Has anyone ever found a way to reconsile being Gay/Bi/Lesbien and being a Christian?

[Question Mark]

If you accept the biblical identification of 'morality/Self righteousness' I have provided, then I can completely agree with this statement.

Very well, if righteousness is only what your god says that it is, because he says it, then I reject that notion of righteousness. It is intrinsically defunct of righteousness to decree that one thing is righteous and another is not merely on the whim of the rule maker. Especially when that rule maker has been demonstrated to change his mind when it's meant to be a perfect, unchangable being.

It's nonsense, and if anyone or anything else attempted to set up a system like that, like many dictators have, they'd meet a sticky end.

[Drich]

How about, just once, you address the point raised as it was raised, instead of demanding everyone else work to your secret definitions of words? You know very well what was being said there, and yet instead of answering that you launch into this nothingy little rant about what words should mean.

Just reply according to intent in future, honestly. Not everyone needs to speak your twisted up version of the english language.

So your wish is that i promote the ignorance you all have surrounded yourself with in order to try and convict God? By your slanted measure, Of Course God does not meet the standards of this generations popular morality, because it is a substandard standard.

To answer your questions base on the definations derived from pop morality is to only confirm the valitity of the straw man you have created to get your conviction.
That would be a fools errand. If it is the God of the Bible we are speaking of, then it is by the bible we will describe and define God, and all of the attributes of God you choose to discuss. Otherwise you are just make up your own versions of God up, and attacking the strawman of your own doing.
What an empty victory that must be.

Now, to continue the discussion, you're essentially advocating divine command here, right? Whatever god says, goes?

Yuup. even if it means we must forgive the ones who have done us wrong to help our enmies, to give our hard earned money to the underseving, to seek and love those who despize and hate us. to seek out those who do not know God and teach those who think they know more than any christian that has ever lived, To up root our families from Mod cons and remove them relitive safty of a good place to live to minister to those who have less... Even if it means doing each and every one of these counter intuitive things, it is still whatever God says goes.

So you have no morality, then (no sense of "righteousness" if it helps you.)

I do, we all do for all are self righteous to one degree or another. The determining factor is the question. Does our self righteousness/morality rule our lives or do we yeild our 'morality' to God's stated righteousness and seek forgiveness for our short commings.

Nothing is beyond your scope of reason, so long as god commands it? If he commanded you, personally, to murder children, but alters nothing else about the world, shows himself to nobody else, only you, you'd do it?

Because this 'personal revelation' is deemed a sin by the NT (Which is why I said no Christian would burn witches) I can spit in the d-bags eye pretending to be God.

Even though this divine edict will, to the outside world, seem nothing but abhorrently evil?

Would you do it?

Now If I were an OT Jew in the situation Psalms 137 describes, and was told to smash babies against rocks, I would wear myself out and sleep good having done so.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

...even if the rest of you retained the same 'morality' you currently enjoy.

[Ryantology]

I don't think Christ would agree. I guess you over looked the passages i left Where Christ tells us on 4 seperate occasions, That the Least shall be greatest, that the first shall become last???

So, what Christ is saying is that the most unrepentant sinners will actually be considered the greatest in Heaven?

That is why I asked you to provide the material why you thought the passage you were harping on was a bad thing? Because it appears your understanding 'does not follow' What Christ has said 4 other times durning His ministry.

The likeliest scenario is that Matthew 5 outright contradicts those other passages, and you are going through the semantic nightmare of twisting meanings of words until you get something that looks like consistency. To be perfectly frank, what Matthew 5 means and its consequences for you are beside the point. The problem is that the inerrant Holy Bible is a freakishly inconsistent mess, written by multiple authors at different times, none of whom were around to witness any of the events they describe, all of whom have their own agendas, opinions, and total ignorance of how the world actually works.

If the Bible was really the inerrant word of God, it would be clear, concise, and irresistibly direct. It would require no dissemination and interpretation. It would feature no contradictions, either internal or external.

