Dealing with Christians

[MI_Shell]

It is a shocking thing to have to try and deal with judgemantal people. It is not a persons place to judge you but treat you with the same respect and dignity as anyone else. We can never control what others think of us but they are not worth wasting your energy on. If they are like that with you they may be judgemental and self-righteous toward others for other reasons.

Everyone has sin in their life and is not worthy to judge another but take good care of yourself and don't let others dampen your day.

[pianoguy]

Am I a Christian? Yes, I am.

 

Just because I follow something that you do not does not make it "idiotic"

I didn't mean that Christians are idiotic, just conservative homophobic Christians. I myself am a staunchly liberal Christian.

 

While I symphatize your situation, I cannot help but find it hypocritical that you call a conservative Christian idiotic because he does not understand how you feel when all the while you do not understand how he/she feels.

I feel conservative homophobic Christians are idiotic because they are not TRYING to understand my position. This is all I ask. If someone is operating solely out of emotion, of a fear of people different than themselves, out of a reluctance to question their own beliefs, then no I will not respect those people or their opinions.

 

Furthermore, I understand Christianity VERY well, better than most conservative Christians, and I think I understand conservative Christianity extremely well also, which is why I don't subscribe to it.

 

You may believe it or you many not believe it, but for many Christians, their faith springs a spiritual feeling within them. Im cannot say wheather or not you understand this, but it is true (I experience it myself). As a result, your feelings are really no different than a spiritual Christian's.

I do understand spirituality, I am a musician. I also am a church organist and have these same feelings myself. This is one reason that I am so passionate about this- there is nothing that infuriates me more as small-minded people misrepresenting God.

 

One easy response to someone that says you'll go to hell if you are gey is this: "No one knows the fate of our souls except God Himself". Its easy to remember, simple, and according to Christian doctrine, its true.

 

Kind of... Catholics and liturigical Protestants would definitely agree with this statment, but evangelical Protestants, not so much. You hear these people speak of "being saved" and "before I was saved," and so on, which implies that there are people who aren't saved. These are the main people that I find myself in conflict with.

 

One suggestion I have is, don't throw out the "don't judge others" defence. In my experience, this does nothing to aid the defendent's argument. In fact, it usually just agrivates the person "judging" you.

 

That's very strange. Jesus himself said, "Judge not, lest ye be cast into the fiery lake." Pretty strong words, if you ask me.

 

Also, it's a bad idea to make the "but God will forgive me" claim. This just makes it look like you're taking advantage of His mercy (which is clearly shown as being wrong in the book of Romans).

I don't NEED to be forgiven, it's not a sin. It's the most beautiful, pure, noble feeling I've ever had. Can you imagine how angry you would be if someone told you God would forgive you for falling in love with and marrying your wife?

 

Anyways, I hope this clears some things up, and thanks for your thoughts.

[metro_girl]

Seriously, why does it always have to be "our issue"? Like we are ultimately wrong and they are ultimately "right"? Forget it.

 

If what the bible says, that we were all created equal and "love thy neighbour", why do we have to continiously jump through hoops to constantly prove ourselves? While they sit on their arrogant behinds and reap the benefits of our civilisation?

 

There would be no civilization if a sperm and an egg did not meet. If everyone believed that homosexuality was ultimately right and heterosexuality was ultimately wrong, unless I'm misunderstanding you, then we would cease to exist. There would be no procreation. Maybe that makes heterosexuals arrogant?

[FoxLocke]

Sorry to sound condescending, but pitting sexuality against sexuality is a tad bit contrite.

 

I don't think ANYONE believes that heterosexuality is wrong. Obviously, it has to exist to perpetuate the human species.

However, the point of this thread--I believe--is that homosexuality is NOT wrong, and the author is tired of having to deal with fundamentalist christians trying to shove an "ideal" heterosexual lifestyle down his throat.

[KIDD]

Ok, since this is basically a topic no one can come to an exact agreement on. I'll put it like this, not everyone in the world can be exactly the same!We're all different & that's what makes the world so interesting.Some people can sing,some can't. Just like not everyone in the world is fat,skinny,Black,White,Asian,Chinese,left handed,right handed,handicapped. Ok for instance say in the bible, it said being Straight was a sin & being gay was the norm. Would you as a straight person automatically change & start liking someone of your same gender? Probably not. You can't do it because you want & lust after the opposite sex. The same applies for gay people. Too many things have been changed in the bible.

