Christianity, its great if you are straight

Zombrex · 30-08-2007 04:15PM

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 · 30-08-2007 04:30PM

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 · 30-08-2007 04:47PM

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 · 30-08-2007 05:04PM

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 · 30-08-2007 05:12PM

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 · 30-08-2007 11:31PM

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 · 31-08-2007 04:06PM

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 · 03-09-2007 03:23PM

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 · 03-09-2007 03:37PM

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 · 03-09-2007 05:31PM

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 · 04-09-2007 08:59AM

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 · 04-09-2007 03:19PM

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 · 04-09-2007 03:23PM

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 · 04-09-2007 03:50PM

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 · 04-09-2007 04:06PM

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 · 05-09-2007 10:53AM

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 · 05-09-2007 11:01AM

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 · 05-09-2007 11:06AM

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 · 05-09-2007 03:56PM

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 · 05-09-2007 04:08PM

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

BrianCalgary · 05-09-2007 04:27PM

Scofflaw wrote:

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

Thanks

Scofflaw wrote:

Interesting post, world of information in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh, Oh, good or bad?:eek:

Zombrex · 05-09-2007 04:27PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

Effimacy (is that a new word) really shouldn't come into the picture.

It was brought up because a translation of the Greek word "malakoi" used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the New Testament is often translated to mean effeminate.

BrianCalgary wrote:

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.

Er, what would be different if he actually was gay?

Would his family would be unsuccessful, his mom and dad divorced and the other kids miserable?

Agent J · 05-09-2007 04:31PM

Been trying to find the verse.

Is there a verse where paul speaks aganist being effeminate?

Agent J · 05-09-2007 04:36PM

Yep thats the verse...

Cor 1 6.9 KJV

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

NIV

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders "

Depends on which version you buy into.... KJV uses the word effeminate.

Zombrex · 05-09-2007 04:38PM

Agent J wrote:

Been trying to find the verse.

Is there a verse where paul speaks aganist being effeminate?

1 Corinthians 6:9

Depends on how it is translated. The King James Version lists "the effeminate" as unrighteous and that they will not get into heaven.

BrianCalgary · 05-09-2007 04:40PM

Wicknight wrote:

It was brought up because a translation of the Greek word "malakoi" used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the New Testament is often translated to mean effeminate.

Er, what would be different if he actually was gay?

Would his family would be unsuccessful, his mom and dad divorced and the other kids miserable?

if he was actually gay, there would be no mom, no marriage and no kids.

Agent J · 05-09-2007 04:43PM

Cheers.

Well it can be argued because the further you read down you can be "washed clean" or some such.

And no offence intended to Brian but a hard line approach/interpretation to the friend of your daughters with the KJV would knock him out of heaven with the word effeminate.

Agent J · 05-09-2007 04:45PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

if he was actually gay, there would be no mom, no marriage and no kids.

Not nesscarily. Plenty of cases of gay men getting married and having kids only to come out of the closest years later.

Zombrex · 05-09-2007 04:58PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

if he was actually gay, there would be no mom, no marriage and no kids.

I was talking about the kid, the friend of your daughter.

philologos · 05-09-2007 05:07PM

Wicknight wrote:

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.

If you were making a speech about marriage wouldn't you append "or husband" to the end it "and wife". So if he had any intention of allowing the possibility of homosexual marriage he would have said "When a man leaves his family so that he can become one with his wife or husband". But it doesn't.... therefore logically we can conclude that Jesus did not allow the possibility of homosexual marriages.

Christianity, its great if you are straight

Comments