Gay & Believing - Is there room for both?

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

Where is the choice? According to you there is no choice until you hit rock bottom. So people who believe in god..

Until such time as the "salvation transaction" carried out between an individual and God, the person doesn't believe in God in a true way.

There are all kinds of false beliefs - whether in a false god or in the 'right' God but in a false way (e.g. cultural Christianity (Roman Catholicism for most Irish people or Evangelical Christianity in much of modern America)). The person might as well be an atheist for all the difference it makes.

but are still lost because they haven't hit rock bottom, are they supposed to choose to hit rock bottom in order to be offered salvation?

They will surely hit their own personal rock bottom unless they wilfully prevent that happening. The choice is exercised in the prevention of arrival there rather than in the contributing to arrival there.

The only choice a person makes in contributing to reaching rock bottom is in generating the sin that can be utilised by God in bringing them to rock bottom. I gave you the mechanism for that already.

This all makes very little sense tbh, even your fellow christian posters don't appear to be with you on this one. In fact I've never met a single christian who seems to think as you do.

So far I've only seen objection from Roman Catholics. Since I don't hold Roman Catholicism to be Christian I can't say I'm surprised that we don't see eye to eye.

Roman Catholicism sees your "being good instead of bad" as central to salvation. This has more resonance with Islam and Mormonism and Hinduism and Buddhism than it has with biblical Christianity. And more resonance with you, an unbeliever, who reckons salvation should be based on how good you are.

Biblical Chrisitianity holds salvation a gift. You won't find much disagreement with that from non-RC posters here. They will differ on how precisely the mechanics of choice is worked out, granted.

soterpisc

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Can someone point to me the passage where Jesus said being gay or having gay thoughts is evil and sinful? I cannot believe the man would have said it.

To the OP yes there is room to be both. I would not listen to a single word of people who call you or your actions as being evil. As long as you are faithful and love your partner that is all that matters.

Having involuntary thoughts and attractions is not evil.. What is sinful are the actions, what you choose to do.

Catholicism/Orthodox and some Protestant Church's follow the true teaching the Church where extra martial sex is seen as a sin.

To the OP, You have to choose your lifestyle or your Faith.

santing

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Can someone point to me the passage where Jesus said being gay or having gay thoughts is evil and sinful? I cannot believe the man would have said it.

To the OP yes there is room to be both. I would not listen to a single word of people who call you or your actions as being evil. As long as you are faithful and love your partner that is all that matters.

I think sin is much worse than what we acknowledge ... For us thoughts are free (and I am glad that my thoughts are not judged by the courts of Ireland!) but for God

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:28 ESV)

So you can sin without having done anything wrong ... just our thoughts are enough!

Bullseye1

I'm still waiting for a quote from Jesus Condeming gay thoughts or actions. The first Christians followed the man not writings created years after his death by people who didn't know him.

I do recall reading him say "Those without sin....". Who are we as men/women to judge whether homosexuality is wrong. We should be concerned about our own souls and not be too quick to judge.

santing

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for a quote from Jesus Condeming gay thoughts or actions. The first Christians followed the man not writings created years after his death by people who didn't know him.

I do recall reading him say "Those without sin....". Who are we as men/women to judge whether homosexuality is wrong. We should be concerned about our own souls and not be too quick to judge.

I would say the Lord Jesus condemns sexual immorality.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. (Mat 15:19 ESV)

Sexual immorality means:

Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse

1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12

2) metaphorically the worship of idols

2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

[/LIST]

In general we could also look at the OT law of which the Lord Jesus says:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:17-19 ESV)

Bullseye1

santing wrote: »

I would say the Lord Jesus condemns sexual immorality.
Sexual immorality means:

In general we could also look at the OT law of which the Lord Jesus says:

Its your belief that Jesus condemns the practice and that is fair enough. But like much of the churches teachings its man made scripture/text. I just cannot see how a man as loving as Jesus would condemn two people who love each other and are faithful and who have not committed adultery. His teachings were of tolerance and forgiveness. He told us that we do not have the authority to judge others.

santing

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its your belief that Jesus condemns the practice and that is fair enough. But like much of the churches teachings its man made scripture/text. I just cannot see how a man as loving as Jesus would condemn two people who love each other and are faithful and who have not committed adultery. His teachings were of tolerance and forgiveness. He told us that we do not have the authority to judge others.

Sure, that is beautifully illustrated in the passage of the woman caught in adultery:

Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."(Joh 8:10-11 ESV)

But He finished with "from now on sin no more."

Bullseye1

And that deals with adultery. Its not the same topic as two men or two women loving each other. They can be completely faithful to each other which is what Jesus asks.

F12

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for a quote from Jesus Condeming gay thoughts or actions. The first Christians followed the man not writings created years after his death by people who didn't know him.

I do recall reading him say "Those without sin....". Who are we as men/women to judge whether homosexuality is wrong. We should be concerned about our own souls and not be too quick to judge.

So are you saying/suggesting that there might be other texts and teachings that either expressly condoned or condemned what were previously referred to as 'sodomites' or 'perverts' in the Old Testament? In other words, are you doubting what is in the bible is fact and/or that some things were omitted from his wider collective teachings?

santing

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And that deals with adultery. Its not the same topic as two men or two women loving each other. They can be completely faithful to each other which is what Jesus asks.

You are correct, two men or two women loving each other - as you put it, falls in a different category of sin. I quoted this as an illustration of tolerance and forgiveness ... That's only part of the story. In order to be our Saviour He had to die for sins ... no tolerance there.
In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74821861&postcount=66 I quoted a clear indication that Jesus does list homosexuality with many other sins. Your answer with "man made scripture/text" and the likes, giving a clear indication that you are not willing to hear anything different.
Ultimately, we are not condemned because we are sinners, or because of the multitude of our sins, we are condemned because we refuse the offer of salvation.

F12

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its your belief that Jesus condemns the practice and that is fair enough. But like much of the churches teachings its man made scripture/text. I just cannot see how a man as loving as Jesus would condemn two people who love each other and are faithful and who have not committed adultery. His teachings were of tolerance and forgiveness. He told us that we do not have the authority to judge others.

Not really. He said some quite contradictory things, like talking about letting others abuse you by your letting them strike you on the other cheek when they have already assaulted you. Assault is an illegal act even under secular laws, for good and obvious reasons, so it makes no sense to encourage someone to repeatedly abuse you, or does it?
He also said in Acts 22:35-38:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have a fulfillment.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

What did he want swords for if he was all into sweetness and forgiveness? He wouldn't have lasted long in his time and place if he went around like some bewildered Bee Gee, talking to demons and kicking the crap out of people in the temple, so maye he was not quite like he was painted?

To say that you have no right to judge makes no good sense, as it also denies you the entitlement to justice, as you can only expect that through just evaluation i.e. judgement.

soterpisc

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And that deals with adultery. Its not the same topic as two men or two women loving each other. They can be completely faithful to each other which is what Jesus asks.

1. The finality of sex is within the family is procreation. Its part of the relationship between a Man and a Woman joined in Marriage. Of course not every act results in a Child, but true love is open to the possibility of life.

2. All sex outside marriage is wrong (including gay sex).


If you don't agree with our faith, then don't... But don't try to bend our morals to fit your lifestyle.

Bullseye1

F12 wrote: »

Not really. He said some quite contradictory things, like talking about letting others abuse you by your letting them strike you on the other cheek when they have already assaulted you. Assault is an illegal act even under secular laws, for good and obvious reasons, so it makes no sense to encourage someone to repeatedly abuse you, or does it?
He also said in Acts 22:35-38:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have a fulfillment.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

What did he want swords for if he was all into sweetness and forgiveness? He wouldn't have lasted long in his time and place if he went around like some bewildered Bee Gee, talking to demons and kicking the crap out of people in the temple, so maye he was not quite like he was painted?

To say that you have no right to judge makes no good sense, as it also denies you the entitlement to justice, as you can only expect that through just evaluation i.e. judgement.

Judgement should be limited to the courts when dealing with criminals. I am talking about judging peoples choices when it comes to love.

Bullseye1

santing wrote: »

You are correct, two men or two women loving each other - as you put it, falls in a different category of sin. I quoted this as an illustration of tolerance and forgiveness ... That's only part of the story. In order to be our Saviour He had to die for sins ... no tolerance there.
In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74821861&postcount=66 I quoted a clear indication that Jesus does list homosexuality with many other sins. Your answer with "man made scripture/text" and the likes, giving a clear indication that you are not willing to hear anything different.
Ultimately, we are not condemned because we are sinners, or because of the multitude of our sins, we are condemned because we refuse the offer of salvation.

I'm not unwilling to listen to a reasonable argument or information provided. Just as I'm sure if new evidence of fact was provided to you you would not turn it away as fiction. I see no problem questioning the "facts" written down by man. How do we know that these are Jesus feelings and not the authors? The Church has been evolving for almost two thousand years and sometimes changing their views on scientific subjects such as the world being flat.

Irish Praetorian

The answer your looking for OP is yes, there is nothing wrong with you because of your sexuality and nothing preventing you from having a happy life as a gay Christian (except other Christians apparently). Heres a link that may be of use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Christian_Network

Some have mentioned this 'conversion therapy' nonsense, which I would STRONGLY advise against. At best it will lead you to a life of needless celibacy, more often is leads to SERIOUS mental damage and a lot of pain a grief for the vulnerable people often suckered in by it. Another interesting link for you to view http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/10/07/video-us-student-tells-of-gay-cure-torture-at-hands-of-father/

Remember, your faith is something you decide, its not up to other people and no-one has 'exclusive ownership' of religious belief. Being Christian is a lot like being Gay in fact, you have to spend a lot of time dealing with misinformed idiots.

santing

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The answer your looking for OP is yes, there is nothing wrong with you because of your sexuality and nothing preventing you from having a happy life as a gay Christian (except other Christians apparently). Heres a link that may be of use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Christian_Network

...

Remember, your faith is something you decide, its not up to other people and no-one has 'exclusive ownership' of religious belief. Being Christian is a lot like being Gay in fact, you have to spend a lot of time dealing with misinformed idiots.

Of course you can make up your own variant of religion - it's very Protestant to do! But being a Christian like this is to live completely against what Paul says to the Corinthians:

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1Co 6:11 ESV)

Paul explicitly says "were" indicating that they no longer were that way.

Bullseye1

Paul was a man. He wasn't Jesus. That is the point I am making.

Fanny Cradock

santing wrote: »

Of course you can make up your own variant of religion - it's very Protestant to do!

Give it a rest.

Lady Chuckles

This debate is outrageous and the way some of you talk makes me think you're fundamentalist cavemen!!

As long as you love and live life without hurting others surely you'd be loved by God.

F12

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And that deals with adultery. Its not the same topic as two men or two women loving each other. They can be completely faithful to each other which is what Jesus asks.

Are we talking about sex or love here, as the two are not necessarily mutual? The description of homo-sexual relates to sexuality, and not love, which is reasoned respect, so I'd like to clarify exactly what is being said, or not being said, as the case may be.

mascaput

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Paul was a man. He wasn't Jesus. That is the point I am making.

Errrr....ok, so are you saying Jesus wasn't a man? Didn't he personally refer to himself as a "Son of Man"?...which might lead us think that he might just possibly know something about being a man. Maybe I'm missing something here, but don't bother trying to make out he was a deity, as he never said that anywhere as far as I know .

Lady Chuckles

mascaput wrote: »

Errrr....ok, so are you saying Jesus wasn't a man? Didn't he personally refer to himself as a "Son of Man"?...which might lead us think that he might just possibly know something about being a man. Maybe I'm missing something here, but don't bother trying to make out he was a deity, as he never said that anywhere as far as I know .

It means it wasn't the word of Jesus. It means it was the word of Paul.
Paul - A man, who was not the son of God.

skylight1987

Of course there is room for God in your life God is in your soul and your heart , not your sexual organs , i think he is a loving and wise God, not some tyrant who will banish you to hell for having same sex feelings. The catholic church on the hand will never accept you, so get over that and build your relationship with your God , good luck:)

wolfsbane

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

It means it wasn't the word of Jesus. It means it was the word of Paul.
Paul - A man, who was not the son of God.

Paul was Christ's apostle - a man endued with the power to infallibly teach all that Christ wanted him to. Paul's letters, like those of the rest of the apostles, are Scripture - God's word.

Paul condemned homosexuality, as well as many other sins. Like with the OT prophets, it did not take God Himself to write down the words for them to be His words.

John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

mascaput

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

This debate is outrageous and the way some of you talk makes me think you're fundamentalist cavemen!!

As long as you love and live life without hurting others surely you'd be loved by God.

There have been billions of people who never believed in the deity called God who never deliberately hurt others, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.
You can't love by doing harm anyway, so I would like to ask about your making a conditional implication of there being a deity involved in the process.

mascaput

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

It means it wasn't the word of Jesus. It means it was the word of Paul.
Paul - A man, who was not the son of God.

So Paul was a liar and a fraud? If so, why is such a huge amount of the new testament text taken up with his teachings, and practically nothing from Peter, Jesus' right hand man?

Where did Jesus say he was 'The Son of God'?

Lady Chuckles

mascaput wrote: »

There have been billions of people who never believed in the deity called God who never deliberately hurt others, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Frankly, I don't see your point.

mascaput wrote: »

You can't love by doing harm anyway, so I would like to ask about your making a conditional implication of there being a deity involved in the process.

Surely the core idea with Christianity is to believe, love and be the best you?

antiskeptic

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Paul was a man. He wasn't Jesus. That is the point I am making.

It's a point that's only relevant on one of the other forums in the Religion and Spirituality section. Here, Paul's writings are as much God-inspired as are the writings of those who recorded what Jesus said.

If we don't assume the one then we can't aasume the other and we can't say a thing about what Jesus did or didn't say.

antiskeptic

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

It means it wasn't the word of Jesus.

Jesus? Surely you mean the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John asserting this is what Jesus said? Do you believe them erroneous in what they report? If so, on what basis?

mascaput

wolfsbane wrote: »

Paul was Christ's apostle - a man endued with the power to infallibly teach all that Christ wanted him to. Paul's letters, like those of the rest of the apostles, are Scripture - God's word.

Paul condemned homosexuality, as well as many other sins. Like with the OT prophets, it did not take God Himself to write down the words for them to be His words.

John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Not quite correct. Saul, who later changed his name to Paul, to hide his identity as being an assistant to the murder of Stephen, one of Jesus' followers, and his brutality to the Way followers when Jesus was no longer around. Hardly the kind of guy that Jesus, with his "Thou shalt not kill" motto would approve of. Paul-Saul never even met Jesus, but then mysteriously 'claimed' to have heard a voice of a man whom he never met, which certainly puts some perspective on the teachings that came from his mouth later on.

As for his 'condenming' sodomy and sexual perversion (the word homosexual only originated in the 1890s), there have been many priests in history who preached the same thing, but did so to cover up their own actions, as even our recent Irish history clearly and unavoidably tells us. Get the name of an early riser and you can sleep till midday.