Christians and their views on gays Gays (881 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -1.3 on 30 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The Cuban <hair_owen.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2004-02-22 18:14:23 EST
I don't believe there are many Christians on ubersite. They probably have better things to do, like worship God or go evangalize random people, but I'm just curious where most Christians stand on the whole gay minister subject.
If you support gays in authority positions in the "Church" or more accurately "Churches" what do you have to say about these verses?
Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
According to these verses Christians cannot be supporters of gays. How do they find a way around it? If they believe "God's Word" is the everlasting truth from the "Lord" how can they say gay relationships are fine? If there's anything I hate worse than gay people its hypacrytics. You got your doctrine so stick to it bastards.
Also I am expecting CHRISTIANS to answer this and give their views not just some pissy plebians who just want to rip on people online because of their miserably small penises
I'm just a curious little monkey who wants to know many things.
User Reviews
Submitted by RandytheHelpfulPineapple (user info) at 2004-02-23 00:20:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Organized religion is what makes Christianity bad.
Religion should be between you and God. It should be your discovery of God, and not someone else's interpretation taught to you. The whole section of Revelations highlights the problems with organized religion (the Whore of Babylon).
I believe in Jesus, I believe in God as the father, this makes me Christian. In no way does this mean that I should be opposed to gays or their marriage under God (since it is an organized religion, that is hypocritical in the first place, that is giving out the "liscense".)
In my opinion, this life is a test, and if they are willing to go against God's wishes then they will be tried in the afterlife. I however, should not be judge and jury in this life.
Submitted by someone (user info) at 2004-02-22 23:33:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i should really proofread my replies more often, fucking misspelled words like crazy.
Submitted by someone (user info) at 2004-02-22 23:32:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:25:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not a christian, but having studied religion at a Christian school for 2 1/2 years, i figure I can comment.
===================================
I studied it for about the 5 years, and i mostly agree with what you are saying.
HOWEVER.
*Most* Christians DO take the Bible very literarly(tools) and a "true" Christian is very adimit
about being against homosexuality, gay marriage, and the like. They claim that although they
love them(which is total bs, they dont even know them) they are living in sin.
Christianity is some fucked up shit, anyone who takes the Bible seriously and not figuratively,
meaning using SOME things as guidlines for practical living, is a fucking retard.
Who can honestly believe the story of Sampson but then think the story of Shrek(shitty example)
is false? They are both about as believable, but Shrek has a slight edge as donkeys can actually
talk to you provided you ingest proper drugs.
Submitted by DraconianKing (user info) at 2004-02-22 23:25:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Thers a small difference between catholics (the sick bastards) and protestants. I'm a protestant. Go God, woo!
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2004-02-22 22:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why arent episcopalians good at chess?
They cant tell the difference between a bishop and a queen!
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2004-02-22 22:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=104275512762446490#7995
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-02-22 22:18:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Whew! Thanks for clearing that up!
Submitted by Zeccs (user info) at 2004-02-22 21:04:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The bible can be interpreted in any fucking way people want to interpret it. If i cared that much, i could find a passage that contradicts the one you posted. This sucked.
Submitted by B2D (user info) at 2004-02-22 20:54:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
How do I manage being a 'hypacrytic' christian and still not give a shit? Easy.
Apathy.
In your attempt at being witty, controversial, and contemptuous, you have failed somewhat less than spectacularly. Fuck off.
God, I hope this doesn't make it to most heated.
Submitted by TatteredAndTorn (user info) at 2004-02-22 20:53:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate fags, they are fucking gay
Submitted by JakeBrigance (user info) at 2004-02-22 20:49:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
it is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin to act on those feelings.....thereby some priests are gay because the vow of celebacy they take prevents them from acting on their feelings
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-02-22 20:27:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"If God is omniscient, all powerful, almighty, and incredibly awesome, don't you think he could get one (if not rather large) book together ? Who are we to question these people who actually knew Jesus and lived with him? And if it is flawed do we take so much pride in ourselves to think that we can decipher truth from falacy?"
Wow, you used the word 'fallacy' while each of your preceding sentences contained fallacies.
Fallacy 1: Circular reasoning, aka petitio principii.
Your argument:
The Bible establishes God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
If God is all these things, he could have brought the Bible into existence through humans.
You used the conclusion to prove one of the premises. Here's a similar one:
God made the Bible, and the Bible proves God, because God made the Bible, and God is infallible, because the Bible says so, which is true, because God made the Bible, etc etc etc.
Moron.
Fallacy 2:
Appeal to False Authority, aka argumentum ad verecundiam.
