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

[Drich]

Who determines what the 'proper' context is?

Proper context is a term describing a complete context. Meaning to take all the information in a given passage that pertains to a subject matter and interperete the whole of the message being communicated.

So who decides 'proper context?' The scribe/writter of orginal the passage. Intelectual intergerity demands a full accounting of everything written to be considered as a whole.

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.

..And it sounds to me that you attempt to shirk the complete contextual meaning of the passage being discussed, is a lazy man's way of dismissing a arguement without having to address the actual content of the arguement.

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

As you said you don't have a dog in this race, meaning you don't have to see anything. Christianity as a whole on the other hand uses this as a key verse to seperate itself from OT Judaism.

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.

Show me.

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.

(IN THe Kingdom of Heaven) let that resonate for a second... Did you get it? In the Kingdom...

Now pair that with Mat 19:30, 20:16, Mark 10:31, and luke 13:30 they all say:
But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then.

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.

Actually no. Free from the law means we are Free to love and Worship god with all of our Hearts, Mind, Spirit and Strength. That may intersect with the Moral law of moses but may not have anything to do with the Cermonial (Holidays, food, cleansing rituals, or worship rituals etc..) or the social law of the Jews.(How to lend money, views on slavery, burning witches, killing gays, marrying your dead brothers wife etc..) For Christ said:
Mat22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So in effect everything has been boiled down to two Great Commandments, and the 'Law is full filled."

No, I know it's what he says.

show me Book Chapter and verse please.

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.

This is the third time you reference this passage. I think you think it means something other than what it means. Please explain.

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.

Because that is not the message. Mat 22:36-40, Mat 5 (the whole Chapter) If you take what Christ said and put in into the complete NT like with Romans 3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV Out lines the message. In that Trying to obtain righteousness by simply doing what the laws says is impossiable. what Christ says about 'exceeding the righteousness of the pharisees was an impossiable task, for they were the most righteous a man could get back then and christ directly said that was not enought. Which meant that another form of righteousness was needed. On found apart from the law.

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?

No, I actually would like to meet some of you. What you are describing is the Muslim version of God, whether you know it or not. (because even with the OT version of Worship the judeo christian God has always incorperated attonement for sin.) Allah, does not.
If God turns out to be the muslim version of god, I'll gladly spit in his eye and take my place with the rest of you. He can keep his 40 virgins. (they probably all be dudes who sucide bombed something anyway.)

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

Then you must have some pretty good hearing. Because God hasn't said anything about "that crazy shit deadly seriously" in 2400+ years. (Durning the time of the last prophets before Christ.)

---

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

I guess we can add 'false prophet' to the list of names we can legitmatly call you.

;P

[Ryantology]

So who decides 'proper context?' The scribe/writter of orginal the passage. Intelectual intergerity demands a full accounting of everything written to be considered as a whole.

Unless you are the scribe or writer who invented this text, I'd say that you stand on ground no more solid than I do, at best.

You're trying to say that the passage does not mean what it says in explicit and clear terms. Context can only render that passage incorrect, it cannot alter its meaning entirely as you suggest it does. And, if that passage is incorrect, it calls the credibility of every word in the entire Bible into question, so do you really want to go there?

..And it sounds to me that you attempt to shirk the complete contextual meaning of the passage being discussed, is a lazy man's way of dismissing a arguement without having to address the actual content of the arguement.

You have not done anything close to a satisfactory job of demonstrating why, in context, that passage does not mean exactly what it says.

As you said you don't have a dog in this race, meaning you don't have to see anything. Christianity as a whole on the other hand uses this as a key verse to seperate itself from OT Judaism.

That probably means Christianity is using it incorrectly.

(IN THe Kingdom of Heaven) let that resonate for a second... Did you get it? In the Kingdom...

Of course I got it.

Now pair that with Mat 19:30, 20:16, Mark 10:31, and luke 13:30 they all say:
But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then.

That does not, in the slightest, contradict my interpretation.

Actually no. Free from the law means we are Free to love and Worship god with all of our Hearts, Mind, Spirit and Strength. That may intersect with the Moral law of moses but may not have anything to do with the Cermonial (Holidays, food, cleansing rituals, or worship rituals etc..) or the social law of the Jews.(How to lend money, views on slavery, burning witches, killing gays, marrying your dead brothers wife etc..) For Christ said:
Mat22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So in effect everything has been boiled down to two Great Commandments, and the 'Law is full filled."

Loving the lord with all your heart means you can disregard his laws? It sounds, to me, like holding his laws in the highest regard is an integral, indeed vital, part of 'loving the lord'. You cannot love him with all your heart if you are not obeying his laws to your utmost ability.

show me Book Chapter and verse please.

Have you already forgotten the book, chapter and verses which we have been talking about?

This is the third time you reference this passage. I think you think it means something other than what it means. Please explain.

I think it means exactly what it says it means. You think it means precisely the opposite of what says it means.

Because that is not the message. Mat 22:36-40, Mat 5 (the whole Chapter) If you take what Christ said and put in into the complete NT like with Romans 3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV Out lines the message. In that Trying to obtain righteousness by simply doing what the laws says is impossiable. what Christ says about 'exceeding the righteousness of the pharisees was an impossiable task, for they were the most righteous a man could get back then and christ directly said that was not enought. Which meant that another form of righteousness was needed. On found apart from the law.

I am not suggesting that Jesus is saying that following the laws, itself, is the path to righteousness. I am saying that he is making it clear that following the laws is an integral part of following that 'greatest commandment'. If you are not following those rules to the utmost, your 'love' is incomplete (if not outright fraudulent). The Pharisees followed the letter of the law for their own ends, which makes their righteousness substandard. It is clear that Jesus expects you to follow the laws for God's reasons rather than their own, but following the laws is still necessary.

No, I actually would like to meet some of you. What you are describing is the Muslim version of God, whether you know it or not. (because even with the OT version of Worship the judeo christian God has always incorperated attonement for sin.) Allah, does not.
If God turns out to be the muslim version of god, I'll gladly spit in his eye and take my place with the rest of you. He can keep his 40 virgins. (they probably all be dudes who sucide bombed something anyway.)

What good is atonement for sin if you make no effort to improve your sinning behavior? You are not making an effort to follow God's laws, and therefore, your 'atonement' is hollow and meaningless.

[Fruity]

No. Simply no. As a former devoted Christian I can tell you that if you think the god of the Bible is real, then you think you are going to hell if you are gay. I live in a mostly Catholic community where most non-Catholics tend to be Christians. I have tons of gay/bisexual friends and they're all Catholic. I find that odd. None of them really read the Bible, though. lol

Good luck! Don't let anybody ever put you down. If a god out there existed it would be pretty stupid that he would make something so great and pleasant and then condemn it. That's what I always tell myself.

[The Magic Pudding]

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

Well I hadn't, it seems a tricky proposition from an accounting perspective, even for the most creative of us I would think.

What value do we place on consistency?
What value do you place on being part of the Christian community?
Oh and those eternal elements, my calculator always shits itself when I try to allow for those.

I think if you want to be a Gay/Bi/Lesbien Christian, just imagine J man how want, fek, others have him proclaiming kings and the kingly right to squelch the lowly and supporting wars so just go for it.

[Drich]

Unless you are the scribe or writer who invented this text, I'd say that you stand on ground no more solid than I do, at best.

What a foolish thing to say.
If this were remotly true then no one on the planet could ever hope to read and comperhend anything written unless he himself wrote it. This is obviously not true, meaning the whole of your arguement can be dismissed.

You're trying to say that the passage does not mean what it says in explicit and clear terms.

No what I am saying (per your example) is you can not take 1 verse out of 6 and hope to derive the writers intention of the passage. Subsequently if your above statement was correct you have no more right to determine or argue contextual meaning than any other non writer. By your own hand you, yourself do not take your own arguement seriously enough to follow your own conclusions.

Context can only render that passage incorrect, it cannot alter its meaning entirely as you suggest it does. And, if that passage is incorrect, it calls the credibility of every word in the entire Bible into question, so do you really want to go there?

You are using your own measure as a way to obscure context, how can you even hope to be taken seriously here?

You have not done anything close to a satisfactory job of demonstrating why, in context, that passage does not mean exactly what it says.

It does mean what it says! It just does not mean what YOU Think it says. YOU have FAILED to Support the Implied meaning you assigned to this passage.

So, Lets start there if you think otherwise. In plain english tell me what it says and the with book chapter and verse tell me why you think that is a bad thing.

That probably means Christianity is using it incorrectly.

The whole of Christianity... Meaning Peter and Paul as well as every Christian since then are just wrong? But you 2100 years removed have figured it out all by yourself but the kicker being you do not believe in God?

That does not, in the slightest, contradict my interpretation.

then explain your interpertation and then provide biblical references and tell me why you think that is a bad thing. Because the 4 verses I left you seem to teach the oppsite of what you are saying.

Loving the lord with all your heart means you can disregard his laws?

Again Christ tells us the sum total of the law can be full filled in just two commands To love God with all of your being to love your neighbor as yourself. I have not discarded anything. This passage means you can follow the whole law by keeping these two commands. (Christ's own words not mine)

It sounds, to me, like holding his laws in the highest regard is an integral, indeed vital, part of 'loving the lord'. You cannot love him with all your heart if you are not obeying his laws to your utmost ability.

Then for you, You would be bound by the law in order to show God the just part of the righteousness He demands from all of us. Why? Because in our freedom we have the ability to bind ourselves to the law. This principle was played out in Paul's time with the eating of meat offered to idols. For those who thought up holding the laws concerning meat offered to idols was still in effect, then they were forbidden to eat that meat. However Paul goes on to say because their is nothing/no real god to the idols being worshiped, their is nothing wrong with eating that meat. Peter have a similar revelation when an angel of God told him it was safe or no longer forbidden to eat what was once thought to be 'unclean animals.' But for those who thought themselves under the old law they were forbidden to eat that meat.

there are several examples of people binding themselves with their own faith and freedom, and the limits of their understanding of God was/is the limits of God's law for them. Meaning "what ever they bound here in Earth, was bound up in Heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth was loosed in Heaven" (mt 18:18) That said 'we' (those spiritually mature enough to see the freedom God offers) should not cause a brother to stumble by doing the thing or enticing the new brother to do what he thinks is a sin.
1co 8:4-13, 1 co 10:25-32, titus1:15,

Have you already forgotten the book, chapter and verses which we have been talking about? Show me and explain how your understand supperceeds my own.

I think it means exactly what it says it means. You think it means precisely the opposite of what says it means.

Then show me what it says. Show me how what is says is a 'bad or negitive thing.' Or am I supposed to take your word that someone who does not believe in God simply wishes this passage to mean something bad is going to happen?

I am not suggesting that Jesus is saying that following the laws, itself, is the path to righteousness. I am saying that he is making it clear that following the laws is an integral part of following that 'greatest commandment'.

For some you are absolutly correct, and 'we' (the free) are not tell you to do otherwise unless you are ready to look at the rest of the bible.

If you are not following those rules to the utmost, your 'love' is incomplete (if not outright fraudulent). The Pharisees followed the letter of the law for their own ends, which makes their righteousness substandard.

But that is the point of calling the paraisees out is it not? To show that None Are righteous? For they were the Elites of OT worship, and they failed. We even have a NT/Christian example of that kind of Legalism. We call that period the Dark ages of the Chruch. Why? Because in our best efforts to strictly follow the law we ALWAYS follow it to our own ends. If you are willing to read a little I can show you passages where this is made very clear. That NONE ARe Righteous Before God, That All of our BEST Deeds are like "soiled menstruation rags" before God.

It is clear that Jesus expects you to follow the laws for God's reasons rather than their own, but following the laws is still necessary.

Not as a direct Means of salvation. Following God's law has now become an expression of Love for God, which inturns places one in a position to accept the attonement offered.. (If you think other wise or wish to argue this point then know you can only do so with book Chapter and verse.)

What good is atonement for sin if you make no effort to improve your sinning behavior?

Indeed.

You are not making an effort to follow God's laws, and therefore, your 'atonement' is hollow and meaningless.

Or As James 2 puts it "a Faith without works is dead." that is not what I am saying here.

Freedom from the Law does not mean we can or will want to sin in our freedom. Why? Because this all encompassing love we have reigns back in. In that when you love someone with every fiber of yoour being, that you will will closly match the will of the person that love is focoused on. Meaning we will be in the Father's will, through the expressions of love we manifest. Or if you perfer through the 'works' we do. But again these works are meaningless with out this all encompassing love.

[Esquilax]

What a foolish thing to say.
If this were remotly true then no one on the planet could ever hope to read and comperhend anything written unless he himself wrote it. This is obviously not true, meaning the whole of your arguement can be dismissed.

Read the last part of his sentence again, numbnuts. It's basically what I've been telling you for days now, so no wonder you completely misconstrued it.

[Drich]

What a foolish thing to say.
If this were remotly true then no one on the planet could ever hope to read and comperhend anything written unless he himself wrote it. This is obviously not true, meaning the whole of your arguement can be dismissed.

Read the last part of his sentence again, numbnuts. It's basically what I've been telling you for days now, so no wonder you completely misconstrued it.

Read my second sentence again. If contextual meaning was so elusive the written language of every culture would be pointless.

To directly answer his last sentence. What makes my interpretation any more valid than his? 20 years of study is a good place to start. 12 years of that 20 teaching, and 3 of missionary work, and 5 years of daily debates with people such as your self. Which puts in a place of constantly looking up words meanings and endlessly pouring over the texts defending my beliefs at least 10 different times on 10 different ways everyday.

My question is what makes you think that your (either one of you) interpretation of scripture (seeing as both of you do not believe in God) is on par with mine?

---

What a foolish thing to say.
If this were remotly true then no one on the planet could ever hope to read and comperhend anything written unless he himself wrote it. This is obviously not true, meaning the whole of your arguement can be dismissed.

Read the last part of his sentence again, numbnuts. It's basically what I've been telling you for days now, so no wonder you completely misconstrued it.

Read my second sentence again. If contextual meaning was so elusive the written language of every culture would be pointless.

To directly answer his last sentence. What makes my interpretation any more valid than his? 20 years of study is a good place to start. 12 years of that 20 teaching, and 3 of missionary work, and 5 years of daily debates with people such as your self. Which puts in a place of constantly looking up words meanings and endlessly pouring over the texts defending my beliefs at least 10 different times on 10 different ways everyday.

My question is what makes you think that your (either one of you) interpretation of scripture (seeing as both of you do not believe in God) is on par with mine?

[Neo-Scholastic]

There's a minority of Christians who interpret passages that are normally read as condemning homosexualty as actually condemning ancient practices such as pedestry, ritual sex, bestality etc...does Matt 5:28 really condemn "lust" or is it just condemning the desire to have sex with someone else's wife?

In general, the OT/NT divide is a the move from external forms of worship and obedience to more internal forms. So you are correct in essence. Jesus points us towards purity of intent that leads to purity of action. In this sense, each person is responsible for guarding their heart against evil influences.

[LastPoet]

Well, well, ol' Chad, I figured you couldn't stay away from the dark side too long

[Esquilax]

My question is what makes you think that your (either one of you) interpretation of scripture (seeing as both of you do not believe in God) is on par with mine?

THAT HAS BEEN MY QUESTION TO YOU FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OH MY GOD!

You finally answered it too, which is something. However, an experienced apologist is still an apologist; you're still trying to convince us of god's intent by twisting the meaning of paragraphs that are laid out to us pretty bare. If you want to do that, you're going to need to demonstrate to us how you know what either the original author, or the divine inspiration behind it, really meant to say. Otherwise, why should your opinion count more than what's really there, because what's written down... is written down.