IN DIALOGUE WITH THE SCRIPTURE
My dear friends, this article will be a lot different from what you are used to seeing on this site. Unlike, some or most of the others, I have not set out to write to you as a homosexual atheist, agnostic or irreligious on the one hand, and neither am I a ‘homophobic’ Christian bigot on the other. Instead, what I have set out to do is to sort of call you to some form of re-examination of the Bible – the Word of God – and not just to re-examine it, but to find out what she might be saying differently.
One of the beautiful passages of scripture which gives a succinct description of the inner life of God and which seeks to, in a way, give a description of His very essence is 1 John 4: 8, which says: “God is Love.”
Each time I think about this passage, it opens up a deep ocean of discovery that many times, I am not even ready to delve into. It is a description of that other being that is so deep I doubt if John, though he was called the beloved one, actually understood the entirety of its depth; of its mystery. For what John is saying to us is that God’s being is synonymous with Love. That HE IS… LOVE. If this is therefore the case, then it means that all that God has ever done has been because of love and for the purpose of Love. God therefore created out of love and he saved us out of love. At this point, I call to mind John 3: 16 where the same John tells us that “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believes him may not perish but may have life.” Thus, the reason for sending Jesus was “Love” – which is by no means an attribute He had to acquire, but an intrinsic attribute of His, something descriptive of His very essence.
And not only did He create and save us because of love, He did so for the purpose of love. And if love is central to His divine essence, then by making us in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27) means that we were made to love (cf. Deut. 6:5) and we were saved to love – for the greatest commandment He gave us was simply love. (cf. Matt. 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27).
First, let’s take a look at creation with this interpretative lens of love. Genesis 1 in a way gives us a more detailed overview of the creation of all that exists culminating in man. We are told in verse 26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’…” And in verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created him.”
In examining these words carefully, we’ll see that that which was made “in the image” is one thing, and that which is now manifested is another. “God created man,” it says, “in the image of God created he him.” There is an end of the creation of that which was made “in the image”: then it makes a resumption of the account of creation, and says, “male and female created He them.” I presume that everyone knows that this is a departure from the prototype for “in Christ Jesus, there is neither male nor female”, this according to Paul (Galatians 3:28). Man was not originally intended to be divided into the categories of male and female as is now the case; and by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists, he may transcend this division…for in Christ there is no male or female. The image of God is neither male nor female for God is neither male nor female and the purpose of this creation was not centered on the male-female dichotomy but the image and likeness of God which each must in fact mirror, quite irrespective of their gender in the physical. Jesus himself insinuates this when in response to the Sadducees’ question on marriage said that in the resurrection, people will neither marry nor will be given in marriage, but they will be like the angels in heaven. (cf. Matt.22:30).
The second point I would like to raise while taking a closer look at this passage is what we see when we look at verse 28. “And God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’…” I emphasise the word ‘blessing’ because contrary to some voices in Christianity who maintain it was a commandment that must be fulfilled, I see nothing in the passage that insinuates a command that the man and woman must in fact procreate. The passage specifically called it a ‘blessing’. Again, we see that Jesus himself, the perfect man did not procreate, and praised those who leave family ties for the Kingdom (Matt. 19:29), and mentioned that there are some who have forfeited sex for the Kingdom (Matt. 19:12). Even Paul wished that we all would be celibate and not even marry (1 Cor. 7:7, 27, 32-34). It is worthwhile to notice that Adam and Eve were together in love and companionship, and procreation didn’t happen till after the Fall. As a result of this, some early Christian fathers especially John of Damascus (676AD-749AD) taught that marriage was instituted only after the Fall in order to facilitate the procreation of children, in response to the mortality which resulted from the Fall.
“When death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children. [John of Damascus “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” lib 4 cap 24].
But back to being fruitful, we know that our Lord Jesus also uses the bearing of fruits to mean the multiplication of virtues, of love and of grace for the Kingdom (e.g. John 15:8). So if we take away the exclusive male-female-sex-procreation lens which we have been using to look at Genesis 1, we begin to realize that there might have been something albeit much more spiritual in God’s mind at creation than only sex.
Furthermore, a look at Genesis 2 – the second account of creation – makes us realize that Genesis 1 was, as I said earlier, a detailed summary of the creation of all things; Genesis 2 goes ahead to tell us about Man’s creation and the reason God created the Woman.
Was this reason for ‘Sexual Complementarity’?
I do not think so. In fact, Genesis does not say so, for as we have seen, procreation was at the very least not ‘exclusively’ on God’s mind. Genesis 2 tells us that the reason for the creation of Woman was: “It is not good that man should be alone…” (verse 18). And so God formed the animals and presented to Adam for helpmeets, and yet they could not be his companions. Looking at this passage, it will be totally out of place to think that in God’s mind, it was only a physical woman that could be a ‘friend’ to the physical man and that her capacity in being that friend was due to some difference in her anatomy. For we know that a man can be a friend to another man, and we have seen great friendships among men and even among women that are even ‘hallowed’ by the scripture, examples of which are David and Jonathan (cf. 1 Samuel 18:1-2), and Ruth and Naomi etc.
But l do not want to dwell on that. Rather than some difference between them, the beauty of God’s solution in creating Woman (Hebrew Ishshah—like man) for Man (Hebrew—ish), was in her sameness. Not because she in some way ‘complemented’ him but that in some deeper way, deeper than mere anatomy, she was like him. This is further evidenced in the fact that when Adam saw the Woman, he did not say, “Whoa, this ‘complements’ me, I have found someone different from me’. Instead he said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ (verse 23). This is why the animals could not be his helpmeets, for though they were also distinguished according to sexes, male and female (Gen. 7:2), they could not be his helpmeets because they were not like him.
Of course there is some complementarity in every relationship between two people; nobody is self sufficient, but nobody says that such complementarity has to be (1) as a result of opposites, for two similar half-full glasses can “complement” each other to be whole while there is nothing different or opposite about them; (2) sexual, for complementarity takes many forms as each person brings his or her distinctive contributions to the relationships of friendship and love that he or she is involved in.
Looking at all these arguments from Genesis, it would therefore appear that using Genesis 1 and 2 as a premise to condemn homogender love and sexuality falls short of an appropriate interpretative lens. Genesis 1 and 2 were trying to explain the existence of people as coming from God, men and women alike on the one hand, and that friendship, love and communion were top in God’s mind and not exclusively sex, and so has nothing particular about the nature of the sexes to say concerning the fulfilment of this divine initiative. Of course it would be foolish and unscriptural to say that God meant that love, friendship and communion were only to exist between a man and a woman, for that would be the other alternative which as we have shown from scripture is false especially when we look at 1 Samuel 18.
TO BE CONTINUED
Written by Efcee
About author
You might also like
I’M SORRY I BROKE YOUR HEART
I’ll be honest. I’ll be true. I’ll try to tell it as it is. But I fear that I will fail. We were getting serious, and it scared me. Being
OPEN LETTER TO MY SON
My dear adorable son, I love you very, very much. My love is without condition and I honestly hope that you’ll forever know that, no matter your age or how
I SEE MONSTERS
1 “I do not know how monsters are made, but I know that they are.” – Wole Soyinka, A Play of Giants (Paraphrased). It must have been in Primary five
80 Comments
Dennis Macaulay
January 03, 06:25Another angu
ken
January 03, 06:25Wow this seems to be far stretching the verses of the bible to their limit. If God is love, then we might as well ignore the entire old testament cos what we see there is a God of vengeance and destruction.
But whichever way u see it, I believe the bible is a book written by humans with their own idea of who God is, how the world works and how the world should be run.
The bible is one perspective, but its not the only perspective. Many of the facts in the bible are not exactly right or sometimes lost through translation e.g Joseph the father of Jesus was not a carpenter, but a builder/stone carver. Also Jesus was not the only child of mary etc
For me, I think the bible should be seen as a guide and not as a law. Many things have changed since the days of the ancient hebrews so sticking to their way of thinking or way of life is not really productive.
JustJames
January 03, 06:33You’ve got to love reading the bible.. So many things to discover.. So many angles to look at it from.
Pink Panther
January 03, 06:34I swear! When this writer Efcee was talking to me about his interpretations of the bible, I was stunned.
Mandy
January 03, 07:18The average Christian will NOT buy into this, Efcee. Any wider interpretation of the scriptures, especially one which allows for the tolerance of anything perceived to be abominable, will not fly. lol. That’s just the simple truth. To be honest, I have never considered these new truths you’re talking about, and they make such sense that I’m literally amazed. It’s even sheer common sense sef. But a majority of christendom (not all o, for those who will come for my head) is not exactly famous for their common sense when the status quo of the religion is challenged. So don’t expect a lot of enlightenment from the masses.
Timi LEO
January 03, 08:03Waow..Hallelujah
Wife beater!
January 03, 08:09To be honest,it looks like u were clutching at straws…twisting and turning scriptures,the bible isnt flexible like dat!
Delle
January 03, 10:20Someone should please pinch me! Am I the only one seeing that this guy’s name is ‘Wife beater’?
Misogyny much?
*barts eyelashes four times, shrugs and moves on*
Kenny
January 03, 11:32Delle, a wife beater could also mean a sleeveless shirt. Just saying.
Delle
January 03, 11:51Durrgh! Like I didn’t know that already *rolling my eyes*
Pink Panther
January 03, 11:52Did you? Did you really? lol
Deola
January 03, 12:29*Sips zobo noisily*
Kenny
January 03, 13:08Lol????
Delle
January 03, 18:14Yes I know what a wife beater is! You children are something else, na wa o. He could either be a type of clothing or a man who loves to hit a woman, let’s just say I went for the latter…don’t sass me on that, puhleeze! Lol
*flings Deola’s zobo to the dustbin*
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 08:31Religion. Smh. It’s a new year, am not going to argue abt faith and religion with anyone.
pete
January 03, 08:42The bible is written in such ambiguous terms that most interpretation you give it will stand. Do what ever makes you happy & serve your God in the way you deem fit. Imposition of beliefs will always lead to friction.
ambivalentone
January 03, 09:00I shall wait for the concluding part. I like that part bout how it was all about companionship not procreation. I wonder how we’d av populated d earth if man didn’t fall tho
Delle
January 03, 10:13I’m so stunned (joyously so) I can’t even blink, I can’t even write well, so I’d just ask PP, ‘How can I copy this entry?!’
So many people need to read this, pls, pls, pls, pls!!!
*on my newly scrubbed knees*
Pink Panther
January 03, 11:32Share away, Delle.
Max 2.0
January 03, 10:41The bible is just like astrological texts, it uses ambiguous and open ended statements which is open for interpretation by anyone. Its no wonder we have different factions of Christianity, people who have clung unto a particular bible verse or texts and interpreted the way it bests suits them and formed a following from it.
The bible is still very homophobic though from other parts of its texts. But good effort though in trying to discredit the #Adam&Eve not #Adam&Steve narrative used by most homophobes as a weapon to oppress gay people.
posh6666
January 03, 10:56This particular issue has been over flogged and i’m tired of reading and arguing over and over again about religion and homosexuality in order not to commit blasphemy which a lot of people do on this blog.Its really becoming irritating.
One thing is clear both the Quran and Bible no matter how you twist and turn the words is clearly against homosexuality so can we stop trying to interpret in ways that suits us just to feel better? Just learn to live life one day at a time and try your best to be a good person and worship your God the best way you can hoping it all works out at the end of the day.
Pink Panther
January 03, 11:36Did you even read this particular piece, eh posh? Like really READ it and open your mind to the interpretations in it?
Or did you see the title, skim over the text, roll your eyes, heave a sigh and rush to the comments section to post your exasperation?
posh6666
January 03, 11:41I honestly skimmed thru it and rolled my eyes because like i said i’m tired of writeups about gayism and religion its really exhausting…
Pink Panther
January 03, 11:43Then you’ve made my point. Sometimes, it does a world of good to read before forming an opinion of what was written. That’s what knowledge is about.
Mandy
January 03, 11:45You would think lawyers would know these things.
posh6666
January 03, 11:49Darling leave the shade for someone who gives a damn…
Max 2.0
January 03, 11:45“Gayism”?? I thought @Agbero101Vibes was so 2015?
Mandy
January 03, 11:50Seriously though, posh… ‘gayism’? Can we stop with that in 2016? How hard can it be to simply type HOMOSEXUALITY? There… first an H, then O, then M, then O, then S, then E, then X, then U, then A, then L, then I, then T, then Y. Say it with me now: HOMOSEXUALITY. Stop falling into the ignorant public bandwagon and be calling us what doesn’t even exist in the dictionary biko.