Your argument:
The people who wrote the Bible lived with Jesus.
Therefore, they are right, and we should not question them.
First of all, the premise is not entirely true. Do you know for a fact that every single person that contributed to the Bible knew Jesus? Also, the Bible has been translated, rewritten and edited through the millennia. It's safe to say that today's Bible is different than the original.
Second, the 'fact' that the writers knew Jesus does not mean that everything they wrote is true. If I knew Stephen Hawking and I wrote a physics book, does that mean I'm automatically right? You might argue that the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired, but then you run into fallacy number 1 again.
Ok I'm done, but more importantly, you're done.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 20:18:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 19:43:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
If God is omniscient, all powerful, almighty, and incredibly awesome, don't you think he could get one (if not rather large) book together ?
----------------------------------------------
Depending on your interpretation, he didn't NEED to write the book. God sent Jesus so that he could allow us to be absolved of sin. The way Jesus' message was spread was purely a human idea, and that was 'Put it in a book'. That covers the new testament, and as for the old testament, a lot of it seems like just a retelling of the events that lead to the foundation of the jewish faith. A history book with god in, if you like.
Who are we to question these people who actually knew Jesus and lived with him?
----------------------------------------------
Well, the gay hating stuff is from the old testament. Jesus' life, rebirth, teachings and influence form the basis of the NEW testament, and his teachings were very different from the old testament, which was one of the reasons why he was crucified.
And if it is flawed do we take so much pride in ourselves to think that we can decipher truth from falacy?
-----------------------------------------------
Just as people in the old testament did, we can also rely on moral and spiritual guidance from god, making our interpretations and ideas of what is the truth are no less valid than that of someone who wrote in the old testament. In fact, it could be more valid, as we have Jesus' teachings of kindness and love to work from.
Finally, it is quarter past one, I have school in the fucking morning, and I am not even Christian, so I am stopping arguing here. I might come back to this tomorrow. Until then, goodnight and -2.
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 19:43:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If God is omniscient, all powerful, almighty, and incredibly awesome, don't you think he could get one (if not rather large) book together ? Who are we to question these people who actually knew Jesus and lived with him? And if it is flawed do we take so much pride in ourselves to think that we can decipher truth from falacy?
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 19:30:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 19:16:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Falconer, my point was just why let a wolf lead the sheep? If someone has sin, shouldn't the sinner try to better himself and not just say its all right with God? Why would you let such a person lead a church? I don't see how you can claim some of the Bible is true and some of it isn't. If its not entirely true and it's just a biased authors opinion, then why believe any of it? Just throw it away and get on with your lives instead of trying to sift through the rubble to find the gold. Believe the Bible is totally true or its not at all.
------------------------------------------------------
According to christian doctrine, everyone is born with original sin. Even without original sin though, you have to admit, everyone has sinned. If you can find a non-Jesus that is completely sin-free, then i will eat my hat, my jacket, and my underwear if you ask nicely. And the reason that christians 'sift through the rubble to find the gold' is because they find the resulting spiritual feeling worthwhile. Surely if someone offered you a million pounds, and you found that three coins were counterfeit, you'd still keep the rest? It is basically the same with the bible. The spiritual reward is so huge that people are willing to try and sift through what is true and what isn't (usually with the aid of a study group or something)
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 19:16:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Falconer, my point was just why let a wolf lead the sheep? If someone has sin, shouldn't the sinner try to better himself and not just say its all right with God? Why would you let such a person lead a church? I don't see how you can claim some of the Bible is true and some of it isn't. If its not entirely true and it's just a biased authors opinion, then why believe any of it? Just throw it away and get on with your lives instead of trying to sift through the rubble to find the gold. Believe the Bible is totally true or its not at all.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-02-22 19:14:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The point is Falconer you can still minister as a lay preacher without having to be ordained. Nothing stops you from ministering to people and supporting them with their own crisis and giving them advise etc.
In fact there is nothing to stop you from setting up your own church and formulating your own sets of rules. This also points further to the selfishnes of these people in that they would rather attack the establishment than do something constructive.
If you do not believe it is possible then have a think where the protestant church originated, or any of the charsmatic and pentecostal churches. All these churches have come down the line due to splits from existing establishment churches by people who beleived strongly that they were not being catered for in their beliefs by those churches.
