The Bible and Love and Christians

[dwmckim]

I'm kind of confused, it's been said on here that the act of homo sexuality is a sin. I always thought that was a lifestyle, am I wrong?

Well, if those are your only two choices, no wonder you're confused!

I'll give you my thoughts in a moment but first let me ask you a question:

Is your heterosexuality a lifestyle or a sin?

I'm not being smart or funny (though i won't protest if anyone wants to think of me as either!) - but really, when people want to talk about what being gay "is" and "isn't", it really helps clarify things if they first think about what the answers to the same questions asked back at them about their being straight are and how you would personally answer.

What is a "gay lifestyle"? Wish i knew. It sounds like something where everyone attends fabulous soirees looking immaculately gorgeous with perfect hair and designer-label-only clothes and you get a free toaster after kissing your first boy! Wearing polyester or white after Labor Day means immediate surrender of your Gay Card. There's a secret handshake and we all have a special choreographed dance we all do perfectly whenever a Donna Sommer song is played and we pray each night at the alter of Barbara (but we're only allowed to call her "Babs") Streisand. Each get together must include club sandwiches on wheat bread and we earn bonus points any time you say "oh SNAP", "FAB-u-lous" or the Special Word of the Day (today's word is "divine"). We hold intellectual panel discussions over red wine debating such topics as "are there really such a thing as straight Muppet Freaks?"

Sounds nifty. Where do i sign up?

I don't have a "lifestyle" much less a "gay lifestyle". We all come from different walks of life and have different experiences, likes/dislikes, views, etc. If one was to use me as an example, a "gay lifestyle" would be defined as being alone, seldom dating, facing both overt and subtle discrimination for being above my ideal weight from within the gay community and totally browbeat from the straight community having faced just about every possible form of anti-gay bigotry there is (with the thankful exception of physical violence): job loss, home loss, family loss, theft, vandalism of home and car, harassment, etc - and i'm not even dating or having/enjoying any of the "benefits"! (Honestly, if a large portion of my life is going to include actively being persecuted for being gay, shouldn't i at least have a hot boyfriend so all that suffering isn't in vain?) My "gay lifestyle" means being dirt poor and constantly terrified of how i'm going to pay this month's bills while driving around in a car that's falling apart in a dozen different ways and is just a matter of time before i can't use it anymore and having to squint at everything because i can't afford an updated eye exam to get new contact lenses to replace the eight month old ones i'm wearing now.

But enough about the "gay lifestyle" - what's the "straight lifestyle"? Donna Reed? Jersey Shore? Desperate Housewives? The Munsters? Married...with Children? MTV Spring Break? Which of those is the correct representation of it?

So "lifestyle" gets the Big Obnoxious Game Show Buzzer. It's a "nothing" word really used only by opponents to depict us as some mythic iconic image of debauchery and hedonism.

Is it a sin? I dunno - is your heterosexuality?

To me, what makes a person "gay" or "straight" is what they're naturally biologically attracted to. One can either totally accept it or totally deny it or more likely some element in between - but that's what it comes down to (and i'm not even getting into the more nuanced elements of the middle choices on the Kinsey Scale!) Can someone be gay and a virgin? Raises hand. I hold onto the same value systems in regards to relationships i had growing up and the gender involved doesn't change things - i prefer to wait til i have a committed life partner. This is why words like "homosexual" (and "heterosexual") aren't the best choices - they're clinical scientific terms which when taken literally mean "one who has sex with the (same/opposite) gender". Well, by that definition i'm neither het or homo but i sure as heck am no less gay.

Just as straight people do, there are infinite ways a gay person lives their lives and have relationships and treat others. One can treat their relationships as one big drunk college party orgy (straight or gay) or one can treat their partners with love, respect, caring, with the friendship first above all else - or any manner in between. I do not choose to be gay and i'm sure you'd say you don't choose to be straight. You just are. What we DO choose is how we engage in our relationships and treat others. And yes, there's any number of what can be viewed as "wrong choices" (again both gay and straight alike) - and one person's right may be another's wrong and vice versa.

To go back to your original question of "what is it?" Well, any dictionary worth its salt will give multiple definitions for just about any word within it and various contexts a word may be used. Which is part of the reason so many people have a hard time seeing eye to eye about gays - they're using the same words but speaking different languages.