Delle
January 03, 11:57Ahn, you people should leave Posh alone na. Don’t you know lawyers have their own dictionary? That Patrick Odegb*** (can’t spell that jargon abeg), proved it to me. ‘Gayism’ may very well exist in Posh’s dictionary, I just hope they punctuate there as well…
posh6666
January 03, 11:57By now you should have realized i dont give a hoot about people’s opinion.Yea i said gayism and thats what i felt like calling it so pls and pls carry your english lessons very faraway from me you hear? You are Mandy and i’m me two different people and thoughts so rest!
Mandy
January 03, 12:05It’s a simple correction, you know. Like it’s the right word to use. That’s the whole purpose of education. You simply take the correction, apply it and go on living. You don’t hide your ignorance behind the cloak of ‘I’m me and you’re you’.
Homosexuality.
Not gayism.
Simple education. Jeezuz, what manner of lawyers do we have in this generation sef?
posh6666
January 03, 12:42This right here is how to correct someone? Where is that done please? Dont try going all smart on me now boo boo you are clearly stupid! Stay on ur lane chile.
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 11:55Posh u ve said it all.
Yall should let it be. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality, no use trying give it different interpretations.
I find it funny that people who act as if they don’t believe in Christianity and it’s teachings are still trying to interprete the Bible.
U people should just let it be biko.
U don’t need to argue abt the Bible and try to twist it.
Start yoga classes or worship Buddha. U can’t be blaspheming the Bible, saying Christianity is the problem we ve in this world and in another post trying to interprete the Bible to suit ur own purpose.
Smh.
ikhines
January 03, 15:56Can’t believe I would say this but I agree with posh. Stop twisting the bible to suit yourselves. It states clearly it is against homosexuality. This issue has really been overflogged everywhere abeg na 2016 we dey. PP and his gang can like to force their opinion on people ehn!
Pink Panther
January 04, 06:10Abeg go an exist somewhere far far away, ikhines.
bruno
January 03, 11:34i suppose a little dose of deceit is necessary to be truly happy. it’s amusing the lengths you will go to to prove that the bible is not really against what it speaks against so blatantly. anyways if your delusion is what help you get a good night’s sleep, please indulge.
posh6666
January 03, 11:38My dear epp me see oh! I really wonder why they keep twisting the bible like this just to feel better when deeo in your heart you know the truth.The words of the Quran will never change its been the same right from the start and so shall it be till the end.Lets stop over flogging this issue,live your life in the best way possible and stop looking for validation that only exist in ur imaginations.
Pink Panther
January 03, 11:39‘Live your life in the best way possible…’ you say.
And if someone’s best way possible is the validation of his faith, who are you to deride it? See how contradictory your comments are?
posh6666
January 03, 11:47Obviously its time to stop seeking validation from faith,alot of us have already been through this battle of wanting to do right in the eyes of God and abide by what the religion says..I actually stopped saying my 5times daily prayer at a point because i felt what was the use? I’m going to hell anyways but i have grown and realised this is who i am and can never change and also wise enough to know my religion will never support my lifestyle..
Infact perming your hair alone or wearing female cloths or piercing your body as a male trying to act like a female is already a sin in islam not to now talk of practising gayism…Biko i have found my peace one thing is clear there is zero tolerance for homosexuality no matter how you look at it and the punishment is death according to the Quran.
Chuck
January 03, 11:53When you put your opinion/interpretation out there, you are exposing it to criticism/analysis. Sometimes your opinion is shown up; it’s premises, evidence and conclusion are not reasonable.
“The best way possible” hopefully does not include self delusion, or jumping through hoops to justify homosexuality
Pink Panther
January 03, 11:59Don’t come for me, Chuck. By now, anyone who knows me know I’m permanently on the fence when it comes to these Christian issues. But I happen to advocate for one’s right to live with whatever means that makes his or her life tolerable. And if that means involves holding fast to his faith, then who are you really to question it or sneer at it as self delusion?
I mean, first there are people who in an attempt to be dismissive of the bible, argue that it was written by people attempting to enforce their beliefs on humanity.
Then there are those who maintain that it is God’s word, coming straight from the holiest of holies.
Well then, if its man’s word trying to pass across the mind of God, then a gay person is allowed to interpret it in the way that best keeps him at peace with his faith.
And if it’s God’s word, let’s just say, I’d rather wait for God to come Himself and tell the gay Christian population that He’s condemning them to hell for their gay sins.
Bottom line: as long as he’s hurting no one, as long as his faith and sexuality are reconciled, you don’t get to sneer at him or her. You chose not to believe. He chose to believe. Can everyone not then live and let live?
Chuck
January 03, 12:17Oh, but I get to sneer. When you have an opinion that is illogical/ahistorical/not backed by scholarship or evidence, then your opinion does not hold water, and it should be debunked by those who know better, and who apply the scientific method/reason.
This guy is supporting the Judeo – Christian ideology that legitimates racism, colonialism, sexism and other sociopolitical pillars of inequity. His support for these religions hurts people. Look at Helen Ukpabio, TB Joshua, the COZA adulterer/ rapist and co. The efforts by the writer to cover the Bible with a sheen of intellectual validation contributes to the shenanigans these ministers push on all of us.
I won’t say I’m surprised that you’re trying to use “live and let live”/ false equivalence to equate an opinion that’s grasping at straws on one hand, with historical/scientific observation on the other hand. When one side is wrong/unscientific it’s harmful to treat both sides as legitimate.
Pink Panther
January 03, 12:24Whatever you say, Chuck.
Chuck
January 03, 12:28Sure, hopefully otheres reading this thread will gravitate toward the better reasoned/scientific perspective. That’s how we legitimize homosexuality.
Pink Panther
January 03, 12:29Sure, because your well reasoned/scientific perspective is all it’ll take to turn a gay Christian from his ways, yes?
Chuck
January 03, 12:43Some people don’t respond to reason/ don’t think critically. I expect your hoops jumping gay Christian is one of them. My comment provides the perspective of reason/science so that others who read this post will be exposed to the fact that homosexuality does not need legitimization by Bibles, Korans or Pastors. There are other, better paths to the pursuits of liberty and personal happiness.
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 12:05And PP u really should stop with this idea that u can change people’s perception and beliefs to rhyme with urs on every issue.
Like posh said it’s all abt being at peace with ur self. That’s all.
I don’t bother myself with the anti gay sermon of the pastor in church, na him get him mouth, and am certainly not interested in what other gay people feel abt the Bible too, becos it seems the gay preachers are becoming more annoying than the anti gay preachers.
Pink Panther
January 03, 12:07*shaking my head* You are accusing me of attempting to change people’s beliefs and backing up posh who is doing exactly what you accuse me of?
Are you for real?
Simply because he happened to say what you wanted to see said and I’m saying what you are opposed to does not make him any less guilty of what you claim.
Abeg shift, oga.
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 12:22PP it’s not just on this post.
And it seems u don’t understand where posh is coming from. He has a belief system which helps him make sense out of the whole homosexuality and religion thing. He is not saying u shouldn’t believe in what u want to believe but stop trying to shove these flawed interpretations of the Bible into his throat.
By the way from previous posts it’s quite obvious that most people on this blog believe Christianity and the Bible are part of the problem we ve in the society, am just surprised that those same persons are still bothering themselves with what the Bible says.
Pink Panther
January 03, 12:28Wait first o, so someone sharing a post about his beliefs on the blog is now him (how did you put it?) ‘shoving these flawed interpretations of the Bible into posh’s throat’?
All the writer did was write. I believe you called that ‘a belief system which helps him make sense out of the whole homosexuality and religion thing.’
Do tell me where he said: ‘Posh and all ye irreligious gay men, thou must abide by what I have said.’
Please tell me. Unless you’re trying to tell me that every post shared is the writer’s intent to shove his ideals down the throat of the reader. In which case, the commenters would be guilty of the same thing. Really, every word then posted would be a testament to belief-enforcement.
And then posh would be guilty of the same crime, no?
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 12:37Obviously it’s not this post alone. Every post abt Christianity on this blog carries the same tone.
I can remember u telling someone off on a particular post cos he had a view quite different from most comments.
“… I am disappointed in u, u that ve been regular on this blog for some time now… ”
U need to chill Bro. People need to think for themselves.
posh6666
January 03, 12:40Pinkie as the leader of the flock i think you should lead by example by showing to your followers its ok to spell your lord as “Jesus” and not jisox,chizzuz,jisucks to mention a few too.Except i missed a new testament where his name changed..
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 12:52Lmao. It’s quite obvious most of them won’t want to say anything that would make pp angry, so they just act like they believe everything he says.
2016 biko. Like I said initially I don’t want to argue with anyone abt faith and religion.
Believe what u want and let me hold on to my own thoughts in my own little corner of the universe.
Pink Panther
January 04, 06:19Lol. You’re funny, Fingers. And I’m flattered that you think so highly of me that you’d believe me capable of such influence to make independent people not have an opinion of their own that isn’t what I think. The PP fan club can’t just happen to think the same things that I think. Oh no. They must voice opinions mirroring mine simply becos they are afraid of making me angry. My goodness, Times magazine should nominate me in this year’s Most Influential list.
Mr. Fingers
January 04, 07:56Lmao.
Mandy
January 03, 12:12‘Live and let live.’
It’s an aphorism LGBT people would like the heterosexual population to adopt, but find it hard to take on themselves. One can be gay and Christian. One can be gay and irreligious. Two can live their lives just fine.
Is that so hard to grasp?
Chuck
January 03, 12:21If Kitodiaries is here to let people know that it’s ok to be gay, as its founder has stated, then “live and let live” is not ok. You cannot be Christian, argue for the infallibility of your deity/doctrine/Pastor and believe that homosexuality is fully legitimate. Your religion denies it.
Mr. Fingers
January 03, 12:30There are a lot of things that Christianity preaches against and homosexuality is one of them.
sensei
January 03, 13:22I think the point of this article is to shed new light on homosexuality from the biblical perspective. It is obviously addressed to CHRISTIANS since it is they who would find this article interesting. I think accepting one’s sexuality is easier for the non-christian because he/she doesn’t have biblical condemnation to contend with. But for Christians, we must admit the difficulty they would face on the journey to self-acceptance. I think it’s presumptuous and impractical to think that we can make everyone accept themselves by killing their religion. There are those who are very religious by nature. They have their personal reasons for being so and they are entitled. For these therefore, it would be more practical to make them accept their sexuality in the light of scriptures.
And for those who say that the Bible out rightly condemns homosexuality, I agree. However, we all know that churches and sects differ in their interpretation of scripture. If truth is one, then who is right? Yet we are all Christians. If the writer has an understanding of the scripture in his own context that makes him more self-accepting, then I think that is alright.
sensei
January 03, 13:24I said “non-christian” but I meant persons who are not religious or don’t hold to any creed or dogma.
Chuck
January 03, 14:25Religious by nature? No one is born religious, your social institutions – family, school, etc indoctrinate you. Trying to be gay and Christian is like trying to lose weight while eating 2 32 inch cakes a day.
keredim
January 03, 14:49Chuck it is possible to be Christian and gay. Same way it is possible, as you are no doubt aware to be a Christian and a fornicator/corrupt official and sometimes (i dare say) a murderer, especially in Nigeria
Yes, you can sneer and pour scorn at other people’s belief systems that works for them and despite you being well read, cannot comprehend how they can reconcile their faith with their religion.
Well we have, it is working for us and we are here.
Christianity in modern society is not black and white. Infact it hasn’t been for centuries – there are different shades of grey like there are different shades of gay.
In all your tirades against being gay and Christian (i am not adding Islam because you have been conspicuously tacit about it), you have not suggested an alternative belief system.
What would be helpful is if you could perhaps write a piece expressing what your beliefs are (or not) without disparaging others on here. What would be really impressive is if the said beliefs were indigenous to Nigeria or Africa.
sensei
January 03, 15:11When I said “religious by nature”, I was speaking of personality. And when you say “nature”, you mean the state in which a person was born. But I speak of a state that is far beyond the state of birth. I’m speaking of the current nature (i.e. State of being or personality) of an adult which is a product of nature (the nature of which you speak) and nurture. By the way, we have all been conditioned by society one way or another, even you.
You should also know that it is not only possible to be christian and gay, there are actually christian gay churches in existence.
Chuck
January 03, 15:25@Keredim – by Christian and gay I meant Christian and believing that homosexuality is legitimate and appropriate. Sorry for not making that clear. Several Christians are involved in all sorts of activities forbidden by their religion, my beef here is the attempt to legitimize homosexuality within a Christian tradition – the “God loves gays tradition” does not exist within Christianity. These attempts to show that it’s there are risible.
@Sensei, my reply to Keredim will illustrate my opposition to your position. It can be in your personality to be a liar or to steal or delude yourself. That does not mean those traits are legitimate. That’s the crux of my argument here – anyone/church attempting to normalize homosexuality must accept that it is a new interpretation, one that departs from the pre understandings of established Christian doctrine. In short, it would be a concession due to social pressure, and NOT a deeper understanding of the “true, original” Church. It is ok to accept that your religion is transphobic, homophobic, misogynist etc. Then you can start deciding which parts to keep and so on.
sensei
January 03, 17:33“It can be in your personality to be a liar or to steal or delude yourself. That does not mean those traits are legitimate”.
So what personality traits are legitimate and by what means do you decide what is legitimate or what is not? You are who you are and I am what I am. That is reality. The legitimacy or otherwise is subject to personal opinion/interpretation.
“That’s the crux of my argument here – anyone/church attempting to normalize homosexuality must accept that it is a new interpretation, one that departs from the pre understandings of established Christian doctrine.”
Well what you accuse the writer of is a phenomenon that is happening all over christendom. Fact is that “established christian doctrine” is anything but static. Ever heard of the church of Mormon? Through revelation, they have their own scripture in addition to the bible. They still identify themselves to be Christians. Your perspective would make one think that christendom holds to a unified doctrine and therefore the writer’s understanding is a departure from the norm but that is not the case. People have personal interpretations of the bible all the time including on core doctrines such as hell, heaven and the holy communion. precisely why sects are continuously at each other’s throats. Aside from the issue at hand, christian denominations and sects currently have the same bible but do not agree on doctrine because of personal interpretation. Several sects interpret scripture in a manner that they “depart” from the more general understanding. That the writer does it is not a strange phenomenon. It is not new. I dare say it is the norm in christendom. You may not accept his perspective but it’s personal anyway, as all faith is.
Finally, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
keredim
January 03, 18:30Thanks for clearing up what you mean by “Gay and Christians”. I hear your beef, but like Sensei so eloquently asked how do YOU decide what is legitimate or not?
And how does gay christians believing and thriving on the fact that “God Loves gays” affect you or anyone else?
And what religion if any in your opinion legitimises homosexuality?
I still don’t know what your belief system is, but whatever it is, i don’t think it allows you to supericilously pass scorn on other people’s belief systems, especially in these days of enlightenment.
I know it sounds like a cliche and I know it will irritate you and some others on here, but like PP said earlier “Live and Let Live”. It is that simple.
Chuck
January 03, 18:47What’s the Christian sect that accepts Christianity, or thinks it’s legitimate?
If you described yourselves as sectless Christians who are deciding on their own doctrine that would make sense, even though it raises an issue of what legitimizes a sect. For example, is ISIS Islamic? IS their interpretation of Islam legitimate?
I maintain that legitimate Christianity has to explain itself by basing itself in the traditions and Holy Books. Can I be a Christian that does not accept the Bible (if we follow your personal interpretation argument).
At this point it’d be better if these defences of Christian homosexuality identify their sect and so on. If “Homosexuality is Accepted” Christianity is the view of 1% of Christians can you actually describe that as Christianity?
keredim
January 03, 19:20Short answer “Yes”. Even though we at not being militant about it.
I noticed my question to you about what YOUR belief values are and why you are so put out by gay christians, have still gone unanswered.
sensei
January 03, 19:47I already said that there are churches that accept gay Christians. Would you say there are not Christians? Even if you did, it’s your opinion. Opinions opinions everywhere. Everyone is entitled to them.
And the writer of the article based all his arguments on the bible, as a christian should. So the question of a christian who doesn’t accept the bible does not arise. Each sect now has its own “tradition”. I’m sure you won’t deny that sects vary in their “traditions” which they all Base on the bible.
Chuck
January 03, 23:12@Sensei,
Are you insisting that the common/essential thread of Christianity is the Bible? If so we can then move on to a discussion of whether the Bible allows for homosexual believers.
How large are the churches that accept gay Christians? Could you provide a link to their doctrine/ Biblical tradition of exegesis?
@Keredim, I did not answer that because this is not a “my belief system is better than yours” argument. This is a discussion about the legitimacy of a few interpretations of the Bible. Is any sect or church free to interpret the Bible in any way it wishes? If so would any sect that interpreted the Bible to mean “shun/kito the gays” be legitimate since it was a belief system like any other? Legitimacy cannot simply be based on personality or preference.
If you believe there is a principle that grants legitimacy please point it out.
sensei
January 03, 23:21Well I am not making a case for gay Christians. So I can’t defend a point I never made to begin with. And if you want to know about denominations that accept gay Christians and their reasons for doing so, you can do some googling. I’m sure you are aware that even some Anglican churches do not accept homosexuality.
keredim
January 04, 08:51@Chuck Its a shame you see my questioning your belief system as akin to dick measuring exercise.
All I am trying to understand is why you feel the need to scorn christianity and especially have disdain for gay christians who have come to terms with their faith.
I can only surmise one thing. You are Gay and a staunch christian and you cannot reconcile your sexuality with your faith.
Its all good, we were all their at some point. It is a journey, you will find your peace some how.
Good luck
Chuck
January 04, 17:22@Keredim, you would be wrong to conclude that I’m a Christian.
I do not scorn Christianity over it’s doctrine on homosexuality. I scorn those who are trying to square a circle by insisting that Christianity has room for homosexuality with nothing more than “live and let live” as their argument/premise/mandate.
@Sensei, I figured you were since you said
“If truth is one, then who is right? Yet we are all Christians. If the writer has an understanding of the scripture in his own context that makes him more self-accepting, then I think that is alright”
That is a defense of the author’s argument that there is room within Christianity for homosexuality. I disagreed and questioned the validity of that interpretation. You have now walked back to the starting line and disavowed your defense.
Pink Panther
January 05, 04:43Would you like to officially speak your mind on the issue with a write-up? You know, in the spirit of educating those people you want educated with your well-stated logic? 🙂
lluvmua
January 03, 14:08the Bible was written in so many metaphors…… humans have always interpreted the Bible ignorantly….they take the surface meaning and refuse to be reasonable…….nice post……..gonna share this with all my homophobic pals
Delle
January 03, 18:28Abi o! I dunno why people can’t just copy and paste, ehn? Please, I’m tired of reading these epistles…comments that are even longer than the post itself.
I’m educating homophobes here, please!
DImkpa
January 03, 19:58This is a real exercise in mental gymnastics and intellectual contortion in an attempt to rationalise that which cannot be rationalised.
The story of creation is filled with so many unbelievable occurrences that I don’t pay any mind to it anymore.
How could God have said ‘Let there be light’ if there was no concept of light? It would have gone something like ‘Let there be so and so which I call light’. This reasoning applies to all other aspects of the creation.
What kind of man did God create if Adam couldn’t even tell he was naked? How would he have reproduced when he didn’t know what it was he carried between his leg? I have seen men who don’t know they are naked and they are mostly mad or have severe learning difficulties. Was this God’s plan for all mankind? If so it is at great odds with the injunction to name other animals and take care of the garden, or even to be fruitful and multiply.
And then there is the age old question of where Cain’s wife came from or where the others in far away lands who see him would know he is evil.
I haven’t even started on the absence of dinosaurs in the creation story or the fact that the story assumes the earth is only 6000 years old when we all know it is not true.
These are the kinds of questions we should be asking and not bending over backwards to decipher codes where there are none.
Happy New Year Everyone!
Brian Collins
January 03, 21:59I wasn’t going to comment on this. I just want to ask that what are we trying to do here? Some will say it is twisting the word of God – I know I will. Some will say it is looking at it from another angle – hello pinky. Others will say something else.
I am asking, what are we trying to validate? What are we trying to prove? Who are we trying to prove it to. Christianity is a personal race – we have obviously all heard this before. I just wish that everyone – gays, the christian homophobes and all others would leave everyone to worship whatever god/God they want to and not try to shove their own notion of God down people’s throat. Let everyone answer for his own sin. If being gay does not take you to hell, your lying and stealing and cheating and envy, and strife and false witnessing and corruption will.
Zol
January 04, 15:47To Efcee, and any other person that feels like the bible is specifically written against their sexual orientation, watch this video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yEiup6zkMkA
I am a Christian and I am Gay, it’s always being that way. My dad even, is a priest and I truly love God and I know he loves me.
So, whenever you worship God or read the bible, try to rid your mind of all previous connotations the societies has instilled in us. Christianity is an individual race, it’s just between you and God.
Happy New Year Guys, Girls and Everyone in btw. ??
keredim
January 04, 15:54Full stop. Nothing more to add.
Thanks you!!