The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Being Christian and gay at the same time?

zoltanspawn said:
Imagine if people used a 'scientific' attitude toward the interpretation of scripture: if a passage, word, phrase or chapter were found to be served by a superior translation than what they currently use, they would adopt it. Some scholars take such an approach.

For most however, it seems like pet theories precede translation and updates are painstakingly slow, and sometimes practically impossible.
Click to expand...

I've noticed this also, a bunch of the time I see various denominations preceding from interpretation to text, and not the other way around. I suspect that this is custom and tradition in doctrine in the various denominations going back to whatever schismatic disagreement that caused the split in the first place.

I also suspect that interpretation of the text, what's metaphor, what's literal, what's message, what's not - gathers layers of cultural tradition as the centuries pass, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the text itself, but end up getting applied to it anyway.
 
Example, Southern Baptists hate homosexuals. They were never kindly disposed, but when I was a kid they pretty much ignored our existence, now there is a crusade against us, because of politics on the right, but that's not the point.

Homosexuality culturally became a huge priority, and the interpretation of the Bible became equally severe.
 
Kulindahr said:
I've translated both the Old and New Testaments from the original, and prefer to read it that way.
Click to expand...

You and I both know this is nonsense. The originals of the Old Testament have long been lost (and indeed, what would we call the original? The first five books are a consolidation and weaving of four separate sources, and the Old Testament has been heavily edited). At best you would have translated much later versions. Or even the much-advanced septuagint, which was of course translated/revised in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. Though the New Testament copies we have are likely originals (or very close to them). But then there is the issue in the Gospels of Aramaic and Hebrew hymns having been translated into Greek in their composition.

Kudos if you actually learned Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Koine Greek to translate the oldest copies we have. Then again, if the claim was an exaggeration (or worse, a lie), you'd look pretty silly right now, wouldn't you?
 
I'm pretty sure a version of the Bible with the most accurate translations possible would be a non-starter. Much of the Old Testament is lost and all that remains are the liberally-edited versions that span a thousand years of development, composition, and editing, with varying levels of acceptance into the canon.

With the New Testament it would be possible, but belief (through tradition) precedes knowledge and reason. Beliefs are the most fundamental aspect of a society and rarely change (at the societal level) except in extended periods of societal crisis.

Essentially a translation up to those exacting standards (if possible) would be seen as an immense waste of time by the bulk of Christendom. Not only would it struggle to win acceptance, it would actively be campaigned against. Furthermore, our current perception of the document biases the researchers who will almost certainly cross-check existing translations and other versions of the text. In turn this shifts their position from critically analyzing the original to critically analyzing the discrepancies between competing versions and later translations. Which isn't a great PR move for the project...it could potentially change key aspects of the text...imagine it:

(humorous and extreme example for illustration)

"The King James Bible contains, by a considerable margin, the greatest number of original deviations from the oldest verifiable version of Genesis. However, much older deviations exist, some of which have more sweeping impact on hermeneutics and Christian theology in general. It would appear that the deviations of this magnitude start on the fourth word of the King James text, "God". Rigorous examination and analysis has in fact determined that it was not God who created the heaven and the earth in the earliest drafts of Genesis. Indeed, with the oldest-known iteration of Genesis at our disposal, we can see that the difference is exactly one character off, and likely a mistranslation or a correction-made-in-error some centuries later which resulted in the now-familiar, but mistaken, text. As it would happen, the sole creator of the heaven and the earth as referred to in line one was an early form of domesticated bovine..."
 
I am by no means an expert in interpreting the Scriptures; however, I did have to do a great deal of soul searching and studying to reconcile my gayness with my relationship with God once I finally accepted the fact that I am gay, that I could not pray the gay away and that God was not going to heal me from my gayness because there is nothing to heal. I am as God wants me and made me.

What I did was to read a lot of articles written by people more knowledgeable about the Bible than I and tried to understand how they came to their respective conclusions. So, my understanding is this:

**One must interpret the Scriptures in the CONTEXT in which it was written and use the ancient meaning of the words.

** The six passages (The Clobber Passages) in the Bible that mentions homosexuality refer to the acts performed during idolatrous worship or the acts of male prostitution. Thus, it is idolatry and prostitution that are being condemned, not homosexuality.

**An "abomination" is a ritual or religious offense.

**Jesus did not condemn gays. One good example is the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his male servant. This "servant" in reality was his lover (pais). Jesus praise the centurion for his great faith instead.

***In describing the rapture in Luke's Gay Apocalypse, Jesus stated " I tell you, in that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

Thus, demonstrating that gays will be called up to heaven with all the other saints. In other words, Jesus does NOT condemn us for being gay or having consensual gay sex!!!

So, my conclusion is this:
**I can be truthful to myself and accept myself as gay without condemnation.
**I can be gay and be Christian without biblical conflict.

So, I urge you to "study to show yourself approved of God" by doing your own research. "For whosoever believes in him, shall not perish." This include the gays too!!

God bless my friend.
 
^^ I just did a casual search on some of this information, and most of it is not widely accepted as being true among the scholarly community. But, then again, I believe that there never need have been an historical Jesus for the Christian myths and religion to have flowered in the first place, and that's very fringe. So I can't really throw stones.
 
Jacquemar said:
^^ I just did a casual search on some of this information, and most of it is not widely accepted as being true among the scholarly community. But, then again, I believe that there never need have been an historical Jesus for the Christian myths and religion to have flowered in the first place, and that's very fringe. So I can't really throw stones.
Click to expand...

The first and third are well-accepted; indeed, unless you follow the first, no one serious will pay attention to you.

The second is argued, but is reasonable.

The fourth is not well-accepted, but is not outside of reason; the term is indeed used that way.

The fifth is incredibly novel.
 
mbamike said:
I am by no means an expert in interpreting the Scriptures; however, I did have to do a great deal of soul searching and studying to reconcile my gayness with my relationship with God once I finally accepted the fact that I am gay, that I could not pray the gay away and that God was not going to heal me from my gayness because there is nothing to heal. I am as God wants me and made me.

What I did was to read a lot of articles written by people more knowledgeable about the Bible than I and tried to understand how they came to their respective conclusions. So, my understanding is this:

**One must interpret the Scriptures in the CONTEXT in which it was written and use the ancient meaning of the words.

** The six passages (The Clobber Passages) in the Bible that mentions homosexuality refer to the acts performed during idolatrous worship or the acts of male prostitution. Thus, it is idolatry and prostitution that are being condemned, not homosexuality.

**An "abomination" is a ritual or religious offense.

**Jesus did not condemn gays. One good example is the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his male servant. This "servant" in reality was his lover (pais). Jesus praise the centurion for his great faith instead.

***In describing the rapture in Luke's Gay Apocalypse, Jesus stated " I tell you, in that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

Thus, demonstrating that gays will be called up to heaven with all the other saints. In other words, Jesus does NOT condemn us for being gay or having consensual gay sex!!!

So, my conclusion is this:
**I can be truthful to myself and accept myself as gay without condemnation.
**I can be gay and be Christian without biblical conflict.

So, I urge you to "study to show yourself approved of God" by doing your own research. "For whosoever believes in him, shall not perish." This include the gays too!!

God bless my friend.
Click to expand...

While this is certainly a good outcome from puzzling out all those pasages:
**I can be gay and be Christian without biblical conflict.
Click to expand...

...THIS should have been a foregone conclusion:
**I can be truthful to myself and accept myself as gay without condemnation.
Click to expand...
 
zoltanspawn said:
Imagine if people used a 'scientific' attitude toward the interpretation of scripture: if a passage, word, phrase or chapter were found to be served by a superior translation than what they currently use, they would adopt it. Some scholars take such an approach.

For most however, it seems like pet theories precede translation and updates are painstakingly slow, and sometimes practically impossible.
Click to expand...

I can't comprehend doing it any other way.
 
mbamike said:
***In describing the rapture in Luke's Gay Apocalypse, Jesus stated " I tell you, in that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17:34-35, KJV)
Click to expand...

I agree withs some of what you've said, but I've never heard that passage taken sexually...how do you get to that conclusion??
 
johaninsc said:
Mike, I couldn't get that link to work; right clicked on it and it showed that it was from biblethumpingliberal

hope this is the page or pages you were intending to link to :)

http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/05/22/harold-camping-the-rapture-and-good-news-for-gays-and-lesbians/

http://biblethumpingliberal.com/gays-lesbians-in-luke/
Click to expand...

