Does a gay person fit into the Chistian Church?

Homosexuality seems to be a subject that has been hidden in the church and especially churches headed by black leadership with mostly black members. I don't have a problem with  a person who says they are gay but I do have a problem with them trying to include gay with ethnicity and civil rights. I think a person can choose to say they are whatever they want, but they still have a choice. I can choose to rob a bank, but to look at me I'd hope you would not think I'm a bank robber. Everybody has free will to do as they please. I don't believe people are born gay, but it is their choice if that is what they want to practice. Can a rapist say they were born that way or a murderer or a thief? I believe that if a person decides to continue to live hostile towards the Word of God who forbades homosexuality as well as beastiality, then they will not go to heaven. The same can be said about a person who chooses to continue to rob, kill, steal, committ adultery, or any other sin. Unless they repent and turn away from that sin or sins, there is room in Hell for anyone who sins against God's Word. I doubt you will find a no vancy sign in hell. A person once asked me if they thought Adolph Hitler was in Heaven. My answer was if Adolph Hitler was in Heaven then I'd rather be in Hell. In other words, if anyone can continue to sin against God and wind up in Heaven, then we all may as well just do whatever we feel like doing anytime. I might wake up and feel like stealing a stuffed animal out of walmart and the next day I might feel like stealing a package of gum. If two men came walking down the isle of your church holding hands or arm in arm, would you stay at that church? Would you say anything or keep quiet and hope the pastor handles it? What if there were children watching, would it be ok with you? Since homosexuauls cannot procreate, has the thought ever occurred to you that it could be a method of wiping the black race off the planet without any racist or government help. not one shot fired?

Ya know I posted up inhere a week ago and this stupit thing didn't go throu, spissssss

I'm sorry I missed this thread. I don't normally participate in the more religious threads, but this one definitely seems interesting.

Rome, do you think you can share your thoughts again? Make sure you copy what you write in case you need to re-paste it.

PT, why do you believe being homosexual is a choice? If it were a choice, then wouldn't someone be able to say that being heterosexual is also a choice? Do you think you chose to be heterosexual or was it something that was ingrained in you since birth?

PT, why do you believe being homosexual is a choice? If it were a choice, then wouldn't someone be able to say that being heterosexual is also a choice? Do you think you chose to be heterosexual or was it something that was ingrained in you since birth?

A matter of choice or a matter of desire (something you want) and your environment. I think when people use the argument to say they were born a certain way (excluding physical appearance) then they are referencing desires. If a homosexual person says they were born gay then a person who says they were born a child molester or a rapist could make that same argument? People could also argue that there is a gene that makes a person a rapist and rape should be accepted in our society too. In 2000, an anthropologist named Craig T. Palmer concluded that all males appear to be genetically capable of rape, and it is an act which can be triggered by environmental conditions or interactions in life. Can a person also be born a thief or do we not say it was their desire (something they wanted) that they chose to steal. If we find a biological gene that validates (proves) that some people are born a certain way, why would we not include and accept them too?  Danielle M. Dick, Ph.D., research assistant professor of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis discovered and wrote that there is an alcohol gene. Can a person who says they are gay, decide they like the opposite sex too? Are they still considered born gay or bisexual? Was it because they were born that way, or because they desired to be with the opposite sex by choice? A person can say they are heterosexual and once they are imprisoned for years with same sex individuals, come out as homosexual. Was the person born that way or was it caused by the environment they were in? A heterosexual man may be in a relationship with one woman, but he may still desire to have sex with other women. Was he born to have desires for only 1 woman or does he make a choice to be with only 1 woman? This brings about another question. Does our desires control us or do we control our desires?
In my book, Self Judge Meant, written in 2005, I wrote about how Paganism has infiltrated Christianity and the World. I wrote that we are just a court case away from a marriage between human and animal. I used the term, "their pets." Since then, there have been many people marrying their pets, animals. What's right seems to be wrong and what's wrong seems to be right.
Doors open slowly. Once completely open, anybody may enter.  Anybody is welcome to enter through my door so long as I have a choice to ask them to leave. 
Rom: 7:5 says, "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death".
God never said everybody was born to go to Heaven, but everybody born has a choice to go to Heaven and the free will to do whatever they want.  
It is up to those who see not where we are, but the revelation to see where we are headed. If I am the only one who can see through the clouds that we are headed for a mountain, am I obligated to tell the pilot or should I keep quiet and prepare for the crash. If you were on the plane, would you believe me?  We all choose to believe whatever we want. As a man thinketh, so is he. Does thinking it make it so, No, but we are who we think we are, be it gay, straight or indifferent.
If the world was filled with men lovers of men and women lovers of women, how long do you think it would take for God's creation to be no more?

