sins listed. If homosexuals do not repent of their homosexuality they will not inherit the kingdom. It's pretty clear.

 

Cindy

 

 

For a different perspective:

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

 

Eta: The problem with speaking in absolutes is that translations are not absolute.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Jennifer3141]

In Matthew 10:34,35 Jesus said that he didn't come to unite us, but came with a sword to divide. Dividing fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. Jesus cares ultimately for the glory of God.

 

Cindy

 

Wow. As a parent, I find whatever form of Xtianity you are talking about to be horrifying. No thanks! I like and love my kids!

[Cindy in FL.]

Thanks for sharing this link. I am familiar with this perspective and have studied this issue (and many other theological issues) pretty extensively. I try not to take stands unnecessarily. I have several family members who are homosexuals and I care about them, but I still firmly believe that lifestyle is sinful.

 

Cindy

 

For a different perspective:

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

[jewellsmommy]

I've only read the first page and I'm not a christian but I did watch an interesting documentary on Netflix called "Fish out of Water" that dissects a lot of the stuff in the bible Christians use to hate gays and lesbians. Haven't read any books on the subject though but if your up for a video check it out:)

 

;) Just letting you know, as a Christian (of course I can't speak for all of them, but I suspect most would answer this way) I don't use any part of the Bible as justification to hate anyone. :001_smile:

[Cindy in FL.]

Seriously? I like and love my kids, too. I'd continue to do so no matter what. Loving someone doesn't mean you approve of everything they do. In fact, it sometimes means you have to give them hard truths. Jesus said it, not me. Christianity does by it's very nature divide people. There are no two ways around that. Not everyone will go to heaven.

 

Cindy

 

Wow. As a parent, I find whatever form of Xtianity you are talking about to be horrifying. No thanks! I like and love my kids!

Edited July 23, 2012 by Cindy in FL.

[Caitilin]

Luckily, the only person's getting into heaven I need worry about is my own, and that's quite enough to be getting on with. Others' salvation is above our collective pay grade and none of our collective business.

[Rivka]

We had a guest priest for Mass tonight. He was severely facially disfigured.

 

And yet if people wanted to follow exactly what the Bible says about things, he would not be able to be a priest. [...]

 

Think about that. God said he couldn't be a priest because his very presence would desecrate his sanctuary. Not that he might trip or something - the reason given was because his defect desecrated the sanctuary. Think of how hearing something like that would affect how you treated people with birth defects. And yet there it is.

 

That said, proof texting isn't good for proving your point, and a Christian would look upon those verses differently.

 

And yet former congressman Tony Coelho was expelled from a Jesuit seminary when he was diagnosed with epilepsy, because at the time, based on these or similar verses, the Catholic Church banned epileptics from the priesthood.

[justLisa]

We had a guest priest for Mass tonight. He was severely facially disfigured. The kind of disfigured that you knew got a lot of teasing and name calling as a child. Some would call him grotesque. I can't imagine the pain of his life.

 

He kept his head low, during the service. He didn't look up a lot, apart from the consecration, but let me tell you, his homily was profound, and one of the best homilies-sermons if you will-I'd heard in my life. Full of love, compassion, empathy, that I'm sure he learned through his life.

 

He was beautiful. He was amazing, gloriously, beautiful. What an offering his life must be, and what a gift he'd received in return.

 

Even saying that, I don't think I'd want to suffer as he did for the gift he has. I don't know if I'd be able to bear it.

 

I love your posts so much, especially those pertaining to Christianity of some sort. It almost makes me want to go down that road again, really trying to believe it. I have tried very hard but it always seemed like a bunch of hogwash and hypocrisy. And I grew up in church and in to early adult hood.

[Mrs Mungo]

Luckily, the only person's getting into heaven I need worry about is my own, and that's quite enough to be getting on with. Others' salvation is above our collective pay grade and none of our collective business.

 

I agree.

[Cammie]

I consider myself a Christian (but may not meet the standards of other "Christians" on this board.) Anyhow, for me it has always been easy. I was taught (by my father the minister) that God is Love. The end. For me it is enough work to try and be the loving example that we should be. I have no need to work through the minutia of the wording of the Bible. God is Love. Anything that we do that is not loving...is not Christian in my opinion. Judging people is not loving. Casting stones is not loving. Hurting others is not loving. Making people second class citizens is not loving. Denying human rights is not loving. See....it is simple and easy.

[justamouse]

And yet former congressman Tony Coelho was expelled from a Jesuit seminary when he was diagnosed with epilepsy, because at the time, based on these or similar verses, the Catholic Church banned epileptics from the priesthood.

 

Yep. The Jesuits have a stricter code of health because they have demanding lives of travel and teaching. I would say he's had an incredible life and done much good for America. But, an epileptic CAN become a priest, and they are. He could have become one, he specifically wanted to be a Jesuit.

