Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[OllieFranz]

I know. Iwas just responding to the point that was put forth.



California.



I undesrtand what you're saying. But understand that marriage between a man and a woman was established by GOD at the beginning of Christian history. It is exampled from the start to the finish of God's word so much so that Christ is called the BrideGroom and the Church, His Bride.

So any tinkering with marriage should be an offense to followers of Christ.

May I ask why do you all think we have yet to see a society in 6000 years that has pushed for marriage to be changed from man and woman to man/man or woman/woman?




YES. By pushing a national agenda of homosexual marriage, it is a de facto push to make the church accept homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals say it isn't. Anybody who steps back and looks at it and who knows with Whom marriage was established knows that it is a push to make everyone accept a new idea of marriage based in a moral decay of society unlike perhaps any in the history of man.

Given that the separation of State and Church championed in the First Amendment is the best assurance possible that the government will not outlaw Christianity, or any branch of it, and that it insures that people join the Church because they have been convinced of its truth and convicted of their need for a Savior, rather than for political reasons, thus assuring that most, if not all leaders in the Church agree with her official policies and teach her lessons (again according to their particular branch of Christianity):

How is asking for their First Amendment rights to be respected with respect to a civil contract overseen by the government "forcing" the Church to do anything? It is not like the ministers of the Gospel won't be able to refuse to marry a couple in their churches that does not meet the Church's requirements. Loving v Virginia did not force churches to marry inter-racial couples. This is no different.

And how is spending tons of church money to spread lies about the issue (as the Catholic and Mormon churches did) and confuse the voting public as to exactly what they were voting on not attempting to force others to obey their religious views?

If either side was forcing the issue down the other's throat....

 

[Polycarp1]

Add the attempted forced indoctrination of our children in school against the will of all Christian parents. They want the entire society, and that certainly includes churches. The answer is NO!

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Now let the Church say AMEN!!!

I will thank you, when posting on Christian Forums, to abide by CF rules, and not state your own opinions on a disputed matter as those of all Christians, as you did here. There are avowed, committed Christians posting in this thread who disagree with you on some of the issues in question. Neither you nor anyone else lower than Jesus Christ our Lord gets to say what "all Christians" believe.

 

[LightHorseman]

Add the attempted forced indoctrination of our children in school against the will of all Christian parents. They want the entire society, and that certainly includes churches.

What do you mean by "forced indoctrination of children"?

I mean specifically?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Here is some of the Greek
:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν μὴ πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδω...λολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

## The word eidōlolatrai is broken up by three dots. This could be confusing for a lurker not used to reading the NT in Greek.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If the government actually said "you cannot preach against homosexuality", how many pastors do people think would actually heed this?

I know my pastor wouldn't. But then again, he doesn't regularly preach against homosexuality, just sexual immorality in general with some specifics here and there.

Christians have been jailed for preaching before...If it happens, we deal with it.

 

[Hairy Tic]

The only effort being made on the part of these lil historical and cultural studies yall do is to attempt to disprove what the words on the page say.

I find it rather amazing that in doing these historical and cultural studies, yall will trust what other sinful men say in order to justify your cause, but when God speaks with His own word, yall do everything you can to disprove that He isn't saying what the words on the page say.

Yep. Wreaks of idolatry and a love for homosexual sex over God.

## Some people were not too keen on the 1611 Bible when it came out - such as the Pilgrim Fathers. Were they implying that the 1611 Bible "wreaked [sic] of idolatry", or that its makers were "lovers of [insert sin of preference] over God" ?

That Christians in Group A do not agree with Christians in Group B does not mean that those in Group A are committing a sin by disagreeing.