I don't see my gayness as a choice. I don't see it as a sin. All i know is that at the end of the day i dream of being held tightly and lovingly in Ben Browder or Scott Evans' arms rather than Courtney Cox's or Vanna White's or whoever them straight folk are tweetin' about these days.

(oh, and by the way...)

If my gaining equal civil rights actually does bring about a plague of frogs, I promise to buy them all tiny banjos!

I so want this on a t-shirt! S'pose i can get one at the Local Gay Lifestyle Boutique at the Special Gay Lifestyle Membership Discount of 10% if i say the Fabulous Gay Lifestyle Word of the Day and tell them "Judy sent me"?

 

[GonzoLeaper]

I've seen many people and families torn apart because of this denial, but have yet to see a happy and emotionally healthy ex-gay; and I know a lot of people in all walks of life.

I guess when talking about truth and changing we must go with what speaks to us. With you it's Jesus who tells you things are right and wrong through the Holy Spirit, prayer and Biblical studies. Therefore you see being gay as a sin and/or a disorder. I come from the realm of common sense (God-given or not), science and the knowledge of personal experience and of those who have touched my life. Because of this I view belief in the Bible to be like how a child hangs on to the idea of the Easter Bunny as long as he can because it's all he's known to that point and the alternative isn't as appealing.

That isn't meant to be offensive. I'm must illustrating both sides of the coin. But in this thread I've actually refrained from much of my Easter Bunny rhetoric because it's offensive while many Christians liberally toss about terms like "sin" and unkind adjectives. The reason for this is because I know where we both stand and I'd rather reach a respectful understanding rather than legitimize my life in the hearts of others. That would be a nice thing, but civil rights are my only focus.

Just wanted to clarify that I never said homosexuality is a mental disorder. I've never liked that classification and I find that offensive for people to say that. I do think it's wrong because God says so in The Bible, but it's no more a mental disorder than alcoholism is a disease. I really don't like that classification either because it's not the same thing as having cancer or something. Alcohol acts like a cancer for an addict, sure- but nonetheless, there is always a choice on whether to give in or not to the addiction, whatever it is.
Anyway- I'm sorry that you didn't appreciate the analogy to alcoholism, but I meant that only as an example. I guess the better word would have been addiction or lust, which is the same issue that every single human being deals with- the lust for wrong things, the thing in our nature that makes us choose to do the wrong even when we know the right thing to do- and I mean that for any area of life, not just sexuality.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure most Christians would be offended by comparing to belief in Christ with belief in the Easter Bunny, but honestly- I've heard it before and I know that many think Christianity to be nothing more than a fairy tale. And in many ways, it reads like one. But this is truly the Greatest Story ever told- like the great myths of old, except that this is the one true myth, as J.R.R. Tolkien once said.
Honestly, everyone is going to believe something about life and God and spirituality and eternity and so on- and different groups may think the other is constantly pursuing a pipe dream. I understand that and that's okay. I do think both sides can learn to address each other with respect though and not belittle the others' beliefs. And this forum has been pretty good about that particularly on a thread like this that definitely can raise emotions quickly.

It is their right to do so, but, with God as your witness here, would you honestly marry an "ex-gay" person? It's convenient talking about people and in an abstract, but once you meet individuals and they touch your life it's a completely different ballgame.

Interesting question. Honestly, I don't know. But I suppose if I really felt God telling me to do so, I would. I mean, God told Ezekiel to lie on his sides for a little over a year and eat bread cooked over cow dung (which was downgraded from the original human excrement requirement), He told Isaiah to go around naked for three years and He told Hosea to marry a prostitute. I mention these incidents in The Bible that God might ask any number of things of His people and the response should always be a sure faith saying, "Yes, I'll do it."
But with straight people, you have similar tough questions- would you marry a woman who's been known to be promiscuous? I think it really depends on how much in love both parties truly are and whether you're strong enough to deal with these issues rather than just write people off completely.

Can someone be gay and a virgin? Raises hand. I hold onto the same value systems in regards to relationships i had growing up and the gender involved doesn't change things - i prefer to wait til i have a committed life partner. This is why words like "homosexual" (and "heterosexual") aren't the best choices - they're clinical scientific terms which when taken literally mean "one who has sex with the (same/opposite) gender".

