Scottish Church Gay Marriage - How do Conservatives React to constantly losing ground?

FoundInGrace said:

Au contraire.. It is you who don't understand what a real family is.. mum (female) dad (male) kids. Its not that difficult to understand I would have thought. God made it simple it's humans that try and distort things.

Click to expand...

Err....did you not know that gays often take those positions when they parent?
One often takes the leader role.

An God creates toddler gays.....so my wife tells me.
And the future big conservatives pick on them as well.

SkyWriting said:

Err....did you not know that gays often take those positions when they parent?
One often takes the leader role.

Click to expand...

It's not real though is it. They're trying to be something that already exists in real families (with a real female and male and their own genetic kids) and recreate it somehow in their own image but it's always going to be a fake shadow version of what God has already created. Its kinda sad.

HighwayMan said:

Someone (sorry too many pages to find the name) mentioned it would be the Eastern Orthodox church that would be the last one standing in terms of defending traditional marriage.

I think there is truth to that, but for another important factor - Eastern Orthodoxy, as per the name, is largely centered in non-Western societies, away from the current LGBT movement (almost tidal wave you can say.)

It is not coincidental, I would say, that the majority of churches that have embraced gay marriage are in the West. I see plenty of people are arguing that these churches are dying and irrelevant and all that - ok, but is this not a trajectory that all of Western Christianity will eventually fall into? Saying that you are against gay marriage is quickly becoming one of the most unacceptable things to say in Western society. It seems the East could offer refuge for conservatives, but unless things change, most of Western Christianity seems on the road toward eventually, one day, embracing gay marriage?

Click to expand...

True

HighwayMan said:

It seems the East could offer refuge for conservatives, but unless things change, most of Western Christianity seems on the road toward eventually, one day, embracing gay marriage?

Click to expand...

As if Gay marriage was a biblical issue.
Wow.

Try reading this 100 times:

Mathew 7: 12
In everything then, do unto others as you would have them
do unto you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

I did a double take after I read it and researched it.
Now, after 20 years, I understand where I was wrong about judging others.
37 Top Bible Verses About Judging Others

HighwayMan said:

It is not coincidental, I would say, that the majority of churches that have embraced gay marriage are in the West. I see plenty of people are arguing that these churches are dying and irrelevant and all that - ok, but is this not a trajectory that all of Western Christianity will eventually fall into? ...

Click to expand...

It's only refuge if you can take on the rest of the package. Eastern Orthodox sexual ethics is a lot more demanding than merely "don't be gay". To say nothing of the rest of their practice.

.

FireDragon76 said:

I see nothing destructive about two men living in a covenanted, lifelong relationship.

Click to expand...

Please tell us according to the Bible why was Sodom and the surrounding cities destroyed?

Original Happy Camper said:

Please tell us according to the Bible why was Sodom and the surrounding cities destroyed?

Click to expand...

Lack of hospitality to strangers, greed, haughtiness.

Lack of hospitality surely is deserving of turning people into salt and destroying everyone in sight--the full force of God's displeasure, IOW. Hmmmmm


Here's what we read in Jude verses 4 to 7:

4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness* and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality** and went after strange flesh#, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.


Can we honestly say that "licentiousness," "gross immorality," and "went after strange flesh" refer to...

a lack of hospitality?
............................................................................................................
* translated as "sexual excess" in the NAB version.
**translated as "lust" in the NAB and as "sexual immorality" in the TEV.
#translated as "perversion" in the TEV.

SkyWriting said:

Sin is only visible to the individual BECAUSE it is a contract between them and God.
No, you cannot identify sin in others lives.
My goal is to take away that power that you never had anyway.
I am letting you know you never had that ability.

Click to expand...

Can you point me to the passages where sin is a 'contract' between God and us?

Thanks.

FireDragon76 said:

If you take the noetic effects of original sin seriously, then yes, our ability to identify sin is far from certain.

Click to expand...

That would be so if we did not have Truth. God's Judgment is righteous and impartial.

SkyWriting said:

But you are not aware of the motives.
I stayed OVERNIGHT with my mother in law...ALONE.
Maybe I slept in the same room, maybe the same bed.
If I sinned, only I know.

Click to expand...

Oh I think God would know too. Trust me.

If you had carnal relations with said example MiL, the Scriptures are clear that is adultery.

SkyWriting said:

Impossible to identify sin in others.

Click to expand...

How is this accurate as both Jesus told us that unrepentant sinners, if not persuaded by an individual, delegation of brethren, or the church were to be put out?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

That you think of it as an issue of control or domination says a lot. It isn't about controlling others, it is about putting into practice a worldview that is correct, holding people up to a standard which tells us what is right and wrong regardless of the individual involved.

Click to expand...

I'll add that we the Body of Christ His Church are called to pray for one another and in fact be each other's keeper. Jesus did not leave us alone as we are to rely and love each other as He loved us. Sometimes that love means helping out someone who is living a self destructive life. It does not mean ridicule and persecution of the brother or sister in Christ but in loving rebuke leading them back to Christ.

James 5: NKJV

19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

So we are each other's keeper but according to God's Truth and not our own self-righteousness.

Jesus taught the moral law in Matthew 5 and said those who teach and do them will be the great in His Kingdom:

Matthew 5: NKJV

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

In order to justify homosexuality you have had to remove all morality and just as I said in my initial post you are fated to a kind of irrelevance which cannot speak to anyone. Your own standard justifies literally anyone who believed in themselves and they cannot be condemned for wrong so long as they believed in himself. It's the ultimate delusion.

Click to expand...

Bolded above....I believe is the very definition of idolatry.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Do you simply dismiss all passages in the bible which condemn others as the bigotry of the men who wrote it or God? Is the bible a document only for the historical recipients with no benefit for us today? I cannot for the life me interpret the bible through your lense of radical individualism because such a thing does not cohere with the biblical worldview. It's more Gnostic than it is anything, insisting that there's a secret truth people must find for themselves and be exposed to.

Click to expand...

As has become apparent in these online discussions....we assume everyone is operating from the same Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. I usually ask some what they consider inspired Holy Scriptures here are some of the answers:

-Only the words of Jesus as the apostles were fallible men and did not fully convey Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Which is interesting as the apostles and/or their scribes wrote the Gospels and words of Jesus. This is a self defeating approach.

-Only the Gospels because they were written by the apostles who walked with Jesus. This is to discredit the apostle Paul and disregard his epistles as authoritative. However, when you point out that the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude do not contradict, no response.

-Or, the Holy Spirit tells me what is and what is not truth and I can decipher for myself. Which is a new theological term of Solo Me.

SkyWriting said:

And the research says that "Homosexuality" is not the correct phrase
as only 4 instances show in 25 translations.
A better translation is "Sleeping with your neighbor."

Click to expand...

That's because "homosexuality" is a 19th century term. That is why when you look at the Greek and Hebrew it forbids men having sex with men, and in Romans has women likewise.

But God has only one design for what we call sexual intercourse today. That would be marriage between one man and one woman. As Jesus said “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘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. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

See Genesis 2 and Matthew 19.

FireDragon76 said:

That's illogical. Some of us embraced a more progressive stance on homosexuality precisely because we took Jesus command to love our neighbor seriously.

Click to expand...

Indeed. We are to love our neighbor and hate our own sin. I get that. But we are not called on to condone sin within the body of believers. If your comment meant we are to love sinners as in pastoral care to lead them to repentance and restoration, then I 100% agree with you. If you meant that we need to accept that what some are doing is not sin, then we are not in agreement. I think it is clear what God has designed for marriage and sexual relationships. As He also designed for taking care of the poor, the widow and orphan.

FireDragon76 said:

We are not immoral people, and you have no right to frame us as that. Our morality is of a higher order than slavish obedience to tradition.

Click to expand...

Tradition for the most part follows what Holy Scriptures teaches. If someone wants to be part of the body of believers, there are standards. For example, someone sleeping with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5) is rebuked.

Don't know what you meant by "we are not immoral people." I'm assuming you meant that you have compassion for gay/lesbian people and as such make every effort to lead them to Christ the Great Physician. Then of course I agree.

Believe me when I say, I know that same sex attraction (SSA) is probably the foremost challenge for our church today. There are loving and compassionate Biblical and traditional approaches to evangelize and shepherd people with SSA. It is the other approach which I take issue with. The use of 'love of neighbor' to condone and accept the sin of same-sex intercourse and so called marriage. You are right this post-modern approach can be found neither in tradition nor the Bible.

FireDragon76 said:

Biblicism is the Bible made impossible. You can find a quote in the Scriptures to justify just about anything. Including horrors like slavery or the abuse of women. But that doesn't mean it fits a coherent biblical theology.

Click to expand...

Correct and in Romans chapter 1 there is more than what we call homosexuality today mentioned. Paul unleashes quite a few sins showing we know better and to show the depravity of mankind. Then in chapter 2 of Romans he condemns those who condemn others of what he listed in chapter 1. But with the caveat that God will judge all sin.

You are right, people like to pluck out the homosexuality verses and tend not to mention the others. Why is that I usually ask myself?

I came to the conclusion it is because no one I know of is arguing in favor of normalizing idolatry, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...(Romans 1:28-31)

The only identified sin or as defined as unrighteousness which paste these message boards is trying to condone these verses:

Romans 1: NKJV

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Again, verses 24-27 are part of a very long list. The reason you don't have what you call 'traditionalists' and 'biblicists' mentioning the larger list is because other than maybe one or two posters here, no one is arguing those things listed are not sins.

I'll say it again. It is a comprehensive list in which anyone of us can point to it and say 'yep that's me.' So why are homosexuals getting beat on the head with the Bible? Well in a lot of cases it is because they look at the same passages and say 'nope that's not me, it means something else.'

Compare this with the Christian with SSA who says 'yep that is me help me Lord Jesus.'

Big difference and that is probably where we differ.