Christians (in what will be called Group A) have a record, when faced by challenges to what is very important to them, of behaving like this:

• being bothered when other Christians differ from them
• insisting their understanding of the issue in question must be accepted by Group B, or else the Faith, & Church, the Bible will be destroyed
  
• unChurching Group B as heretics, schismatics, wolves, etc.
• teaching their offspring to hate the errors of the unChurched
• finding all sorts of reasons to have no dealings with them
• occasionally having dealings with them by way of rare exception
• slowly overcoming the distrust & bitterness here and there
• growing slowly to appreciate that their "enemies" are worth listening to
• admitting that their enemies are not the monsters they used to believe them to be...
• ...but are Christians no less than they are
• They make up their quarrel, even if they don't agree, & live in peace w/ each other.
  

All the bitterness betw. the first & last stages could have been avoided; it wasn't, & the Churches suffer. Yet, what was seen as a matter of life & death, turned out not to be. The Church didn't fall apart when the two groups learn to live in peace, & neither did faith in Christ. But the Churches suffer in the meantime, often w. serious damage to their witness for Christ. Surely this can't be allowed to happen again ?

Christianity did not implode when the various Churches had to come to terms with Copernicanism, biological evolution, or voting rights for women. The imagined catastrophe always turned out be worse in imagination than in actual fact. Why should gay issues succeed in doing what admitting heliocentrism & the great age of the human race did not ? Does this cycle have to be repeated ?

Why should homosexuality break the Church or destroy the Christian faith, when so many schisms, often over much less, have not ? In England in 1829, before Catholics were given the right to vote, all sorts of fears & anxieties for the safety of the State, the Church, & the Constitution were expressed. The Bill for Catholic Emancipation was passed & became an Act of Parliament: the State, the Church, & the Constitution continued to function unharmed. The USA did not collapse in 1960 when a Catholic was elected President. The presence of something one rejects but cannot cannot rid of seems to exaggerate its importance, so that it becomes far more divisive than it need be.

 

[nChrist]

I will thank you, when posting on Christian Forums, to abide by CF rules, and not state your own opinions on a disputed matter as those of all Christians, as you did here. There are avowed, committed Christians posting in this thread who disagree with you on some of the issues in question. Neither you nor anyone else lower than Jesus Christ our Lord gets to say what "all Christians" believe.

I don't plan to hire a lawyer and legal team before I post on CF. My post was well within the rules for CF. If you agree with the forced indoctrination of school children, just say so and disagree. In the meantime, I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Hairy Tic]

It wasn't my derail. I was responding to a pitiless position.



Where's the compassion for the murdered?



Harrassed, hated, attacked incessantly by antagonists. Maybe not persecuted like Christians are in parts of the world where they are killed or driven out of their homes.



"Fundamentalist Christian" is redundant.

## "Fundamentalist" is - when used of Christians - a descriptor for a specific type of Christianity. It's (more or less) a value-free description, unless perhaps the speaker is a Fundamentalist.

If only Fundamentalists are Christians, what about the millions until (roughly) 1900 & outside the US, the vast majority of whom were not even conservative Evangelical Protestants ? Fundamentalist are a small fraction of Christianity, & a very recent & localised one.

They are worrying about licentiousness and the excusing away of evil, that has wrought the typical consequences on society.



Otherwise known as preaching the Gospel and living as a Christian should.

SO let's get back on track. here's the OP:

Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality.

Liberalism is employed to do just that.

Are you for that or against that?

 

[LightHorseman]

I don't plan to hire a lawyer and legal team before I post on CF. My post was well within the rules for CF. If you agree with the forced indoctrination of school children, just say so and disagree. In the meantime, I have nothing further to say to you.

Again, what "forced indoctrination" are you refering to, specifically?

 

[[serious]]

It is not. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.

God never condoned polygamy but like divorce He allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience.

Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself

Owning multiple horses is bad?

 

[interested in life]

## Some people were not too keen on the 1611 Bible when it came out - such as the Pilgrim Fathers. Were they implying that the 1611 Bible "wreaked [sic] of idolatry", or that its makers were "lovers of [insert sin of preference] over God" ?

That Christians in Group A do not agree with Christians in Group B does not mean that those in Group A are committing a sin by disagreeing.

Christians (in what will be called Group A) have a record, when faced by challenges to what is very important to them, of behaving like this:

• being bothered when other Christians differ from them
• insisting their understanding of the issue in question must be accepted by Group B, or else the Faith, & Church, the Bible will be destroyed
  
• unChurching Group B as heretics, schismatics, wolves, etc.
• teaching their offspring to hate the errors of the unChurched
• finding all sorts of reasons to have no dealings with them
• occasionally having dealings with them by way of rare exception
• slowly overcoming the distrust & bitterness here and there
• growing slowly to appreciate that their "enemies" are worth listening to
• admitting that their enemies are not the monsters they used to believe them to be...
• ...but are Christians no less than they are
• They make up their quarrel, even if they don't agree, & live in peace w/ each other.
  

All the bitterness betw. the first & last stages could have been avoided; it wasn't, & the Churches suffer. Yet, what was seen as a matter of life & death, turned out not to be. The Church didn't fall apart when the two groups learn to live in peace, & neither did faith in Christ. But the Churches suffer in the meantime, often w. serious damage to their witness for Christ. Surely this can't be allowed to happen again ?

Christianity did not implode when the various Churches had to come to terms with Copernicanism, biological evolution, or voting rights for women. The imagined catastrophe always turned out be worse in imagination than in actual fact. Why should gay issues succeed in doing what admitting heliocentrism & the great age of the human race did not ? Does this cycle have to be repeated ?

Why should homosexuality break the Church or destroy the Christian faith, when so many schisms, often over much less, have not ? In England in 1829, before Catholics were given the right to vote, all sorts of fears & anxieties for the safety of the State, the Church, & the Constitution were expressed. The Bill for Catholic Emancipation was passed & became an Act of Parliament: the State, the Church, & the Constitution continued to function unharmed. The USA did not collapse in 1960 when a Catholic was elected President. The presence of something one rejects but cannot cannot rid of seems to exaggerate its importance, so that it becomes far more divisive than it need be.

Its a matter of life and death.Dont dilute.When the bible quite clearly says homosexuals wont inherit the kingdom,it means exactly what it says.A lot of false reasoners in this place.
If your conscience says otherwise,best you start another schism.Just dont call it Christianity.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Its a matter of life and death.Dont dilute.When the bible quite clearly says homosexuals wont inherit the kingdom,it means exactly what it says.A lot of false reasoners in this place.
If your conscience says otherwise,best you start another schism.Just dont call it Christianity.

Which translation are we talking about because it's the newer versions of the Bible translated directly from the hebrew and greek that are probably closer to the actual original manuscripts than say the King James Bible or the NIV...

 

[LightHorseman]

Its a matter of life and death.Dont dilute.When the bible quite clearly says homosexuals wont inherit the kingdom,it means exactly what it says.A lot of false reasoners in this place.
If your conscience says otherwise,best you start another schism.Just dont call it Christianity.

Assuming that "homosexual" is an appropriate translation of that particular passage. A lot of scholars far more learned than you or I are quite definite that homosexuality is NOT an appropriate word to convey Paul's meaning.

 

[Hairy Tic]

You see anyone can say anything, a member of the Westboro chuch could come here and say they are proud to hate
homosexuals. Neither claims however are in line with Christ's NT teaching despite people claiming them.
Christianity is based on Christ and God's Biblical testimony. It is not based on human reasoning against God's testimony.
Homosexuality is paganism.

## If members of the WBC are in Christ whether one approves of them, & whether they are living as they ought to, become secondary issues. One can disagree with them & their works, yet regard them as our brothers & sisters in Christ. Whether they regard other Christians as Christians can't be decisive for how others behave to them. And I've seen quite a few of their videos. STM that their pastor is trying very hard to do the same as many other Christians - that is, to have (force ?) the morals of others conform to the Bible; & ISTM that he can't see people as people, unless they agree w. him.

The relation of Christians to the Bible is more complicated than some allow; those people may see no problems in applying ancient words to new situations; if so, fine. But other Christians do; & in seeking to obey Christ - not to get away from Him - they try to understand the Bible as fully as possible; & this can mean coming up w/ interpretations that are new, even shocking. This has happened in the Church many times - a NT example is Paul's relativisation of the Law & circumcision. The opening of the Church to Gentiles is another. Words in the Bible were over-ridden, & the Apostles "denied the Bible" & showed they did not "believe the Bible", by disobeying Gen. 17 in the most blatant way possible. God commanded circumcision - Paul said it was nothing.

As He "went around doing good", Jesus behaved very unlike many of His followers, then or now. He often told stories, instead of teaching from the Bible like the scribes; despite His familiarity with it. His parables often depend for some of their effect on the hearers' knowing that an OT passage is at the root of the parable - the Parable of the Lost Sheep seems to be based on Psalm 119:176. What He does not do is, to confine his ideas & words to those in the OT - the OT shapes His thinking, but is not its boundary. There are boundaries, & they are not the Biblical books, but (among others) the Will of His Father & the Kingdom of God. He could have quoted the Law to condemn those who came to Him - nowhere is He found doing so.

His opponents OTOH are very Biblically concerned - so much so, that they put the Law above human need. And why not ? They could have used many of the arguments on this forum & others: they wanted to obey God,they followed Scripture & tried extremely hard to be guided by the Bible - but the Pharisees & scribes, who were so zealous for the Law, are the one group whom Jesus attacks. He attacked the righteous people, the "Separated" (= "Pharisee"), not the "ungodly". He called no one "ungodly", but He called a lot of religious people "hypocrites".

Not the Samaritans, not the Gentiles, not the tax-collectors, not women, but the very people who couldn't see the wood for the trees because they were so concerned to be godly. They had Scripture - but they did not see Him, when He was right among them. Or they did, but only as a threat to the Temple, a liar, & seducer of the people. One of the saddest parts of the NT is the place describing how they were scrupulous to avoid being unclean, just after His crucifixion. And if they could do that - why should Christians be different ? Not only are Christians not different - they have repeated that very mistake, time & time again. If this is not proof that zeal for obedience to the Bible & to God's Will can become its own worst enemy & defeat its purpose - what is ? The Bible cannot rescue us from the mistakes it leads to; for that we have to say "Lead thou me to the Rock that is higher than I", the Rock that is Christ.

 

[KCKID]

## If members of the WBC are in Christ whether one approves of them, & whether they are living as they ought to, become secondary issues. One can disagree with them & their works, yet regard them as our brothers & sisters in Christ. Whether they regard other Christians as Christians can't be decisive for how others behave to them. And I've seen quite a few of their videos. STM that their pastor is trying very hard to do the same as many other Christians - that is, to have (force ?) the morals of others conform to the Bible; & ISTM that he can't see people as people, unless they agree w. him.

The relation of Christians to the Bible is more complicated than some allow; those people may see no problems in applying ancient words to new situations; if so, fine. But other Christians do; & in seeking to obey Christ - not to get away from Him - they try to understand the Bible as fully as possible; & this can mean coming up w/ interpretations that are new, even shocking. This has happened in the Church many times - a NT example is Paul's relativisation of the Law & circumcision. The opening of the Church to Gentiles is another. Words in the Bible were over-ridden, & the Apostles "denied the Bible" & showed they did not "believe the Bible", by disobeying Gen. 17 in the most blatant way possible. God commanded circumcision - Paul said it was nothing.

As He "went around doing good", Jesus behaved very unlike many of His followers, then or now. He often told stories, instead of teaching from the Bible like the scribes; despite His familiarity with it. His parables often depend for some of their effect on the hearers' knowing that an OT passage is at the root of the parable - the Parable of the Lost Sheep seems to be based on Psalm 119:176. What He does not do is, to confine his ideas & words to those in the OT - the OT shapes His thinking, but is not its boundary. There are boundaries, & they are not the Biblical books, but (among others) the Will of His Father & the Kingdom of God. He could have quoted the Law to condemn those who came to Him - nowhere is He found doing so.

His opponents OTOH are very Biblically concerned - so much so, that they put the Law above human need. And why not ? They could have used many of the arguments on this forum & others: they wanted to obey God,they followed Scripture & tried extremely hard to be guided by the Bible - but the Pharisees & scribes, who were so zealous for the Law, are the one group whom Jesus attacks. He attacked the righteous people, the "Separated" (= "Pharisee"), not the "ungodly". He called no one "ungodly", but He called a lot of religious people "hypocrites".

Not the Samaritans, not the Gentiles, not the tax-collectors, not women, but the very people who couldn't see the wood for the trees because they were so concerned to be godly. They had Scripture - but they did not see Him, when He was right among them. Or they did, but only as a threat to the Temple, a liar, & seducer of the people. One of the saddest parts of the NT is the place describing how they were scrupulous to avoid being unclean, just after His crucifixion. And if they could do that - why should Christians be different ? Not only are Christians not different - they have repeated that very mistake, time & time again. If this is not proof that zeal for obedience to the Bible & to God's Will can become its own worst enemy & defeat its purpose - what is ? The Bible cannot rescue us from the mistakes it leads to; for that we have to say "Lead thou me to the Rock that is higher than I", the Rock that is Christ.

Well said. I would hope that the above will not go ignored.

 

[onemorequestion]

Its a matter of life and death.Dont dilute.When the bible quite clearly says homosexuals wont inherit the kingdom,it means exactly what it says.A lot of false reasoners in this place.
If your conscience says otherwise,best you start another schism.Just dont call it Christianity.

100%

 

[onemorequestion]

##

The relation of Christians to the Bible is more complicated than some allow; those people may see no problems in applying ancient words to new situations; if so, fine.

Not according to reality. Just Jude would show your position is based on little more then appeasement of proponents that would alter Christianity into a form of Roman paganism that the original Christians saw coming and taught us to reject.

But other Christians do; & in seeking to obey Christ - not to get away from Him - they try to understand the Bible as fully as possible; & this can mean coming up w/ interpretations that are new, even shocking.

The new and shocking positions are the ones that seek to be not of this world and worldview. How is it seeking to know Christ when the positions espoused in liberalism take away the very rock of salvation?

This has happened in the Church many times - a NT example is Paul's relativisation of the Law & circumcision.

Circumcision and gay sex are hardly comparable concessions.

The opening of the Church to Gentiles is another.

No it isn't. When the Son of man is lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself. - John 12:32

Words in the Bible were over-ridden, & the Apostles "denied the Bible" & showed they did not "believe the Bible", by disobeying Gen. 17 in the most blatant way possible. God commanded circumcision - Paul said it was nothing.

Circumcision was demanded of Israelites and their converts.

As He "went around doing good", Jesus behaved very unlike many of His followers, then or now.

He did not engage in debauchery or immorality, not did he celebrate either. Just the opposite.

He often told stories, instead of teaching from the Bible like the scribes; despite His familiarity with it.

The parables could never be used to celebrate gay sex in the Church.

His parables often depend for some of their effect on the hearers' knowing that an OT passage is at the root of the parable - the Parable of the Lost Sheep seems to be based on Psalm 119:176. What He does not do is, to confine his ideas & words to those in the OT - the OT shapes His thinking, but is not its boundary.

Jesus used the Old Testament to validate Who and What He is.

There are boundaries, & they are not the Biblical books, but (among others) the Will of His Father & the Kingdom of God.

He detailed that "God" created marriage as man and woman.

He could have quoted the Law to condemn those who came to Him - nowhere is He found doing so.

People condemn themselves. Look to the demand that sins are civil rights for condemantion of the sin is OK position. That includes redefing sin as holiness.

His opponents OTOH are very Biblically concerned - so much so, that they put the Law above human need.

The tax collectors and pagans, whom Jesus reviled?

And why not ? They could have used many of the arguments on this forum & others: they wanted to obey God,they followed Scripture & tried extremely hard to be guided by the Bible - but the Pharisees & scribes, who were so zealous for the Law, are the one group whom Jesus attacks.

Jesus called outsiders dogs. Didn't He?

How isn't liberalism being used as a righteousness and holier-than-thou declaration?

He attacked the righteous people,

Not once did Jesus attack the righteous. John (the Baptist's) father was a righteous cohen of Israel.

. . . the "Separated" (= "Pharisee"), not the "ungodly". He called no one "ungodly", but He called a lot of religious people "hypocrites".

He called those that used religion badly hypocrites.

Not the Samaritans, not the Gentiles, not the tax-collectors, not women, but the very people who couldn't see the wood for the trees because they were so concerned to be godly.

He considered UN-repentent believers very badly. He told righteous believers to treat tham as you woud a pagan or a tax collector.

They had Scripture - but they did not see Him, when He was right among them.

How is not liberalism whitewashing over Who and What Jesus is to appease a rabble crowd of angry activists?

Or they did, but only as a threat to the Temple, a liar, & seducer of the people. One of the saddest parts of the NT is the place describing how they were scrupulous to avoid being unclean, just after His crucifixion. And if they could do that - why should Christians be different ? Not only are Christians not different - they have repeated that very mistake, time & time again.

Yet the only ideology popping up to lead Christians astray and BACK into worldliness is liberalism.

If this is not proof that zeal for obedience to the Bible & to God's Will can become its own worst enemy & defeat its purpose - what is ?

The reviling and discarding of God's word.

The Bible cannot rescue us from the mistakes it leads to; for that we have to say "Lead thou me to the Rock that is higher than I", the Rock that is Christ.

Jesus. as "The Rock" is FROM the Bible. It is not a catchy slogan of political correctness. In fact, Jesus and His followers are the least politically crowd organization of all time. Per Jesus.

 

[onemorequestion]

But whether homosexuality is or is not a sin is not the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is "forcing the church to accept homosexuality."

Exact same thing.

I am still waiting to see any evidence showing that anyone in the mainstream is working to force the church to accept homosexuality.

"Where's your evidence?"

Shown time and time again . . .

"Where's your proof?"

Thrown back time and time again.

The people who I know who favor allowing homosexual marriage are speaking in terms of civil marriage; none of them are in any way trying to force churches to perform religious marriage ceremonies against church policy.

Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran are known history wide as "mainstream." All are dealing with unwanted gay activism demanding that gay marriage be celebrated "in the Church." That's as mainstream an example as there can be.

Several pages ago I posted a summary of major polls involving gay rights issues. Not one of them dealt with forcing the church to accept homosexuality. Instead they all dealt with legal marraige, legal/U] benefits, civil rights.

And it was juyst a very short few decades ago, that Stonewall was supposedly just about being able to be in a gay bar without being bothered by police looking for youth prostitutes on the premises.

I again ask, if anyone has any evidence to show mainstream efforts to force the church to accept homosexuality, please offer it.

Where's your evidence that it has not been offered?

Where's your proof that it hasn't been offered many, many, many, many, many times already?

Let's hear it gang, ONE. MORE, TIME:

Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran gay and liberal activism!

 

[onemorequestion]

Originally Posted by 357magnum

Add the attempted forced indoctrination of our children in school against the will of all Christian parents. They want the entire society, and that certainly includes churches. The answer is NO!

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
​

Now let the Church say AMEN!!!

Amen

 

[onemorequestion]

Good.



I have blue eyes and I guess I'm kinda proud of them.



Of course, the same with being a Christian and having blue eyes.



Precisely ...nor does God judge anyone for their eye color.

While (some) others have made a major issue out of homosexuality I personally equate one's sexuality with eye color. It's really a non-issue . . .

How many people "in the Bible" are considered to be encouraging sin by proclaiming eye color?