Edited July 23, 2012 by justamouse

[justamouse]

I love your posts so much, especially those pertaining to Christianity of some sort. It almost makes me want to go down that road again, really trying to believe it. I have tried very hard but it always seemed like a bunch of hogwash and hypocrisy. And I grew up in church and in to early adult hood.

 

:grouphug: It's all a journey.

[Lovedtodeath]

I am a Christian because I belong to Jesus, not because I belong to a church (I don't).

 

I consider myself a Christian. Anyhow, for me it has always been easy. I was taught (by my father the minister) that God is Love. The end. For me it is enough work to try and be the loving example that we should be. I have no need to work through the minutia of the wording of the Bible. God is Love. Anything that we do that is not loving...is not Christian in my opinion.

:iagree::001_wub::D Edited July 23, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Mandy in TN]

Keep your law out of my gospel! (do a google search on this)

 

Practically everything we do is a sin. Using what is a sin as a list of things not to do doesn't work. I know that everything in this world is fallen, so I ask God to bless my food before I eat.

 

Killing someone who is about to harm your family is a sin, it is not God's perfect plan. Divorce is a sin, it is not God's perfect plan. Does that mean that you should avoid killing and divorce no matter what? NO! Sometimes not killing and not divorcing would be worse... but all is short of God's perfect plan!

 

I will not teach my children that God is happy if they don't steal or lie or commit immorality. I will teach my children that God is happy if they are covered with the righteousness of Christ.

 

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.-- Romans 3:21-23

 

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.-- 2 Corinthians 5:21

I like this. :)

Mandy

[Mandy in TN]

I don't want my mind changed, to be honest. What i wanted was to hear from some Christians who believe as I do: what they enjoyed reading, speakers they heard who helped them parse their belief, any illumination they could shed on how they approached the Bible/church/religion.

Attend the UU church. :)

Mandy

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't want my mind changed, to be honest. What i wanted was to hear from some Christians who believe as I do: what they enjoyed reading, speakers they heard who helped them parse their belief, any illumination they could shed on how they approached the Bible/church/religion.

Oh, sorry, I should have noticed this earlier.

 

http://pastorbrendan.blogspot.com/2012/04/quit-sticking-your-morality-into-my.html

 

http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/2012/04/04/3377/

 

any illumination they could shed on how they approached the Bible/church/religion.

Check out my blog. I learned that there is ONE mediator between God and men and one teacher. (1 John 2:27) Jesus was pleased enough to give me His Spirit when I decided to listen to no one but Him, so I am not about to change that, until HE tells me otherwise!

 

I honestly don't know if homosexuality is a sin that all Christians should try to avoid. I do know that we are transformed from the Spirit inside, not from our own efforts or imposing rules on the outside. God does want Christians to share their faith, but He is the one that cleans people up the way He wants them, and He knows what is best for each person, and the timing of these things. 2 Corinthians 3:18, Galatians 3:3 I don't need to worry about it.

[Mandy in TN]

It's not just "we all sin so don't judge". Or "love the sinner hate the sin." it's simply that i dont think it is a sin.

 

Can anyone point me to Christian authors who might help me clarify my thinking on this? I have read a lot of Spong and similar "liberal" authors. I have read a lot about the theory that Paul was himself a gay man.

 

Thoughts?

Thank you for this thread. Although I don't have any suggestions of Christian authors for you, I have really enjoyed the conversation.

Mandy

[CyndiLJ]

I think the issue here is more than homosexuality, but is really about literal or non-literal interpretations of the Bible. For many Christians, it is impossible to be a literal believer, and Christianity is about far more than following what is written in a book...but is "literally" about following the teachings of Christ as explained in the Bible by his followers/disciples who wrote it. They do not view the Bible as God's literal world, but as a series of writings explaining what people of that era thought about God, Jesus, faith, and so much more.

 

Then there is the flip side, that believes that the Bible is literally God's word breathed into life through the writers who were merely recording what the Spirit led them to write. Therefore, everything written in the Bible must be literally understood.

 

There is no need here to get into who is "really" a Christian or not. Both perspectives are leading lives they feel are authentically Christian, and I tend to not even be willing to go down that road with anyone, for it is pointless. However, for the sake of the question about homosexuality, it creates deep conflict for those who are literal believers. Each must decide for themselves what they feel to be true.

 

Where I have a problem with it, personally, is when people of any ilk want to throw out the "destroying family values" argument when it comes to homosexuality. For me, that is almost laughable, because quite frankly I think heterosexuals have done a fine job of that already without any help at all from those who are homosexual.

 

I guess too, that I just can't see homosexuality as the ultimate downfall of our society. What is the downfall? Lack of love, in all its forms. When we fail to see our fellow humankind as "human", but instead choose to label, categorize and finger point...when we find it impossible to treat others as Jesus taught us to treat them...that is when I see us headed for the proverbial downfall. For me, it is that simple...gay or straight, black or white. Christian or Muslim. Love of our brothers and sisters is not to be withheld, regardless of whether we "approve" of them or their lifestyle, we are still called on to act in a loving way.

