Being Christian and gay at the same time?

[relejandro12]

Hi guys. I’m not a very religious person, but I’ve always believed in God and Jesus. Lately, I’m having problems to reconcile my beliefs and my sexual orientation.

Since I was a little kid, I always imagined being with a beautiful woman and forming a family with children. I imagined being a father and educating my children with joy (I still do it when I see a child). But when I started to realize I was gay, I repudiated it because I didn’t want to be so. I knew it would bring complications in the future and I wanted to change.

So I went like that for a few years in my teens. I even researched about psychological theories of why people are gay and about supposed transformation therapies to stop being homosexual. However, I noticed that most people who had participated of these therapies had developed a great sense of frustration in their lives and that the range of suicides of these patients was very high. Therefore, over time I came to accept the fact that I was born like this and it was not my fault. I was just created this way. And without actually accepting 100% at least at my 20’s I was living with the supposed certainty that being was gay was not wrong.

However, during this last two years many "coincidences" and important situations in my life have occurred that have made my faith in God to grow quite. Especially in the last three months, I have lived some serious events that could directly relate to my sexual orientation and could be interpreted as God is calling my attention.

I know many of you are atheists or those who believe in God are assured that if you're gay is because He made you like this. But I cannot just ignore the fact of the evil concept that The Bible has about gay people, and I need to know how to reconcile my beliefs with what I am.

I hope you can give some advice, especially from the Christian point of view (if there are some around here) and I have lot of uncertainty.

 

[Rickrock]

I am somewhat religious and Christian and have some of the same problem. I am sure that being gay is not wrong because that is how God made you. I used to believe that acting gay was wrong, but I am changing and evolving my thoughts on this and now believe that acting gay, sexually, is no more wrong than doing heterosexual sexual things that are wrong, such as sex outside of marriage. If this makes any sense. I am still trying to come to terms with my thoughts on this many years later and am interested in how other Christians will answer you. Sorry that I don't have an answer for you, but letting you know that you are not alone with this dichotomy.

 

[Jacquemar]

You might want to do a search in this forum. This issue has come up myriad times and several people have offered advice.

 

[LAPan75]

I am Christian and Pansexual.... no problem with it and my Religion.
Issues with sex are human, not spiritual/belief, related.
Humans try to control other humans and religion is a great tool to do it. ​

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's something to ponder:

http://www.sott.net/article/199033-W...Christian-Rite

It shows same-sex marriages were performed by Christians long ago -- which means closer to the time of the Apostles. So the way the Bible is represented these days is not the way it seems to have been understood early on.


And this is eminently worth watching:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Kulindahr]

I am Christian and Pansexual.... no problem with it and my Religion.
Issues with sex are human, not spiritual/belief, related.
Humans try to control other humans and religion is a great tool to do it. ​

That's more than a little difficult to reconcile with either Paul or Jesus. Paul especially indicates there's a spiritual aspect.

It's why promiscuity is condemned so roundly.

 

[LutheranGuy]

According to God, loneliness is not good. “It is not good for a man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18)
Loneliness is not God's plan for us. We were fashioned for community. We were "hardwired" for relationship. God wants us to, “Experience a completely fulfilling, blushingly unpredictable, emotionally empowering and recklessly romantic love.” That love requires, “Words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, and then physical touch.” (Undressed, Jason Illian,2006)

Christ mentions that he came not only to give us life, but to have it abundantly. (John 10:10) This idea that the gift of sexuality is given and then struck down away from us as forbidden fruit is not anywhere to be found from Jesus. Sex was God's idea and design, it is very very good. There are two instances in the bible where same sex is mentioned. Moses who wrote Leviticus, and Paul who lettered Romans. Moses lived before Christ, and Paul lived after him. Christ in all of his deliberate asterisks on human life doesn't comment. But that, "you might have life, and have it abundantly." Part of the abundant life is to journey with a partner. From the four loves by C.S. Lewis this journey involves Eros. Jesus Christ does not say our experience of Eros cannot be with a man. Moses and Paul dissent. But what about Christ, his silence says it all.

