|
Post by desertfox on Mar 4, 2005 11:15:06 GMT -5
Can gay people be christian?
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 4, 2005 18:12:58 GMT -5
Of course they can. So can liars and cheats. Anyone can be a Christian if they trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. As they walk with Jesus, and grow in His likeness, by the power of the Holy Spirit, they will shed off the lives that they lived when they were in darkness.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 5, 2005 2:22:09 GMT -5
Much valid scriptural interpretation also renders this a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 5, 2005 2:36:54 GMT -5
Read the "Bigots, Homophobes and Assholes" thread in the Ventilation Chamber.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 5, 2005 21:37:28 GMT -5
Much valid scriptural interpretation also renders this a non-issue. Actually, it doesn't Shiggy. Your interpretation isn't correct because you fail to account for numerous hermeneutical principles when you interpret. And I'd still like to see the verses you claim existthat support homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 5, 2005 23:53:43 GMT -5
We have already been through this debate once. I find your ignorance extremely funny. You obviously know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the anthropology and sociology behind this issue. I'm not about to re-post all my arguments here again as it isn't necessary. Enough has already been said about these issues to show your malicious attitudes toward the gay community for what they really are. People don't behave like that anymore, Areopagite. Get with the times.
Gays and lesbians put up with enough social prejudice already. They don't need bigoted Christians interfering in their personal lives with their foolish and superstitious moralities. Christians also have absolutely no right to force their morality on others who obviously don't share their beliefs through law. Freedom from malice and fear is what the gay community needs, not vicious stereotyping and shaming. Christians need to mind their own business here, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 6, 2005 0:34:31 GMT -5
Ok, see now you've brought the real issue up. You can have your opinion that homosexuality is ok. That doesn't mean that you can incorrectly apply and interpret Scripture. And "get with the times"? So just because some people think homosexuality is ok, I should too?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 6, 2005 5:56:38 GMT -5
Ok, see now you've brought the real issue up. You can have your opinion that homosexuality is ok. That doesn't mean that you can incorrectly apply and interpret Scripture. And "get with the times"? So just because some people think homosexuality is ok, I should too? The scriptural issues are already dealt with in the abovementioned thread, and conversely, just because you think homosexuality is immoral, doesn't mean others should be subjected shame and persecution to agree with your opinions, either. Having the opinion that homosexuality is a valid expression of love does not stigmatise or insult the people as a group, unlike the mainstream Christian position. You're entitled to your personal opinion, of course - that's not a problem. The problem begins when this opinion is used as a tool of coercion and fear-mongering to win converts. The fact is, there ARE many gay and lesbian Christians out there, so that is the true answer to DesertFox's question - yes, people who are gay or lesbian can and do practise Christianity as passionately as the next person, and in doing so, they are COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR SEXUALITY, something the Church has not historically been very good at, nor known for. You, Areopagite, seem to think you are answering for the Christians on this issue, but I assure you, you do not have the monopoly on what you see as the "true Christian response" to this question. The simple fact is that there are many other Bible-believing Christians out there who do not hold the same opinions of scripture as you, on many different topics. Open your eyes. You cannot invalidate their spiritual experiences and you do not possess the monopoly on truth. Christianity's notions of objective moral truth fall apart when the absence of consensus in its own Church is revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 6, 2005 8:03:20 GMT -5
Let's go back to that thread then. You have still failed to demonstrate how Scripture approves of homosexuality, though. I'm very unclear as to how you think that the aformentioned thread proved anything about what Scripture said in regards to the approval of homosexuality, which you claim it does.
Also, you're right, I can't speak for all Christians. I can provide the answer of orthodox Christianity for this board, however. I can't speak for the heretics at all.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 7, 2005 8:05:18 GMT -5
Let's go back to that thread then. You have still failed to demonstrate how Scripture approves of homosexuality, though. I'm very unclear as to how you think that the aformentioned thread proved anything about what Scripture said in regards to the approval of homosexuality, which you claim it does. Mike's long posts on the issue (two, I think, from memory) in that thread systematically address every verse in the Bible which has been used in the past as evidence for the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. His posts demonstrated, in great detail, how it is perfectly justifiable to hold this interpretation. Various examples spring to my mind, such as the mistranslation of terms such as "male temple prostitute" into "sodomite", and then "homosexual"; the translation of general terms such as "sexual immorality" into "homosexuality", etc. I also found his point about certain passages of the Bible having been translated differently for different social eras very interesting (he used the example of masturbation, I believe, saying that our New Testaments today do not mention it explicitly, but that in the 17th-early 19th centuries, they condemned it by name). This links with his points about today's Christian Church not following any of the OT Jewish Holiness Code, yet strangely still condemning homosexuality. No-one needs to show Bible verses " in favour" of homosexuality; all that is needed is to debunk the validity of interpreting certain verses as condemning it. Then there is no problem and homosexuality becomes, as I previously stated, a non-issue. Also, you're right, I can't speak for all Christians. I can provide the answer of orthodox Christianity for this board, however. I can't speak for the heretics at all. Ha ha ha. That's funny. When you say that you hold the "orthodox" position, all you are doing is rephrasing your original claim to the monopoly on truth. By referring to your own view as the "orthodox" position, and by labelling your opponents "heretics", what you really mean is that God is really on your side. All you are doing is saying "I'm right; they're wrong". As I said earlier, you cannot invalidate the spiritual experiences of others. You have no idea about their spiritual lives and experiences. Ignorance and presumptuousness are a dangerous combination. Many people have a hard time seeing how and why homosexuality should be considered a sin because, unlike most of the others, it does not hurt other people. It is a source of expression and richness in many people's lives. It only ever causes hurt and becomes a negative thing because of the shaming, stereotyping and judgement which comes from your religion. It's just malicious shit-stirring and powermongering.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 7, 2005 10:13:42 GMT -5
Mike's long posts on the issue (two, I think, from memory) in that thread systematically address every verse in the Bible which has been used in the past as evidence for the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. His posts demonstrated, in great detail, how it is perfectly justifiable to hold this interpretation. Various examples spring to my mind, such as the mistranslation of terms such as "male temple prostitute" into "sodomite", and then "homosexual"; the translation of general terms such as "sexual immorality" into "homosexuality", etc. Ha ha ha. That's funny. When you say that you hold the "orthodox" position, all you are doing is rephrasing your original claim to the monopoly on truth. By referring to your own view as the "orthodox" position, and by labelling your opponents "heretics", what you really mean is that God is really on your side. All you are doing is saying "I'm right; they're wrong". As I said earlier, you cannot invalidate the spiritual experiences of others. You have no idea about their spiritual lives and experiences. Ignorance and presumptuousness are a dangerous combination. Yes, but in that thread, Mike's argument was also debunked. I would also refer you to the Buddhist Christianity thread in Religious Debate and Discussion for the definition of orthodoxy.
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 7, 2005 10:18:41 GMT -5
Ok, see now you've brought the real issue up. You can have your opinion that homosexuality is ok. That doesn't mean that you can incorrectly apply and interpret Scripture. And "get with the times"? So just because some people think homosexuality is ok, I should too? Well, the problem is people interpret scripture differently every day! Why do you think there are so many different religions (28,960 if memory serves) in the U.S. alone that interpret the bible differently.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 7, 2005 10:45:19 GMT -5
I hope that number isn't confusing denominations as religions. Also, you're right when you say that many people interpret the Bible differently. There are principles used to interpret the Bible correctly, though. There are some verses that are difficult to interpret though, especially due to the certain theological bias one may hold. This does not affect, though, the same Christian doctrines that have been held (once again, I refer to the term orthodoxy, which was defined in the Buddhist Christianity thread of Religious Debate and Discussion) for almost two millennia (and that's just for what's in the NT, not to mention the OT). The Bible's stance against homosexuality has been upheld by the Church all that time as well.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 8, 2005 0:26:04 GMT -5
Yes, but in that thread, Mike's argument was also debunked. Where was it debunked? Who by? I have read the entire thread again and all anyone ever did to argue against him was refer to verses that he himself had already debunked according to his view. Both positions are scripturally sound. I would also refer you to the Buddhist Christianity thread in Religious Debate and Discussion for the definition of orthodoxy. I really don't see how that definition changes what I just said.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Mar 8, 2005 0:58:20 GMT -5
As far as the word masterbation appearing in earlier translations where we now read homosexuality is ridiculous. I don't know who posted that, or where its posted, and I have no idea where something so ridiculous could come from. The word masterbation is partially derived from the Greek word "mezea". Yet no where in the New Testament can one find that word or any word that would be a derivative of it. Instead one would find the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means homosexual. It is derived from the Greek word "arsen" which is a primitive word meaning "male", and from the Greek word "koite" which means "bed". The word "koite" is further derived from the Greek word "keimai" which is a verb meaning "to be laid, lie". So I hope it is painfully obvious that when we look at 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 we find that the word describes men having sex together. If you doubt me, get a Greek New Testament and learn Greek! I discussed here how Mike was just plain wrong in his "attempted" translation. Again, I would suggest that he actually learn the Biblical languages first before he chooses to comment on people "mistranslating" the Bible.
|
|