Christianity, its great if you are straight

archdukefranz

I have been quite a committed Christian up until this point... however there is an issue of sexuality which could really mess things up in that regard.
So I'll thank people in advance to take this seriously and deal with it in a respectful manner... the result of this thought process will have a large effect on the rest of my life no doubt. Try not to treat this as an argument but as a quest for a solution... maybe a few can be found and for more than just me

Gender roles is a major thing at the moment in my life..
I started thinking about the fact that God is refered to as male...
there is the whole wives submit to your husbands etc...
This doesn't suit me... I'm a guy, I'm not dominant in a sexual relationship nor do I ever plan to be, I don't see how this effects my ability to serve "God"
Expand that further, does anyone think its ok to cross dress or take on attributes associated with the female gender etc.?
Is part of being a man of God being masculine?

I don't have a well defined sexuality... no real gender preference but quite a number of my friends do so I can imagine what its like I guess.. which leads me to:
Why are there rules surrounding consensual sex?

I'm also confused by lots of other stuff like why you need to get church married before having sex...

But mostly I'm kinda angry... I've spent my entire life growing up as I thought a Christian boy should... and for most of my life I was depressed, I had to restrict my actions to fit in rather than just being myself..
Its like I had a perfectly good 3rd arm... but because it wasn't normal we were all told to hide them... one day I release it and there I feel great...

It just doesn't make sense that God loves me and wants me to be someone else... and its not just not doing a particular action... there is a whole lifestyle I'm heading towards with every step feeling like more freedom..

Anyway if I could get peoples opinions that would be cool...

JimiTime

Not exactly sure about what you are asking TBH. Are you asking if there are any christians here that feel that one can reconsile Christianity with leading a homosexual life? or Are you making a statement about how much better it is to let yourself be free even if it goes against what God would consider right, and asking for an opinion on it? or Are you asking if all the biblical references to sexual immorality are wrong or open to interpretation?

Maybe this is just me, but your post didn't seem very clear??

philologos

We've had several discussions on this before...

Please see: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055110987
It's the most notable of these discussions.

BrianCalgary

A couple of things I can answer.

God's maleness.
He is referred to as father. Our relationship with Him is as a child to a Father. I don't view God as male, because He is also a provider, which would be more of a traditional mother role.

As for sexuality, God is quite clear on how sex is to be practiced. It is a gift to be enjoyed within teh confines of a marriage relationship. One were the couple is committed for life. The reason I believe is to protect us form disease and unwanted pregnancies, etc.

Even our psyche. Young folk that I know that ignore this particular command find it quite difficult to break up with someone and then imagine someone else, maybe even their friend have a go at her. The guys then begin ti view the girl as an easy and lose respect for her.

Which leads into the next area of gender roles. The verse regarding 'wives submit to your husbands' (Eph 5:22-24 is the whole passage) is followed by

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—

But men miss this part. Our male and female nature is brought forth here. Women like to control things and God is saying don't, defer to your husbands.

Men on teh other hand are self centred. We want to please ourselves, God says no. You can't just be running off to the pub, you are to sacrifice for your wife.

God gives instruction on how to treat one another, unfortunately people tend to omit the bits they don't like.

I hope that answers part of your query,

Blessings
Brian

BrianCalgary

Guys:

They have all been deleted because they are all off topic.

The initial one by robindch I felt was very demeaning to Christianity and didn't address the OP.

You can all disgree if you wish, but I believe that a Christian response is necessary.

Thanks for all your understanding and support
Brian

archdukefranz

BrianCalgary wrote:

A couple of things I can answer.

God's maleness.
He is referred to as father. Our relationship with Him is as a child to a Father. I don't view God as male, because He is also a provider, which would be more of a traditional mother role.

Provider and ruler of the house is generally the father role.. is it not?
Perhaps your experience of a household is different to the norm... which is what I'm kinda getting at... people that are different to the norm.
I have also heard he has attributes that are more motherly like care giving etc...

