Can You Be Gay and a Christian ? ? ?

The argument you're making about not being a Christian is one that is used among differing denominations. Protestant vs Catholic, Pentecostal vs Fundementalists.

Who defines what a true Christian is?

 

Heh, just about every Christian and every church picks and choses what they emphasize, teach, and practice from scripture. Granted, not applying one part of scripture is a little different than saying that part of scripture is false or is not the Word of God. But the end result is not that dissimilar.

Edit: Of course, the funny thing is, there is no ultimate human athority that says, "yes this group or person is Christian, and that one is not." Churches and individuals frequently call other Christians and individuals "not Christian" but that is nothing other than their statement and their opinion. While there are folks that say you cannot be Christian and be gay, there are also folks who say you cannot be Christian, or at least participate in the love of Christ if you are not welcoming of gays.

 

No. You and Paladin make the same error. Interpretation and differences in emphasis are inevitable over a long enough time and large enough membership. Being a Christian doesn't mean having all the same exact thoughts regarding religion. What it does mean is that you hold the Bible as the authority. You cannot claim to be a Christian while saying that the Bible is outdated and should be subordinate to contemporary judgments on morality. Doing that means creating a new faith, just as Christianity sprang from Judaism.

 

Just to be clear on this, good faith differences on Biblical literalism, who is allowed to be or not be an active member, who is allowed to hold a position of authority or even serve from the pulpit, etc. can define a Church as not being a Christian Church? Literal authority even defines which side of the church each sex sits on. Where's the line, for you C?

 

I already explained this, so don't pretend that you lack the intelligence to follow along. You do that whenever you want to be annoying, and you know it.

Math's assertion that the Bible is outdated and is inferior to modern judgments on issues of morality is not something anyone who is actually a Christian could say. Math would then be post-Christian, I suppose. I'm not trying to make him out to be a bad person for thinking that the Bible is subordinate to contemporary groupthink, but I do get annoyed when some people pretend to be Christian while treating the Bible as some relic that can be ignored whenever it becomes inconvenient. Either you believe in it or you don't. That's the line.

 

are you one of those promise keepers?

 

I understand the gist of your position and to some extent I agree. I'm just trying to clarify where you draw that line. What moves from simple interpretation to a discarding of the Bible?

I apologize if it's annoying, but I honestly find your opinions on religious matters interesting. I find this is an area where you and I share some common ground.

You are an avowed agnostic, but you seem to have deep sympathies towards a very fundamentalist view of Christianity. Your viewpoint seems to more from political ideology than a theological base. I'm probably off base on that, but some of your posts in here lean that way in my readings of them. I guess I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

Where are the distinctions spelled out?

 

I see that as more spelling out specific punishments for specifc sins, not a determination of which sins are worse than others.

Plus, that's from the OT, which is superseded by the NT, correct?

 

So all true Christians must belive that the earth was created in 6 days, that life on earth is on 8000 or so years old, and that entire world was englufed by a flood?