Tell your date that abundant life means to experience all of God's gifts with thanksgiving. Loving a man is one of those gifts. In the words of Apple CEO Tim Cook recently, "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

 

[Kulindahr]

According to God, loneliness is not good. “It is not good for a man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18)
Loneliness is not God's plan for us. We were fashioned for community. We were "hardwired" for relationship. God wants us to, “Experience a completely fulfilling, blushingly unpredictable, emotionally empowering and recklessly romantic love.” That love requires, “Words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, and then physical touch.” (Undressed, Jason Illian,2006)

Christ mentions that he came not only to give us life, but to have it abundantly. (John 10:10) This idea that the gift of sexuality is given and then struck down away from us as forbidden fruit is not anywhere to be found from Jesus. Sex was God's idea and design, it is very very good. There are two instances in the bible where same sex is mentioned. Moses who wrote Leviticus, and Paul who lettered Romans. Moses lived before Christ, and Paul lived after him. Christ in all of his deliberate asterisks on human life doesn't comment. But that, "you might have life, and have it abundantly." Part of the abundant life is to journey with a partner. From the four loves by C.S. Lewis this journey involves Eros. Jesus Christ does not say our experience of Eros cannot be with a man. Moses and Paul dissent. But what about Christ, his silence says it all.

But right there in Genesis God's answer to man not being alone is to create woman -- not very helpful, here, unless you can make an argument that due to our "devolution" God has extended that to either gender.

BTW, it's not really clear what Paul is saying, especially since as far as we can so far tell, he apparently made up one of the words he employs. Translating it "homosexual" is just guessing, and badly at that, because the modern concept didn't exist back then. Given that it didn't, it is not at all unreasonable to translate it "man-fuckers" or even "man-rapers", either of which is not condemning homosexuality but at the most promiscuity but more sensibly treating others as sex objects to be used and thrown away.

Tell your date that abundant life means to experience all of God's gifts with thanksgiving. Loving a man is one of those gifts. In the words of Apple CEO Tim Cook recently, "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I think you got the threads confused -- this is about relejandro, not his date.

 

[varnio]

Pope Francis has already answered you

 

[LutheranGuy]

But right there in Genesis God's answer to man not being alone is to create woman -- not very helpful, here, unless you can make an argument that due to our "devolution" God has extended that to either gender.

Do not become a literal nazi. Much of the bible is allegorical. God doesn't say men cannot love other men. Only paul and moses do. Stick with Tim Cook's approach.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do not become a literal nazi. Much of the bible is allegorical. God doesn't say men cannot love other men. Only paul and moses do. Stick with Tim Cook's approach.

I didn't take anything literally. And the second account in Genesis is certainly not "allegorical", though that's been a common way of interpreting it down through the centuries.

I don't know of any biblical scholar or theologian named Tim Cook.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Do not become a literal nazi. Much of the bible is allegorical.

Welcome to the religion forum.

 

[LutheranGuy]

Welcome to the religion forum.

Thanks. Some people only see so far.

 

[LutheranGuy]

I didn't take anything literally. And the second account in Genesis is certainly not "allegorical", though that's been a common way of interpreting it down through the centuries.

I don't know of any biblical scholar or theologian named Tim Cook.

Tim Cook is a theologian. He's the openly gay CEO of Apple.

 

[FirmaFan]

Pope Francis has already answered you

View attachment 1079195

So he has no problem with gays, only with people who don't believe has he does. He is still promoting a mindset of exclusion and prejudice - don't mistake his acceptance of gays as a sign of tolerance, he's just directing his intolerance elsewhere.

 

[cocksucker4use]

But right there in Genesis God's answer to man not being alone is to create woman -- not very helpful, here, unless you can make an argument that due to our "devolution" God has extended that to either gender.