So the bottom line is if you should so desire you could go out and form 'The Church of the Sacred Heart of the Bleeding Jesus' and locate it somewhere in Los Angeles California. Having done so you could have whomever of whatever polical or sexual persuasion you should desire to be a minister of this church.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:57:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:42:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Falconer I never said a gay minster could not relate to a straight. My point was that it is so contentious that it becomes a major issue that tears the church apart. Just take a look at what is happening with the anglican church. I believe it is unnessary and divisive and the people who are pushing for it are doing so for personal and selfish reasons and not for the greater good of all.
--------------------------
That is a good point. It would be greedy and selfish to pursue a career as a minister when doing so would cause such a great rift in the church.
However, if others wanted you to become a minister, because they valued your teachings, surely to back down just because some Anglicans thought it was an abomination would be compromising your religious ideals because of the will of others? I'm not sure of the biblical view on that, but i find compromising your beliefs due to pressure from others morally objectionable. For example (this is a poor example, and i'd like you to know that I am not comparing current treatment of gays to the treatment of black ex-slaves for one moment), when people like Martin Luther King campaigned for the better treatment of blacks, this would have also been divisive (tearing communities apart as to whether or not they supported equal rights for blacks), yet in the long run it allowed for more racial equality in America. To say that the ordaining of gay ministers is objectionable because it will divide the church could be wrong, as in the long run, it would allow better relations between gays and straights in the church.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:46:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:35:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Would you let a convicted murder be a pastor? I'm sure he wouldn't talk about murdering people. How bout a drunken achoholic? Or someone who believes pornography is okay in the eyes of God?
-------------------------------
Don't compare gays to murderers, it just highlights your ignorance.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:42:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Falconer I never said a gay minster could not relate to a straight. My point was that it is so contentious that it becomes a major issue that tears the church apart. Just take a look at what is happening with the anglican church. I believe it is unnessary and divisive and the people who are pushing for it are doing so for personal and selfish reasons and not for the greater good of all.
Having said that this is a debate that has fille tomes at various synods. We could fill all the servers of Ubersite with this argument and not have definitive agreement.
As far as the issue of there being a lot of instances where it is not specific as to whether it is the writers opinion or the word of god. I agree that this is the case and that is partly why we have organisations like the Bible study fellowship and theological colleges.
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:35:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Would you let a convicted murder be a pastor? I'm sure he wouldn't talk about murdering people. How bout a drunken achoholic? Or someone who believes pornography is okay in the eyes of God?
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:34:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yawn.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:32:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:30:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well isn't there some sorta verse in the Bible that says something about not looking down on the young? Shame on you. Anyways, close on the interpretation of me. I don't wanna be a gansta though, I'd rather be a rocker.
--------------------------------------
Wow. You went from 0 to -2 fast.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:31:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Falconer there are numerous instances of the writer being specific that it is not necessarily the word of god. In particular you will find this often through out Paul where he is quite specific in indicating wgat is heis opinion.
--------------------
Agreed, but there are also instances of the writer not being so specific, hence the different interpretations.
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:30:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well isn't there some sorta verse in the Bible that says something about not looking down on the young? Shame on you. Anyways, close on the interpretation of me. I don't wanna be a gansta though, I'd rather be a rocker.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:29:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What makes a gay christian unable to relate to a straight christian? Surely they are both the same apart from what makes their pecker rise, and i highly doubt a christian minister would talk about sex with his congregation anyway.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:28:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Falconer there are numerous instances of the writer being specific that it is not necessarily the word of god. In particular you will find this often through out Paul where he is quite specific in indicating wgat is heis opinion.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:26:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I am a christian. Do I support gay ministry. No I do not think it is necessary. A minister needs to be able to relate to the wider evangelical community and the whole issue of gay/not gay is too contentious. It distracts from the aims and ministry of the church.
Do I have a problem with gay people. No the same as I do not have a problem with atheists catholics or buddhists.
After that I rank your post -2 for the stupid references to small penises etc which shows your age and the fact that you think you are so clever and cool, when in fact you are probably some pimply frat boy who wants to be a gangsta.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:25:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It depends on your interpretation of the Bible. If you have a more liberal view as to how it was written, then God influenced those who wrote it, but the ideas and morals of the writer would have also found their way into scripture.
A Conservative view is that God has dictated the scripture to the writer, but that there was still room for some 'mistakes'. (I'm not too sure on this definition, It'd be nice if someone could clarify)
A fundamentalist view of scripture is that it is all the complete word of God and any contradictions are everyone else's fault for misinterpreting the contradicting passages wrongly.
I'm not a christian, but having studied religion at a Christian school for 2 1/2 years, i figure I can comment.
Submitted by Snipa (user info) at 2004-02-22 18:22:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment