Being a Gay Christian?

wonderfulname

Most Christian organisations would tell you the only way to be a gay Christian is to be a repentant gay Christian, i.e. suppress those devilish desires and go start a family.

However this is not the case across the board. I'm an atheist but I attended a boarding school for some time which insisted every student must go to a religious service every Sunday. I myself attended Quaker meetings. Their view on the world got rid of that niggling issue I had as to the nature of Christianity and its perceived view of gay people. The Roman Catholic Church makes up its own position then passes it on as the word of god, I'm loving how out of touch their getting.. ok so they denied it, still pretty amusing.

ixoy

jill_valentine wrote: »

You can't pick and choose which bits of a divine text which suit you because then, essentially, all you're doing is making up your own dogma anyway. And if you decide one bit of the Bible isn't truthful, then how can you believe any of it is? If any one bit of the bible is untrue, then the whole thing unravels like an ugly old jumper.

Well then explain how the Church does exactly that by ignoring chunks of Leviticus? Why aren't menstruating women making offerings of birds to temples? Because it's nonsense and they've moved on and realised that not elements of the Bible make sense even to them! So you can realise elements are out-dated but still go for a core message, which does not include homophobia.

jill_valentine

Well then explain how the Church does exactly that by ignoring chunks of Leviticus?

Because it suits them, but I maintain that it's intellectually dishonest for them - or anybody - to do so. You can say they've moved on, and maybe they have, and that's commendable, but from a philosophical point of view, a god and his instruments are supposed to be perpetually right and unchanging - as right now as they always were. God doesn't really get to change his mind about stuff, and he's derelicting his duties shamefully if he's willing to let a garbled version of his take on things circulate for a couple of thousand years and bring untold misery in the process.

So how can some elements be outdated and nonsensical, but others remain relevant and reasonable? The only way you can choose which ones you're going to keep and which ones you're going to discard is by applying your own moral framework to the pre-existing text. Picking and choosing which bits are morally tolerable or practical or applicable to the real world. And if you're doing that already, if you're deciding which parts of your core guiding text are worth keeping, then it's essentially worthless as one. If you're already making your own moral decisions about right and wrong, then you're fooling yourself to pretend the book itself is doing the leading.

wonderfulname

jill_valentine wrote: »

Because it suits them, but I maintain that it's intellectually dishonest for them - or anybody - to do so. You can say they've moved on, and maybe they have, and that's commendable, but from a philosophical point of view, a god and his instruments are supposed to be perpetually right and unchanging - as right now as they always were. God doesn't really get to change his mind about stuff, and he's derelicting his duties shamefully if he's willing to let a garbled version of his take on things circulate for a couple of thousand years and bring untold misery in the process.

So how can some elements be outdated and nonsensical, but others remain relevant and reasonable? The only way you can choose which ones you're going to keep and which ones you're going to discard is by applying your own moral framework to the pre-existing text. Picking and choosing which bits are morally tolerable or practical or applicable to the real world. And if you're doing that already, if you're deciding which parts of your core guiding text are worth keeping, then it's essentially worthless as one. If you're already making your own moral decisions about right and wrong, then you're fooling yourself to pretend the book itself is doing the leading.

Just to point out, a Christian does not necessarily belive in the bible, just Jesus Christ.

Also some scholars say that the homophobic elements of the bible are actually additions or imaginative translations made in the early 1600s for the King James edition, the one which most Christion institutions work from. King James instructed the translators that this new version must conform to the teachings of the Church of England at the time. People always seem to think it works the other way around for some reason..

Heres a little exersise, say a sentence, pick out any word in that sentence and look it up in a thesaurus, now say that same sentence again with a number of the alternative words, does it mean the same thing? Now take the word "abomination" which appears in Leviticus quite a bit, the original hebrew here is TO'EBAH, which means roughly "behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive", a more fitting word for this might be taboo? Now what would be taboo? The word f**k is taboo. Is it an abomination, I don't think so somehow...

In 1958 the word "arsenokoitai", present in Corinthians was translated for the first time into the word "homosexual" funnily enough nobody actually knows what this means, the best guess, and it was just a guess, was a call boys customer up to this point. Some now say its a married man who uses a prostitute, male or female.. too late for the church however..

You say by nonsencing some elements we undermine them all, but this is simply not the case. The bible in part talks of God and Christ, in part answers scientific questions which had no answer at the time, and in part conforms to the moral social standings of both the time in which it was written and the times it was subsiquently translated. We know the world is not flat, its perfectly acceptable for us to eat seafood, and guess what, the teachings of the bible which remain seperate to this, the core beliefs of Catholics, that one should love god and ones neighbour as oneself for example, still stand. The bibles teachings on God can indeed be taken seperate to the bibles teachings on society.