 

Pretty simple, and it eliminates any concerns I need to have over this issue or any other. My job...my only job...is to love.

 

That can be the single hardest thing to do with those who are different in any way from us.

 

Cindy

[Melinda in VT]

While on the treadmill, the thoughts of this topic came around and around to me, the underlying problem I have with logic/feelings expressed are that they come from man....but yet, when claiming Christianity..are we not seeking to remove ourselves from man's understanding and seek God's? If there was a creator (lead engineer) for a computer program...would we go around asking all the users to give us a definition of why something is? Or would we get the best answer from the one that created it? I just rely on God to reveal these answers to me, not man...

 

If a lead engineer designs a system that continually frustrates users, causes them pain, or leads them to make mistakes while using the program, a good engineer will talk to the users and change the system.

 

Programs designed by "my way or the highway" designers do not last long.

[MBM]

Can anyone point me to Christian authors who might help me clarify my thinking on this? I have read a lot of Spong and similar "liberal" authors. I have read a lot about the theory that Paul was himself a gay man.

 

Thoughts?

 

I should have mentioned this yesterday, but you might want to try asking your question on a gay forum or blog. You'll likely find people who've read quite a bit about it and can point you to various sources.

[hana]

I consider myself a Christian (but may not meet the standards of other "Christians" on this board.) Anyhow, for me it has always been easy. I was taught (by my father the minister) that God is Love. The end. For me it is enough work to try and be the loving example that we should be. I have no need to work through the minutia of the wording of the Bible. God is Love. Anything that we do that is not loving...is not Christian in my opinion. Judging people is not loving. Casting stones is not loving. Hurting others is not loving. Making people second class citizens is not loving. Denying human rights is not loving. See....it is simple and easy.

 

I'm not a Christian (at this point), but this is nicely said.

[Jenny in Florida]

Can anyone point me to Christian authors who might help me clarify my thinking on this? I have read a lot of Spong and similar "liberal" authors.

 

Okay, I'm not a Christian, and I'm not gay, AND this isn't a book, but I wonder if you might find anything helpful by looking at the website of the Metropolitan Community Churches: http://mccchurch.org/

 

I clicked on the Resources tab and checked out the section on Theological Resources, and it looks like there's information and discussion there that might be of interest to you.

[ma23peas]

If a lead engineer designs a system that continually frustrates users, causes them pain, or leads them to make mistakes while using the program, a good engineer will talk to the users and change the system.

 

Programs designed by "my way or the highway" designers do not last long.

 

Therein lies the crux, man tries too often to play God and tell Him how things should be, our wisdom never exceeds the Creator...until one accepts that, the system will fail within them.

[Cindy in FL.]

This is so true. It is not the system that is broken. We are broken.

 

 

Therein lies the crux, man tries too often to play God and tell Him how things should be, our wisdom never exceeds the Creator...until one accepts that, the system will fail within them.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Therein lies the crux, man tries too often to play God and tell Him how things should be, our wisdom never exceeds the Creator...until one accepts that, the system will fail within them.

Said perfectly!

[3browneyedboys4me]

I very much disagree with this. I think that ppl that overcome addictions are very happy and live normal lives. It is the overcoming part that is the most liberating and freeing aspect of managing an addiction/problem. It is the purest refinement of one's self. The discipline to 'manage' ourselves. Once accomplished, you have a joy that only comes from within. A true strength and ultimate happiness. So many ppl feel that b/c someone has an addiction or problem that they are always destined to failure and a life of problems. That is just not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i am glad you said it...i was about to point it out and then noticed you recognized the shortcomings of your argument in your very next sentence. I dont see why "being gay" has to be considered a burden, a negative, nor why it is continually, almost instinctively being lumped with alcoholism, porn addiction, brain injuries.....it is our CULTURE that condemns these people, not God, not fate....outside of culture's condemnation, they could lead perfectly happy, normal lives. People who are brain injured, or alcoholic, owever, most likely can NOT.

 

That is the difference.

[Cindy in FL.]

It is not the culture that condemns homosexuality. God does condemn homosexuality. Homosexuals practice homosexuality. Therefore...

 

This applies to ALL sins. If I "practice" any sin unrepentantly I am condemned by that. God cares more about our holiness than He does about our happiness.

 

Cindy

Edited July 23, 2012 by Cindy in FL.

[mommaduck]

God does condemn homosexuality. Homosexuals practice homosexuality. Therefore...

There are celibate homosexuals.

[mommaduck]

but I don't see any reason to connect gay rights with any religion's position on specific behaviors or relationships... civil rights are a legal issue, whether or not a religion allows a specific behavior is between an individual and G-d (and/or his/her religious community, if that is how his/her system works).

 

 

:iagree: