The wall of Christian stereotype

Post Reply New Topic

Research is good. However, I can say what I said before that I think Jesus was trying to break social prejudices of all kinds like those between men and women, Jews and Gentiles, and one or another Jewish sect. I think that prejudice against homosexuality is just another one of those social barriers that Jesus would have wanted to break through. Many Christians scripturally support this thought because of the story of Peter's vision of the unclean animals and the conversion experience he had with a Gentile immediately afterwards. I think this explains why that applies if you're interested http://dancingtherainbow.com/oscar1.html

I see your point, I have seen people who they say they believe in God and they believe in Jesus but they don't go to churches and they don't follow any dogmas, still, they say they believe in Jesus, so I would think of them as christians without being religious. I say religous people, when it comes to people who go to church, they always follow the dogmas and rituals, maybe I am doing it wrong, sorry for that.

I know there are a few gay people who are christians and they have created christian movements or other sects so gay people can be accepeted to live their sexuality inside a church, inside a christian/religion environment, they do different interpretations of what the Bible says in the Deuteronomy book, which I think is a good step, but still, they are a minority, and the majority are against it.

Greenblue, I agree that the majority are against it. Also, I like your Avatar alot

Thanks

That's true, but I go more by what the Bible says than what Christians say. Honestly? I would love to approve all gays. Seriously, because I can't rationally see anything wrong with the lifestyle, as long as it's done safely. But do you see that I would be a hypocrite Christian if I ignored the Bible on this? I prioritize truth above feelings -- even when it works against me. And I wouldn't begin to boast that I do this on my own strength -- I definitely do not. I'm sure I'm about to get a lot of questions about now. Fire away.

Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Jun 2007, 9:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Doesn't the Bible also say something about casting the first stone? Or how about Matthew 7:1?

There are lots of gay churches. There's one four miles away from me. The only lament I have about that -- the only one -- is that I fear they're on the wrong track by conveniently overlooking a certain Bible-specified sin.

But, is it fine with me that they're a gay church? Sure. But I'm worried they'll go to Hell over it. But, if I'm playing the selfish bastard, then hey, I'm totally fine with it! But, I care. Therefore I worried.

Do they categorically ignore the anti-homosexual passage? How could they, realistically - what is their reasoning?

How do you knowing they are sinning? They could just be openly gay but celibate. In which case they're not actually doing anything.

You are going to have them that. I have never understood why some christian denominations call their clergyman father when Jesus said "call no man father upon the earth". I am sure they have an explanation for that, but I don't know what it is.

I also go by what the Bible says not what Christians say, but I don't take every single passage literally. If I did I would have to believe that I should both "turn the other cheek" and take "an eye for an eye," that I should not work on the sabbath and that I should do good work on the sabbath, that I should ritually wash my hands before I eat and that I shouldn't care if my hands are washed, that men should be circumcised and that they don't need to be circumcised, that I should not eat unclean animals and that all animals are available to eat, that salvation is not available to me as a Gentile and that it is available to me as a Gentile, all at the same time.

I think that Jesus in fulfilling the law changed our relationship to it and our behavior and morality should reflect that change. I mean Jesus went around talking to women on a regular basis, which was something men of his culture just didn't do. He talked to Samaritans and Gentiles and helped them on a regular basis, also something men of his culture just didn't do. Also, he was extremely critical of people who were legalistic about their faith calling them hypocrites because they believed in the rules and regulations not the spirit of the law.

Please read this: http://dancingtherainbow.com/oscar1.html

Thanks. From the "rest" of us.

Sorry if I am not saying anything good and useful in this post,
but this thinking sounds very sad actually.

Hopefully in 50-100 years from now, the Catholic Church, if everything goes good (if religion still exists) will change their views about this, then other religions will follow.

I see Ragtime that you and perhaps other christians that believe in that, are very well intentioned, but .....

You have to remember that Jesus and the apostles altered what was kept under the "Old Law." Jesus spoke against "an eye for an eye" when he spoke of turning the other cheek. (Though I could expand on this subject quite a bit - it really has nothing to say regarding self-defense, for instance, and nothing to say toward community relations, only personal conduct...) When Jesus and the apostles gleaned wheat on the Sabbath and when he healed on the Sabbath, he put aside the strict Sabbath rules and regulations. And Peter's vision before meeting Cornelius both abrogated the further need for the distinction of "unclean animals" and at the same time opened salvation to the Gentiles. So for you to say you have to believe both, is nonsense. Either that, or you simply do not know your Bible. Or don't believe it.

Yes, Jesus did indeed go around talking to women on a regular basis, and Samaritans and Gentiles. And he was critical of legalists. But on the other hand, he still was very insistent on people keeping from sin. And rather than narrow the definition of what sin was, he expanded on it largely, in the Sermon on the Mount and other places. (Showing us our abject lostness and need for a Savior.)

When he stood between the mob and the adulteress, he told them that they had no right to condemn her, as they were all equally condemned. But he neither condoned the mob's sin nor hers, and he certainly didn't give a knowing wink. For even as he turned and softly spoke to her, he still required that she go and "sin no more."

I do know my Bible very well and my point is exactly that I CAN NOT believe both which is why I CAN NOT take the Bible literally.



But when he expanded on it he wasn't giving out more rules and regulations but expanding on what people should see as the spirit of the law. He was basically trying to get people to stop seeing sin as a behavioral technicality and more as a spiritual state of being.



Yes, he did, but adultery and homosexuality are not the same thing. Adultery is a betrayal of a promise whereas homosexuality is a biological sexual orientation. Acting on ones homosexuality if it is done in the context of the spirit of the law (I do believe in marriage), if they dedicate their lives to one another in love and to no one else, how has the spirit of the law been broken?

Last edited by spdjeanne on 06 Jun 2007, 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

No one's casting stones.