I do not understand how homosexuals can be Christians unless they feel that they are living in sin and have no control over it and hope to turn straight. The Bible is pretty uncompromising about the homosexual lifestyle and considers sexuality to be a personal choice, where I have come to think that it is a biological compulsion.

I am aware that a few Thai Visa members are quite vocal about being gay, but also consider themselves to be Christians.

I was raised a Roman Catholic, and from what I could see in most Christian churches in the U.S., homosexuals are considered pariahs to be pitied at best, but certainly not normal human beings.

Gay Christians, please explain how you can want to be part of a religion that has looked down on and rejected you for centuries and continues to do so today.

Gay Christians, please explain how you can want to be part of a religion that has looked down on and rejected you for centuries and continues to do so today.

Why do people have to justify their actions to you, you couch the question as a dictatorial announcement that has to be obeyed, not a request for clarity and reason.

To be honest, I was reading another post and it occured to me that I just don't understand why they would want any part of a religion that has treated them as it has. In the same way that I would never want to be part of the K.K.K. I just don't get it.

This is an interesting topic. My view is simple, the bible does clearly states the the ideal set by God was marriage between man and wife. All the verses dealing with anything outside that ideal include verses saying that fornacation, adultery, beasteality (sp?) etc are wrong. If anyone choses to focus on gays they are just being homophobic.

UG, I offer you and our Bedlam posters an excerpt from my unpublished novel, in which a talk show host asks a similar question of the main protagonist. He replies, "My faith and practice are much more than just trusting a modern, organized religion. My faith works, in a lifestyle based upon the literal commands of the New Testament. I trust a pacifist savior who showed no sexual preference, who never mentioned homosexuality, and who showed no heterosexual activity. Maybe I will eventually confront the bloody, heterosexual leadership of a false religion or a demonic government, and they may kill me as the Roman soldiers killed Jesus."

To which I will add, with due respect for what Suegha considers his informed opinion, that 99 percent of all Christians have been tragically, criminally misinformed about what the Bible teachers about homosexuality, and about violence. In my arrogant opinion.

My faith works, in a lifestyle based upon the literal commands of the New Testament. I trust a pacifist savior who showed no sexual preference, who never mentioned homosexuality, and who showed no heterosexual activity. Maybe I will eventually confront the bloody, heterosexual leadership of a false religion or a demonic government, and they may kill me as the Roman soldiers killed Jesus."

To which I will add, with due respect for what Suegha considers his informed opinion, that 99 percent of all Christians have been tragically, criminally misinformed about what the Bible teachers about homosexuality, and about violence. In my arrogant opinion.

With you there PB.

For the record..........

1. I don't have any other Gods, my grip on the one that I do have is fragile at the very least.

2. I have never entered a singing contest.

3. Can I say 'Jesus' when someone says something stupid, or is that pushing it?

4. I try to do as little as possible on a Sunday, it takes no effort at all to make it different from any other day.

5. I love my Mum and Dad. (RIP)

6. I have never killed anyone, yet.

7. I think I may take the 5th on that one.

8. I once nicked a tube of Smarties, the punishment was more than enough, never did it again.

9. Never talked to my neibours in the UK, tried to do it here, and they don't have bloody clue.

10. No way.

That would be my answers to the 10, or is it 12, or is it 15, never mind, whichever version of the commandments that were handed down , the subject of homosexuality is seldom raised in the biibbble apart from the destruction of S&G, which was essentially because people were having too much fun, sod all (great phrase) to do with sexual preference, much more to do with losing control.

Interesting post there taddy. Also interesting is the comment in Ezekiel 16:49-50 when comparing Jerusalem to Sodom;

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Interesting that there is no mention of the 'specific' oft quoted sin of Sodom.

to PB, I still maintain that the ideal set by God was the marriage between man and woman for life!

Suegha, I am not opposed to marriage. My father had two great marriages until death ended them. My wife's Baptist parents, likewise, although four of six children divorced and remarried. Myself, twenty good years. My kids, 4 out of 6 married so far, as long as 23 years, no divorces. My three sisters and I all had divorces and my sisters, although raised Catholic, insisted on remarriages, which have had mixed successes. Only I, the Baptist, knew that Jesus forbade remarriage, and ended up gay.

In his great book The Politics of Jesus, John Howard Yoder discusses specifically how the entire New Testament commands us to be like Jesus. Yoder wrote, "Jesus was not married; yet when the apostle Paul argues for celibacy or for a widow's not remarrying (I Cor. 7), it never occurs to him to appeal to Jesus's example." In other words, Jesus was no great proponent of married life, and in fact said some negative things about family life. I am no great fan of gay marriage, so that is not my point.

Thanks, Suegha, for pointing out that the biggest sin of Sodom was inhospitality, and sexual sin is not even on the list. Sodom was attempted gang rape by bisexual or straight Hebrew or Semitic men, not gay sex, same as in Judges 19, where it caused an Israelite civil war and genocide. Careful Bible study shows that the OT never was strongly opposed to men having sex anally and orally (as men are allowed to do with their sex slaves and their many wives), except that it was toevah, ceremonially-ritually unclean, for men to do it to each other. Likewise, the few extremely doubtful passages in Paul's writings are vague, indicating that Paul knew almost nothing about same sex practices. He more likely was condemning the rape of little boys, or the rape of slaves. Paul surely understood that some people are born straight. He may never have considered that likewise, some people are born gay.

What astounds most gay men, Christian or not, is the perverted, misplaced zeal and fervor by which many Christian leaders rail against something which is none of their business. At least, gay sex is less of a concern in the Bible than greed, gossip, straight adultery and fornication, gluttony, etc. They bless the boys as they go off to war, whilst spending countless hours against same-sex conduct, neglecting the orphans and widows.

I prefer a Christian lifestyle of nonviolence, gay sex, fatherhood, community service, etc., over a nonChristian lifestyle of violence and same-sex partnership. It works for me, thanks.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer PeaceBlondie.

Most Catholics do not do a great deal of reading the Bible. We mostly let the priests interpret it to us. I can't make heads of tales of it anyway.

Do others who have studied it believe that preachers have made it seem like homosexuality is great sin by concentrating on tiny passages and blowing them out of proportion, or would anyone say that the Old Testament considers it of major importance? Does the New Testament address the issue at all?

I agree with Ulysses G here. Christianity offers nothing to homosexuals unless they are prepared to forgo their natural sexual inclinations.

The Old Testament condemns them in no uncertain terms; I won't post quotes or links, the internet is full of them.

The New Testament has a few cracks at them as well. There's nothing vague about this...

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

I Corinthians 6:9:

We must also remember that the gospels were not written by Christ, they were written by men who knew men who had known Christ. I'm not suggesting mistranslation here, I'm talking about omission and bias. If men today manipulate the Bible to their own ideas why were the Gospel writers any different?

What happened to all of the other gospels? Their existence is historical fact but in the first four centuries of the Christian era they disappeared.

It's very likely that Christ's views on homosexuals... and he had to have an opinion, who doesn't?... have been removed from his teachings.

sceadugena, thanks for your opinion. However, with respect, I must disagree, because I have spent over a hundred hours analyzing what small amount the Bible says on this subject.

An old source like Nave's Topical Bible lists maybe 25 or 30 verses that Dr. Nave thought were against gay sex, but the good doctor was wrong, wrong. The OT says that it is toevah, ritually-ceremonially impure, for men to have anal and oral sex with men, but that it is okay for men to do it with their sex slaves or their many wives. Toevah also included having vaginal sex with your wife or sex slave during her menstrual period, simply because bodily secretions are ceremonially unclean. Preachers never preach against having sex with your wife(s) during her period, or mixing types of cloth in garments. The very few verses by Paul, scattered in three places amongst his extensive writings, are extremely vague, using Greek terms that were not usually used to denote man-man sex. Paul might have been condemning sex with little boys, and raping slave men. Paul also said some men are born straight. He also could have speculated that other men are born gay, if the thought ever occurred to him.

That is all. Those are the only verses in the entire Bible that might possibly begin to condemn gay sex, and they simply do not clearly do so, not half as much as the Bible clearly condemns gluttony, gossip, neglecting orphans, violence by Christians, hetero sex sins, etc.

Therefore, whether you are a believer or not, you need to ask how the Church became so violently, rabidly, virulently homophobic. That is a subject that takes up a few chapters of history, but is based on the most absurd fables, such as the weasel changing its gender ten times more often than a Thai katoey.

Therefore, whether you are a believer or not, you need to ask how the Church became so violently, rabidly, virulently homophobic.

What I really wonder about, is how Catholic priests could condemn homosexuality to such extremes while many of them were as gay as a goose and most others were aware of the situation at the very least.

I appreciate that while Gay marriage is important to them because it's about acceptance, most of the mainstream churches will never allow this.

The Church of England under went a major schism in recent times over ordaining women and is still in turmoil over openly gay clergy.

I can't see the Catholic Church ever ordaining women or allowing Gays the sacrament of marriage. Their power base is in macho male dominated countries and their Cardinals will never elect a Pope who favors these things.

Agree with Ulysses G that many Catholic clergy are gay but it's ignored as long as they don't openly flaunt it. Christianity has always been long on hypocrisy.

I think that PeaceBlondie is thinking with his heart rather than his head if he considers that what the Bible says is mistranslated. Even if this were so the majority of churches would never accept it.

We must also remember that the gospels were not written by Christ, they were written by men who knew men who had known Christ. I'm not suggesting mistranslation here, I'm talking about omission and bias. If men today manipulate the Bible to their own ideas why were the Gospel writers any different?

Hi scea, small point here, 3 of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus, 2 by Matthew and John, who were apostles, Mark certainly knew Jesus but was probably too young to travel with him. Luke is first mentioned after the death of Jesus, so we don't actually know if he did know Jesus. Certainly 3 did and 2 of them are 'eye witness' accounts.

Highly unlikely Tigger, regardless of traditional belief.

Most scholars agree that John was the last written which would put it around 90 to 100CE.