BrianCalgary wrote:

As for sexuality, God is quite clear on how sex is to be practiced. It is a gift to be enjoyed within teh confines of a marriage relationship. One were the couple is committed for life. The reason I believe is to protect us form disease and unwanted pregnancies, etc.

Where does he say you can only have sex inside marriage?

Unwanted pregnancy and disease are certainly issues, but there are many sexual acts aside from missionary position vanilla sex.
And there is James's hospital if you want to get tested before hand...
Or is there more to this than simply the practical?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Even our psyche. Young folk that I know that ignore this particular command find it quite difficult to break up with someone and then imagine someone else, maybe even their friend have a go at her. The guys then begin ti view the girl as an easy and lose respect for her.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here...
is it that people have greater respect for those who stay chaste?
I'm not sure thats true.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Which leads into the next area of gender roles. The verse regarding 'wives submit to your husbands' (Eph 5:22-24 is the whole passage) is followed by

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—

But men miss this part. Our male and female nature is brought forth here. Women like to control things and God is saying don't, defer to your husbands.

1. Not all women like control, only some.
2. Why should they defer to their husbands unless its practical
3. Someone can be born with a tendency to act more male or female despite their genitalia.... how do they fit in.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Men on teh other hand are self centred. We want to please ourselves, God says no. You can't just be running off to the pub, you are to sacrifice for your wife.

Er.. "self-centeredness" has nothing to do with gender...
And both people in a relationship have to sacrifice for each other

BrianCalgary wrote:

God gives instruction on how to treat one another, unfortunately people tend to omit the bits they don't like.

True they do...

BrianCalgary wrote:

I hope that answers part of your query,

Yeah it answers it and thanks for that... but there is a lot to this line of thought I'm gonna need a lot of discussion with people before I come to a conclusion...

BrianCalgary wrote:

Blessings
Brian

*grin* thanks

Tzetze

OP, the people who dreamed up the bible saw sexuality and gender as being black and white. Homosexual/Transgender issues were seen as lifestyle choices. Today, we know that this is not the case.

From Cambridge University Students’ Union

The fact that transsexuals exist, people who identify so strongly with the opposite sex, is evidence that gender identity is based upon much more than just our genitalia. Some people argue that it is entirely a social construct, but the developing scientific knowledge has something to suggest that it is at least partially to do with our brains.

There are also more ways to be born than XX and XY. Some people are born XXY, or XYY, or XO. Last year Channel 4 screened a documentary, Secret Intersex, which showed the early lives of two sisters with AIS Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Outwardly they both appeared what we would deem female inwardly, each had a womb but also testes. Fortunate to have extremely open minded parents they had been brought up to think of themselves as not male, or female, but as intersex.

Gender is not a black and white construct.

If gender/sexuality were to be explicitly black and white, why would god make man with nipples?

On a slightly related note: If god made man in his own image, does that mean that god also has useless nipples and a penis? What would an omnipotent god need these body parts for?

Galvasean

Tzetze wrote:

On a slightly related note: If god made man in his own image, does that mean that god also has useless nipples and a penis? What would an omnipotent god need these body parts for?

Fun?

PDN

Tzetze wrote:

If gender/sexuality were to be explicitly black and white, why would god make man with nipples?

On a slightly related note: If god made man in his own image, does that mean that god also has useless nipples and a penis? What would an omnipotent god need these body parts for?

If you want to quote an authority for a medical issue then please find one better than a Students' Union.

Tzetze, I don't know if you are male or female, but as a happily married male let me assure you that men's nipples are far from useless! They can be an erogenous zone and, my young nephew assures me, are very suitable for piercing.

As for your question about man being made in God's image, I suspect you are taking the piss, but let's look at the actual Bible quote:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

You will note that both male and female were created in God's image. Most theologians agree that 'in God's image' refers to something other than physical appearance see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God

Tzetze

PDN,

Just because male nipples are sensitive to the touch, does not mean they have a purpose. My point is, if gender were absolutely black and white then men wouldn't have nipples. According to the bible, god made man first which would have involved a pair of nipples having only one purpose - to transfer milk from the mammary gland of a mother to her young. Back to the drawing board!