The big problem with his claim alleging lesbians here is that the typical mill used domestically for grinding grain required two women who moved the upper stone back and forth, so two women grinding plainly refers to using a mill. "At night" isn't surprising here, because grinding grain to make flour for morning was in many households begun long before dawn. And the sexual connotation to grinding goes back to single-person mills, which almost always involved sticking a handle or rod-like grinder into a hole or opening.

The other claim is more interesting but has a big weakness: the claim is that the context, where Jesus has just talked about Sodom and Gomorrah, suggests sexual activity. Yet according to the Bible, the issue in Sodom and Gomorrah was hospitality, under the rules of which a host either gave up or shared his bed with a guest.

Given the image of women grinding in the dark, the complete picture is that of the women getting up early to grind flour for breakfast, while the men are still in bed. And that reaches back to Leviticus, where it isn't said that two men shouldn't "lie together", i.e. share a bed, but that they shouldn't do it "as with a woman". That verse also couldn't help but come to mind, so Jesus' listeners would have the presumption that two men in bed are just that -- in bed, sleeping.
 
There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other
will be left. (Luke 17:35, NASB)

Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. (Matthew 24:41, NASB)

I know from experience that there’s a big difference between . . .the two gospels, and would obscure Jesus’ concern for social outcasts that we read in Luke.

The same is true here when we’re talking about “two women grinding together.” The grinding difference between Luke 17:35 and Matthew 24: 41 signals a similar theological difference. It is differences between the synoptic gospels that allow scholars to explore the concerns that are unique to each of the gospel writers.

For example, such differences allow students of the Bible to determine that Mark was written for a mainly Roman audience, Matthew for a mainly Jewish audience, and Luke for a mainly Gentile audience.

Such differences allow scholars to notice that Luke places a special emphasis on social outcasts like women, the poor, lepers, tax collectors, and Samaritans. Luke’s emphasis on social outcasts is also consistent with my thesis that Luke’s Small Apocalypse has as its central theme, Jesus’ acceptance of non-celibate gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...
SOURCE: Luke’s Gay Apocalypse: Two Lesbians without a Mill

Proper Exegesis: Look at the Context

Look at the context. Immediately before the mention of two men in one bed is a lengthy discussion of the destruction of Sodom. Now I don’t believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. But there are many today who believe that it was, and I think most of the Jewish believers in Luke’s audience may have believed it as well.

Jesus knew that by recounting key details of Sodom’s destruction, his audience would have man-on-man sex on its mind. Jesus intended for us to understand that the “two men in one bed” were gay.

Proper Exegesis: Studying Old Testament Antecedents to Understand the New Testament

If you are familiar with the rules of proper Bible exegesis (interpretation), you know that one key practice for interpreting a passage in the Greek scriptures is to look for its antecedents in the Old Testament.

By clearly alluding to the Levitical prohibitions against male homosexuality, followed immediately with his declaration that “one shall be taken, and the other left,” Jesus declared his own acceptance of gays and lesbians, and that gays and lesbians are not automatically rejected by God.
Click to expand...

SOURCE: Luke’s Gay Apocalypse: “Two Men in One Bed”
 
Kulindahr said:
One could argue even more strongly that the brief reference to Leviticus is made to remind listeners that all two men in a bed are supposed to do is sleep.

I think he's reading into the text. There's no reason at all the think the two women are lesbians, and that pretty much kills the idea that the two men are gay.
Click to expand...

Leviticus condemns idolatry, not two men having sex.
 
Kulindahr said:
And on that basis, the writer shouldn't have brought it up at all. He's trying hard to get the two guys to be gay.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. I see Jesus being a religious reformer. He tells the Pharisees who loved to brow-beat the law over people's head and condemn people that '"they" are the ones who will not see heaven because they have condemned themselves with their on judgement.

I see this passage as Jesus sending the message that the Pharisees or religious sect have misinterpreted the law. Jesus is saying that gays and lesbians will be included in the rapture along with all the other saints. This fits perfectly with how Jesus did battle with the Pharisees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top