I'm with UG on this. I simply can't understand why anyone would want to be part of an organisation that's shown, time and time again, how much it despises them.

I understand how gay men can despise Christianity, and I do not really blame them. Long after I realized the church was totally wrong about violence, it came as a surprise to learn the church was almost as wrong about gay sex. So I am a gay, peaceful Christian. Not many of us around.

Hi PB, I had a discussion about this with a strong believer in God.

You cando anything you want as long as you ask for forgivness.

Easy.

Nice religion.

Where do I sign up?

We must also remember that the gospels were not written by Christ, they were written by men who knew men who had known Christ. I'm not suggesting mistranslation here, I'm talking about omission and bias. If men today manipulate the Bible to their own ideas why were the Gospel writers any different?

Hi scea, small point here, 3 of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus, 2 by Matthew and John, who were apostles, Mark certainly knew Jesus but was probably too young to travel with him. Luke is first mentioned after the death of Jesus, so we don't actually know if he did know Jesus. Certainly 3 did and 2 of them are 'eye witness' accounts.

And what about the gospel written by Judas, he certainly knew Jesus, kissed him once I believe, why didn't he get a mention in the final print?

It isn't just tantamount to, it actually is feeding the flock with just enough info to keep them in line, keeping the stuff that works for you, and filtering out the stuff that doesn't.

Don't just study the bible, study the other parts that were conveniently left out.

Highly unlikely Tigger, regardless of traditional belief.

Most scholars agree that John was the last written which would put it around 90 to 100CE.

Agreed, John, accoring to most biblical writers was written in 97ad. Some say as early as 68ad, ie pre the destruction of Jerusalem. This works perfectly, John was the youngest of the apostles - late teens or early 20s when Jesus died so even if 97ad is correct, he'd have been in his 80s.

We must also remember that the gospels were not written by Christ, they were written by men who knew men who had known Christ. I'm not suggesting mistranslation here, I'm talking about omission and bias. If men today manipulate the Bible to their own ideas why were the Gospel writers any different?

Hi scea, small point here, 3 of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus, 2 by Matthew and John, who were apostles, Mark certainly knew Jesus but was probably too young to travel with him. Luke is first mentioned after the death of Jesus, so we don't actually know if he did know Jesus. Certainly 3 did and 2 of them are 'eye witness' accounts.

And what about the gospel written by Judas, he certainly knew Jesus, kissed him once I believe, why didn't he get a mention in the final print?

A serious question Taddy, have you ever read the Gospel of Judas? I have! Have you ever read the bible? I have? I can tell you the truth, the bible reads like scripture, the gospel of Judas reads like, er, how to choose the right words, poppycock!

oh, ps any other parts that you mention were left out, I have probably read those too...

We must also remember that the gospels were not written by Christ, they were written by men who knew men who had known Christ. I'm not suggesting mistranslation here, I'm talking about omission and bias. If men today manipulate the Bible to their own ideas why were the Gospel writers any different?

Hi scea, small point here, 3 of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus, 2 by Matthew and John, who were apostles, Mark certainly knew Jesus but was probably too young to travel with him. Luke is first mentioned after the death of Jesus, so we don't actually know if he did know Jesus. Certainly 3 did and 2 of them are 'eye witness' accounts.

And what about the gospel written by Judas, he certainly knew Jesus, kissed him once I believe, why didn't he get a mention in the final print?

A serious question Taddy, have you ever read the Gospel of Judas? I have! Have you ever read the bible? I have?

Yes to both, I wouldn't have commented if I hadn't.

oh, ps any other parts that you mention were left out, I have probably read those too...

With an open mind? .... somehow, I find that quite unlikely.

how to choose the right words, poppycock!

Quite..... what the church has on it's menu is perfectly Ok, everything else is just poppycock isn't it.

Let me put it this way Tiggs, I like you, you're an intelligent guy who is able to discuss a wide range of subjects, always willing to listen to others opinions and open to new ideas ...... apart from one subject, this one, that is your cross and consequentially it's also mine.

I think we'll just all agree to differ.

Apart from Gays having problems it seems us drunkards and fornicators may have a bit to answer for at the Pearly Gates as well.

Okay Taddy, I'll quit this as I can't maintain an open mind.

Although I don't know what you mean by 'church' I don't have a church telling me anything, I work things out by myself.

Therefore, whether you are a believer or not, you need to ask how the Church became so violently, rabidly, virulently homophobic.

What I really wonder about, is how Catholic priests could condemn homosexuality to such extremes while many of them were as gay as a goose and most others were aware of the situation at the very least.

Because of denial,guilt and self hate which is rife in all religious communities.

Because of denial,guilt and self hate which is rife in all religious communities.

Are you for real?

Where's Taddy with the open minded comments when you need him?

Because of denial,guilt and self hate which is rife in all religious communities.

On a par with Lacoste I'd say

Moss

Because of denial,guilt and self hate which is rife in all religious communities.

Are you for real?

Where's Taddy with the open minded comments when you need him?

Right here

Sorry pampal but using the words 'rife' and 'all' in that statement, I have to completely disagree.