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

[Ryantology]

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.

What makes you think that you are a repentant sinner when you refuse to adhere to the laws God laid down in the Old Testament? If you are called at all, you will be called least, because you do not adhere to his laws. But, then Jesus will turn around and reward you by making you greatest, just because? Makes the OT Law sound so pointless that you could only measure it with negative integers.

-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.

You assume much about how many times I have read the Bible.

What you seem to not understand is we must reconsile all the teachings into a single understanding/doctrine.

I understand that you feel like you must, but what you seem to not understand is that such a contradictory mishmash can never be reconciled into a single understanding, hence why there are 40,000 denominations of Christianity.

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.

If this is true, then why bother putting in anything more than the barest minimum of effort towards achieving salvation? It sounds, yet again, as if you're trying to twist everything around so that you can believe you'll be saved.

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

And yet, you think you're special.

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

Who says? You?

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.

That would make the very concept of a Bible redundant. Those who have the understanding to make sense of it already know what they need to know. Those who do not have that understanding would find the Bible incomprehensible. I think that a book should exist to provide understanding. If I must have that understanding before I can make any sense of the book, the book is useless.

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?

If that's true, then God's love for mankind is a fraud, because if there is one absolutely correct way to interpret God's word, most people are doomed to never get it, if anyone is at all.

[Drich]

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!

Because the truth lies in the details. If you are asking for a proper answer then we must be on the same page when I give it. so many words have been rewritten and have completely lost their orginal meaning. (that is why I defined bigot for you) Yet even in light of the dictionary defination you could only even respond to the popular interpertation of that word... Think of all the other terms that have been redefined.

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?

Nooope.

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?

It doesn't say that. Why not ask me how much of what it does say, that I have done? It is almost sicking to me how willing you are to over look what is actuallying being done, to test the principle responsiable for all of these 'good works' on a what if senerio.

What a dark morally corupt thing to do (Even by your own standards.)

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.

Which is the reason for self righteousness/Morality to begin with. To put God on trial, convict Him inorder to feel 'Moraly obligated' to seperate one's self from Him, while at the same time minimizing one's own sin.

[Question Mark]

I think what Ryan is trying to say with the "what-if" scenario, is to demonstrate that arbitrary laws cannot possibly be, as you term it, righteous. The fact of the matter is that if the god you believe determines what is righteous is capable of changing its mind, then it could very well one day demand atrocities and simply name them as righteous. The crusades, for instance, or the inquisition.

Man did those things, sure, but the fact of the matter is that your god could make such things righteous, if what counts as righteous is merely what it decrees as such. Take the commands of god in the OT where he tells the Hebrews to rape, pillage, and slaughter surrounding lands. Atrocities and vileness, condoned as righteous because god said it was okay.

[Drich]

What makes you think that you are a repentant sinner when you refuse to adhere to the laws God laid down in the Old Testament?

Because "Repentance is commanded, described, modeled and verified in the following passagesLuke 3:8-14; Acts 3:19 Acts 26:20 Acts 2:36-38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20, John 6:44 Acts 5:31 2 Peter 3:9 Romans 2:4 Matthew 3:8 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:19-23; James 2:14-26.) I have heeded the commandment, read what was written followed what was described and have found the verification that was promised.

If you are called at all, you will be called least, because you do not adhere to his laws.

Then so be it. I am but a humble servent and will go/do what i have been instructed to do.

But, then Jesus will turn around and reward you by making you greatest, just because? Makes the OT Law sound so pointless that you could only measure it with negative integers.

Again in Christ we have righteousness apart from the Law. That means the 'Law' in no way shape or form is the measure being used to judge us.

You assume much about how many times I have read the Bible.

Then you are famliar with Mat 13:10-17 and it's corresponding verse in Isaiah? What do you thin that means, and how does it apply to you?

I understand that you feel like you must, but what you seem to not understand is that such a contradictory mishmash can never be reconciled into a single understanding, hence why there are 40,000 denominations of Christianity.

There are X amount of denominations of Christianity, because if their were only one it would absolutly be completely corrupt, or have you forgotten about the Church of the Dark ages?

If this is true, then why bother putting in anything more than the barest minimum of effort towards achieving salvation? It sounds, yet again, as if you're trying to twist everything around so that you can believe you'll be saved.

Because their is no such thing and a minimum of salvation. We have been commanded to Love our lord God with all of our being;Heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength. A love like this has no minimums.

And yet, you think you're special.

Not special, obediant. I did as I was told, and found what i was looking for.

Who says? You?

Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it failures.

One of the reasons the bible was translated into a dead language was to take the power of the message out of a common man's ablity to comperhend it and place all power and authority of god onto a group of men. One of the claim these men made were of the absolute infalliablity of the bible, then these men took (and had all who followed them take to worshiping the printed page as a god/idol.)

That would make the very concept of a Bible redundant. Those who have the understanding to make sense of it already know what they need to know. Those who do not have that understanding would find the Bible incomprehensible. I think that a book should exist to provide understanding. If I must have that understanding before I can make any sense of the book, the book is useless.

Actually it would mean that no one would be able to pick it up and read it like a text book and expect to get it's full intended meaning. however it what was written would be enough to have a sincere person Ask, Seek, and Knock for God's truth and Revelation offered by the Holy Spirit. From that point IF that person were to respond according to how God had called them (Humbly and repenting of their sins He points out) The Holy Spirit would teach them how to read and comperhend the bible with little to no instruction at all..

If that's true, then God's love for mankind is a fraud, because if there is one absolutely correct way to interpret God's word, most people are doomed to never get it, if anyone is at all.

We've discussed this at length many times. God does not love everyone equally. There are some The bible says He hates. That said None of us were born to 'get the bible.' We only 'Get it' If we humble ourselves and A/S/K for the gift of the holy Spirit.

[Esquilax]

It doesn't say that. Why not ask me how much of what it does say, that I have done? It is almost sicking to me how willing you are to over look what is actuallying being done, to test the principle responsiable for all of these 'good works' on a what if senerio.

What a dark morally corupt thing to do (Even by your own standards.)

I know it doesn't say that, hence the if at the beginning of my question. It's a hypothetical. One would think that as a religious person you'd be used to flights of fancy like that.

What, exactly, am I overlooking? I'm talking to you, on a one to one basis. And I'm asking you these things to find out for myself how entrenched you are in your beliefs. If you'd actually say yes to my hypothetical, then there's very little point talking to you further, because either you're willing to lie to avoid backing down, or you've abandoned your humanity and free will in favor of blind obedience to something sickening.

Why does this hypothetical need to take into account anything else? I get that religious people do good things, so what? What does this have to do with what I'm asking?

Which is the reason for self righteousness/Morality to begin with. To put God on trial, convict Him inorder to feel 'Moraly obligated' to seperate one's self from Him, while at the same time minimizing one's own sin.

So is that a yes? It sounds like a yes.

[Drich]

I think what Ryan is trying to say with the "what-if" scenario, is to demonstrate that arbitrary laws cannot possibly be, as you term it, righteous. The fact of the matter is that if the god you believe determines what is righteous is capable of changing its mind, then it could very well one day demand atrocities and simply name them as righteous. The crusades, for instance, or the inquisition.

Man did those things, sure, but the fact of the matter is that your god could make such things righteous, if what counts as righteous is merely what it decrees as such. Take the commands of god in the OT where he tells the Hebrews to rape, pillage, and slaughter surrounding lands. Atrocities and vileness, condoned as righteous because god said it was okay.

Which is what lead me to say the acts of raping and smashing babies or anything else has no intrinsic value on it's own. Because all of these acts were deemed righteous for a time. which would indicate that the act itself has no meaning. That places the 'righteousness' of an act completely on what or how God judges it.

---

Why does this hypothetical need to take into account anything else? I get that religious people do good things, so what? What does this have to do with what I'm asking?

why would a hypothetical consider something as trivial as relality, when you can convict someone on a fantasy of your own choosing?
After all you are not looking for what this religion is actually founded on. your just looking for a way to find the 'moral high ground' even if you have to escape to a fantasy land of your own making, to find the ground your looking for.

Which is the reason for self righteousness/Morality to begin with. To put God on trial, convict Him inorder to feel 'Moraly obligated' to seperate one's self from Him, while at the same time minimizing one's own sin.

So is that a yes? It sounds like a yes.
[/quote]
Absolutly Yes, and it is with this same degree of complete obediance and dedication that I apply to the real world commands God has actually left in the bible.

[catfish]

I am sooooo embarassed that he calls himself a Christian....

[Zen Badger]

I like the way the bigots and haters use the bible to justify their hatred even though their jesus never spoke against homosexuality.

He spoke of all sex outside of a Santified marriage as being a sin. (Even the thought of it) This would include homosexuality. Again this does not make it the unforgivable sin, but a sin none the less. One that needs to be repented of like anyother.

So if gay marriage is allowed then it ceases to be a sin then?

And I bet you totally ignore this post>

[Question Mark]

If you honestly believe that at any time, rape, murder, or smashing babies on rocks is, was, or could ever be moral, then you're morally bankrupt. That's not righteous, it never was, and never will be. The righteous thing to do in that situation is to say no to that god, and tell him that you won't commit atrocities just because he said it. Come what may.

[Cinjin]

Sex was never a dirty ugly thing until someone used his religion to define it as such.
Christards and Muslicks are the greatest offenders. Which is ironic, since they are the ones guilty of the greatest sexual offenses.

Add that to the fact that there is this bit of historical irony ...

Gay marriage even in the strict Catholic church is not unheard of.

Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."

Looks like god's endorsement to me. Sanctified for Drich's approval.