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

[Drich]

Just goes to show that your hatred of bigotry only extends to the people who disagree with you.

actually I understand that this world needs bigots. Because it is only ever through the contrasting extremes of things like bigots and hypocritical hippies, that we find true tolerance. Not the stuff the hippies preach (intolerance of the intolerant) but real understanding and grace for even those who wish to persecute you.
So why did i make such a big deal about all of this? Because I know it is a big deal to those who preach the message of 'intolerance of the intolerant' do be found guilty of intolerance of the innocent. Popular morality can suffer a great many sins, but gross hypocrisy, is not one of them. (Lance Armstrong)
In a sense I was using the standard in which you judge others, to show you by even is standard you fall short.

You're perfectly willing to indulge in it when it's your pet imaginary friend at fault; in fact it seems like you're also trying to conceal its source: "Take all that stuff about killing gays out of the bible, that doesn't matter. It's still a sin, though."

Classy.

I haven't concealed anything. I simply insisted that you apply the correct commands to the correct religion.

---

Bigotry is still bigotry, whether one is hiding it behind the bible or not.

What if it is hiding in the words of a bi-sexual or Gay man who is intollerantly speaking against All member of the body of Christ?

[Question Mark]

I don't think I can help much here. I'm bi, but I wasn't and haven't been a christian when I found it out, so...

In typical christian fashion, however, one might reconcile one's faith by describing the leviticus rule as no longer applicable, claiming it to be poetry, denying flat out that it exists, or telling people that they're interpreting it wrong.

[Drich]

I don't understand why you think Christ's sacrifice means that you don't have to live strictly by the law. Matthew 5:19 very clearly says otherwise:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

It's funny how you can make the bible say what you want when you ignore the surrounding coontext. Lets look at the whole passage:
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

So, if you were serious about understanding this whole passage in it's proper context i should think your next question would be: what is the righteousness of the Pharasees?
(Because Jesus said your righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of the Pharasees.)
Quite simply put, the pharasees were a ruling class of preists who believed in an afterlife, but the were also extremely legalistic, following the law as closly as possiable in some instances and exploiting loop holes in others. The used the law to benfit themselves. (Kinda like how you and other are insisting that NT Christianity is supposed to adopt OT Judaism.)
Verses21-48 of Mat 5 explains/closes the loop holes in the "righteousness" of the pharasees. Or rather the 'righteousness' of living as close to the laws of moses as humanly possiable.

Because again Christ says we must exceed the righteousness of the pharasees, not meet their righteousness head on. The only way this is possiable is through the blood attonement He offers when He is sacerficed for our sins.

For Again it is by the law that we have the right of attonement through sacerfice. and it is ONLY through this attonement that our righteousness can ever hope to exceed the righteousness that comes with doing your best to live a perfect live.

Perhaps you can fail to follow those laws and still get to heaven, but it is painfully clear that those who follow those old laws closest to the letter get the choicest reservations in Heaven.

Oh, really? Is that what you think Christ says? What about everything Christ says and does to condemn the efforts of those who proclaim to live by the law? also what do you say of the contrast between how the 'religious elite" are treated, against the dregs (those who openly and knowing are sinful, yet repentant) who the elite have rightfuly (according to the same law) cast aside?

It seems to me in order for your exegesis of Mt 5 to work you have to throw out 2/3's of Jesus' working ministry.

How do you reconsile your interperation of Mat 5 against what Jesus actually did?

Therefore, you are expected to do your very best to follow those psychotic old laws, and the judgement you receive will take into account how weill you adhered to them.

Kinda like the pharasees and scribes did back in Jesus' day?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

So, those Christians who are not stoning gays to death or killing disobedient children or adulterers will have almost as much to answer for as we apostates and heathens.

Indeed we do.

Thankfully we sought the attonement offered, so that we may freely and openly love God with all of our being, rather than be subject to a standard no one can ever hope to keep.

---

Well, this actually raises an interesting question I hadn't thought of until now: you're not required to follow the ot laws to get into heaven, I get that.

It's not how it works exactly but from the outside looking in, it may seem that way. if you want further explaination then ask. if not your know understanding is close enough for this arguement.

But are the laws of the old testament still holy?

Yes they are, but define holy.

Perhaps they aren't instructions to you specifically, but at one time they were things one did to get into god's good books, right?

With or alongside the sacerficed animals needed to cover the sins committed.

Has that changed?

Yes, in that passage in Mat 5 Ryan keeps bring up, Jesus changed or 'completed the Law" so to make it impossiable for anyone to earn their way to heaven by following the law.

Because logically, doing those things now, when you still have grace, should only impress your lord more, right?

No. It is no longer about following the law like the pharasees did. this is what Christ meant in Mt 25 and 26:

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The 'cup' is the outward showing or appearence of following the law. The whole of Mat 26 Jesus is speaking about all the different ways the pharisees failed as leaders. For the followed the law/did exactly what the law said but ignored the Spirit or meaning/purpose of the law. the pharisees consentrated on the litteral following of the law so closly(what people could see and judge) the often times found themselves in opposition of the actual purpose of the law.

For examples the Commandment to keep the sabbath. In the Spirit of the Law God wanted his people to rest one day aweek. Well the pharasees added so many different ademdems to this command that keeping the sabbath became this terriable burdomsome thing for the people. They wound up working twice as hard to keep the "sabbath holy."

Christ saw this and cndemned it. His focous was to have us redirect our efforts on the meaning of the law.

---

I don't think I can help much here. I'm bi, but I wasn't and haven't been a christian when I found it out, so...

In typical christian fashion, however, one might reconcile one's faith by describing the leviticus rule as no longer applicable, claiming it to be poetry, denying flat out that it exists, or telling people that they're interpreting it wrong.

taken from post 4:

(Even)If you ignore what paul says about it, (In the New Testament) homosexuality can still be identified as a sin. why/how? Simply put the NT tells us that any sex, even the thought of it outside the confines of a Santified marriage is a sin. A sin like anyother. It is not the unforgivable sin it is not the sin that some how ranks higher than all others, it is a sin. One we need repent of, to find forgiveness.

[Esquilax]

In a sense I was using the standard in which you judge others, to show you by even is standard you fall short.

Maybe know what my standard is, before accusing me of falling short by it.

I haven't concealed anything. I simply insisted that you apply the correct commands to the correct religion.

Except that you still haven't supplied a reason why we should take your opinion as to the correct commands to the correct religions as anything other than your opinion. You have your standard, we know that. God knows, you've made that clear: now, when will you start telling us why that should mean anything to anyone? Are you a minister? Does god speak to you and tell you that your version's right and everyone else's is wrong? Where are you getting your authority to speak like this?

What if it is hiding in the words of a bi-sexual or Gay man who is intollerantly speaking against All member of the body of Christ?

What if it's in the form of a christian who intolerantly insists that all religious denominations except his are wrong, solely by dint of the fact that he doesn't believe in them?

[Ryantology]

It's funny how you can make the bible say what you want when you ignore the surrounding coontext. Lets look at the whole passage:
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

So, if you were serious about understanding this whole passage in it's proper context i should think your next question would be: what is the righteousness of the Pharasees?

Who determines what the 'proper' context is? Sounds to me like your 'proper context' is a clumsy, obfuscatory attempt to shirk the responsibilities God demands of you. You have a personal interest in interpreting this passage the way you do, whereas I have no dog in the fight.

(Because again Christ says we must exceed the righteousness of the pharasees, not meet their righteousness head on. The only way this is possiable is through the blood attonement He offers when He is sacerficed for our sins.

I see nothing in there which states that you no longer have to follow the law to the letter.

For Again it is by the law that we have the right of attonement through sacerfice. and it is ONLY through this attonement that our righteousness can ever hope to exceed the righteousness that comes with doing your best to live a perfect live.

Uh huh, and it's clear that you can get into heaven doing just that. It's just as clear that you are expected to do more than that, that those who fail to live up to the old laws are called least in the kingdom of heaven.

You may no longer have to do these things to ensure that your soul is saved, but you are expected to hold to them as much as possible.

Oh, really? Is that what you think Christ says?

No, I know it's what he says.

What about everything Christ says and does to condemn the efforts of those who proclaim to live by the law? also what do you say of the contrast between how the 'religious elite" are treated, against the dregs (those who openly and knowing are sinful, yet repentant) who the elite have rightfuly (according to the same law) cast aside?

As you said, living by the law alone is not enough. But, it is still expected that you do so. Those who fail to are called least in the kingdom of heaven.

How do you reconsile your interperation of Mat 5 against what Jesus actually did?

Show me where Jesus said, explicitly, that no one is required to follow old testament law, that doing so is irrelevant and unnecessary now that he is here.

Thankfully we sought the attonement offered, so that we may freely and openly love God with all of our being, rather than be subject to a standard no one can ever hope to keep.