BTW, it's not really clear what Paul is saying, especially since as far as we can so far tell, he apparently made up one of the words he employs. Translating it "homosexual" is just guessing, and badly at that, because the modern concept didn't exist back then. Given that it didn't, it is not at all unreasonable to translate it "man-fuckers" or even "man-rapers", either of which is not condemning homosexuality but at the most promiscuity but more sensibly treating others as sex objects to be used and thrown away.

This brings up a point about the Bible that has long perplexed me. Anachronisms. So, had God provided Adam with Steve to be Bros, watch the game, hang out, get drunk and fuck each other up the ass, we wouldn't be having this dialogue. Man:Woman copulation for procreation is a practical paradigm. If you need more Jews in an Old Testament environment, having men lie with men is not gonna make it, given artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, etc. weren't options. Fast forward, we have 7 billion people and counting. Fucking pussy to get more of anybody is not required. Similarly, the dietary laws around shellfish, pork, etc. OK, so if you lived in the desert without refrigeration, this is real good advice. If we are to accept the Bible as the Word of God and focus in on the parts man on man butt sex as a direct way to eternal perdition, please read Proverbs. The prohibitions against mixing weaves of fabric....pages and pages of the most stupid shit you will find in print. Why aren't we all over that? Fuck, the Devil must wear Prada. We have a Book in two parts, one thousands of years old written by and for Jews in that place and time. What relevance does Leviticus have for us today? The other only a couple of thousand years old, give or take. The Good News. Redemption. Not for fags, though. Pauline Doctrine.... what's up with him, ya think? Anyway, a whole lot of what religions do in the name of Christ is not reflective of His life or message, as I have come to understand it through years of Church Teaching. Conservative tracts assure us that Christ hated faggots, too. I have never found that. He was kinda liberal, and thought lepers and prostitutes were cool, and really, really wouldn't have cared for Wall Street, OK? But fags, I don't see as he commented directly...you know, the Words of our Saviour in RED in the Bible I had as a Christian budlet. Cardinal Bernadin back in Chicago wrote a piece, "It is Christ We Preach." I asked myself then, "WTF, Joe?" It's hard to miss the disconnect there. So, the Life and Message of Christ is Eternal, and indeed a cause for Great Joy and Hope. But, I reject personal condemnation by Christians who HATE and justify it by picking and choosing from parts of a book, much of which is not relevant to contemporary culture and society.

 

[Kulindahr]

But right there in Genesis God's answer to man not being alone is to create woman -- not very helpful, here, unless you can make an argument that due to our "devolution" God has extended that to either gender.

BTW, it's not really clear what Paul is saying, especially since as far as we can so far tell, he apparently made up one of the words he employs. Translating it "homosexual" is just guessing, and badly at that, because the modern concept didn't exist back then. Given that it didn't, it is not at all unreasonable to translate it "man-fuckers" or even "man-rapers", either of which is not condemning homosexuality but at the most promiscuity but more sensibly treating others as sex objects to be used and thrown away.

This brings up a point about the Bible that has long perplexed me. Anachronisms.

. . . .

Conservative tracts assure us that Christ hated faggots, too. I have never found that. He was kinda liberal, and thought lepers and prostitutes were cool, and really, really wouldn't have cared for Wall Street, OK? But fags, I don't see as he commented directly...you know, the Words of our Saviour in RED in the Bible I had as a Christian budlet. Cardinal Bernadin back in Chicago wrote a piece, "It is Christ We Preach." I asked myself then, "WTF, Joe?" It's hard to miss the disconnect there. So, the Life and Message of Christ is Eternal, and indeed a cause for Great Joy and Hope. But, I reject personal condemnation by Christians who HATE and justify it by picking and choosing from parts of a book, much of which is not relevant to contemporary culture and society.

