A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[Ghel]

Matthew 5:43-45 says "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Hate the sin if you wish, but love the sinner.

I don't see how your conclusion follows from this quote. There may be other passages that support your statement, but this one doesn't. This quote says to "love your enemies" (which I think is bad advice, but that's a different topic). If any Christian believes that homosexual individuals are their enemies, they're even farther divorced from reality than I thought.

People will come out say that Leviticus says homosexuality is bad, yet they still eat shellfish. 1st Timothy says women aren't allowed to teach or hold other positions of authority over a man, yet we have female pastors. 1st Timothy says women can't dress themselves in fashionable clothing, yet look at Tammy Faye Bakker and the others like her.

Yes, this is part of the problem. People will pick and choose which passages to follow and which to ignore. A Bible quote can be found to support almost any position, as long as you ignore other passages.

[crashhelmet]

Does it really matter which books the Church chose to include in the Bible? The very fact that the Church made a selection of books to include, and the fact that they have been edited by various sources and translated into multiple languages over the centuries tells us that the Bible is not "infallible," as many Christians claim, and casts doubt on the suggestion that the Bible is inspired by God.

More to the point, none of the gospels that the Church chose to include can be traced back any earlier than about 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died. And none of those who supposedly witnessed these events were the ones to write them down - instead it was their students or followers. If the miracles described in the gospels actually happened, wouldn't somebody have written about them immediately?

Ghel... The bigger problem is not what the Churches chose to include or disqualify. It's what "Christians" choose to follow and not follow from what was selected.

People will come out say that Leviticus says homosexuality is bad, yet they still eat shellfish. 1st Timothy says women aren't allowed to teach or hold other positions of authority over a man, yet we have female pastors. 1st Timothy says women can't dress themselves in fashionable clothing, yet look at Tammy Faye Bakker and the others like her.

Back on topic...

Matthew 5:43-45 says "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Hate the sin if you wish, but love the sinner.

CH

[HYHYBT]

Also, as I understand it, a lot of people were illiterate, presumably there were lots of people around who had met Jesus in person to talk to, and his followers thought the world was going to end very, very soon. Until they became spread out enough to have to communicate by letter or the first generation was dying out, there just wasn't any point in writing it down.

[Hobbs]

Does it really matter which books the Church chose to include in the Bible? The very fact that the Church made a selection of books to include, and the fact that they have been edited by various sources and translated into multiple languages over the centuries tells us that the Bible is not "infallible," as many Christians claim, and casts doubt on the suggestion that the Bible is inspired by God.

More to the point, none of the gospels that the Church chose to include can be traced back any earlier than about 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died. And none of those who supposedly witnessed these events were the ones to write them down - instead it was their students or followers. If the miracles described in the gospels actually happened, wouldn't somebody have written about them immediately?

Not really. You have to realize that the ability to take written records of events by non-official sources was very difficult. The only ones readily able to write down such information would have been scholars, clerics and government officials. Since most of the Jewish leadership was against Jesus and his teachings, it is logical to conclude that none of them would have recorded his teachings/miracles.

Thirty years is a fair amount of time for oral tradition to be passed down to another generation without the loss or change of the details. I would consider a book written in 60 AD to be more truthful/closer to the truth than a book written in 300 AD. Those books that are excluded, the works of the Gnostics and others, were written over 200 years after Christ. And you believe these to be as valid as a book written in the First Century?

All this being said, there quite possibly could have been eariler written records, but so far none have surfaced. Most likely, the earliest records were destroyed during the Roman persecution of the Christians which didn't end until Constantine.

[Fryk]

Just as well, Ghel. Haven't we heard time and again that eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable evidence?

Now granted, there's not much else to go with, no forensic or archeological evidence, so you're kind of stuck. But at least you can go with something along the lines of the Gospel of Luke, where he interviewed many of the people who DID witness these events (supposedly), so it's more of a cross section.

[Ghel]

Does it really matter which books the Church chose to include in the Bible? The very fact that the Church made a selection of books to include, and the fact that they have been edited by various sources and translated into multiple languages over the centuries tells us that the Bible is not "infallible," as many Christians claim, and casts doubt on the suggestion that the Bible is inspired by God.

More to the point, none of the gospels that the Church chose to include can be traced back any earlier than about 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died. And none of those who supposedly witnessed these events were the ones to write them down - instead it was their students or followers. If the miracles described in the gospels actually happened, wouldn't somebody have written about them immediately?

[Hobbs]

Did you even read what I posted after the word "legitimacy"?

