Is it possible to be a gay Christian?

[The Grand Nudger]

If the Bible was simply about telling people what to do, then it wouldn't try to explain who God is or what God does.

I expect that it would spend alot of time on both of those things, especially with regards to "who" he is when he lays down some of that "what" on rule-breakers

And even at that, the Bible as a rule book would just be the Torah—all written down by one person or group at one point in time, and lacking contradiction.

We're halfway there already, imagining that the gospel writers were a single person - rather than a single final editor. Or imagining that book is already free of contradiction (when they've only half finished the editing job). You think that the torah sprung up as-is, written by "one person or group at one point in time"? You got somethin 'ginst rulebooks?

[KUSA]

Does it make any sense at all? Why would an homosexual subscribe to a religion that considers his sexual behaviour as immoral and sinful, taking into account sexual orientation is a central part of most people's lives?

It is possible to be a gay Christian. You just have to use the appropriate version of the bible.
http://queenjamesbible.com

[Purplundy]

We're halfway there already, imagining that the gospel writers were a single person - rather than a single final editor. Or imagining that book is already free of contradiction (when they've only half finished the editing job).

That's weird, I don't remember suggesting that the Gospels were written by the same dude. However, the Torah was most likely written up by a unified group, and is entirely made up of Jewish laws. The same cannot be said for the rest of the Bible. Clearly the Torah writers weren't around to give the Psalms writers the memo that all they had to do was write more rules.
Why does this even matter? It remains that the Bible was written by independent individuals with different opinions belonging to two different belief systems. I agree with and identify with the latter of the two.

[Thumpalumpacus]

From the moment everyone follows different verses and have different interpretations, that's not a religion any more, it's several religions

So what? If God wants some ambiguity to get us thinking about it, that's his business. You atheists criticize us for being mindless sheep in one breath, then note that we think about things and come to different conclusions in the next.

I find it odd that the words of a Perfect Communicator should sow such confusion and discord. When even his own self-proclaimed followers take up arms to defend their conception of the Prince of Peace with acts of violence, it seems to me that the message has been made uselessly vague, and thereby counterproductive.

---

You don't feel that a book full of rules, with stories full of people either following or ignoring those rules- expressing the consequences thereof - is a rule book, or meant to be "followed" as-such?

If the Bible was simply about telling people what to do, then it wouldn't try to explain who God is or what God does.

The Bible does not explain who God is, hence the confusion and occasional enmity amongst his self-proclaimed followers. The are several different conceptions of God even amongst self-professed Christians.

[Drich]

Does it make any sense at all? Why would an homosexual subscribe to a religion that considers his sexual behaviour as immoral and sinful, taking into account sexual orientation is a central part of most people's lives?

Because homosexuality is a sin like all others, and it like all other sin can indeed find atonement throughout Christ.

[Purplundy]

And this is proof that Christians are not a monolith.

I hope that statement does justice to my one-hundredth post.

[The Grand Nudger]

We're halfway there already, imagining that the gospel writers were a single person - rather than a single final editor. Or imagining that book is already free of contradiction (when they've only half finished the editing job).

That's weird, I don't remember suggesting that the Gospels were written by the same dude. However, the Torah was most likely written up by a unified group, and is entirely made up of Jewish laws.

We have no idea of how many people, and over what span of time went into those laws before they were ever written down - or if there was a before, in their case. I'm commenting on the current state of belief regarding the bible, which as you've mentioned...is not a monolith. We've got folks who think that Matthew was written by a Matthew......or even a single author using the character. We've got folks who feel that the bible is wholly free of internal contradiction, and we've got people who feel that the bible very clearly lays down the rules. They all think this for "reasons" - of course. You disagree.

The same cannot be said for the rest of the Bible. Clearly the Torah writers weren't around to give the Psalms writers the memo that all they had to do was write more rules.
Why does this even matter? It remains that the Bible was written by independent individuals with different opinions belonging to two different belief systems. I agree with and identify with the latter of the two.

It matters, because you made a terribly unfortunate claim. Sure, it forms a part of your belief system - you don't see the bible as a rule book (I get that, and I understand, I really do). That it -is- a rulebook remains, however inconveniently, in plain sight. I think that the fascinating bit here is that you don't take it as such. Personally, I agree with your position, at least the nuanced bits about the bible being a collection of stories meant to convey something about the nature of man and gods. Just not for the "reasons" you offered. I think that the nuanced bit was somewhat unintentional. They wrote parables, myths, fables, stories with a moral. You are expected to see the light, in the same way that you are expected to see the light when reading "the tortoise and the hare". Being human beings, they wrote bits of themselves in. Being human beings, they had to imagine a god culpable or complicit in what they felt he was culpable or complicit in. Is it any wonder that god's cv reads like a demon's resume...given the sorts of things people see on this earth? Perhaps the greeks described their gods as capricious for precisely the same reason that the biblical god is described as such?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

By definition a practicing homosexual can't be a Christian because it's in violation of the Christian doctrine as specified in the Bible. Likewise a murderer, thief, liar, drunkard, extortioner, fornicator, or adulterer can not be a Christian either. Only "good people" need apply.

Of course anyone can call himself a Christian but if the story is true as written it won't do him any good. It'll be the lake of fire for sure. Revelation 22:15, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

The funny thing is that the Jesus character spent most of his time with the "bad people". And Paul was a murderer so how can he escape the lake of fire?

[Purplundy]

Christian doctrine, you said? Well, then…
As far as the New Testament writers were concerned, gay people didn't exist. There wasn't a marginalized group of monogamous homosexual couples for them to angrily shake incomplete Bibles at.
The words so impeccably interpreted by the diligent translators of the King James Bible (JK, they got Jesus' name wrong) as 'homosexual people' are malakoi or arsenokotai. Among the various translations for them, a prominent one is male prostitutes or old slaveholding pedophiles.
And, in case you'd like to read more into the topic, here's my source.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

There are countless versions of the Bible so why should anyone have to do any translating before reading it? The ideas say what they say. The catch-all is "sexually immoral". Of course that can mean anything since the Bible characters screwed anything and anyone they could get their hands on.