Actually, it is relevant, just not in the way they think. It's a lesson that God cares about the intimate details of our lives. But understanding the lesson means asking why those rules for that culture, and then stepping back and asking what principles behind them apply to us, and how, in a situation that has changed drastically in two ways: this culture is not so technically deprived, and we are not a theocracy.

Given those changes, we can learn a lot. But if we insist on being the anal fools of the sort who opposed Paul with their "The scripture says it, I believe it, and that settles it!" idiocy, we can end up in all sorts of spiritually devastating positions.


I not infrequently think the reason many people don't like Paul is that following what he says requires serious thinking. He does not treat the scriptures the way fundamentalists do; he approaches it by seeking principles -- that's how he arrived at "By grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves -- it is the gift of God!" That example points us to do the same thing, i.e. to seek the principles. Seeking the principles is how Christians realized, after following a rather tortuous path, that slavery is not consistent with following Christ. And failure to see principles is what makes this so powerful:

​

If the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" attitude were followed consistently, the "Dr." in that scene would never have been allowed to have the independent life she did, let alone have a broadcast show that serves a teaching function for Christians.

 

[MrPerfectMan]

I've not read every post in this thread, but the whole point of Christianity could be summed up as a lesson in authenticity. When it comes down to it, God is a fan of us being totally honest with ourselves, others, and with Him. No pretending, no putting your best foot forward, no striving to impress; simply being 100% honest about yourself, your motives, your thoughts, everything.

For those who are willing to be real, you will quickly learn you aren't perfect, and don't have it all together. No one does, and we should be OK about this. This should unite us all really, and is meant to unite us under God.

The problem with many Christians today, is that they are better fit for a Christian toothpaste commercial, than they are church. Many Christians are not that different than the Pharisees in Jesus' day (which are the only people he really had contention with, btw) because they feel they are upright and perfect as long as they follow the Bible to a T. In reality they live in fear of falling from their own self-righteousness as if God would strike them down for it. A very insecure faith if you ask me.

Still as a gay Christian, I feel I have a more rounded and wholesome understanding of the Bible than the "average" Christian. The meat and potatoes of the faith, is that Jesus loved each of us despite all of our faults and redeemed the entire human race so we could have the chance to live forever with Him. Yes the Bible isn't accepting of homosexuality, but the Bible isn't accepting of a lot of things. What God asks us to do, is to be real about our faults, and not confuse the belief of right and wrong, with our own personal value. Our value is meant to be priceless, as Jesus demonstrated, and is inherent from birth.

Many such things, such as eating shellfish and other "unclean" food, in the Old Testament days, was meant to keep the Israelites healthy before it became easier to make "unclean" food, such as pork, healthy to eat. In terms of sex, straight people can misuse sex the same way a gay person could, which many fail to point out. I've talked to a gay nurse who is honest about some of the unhealthy factors of gay sex, but they can be prevented if one is just willing to look into it.

I'm comfortable being a gay Christian because God doesn't see people as gay, straight, white, black, or what have you, he sees us all equally. I do believe that whoever choses to reject Him in this life, won't go to Heaven, and would be happy to discuss that more if you like, tho I feel it's a bit of a tangent at this point.

 

[varnio]

So he has no problem with gays, only with people who don't believe has he does. He is still promoting a mindset of exclusion and prejudice - don't mistake his acceptance of gays as a sign of tolerance, he's just directing his intolerance elsewhere.

I don't think so. He couldn't do more.

Pope Francis represents the Catholic Church and not other religions. All he says is followed by billions of people. With this words, he reduced preconception and introduced in the world more tolerance and more justice. Before him, no important church member said something similar.

Gays are people like any others. And when the Pope recognizes this, the world becomes better.

 

[TX-Beau]

Of course he could do more, the FACT is that Catholic Dogma does not accept homosexuality, where exactly has the Pope refuted this?

Just saying "be nice to the sinners..." doesn't mean you don't think they're sinners.