I should have realised that when the bible speaks of the image of god, it doesn't actually mean the image of god. :rolleyes:

And as far as your dislike of my quote source goes, is wiki any more reliable?

Before I drag this any further off topic - my main point again is that gender is not black and white like the ancients thought it was at the time of bible writing.

Scofflaw

archdukefranz wrote:

Expand that further, does anyone think its ok to cross dress or take on attributes associated with the female gender etc.?
Is part of being a man of God being masculine?

You might ask PDN to comment on the question of the translation of malakoi & arsenokoites.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

There are probably 3/4 massive issues within Christianity that completely stump me. Sex/Sexuality (be it straight or gay) is one of them. My opinion on homosexuality has change a bit over recent times. Before this I would have been of the opinion that it was mainly a lifestyle choice, albeit not one made neither quickly or consciously. Now, however, I am of a different opinion, yet one still very much based on my Christian beliefs. Sexuality is primarily a product of evolution, though that's not to say nurture doesn't play a significant roll.

Recently, I was struck by a sentence in C.S. Lewis's book 'Mere Christianity' "…a cold self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute". What you are going through must be very difficult, and any Christian who points the finger at you and judges falls into the self-righteous category.

I know that our earthly desires (I don't specifically refer to sex here) will nearly always be at odds with our spiritual desires. In other words, our earthly desires are not always in our best interest - either on this earth or the next. Ultimately, I believe that God is there to love and help us, not punish and deny our pleasures. The problems seem to arise (and they are problems of our own making) when we put other things above God and forget about him. I hope that you find some answers to this question.

Despite the slightly facetious nature of Tzetze question regarding nipples and mickeys, not every Christian subscribes to the idea that being created in God's image is reference to a physical image. I'd be of the opinion that it is a spiritual image. In similar manner, I don't think God's gender is actually that of a male. I would see this as a metaphorical image that humans can understand when considering the nature of God's relationship to us.

PDN

Tzetze wrote:

Just because male nipples are sensitive to the touch, does not mean they have a purpose. My point is, if gender were absolutely black and white then men wouldn't have nipples. According to the bible, god made man first which would have involved a pair of nipples having only one purpose - to transfer milk from the mammary gland of a mother to her young. Back to the drawing board!

Sexual intercourse was an essential element of the goodness of God's creation. Making parts of our bodies that are sensitive and give pleasure seems a very good purpose IMHO.

Fanny Cradock

Tzetze wrote:

I should have realised that when the bible speaks of the image of god, it doesn't actually mean the image of god. :rolleyes:

I really love this type of attitude. Anything that deviates from your narrow understanding of Christianity and what you think Christians believe gets the old sarcastic roll of the eyes.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

"…a cold self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute"

WWJD?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Given the two options two options of prostitution or self-righteousness prigishnous, I would say neither.

qwertyphobia

love is one of the central messages of the new testment it's also one of the most powerful forces in our humanity.

I honestly can't see how a person can denie themselfs the possibility of the expression of that and at the same time have a rounded out spirtuality.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Given the two options two options of prostitution or self-righteousness prigisnous, I would say neither.

Well, did Jesus hang out with prostitutes, or Pharisees?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

PDN wrote:

Sexual intercourse was an essential element of the goodness of God's creation. Making parts of our bodies that are sensitive and give pleasure seems a very good purpose IMHO.

Be it divine creation or random mutation I'm just glad we have them!

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, did Jesus hang out with prostitutes, or Pharisees?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, he did. But you asked what he would do and not who he would associate with.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, he did. But you asked what he would do and not who he would associate with.

Ah. I didn't think the options of "priggishness or prostitution" actually applied directly to Him, so it was more doing in the sense of 'associating with'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

So that's how you spell 'priggishness'!

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, he did. But you asked what he would do and not who he would associate with.

So more a case of WWJAW than WWJD?