Okay- this raised an interesting question to me. And I know I've heard different gay people I've talked with tell me that believe in comitted relationships just as much as Christians value them in straight relationships.
Do you suppose many or most gay people would say that adultery is wrong? i.e. Having sex before marriage and/or having sex with someone other than your spouse.
I know that kind of a question is really up to every individual person though, so you may not really be able to answer that well. I would hope I could say that all straight people and gay people would view adultery as wrong- but sadly, I know that's not the case.
One last question then- do you think all gay people believe that they should have the right to be joined in union with their lovers? (Again- sorry if this sounds like a loaded question - I'm not really trying or meaning for it to be...)
Do you suppose any gay people might still hold to the view that marriage is made to be between a man and a woman only?

 

[frogboy4]

Just wanted to clarify that I never said homosexuality is a mental disorder. I've never liked that classification and I find that offensive for people to say that. I do think it's wrong because God says so in The Bible, but it's no more a mental disorder than alcoholism is a disease. I really don't like that classification either because it's not the same thing as having cancer or something. Alcohol acts like a cancer for an addict, sure- but nonetheless, there is always a choice on whether to give in or not to the addiction, whatever it is.
Anyway- I'm sorry that you didn't appreciate the analogy to alcoholism, but I meant that only as an example. I guess the better word would have been addiction or lust, which is the same issue that every single human being deals with- the lust for wrong things, the thing in our nature that makes us choose to do the wrong even when we know the right thing to do- and I mean that for any area of life, not just sexuality.

Interesting question. Honestly, I don't know. But I suppose if I really felt God telling me to do so, I would.

But with straight people, you have similar tough questions- would you marry a woman who's been known to be promiscuous? I think it really depends on how much in love both parties truly are and whether you're strong enough to deal with these issues rather than just write people off completely.

I really appreciate this dialogue, yet I must point out again that you've equated being gay to addiction, lust and promiscuity. The first thing I look at in a fella is his smile and the reason why I go on a second date is the good reciprocal energy of our time together. Lust, addition and promiscuity are entirely different motives that aren't part of my decision-making process. I guess it's something that develops in most everybody when we mature. I'm not saying that gays fall in line with what many people feel about the Bible, but the truth is that a gay couple can be just as virtuous as a straight couple.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Okay- thank you for your answer to my questions.
I'm sorry that I can't seem to word this so that it comes out exactly right. The point I was trying to make is that, although obviously gay people do not see homosexuality as wrong but rather just who they are- for Christians who do see homosexuality as a wrongful choice- it is comparable to what The Bible calls "the lust of the flesh". It's not so much the addiction comparison (in the sense of drug or alcohol or smoking habit) I was trying to get at- but the continuing desire for the wrong (which could be thought of as an addiction of a different kind.)
But sexuality issues aside, that natural bent toward doing wrong things is present in all humans no matter what the moral question is- whether it's lying or cheating or stealing or slander, etc.
In any case, this is what The Bible teaches- though there are some who would disagree with that as well of course.
I mean- I get the feeling that any painting of homosexuality in a negative light is going to leave gay people offended, which only makes sense. (Thus any analogy I use will probably not be received very well.) The same reciprocal is true for those who tell me that all religions are anathema and folks like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who seem to think that religion poisons everything and so forth. (And I was not trying to compare anyone here to them- I was just saying that things swing to extremes in any direction.) But for me to stay true to what The Bible says (and yes, I realize some people will tell me this is only my own interpretation, but nonetheless) - there just isn't any positive light to paint it in. That's why I talk about Jesus so much because He is the Only Positive who can change anyone. I say that not only because of what I read in The Bible- but because I've seen Him makes changes in my life.

 

[RedPiggy]

The point I was trying to make is that, although obviously gay people do not see homosexuality as wrong but rather just who they are- for Christians who do see homosexuality as a wrongful choice- it is comparable to what The Bible calls "the lust of the flesh".

I'm a virgin. While I have (ahem) daydreams, the thought of having sex irritates the dickens out of me. Would you appreciate being told I thought all people who had sex were perverted? Would you appreciate being told I thought people who brought children into this world were simply out for "Social Security" slaves? The problem with going on and on about sins is that at some point someone's going to start going on and on about you.

It's not so much the addiction comparison (in the sense of drug or alcohol or smoking habit) I was trying to get at- but the continuing desire for the wrong (which could be thought of as an addiction of a different kind.)

But at some point we have to take a peek at the behavior or thought in question and ask ourselves if what we've been taught about something is accurate. And I don't think it is. I'm supposed to be executed for just speaking without a father or husband approving it, just because I'm a woman. That's in the bible, and quite frankly, it's a bunch of crap from some misogynists.

But sexuality issues aside, that natural bent toward doing wrong things is present in all humans no matter what the moral question is- whether it's lying or cheating or stealing or slander, etc.

But what seems to not be getting through is the idea that a lot of what we consider moral now, like democracy and freedom and civil rights and such WERE considered immoral THEN. It is not that we lost our "natural bents", but that those "bents" were labeled by people who just didn't like those things and profited from doing the opposite.

I mean, why do you think businesses don't whine as much as everyone else about illegal immigration? BECAUSE THEY PROFIT FROM IT. And yet any call for businesses to be socially responsible to the community that permitted them to exist is automatically evil.

(Thus any analogy I use will probably not be received very well.)

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned some less offensive (at least in my eyes) analogies, like "nerddom" or "chocolate lover" or something. It's just something that you dig, and your biology tends to influence the way you dig stuff.

there just isn't any positive light to paint it in

Of course there is. The taboo against homosexuality is why the biblical authors bent over backwards (so to speak) to gloss over King David and Saul's Jonathan. "Platonic love" my eye. All the hullabaloo about Jesus getting hitched is almost assuredly meant to stop us from thinking too much about Him hanging out with 12 men all the time and saying nothing good about family values. God made heroes out of murderers, thieves, women, the underdog, the moron ... what makes people think He seriously has nothing good to say about a homosexual person?

 

[frogboy4]

Okay- thank you for your answer to my questions.
I'm sorry that I can't seem to word this so that it comes out exactly right. The point I was trying to make is that, although obviously gay people do not see homosexuality as wrong but rather just who they are- for Christians who do see homosexuality as a wrongful choice- it is comparable to what The Bible calls "the lust of the flesh". It's not so much the addiction comparison (in the sense of drug or alcohol or smoking habit) I was trying to get at- but the continuing desire for the wrong (which could be thought of as an addiction of a different kind.)
But sexuality issues aside, that natural bent toward doing wrong things is present in all humans no matter what the moral question is- whether it's lying or cheating or stealing or slander, etc.
In any case, this is what The Bible teaches- though there are some who would disagree with that as well of course.
I mean- I get the feeling that any painting of homosexuality in a negative light is going to leave gay people offended, which only makes sense. (Thus any analogy I use will probably not be received very well.) The same reciprocal is true for those who tell me that all religions are anathema and folks like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who seem to think that religion poisons everything and so forth. (And I was not trying to compare anyone here to them- I was just saying that things swing to extremes in any direction.) But for me to stay true to what The Bible says (and yes, I realize some people will tell me this is only my own interpretation, but nonetheless) - there just isn't any positive light to paint it in. That's why I talk about Jesus so much because He is the Only Positive who can change anyone. I say that not only because of what I read in The Bible- but because I've seen Him makes changes in my life.

I need to make this distinction: I'm not citing the painting of gay people in a negative light as the offense. On the contrary, the negative light you are painting is a rather severe one that includes alcoholism, addiction, lying, cheating, stealing, lust and slander. Those are some mighty extreme characterizations you're lumping along side us gay folk. If you do view being gay as a sin then you should at least acknowledge that it is one that can often be based in affection and not something underhanded or criminal. Even though Christians see all sin as sin, that particular difference should be crystal clear and it should not bewilder anyone why that level of rhetoric is offensive. Maybe, just maybe, divorce and unmarried cohabitation are a bit closer to the mark in terms of the type of sin from your Bible.

You wouldn't want me to lump all of Christianity with the Westboro Church or the KKK even though they claim to have faith in God so in that same token I don't want to be lumped with crooks and junkies just because my partner in life will be of the same gender. I don't mind that you won't endorse gay people because of your religion, but that doesn't require likening us to the most heinous types of people.

Also, Jesus never said a thing about gay people. Not one word. I know there's a lot of rationalization of why he didn't speak on the subject, but be honest. Don't you find that strange?

And I must reiterate my objection to your soul use of the word homosexual to describe gay people because it intentionally focuses on the sexual aspect of the relationship, thus distorting the wealth of the fullness our relationships can and do attain.

 

[CensoredAlso]

But at some point we have to take a peek at the behavior or thought in question and ask ourselves if what we've been taught about something is accurate. And I don't think it is.I'm supposed to be executed for just speaking without a father or husband approving it, just because I'm a woman. That's in the bible, and quite frankly, it's a bunch of crap from some misogynists.

I understand what you're saying about questioning what you're taught. Thankfully, no Church I ever went to supported the idea of executing someone just because they're a woman. The Church has grown over the past thousands of years, changed a lot of its view on things, and that's been a good thing. : )

 

[GonzoLeaper]

I'm a virgin. While I have (ahem) daydreams, the thought of having sex irritates the dickens out of me. Would you appreciate being told I thought all people who had sex were perverted? Would you appreciate being told I thought people who brought children into this world were simply out for "Social Security" slaves? The problem with going on and on about sins is that at some point someone's going to start going on and on about you.

But that was my point too. I'm a virgin as well. And sex should only take place within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.
If that was what you honestly thought, it wouldn't bother me. I'd rather hear what you honestly think than to be vague or misleading. This isn't an exercise in masochism- I was trying to point that there are tons of sins I can go on and on about myself as it is- and I'm sure lots of others that those who know me could point out that I may not always see myself right away. And frankly, I need to hear it and repent- and continue to seek God's help to walk the way He wants me to.

But at some point we have to take a peek at the behavior or thought in question and ask ourselves if what we've been taught about something is accurate. And I don't think it is. I'm supposed to be executed for just speaking without a father or husband approving it, just because I'm a woman. That's in the bible, and quite frankly, it's a bunch of crap from some misogynists.

Speaking of that honesty I was just talking about- and I hope you don't take offense at this, but I really feel that there are some passages of The Bible you have heard that are taken way out of context. That sounds more like the staunch policies of the Koran more than The Bible. God is not misogynistic at all. He has a very important place for women- and Galatians 3:28 says there is no male or female in Christ Jesus- all are one in Him.

But what seems to not be getting through is the idea that a lot of what we consider moral now, like democracy and freedom and civil rights and such WERE considered immoral THEN. It is not that we lost our "natural bents", but that those "bents" were labeled by people who just didn't like those things and profited from doing the opposite.

I mean, why do you think businesses don't whine as much as everyone else about illegal immigration? BECAUSE THEY PROFIT FROM IT. And yet any call for businesses to be socially responsible to the community that permitted them to exist is automatically evil.

Well, when it's God doing the labelling, I don't think any of us are in any position to question Him. This gets into the question of realitivity and morality- and I believe in the absolute standards that God has laid down in The Bible.

Of course there is. The taboo against homosexuality is why the biblical authors bent over backwards (so to speak) to gloss over King David and Saul's Jonathan. "Platonic love" my eye. All the hullabaloo about Jesus getting hitched is almost assuredly meant to stop us from thinking too much about Him hanging out with 12 men all the time and saying nothing good about family values. God made heroes out of murderers, thieves, women, the underdog, the moron ... what makes people think He seriously has nothing good to say about a homosexual person?

Well, The Bible does say that God uses the vain things of the world to shame the wise. I don't think David and Jonathan were gay though and Jesus didn't come to get married. He spent time discipling the 12 guys He hung out with so that they could go out and preach the Gospel as well. If you were suggesting that Jesus was gay, I would have to say that would be blasphemous, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion. Jesus came to die on the cross and rise again to bring salvation to the world. God does have something good to say about a gay person. He said in John 3:16 that He loves gay people and straight people so much that He sent His Son Jesus to save all of us.

I need to make this distinction: I'm not citing the painting of gay people in a negative light as the offense. On the contrary, the negative light you are painting is a rather severe one that includes alcoholism, addiction, lying, cheating, stealing, lust and slander. Those are some mighty extreme characterizations you're lumping along side us gay folk. If you do view being gay as a sin then you should at least acknowledge that it is one that can often be based in affection and not something underhanded or criminal. Even though Christians see all sin as sin, that particular difference should be crystal clear and it should not bewilder anyone why that level of rhetoric is offensive. Maybe, just maybe, divorce and unmarried cohabitation are a bit closer to the mark in terms of the type of sin from your Bible.

You wouldn't want me to lump all of Christianity with the Westboro Church or the KKK even though they claim to have faith in God so in that same token I don't want to be lumped with crooks and junkies just because my partner in life will be of the same gender. I don't mind that you won't endorse gay people because of your religion, but that doesn't require likening us to the most heinous types of people.

So you're saying it's okay for me to believe that The Bible says that being gay is bad, but you don't appreciate it being compared to sins that you would consider to be on a much deeper level wicked? I can understand that position and I apologize that it comes across that way.
This goes back to the issue of relativity and measuring morality. How does one determine what is worse than anything else? It seems most people agree that murder is the most heinous act someone can do since it robs a person of the second most precious gift they have on this Earth- their physical life. (I say second because I believe a person's eternal soul is the most precious thing they have and the salvation offered through Jesus for everyone's soul is the most precious gift ever.)
But whether a robber steals thousands of dollars from a bank or a kid steals a candy bar from a grocery store, it's still stealing and both are equally wrong. They won't get the same jail time obviously- but they will both get some form of punishment when caught.
God doesn't view either person here as more righteous than the other- but most are equally wrong in this sin and equally culpable. The problem is that we judge our lives and our standards of morality based in comparison to other people and our ideas of what those standards should be- whether from we've grown up with, what we've been taught, etc.
Man looks at the outward appearance, but The Lord looks at the heart. And God describes the human heart as desperately wicked. He judges us based on His standards and not our own. Thus we all fail when compared to His absolute perfection. This is why we need Jesus who paid the penalty for us.
Now I know you may have heard all this before and obviously you've rejected The Bible as your basis for living and I understand that. However, I point it out to show why I made the comparisons earlier- because God makes them.
I can't say that I'm any better than Fred Phelps at Westboro Baptist Church or Adolf Hitler or John Wayne Gacy, Jr. (as Sufjan Stevens pointed out in one of my favorite songs from him- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otx49Ko3fxw) In God's eyes, all the wrongs I've done are just as bad as the wrongs they did.
I wasn't trying to cast gay people as just a "heinous" group of people- I was saying that everyone on Earth is equally heinous and myself most heinous of all before I would lay blame on anyone else. Sometimes I feel like I'm fighting Paul for the title of "chief of sinners". And it's those times when I am so glad for the wonderful grace of Jesus that is greater than all my sins.

Also, Jesus never said a thing about gay people. Not one word. I know there's a lot of rationalization of why he didn't speak on the subject, but be honest. Don't you find that strange?

To this I would say that all of The Bible is Jesus' Word because He wrote it all- and thus, He did speak about homosexuality. As far as whether The Gospels record Jesus specifically speaking about this, I would point to Matthew 19 where Jesus was questioned about divorce. He quoted Genesis 2:24 here and explained that God's pattern for sexuality is one man and one woman joined in holy matrimony who then become one flesh. Jesus also said in Matthew 5:17 that He didn't come to abolish The Law or The Prophets, but to fulfill them. Jesus is the Only One who ever perfectly fulfilled The Law because He's God. In some places, He spoke to what the heart of The Law was getting to- see Matthew 5-8 for that in the Sermon on the Mount. And of course, The Law points out that there's a problem in our hearts. And that's what Jesus came to fix.

And I must reiterate my objection to your soul use of the word homosexual to describe gay people because it intentionally focuses on the sexual aspect of the relationship, thus distorting the wealth of the fullness our relationships can and do attain.

I apologize for that- you have stated your objection to that word and I didn't intentionally use that just to rile you. That was an honest slip- sorry about that. I will try to be more careful with the use of that word since you have said that it focuses solely on the sexual aspect of gay relationships and you don't appreciate that characterization. I don't think most Christians who might glibly use the word "homosexual" are necessarily thinking that- I think it's more meant as a distinction between "homosexual" and "heterosexual" without trying to make it a loaded word- but especially given the literal meaning of both words, I can understand your point.

 

[CensoredAlso]

If you were suggesting that Jesus was gay, I would have to say that would be blasphemous, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

I personally don't think God is into labeling people as blasphemous. That's more akin to the boasteful and selfish Greek gods. But you are welcome to your opinion as well.

I will say though that speculating about Jesus being gay is the same as speculating that Bert & Ernie or all the The Hobbits are gay. If people want to interpret it that way that's fine, but it doesn't mean that's what the author intended.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

I personally don't think God is into labeling people as blasphemous. That's more akin to the boasteful and selfish Greek gods. But you are welcome to your opinion as well.

To clarify, I was saying that the suggestion or statement as such itself would be blasphemy and God certainly addresses that in The Bible. (of course, if we're going to look into labels, then by the definition of the word- every single person, myself included, would certainly be a blasphemer every time we disobey God.)