Dad, mom ...I'm ...um, I'm gay

[KCKID]

The title/subtitle says it all. This scenario must have occurred many, many times. We've all heard, read or seen instances of this and the types of responses that parents of their gay children have given. While we only seem to have a handful of vocal anti-gay Christians on this forum, I'm genuinely curious as to how they would react if their son or daughter came to them and told them that they're gay. Others, feel free to offer your input.

The question again: How would you (a Christian) respond to your son or your daughter coming out to you that they are gay? Without revealing any more than you need to, has this actually happened to any of you ...either as a gay son/daughter or as a parent?

[Dokimas]

[Replying to post 132 by Goat]

Matthew 4

To me, that would indicate the Jesus is not God. Yes, that's where the story about the temptation is.. but.. 'Jesus as God' and 'Jesus tempted' still is a contradiction.

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god.

When God entered humanity in a Human body, He subjected Himself to all the we experience, yet without making any mistakes, IMO.

As for temptations: the Bible seems to reveal two sides of temptation: the external side and the internal side. Jesus was tempted externally, but not internally. James, in his book, speaks of temptation internally when he says God can't be tempted and that we are tempted when we allow ourselfs to be drawn away by our own desires. Jesus was never drawn away from the will of His Father by His own desires, therefore He was never tempted internally.

As usually, this is my opinion based upon my study.

[cnorman18]

I prefer Israelite or Hebrew if you don't mind. Oh what a misused and misunderstood word 'Jew' or 'Jewish' is....in the strictest since and the original meaning of the word you are mistaken. A completely new thread could be started on the word 'Jew'.

Oh, please DO begin a thread on the word "Jew." I'm sure we'd all love to see it!

I can't WAIT to read what you have to say on this subject.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 132 by Goat]

Matthew 4

To me, that would indicate the Jesus is not God. Yes, that's where the story about the temptation is.. but.. 'Jesus as God' and 'Jesus tempted' still is a contradiction.

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god....

I think I first heard that one more than 50 years ago. It is continually recycled.
Have it your way, but there are alternative views. For example he never claimed to be god and 'the scriptures' are not completely reliable representations of what he said. I've always wondered why he never wrote anything himself. As a god, it would have been mere child's play.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 132 by Goat]

Matthew 4

To me, that would indicate the Jesus is not God. Yes, that's where the story about the temptation is.. but.. 'Jesus as God' and 'Jesus tempted' still is a contradiction.

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god.

Or, the people who wrote about him were misinterpreted, as he was. Or, the concept of 'parable' and 'religiously motivated story' were understood differently.

I think that the people who wrote about Jesus later on, just plain were mistaken, and should not have worshiped him as a God. Perhaps as a teacher, but a teacher is not God.

[Sir Hamilton]

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." NIV Leviticus 20:13

And what that is referring to is the pagan practice of male prostitution in the temples of competing Gods in the area of the time. The word 'detestable' that is used is actually comes from the term 'Toevah' in Hebrew, which means 'ritualistically unclean'.
The 'put to death' is a common colloquialism in the Jewish scripture to emphasize the importance, and was not taken literally.. at least for a few hundred years before the second temple.

I do wish Christians would actually understand what the Jewish scriptures were talking about, if they are going to quote it so much.

Below is a YouTube video that explains quite well what you refer to above:

Oh how amusing it is too watch non-Christians (goat) explain scriptures to Christians. It is such a simple verse to understand. It doesn't say anything about male prostitutes in pagan temples. It says that a man is not to have sexual relations with another man...period. Would you like New Testament verses to support homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle? I am sure that you could spin those quite well to....

Ignorance of the scriptures is no defense, Sir Hamilton, and might I say that your ignorance surrounding ALL of the so-called 'clobber texts' is glaringly evident. Goat is correct in 'his' summation of Leviticus and, if you'd cared to watch the video link that I posted (which is even included in your ABOVE response), you would have had this explained to you in detail. If you PERSONALLY don't care for homosexuality or gay marriage or kids 'coming out' to their parents then just say so but don't even attempt to present scriptures of which you are in total ignorance to support this kind of bigotry. Deal?

That said, if you would like to offer texts from the New Testament that present 'homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle' for debate then why don't you start a new thread? I'll debate you on these scriptures any time.

* Do yourself a favor and click on the above video link.

I just believe scripture my friend, something you might want to try sometime if you claim to be a Christian. You calling me ignorant and a bigot doesn't help this discussion. Let us look at the words of the apostle Paul "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27). Now listen you may want to try and gloss over this or play around with some of the words and change their meaning but anyone with a little common sense knows that Paul is speaking of homosexuality. I am more than happy to agree to disagree with your interpretation of scripture but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are a bigot.

First and foremost my reference to your being a bigot was dependent as to whether you PERSONALLY dislike homosexuals and air these views publicly. THAT, in my opinion, would qualify you as a bigot. Please, read that part of my post again. As for my calling you ignorant ...I use that term in the manner that you present scriptures without having a clue as to their context and/or meaning. You've done exactly what I'm referring to with regard to your above passage from Romans 1:26-27. You merely present words without ANY explanation as to what those words mean or what particular events that Paul is referring to. The reason being is, of course, that you don't know what they mean. You only think you know. And, when it comes to presenting scripture with which to support a particular personal view, that's not good enough.

In the text you mention Paul is undoubtedly referring to the pagan worship practices that began to infiltrate the early Christian Church. These practices involved a great deal of sexual/fertility rite activity - both heterosexual and homosexual - to appease the gods that they depended upon for their survival. They even sacrificed their own children to these idols so sex orgies dedicated to these same idols is not such a stretch. And, they're true. You can read up on everything you care to know about idolatry elsewhere on the Internet. Without this background one can't begin to understand what Paul, Jude, etc. are talking about. This entire topic of idolatry and how it found its way into the early Christian Church requires a thread of its own ...actually one that I DID initiate some months ago elsewhere on this forum. That said, die-hard anti-gay Christians often don't allow FACTS to dissuade them.

You bring up the 'man lying' text of Leviticus 18:22 but you appear to be totally unaware of the preceding text, Leviticus 18:21, that refers to the sacrifice of children to the god Molech. See the connection here? It's referring to idol worship and has NOTHING to do with one's sexual orientation. God doesn't even appear to be so much concerned for the welfare of the children but is more irked that the kids are being sacrificed to a false god. Remember, "Thou shalt have no other god but me ..."? It's all about worship practices here ...the same as referenced in Romans 1:26-27. If in doubt about the context or meaning or the event being addressed in scripture ...then be quiet.

What a great effort you have presented as twisting such simple to understand scripture to mean what you want it to mean. Why do you bother? Why don't you just take your bible and throw it away? It is obvious that you don't like or understand simple scripture. Do you think God likes two men having "sex"?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 132 by Goat]

Matthew 4

To me, that would indicate the Jesus is not God. Yes, that's where the story about the temptation is.. but.. 'Jesus as God' and 'Jesus tempted' still is a contradiction.

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god....

I think I first heard that one more than 50 years ago. It is continually recycled.
Have it your way, but there are alternative views. For example he never claimed to be god and 'the scriptures' are not completely reliable representations of what he said. I've always wondered why he never wrote anything himself. As a god, it would have been mere child's play.

Really? Because someone said something 50 years ago it is somehow less important? Your fourth option is valid but I can't believe that you Danmark would sweep aside C.S. Lewis so callously as irrelevant because of his time.

What does that say for Darwin? Or Aristotle?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 132 by Goat]

Matthew 4

To me, that would indicate the Jesus is not God. Yes, that's where the story about the temptation is.. but.. 'Jesus as God' and 'Jesus tempted' still is a contradiction.

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god....

I think I first heard that one more than 50 years ago. It is continually recycled.
Have it your way, but there are alternative views. For example he never claimed to be god and 'the scriptures' are not completely reliable representations of what he said. I've always wondered why he never wrote anything himself. As a god, it would have been mere child's play.

Really? Because someone said something 50 years ago it is somehow less important? Your fourth option is valid but I can't believe that you Danmark would sweep aside C.S. Lewis so callously as irrelevant because of his time.

What does that say for Darwin? Or Aristotle?

Because, it has been refuted a bunch of times. Why, they even have a wiki entry on Lewis' trilema, showings it's faults, it is so commonly used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

[Joab]

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god.

Since many "christian" sects claim that he is not god I guess they accept that he is either a liar or a lunatic?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 132 by Goat]

Matthew 4

To me, that would indicate the Jesus is not God. Yes, that's where the story about the temptation is.. but.. 'Jesus as God' and 'Jesus tempted' still is a contradiction.

As I've studied the NT, it seems clear to me either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or He was and is God. Not only that, but, those who wrote about Him either lied or worshiped a false god....

I think I first heard that one more than 50 years ago. It is continually recycled.
Have it your way, but there are alternative views. For example he never claimed to be god and 'the scriptures' are not completely reliable representations of what he said. I've always wondered why he never wrote anything himself. As a god, it would have been mere child's play.

Really? Because someone said something 50 years ago it is somehow less important? Your fourth option is valid but I can't believe that you Danmark would sweep aside C.S. Lewis so callously as irrelevant because of his time.

What does that say for Darwin? Or Aristotle?

Because, it has been refuted a bunch of times. Why, they even have a wiki entry on Lewis' trilema, showings it's faults, it is so commonly used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

There's a wiki entry so its a bad argument?

"It is a common sentence that Knowledge is power; but who hath duly considered or set forth the power of Ignorance?

Knowledge slowly builds up what Ignorance in an hour pulls down. Knowledge, through patient and frugal centuries, enlarges discovery and makes record of it; Ignorance, wanting its day's dinner, lights a fire with the record, and gives a flavour to its one roast with the burnt souls of many generations.

Knowledge, instructing the sense, refining and multiplying needs, transforms itself into skill and makes life various with a new six days' work; comes Ignorance drunk on the seventh, with a firkin of oil and a match and an easy 'Let there not be' - and the many-coloured creation is shrivelled up in blackness.

Of a truth, Knowledge is power, but it is a power reined by scruple, having a conscience of what must be and what may be; whereas Ignorance is a blind giant who, let him but wax unbound, would make it a sport to seize the pillars that hold up the long-wrought fabric of human good, and turn all the places of joy dark as a buried Babylon." - George Elliot

If we tear down our philosophers and exalt our... wikis I am afraid of what will become of our society... So much for our philosophy and sink me... French fashion.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Homosexuality ain't near it the problem, that thinkin' it's a problem is.