Which reminds me, totally off topic, of something I saw 2 weeks ago. I was at the Soul Survivor Worship Event in England (20,000 teenagers camping in a mud bath & worshipping in a big top). The organisers try to make everyone park in designated areas instead of close to your own group's tents. They were placing signs on improperly parked vehicles that read "Where Would Jesus Park?"

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote:

WWJAW

That took me about 30 seconds to figure out, and only after I had thought of the same joke at that.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So more a case of WWJAW than WWJD?

Which reminds me, totally off topic, of something I saw 2 weeks ago. I was at the Soul Survivor Worship Event in England (20,000 teenagers camping in a mud bath & worshipping in a big top). The organisers try to make everyone park in designated areas instead of close to your own group's tents. They were placing signs on improperly parked vehicles that read "Where Would Jesus Park?"

No. Stop. Cease immediately. You know what I mean.

minatorily,
scofflaw

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

That took me about 30 seconds to figure out, and only after I had thought of the same joke at that.

WWJAW WWJAW is better than WWJD WWJD?

cordially,
Scofflaw

archdukefranz

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I know that our earthly desires (I don't specifically refer to sex here) will nearly always be at odds with our spiritual desires. In other words, our earthly desires are not always in our best interest - either on this earth or the next. Ultimately, I believe that God is there to love and help us, not punish and deny our pleasures. The problems seem to arise (and they are problems of our own making) when we put other things above God and forget about him. I hope that you find some answers to this question.

Hmmm I don't see the desires of my body and spirit as contradictory though...
Sure they have different priorities but the same overall goal through the fact that they benefit each other...

Like I don't think my spirit benefits from me pretending to be someone else..
in fact its only recently that I have really felt spiritually connection... well.. to this level anyway (big jump)...

I think this quote sums up a lot of what I'm trying to say

qwertyphobia wrote:

love is one of the central messages of the new testment it's also one of the most powerful forces in our humanity.

I honestly can't see how a person can denie themselfs the possibility of the expression of that and at the same time have a rounded out spirtuality.

I don't want to stop following the bible but I gotta choose a path...

from what I know of God, I can't see him objecting... am I mistaken?

mossieh

archdukefranz wrote:

I don't want to stop following the bible but I gotta choose a path...

from what I know of God, I can't see him objecting... am I mistaken?

Who knows? His bureaucrats on earth certainly will object though.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Sexual intercourse was an essential element of the goodness of God's creation. Making parts of our bodies that are sensitive and give pleasure seems a very good purpose IMHO.

You seem to be putting the horse in front of the cart there PDN

The nipples on a human develop before the 14 week point where hormones in males start to develop male features. Males retain some sensitivity in the nipples as an after effect of this development. Put simply the development of breasts is turned off by the male hormones but not before they have developed slightly.

Of course it could be argued that God knew what he was doing, but it seems rather strange to give men a not very well developed version of the female breast. The fact that the male features of a mammal develop later in pregnancy than the female features is puzzling if men were created first.

archdukefranz

I don't know how relevant this is... I've always been arguing from the homosexuality is wrong side before...

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

edit: sorry forgot to explain... I reckon that this could be extended to include a lot of other things...
it still boggles the mind why homosexuality wasn't allowed ages ago... but then there are a few rules back then that still don't make sense to me

I am starting to see the possibility of an argument for it being ok to be not straight and follow God.

The most major issue here is whether I can call myself a Christian and say that its ok to not be straight...

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be putting the horse in front of the cart there PDN

The nipples on a human develop before the 14 week point where hormones in males start to develop male features. Males retain some sensitivity in the nipples as an after effect of this development. Put simply the development of breasts is turned off by the male hormones but not before they have developed slightly.

Of course it could be argued that God knew what he was doing, but it seems rather strange to give men a not very well developed version of the female breast. The fact that the male features of a mammal develop later in pregnancy than the female features is puzzling if men were created first.

I don't actually see any necessary connection between the order in which features develop in pregnancy and whether man or woman was created first. My understanding (and, remember, I am no scientist, so I am open to correction) is that both male and female fetuses share a lot of characteristics in early stages of pregnancy, with hormones gradually kicking in and producing distinctive gender characteristics. I see it as being somewhat akin to a motor company using a common chassis that is designed for both a saloon or a hatchback model (think of the Fiat Bravo/Brava). The order in which components are added in the factory has no relevance to which was designed, or produced, first.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The order in which components are added in the factory has no relevance to which was designed, or produced, first.

Well yes, if life was designed God could of course designed it anyway he wanted, no matter how round-about. This does seem strange though. It would be like Ford first putting in one powerful engine into a car and then half way through development taking it out and putting in a different engine. What purpose does having the first engine?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why do male nipples develop with the ability to function as breasts (which happens to some unfortunate men, who actually lactate), if they are simply for sex? Why do other male mammals have nipples if the purpose of male nipples is to help humans experience sexual pleasure?

I imagine the response will be "I don't know, I don't question God".

Which is fair enough. But then it is also rather illogical to claim that God created male nipples for sexual pleasure.

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

The most major issue here is whether I can call myself a Christian and say that its ok to not be straight...

Why not? Lots of people do.

"Sexual immorality" is what is normally frowned upon in the New Testament. Most times that is mentioned the context is talking about prostitution, including male prostitution. Some view that as including homosexuality, since homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament. But there are plenty of times when the common Greek word for homosexual could have been used but instead the authors of the Bible used a different word, often more connected with what we even today would consider sexual immorality, such as rape or prostitutions. To a lot of people that is interpreted that the authors of the Bible did not consider loving homosexual sex as wrong, which fits in with the idea that the general message of the New Testament is one of love. Of course some who view homosexuality as bad choose to interpret otherwise, as I think some (including posters here) do not except that there is such as a think as a loving homosexual relationship in the first place, and see homosexuality as simply an expression of lust, not love, that can only lead to harm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

BrianCalgary

archdukefranz wrote:

I don't know how relevant this is... I've always been arguing from the homosexuality is wrong side before...



edit: sorry forgot to explain... I reckon that this could be extended to include a lot of other things...
it still boggles the mind why homosexuality wasn't allowed ages ago... but then there are a few rules back then that still don't make sense to me

I am starting to see the possibility of an argument for it being ok to be not straight and follow God.

The most major issue here is whether I can call myself a Christian and say that its ok to not be straight...

The Bible is very clear on its instructions for sex. It is to be used by married couples for preocreation AND to complete the intimacy in that relationship. Anything outside of that is sinful.

It has also been stated here about homosexuals being able to love. No question about it, they can. But sex does not equal love. When I was a teen and in my early 20's I thought that sex equaled love. I felt starved for love, now I understand that I was loved, by many people, just not in a relationship that allowed sex.

There are many people today that I love and care about very deeply, both male and female, yet sex is out of the question because of the damage it would cause with not only my marriage relationship, but also with the person I dallied with and many others trust would be destroyed. It just isn't worth the orgasm.

You can be gay and be Christian, just don't practice it. We all have burdens to bear, we just have to battle them.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

It has also been stated here about homosexuals being able to love. No question about it, they can. But sex does not equal love. When I was a teen and in my early 20's I thought that sex equaled love. I felt starved for love, now I understand that I was loved, by many people, just not in a relationship that allowed sex.

There are many people today that I love and care about very deeply, both male and female, yet sex is out of the question because of the damage it would cause with not only my marriage relationship, but also with the person I dallied with and many others trust would be destroyed. It just isn't worth the orgasm.

Thank you BC for demonstrating my point.

If one doesn't accept that homosexuals can love each other in the same way that heterosexuals can love each other (romantic, passionate, love like the love between a husband and wife), then someone will never accept that homosexual sex can be anything except an expression of sinful lust, rather than an expression of intimacy and love like a married homosexual couple use it for (with the nipple arousing for PDN :eek: ).

