Christians and Homosexuality

harmless_little_f***

double post, sorry

brainofPJ

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I'll get that info to you when I get my hands on my Bible. It's too high up on the shelf right now, and my disabled self can't.... anyway

My point was that in its cultural context, the Old Testament disallowed people with any afflictions or bodily disfunctions this privileged access to God. So whilst I like where you're coming from in your statement, it doesn't go against what these prohibitions meant in their own context.

the Old Testament, that's right. even though Christians are not living under the Law today, it does give us insight into God's viewpoint on matters, and can and should affect the things we do.

decides2dream

NMyTree wrote:

No one has to necessarily embrace anyone else, if they don't want to. Just don't discriminate.

Sure, it would be great if we all could embrace one another, all the time.

But that's probably unrealistic.

Live and let live.

exactly.
believe how you see fit, just don't ever try to force your belief system on another...which also means trying to infringe on other's rights to fit within your personally held beliefs.

brainofPJ

well, i got to go...

but i would like to continue later harmless_little_f***...

hold it down.

miller8966

the bible especially the new testament is a loving book..unlike the koran the bible is about spreading gods word through love and compassion for humans.

angelica

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Well my thinking started when it suddenly struck me: Leviticus. It totally condemns people with any physical blemish, or anyone disabled, being in the priesthood; and of course, most of the Bible reinforces the damaging rubbish that says if you're disabled, it's because of some sin you've done.

It isn't a sexual issue, granted. And I know there are still some morons who believe this. But what criteria do we use when picking and choosing what laws to still uphold in our day? Sexually, the Bible was explicitly against many sexual acts (and otherwise) we consider perfectly normal, and holy, now.

I'm not making a case, necessarily, just explaining what started me off finding all this interesting. I've found an essay online, which is very thought-provoking. Here's the link, maybe we could discuss it?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/Christian%20and%20Homosexual%20Gay%20or%20Lesbian.htm

Please bear with me--I'm reading your interesting link. I borrowed part of it for the other thread out here, since it was so appropriate. Thanks for sharing.

angelica

Awesome stuff in that link:

"In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?"

(ed: bold added)

harmless_little_f***

angelica wrote:

Awesome stuff in that link:

"In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?"

(ed: bold added)

This is indeed an exciting quote. I don't know, all this is making me think, is all.

angelica

Another one highly relevent in this day and age where we battle with our egos, while Spirit waits patiently for our free will acknowledgement:

"Rather than tearing at each others's throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser for Christians to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?"

angelica

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

This is indeed an exciting quote. I don't know, all this is making me think, is all.

Each day, I am surprised by what I learn, merely by being open to expansion through Love.

"When we're green we grow, when we're ripe we rot."

LeilaMoonTurtle

Some acceptance?

I think, perhaps you should start wth what is a christian. My understanding is that christians love all; if you are not doing so are you a christian?

titefka wrote:

I've been discussing this topic recently with those religiuos fanatics and my favourite priest and I must say that this discussion wasn't ..hmm ..pleasant ..?It's a hard topic just like the abortion..
Their arguments were totally unconvincing to me like "homosexual thoughts aren't a sin , but resisting to those thoughts+the worse - homosexuals acts ARE.I tried to convince them that homosexuals are normal and need some acceptance,that those people FEEL love to each other so how can christians deny true and pure love and feelings !They don't want to hear about it and why ? because such a view is inconvenient for them and knocks down this great wall which they create with such primitive consistency.Why primitive? Because they feel somehow that this view doesn't fit to a christian approach to life and other beings and they blindly stick to it because The Church says so - so it must be their view too.I wish them one thing ... a homosexual person within the most intimate environment like family or friends.Because it is easy to deny when they know really nothing about it.I would like to see such guy telling to his homosexual brother or sister "YOU NEED SOME TREATMENT" and have you heard what happens after such a treatment .? eh .I've always claimed that the Church isn't perfect in many aspects.I am a Christian but I have my own views on many things and sometimes those views differ a lot but I will never change my mind.

LeilaMoonTurtle

What does the church have to do with being a christian?

titefka wrote:

I've always claimed that the Church isn't perfect in many aspects.I am a Christian but I have my own views on many things and sometimes those views differ a lot but I will never change my mind.

titefka

LeilaMoonTurtle wrote:

Some acceptance?

I think, perhaps you should start wth what is a christian. My understanding is that christians love all; if you are not doing so are you a christian?

you misunderstood my message,I am all for homosexuals but all I wanted was to try to convince the rest of my Christian group to them.I tried everything but ...it didn't work.That means that those religious fanatics don't really understand the main sense of Christianity , have problems with distinguishing ... they don't want to understand.That is why i resigned and I'm not in this group anymore

In my country The Church=being a Christian , tight relationship , more complex case..

LeilaMoonTurtle

I didn't misunderstand, it wasn't stated clearly. I guess that shows how important clear language is; I find, at times church groups are ambiguous purposely.
Thanks for clearing it up.

I understand what you mean about church=christian, my family comes from the same type of thinking, lucky for me my parents re not religious at all.

titefka wrote:

you misunderstood my message,I am all for homosexuals but all I wanted was to try to convince the rest of my Christian group to them.I tried everything but ...it didn't work.That means that those religious fanatics don't really understand the main sense of Christianity , have problems with distinguishing ... they don't want to understand.That is why i resigned and I'm not in this group anymore

In my country The Church=being a Christian , tight relationship , more complex case..

NMyTree

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I'd love to find out why they are in the place they are, despite what the church tells them all the time. I really don't know where I stand on it at all; I have my reasons.

They don't go to any church and being a Christian has nothing to do with churches. The two are not synonymous.

In fact, I don't believe Jesus wanted anyone to create, join or attend churches-for the sake of spirituality and communicating with god.

I tend to believe that he discouraged the church concept.

harmless_little_f***

NMyTree wrote:

They don't go to any church and being a Christian has nothing to do with churches. The two are not synonymous.

In fact, I don't believe Jesus wanted anyone to create, join or attend churches-for the sake of spirituality and communicating with god.

I tend to believe that he discouraged the church concept.

I also believe the church concept and being a Christian are not synonymous. I was using 'church' not in an institutional sense; merely as the body of believers around the world: the Church, of which every Christian is a part. Being a Christian is not an individualistic, solitary lifestyle (even if we sometimes wish it was). This is the 'Church' which often alienates homosexual people that I was referring to.

Pearl Jam and toast

dkst0426 wrote:

Christians do NOT hate homosexual people (Contrary to what Fred Phelps might have to say--he is hardly a banner example of Christianity). Christians hate the act of homosexuality--just as much as we hate other sins.

alright, i've heard that exact phrase a lot. I understand exactly what you mean by that, but i still think it's a load of underhanded bullshit.

it's not just about accepting someone, it's about accepting someone for who they are.

not.. "i love you, but your lifestyle is sinful and godless".. just "i love you".

by the way, it's considered a sin (by some christians, as someone pointed out ) because of religious dogma that's been mis-interpretted, re-interpretted, and made up throughout the years. Certain ideologies get washed into a culture and become part of it over time.

It's in the same vein as racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory beliefs. That said, in a progressive society like ours that line of thinking is a dying one.

And the original poster is a decent example of how it's dying.. it starts with questioning.

LeilaMoonTurtle

Why use the word church--instead of believers or christians?

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I also believe the church concept and being a Christian are not synonymous. I was using 'church' not in an institutional sense; merely as the body of believers around the world: the Church, of which every Christian is a part. Being a Christian is not an individualistic, solitary lifestyle (even if we sometimes wish it was). This is the 'Church' which often alienates homosexual people that I was referring to.

harmless_little_f***

LeilaMoonTurtle wrote:

Why use the word church--instead of believers or christians?

Because the Bible itself so often uses the word 'Church' plurally, meaning every Christian in the world. There was no concept of a Sunday morning service at a building called 'a church' in the Bible. In its context, 'the Church' = the people of the world. It's us who's skewed the meaning; nothing wrong with the word.

titefka

LeilaMoonTurtle wrote:

I didn't misunderstand, it wasn't stated clearly. I guess that shows how important clear language is; I find, at times church groups are ambiguous purposely.
Thanks for clearing it up.

I understand what you mean about church=christian, my family comes from the same type of thinking, lucky for me my parents re not religious at all.

Oh don't be so miscellaneous , a bad day ?I have a hangover ,it is not always so easy to express thoughts.