[Gravekeeper]

Skunkle, onto the Church's "editing" of the Bible; it was agreed in various Councils what books would be admitted through legitimacy.

"Legitimacy" is an extremely subjective term. Especially when the Church is involved, and the Church's primary concern for a goodly length of time was maintaining power and narrative. Hence the Gospel of Thomas was tossed out, the Gospel of Mary wasn't considered and the Gospel of Eve was destroyed because it "encouraged sin".

[Hobbs]

Skunkle, onto the Church's "editing" of the Bible; it was agreed in various Councils what books would be admitted through legitimacy. That is, those gospels that were around from the end of the 1st century to the middle 2nd are admitted, but 3rd and 4th century aren't. It's generally considered that the books were first written down as dictated by the 'writers' themselves or those they passed on the oral tradition. Passed a certain age, you lose that legitimacy.

As for being gay and Christian, my brother is being uber-Catholic this Lent in refusing caffiene, even checking ingredient labels

[Fryk]

I agree that it really is quite po.

[Skunkle]

I'll put my views simply. I weon't argue them, because others are welcome to disagree. Others are welcome to think I'm insane, even.

I don't believe being gay is a sin.

I can see lust, including premarital sex, being a sin. Am I a sinner by this definition? Yes, but I'm a sinner by any. I believe we're all sinners, on one level, no better and no worse. I am now in a committed relationship.

I don't think any here on Earth will or can change my views, because I'm quite firm that anything anyone here passes me as Christian doctrine is filtered through human minds. Including that which I myself come to "understand". I will not be certain until I am judged.

I do believe that the Bible is not to be taken literally. As for the Catholic church "editing" it, while I can believe that but would not be surprised either way, I have read that there are books and writings, of various prophets, which were chosen to be left out of the collected writings which became the Bible as we know it. Thus, it does seem that someone(s) decided what they did and did not want.

As to individual churches, I really don't know. I know that the local PFLAG has had Catholic parents marching in the city's Pride Parade with "I'm Catholic and I love my gay son" signs, but I don't know the backstory in those. Though I don't really attend church regularly, my local Episcopal church is fully accepting of gays, and I have been to their ceremonies.

Once again, Smileyeagle, if you ever visit Seattle, I invite you to come to St. Mark's Episcopal with me, and meet people who believe that you are not committing sin by being gay, people who believe you are loved by God for what you are by birth. The pastor there is out himself. And (unrelated, really) is the only one I've ever seen whose sermons are really engaging, not simply preaching-from-the-pulpit but intended to be things that make a person think, find their path to faith and find their own understanding.

Also, yes, I feel that I should find my own understanding of the Bible, God and faith. You may do as you decide is right, even to the point of those who prefer that their church lay dowbn the law of the Bible in black-and-white. But I'll do as I believe is right. And if I am wrong, I will know when I stand, or should I say kneel, before God.

As to gay marriage, I won't get into that debate. I have my opinions, but I don't feel the need to leap into the fray - and besides, that's not really the topic in this thread.

It is quite po

[Hyena Dandy]

So...love is to be taken then? That doesn't sound like Love. 'Course, neither is anything defined just by the giver. 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us that Love "does not seek its own interests". This can apply to both sides of the argument. If neither side is willing to see the other side for the sake of Love, that's when we get arguments like this.

Meanwhile, I think I owe my mom an apology. Thank you for helping point that out to me...

On a completely off-topic note, I read that as "Love "does not seek its own internets.""

I was rightly confused for a moment.

[Kheldarson]

Love should be defined by the recipient, not the giver.

So...love is to be taken then? That doesn't sound like Love. 'Course, neither is anything defined just by the giver. 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us that Love "does not seek its own interests". This can apply to both sides of the argument. If neither side is willing to see the other side for the sake of Love, that's when we get arguments like this.

Meanwhile, I think I owe my mom an apology. Thank you for helping point that out to me...

[HYHYBT]

Ever stop to think that no matter how much you think you love someone, they probably don't feel very loved when you're telling them they are filthy sinners who deserve to go to hell?

As someone much more likely to be on the receiving end of such a remark than giving it, I don't have to stop and think about it, no.

Do you mean that intent *never* matters, or only for this purpose?

[ladyneeva]

Ever stop to think that no matter how much you think you love someone, they probably don't feel very loved when you're telling them they are filthy sinners who deserve to go to hell?

Love should be defined by the recipient, not the giver. Take the case of some woman who kills her child because she wanted to save them from all the evils of the world... is that love? By your definition, it is. Sure, thats an extreme example but its the same theory.

Intent really does not matter. Some of the worst people in history were doing what they thought was a good thing.