Your god's supposed communication methods have proven to be so faulty and inconsistent that without the combination of threats and enticements found in the Bible, nobody would have ever taken it seriously.

[Drich]

Very well, if righteousness is only what your god says that it is, because he says it, then I reject that notion of righteousness. It is intrinsically defunct of righteousness to decree that one thing is righteous and another is not merely on the whim of the rule maker. Especially when that rule maker has been demonstrated to change his mind when it's meant to be a perfect, unchangable being.

I do not disagree with your right to disagree... However it is not to me that you owe an account.

It's nonsense, and if anyone or anything else attempted to set up a system like that, like many dictators have, they'd meet a sticky end.

Good luck with that..

Just so you completely understand the graveity of your statement. This is EXACTLY what Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels decided, and subsquently cast from Heaven for trying to do...

So, To follow your line of thought to it's logical conclusion: You would have to align yourself with Satan and His demons to cast God (the Dictator) out, to only surplant God with Satan... The Devil... Think on it some more: You want to revolt against God, (Because you believe him to be unjust and unfair dictator) and put The King of lies/The Devil in his place...

Again, good luck with that one

[Question Mark]

There's also the issue of the bible's current state of being, to add on to Ryan's point. The Bible is posited as a collection of works divinely inspired by god, but it has been demonstrated that many of the passages present have been altered or changed since their earliest writings, and since the Nicean Council, many books, gospels, and other writings were denied entrance into the canon of christianity, and condemned to heresy, despite also supposedly being divinely inspired as well. This seems a most peculiar way for your god to make his will known on earth. I don't even know why he'd use a book.

---

To whom do I owe an account? If you're implying that one day I'm going to have to answer to your god, then I respectfully ask that you present it, or evidence in favour of its existence.

[Ryantology]

So, To follow your line of thought to it's logical conclusion: You would have to align yourself with Satan and His demons to cast God (the Dictator) out, to only surplant God with Satan... The Devil... Think on it some more: You want to revolt against God, (Because you believe him to be unjust and unfair dictator) and put The King of lies/The Devil in his place...

I believe in Satan no more than I believe in Yahweh, but if we're to go by Biblical descriptions of those two characters, Satan appears to be entirely preferable. Satan does not demand that anyone worship him, he does not punish anyone for not doing so, he does not, at any point, exhort people to do violence to each other, and he is responsible for zero permanent deaths. He's not a great guy and does some questionable shit, but he is not a raging psychopath who will resort to slaughter and eternal torture for those who aren't on board with his agenda.

When I read that Lucifer led a rebellion against Yahweh, and take into account the fact that a nightmarishly cruel, sadistic, vain and petty mass murderer says Satan is the worst thing ever without ever really explaining why, I am reminded of the adage that history is written by the winners. I am also reminded of how Nazis claimed that Jews were evil.

[Drich]

So, what Christ is saying is that the most unrepentant sinners will actually be considered the greatest in Heaven?

what makes you think Unrepentant sinners will be apart of the Kingdom of Heaven? Remember the verse you are pulling from in Mat 5 makes that stipulation. "will be made Least in the Kingdom of Heaven." Hell is not apart of God's "Kingdom of Heaven" is it? No, Hell is eternal banishment/seperation from God. Can be banished if you are still in the Kingdom.

The likeliest scenario is that Matthew 5 outright contradicts those other passages, and you are going through the semantic nightmare of twisting meanings of words until you get something that looks like consistency.

-or- as you have said 10 times in this thread. a plain reading is the correct one. Maybe perhaps this is why it is better to take the interpertation of a teacher with 20 of studying this one book, than it is to just assume that a single read through is all one needs.

What you seem to not understand is we must reconsile all the teachings into a single understanding/doctrine. That is why it is foolish to say all one needs is to read what is on page to have a complete understanding of the bible. Because NOT Everything is on page. The first shall be last and the last shall be first is an excellent example of this point. Because in your Mat 5 passage you just assume it is always better to be first. Why? Because your heart is full of pride, and the proud always march out front. "WE" as servents of Christ are called to be humble. The humble do not place importance on their rank. Allowing the proud to go to the front. God see this and makes the nessary adjustments. Making the Last (in the Kingdom of Heaven) First.

