Is it possible to be gay and Christian? Do you/have you read a lot of the Bible? Do you believe in the human soul/afterlife?
>>5439005
Sure. Just like you can be a feminist and not hate transfolk. But IDK why you'd sign up for the painful cognitive dissonance. Social reasons?
I'm gay and Muslim, so I'm assuming you can
be gay and Christian. The Qur'an is taken as the
literal word of God, and The Bible has gained more of a symbolic message from God.
I think both parties are trying to be progressive
about the situation, making the religions more
inclusive to today's world views.
You can and you won't be alone! Small people might try to suppress you because you aren't being stereotypical enough for their tastes.
>>5439005
Sure, just cherry pick. Or tell yourself god/Jesus/that dove thing forgives you for being gay.
Christians, like pic related, do just that whenever they cheat (commit adultery) and remarry dozens of times to a half dozen guys.
Why's being gay different from that?
I've always thought it was okay to have same sex attractions, but it was bad to act on them.
Is it possible to be satanist and Christian?
>>5439037
This. Intentionally signing to a cognitive dissonance seems rather senseless.
>>5439118
Lel. How much tumblr space you got for apologetics?
>>5439005
Depends on the type of christian. That said, sure, why not? Christian is effectively just a label for people that worship and believes in a particular abrahamic myth.
. Read the new testament, and some of the old.
Nothing's convinced me a soul exists, and there's no reason good enough for me to expect an afterlife.
The universe is delightfully absurd. Dick tastes yummy, we're all temporary. And if any gods do or did exist, then I see no reason why they'd care about insignificant little old me.
I tried to be Christian but then I realized I can be a sinner and still enjoy the holidays.
>>5439063
I've never understood how someone can validate their belief from the Qu'ran/Bible if it is just modified/updated to fit with the currently social standards.
That just doesn't make any sense. You either fundamentally believe in those teachings and have true faith or you don't agree with it.
I can't see any religious reason to change it for yourself/your own moral compass and still consider yourself of that faith. Its just social/cultural.
In my opinion OP, no you cannot be Christian or Muslim and be gay. You can certainly get married and should be entitled to the same tax benefits etc, but that should be a societal/government institution and not a religious one.
I grew up in a fairly conservative family and most of my social circles are based around the church. I'm straight acting and masucline so it's not obvious that I'm gay. I just don't bring it up and brush it off when people ask why I don't have a gf. I like the sense of community and beloning I get from being part of the church and I'm not read to give that up for being gay. I don't know what I'm going to do when I get a long term partner
>>5439005
Yes
Yes
No
>>5440062
I don't know what the Qur'an says, but no Christians even follow all the old testament shit. And you see Christians getting divorced all the time when the bible talks more about divorce being wrong.
>>5440325
But that's exactly what he's talking about. Its just changing as time goes on to fit the fashionable opinions. These changes have nothing holy about them, its just men rewriting what is supposedly a sacred text. How could you possibly take it as the word of God when its so evidently been altered throughout history?
Look for the site Gay Christian 101.
Yeah I've known gay Christians. I have not, but I plan to. Yeah.
>>5440342
I do not understand your reasoning. You are defaming Holy Text b/c "muh patriarchy" as though anyone cares. Take your misandric bullshit to Tumblr where it will be appreciated more.
>>5440613
What the fuck are you on about? The reason said "men" is because men have always had the power in the church. Way to derail the conversation.
It's not like Christians don't just pick and choose what parts of their religion to actually follow anyway
It's possible, but sort of makes you hypocritical.
>>5439113
i thought that the sex was fine it was just the marriage that was the issue
>>5439005
It's possible to be gay and anything if you want it enough. Why anyone would want to be Christian is beyond me.
Your phony "jehovah" magic bearded skygnome simply doesn't interest me. Like, that's it? Um, am I supposed to find this idea of an omnipotent humanoid force-person appealing? An object that created galaxies is somehow interested in social norms and preserving random thoughts patterns??? Like... Ok..? Uh, do you need like a hug or something? There are plenty of young hippy dudes who will genuinely love you and share ecstasy with you if you open up to them, you know.
>>5440897
The last evangelical that proselytized at me took the position that: gay sex was sin, gay marriage wasn't real marriage, and having homosexual attractions was okay, because that's Satan tempting you. So long as you didn't act upon those same sex attractions, married a virgin woman, and prayed a lot for forgiveness afterwards it's okay to be gay.
Then he changed the subject to how the earth is only 6000 years old, the fossil record is evidence of Noah's flood, and scientists are all a part of the Illuminati.
Evangelical Christianity. Not even once.
>>5439005
im gay, but im currently experimenting with mormonism. not in any serious capacity, but im reading the book and going to their services and tuesday night readings and perhaps other male only events.
as you can imagine, my intent is just to molest a mormon. t hey make it REALLY easy, what with their virgin missionaries and sermons divided by gender.
that being said, there are plenty o people who, for lack of a better term, identify by a religion even if they dont adhere to it.
99% of the 'wiccans' never actualyl did anything remotely wiccan except for talk about how thery are wiccan. a lot of christians are the same, they maybe go to church once or twice a year.
me personally, i run a small cult for a psychic, and i pretty much believe what he spills in the kool aid. i wish i was joking.
>>5439037
>Just like you can be a feminist and not hate transfolk.
That's more like being an atheist and being gay. Really bad comparison.
>>5439037
>>5441598
To clear up some misconceptions...
Radfems:
- Are all about structural analysis of our society (culture, politics, economy), and shit on "personal empowerment" when it ignores structural problems. It's a legitimate move for woman's lib to criticize a "slutty" woman for being that way; after all she causes this whole notion of "dirty sexuality" to be strengthened. It does not mean wishing harm to that woman. It does not make radical feminism "misogynist", it makes it intelligent, and means it doesn't get swayed by shallow notions of "personal empowerment" that ignore deep, structural problems with the situation of women in our society.
- Argue for civil rights remedies for women who can prove in court to be hurt by specific publications of porn. They are also opposed to porn that reinforces the idea that sex is something inherently dangerous, related to dominance, etc. On the other hand, they are opposed to obscenity laws because those laws have the same implication that sexuality is inherently dirty.
- Oppose prostitution and other things furthering a conception of sexuality as something commodified, rooted in objectification, etc. However they are sex positive in the sense that they wish for people to genuinely love each other as much as possible.
- Criticize the dominance/submission based sexuality in some gay communities and gay porn. They are not opposed to gays in general; to the contrary, homosexuality is essentially a statement against patriarchal marriage ideals.
- Criticize the strengthening of gender stereotypes due to some people's misinterpretation of transsexuality ("being a woman means wearing dresses and being submissive"), and some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of women's rights. However they don't support discrimination of transsexuals; transsexuality is a way of shitting on the patriarchy by saying fuck you, I live whatever gender identity fits my brain.
At some point when I was a teen, I was pretty hardcore atheist and quit church. I had very Christian background but not fundamentalist conservative one, except from my grandma. I had read both Old Testament and New Testament and started questioning things. Especially when I found out I was gay and everyone in the Christian community were so much against homosexuality, I couldn't take it anymore.
But lately I've noticed I'm finding Christ again. I was in some trouble and found myself praying from natural reaction like what I used to do when I was still in faith. I've read New Testament now again and can handle it better. I think Christ is worth following. I don't want to stop being gay but I hope my sin can be forgiven. I want to live with one man only in loving relationship, not practice sodomy. I've been meeting some Christian gays and I find them so much more pleasant company than "normal" gays. I feel ashamed how I used to bash Christianity but that might have been because of my bad experiences with the Christian community.
>>5439005
>Is it possible to be gay and Christian?
It's possible to hold 2 contradicting ideas if you're willing to ignore the contradiction, and these 2 things aren't mutually exclusive, so yes.
Whether you want and should is a different matter.
>Do you/have you read a lot of the Bible?
Debatable. I'm very into this "can you be gay and christian" and "what does the bible/jesus say about homosexuality" and at times I watch what scholars have to say on the matter, so all in all I can say I have a little bit of experience on this kins of thing.
>Do you believe in the human soul/afterlife?
I haven't managed to form a concrete opinion on that subject yet.
>>5439005
I'm a bisexual guy and a non-denominational Christian/Christian Deist. I believe in a deity, and I look to Jesus as a morally inspirational character, but I don't believe in any of the supernatural attributes associated with him. (virgin birth/ miracles/ ressurection/ etc.)
I am very careful with my faith, and I am very cynical about many concepts from all religions, but I did grow up Christian, and though I am gay, when I discuss my faith, I do consider myself Christian to an extent. I have a near Universalist view on Christianity, but I'm not completely Universalist.
>>5441730
I don't think God cares what you do with who. As far as I see, the Bible says that, as long as you love God, and love everyone else, everything else is forgiven, resolved, and abolished.
>>5441968
That is the idea behind Christianity, because Jesus died for our sins. But I still want to follow Christ's teaching the best I can.
>>5441976
>I still want to follow Christ's teaching the best I can.
Which means you must abstain from 'sexual immorality'.
>>5441976
Well, the Bible says "a man shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for to do so is an abomination" or somesuch. Which sounds more like an argument against trannies, to be honest. Men don't have vaginas.
>>5441997
That is from Leviticus which is for "the children of Israel"(Jews)
>>5442025
Jesus was a Jew. He wore socks with sandals and never paid for anything.
Jewsus.
>>5442034
But he agreed that some Jewish teachings need reforming and that's why Jews also killed him
>>5442025
Paul said (somewhat) the same thing.
And Jesus said that those who commit 'sexual immorality' do not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
>>5442045
They killed him because they got tired of him skipping out on the bill.
>>5442049
Yes but when Jesus died on the cross he purified us from our sins and you can go to heaven as long as your believe in him
>>5442057
Why's the whole 'original sin' deal around then? Always seemed a huge incongruency to have Christians saying people were born sinners.
>>5442067
There is no human without sin except Jesus Christ
>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
>For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
>>5441456
>me personally, i run a small cult for a psychic, and i pretty much believe what he spills in the kool aid. i wish i was joking.
So, John Smith and his seer stones?
>>5442045
>HURR I AM GAWD!! oh no, why r u killing me
nice reforming indeed
>>5441997
That's old testament stuff buddy... along with wearing mixed fabrics and eating pork, which doesn't apply to those who follow Jesus' teachings. Jesus himself mentioned literally nothing about homosexuality, and even supposedly "healed a centurion's gay servant. (If you believe in the whole miraculous aspect of Jesus.)
>>5442049
>Paul
> Not Jesus
Paul was an opinionated man and tried to add in things that Jesus never said. He also said women shouldn't speak in church either.
>>5442105
A wild euphoric homo appears.
>>5442057
Paul spoke about it after Jesus his death and resurrection.
>>5442116
>Jesus himself mentioned literally nothing about homosexuality
Well he did indirectly.
>>5442125
Paul was one of the Apostles, appointed by Christ himself to be his 'ambassadors'. So when he speaks he speaks for Jesus.
And would Jesus really pick someone who would change his words?
>>5442096
>John Smith
>John
Anyway Christianity doesn't condemn gays even though it might condemn gay sex(the sin). But it's impossible to live without sin which is why Jesus died for our sins. I think the best you can do is to have sex not for yourself but your partner.
>The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
So once I'm in relationship, I belong to my partner and my partner belongs to me. And we will fulfill and please each other. No selfish acts allowed.
>>5442151
>Paul was one of the Apostles, appointed by Christ himself
So was Judas
>>5442151
Humans are nothing if not fallible. That's one of the few concepts present in every philosophy, religion and worldview.
>>5442133
jesus is not god you fucking retard, no human being can ever be god
jesus is a prophet in islam but that's about what his role was
>>5442174
I never said he was. Stay euphoric my friend.
>>5442186
>And Judas played an integral part in Jesus his death and subsequent resurrection.
which goes to further prove my point that even his followers were fallible.
>>5442186
Their words have merit but that doesn't make them always right. If I recall, his followers regularly fucked up their interpretations or understandings of Jesus's teachings, to the extent he typically had to explain them in detail.
>>5442218
>which goes to further prove my point that even his followers were fallible.
Judas isn't a good example for that. He was fallible for a specific purpose, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus and thus the whole 'dying for our sins' thing.
There's no mention of a similar kind of purpose for Paul.
>>5442221
>Their words have merit but that doesn't make them always right.
Their words however have more merit than what some local priest would say. Second only to Jesus himself and maybe the pope.
And not everyone believes the pope.
And what Paul said is also in line with what Jesus said. Because Jesus himself too spoke about sexual immorality.
>>5442204
how can i be "euphoric" if i believe in god? you fucking christards are retarded
Sexual act should come from love, not from lust. The way I see it back when they were writing Bible men were having only lustful sex with men(like how men have plenty of gay sex in Saudi Arabia because women are so controlled, but identifying as homosexual is still illegal). So it was condemned. I want to follow Christ in modern life so I still avoid one-night stands and fucking with no emotions involved but love-making in marriage is okay.
>>5442260
Sexual immorality is left undefined. Maybe he meant rape. Maybe he meant crossdressing. Maybe he meant sticking gerbils in your butt.
>>5442274
>Maybe he meant rape. Maybe he meant crossdressing. Maybe he meant sticking gerbils in your butt.
He used the word "porneiai". That's plural.
That means all forms of sexual immorality.
That also includes homosexual relationships.
So Jesus himself made indirect references to homosexual relationships, and Paul made direct reference.
And both clearly disapproved.
The only thing that can be contested is whether the law of Leviticus wouls/should still apply according to christian teachings.
>>5442295
But again, what is "sexual immorality?" He never says homosexuality is included under that heading, while Paul could very well be mistaken.
>>5442303
>But again, what is "sexual immorality?"
Sexually illicit relationships.
Like sex outside of marriage and adultery.
>He never says homosexuality is included under that heading
He also never said bestiality is. Does that make it alright?
No.
He doesn't refer to them individually, he refers to them as a whole.
All sexual illicit relations.
>>5442266
You seem to be managing pretty well.
>>5442204
>>5442274
Watching theists tip other theists.
Huehuehuehue
This is what it looks like when someone has less than nothing left to say.
>>5442155
Joseph Smith* not John Smith, my minor typo, my bad.
That said is Joseph Smith your psychic cult leader? The last bit of >>5441456 really piqued my curiosity.
>>5441456
>as you can imagine, my intent is just to molest a mormon. t hey make it REALLY easy, what with their virgin missionaries and sermons divided by gender.
i like you.
anyway what do mormons do? anything of spiritual/magical relevance or arejust really boring jesus freaks?
>>5442317
Again, illicit isn't defined. Just because you assume him to mean X doesn't mean he meant X. He might have meant Y.
You seem to be taking "sexual immorality" to mean anything you, personally, view as sexually immoral.
Jesus said this:
>You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
>>5441730
> I think Christ is worth following
think more, read more.
>I want to live with one man only in loving relationship, not practice sodomy
the concept of a physical act being a sin is ridicolous. it's ok if you don't sexually like dick in ass.
but if you think being in a loving relationship with a man with or without anal sex should make a real difference at the eyes of a god then you are quite delusional, even from a christian standpoint.
>>5442328
They do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms6ny86rXU4
They give each other secret names, trade rocks, give 10% of their income, watch cringy VHS tapes, believe that some of them will get their own planets, and make gay mormons miserable at every available opportunity.
>>5442342
I don't fear God. That's not what Christianity is about. But sex outside loving relationship is one-sided mating to me, and so it doesn't follow my moral views. "Each man should have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband." When there's mutual respect and adoration it's not just sodomy.
>Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
>>5442355
>give 10% of their income
does it mean i can get free money by having a low income and going to their church? doesn't sound bad.
>>5442368
Yeah I dated an ex mo for a while. He said it was sort of like the mafia.
>>5442331
>Again, illicit isn't defined.
The bible has given a list of what is considered 'sexually immoral'.
Even if it isn't defined, there's still a list of things the bible states are sexually immoral.
>Just because you assume him to mean X doesn't mean he meant X. He might have meant Y.
I'm not assuming things. He uses the plural of porneia when he refers to sexual immorality.
He's referring to sexual immorality as a whole.
That's the whole list of what the bible considers sexual immorality.
>You seem to be taking "sexual immorality" to mean anything you, personally, view as sexually immoral.
I'm just repeating what the bible states.
And the bible is clear on sexual immorality.
And you're accusing me of what you yourself are doing.
>>5442365
You could consider premarital sex practice to give your eventual spouse more satisfaction.
>>5442382
But the biblical definitions of sexual immorality are from the Old Testament, which really has next to no bearing on what's relevant for Christians.
>>5442394
>Old Testament
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
>which really has next to no bearing on what's relevant for Christians.
Well actually it does. Because Jesus builds on their laws, otherwise he wouldn't refer to that list when speaking about sexual immorality.
And it's not just Jesus. It's Paul, it's many scholars throughout the years who have reached the same conclusion.
Homosexual relations being somehow exempt from all that is only a recent thing of the last few years, and not really based on anything substantial in my opinion.
>>5442391
I'm not even "no sex before marriage" type... I just don't believe sex without adoration can be good. It's just satisfaction to your own lust, which is a selfish act.
>>5442423
A selfish lover satisfies themselves. A good lover satisfies their partner. A great lover satisfies their partner while also letting their partner reciprocate.
>>5442423
Aww. This is the thing. Some of you are really nice people. (Despite squeezing contrary ideas together like opposing rare earth magnets.) Preach.
>>5439005
technically yes, but realistically no
cover to cover 14 times
no and no
