Really? What do they think about the parts of the Bible that beat up on gay people?
I've honestly never asked them.
Way to side step the question. I'm not implying anything. I thought my question was pretty clear. What do they think of the parts that beat up on homosexuals? Since I can tell you're looking to pick a fight I'll just post the passages. Ask your friends what they make of them.
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
If they call themselves Christians they are adhering themselves to a religion that says the entire bases for their religion is the Bible. It doesn't sound like that hard of a question. What do they make of those passages?
There are a few things here that are... they're not
misconceptions, really, because they are quite true in some cases, but
generalizations of the Christian Faith.
The most important, really, is the matter of The Bible. It is the basis of the religion, yes, but it's importance does vary from Christian to Christian. Some view it as the literal word of God made into something material. Others see it as a collection of written works that were the basis of a belief system that has grown and evolved since then. Some see The Bible as a sacred object, and others consider the people who hold the book itself to be sacred as being just as guilty of worshiping a false idol as anyone dancing around a pagan statue. There are a lot of differing opinions on this matter, and several others, in the communities of people who call themselves Christian.
As for the quotes themselves. First, let me get out of the way the obligatory reference to the matter of translation. The fact of the matter is, The Bible was not written in English. It wasn't even written in all the same language. Translations are a tricky thing, especially with older, less used, or dead languages, or languages significantly different from English. While some translators get "homosexual," others get "those who abuse themselves with men" or "who make wrong use of men." Now, that sounds like it could mean homosexual, but it also sounds like it could mean other things, and the translation that gets "homosexual" is something of an assumption of the original meaning.
But translations aside, I think a more important issue is interpretation. Let's look at that quote from Corinthians, using one of the more common translations:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."
Now, most take that to mean God's heavenly fury against the unworthy. But others see it differently. One interpretation is that, to attain the Kingdom of God, one must be truly selfless. One must not be distracted by material or selfish things, or be bogged down by an overblown ego. One must be more concerned with spiritual growth and the needs of the greater human family than the petty needs and wants of the every day individual. So, it's not that the people listed above will be punished in hellfire, but that people can't attain the Kingdom of God if they wrap themselves up in selfish material matters, like sex, or monetary gain. It's a life of true selflessness, which means an absence of self and the desires of self. So, they list fornicators, thieves, adulterers, and homosexuals in the context of people who let these base desires for physical things run their lives and wrap all around them. Not people who have very close and loving relationships with people of the same sex, and over all find people of the same sex more attractive, in ways other that but also including finding them sexually attractive.
So yeah. Nightcrawler can be gay. Except for the fact that it would be stupid.