No doubt that makes you sleep better at night. But, if God judges that your refusal to even try to obey his laws is evidence that your devotion to him is inadequate, that you're only paying lip service in other words, wouldn't it suck to have to spend eternity in hell with the rest of us?

Because, sounds a lot to me like God never stopped taking all that crazy shit deadly seriously.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Drich is correct. Homosexuality cannot be condoned any more than any other form of impure sexual relation or desire.

"Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." Rev 22:15

"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" 1Cor 6:9

[Esquilax]

Aw, Chad, I didn't need any more reason to find the bible to be reprehensible and bigoted, but thanks anyway.

Show me where Jesus said, explicitly, that no one is required to follow old testament law, that doing so is irrelevant and unnecessary now that he is here.

He won't, but he sure as hell will just restate his original position as though that answers the question. This is my prophesy.

[Drich]

Except that you still haven't supplied a reason why we should take your opinion as to the correct commands to the correct religions as anything other than your opinion.

Show me another opinion.
You have yet to show me a version of Christianity that does not recognise the seperation between Ot judaism and NT Christianity. Nor have you produced any evidence that would suggest that Jews accept Nt theology and put it into practice.

Again How can i show contary evidence to a problem that does not exist?
If this problem exists in your own mind I can give you reference material and commentary to the nature of the division of the bible. Is this what you are asking for?

You have your standard, we know that. God knows, you've made that clear: now, when will you start telling us why that should mean anything to anyone?

It shouldnt unless your seeking biblical truth.

Are you a minister?

Do i get paid to teach? no.

Does god speak to you and tell you that your version's right and everyone else's is wrong?

When where did I say everyone else is wrong?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html
My, 'philosphy' seems to be different than your assessment of it.

Where are you getting your authority to speak like this?

Why does anyone need authority to proclaim the truth of God's word? I simply answer the questions you ask, and point to common sense contextual interpertations of scripture. I Speak where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent. I take full responsiablity for everything i say and know I am answerable to God for it. Let God be my final judge. Let the rest do with what i have to say, as they wish.

What if it's in the form of a christian who intolerantly insists that all religious denominations except his are wrong, solely by dint of the fact that he doesn't believe in them?

Then that would be bigotry as well.

Now your turn Clarice, Quid pro quoe.

[Esquilax]

Show me another opinion.
You have yet to show me a version of Christianity that does not recognise the seperation between Ot judaism and NT Christianity. Nor have you produced any evidence that would suggest that Jews accept Nt theology and put it into practice.

My stand here has never been about that specifically, only about what credibility you have to be making any assertion about that at all. You can still be wrong along with the rest of your church, nobody is saying otherwise. Because those on my side of the fence can and have shown passages from the bible that say that the law shall never change, the same as you can provide scriptural references saying that it has. The question becomes, then: which of us is right? We can't both be, and for your position to have any credibility, you need to show us why. Not why you think that is, but why your thinking isn't flawed. Yet you keep refusing to do so.

You're fixating on an issue that's really just one component of a broader point; what makes you think you're the only one who has a direct line to god? Why are cult leaders wrong when they say they're the son of god, yet you're right in your assertions?

I'm not comparing you to a cult leader btw, just demonstrating that there are lots of crazy beliefs regarding christianity, and if you want credibility for yours you have to demonstrate it.

It shouldnt unless your seeking biblical truth.

This would be an excellent chance for you to demonstrate to us how your interpretation is biblical truth, and all the others aren't.

When where did I say everyone else is wrong?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html
My, 'philosphy' seems to be different than your assessment of it.

By necessity, if you claim to be correct than any claim that differs from yours is at least slightly wrong.

Why does anyone need authority to proclaim the truth of God's word?

Well, the existence of false prophets hints that at least a little authority is needed.

I simply answer the questions you ask, and point to common sense contextual interpertations of scripture.

The thing about common sense is that it's always so different from person to person. What makes your common sense divinely inspired?

I Speak where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent. I take full responsiablity for everything i say and know I am answerable to God for it. Let God be my final judge. Let the rest do with what i have to say, as they wish.

Is that as close to an admission that you may be wrong as I'm going to get?

Then that would be bigotry as well.

Now your turn Clarice, Quid pro quoe.

My turn? Why do I need to say anything at all? As far as I'm concerned, you need to prove you have anything credible to say before a conversation can occur, and you remain doggedly evasive. It leads one to conclude you're just talking out your arse with an undeserved sense of esteem.

[Kayenneh]

Being gay
is ok
no matter what the haters say!

(Just my two cents )