Thanks for the response.

I see you adamantly compare homosexuality to rape and stealing; however, in one act (homosexuality) you aren't harming anyone (when it is consensual) as opposed to the other act where the actions aren't wanted and/or are meant to harm or hurt others.

For me, I don't think your sexuality is a choice. I may choose to date a certain man over another and, for me, there's where the choice lies. However, at the end of the day I'm attracted to men and have always been. There has never been an instance where I felt there was another choice for me when it came to my sexuality. And if I feel that way then I can't discredit the way someone else feels, whether they're hetero or homosexual.

I think homosexuality is seen in such a negative light because so many people have been abused by it. For example, we're discussing whether homosexuality fits in the church. Maybe it will fit one day when our church leaders stop criticizing it on one hand and then sleeping with little boys on the other.

Hold on I be with you guys in a minute I'm driving right now

Ok I'm in the house now. Now for this topic I believe that being an homosexual or practicing that life style is a sin just like the for mention sins....but christ died for our sins so that we may repent and work on not sining, or not doing the same sin over. Which is like straight out being willful....the beautiful thing about having christ in our life is that knowing that were human and our flesh is weak, we are more except able to fail when it comes down to being perfect....now with that being said for those fore mention short comings or character defects ppl can ask for forgiveness and work on turning from them ways.. Being gay, a thief, a robber,a lier, and fornication, or adulterous are all choices and can be dealt with. I don't believe ppl are born that way, but that the choices that these ppl make,gives the impression as tho they was born to do these things. even tho I believe that there are ppl that just won't do right no matter how much you talk to them they just do what they want even if its wrong....These ppl I say have closed minds and for some un known reason you can't reason with them. At the same token if there in a church and still acting out on these sins they need to ding deep with in there self and ask is this life style pleasing to god. If the answer is no which we all know it isn't, repent and ask for guidings... Do these ppl have a place in the church? YES my god wants all to repent and be saved...

Either this stupid thing don't post or it repost the same darn thing fifty times....aaaaaaahhhhhgggg

Thanks for the response.
I see you adamantly compare homosexuality to rape and stealing; however, in one act (homosexuality) you aren't harming anyone (when it is consensual) as opposed to the other act where the actions aren't wanted and/or are meant to harm or hurt others.
For me, I don't think your sexuality is a choice. I may choose to date a certain man over another and, for me, there's where the choice lies. However, at the end of the day I'm attracted to men and have always been. There has never been an instance where I felt there was another choice for me when it came to my sexuality. And if I feel that way then I can't discredit the way someone else feels, whether they're hetero or homosexual.
I think homosexuality is seen in such a negative light because so many people have been abused by it. For example, we're discussing whether homosexuality fits in the church. Maybe it will fit one day when our church leaders stop criticizing it on one hand and then sleeping with little boys on the other.

-brnepanther

Guys in prison don't go there thinking they attracted to other men. I'm sure you've seen interviews in the media of what goes on there. It is not because they were born that way.
Pastor Donnie McClurkin the gospel singer said he was molested growing up and  admitted to being attracted to men, but now says he no longer feels that way and is looking for a wife. Was he born gay or has he made a choice in his life? I was born black, but I cannot wake up tomorrow and be white and then change back to being black.
I compared homosexuality with rape and stealing to show that we all have a choice and free will to act or not act upon our desires or feelings, whether they be harmful or harmless. We have to be able to control our feelings and desires or we allow them to control us, our civility level. Perhaps one day homosexuality, bisexuality, beastiality, orgies and all other forms of sex and love will fit in the church and be openly accepted. Maybe prostitution will be allowed in the church. Maybe a person will be allowed to light up a joint in church and pass it around to who ever wants a hit. Where do we draw the line or do we accept whatever comes our way, as long as it's harmless and no one gets hurt? Is this the all inclusive kingdom of God or of our all inclusive society. There is a group like that and they are called Pagans.
Satan was in Heaven and with his free will he started a war and a third of the angels went with him. God made satan, gave him free will and with his free will satan chose to sin against God. Pastors and church leaders have free will and they make choices. There is no gray area with God, either we are for Him or we are against Him and His Word, without compromise. I was born a sinner, but I made a choice to go with God and his Word, without compromise. 
 

*sigh* I'm sorry, but this will be a discussion I will agree to disagree with you on. On one hand Rome mentions that people are so closed minded that they won't see reason, but it sounds like there may be some closed mindedness in here.

I'm not religious and because of that I normally stay out of these threads, but the fact remains that Christians tend to do a lot more judging then they should. I thought Christianity wasn't about judging others. If God loves us, and I mean all of us, then why do we have issues with loving ourselves and others?

Hmm ...

Let me start by saying that I'm not one of those extremist waving the holy bible and smacking ppl up side the head with scriptures. Judging ppl is not the christian way. them that do are IMO deflecting you from there mess. A person who has knowledge of self can share there character, defects and or short comings and use it to teach some one because they them selfs have over come it.....Pointing fingers, down talking like oh yous going to hell for that. Then turn right around and sin them selfs...don't make any since to me, but ppl do them things. And guess what they them selfs are the one who need to be in the church, not cause there perfect but because there not...I said this before and will say it again; a house is burning down, you need a Fire fighter. There's a robbery going on you need a cop on the seen. You are sick and have a bad cold, call on a doctor......well sinners need christ in there life to get better. Simple as that....like even tho I have been baptized, excepted christ as my lord and savior, every day I pray that I'm ok in the eyes of my father. Will I ever be perfect no as long as I keep breathing I'm going to f up some where doing something. That's why I'm glad I have him in my life.....

Most religions are anti-gay. This is one of those worldviews where Christians and Muslims alike find common ground. They both see homosexuality as some sort of special sin. After all, it is the rare [perhaps even non-existent] Christian or Muslim who has never engaged in fornication. Yet they still end up, clearly, practicing less tolerance of homosexual 'sin' than fornication 'sin'.
 
To have any chance of understanding the view I wish to articulate, you must be willing to at least consider that the _physical_ bible may not be the _spiritual_ Word of God. Needless to say, that pretty much equates to your not being a Christian since Christianity absolutely insists that the _physical_ bible is the Word of God. But, that particular teaching, interesting enough, did not originate with Jesus. After all, there was no bible, at least not as we know it today, during the 30 years or so that Jesus walked the earth as a mortal. The closest they had, then, to our bible was Mosiac law which was more or less reflective of the Old Testament of our bible. But, that creates all sorts of problems because a honest person ultimately has to concede that much of the Sermon On The Mount is dedicated to correcting church folks' misperceptions about what the Mosaic law --- the Old Testament --- really is supposed to mean.
 
There are no red words in the bible which speak specifically about homosexuality. So from whence did Christian intolerance of gays originate? From the idea that the _physical_ bible is the _spiritual_ Word of God. Which, in turn, as with so many other of Christianity's tenets of intolerance, originated from the distinctly hellenic councils which took place a few centuries after Jesus had ascended back to the One Who Is All.
 
Yes, there are anti-gay verses in the bible, both Old Testament and pauline verses in the New Testament. But, then, the bible, both Old and New Testaments, also contains other intolerance based tenets such as women keeping silent in churches, the rape of virgins, executing disrespectful children, and other examples of man's ungodliness being deified as the engraven images spoken of in the spirit of the literal words of the 3rd to 4th verses of the 20th chapter of Exodus.
 
It is a testament to the Mark of the Beast which otherwise reasonable Christians have accepted on their foreheads [ie, their minds] that they so easily accept such distinctly ungodly dogma as the Word of God.
 
The key, albeitly an unChristian one, to understanding where Jesus stood on this is to, first, empty your cup of what you think you know and then, closely, ponder a couple of teachings of Jesus. Here is the first from the 8th chapter of the gospel of John:
 
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

In the above scripture, church folks came to Jesus, standing upon the scriptures which they considered to the Word of God, and attempted to get Christ to confirm their intolerance of a woman caught in adultery just as Christians stand upon their _physical_ bible, which they consider to be the _spiritual_ Word of God, and condemn gays to an eternity in hell.

Now, here is the 2nd Christ-ian [albeit not Christian] teaching I spoke of:

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Here, yet some more church folks, again standing on their imperfect understanding of _physical_ scriptures they assumed to be the _spiritual_ Word of God, attempted to get Jesus to confirm their ignorance as being the Word. But, note, if I, the real I, am not the body, not flesh, but spirit [ie, made in the image of God] then sex, whether it be hetero or homo --- even whether it be "a man shall cleave to a woman" or fornication --- is not only unneccesary but often can pose a distraction from our Divine Purpose which is to be One as Jesus and his Father are One.

Jesus highlighted their error by simply pointing out that sex, period, is of the flesh and that, when we get to heaven, we will be as the angels who have no need for sex, not even heterosexual sex.

But, for those who have ears and can hear, the kingdom of heaven is [present tense] _within_ you, not a _physical_ place you cannot go to until your _physical_ body dies:

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

What all this means, by the way, is that Jesus, who is in heaven, as with the angels, also has no need to engage in sex -- not even heterosexual sex. Now, that gives a whole new meaning to "What Would Jesus Do" does it not? But, of course, those people who ride around with WWJD bumper stickers on their cars do not really know Jesus the Christ in Heaven anyway. That one who they know as Jesus is the neutered version of the Christ deified by the Beast and the Woman who sits on the Beast, aka the union of church and state, dating all the way back to the union of certain church fathers and pagan emperors such as "saint" Constantine".

If you would really do as Jesus would do, then move beyond the "him without sin" judging of gays by hellenic Christianity, move beyond the non-agape love taught by literal interpretations of _physical_ scriptures, and, instead, seek to be One as I and my Father as One:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

I have very mixed views/emotions about this subject. I think God made a man for a woman and vice versus. I don't care what religion you follow... almost all have a creation story very similar to Adam and Eve in Genesis and it is quite clear that God created the two sexes to love one another and procreate. 

I agree we all sin and who should cast the first stone. I cannot recall (not a scholar) anywhere in the Bible where God ranks sin in terms of that which he feels is worse. Meaning, I think he sees all sin as the same... Man ranks how horrible each sin is, based on emotions and a worldly view of what is and is not acceptable. For instance, the more personal the sin is to us... the more horrible it is... murder, adultry... is very personal, most people have a hard time forgiving those. Other sins... theft is worse when it happens to us or one we care for... we determine what each of us as individuals consider theft... take a pen from work lately??

Fornication is one of those understandable sins for many Christians because they participate in it. Years ago the tolerance level was not so high and other Christians were not so forgiving of it. Media and exposure has lessened our condemnation of it... the same goes for homosexuality. The more it's placed in front of people, the more accepting it has become.

That being said... I do not think it's natural or what was intended for humans. Not condemning anyone, I have a brother thats gay... still trying to figure that out... BUT, I am one that believes that for any "sin" that one is knowingly engaged in... that person should NOT have any leadership role in a Christian church.

Reason being... the Church has a purpose and is based off Biblical teachings and beliefs. Those beliefs do not change and evolve because man's tolerance does.

So if you are committing any sin knowingly... adultry, fornication, theft, homosexuality, habitual liars...you should not be shunned... we all sin... but you should not be teaching others... what the ways of the Christian church are either...

The question was, Does a Gay person fit into the Christian church, not if God loves them or if they will or will not go to heaven. God loves us all, even those who don't love or believe in Him. In reference to Istlota stating that the physical bible is not the spiritual Word of God: Until God gives you or someone else words which were written on scrolls, some of which I have viewed, what you state is simply what you believe and interpret to be true.  There's not enough space for me to go into the origination of the Holy bible and the Torah. However, I did write about it in my book, Self Judge Meant.  In my opinion, Christians intolerance to homosexuality originated from the beginning of its first visual or perceived act. The reason being, that any sin seen or percieved is intolerant. In other words, that which some view as sin that can be seen is less tolerant than sin unseen. For instance, a preacher may be gay, but if you only see him holding hands and kissing women, he is tolerated and continues his leadership role in the church, but once he is seen holding hands and kissing another man, then he is not tolerated. A woman may not have ever seen her husband with another woman, but if she smells foreign perfume, sees sext messages, her perception is that he has committed adultery (intolerance). I am sure that if she had caught him in the act, a more deadly sin (intolerance) might have been committed. We are all born with sin and in sin, but we have the right and freedom to choose to stop, repent and sin no more or continue doing whatever we want with our own justification, explanation and belief. At the end of the 8th chapter of John, it says "And Sin No More." That was the key and still is key in whatever sin one commits or continues to commit. Any and all sin seperates us from God, regardless of if it's adultery, fornication or homosexuality. It is what happened in the very beginning when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Adam's sin seperated him  from God and look at the price for his sin. If a person chooses to continue to live in sin according to my belief, God gave them free will to do just that.
What would Jesus do is not scriptually based because, His ways and thoughts are not ours and indeed higher than ours so how could we possibly ask the question and expect an answer that can be understood by others.
The arguement of gay and straight in Christianity is a lot like some who state that the bibe says, Thou Shalt Not Kill" but it does not say what not to kill, so some argue that if you kill a cockroach, an ant, a fly or a mosquito, you have committed a sin and broke one of the commandments. Justification or clarification.
This might be unrelated to the topic, but thought I'd write it anyway. Sometimes when you see people walking down the street with a backpack and a sign that says, Will work for food," many times we  view them as homeless, hitchiking ,wonderers, or dirty drifters. What if they had a backpack filled with holy books that they were giving away at each town they went to. Would you still view them the same as before?  Are we wonderers or people on a mission? People on a mission clarify while wonderers justify. 

I agree that many people who think they understand scripture do not. But, I disagree that those who have been formally trained at a seminary, or who took the time to educate themselves in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew are more able to discern truth from doctrines of men. Quite to the contrary, and I say this based on being from an extended family of many preachers -- both formally and informally trained -- including my seminary graduate father:

Seminaries excel in conditioning students to accept, without question, the doctrines of men established by the church fathers of their religion of choice.

Jesus taught that we would be shown all things, not by seminaries, not by the Sannhedrin, not by studying the original language of the text, but by the Comforter aka the Spirit of Truth aka the Holy Spirit [St. John 14:16-17, 26]. Indeed, Jesus was often more critical than even I of the formally trained theologians of his day [Matthew 16:6]. This was a point of view shared by John the Baptist [Matthew 3:7].

The most relevant example of this point I am making was the author of most of the books of the New Testament, Paul. Paul, then called Saul, was formally trained as a Pharisee and was undoubtedly quite fluent in whatever was the language of the original texts [be it Greek or Aramaic]. Yet, all that formal education only led him to be the penultimate persecutor of the disciples of Jesus. This continued until Paul "saw the Light" on the road to Damascus. From there, the Comforter removed the scales from his eyes and led him to informal training at the feet of Ananias and other disciples of Jesus [Acts chapter 9].

It is illuminating to consider if, perhaps, it was a remnant of that not quite wholly exorcised formal education which led Paul to become the author of the New Testament's most damning verses regarding the ungodliness of gays, the appropriateness of slaves obeying  their masters, and the inappropriateness of women speaking in the church [apparently, Paul was not aware that one of Jesus' first, and most effective, missionaries was the woman at the well].