Religion

That was a amazing perspective. Definitely something everyone should have a look at. Like I always say God's love and mercy is stronger than any sin and his son suffered and died for us on that cross because of how much he loved us.

 

Yes, Dano, I completely that God's Grace is infinitely stronger than even the greatest of our sins. I stand in awe of the depth of His love. It makes me want to just drop to my knees and worship Him with all I've got. That's why I just can't do something that I believe is a sin. Though I cannot even come close to earning His love for me, I want to at least try my imperfect best to.

 

I understand. I may not agree with at all with that mindset but I respect your decision to do what you think is right for you.

 

I appreciate your kindness, but I must admit that I am curious. I can tell that you take your Christian walk very seriously, and I respect the heck out of that even if we arrive at divergent conclusions about some things. You said above though that you didn't agree at all with my mindset. Not at all? Was what I said so really heretical for a Christian to say? I'm not trying to argue, just have an honest discussion. So please don't take offense to this question.

 

Its ok. As long as we are both civil and just having a honest discussion any question is ok to ask. I just believe with all my heart and soul that being gay and acting on gay tendecies is not a sin. Me and my boyfriend prayed every day for any reason and our faith was very strong. I believe the Old testament to be outdated and just made for that particular part in time. Those laws were made when there was not much education about sexuality and life in general.

God did create man and woman in his image and of course man could not comprehend such a relationship with the same sex back than. I am sure they were thinking more about pro creation when making those laws and it was proven that same sex relationships cannot pro create so they banned it. But now days that is not the reality we live in. There are straight couples who may not be able to procreate so should we say they cannot act on their sexual desires because they cannot have children. My whole mindset is if i did not choose to be gay than why should I be condemned for having natural desires that is just normal to me. I believe when God is in your heart he will lead the way that he wants you to be in and I just believe in my heart I am on the right path with god.

 

I've considered the possibility of celibacy too and since I seem to have very little sexual attraction anyway, maybe it's not going to be such a problem in the end.

But my views on religion aren't very conventional. I don't believe in "exclusivity". In other words, I don't think there's any one religion that's better than all the others. I don't think that the Buddhist monks who devote their lives to prayer and the Jewish kids going to Hebrew school and the Muslims trying to survive in a turbulent area are all going to hell because they don't believe in Jesus. I was raised to believe that, but I don't believe it anymore.

People use their sexuality to express love. If straight people can do it, so then can gay people. To me, I don't see the difference other than the gender of the people. But it shouldn't be so different. I think God ultimately wants everyone with Him in the end and I don't think people would be allowed to be gay only to be condemned automatically. I think two men can express the same type of love that a man and a woman can. I think some of us are simply made to be that way.

So that's my "weird" belief, but I've never mentioned to anyone before and it felt good to type it.

 

Thank you for clarifying your position, Dano. Here's how I see our situation. We both see value in following God and avoiding Sin, but we simply disagree about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. This disagreement arises because of how we each view Scripture differently. You believe it is possible for Scripture to be inherently flawed. I believe that it is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore perfect and inerrant. Does that sum it up well enough?

 

Yes it does. I don't mean to argue but I want to go more into depth on the Scripture. There are so many bibles some written in English and some written in a different language. Bible scholars have researched and translated the scripture from a different language into English and found mistranslations. So I take the English version of the bible with a grain of salt and focus on what these bible scholars say are mistranslations about homosexuality and so on. Heck I raised catholic. I have three catholic bibles and all of them have a different wording to their meaning. One says homosexuality is a abdomination and one says homosexuality is disgusting. So that is why I skeptical of any bible written in English. It takes a lot of research and time to really get to the truth about these verses.

I honestly believe there should be a law on how the scripture should be interpreted by ministers and priests but that would be something like communism wouldn't it.

 

Hi Zane,

If your position is correct all gays having sex are sinners, you judge them as sinners, and sin yourself by judging them. Since all sin is equal welcome to the club and it is a good example of your thinking.

 

I have to disagree. Me and Zane may disagree but never once had he told me I am going to hell for acting on my feelings or my boyfriend who just died is in hell. He more just stating his personal belief than judging people.

 

I didn't write the Bible, Skiff. You want to blame someone for my position, then blame God. Where is there an instance on here where I have judged someone for being gay? Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not equate to me judging or hating on gay people. As far as me being a sinner, damn right I am. I sin and break God's heart every day, and I must continually ask for a Grace and Forgiveness I do not deserve. I don't need you to tell me that I am a sinner in need of Grace. I came to that realization along time ago, and that is why I became a Christian. Your tone towards me, Skiff, is pretty darn judgmental right there.

I appreciate the support, Dano. Thank you. You understand my position well.

 

Sorry... Circular logic is pointless

And yes by extension we are condemed whether the words are used or not.

Have fun.

 

Well, I believe that the Bible is inerrant. However, I also feel that it must be read in context. We must remember that the purpose of the OT was to keep the lineage to Christ intact. Therefore, the Lord instituted many rules that seem archaic today but were meant to keep the Israelites alive to bring us Jesus. This is why we see Jeremiah and Isaiah foretelling Christ's birth, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Long story short, we are under the new law now that Christ came to save us and no longer under the Jewish law. That is my own personal belief. There are clobber verses that need to be read in context.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood but I completely disagree that we are condemned especially in today's world.

 

If we don't read it in context, then we'd have to accept Leviticus 20:13 as literal and put homosexuals to death. So we definitely can't take every line literally.

 

And I have no problem with anyone believing homosexuality or being LGBT is a sin(despite me disagreeing), but they shouldn't judge me(not saying you are Zane, just a general statement). I have to give an account before God as does everyone else. I am fine with where I stand. My position in regards to my faith and being bi is similar to Dano's views.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

Hi, this is my first post. A little nervous!

I'm Christian and gay, and we get slandered inexorably in Texas with the most inaccurate translations of Scripture. I feel personally that the nonsensical mistranslations of that which God intended to be seen and felt as a mitigating and mollifying message of support, has been handed to a group who never spent time learning the original message in its original languages. We "different ones" are blamed persistently for things never stated in these words. And this is taken to be truth?

One accurate historical point to be made: It has been recorded by many non-gay, conservative historians that it were the the gays who accompanied the many armies of Biblical times into the field as to "offer pleasure," because the women had to stay home to care for the children, the lame, the elderly. So we served according to history a necessary function, with the alleged scripture slurs referring to ambiguously taxed pronouns aimed at peoples of recondite tribes during a few short periods of spiritual purification.

But it all looks better to many(?) if some have someone else to hate.

Perhaps it's time do do it the right way.

Day

 

I have a question for anyone who wants to answer.

Given that Jesus said that the two greatest commandments weren't even among The Ten, does this indicate that there is no particular reason why the other 603 Old Testament commandments should be considered less relevant than The Ten?

Jesus said that he came not to undo the law of the Prophets but to complete it. But didn't Paul then go and do exactly what Jesus said he didn't want to do? On whose authority was Paul acting? He was never endorsed by Jesus. Yes he sold the religion to the world and you could say that's the proof of his divine mandate but conservative Christians are forever saying that to change the message and make it more modern is exactly what Christians shouldn't do.

Yes you can argue that all the books in the Bible were divinely inspired, (and implicitly that those at the Council of Nicaea were also divinely inspired), but even then the writings that have been part of the canonical Bible have changed several times through history with books added or taken away. Were all versions inerrant? Are people who translate the Bible also divinely inspired, even when they mistranslate?

My guess is that people will say that Paul has the stamp of authenticity by virtue of the miracle that befell him on the road to Damascus. A miracle with two witnesses plus Paul (if I remember correctly)? I'll be honest it's been a long time since I last read Acts, so please forgive me if there are better reasons for considering Paul to be more than just an important theologian.

Sorry, that turned into lots of questions. Ultimately it's relevant to whether we need to argue over homosexuality in Romans or Leviticus.

 

The bible was the result of a Roman poltician who had it compiled to solve a socio-economic problem.