Is it possible to be both gay and a practising christian?

Particular evangelical and lutheran churches could justifiably be cool with gays if they've taken the doctrine of justification by faith to its most extreme.

You also don't really need to be part of a church to be a christian, as such. I believe Kierkegaard argued something along the lines of exactly the opposite of going to church, in fact.

if so what churches accept and support lgbt people?

but I would not expect churches to accept or agree with homosexuality, since if they did, their view would conflict with the Bible.

That's mad overly simplistic. Biblical interpretation is huge field

what do you mean?

It's mad to say "it is in direct conflict with the bible" when you first have to ratify whether you believe the old testament covenant is even relevant post-Jesus, if it is then how much of it is, and what your doctrine of salvation and life after death even is (universal salvation doctrines would be entirely different to Catholicism, which is quite different to Lutheranism, and so on)

In short, to just state "no christian should believe x because x contradicts the bible" isn't really applicable to all the Christian bits and bobs of belief as people go ****ing ham on how they interpret what the Bible is actually telling them. The poster was saying "if they did, their view would contradict the Bible" but I would almost guarantee that any church that is pro-homosexuality would have already thought about this and done some level of biblical theology to satisfactorily ratify it.

It's mad to say "it is in direct conflict with the bible" when you first have to ratify whether you believe the old testament covenant is even relevant post-Jesus, if it is then how much of it is, and what your doctrine of salvation and life after death even is (universal salvation doctrines would be entirely different to Catholicism, which is quite different to Lutheranism, and so on)

In short, to just state "no christian should believe x because x contradicts the bible" isn't really applicable to all the Christian bits and bobs of belief as people go ****ing ham on how they interpret what the Bible is actually telling them. The poster was saying "if they did, their view would contradict the Bible" but I would almost guarantee that any church that is pro-homosexuality would have already thought about this and done some level of biblical theology to satisfactorily ratify.

the Bible isn't up for interpretation, what I mean is, Christians can't read the Bible, and come up with completely different teachings and doctrines (the important ones especially) contradicting each other, only one of them is right and the rest are either just innocently misinterpreted, a wolf in sheep's clothing or a lukewarm compromising Christian who wants to be loved by the world.

Then why does the New Testament seem to speak against homosexuality?

What is your view on Mark 10:6-9, Romans 1:20-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Cor 6:18, Hebrews 13:4 and other verses in the New Testament that seem to condemn homosexuality (and other sexual sins such as sex before marriage)?

To both of you, speaking as an agnostic: Being Christian is absolutely not the same as being correct.

@JesusisGod said they don't expect churches would accept homosexuality. Some absolutely do, for the reasons I've stated. Does that mean they are correct? Not necessarily. If He exists, only God can know if you've managed to interpret the scripture in the right way. Presumably, a lot of groups would end up being wrong on particular issues. Does this make them not Christian? To other conflicting christian denominations, perhaps. To basically everybody else, they're as Christian as the rest of you.

I'd personally see no reason not to just interpret Mark 10:6-9 as being extremely hetero-normative, rather than directly against homosexuality, personally. Seeing as the other stuff you've cited are letters from Paul, and Paul is not Jesus or God, I myself wouldn't be treating them as though they state hard and fast laws, seeing as Paul is just a bloke. Welcome to different interpretations.

To both of you, speaking as an agnostic: Being Christian is absolutely not the same as being correct.

@JesusisGod said they don't expect churches would accept homosexuality. Some absolutely do, for the reasons I've stated. Does that mean they are correct? Not necessarily. If He exists, only God can know if you've managed to interpret the scripture in the right way. Presumably, a lot of groups would end up being wrong on particular issues. Does this make them not Christian? To other conflicting christian denominations, perhaps. To basically everybody else, they're as Christian as the rest of you.

I'd personally see no reason not to just interpret Mark 10:6-9 as being extremely hetero-normative, rather than directly against homosexuality, personally. Seeing as the other stuff you've cited are letters from Paul, and Paul is not Jesus or God, I myself wouldn't be treating them as though they state hard and fast laws, seeing as Paul is just a bloke. Welcome to different interpretations.

Not quite Christianity, but I'm pretty sure Satanism welcomes LGBT+ people.

I believe Kierkegaard argued something along the lines of exactly the opposite of going to church, in fact.

if what you say is what the Bible teaches, then you are correct, doesn't matter who you are.

saved Christians sealed with the Holy Ghost will interpret the Bible correctly (on fundamental doctrines at least). as we grow in our Christian life, we understand the Bible clearer and we have the Holy Ghost inside us to guide us into all truths.

Paul (as well as other holy men of God) wrote as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, therefore, the words of Paul are the words of God if it wasn't, it wouldn't be in the Bible. you may have another interpretation, but it is clearly wrong.

you should read what the bible says about the vain philosophies of men and tell me how "hetero-normative" that is.

Ridiculous

Oh he despised Christendom (as organised instantiations of Christianity -- he was raised a Luthern, for what it is worth) and thought that it effectively worked to separate people from God (by making them complacent and lazy) rather than enjoin them. His stuff on this is really good even if you're not a believer, actually.

How many times, lads? I am literally not a christian, I don't believe in saying that the events the bible describes happened without legitimate historical references. I only care about "possible interpretations". Yours is about as valid as any other in terms of the fact that it relies upon stuff I can't bring myself to believe in in either case. If you want to debate which interpretation is the "correct" one you'd be better off asking somebody with actual stakes in the debate.



Mmm I've always wanted to read some of his work but I've got a bookshelf full of unread things as is atm. What would you say is the best starting point?