 

For those who don't know, the bible was originally written in Greek/Hebrew.. Alot of things have been altered & Misinterpreted by man! So I personally don't take the bible seriously. I believe in god.. But I wouldn't put so much faith in a book, that god might not even wrote himself. I am gay! There's nothing I can do to change the fact that I am attracted to man.Just like a straight man, even if he wanted to like another man, he couldn't change it because he wants women so much. We're all on earth for a purpose & we're destined to be whatever. The WHOLE POPULATION can't be straight. That's like saying, the whole population should be White people & no other race can be on there. KEYWORD.... WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT! We're not all the same.. Once everyone realises that, we may then begin to see things in a different light. Also it's a sin to judge & put others down for those of you who don't know.

[Prufrock06]

I find this discussion topic so interesting that I want to throw in my proverbial two cents, but I'm not sure how. I was raised in a multi-religious home (my father's a Muslim and my mother a Methodist) that stressed exposure to all different religions as opposed to a central focus on one -- I don't currently belong to any particular organized religion, but I do possess a deep sense of personal spirituality and at the end of the day, I do believe in something greater than myself but just don't worry about delving into it so deeply that we get entrenched in this same microcosmic issues we're talking about here.

 

Having gone through that autobiographical disclaimer, my question is this: what it comes down to is the personal merit and worth that each of us puts into aspects of whatever holy book you follow, if you follow one at all. I know that the Bible wasn't written solely as a commentary on homosexuality, or solely as a commentary on circumcision or money-lending or whatever. This "commentary" on homosexuality is just a small, teeny-tiny footnote in a book that contains numerous little footnotes about social customs, economic and cultural practices, politics, marriage, masturbation, farming, child-bearing and -rearing, education, etc. etc.

 

But being a resident of the 21st century, I feel my own spirituality (which falls in line with much of the religious influence I was brought up with) allows a place for my sexuality within the rubric of contemporary Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, whatever. I feel like fundamentalism starts when people can't adapt their practices or their beliefs to changes in society and culture and world think. Of course, you say this to someone and you get into an argument about religion versus secularism and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about minor, particular social customs and rules that clearly have no place in a progressive society(not "progressive" politically but "progressive" literally -- a society that moves forward through time and doesn't remain rooted in one place, that adapts like human beings do to various new climates). That's why I do have major issues with religious fundamentalism of any kind -- although in the case of this thread, the fundamentalism under scrutiny is Christian fundamentalism.

 

When you compose a book like the Bible (however you choose to believe it was composed, although if you believe it to be the direct, transcribed word of God, then this argument is rendered moot and not even worth discussing), you take into account many things when detailing these customs and social rules, but you honestly can't comprehend the state of the world 100 years from now, in the same way people in the 1800s couldn't comprehend this invisible inter-net of communication we're enjoying and taking for granted right now. I think when you start to recognize texts like the Bible and the Koran as fallible texts open to interpretation, open to change, then you're not so much damaging or threatening your own religious beliefs as you are adapting them to your current situation. In essense, your bringing your faith along with you and making it that much more of an important tool for your life. Which explains why there are so many homosexuals who don't just give up on their religion because their sexuality is shunned by it but those like some of the posters on this board who come to a personal compromise and hold themselves even closer to their beliefs because they know the essense of any faith, and probably the only aspect of religion that should remain rooted and fundamental, are these broad strokes about love and faith and humility and not the tiny, individual brush strokes dealing with what gender you love, how many gods you worship, how much money you give to a charity, etc. etc.

 

Which probably explains why a lot of this conflict between religious fundamentalism and homosexuality bothers me so much, not only because I have a vested interest in one of the two sides (can you guess which one? ) but because at the same time I don't possess the embittered, angry homosexual response that "religion sucks because it doesn't allow for my sexual orientation". I recognize that these fundamentalist Christians don't speak for all of Christianity, in the same way I as a gay male wouldn't want the club bunnies and internet sex hounds speaking for homosexuality as a whole. Every group has a small minority that seems to play a much more crucial role than it really does -- that's where the essense of stereotyping lies.

 

Was this completely off-track? If so, apologies.

[gogol]

pianoguy,

 

Your response to my post did clear up a lot of what I now realized confused me earlier. I must apoligize; now realizing that you are a Christian, I can imigine how insulting my earlier post must have been. I'm sorry.

 

I would consider myself a moderate Christian. However, practically, I would say that I'm more conservatve (religiously). I attribute this to my interpretations of the New Testimate. I take more of the teachings found in this section of the Bible more literally than most Christians (in my experience).

 

However, I am completely open to interpretation.

 

From what I have read, homosexuality is described to be a sin in both Testimates.

 

Am I saying it is a sin? No. I merely believe it to be (based on my reading of the Bible).

 

What I ask of you is this. How do you interpret the New Testimate in a way that does not condem homosexuality?

 

Please do not feel that I am challenging you in any way. I am meerly asking for your interpretation because I fully acknowledge the fact that I could very well be wrong.

 

 

 

 

I'd also like to respond to your responce concerning my "don't toss the 'dont judge others' defence".

 

I'm fully aware of Jesus' teaching of with-holding judgement. I suggested what I did because it is my opinion that the conservative Christians that you speak of pretty much ignore, deny, or are ignorant of this particular element of true Christian living. thereforeeee, I believe that throwing that defence would do little good, if not harm, in any realistic senario with one of these particular "Christians".

 

I'll check back regularly and respond with any updates from you.

 

Your Friend,

Chris

[pianoguy]

Your response to my post did clear up a lot of what I now realized confused me earlier. I must apoligize; now realizing that you are a Christian, I can imigine how insulting my earlier post must have been. I'm sorry.

Don't worry about it. I wasn't really offended at all, and I am happy that you are interested in engaging in constructive dialogue.

What I ask of you is this. How do you interpret the New Testimate in a way that does not condem homosexuality?

 

Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. First off, a disclaimer: I myself do not interpret the Bible literally. I never have, this is due to the way I was raised and the way my mind works. This was long before I realized I was gay. I also believe that parts of the Bible are simply false. But for purposes of discussion I will argue as though the entire Bible is true.

 

The only way someone can make a statment like "The entire Bible is true," is if you subject verses to extensive interpretation. You cannot believe that a thing and its opposite are both true, and there are verses that directly contradict each other. For example: there is the commandment "Do not kill" but on the next page there is a verse that says youths who curse their parents should be stoned. So we reinterpret "Do not kill" to read "Do not kill without cause" or "do not kill unjustly." This is a necessary interpretation if we are to believe the truth of the Bible.

 

Now, without getting into a debate about capital punishment, I think we can all agree that stoning teens who swear is a bit excessive. So then we either say that this verse is plainly untrue (this is what I say) or we say that this verse was not intended as a moral guide but as a cultural guide (this is what most Christians say, I have trouble understanding this).

 

So it becomes evident that interpretation of the Bible is a pretty bewildering task, but as a Christian my job is vastly simplified. The words and actions of Jesus are absolute truth, and the most important words of Jesus are these, as he himself says, "Love the LORD with all your heart and mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself." I believe beyond all doubt that one way I fulfill this command of Jesus is through forming a romantic and sexual parternship with another man. Such a relationship gives glory to God and my neighbor in my particular case, since God created me as a gay man. I don't have the slightest idea why God did this, maybe it was some kind of divine joke, but this is what He did.

 

thereforeeee, when I read these words in the writings of Paul:

 

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:26-27 NRSV)

 

I have no choice but to conclude that this is in direct conflict with the Law of Love, as God intended for me to live it out. As a Christian my first allegiance is to the words of Jesus which trump the words of Paul in this case.

 

Paul, I think, did not understand that God created some people gay and that for them "natural" intercourse is with the same gender. In Paul's day it was assumed that all people were straight, and that people who had sex with the same gender were straight people who had gotten bored of having straight sex. Indeed there probably was some truth to this, those Greeks were pretty crazy folks and liked all manner of sexual gratification. However, we know now that some people are inherently born with same-sex attraction, and for them natural intercourse is with the same gender.

 

This is not completely relevant, but I also have this very peculiar hunch that Paul was gay. The amount of loathing in those particular two verses- it sounds like it comes from someone who has experienced those "degrading passions" himself, and has convinced himself that they are sinful. Very sad, tragic, but understandable.

 

I'd be happy to continue discussing this if you have more questions.

[gogol]

pianoguy,

 

Firstly, I shoud explain that I wrote my last post at about 3 in the morning. Lol, and my ability to reason (and spell!) was effectively hindered It's pretty embarrassing spelling Testament wrong.

 

 

Now, I would like to share with you my understanding of the differences between the old and new Testaments.

 

The Old Testament is Old Covenant, and the New Testament is the New Covenant. Before the savior, we were judged according to the Law. This law defined the Old Covenant. To live rightousley before Christ, one had to abide by the rules set forth in the Old Testament.

 

The New Testiment is, obviously, where Jesus' purpose resides. Jesus changed everything in that He redefined what it ment to live rightously. Instead of abiding by a set of laws, one was to embrace a new way of thinking. This new foundation was based solely on love.

 

This is why I spend much more time reading the New Testament. It is my understanding that the Old Testament, for lack of a better word, is obsolete. It is outdated.

 

But to be outdated is not to be wrong. Jesus Himself explains a number of examples of this senario. We find them in the fifth chapter of Matthew. One is found in verses 38-40:

 

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

 

What was written in the Law is not "wrong" per se, but rather obsolete. The words "but I tell you now" imply change. Rather than saying that what was written before was false, Jesus says that what was written before has been replaced by a new way of life. This is what the New Covenant effectively is; a replacement of the Law.

 

Evidence of this is found all over Romans and Galatians. The end of Romans 3 and beginning of Romans 4 explains this idea clearly:

 

3

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[link removed] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

 

4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[link removed]

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

 

 

 

 

You mentioned the "do not kill" comandment. This particular element of the Law interested me a few years back. At the time, I was becoming more intuned with my faith, and I began realizing that my politically conservative ideology was, in many cases, contradictory to what I should be standing for in faith. I researched this commandment for a good while, and found that the true Hebrew translation translates to "Do not murder". Now, muder is subject to interpretation, but, generally speaking, there is a difference between killing and murduring.

 

However, if we look at this commandment from the point from this point of view, the law of putting to death children who curse their parents makes more sense. In fact, it somewhat is justified by the "honor thy mother and father" commandment.

 

Does this seem crazy? You betcha. But we cannot compare apples to oranges. Life was different then. Jesus had not existed. The idea that rightousness was based on love was not taught because it was, at that time, not the way to attain rightousness. At the time, rightousness was achieved by observing these seemingly crazy laws.

 

That's why Jesus was so revolutionary. That's why many of the Jews felt threatened by Jesus. He changed everything.

 

I believe that Leviticus 20:13 was a law that defined part of the Old Covenant. I also believe that the law has little relevance today. thereforeeee, I do not believe that homosexual sex is sinful based on this law. I only believe that it is sinful because it is shown to be immoral in the beginning of Romans, as you indicated.

 

I have great respect for Paul. I find him to be a good, honorable, humble Christian (from his general point of view depicted in how he writes).

 

I think he, more than the other deciples, has a clearer, more accurate understanding of Jesus and what is meant by is life and teachings.

 

Lustful and homosexual sex, in the New Testament, is shown to be immoral. But this does not mean that homosexuality is, itself, sinful. This is why I stand where I do.

 

I do not believe that it is wrong to be gay. As you said, it is natural for some people to be attracted to their own sex. But, we find that it is written that this kind of sex is immoral. I justify this through the combination of two closely related elements of Christianity: Sacrifice and Faith.

 

Sacrifice is an important part of Christianity. Jesus' life explains this clearly; so do his teachings. It is easy to love those who love you, but it is a sacrifice to love those who persecute you.

 

Faith is related to sacrifice because sacrifice is, I believe, required to be faithful. If you interpret Jesus' teaching that believing in him will earn you eternal life, than all you have to do is acknowledge that Jesus is who He is, and then you've got a free ticket to do anything without consequence. But, we are taught by Paul that this is not the case. To have faith is to have trust. We must trust Jesus to have faith in Him. We must trust His teachings in order to have faith in him. That's why its hard to remain faithful; because Jesus' teachings call for sacrifice. Its hard to trust that something that requires pain in life will reward you in a place that you do not know of.

 

I currently believe that people who are born with homosexual desires are born also with a responsibility to sacrifice by limiting their homosexual experiences to non-sexual outlets. This satisfies the requirment to remain sexually moral, faithful, and sacrificial.

 

 

I hope this clarifies to you where I stand and why.

 

I would like to hear what you have to say.

 

Your friend,

Christian

[pianoguy]

Concerning the Law: I don't want to spend too much time on this because we both came to the same decision using different language and different reasoning, wheras you say, "It's not wrong, per se, but obsolete" I say, "It's just plain wrong."

 

My opinion is that portions of the Law were wrong from the minute they were written, and thereforeeee could not have come from God but from man. This is of course not a traditional Christian perspective and possibly one that Jesus would have disagreed with.

 

To return to my favorite example of stoning foul-mouthed teens- I think that would be unjust and unfair. I understand that cursing one's parents was much more severe and diabolical in those days... but punishing it with death? Death? I mean, this is the final end, we're talking about taking someone's life here. This is a very severe punishment, indeed the most severe punishment possible by humans. I can't believe an all-loving God would sanction such a thing. Leviticus is rife with very barbaric unfair punishments that no moral person would condone, much less our all-loving God. It puzzles me to suppose He had anything to do with that book.

 

I realize I am imposing many of my cultural biases on this, but a lot of my feelings stem from basic human morality which is universal to all cultures and times.

 

Anyways, we both came to the same conclusion that we are not bound by the Law, so moving on...

 

I have great respect for Paul. I find him to be a good, honorable, humble Christian (from his general point of view depicted in how he writes).

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Paul does have his moments, was a brilliant writer with some truly profound insights, and the Christian church probably wouldn't be around without him. But I also feel some of his writings are directly responsible for impeding progress and encouraging outdated attitudes, not only towards gays but also towards women. I don't think he was a bad person, quite the contrary, but he was very much imperfect, as are his writings.

Lustful and homosexual sex, in the New Testament, is shown to be immoral. But this does not mean that homosexuality is, itself, sinful. This is why I stand where I do.

I find it very hurtful that you lump homosexual sex with "lustful" sex, for me it is a very beautiful feeling, but I understand this is a traditional Christian standpoint consistent with a literal reading of the new Testament.

 

Sacrifice is an important part of Christianity. Jesus' life explains this clearly; so do his teachings. It is easy to love those who love you, but it is a sacrifice to love those who persecute you.

I very much agree, indeed this is something that I struggle with alot myself. It seems modern churches tend to de-emphasize this in an effort to be more appealing.

 

However, Luther taught us (oh, gosh, I'm a Catholic quoting Luther... I knew this day would come eventually that sacrifice needs to have some kind of point, otherwise it is almost a kind of vanity. Consider the medieval monks who would starve themselves so they could have "religious" visions, or the Spanish flagellates who would walk through the towns beating themselves with whips. God does not ask us to do what is unhealthy, and the sacrifice should make us better, stronger people. You only need to poke around this board some to see the emotional and psychological damage that comes about through repressed sexuality, or look in the news at the Catholic priest scandal, or consider that ambivalence about sexuality is the highest cause of teen suicide.

 

Yes, in the Catholic church there are perfectly healthy inidividuals, both gay and straight, who take upon themselves the burden of celibacy in order that they may perceive God more clearly, but the key words here are: take upon themselves. God does not require this as a duty of these people, and Protestants often mock these people.

 

This is no small burden that God would supposedly require. Sexuality is a VERY fundamental part of being a human. Indeed last year I wrote this on this very board:

 

It seems that the church offers me these choices: I may express my love and go to Hell when I die, or I may remain celebate and experience Hell on earth. How generous.

 

Finally, God requires us to sacrifice activities that are either harmful to the self or to others, such as lying to get ahead in business, gluttony, jealousy, etc. Loving, committed homosexuality certainly doesn't harm other people, and it doesn't harm the self either, indeed I think have demonstrated that repressing sexuality is EXTREMELY harmful to the self.

 

Faith is related to sacrifice because sacrifice is, I believe, required to be faithful. If you interpret Jesus' teaching that believing in him will earn you eternal life, than all you have to do is acknowledge that Jesus is who He is, and then you've got a free ticket to do anything without consequence. But, we are taught by Paul that this is not the case. To have faith is to have trust. We must trust Jesus to have faith in Him. We must trust His teachings in order to have faith in him.

 

I find it revealing that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and I'm not sure why faith in Jesus compells me to accept the writings of Paul uncritically. If anything, my faith in Jesus compells me to reject portions of Paul since I believe that they are in direct contradiction with the law of love, as I explained in my last post.

 

I currently believe that people who are born with homosexual desires are born also with a responsibility to sacrifice by limiting their homosexual experiences to non-sexual outlets. This satisfies the requirment to remain sexually moral, faithful, and sacrificial.

 

A responsibility no person should have to bear. A pointless responsibility, one that benefits neither God nor society nor church nor self. To be unloved is a horrible curse, perhaps one of the worst possible. God would never desire such a thing, rather, I believe His word was misperceived by one very fallible person. Unfortunately that was published in the Holy Book, which otherwise isn't so bad.

 

Your friend,

pianoguy

[jmksd]

I just came accross this site and I read your post. The reason that Christians say that homosexuality is a sin, is because it is a sin. Any sexual relation outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin according to God. Sin means to "miss the mark" as in target practice. Why is sin so bad? It is bad because it separates us from God and if not repented of we will be separated forever in hell. God is holy, righteous, just, and loving and he will not give someone eternal life in heaven to someone who practices a lifestyle of disobedience. He knows what's best for us because He created us in his own image. That's why Jesus Christ died for our sins, to pay the penalty for us, because we could never pay it. There are many people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle and have found freedom in Christ to live holy lives. I pray that this will happen to you. God loves us too much to let us stay and wallow in our sins. It is not His will that ANY should be sent to hell.

 

Here are some websites from former homosexuals, both men and women to encourage you on your journey, link removed, link removed, link removed, link removed, link removed,link removed

[kadvati79]

Belief and faith, of some form or another, is central to all our lifes. It need not be religious.

 

But I always impress on people one clear and distinct factor in belief:

 

Belief is not a categorical fact

 

thereforeeee:

- You cannot prove or disprove that God exists. But you can believe that God exists.

 

People often use link removed to explain that "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists." And then go on to say that it says this and that in the Bible, thereforeeee this and that is a sin... in a factual sense.

 

But you simply cannot say that, as a fact. The whole CONCEPT of religion is that it is NOT scientific and is based on faith. Thats why christianity has a process of you choosing to accept christ as your lord and saviour. If God proved his existence as a fast per se, then he really wouldn't be giving people much choice would he?

 

Now to be clear it is, however, quite alright (in a factual sense) to state that you believe that God exists, believe that the Bible is the word of God, believe that the Bible says all homosexuals are sinners, and thereforeeee that God says all Homosexuals are sinners. Belief is your own and you don't need to justify it with reason and sound proof.

 

So when I deal with Christains, I find they can be divided squarely into two camps. The brainwashed who can't understand the concept of believe and faith, and how faith in something you can't prove (to yourself or others) is the ultimate act of loving God, and those who understand the concept of faith. I find, without exception, those who recognise their faith and what it means to them - have often encouraged and supported me to find my own faith in whatever I believed in... be it God or something else... by showing me how much their own faith ment to them.

[Deviant_Kate]

I'm not going to read through seven pages of replies before posting. I don't have the time.

 

I'm careful about who I come out to about my sexual orientation and about my religious beliefs. I typically don't steer any conversation in either of the two directions. If I find out a person that I typically enjoy spending time with is Christian, I typically don't care. I don't explain my beliefs and I don't ask them to defend theirs. I accept and respect them for who they are. I even have one friend who votes republican .

 

But if I find out a person that I typically enjoy spending time with supports the federal marriage amendment or any similar amendments, you will not catch me with that person again if I can help it. I don't have the time or energy to spend my days convincing people that I have the right to be treated fairly, and I will NOT pretend that I'm okay with someone holding the belief that homosexuals aren't worthy of equal treatment.

 

It seems so GLARINGLY obvious to me that sexual orientation should have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on how our country treats its citizens, or how our citizens treat each other for that matter.

 

The federal marriage amendment is no better than the laws that prohibited interracial marriage a few decades ago. Marriage should either be extended to ALL adult Americans, or to NONE. Fair is fair. And the FMA is NOT fair.

[FoxLocke]

What Deviant Kate said!

[girl friend]

God loves everyone, thats the way i see it.

 

You hear ''these Christians,'' we've all known them, and they go around talking about condemn, and hell, and hate, and all the time i'm thinking ''where is Jesus in all this? Wasn't his message love?''

The aim of a true christian, is to bring people back towards the church, to prevent people being driven away, because of people like ''these Christians'' who think what they're doing is right, but are actually driving people away from God. Perhaps God would even be angered by their actions? They mean for the best. They are just narrow-minded, there is no solution to resolving your problems with them. Fortunately, however, they often do change, and 'outgrow' these beliefs, as they meet new people and new dilemmas.

[kadvati79]

The aim of a true christian, is to bring people back towards the church, to prevent people being driven away, because of people like ''these Christians'' who think what they're doing is right, but are actually driving people away from God.

I suppose everyone has their own version of the "true Christian". But for me, it would not be aiming to bring people to the church, but to help people. When you look at the truly great religious people in the world, they didn't run about trying to press-gang people along to church... instead they spent their time out helping others.

 

"Less singing more dancing"

 

There is a great quote on one of my favorite websites (link removed), that I often think of when I hear people making these wide accusations on behalf of god like "God will smite the homosexuals!", etc...

 

In the link removed a guy is talking about a young girl who was from a very religious family who was throwing rocks at his bike, he chased her, caught up with her, and as he approached her:

 

She "put her hands on her hips, and stood there and said 'The lord will protect me'". His reply really sums the situation up...

 

"Well... he didn't".

[LONESOUL]

Kate~you are right on!!

[Deviant_Kate]

Kate~you are right on!!

 

Thanks! I'm glad you and FoxLocke agree.

[AwdreeHpburn]

I find it easiest to just not....

 

...deal with Christians that is.

[saturnine]

I must confess that I haven't read this whole thread. I read the first few and then posted. So, if I talk about something that somebody already mentioned, I apologize.

 

I'm a Christian myself, and this is my point of view.

 

Mostly what I can say is that in Corinthians where Paul mentions that homosexuality is a sin, there's also a pretty extensive list of other things that won't allow you into heaven. So, why is it that we take the one word, homosexual, and set it above all the rest? I have often wondered about that.

 

Not only that, but if you google 'homosexual' and 'bible' together, you'll find plenty of articles trying to prove that the word homosexual in the bible is a mistranslation. Is it true or not? Honestly, I can't say because I don't know greek.

 

And another thing, the KJV bible in 1 Corinthians 6:9 says, 'abusers of themselves with mankind.'

I'm sorry, but how we got homosexual out of that I have no idea, because that seems pretty vague if you ask me.

 

Anyways, when I start talking about stuff like this, I learn that supposedly I'm not a very good 'Christian.'

[saturnine]

Oh, and if mentioning those things to them doesn't work. Comment on how interesting it is that the story of the birth of Jesus greatly resembles the story of the birth of Buddha. And how remarkable it is since Buddhism came hundreds of years before Christianity.

You might be able to shake someone's faith a little bit.

And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Christianity because I'm a Christian myself. But I am very much against people who say they're Christians but haven't studied the Bible themselves and their only Biblical knowledge is from what their pastor spews out to them every Sunday.

Anyways, I guess I'm finished ranting. Sorry about that.

[NKP]

How in the world is it a sin? Isnt god spose to aspect us for who we are. Really people need to get a life, get there head outta the book and face life. Being gay isnt a choice its something you just cant control, if you like the same sex, you cant change the way you feel in your heart. What the hell is so wrong about being gay, as long as they are happy thats all the matters.

 

All yous people that is against it, what would you do if your kid were gay? would you hate em?

[blindfold]

tell them their religion is based on love. and that you defend love, regardless sex, race or social status