To be perfectly frank, what Matthew 5 means and its consequences for you are beside the point. The problem is that the inerrant Holy Bible is a freakishly inconsistent mess, written by multiple authors at different times, none of whom were around to witness any of the events they describe, all of whom have their own agendas, opinions, and total ignorance of how the world actually works.

-Or- Maybe the world simply does not understand how the bible works..

If the Bible was really the inerrant word of God, it would be clear, concise, and irresistibly direct.It would require no dissemination and interpretation. It would feature no contradictions, either internal or external.

Who says? You?
If the bible was how you described it we would have people worship the bible and over looking God.

It is perfect as is. Because As it is written only those in whom God has called (and they answer according to how they were called) can make heads or tails of it.

Your god's supposed communication methods have proven to be so faulty and inconsistent that without the combination of threats and enticements found in the Bible, nobody would have ever taken it seriously.

Have you seriously thought, that maybe not everyone was meant to?

If this was God's intention then wouldn't it be pretty darn effective as written?

[Esquilax]

So your wish is that i promote the ignorance you all have surrounded yourself with in order to try and convict God? By your slanted measure, Of Course God does not meet the standards of this generations popular morality, because it is a substandard standard.

I was talking about the words, Drich: instead of answering questions you often tell people what words they should have used. Well, that's kind of annoying and all, but since you surely understood the underlying question, being a sapient being who's probably quite smart aside from this one religious barnacle on your brain, why not answer the question the first time instead of making us all leap through these verbal hoops first?

Save some time, bub!

I do, we all do for all are self righteous to one degree or another. The determining factor is the question. Does our self righteousness/morality rule our lives or do we yeild our 'morality' to God's stated righteousness and seek forgiveness for our short commings.

So a big part of your job as a good christian is silencing your own morality in order to serve god? That doesn't strike you as a tad creepy?

Because this 'personal revelation' is deemed a sin by the NT (Which is why I said no Christian would burn witches) I can spit in the d-bags eye pretending to be God.

Nice way to avoid answering the question. I'll amend things, then: if you had an explicit instruction from god, in the parts of the bible you do follow, to murder one child a month as a sacrifice to your god- yet nothing else in the world changes and you would still go to jail for it, say- would you do it?

Now If I were an OT Jew in the situation Psalms 137 describes, and was told to smash babies against rocks, I would wear myself out and sleep good having done so.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

...even if the rest of you retained the same 'morality' you currently enjoy.

This seems more like it. Will you stick with this answer? Because that's just awful, and I can now say, safely, that my morality is better than your divine commands, because to me, murder is always wrong.

[Drich]

There's also the issue of the bible's current state of being, to add on to Ryan's point. The Bible is posited as a collection of works divinely inspired by god, but it has been demonstrated that many of the passages present have been altered or changed since their earliest writings, and since the Nicean Council, many books, gospels, and other writings were denied entrance into the canon of christianity, and condemned to heresy, despite also supposedly being divinely inspired as well. This seems a most peculiar way for your god to make his will known on earth. I don't even know why he'd use a book.

---

To whom do I owe an account? If you're implying that one day I'm going to have to answer to your god, then I respectfully ask that you present it, or evidence in favour of its existence.

To your first point, we are only responsiable to what we have been given.

To why He used a book: To seperate the wheat from the chaff. (those who earnestly seek to know and love God from those who only look to go through the motions.)

Third point: I can only provide you with what god has given me. Book Chappter and Verse. Shall we proceed or were you looking for something more?

[Question Mark]

When I asked why he used a book, I meant why didn't he use something more... I don't know, something that couldn't be altered, something that could be understood by all for all time. Like some unbreakable stone that imparted knowledge of the divine when touched. Something of that nature would surely be better than a book.

I'd be delighted to proceed with the book, as soon as you demonstrate why I should use it as a source of information.