Is it possible to be a gay Christian?

[Raven]

Well, I do know of a specifically LGBT church called Metropolitan Christian Church or MCC. I believe the first one formed in LA in 1969 and has spread since then. That's about all I know about it.
We've a couple friends who attend there, both were brought up Catholic and attend this church because it's the one church where they can attend services not in spite of being gay, but because they are. Which to them is a big deal. Yes, straight people would be welcome but aren't likely to attend services there.

I imagine that they attend services precisely because they had been brought up believing and like most people just keep doing it. With this church they can be who they are, and no one is going to look at them funny. People do what they have to do to make it through life in one piece. These guys need to believe in this stuff. Or they think that they do, which in practice comes out to the same thing.

I was raised Catholic myself, and when you are brought up in something like that it takes a great deal of soul searching and effort to bring yourself away from it. These guys aren't ready to do that. Maybe they never will be. But at least they have found something that is affirming and not filled with self-loathing as a lot of varieties of Xtianity are. It is a form of “cafeteria-ism”? Very much so, but it gives these two guys what they think they need.

I keep looking forward to the day when humanity has left this sort of destructive nonsense behind, but I know that it will never happen in my lifetime. In the meantime, believe whatever you want so long as you don't go making laws trying to make people live according to your religious beliefs. But they can't seem to do that, can they?

[BeeDeePee]

I'm interesting in knowing, Roman Catholic member

Although this post was not addressed to me, I'll try to answer.

1. So tell me, why are you a Christian if you don't follow the entire bible?

Christians should follow the Christ, not the book, even if it is the Bible. Not even Christians in the first century followed the Bible in its fullness (actually, that was the question that gathered the apostles in Jerusalem, around 50. A.D. - Apostolic Council).

2. You can't just not consider the bad part and follow the good part only.

This depends on how you understand divine inspiration doctrine. Some Christian denominations teach that God literally used the prophets and apostles as means to pass his message. It is clear that such an understanding leaves us to the conclusion that inspired persons were like robbots or machines. They had no freedom at all and the Bible is nothing else than the holy book without human influence on it.
On the other hand, we can understand divine inspiration in a way in which one artist can be inspired. And that is completely different position. It states that some people have been inspired by God ( theologians would say 'through His grace' - to put it simple: they were permeated by divine energies), but that doesn't mean that, while they were writing, they were completely lacking their freedom. They weren't machines but living people who make mistakes, can sin and who were limited by knowledge and science of their time. That's why you can find some historical or biological mistakes, contradictions, silly and immoral things. Because the Bible is the product of both God and man, the product of synergic relationship between them. It is historical and liturgical (eschatological), divine and humane.

3. Don't come with the argument that 'The OT is not that important' because the NT is useless and meaningless without the OT.

It is important because of its prophetic meaning and value, but Christians are not obliged to follow the Old Testament law.

4. I've always wondered, how do theists who follow a holy book know what parts are up to interpretation and what parts are supposed to be interpreted literally?

Sometimes it is clear from the text whether it should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Of course, knowing the history of ancient Israel, Biblical hermeneutics and similar disciplines can be of great help, and sometimes it is unavoidable and first step.

5. Why do some theists only follow some holy rules but dismiss other rules that are also in the same book and possess as much value?

Actually, they have no the same value. Old testament laws are simply outdated. It means that Christians shouldn't use Leviticus 18:22 or the story of Sodom and Gomorrah against homosexuality (although they do that quite often). Also, some rules are clearly the witness of that time and had nothing to do with God (for example, Paul says it is a shame for male to have long hair)

[Dystopia]

It is important because of its prophetic meaning and value, but Christians are not obliged to follow the Old Testament law.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them."

Sometimes it is clear from the text whether it should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Of course, knowing the history of ancient Israel, Biblical hermeneutics and similar disciplines can be of great help, and sometimes it is unavoidable and first step.

But how can a theist argue that a verse saying clearly 'you should kill these people' can be interpreted with a different meaning? Sometimes it just looks like they are trying to hard to hide hideous literal meanings in the holy scriptures

Actually, they have no the same value. Old testament laws are simply outdated. It means that Christians shouldn't use Leviticus 18:22 or the story of Sodom and Gomorrah against homosexuality (although they do that quite often).

See my first reply

[BeeDeePee]

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them."

And he fulfilled it. He fulfilled what was written - the Oikonomia of Salvation. That doesn't mean that he was telling the people they should obey the letter of the Law, because he himself did violate some Old Testament rules (healing on Sabbath etc). He also clearly made a distinction between the essence of the Law and its external form, giving priority to later. That's why he has criticised Pharisees for hypocrisy, because they were worried and committed to fulfill some external forms, ceremonies and impersonal moral rules.
One of the basic rules when you interpret the ancient text is to take it as a whole and then interpret it.

But how can a theist argue that a verse saying clearly 'you should kill these people' can be interpreted with a different meaning? Sometimes it just looks like they are trying to hard to hide hideous literal meanings in the holy scriptures

Better ask some Christians who do that. I disagree with that kind of interpretation because I think it's meaningless. It's nothing else than incorporating your meaning into the text.

[Raven]

People always have, and always will cherry pick. You can make a very good argument for then you aren't really a Xtian (or whatever faith), and it comes directly from the book.

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 1John2: 3,4

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:18

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. Luke 16 :17

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Romans2:13-15

The law is the law, right? Well, yeah. And then again I think you would have a hard time finding anyone who actually follows it. Humans follow their own consciences and Catholics get divorced and remarry, and care not one wit what the church thinks. They still think of themselves as Catholics. They use birth control and have abortions.

So I guess what I am saying is this: yeah, you can make a good argument for you have to follow the law or you are not a “real” adherent of whatever the faith in question is, or you can recognize that only a fanatic is going to be that way. Real people are going to follow their own mind on such things. And precious few of them ever read the Bible anyway.