I hope this also helps to answer the OP, the RC church might be digging its heels in, just as it did with Galileo, but that doesn't mean you can't stay true to your own beliefs.

Dark Artist

I think it must be very difficult to be Catholic if you are gay. The Catholic Church does, basically, condemn homosexuality. You can't pick and choose which parts to believe either, i.e. you can't just pretend those parts about homosexuality aren't included in the ancient scriptures (key word being ancient).

If you choose to be a Catholic, there can't really be a half way. You're either Catholic or you aren't. If you're gay, it's impossible to believe in a Catholic god because of what he's portrayed as being - a gay hater, which is of course absurd considering he created us all, apparently.

Heebie

Barna77 wrote: »

The catholic church hates me. I think I can live with that.

:rolleyes:

I'm sure you can.. nonetheless.. the Catholic church hating ANYONE is pretty much absolute proof that the Catholic church has lost it's way & just doesn't understand the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Heebie

You can choose, however, to be a CHRISTIAN. All Catholics are Christians.. but not all Christians are Catholics. (Even many of us who were raised Catholic no longer consider ourselves to be such. I've seriously thought about getting my name removed from the RC church's baptismal rolls. I know I was baptised, and I know what I believe... I don't give a crap if they do.)

Being a Christian requires only one thing: Believing that Jesus Christ is the messiah. (Being a practicing Christian involves trying to follow his teachings, and trying to live your life in a fashion Christ would deem worthy of entrance into the Kingdom of God... although true belief is the most important bit.)

Another interesting thing.. there is no "Catholic" God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the exact same God.. we just believe different things about God.

Dark Artist wrote: »

I think it must be very difficult to be Catholic if you are gay. The Catholic Church does, basically, condemn homosexuality. You can't pick and choose which parts to believe either, i.e. you can't just pretend those parts about homosexuality aren't included in the ancient scriptures (key word being ancient).

If you choose to be a Catholic, there can't really be a half way. You're either Catholic or you aren't. If you're gay, it's impossible to believe in a Catholic god because of what he's portrayed as being - a gay hater, which is of course absurd considering he created us all, apparently.

ixoy

Heebie wrote: »

Being a Christian requires only one thing: Believing that Jesus Christ is the messiah.

Correct. The role of the Bible would be dependent on your faith then - some take it very literally whereas others see it as a set of guidelines. Others go further and distil those guidelines by weeding out the historical ones as well as the contradictory elements (which is why the New testament supplants the Old Testament in Christianity).

All of which is to say what Heebie is saying - the only core piece is a belief in Christ as the messiah. The other details - whether you believe Mary was a virgin or not - are the particulars of your denomination. So you can be a practising homosexual and Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive, no more than the idea that you can wear mixed fibres and be a Christian or that slavery of your daughter is always wrong and be a Christian.

I'm an atheist myself, but I will recognise that religion has a strong role to play for many and that that role does not have to be a negative message of condemnation for gay people who lead full lives without shame.

Nevyn

jill_valentine wrote: »

You can't pick and choose which bits of a divine text which suit you because then, essentially, all you're doing is making up your own dogma anyway. And if you decide one bit of the Bible isn't truthful, then how can you believe any of it is? If any one bit of the bible is untrue, then the whole thing unravels like an ugly old jumper.

The only way you can make that work is, effectively, by not thinking too hard about it. A kind of convenient cognitive dissonance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Episode 25: The Midterms

President Josiah Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

DubArk

Been Christian:


"Christian mythology was able indirectly to incorporate various aspects of Middle-Eastern-Middle Eastern and Greek-mythology, especially in relation to dying god and hero motifs and that of the Mother Goddess. Christianity is a religion that looks back to its Jewish roots, but in so doing it expands the possibility of redemption by extending the “kingdom” and the “Promised Land” beyond the Hebrew race, Jewish religion, or land of Canaan to the world at large. To the extent that the religion has insisted over the centuries that its way is the only way and that its myths are literal truth, it has developed militancy and a tendency toward fundamentalism that has often placed it at odds with the actual teachings of its de facto founder by instigating or supporting violence, abuse, and repression."



Been Gay:


Real.

nozzferrahhtoo

If it helps the OP at all, there is a very outspoken Gay Christian in america who has a blog that is somewhat worth following. Called "The Daily Dish" it is written by Andrew Sullivan. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Not being religious myself I of course am not a big fan of his and would disagree with him on... well many things... but still his writings may be of some use to the OP.

Remember there are over 33,000 denominations in Christianity, many of them with conflicting even irreconcilable differences. If you think the brand of Christianity you were brought up with is wrong on any issue, including homosexuality, then just go search the other brands until you find the one that fits what you think is right.