So I guess archdukefranz has to ask himself if he believes homosexuals can love each other like this or not.

robindch

archdukefranz wrote:

but then there are a few rules back then that still don't make sense to me

I answered a couple of your questions point-by-point last night, but the posting was deleted. If I get some time over the next couple of days, I may try posting the reply to the A+A forum. But you may need to step, momentarily, outside a christian-only worldview in order to see how and why the answers make sense.

Now, back to this thread.

archdukefranz wrote:

I am starting to see the possibility of an argument for it being ok to be not straight and follow God. The most major issue here is whether I can call myself a Christian and say that its ok to not be straight..

As far as I'm aware, all of the christian posters here say that all you have to do is to believe Jesus in order to be a christian. So, by their criteria, if you do this, then that's enough to call yourself a christian.

The problem is that Jesus was born and died a Jew and he never defined christianity, and more specifically, he's never quoted as saying that you can't call yourself a christian if you're gay. All of that is a much later inference (eg, see the current trouble going on in the Anglican church) which has no basis at all in scripture.

Ultimately, being gay (or not) has no input into whether or not you can call yourself a christian.

McGinty

Hi Op

I haven't read all the replies even though I usually do but I empathised with your post because I have struggled with the same difficulties that you spoke of. I am a woman with a strong masculine side, in that I am independent, sexually assertive, yet I am also caring, and attentive, but this strong masculine side has been off putting. I love God, I am a christian, and I believe that I work to my best at it, but others would not see me as a good christian, but I do think deeply about God and this is what I believe to be.

I believe that God is a balance of male/female energies, yes I refer God as male but that is a preference, I like the idea of God pursuing me and penetrating me as well as being a father to me, but God to me is also very nurturing and caring, God is motherly.

In the bible it states God is love, one has to ask what is love, I am not sure, but it is something mysterious and indefinable, but what I do know is that God loves variety. Look at the masses of people, different skin tones, hair colour, face shapes, personality and so forth, so it makes sense that God gives us varying gender roles or what feels right for us.

I also don't see how two people making love can be a sin, even outside of marriage. I just fail to see what is so wrong in that.

archdukefranz

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible is very clear on its instructions for sex. It is to be used by married couples for preocreation AND to complete the intimacy in that relationship. Anything outside of that is sinful.

Can you point me towards where it says clearly that sex is for within marriage alone

BrianCalgary wrote:

It has also been stated here about homosexuals being able to love. No question about it, they can. But sex does not equal love. When I was a teen and in my early 20's I thought that sex equaled love. I felt starved for love, now I understand that I was loved, by many people, just not in a relationship that allowed sex.

Are they capable of the same (type?) love that you have for your wife?

BrianCalgary wrote:

There are many people today that I love and care about very deeply, both male and female, yet sex is out of the question because of the damage it would cause with not only my marriage relationship, but also with the person I dallied with and many others trust would be destroyed. It just isn't worth the orgasm.

ok

BrianCalgary wrote:

You can be gay and be Christian, just don't practice it. We all have burdens to bear, we just have to battle them.

I don't think you quite understand how much of a burden some of the things I'm talking about are and I think your phrasing of that statement is great evidence of it.

I'm lucky, if I finally decide that having sex with the same gender is wrong it probably won't have any effect on my life, male/female its all the same to me. However there are friends of mine that should they decide that homosexuality is wrong they will never be able to have a sexual relationship.

I don't think thats a minor thing and shouldn't be treated as one.

archdukefranz

robindch wrote:

Now, back to this thread.As far as I'm aware, all of the christian posters here say that all you have to do is to believe Jesus in order to be a christian. So, by their criteria, if you do this, then that's enough to call yourself a christian.

The problem is that Jesus was born and died a Jew and he never defined christianity, and more specifically, he's never quoted as saying that you can't call yourself a christian if you're gay. All of that is a much later inference (eg, see the current trouble going on in the Anglican church) which has no basis at all in scripture.

Ultimately, being gay (or not) has no input into whether or not you can call yourself a christian.

If its against the rules that are set down by God, surely it make me a really crap follower of Christ to knowingly break them on a regular basis

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

If its against the rules that are set down by God, surely it make me a really crap follower of Christ to knowingly break them on a regular basis

Jesus doesn't say much on sex, and what he does say would suggest he didn't give a hoot about homosexuals marrying and having sex (all you need is love). Most of the New Testament discussion on the matter come by his followers trying to interpret what they should do. Its debatable if one has to believe these guys were 100% correct, or directly inspired by God, to consider yourself a Christian.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus doesn't say much on sex, and what he does say would suggest he didn't give a hoot about homosexuals marrying and having sex (all you need is love). Most of the New Testament discussion on the matter come by his followers trying to interpret what they should do. Its debatable if one has to believe these guys were 100% correct, or directly inspired by God, to consider yourself a Christian.

In the gospels marriage is defined as the process of a man leaving his family so that he can become one with his wife. Jesus was quoting from Genesis 2 when he said that. So it is clearly defined as a man and a woman.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

In the gospels marriage is defined as the process of a man leaving his family so that he can become one with his wife. Jesus was quoting from Genesis 2 when he said that. So it is clearly defined as a man and a woman.

It is described as that Jakkass, not defined. Other types of marriage are mentioned by Jesus as well including polygamy, so the conclusion that Jesus is defining marriage as one man one women there is simply wishful interpretation for people who view marriage as that and nothing else.

Jesus after all is supposed to have though love above all else. The idea that he would be against homosexuals who are in love getting married is not only unsupported by the New Testament, but also illogical.

archdukefranz

Jakkass wrote:

In the gospels marriage is defined as the process of a man leaving his family so that he can become one with his wife. Jesus was quoting from Genesis 2 when he said that. So it is clearly defined as a man and a woman.

It says man leaves his parents and becomes one with his wife...
It doesn't say that you can't lay with someone unless you are becoming one with her...

archdukefranz

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus doesn't say much on sex, and what he does say would suggest he didn't give a hoot about homosexuals marrying and having sex (all you need is love). Most of the New Testament discussion on the matter come by his followers trying to interpret what they should do. Its debatable if one has to believe these guys were 100% correct, or directly inspired by God, to consider yourself a Christian.

all you need is love was the beetles and not Jesus... I know with the long hair it can often be hard to tell the difference :P

but yeah Jesus seemed to care about people
and he didn't limit that to people who desired to do the law
in fact he surouded himself with the people who didn't...

BrianCalgary

archdukefranz wrote:

I don't think you quite understand how much of a burden some of the things I'm talking about are and I think your phrasing of that statement is great evidence of it. .

You are dead right here. I can only try though.

archdukefranz wrote:

I'm lucky, if I finally decide that having sex with the same gender is wrong it probably won't have any effect on my life, male/female its all the same to me. However there are friends of mine that should they decide that homosexuality is wrong they will never be able to have a sexual relationship.

I don't think thats a minor thing and shouldn't be treated as one.

Sorry if I came across that way, I don't think it is a minor issue and do wonder if this is the place to really try and sort it out.

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

all you need is love was the beetles and not Jesus... I know with the long hair it can often be hard to tell the difference :P

I think they were paraphrasing him

http://theway247.blogspot.com/2007/08/all-you-need-is-love.html

archdukefranz wrote:

but yeah Jesus seemed to care about people
and he didn't limit that to people who desired to do the law

More than that Jesus fulfilled the old law that was for the ancient Jews. The ban on homosexuality is part of the old law, but it makes no sense in relation to the new covenant with Jesus and Jesus' teachings on love.

As you Christians like saying "What would Jesus do"

Would Jesus consider homosexual love, intimacy and marriage a sin? Seriously doubtful, if Jesus is the person you guys claim he is.

People only see anti-homosexual rulings in the teaching of Jesus if they choose to interpret things that way, for example Jakkass interpretating Jesus' description of a heterosexual marriage as a definition that marriage can only be heterosexual.

archdukefranz

BrianCalgary wrote:

You are dead right here. I can only try though.

How do you imagine it?
What do you compare it to?

I think you can learn to understand...

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry if I came across that way, I don't think it is a minor issue and do wonder if this is the place to really try and sort it out.

There isn't another place where I can bring this up for discussion on morality

archdukefranz

Wicknight wrote:

I think they were paraphrasing him

http://theway247.blogspot.com/2007/08/all-you-need-is-love.html

Yeah I figured thats what you meant, I was just being silly

Wicknight wrote:

More than that Jesus fulfilled the old law that was for the ancient Jews. The ban on homosexuality is part of the old law, but it makes no sense in relation to the new covenant with Jesus and Jesus' teachings on love.

As you Christians like saying "What would Jesus do"

Would Jesus consider homosexual love, intimacy and marriage a sin? Seriously doubtful, if Jesus is the person you guys claim he is.

People only see anti-homosexual rulings in the teaching of Jesus if they choose to interpret things that way, for example Jakkass interpretating Jesus' description of a heterosexual marriage as a definition that marriage can only be heterosexual.

Yeah its only paul that seems to make rules...

archdukefranz

McGinty wrote:

Hi Op

I haven't read all the replies even though I usually do but I empathised with your post because I have struggled with the same difficulties that you spoke of. I am a woman with a strong masculine side, in that I am independent, sexually assertive, yet I am also caring, and attentive, but this strong masculine side has been off putting. I love God, I am a christian, and I believe that I work to my best at it, but others would not see me as a good christian, but I do think deeply about God and this is what I believe to be.

I believe that God is a balance of male/female energies, yes I refer God as male but that is a preference, I like the idea of God pursuing me and penetrating me as well as being a father to me, but God to me is also very nurturing and caring, God is motherly.

In the bible it states God is love, one has to ask what is love, I am not sure, but it is something mysterious and indefinable, but what I do know is that God loves variety. Look at the masses of people, different skin tones, hair colour, face shapes, personality and so forth, so it makes sense that God gives us varying gender roles or what feels right for us.

I also don't see how two people making love can be a sin, even outside of marriage. I just fail to see what is so wrong in that.

Sorry about the delay in reply... got put off by the "Hi OP" thought that was someone called OP.... *slaps head*

The thing is why is it mentioned in the Bible that women should submit to their men when people vary so much... I guess it could be a cultural context thing? Could be like the whole slaves submit to your masters??

Still it leaves the whole men being effeminate thing... donno what to do with that..

BrianCalgary

archdukefranz wrote:

Sorry about the delay in reply... got put off by the "Hi OP" thought that was someone called OP.... *slaps head*

The thing is why is it mentioned in the Bible that women should submit to their men when people vary so much... I guess it could be a cultural context thing? Could be like the whole slaves submit to your masters??

Still it leaves the whole men being effeminate thing... donno what to do with that..

After the submit to your husbands bit in Ephesians 5, it is followed by 7 verses telling men how to treat their wives.

Effimacy (is that a new word) really shouldn't come into the picture. A friend of my daughters is effimate, super kid, I thenmet his Dad, same thing. If you saw these two yo'd think they were gay by their mannerisms. Not at all though. can't judge a book by its cover. The family is successful, mom and dad still happily married and great kids produced, all in an RC environment.

it is the heart that counts. Serve God or serve man?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

After the submit to your husbands bit in Ephesians 5, it is followed by 7 verses telling men how to treat their wives.

Effimacy (is that a new word) really shouldn't come into the picture. A friend of my daughters is effimate, super kid, I thenmet his Dad, same thing. If you saw these two yo'd think they were gay by their mannerisms. Not at all though. can't judge a book by its cover. The family is successful, mom and dad still happily married and great kids produced, all in an RC environment.

it is the heart that counts. Serve God or serve man?

The word you're looking for is "effeminacy"!

Interesting post, world of information in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw