Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[drich0150]

Why is there a need for liberally minded people to have God or The Whole of Christianity to accept Homosexuality?

Why not just be Gay, and shrug off what the bible or church says?

Why do we have to believe what you believe?

For those of you in the Church, do you not understand that even if you can silence what the bible says of homosexuality specifically. that Homosexuality is still considered a sin because at it's core it's sex outside the confines of marriage. Without Book Chapter and verse as to the permissibility of sexual activity outside the confines of a sanctified marriage, special permission for gay sex, or an example of a sanctified same sex marriage. a doctrine that permits homosexuality can not represent the will of God. As a member of the church why do you represent a doctrine that does not represent God? To Whom do you serve if not God? Do you not see a problem with a system of belief that doesn't represent the one you claim to represent? Is a righteousness based in popular morality what you believe to be what dictates the will of God?

The responses I have seen and answered from people who represent themselves as members of the church are, to say the least are the most disheartening.
Especially after their efforts have been brought into the light of scripture.

 

[ebia]

Why is there a need for liberally minded people to have God or The Whole of Christianity to accept Homosexuality?

Is there? Of course there are some that demand that, but what most demand is toleration and behaviour that respects their human dignity.

Why not just be Gay, and shrug off what the bible or church says?

Because what the church says impacts on them in practical and other ways perhaps.

Why do we have to believe what you believe?

You don't. But you do have to behave in ways that recognises the consequences of your behaviour and accept that everyone has a right to protest behaviour than negatively impacts upon them.

 

[Phinehas2]

ebia,

Is there? Of course there are some that demand that, but what most demand is toleration and behaviour that respects their human dignity.

Which means its not Christianity, but humanism, hence why the church splitting and cannot accept it. Light and dark do not mix.

 

[drich0150]

Is there? Of course there are some that demand that, but what most demand is toleration and behavior that respects their human dignity.

If you argue that Homosexuality is a sin you will quickly find yourself in the minority here. Even amongst "Christians." Also note that if you believe as the bible teaches, this does not automatically put one in the position of trying to strip human dignity from a sinner. Where is the tolerance in that line of thinking?

However Teaching one biblical permissibility of homosexuality is akin to teaching one a doctrine of non repentance for sin. Dooming the gay couple to Hell. If one does not see sin in his life, why would he repent of it? Is it better to trade a politically correct sense of tolerance and dignity for eternal life?

Because what the church says impacts on them in practical and other ways perhaps.

So.. Change the church, change the word of God, to allow the sinful to live in peace? What of the consequences this has on those who seek God with all of their being? Those who want to be in the will of God. Must they accept the impact the homosexual doctrine has on religion if they want to worship God?

Why is it that the homosexual agenda takes precedence over the Christian communities ability to preach and teach an unmolested version of scripture?

You don't. But you do have to behave in ways that recognizes the consequences of your behavior and accept that everyone has a right to protest behavior than negatively impacts upon them.

If they truly separate themselves from the church then how is it they are effected by it? Ex.. If those who have been negatively affected by my comments simply stopped arguing Scriptural Permissibility of homosexuality on a Christian website, then how is it that my thoughts are supposed to negatively affect them?

On the other hand Their comments On A Christian Website can Negatively Affect someone in search of the truth. Do you think there is any consideration for those who are weak or new in the faith? Who will protest the negative behavior that impacts them? especially if they come to this place looking for a way to determine right and wrong.

Every consideration, example of tolerance, or right to (Fill in the Blank) can be turned to defend how the word of God is represented. Especially because "we" are on a Christian site, and are not shouting at people on a street corner. Those who come here looking for acceptance of their sins, rather than redemption have turned into the "crazies" who do not respect, who chastise, who impose their will, their versions of righteousness, and force others to believe as they do.

Where is the grandiose gesture to tolerate Christian principles? to respect God and those who seek Him? Why is Christianity placating the me generation? Is redemption and forgiveness of sins no longer our "great commission?"

 

[ebia]

If you argue that Homosexuality is a sin you will quickly find yourself in the minority here. Even amongst "Christians."

I would have to disagree about that, but so what? It's got nothing to do with the question at hand has it.

Also note that if you believe as the bible teaches, this does not automatically put one in the position of trying to strip human dignity from a sinner.

Didn't say it did.

However Teaching one biblical permissibility of homosexuality is akin to teaching one a doctrine of non repentance for sin. Dooming the gay couple to Hell. If one does not see sin in his life, why would he repent of it? Is it better to trade a politically correct sense of tolerance and dignity for eternal life?

If the person in question isn't Christian clearly they would think you were wrong about that, and if the way you treat them causes them harm, or they perceive it as doing so, they would quite naturally want you to stop. To ask "why do they keep trying to get us to stop" is to ask a question to which the answer is obvious. However good your motives are from your perspective there outworking can be unwanted by those they affect.

So.. Change the church, change the word of God, to allow the sinful to live in peace?

I'm just answering your question - or, at least, attempting to.

What of the consequences this has on those who seek God with all of their being? Those who want to be in the will of God. Must they accept the impact the homosexual doctrine has on religion if they want to worship God?

What "homosexual doctine" and what "impact"?

Why is it that the homosexual agenda takes precedence over the Christian communities ability to preach and teach an unmolested version of scripture?

When our rights come into conflict there inevitably has to be some compromise by one or both parties. They can just as reasonably ask "why should your right to say what you want override my right to live my life unmolested?"

If they truly separate themselves from the church then how is it they are effected by it?

Because Christians influence politics and the wider culture and society - quite overtly in this case.

Ex.. If those who have been negatively affected by my comments simply stopped arguing Scriptural Permissibility of homosexuality on a Christian website, then how is it that my thoughts are supposed to negatively affect them?

On the other hand Their comments On A Christian Website can Negatively Affect someone in search of the truth. Do you think there is any consideration for those who are weak or new in the faith? Who will protest the negative behavior that impacts them?

1.There are far more destructive debates going on here than those about homosexuality. If such a person is to survive on CF at all they are going to need to very quickly get the idea that there is a huge breadth of opinion among Christians on just about every issue, and much of that is argued in very unChristlike ways.
2.At least half the discussions on homosexuality are started by people against (including this one) - if you don't want the discussion to go on here don't keep starting threads about it.


especially if they come to this place looking for a way to determine right and wrong.

Every consideration, example of tolerance, or right to (Fill in the Blank) can be turned to defend how the word of God is represented. Especially because "we" are on a Christian site, and are not shouting at people on a street corner.

No, but we represent a Christianity that does both shout on street corners and in the political sphere. You can't separate the life on CF from the rest of what the church does in that way.

 

[Phinehas2]

ebia,

.There are far more destructive debates going on here than those about homosexuality.

Actually the churches are dividing between 'liberal' and 'conservative' and homosexuality is most often the easiest point to spot the opposites. Liberalism including its LGBT elements is seen by many as no longer the faith once delivered, and thus no longer Christianity. ... not something a majority of Christians worldwide woulkd not find it easy express freely on CF.

If such a person is to survive on CF at all they are going to need to very quickly get the idea that there is a huge breadth of opinion among Christians on just about every issue, and much of that is argued in very unChristlike ways.

here is another instance where the two sides would probably not agree as to what conduct is Christlike. Promoting and defending homosexuality in denial of the scripture is seen as unChristlike and defending the Bible and that homsoexulaity is error is Christlike. Liberalism sees it as the opposite.

 

[drich0150]

If the person in question isn't Christian clearly they would think you were wrong about that, and if the way you treat them causes them harm, or they perceive it as doing so, they would quite naturally want you to stop. To ask "why do they keep trying to get us to stop" is to ask a question to which the answer is obvious. However good your motives are from your perspective there outworking can be unwanted by those they affect.

My objective here (as made clear by this thread) is not to openly to confront anyone about their preferred life style. It is to confront all of those, Christian, gay, the liberally minded or anyone else who pushes a "Christian doctrine" that promotes a homosexual life style that supposedly has been approved by God through what the bible does or does not say.
If anyone is being affected by me or my efforts it is because they are misrepresenting Scripture.

If someone wants me to stop, then all they have to do is stop. I am not arguing a cultural or a philosophical point. I am representing what the bible says in light of how it has been inaccurately presented.

What "homosexual doctrine" and what "impact"?

The doctrine that says homosexuality is not a sin. the impact of a doctrine that finds righteousness not through redemption, but in the permissibility of sin. If sin is being taught as a permissible, then do you not agree it has a negative impact on the doctrine of redemption? Why would one seek redemption if what one in doing has been found to be permissible?

When our rights come into conflict there inevitably has to be some compromise by one or both parties. They can just as reasonably ask "why should your right to say what you want override my right to live my life unmolested?"

The compromise I am suggesting is: If you want to be gay then be gay. Leave, God, The Church and Christianity out of it. That sounds fair enough to me.

Because Christians influence politics and the wider culture and society - quite overtly in this case.

Maybe where you live.

1.There are far more destructive debates going on here than those about homosexuality. If such a person is to survive on CF at all they are going to need to very quickly get the idea that there is a huge breadth of opinion among Christians on just about every issue, and much of that is argued in very unChristlike ways.

What would be an example of unChrist like ways? I am sure you are well aware of Christ showing compassion and tolerance for those who repented, or excepted their sins openly and sought forgiveness. But at the same time for those who refused to acknowledged their sins, for those who misrepresented God. Christ over turned tables, whipped the money changers, publicly humiliated the Pharisees and makers of the law.
Paul also took the same harsh stance, Read Galatians 1:8

There was tolerance and love shown to those who sought redemption, sins were forgiven and not leveraged to hold people down, but for those who would pollute and corrupt the church little mercy was shown, until the sinner repented. (Simon the Sorcerer)

Defending God's word as it is found in scripture, even to the determent of (in this case) a gay man's pride is indeed Christ like. If You "Feel" Otherwise I ask that you show using book Chapter and verse to illustrate Christ's permissibility of unrepentant sin.

2.At least half the discussions on homosexuality are started by people against (including this one) - if you don't want the discussion to go on here don't keep starting threads about it.

I don't know where you have been but look and read the last four threads on this subject. This is what spawned the questions I am asking. I want to know where the people are, who know the truth of God's word, and I want to know why they do not speak up. In the threads on this subject I count maybe 4 people who have a firm grasp of what the scripture says, and are willing to consistently represent it.

Rather than assume that all threads are of Christian bullies pushing around a bunch of pro gay people who can defend themselves, why don't you read a few of these threads before you make such an observation.

No, but we represent a Christianity that does both shout on street corners and in the political sphere. You can't separate the life on CF from the rest of what the church does in that way.

Are you seriously saying that homosexuality has absolutely no voice in the church and political sphere? If so I will say this is a naive position at best.

At what point has it been made acceptable for those outside of the church to dictate policies and doctrine to those in the church?

Changing Genuine Church Theology To Fit A Homosexual Doctrine, Is Actually Doing, What It Is You Perceive The Church To Be Doing, In Society, And "The Political Sphere."

Again where is your grandiose argument for God, and those new or weak in the faith? If this is a matter of principle then where are your observations and personally righteous stances for what the church holds sacred? Why defend one, and not the other? Are you only using this principle to only sell the open permissibility of sin? Isn't that abit Pharisaical in nature?

 

[visionary]

Why does homosexuality have to enter into Christ's kingdom?

 

[Rao]

Excluding homosexual people, who obviously have their own reasons to make their condition accepted, the problem with the issue is that the vast majority of humankind just recognizes that there is no harm done by homosexuals to other people, unless they do something beyond just being gay - e.g. having a lot of partners, cheating, targetting minors (stuff that perhaps many of them do, but isn't strictly part of being gay and many heteros do the same). So homosexuality is one of those few things together with food taboos that are "forbidden" but actually don't cause harm to others. Practically every other sin does harm others directly (stealing, killing, cheating, telling the false...) or indirectly (e.g. premarital sex, because once it's enabled it leads people to jump from a partner to the other without serious intentions).

So the problem is that it sounds like it's forbidden "just because". There is no amount of "but the Bible says so!" that helps, because our conscience tells us the opposite. Actually the more this argument is brought up, the more people drop their trust in the OT "as written" (which for a Catholic point of view this is actually quite a good thing) rather than silencing their conscience. Add the fact that homosexuality is an unavoidable and not-chosen status of such people (although of course they can choose what to do with it, have sex or be chaste), and it even sounds plain cruel like condemning a cleptomaniac because of stealing out of his compulsive disorder.

 

[Rao]

On the other hand Their comments On A Christian Website can Negatively Affect someone in search of the truth. Do you think there is any consideration for those who are weak or new in the faith? Who will protest the negative behavior that impacts them? especially if they come to this place looking for a way to determine right and wrong.

Every consideration, example of tolerance, or right to (Fill in the Blank) can be turned to defend how the word of God is represented. Especially because "we" are on a Christian site, and are not shouting at people on a street corner. ...

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say in this passage, but just to be sure, I remind you first of all that we are on a Christian forum, not a Lutheran forum or Catholic forum and so on. Christianity is not monolithical, and as a matter of fact neither Catholicism, the most monolithical denomination of all, is truly monolithical. In this website there is technically no utter "truth" that can constitute an official response to visitors.

Second, we are on a Christian forum, which means that the whole point of this site to exist is to allow discussions, which are inevitably based on disagreements. If we didn't want disagreements, then we should have just made a static website with official opinions (or maybe just left only the Prayer forum open), of which there is no need to have another since we already have those like Vatican: the Holy See.

 

[Avniel]

If the person in question isn't Christian clearly they would think you were wrong about that, and if the way you treat them causes them harm, or they perceive it as doing so, they would quite naturally want you to stop. To ask "why do they keep trying to get us to stop" is to ask a question to which the answer is obvious. However good your motives are from your perspective there outworking can be unwanted by those they affect.

Why is it that when ever someone says that they believe that homosexuality is a sin people automatically think that we as Christians are trying to harm them. We are just saying what the Bible says God gives people freedom of choice.

When our rights come into conflict there inevitably has to be some compromise by one or both parties. They can just as reasonably ask "why should your right to say what you want override my right to live my life unmolested?"

Compromises? We do not have to compromise our morals, or our beliefs. The Bible says it is incorrect, I cant compromise my beliefs in the bible. To do so is to deny my faith.

Because Christians influence politics and the wider culture and society - quite overtly in this case.

However look how heavy the homosexuals control media. Look how they attempt to change Christians minds into. Even to go as far as have women in the hip hop community to play like a bi sexual(proven) to get hip-hop to be more homosexual friendly.

1.There are far more destructive debates going on here than those about homosexuality. If such a person is to survive on CF at all they are going to need to very quickly get the idea that there is a huge breadth of opinion among Christians on just about every issue, and much of that is argued in very unChristlike ways.

How is it unChristlike? I've been told that my views on homosexuality were unChristlike when all I did was quote scriptures and say it was a sin. I was accused of condemning people, and being homophobic. Just because I think its a sin? Now its has gotten so far that people aren't allowed to have an opinion or they are homophobic?

2.At least half the discussions on homosexuality are started by people against (including this one) - if you don't want the discussion to go on here don't keep starting threads about it.

No I have even complained about this in threads before a vast majority of these threads are started by people that have argued in one thread got shut down and then goto another thread to argue. It is my belief that a majority of these threads are started by 4 or 5 of the same posters using different names. But from my experience and what I've complained about is the fact that these post continue to be made. Until someone says something that proves homosexuality as being wrong and then another thread pops up.

especially if they come to this place looking for a way to determine right and wrong.

Well if they come to this place looking for right and wrong and we use the Bible and quote scriptures and dont say what is sinful and stand up for righteousness then that is correct.

 

[drich0150]

Excluding homosexual people, who obviously have their own reasons to make their condition accepted, the problem with the issue is that the vast majority of humankind just recognizes that there is no harm done by homosexuals to other people, unless they do something beyond just being gay - e.g. having a lot of partners, cheating, targeting minors (stuff that perhaps many of them do, but isn't strictly part of being gay and many heteros do the same). So homosexuality is one of those few things together with food taboos that are "forbidden" but actually don't cause harm to others. Practically every other sin does harm others directly (stealing, killing, cheating, telling the false...) or indirectly (e.g. premarital sex, because once it's enabled it leads people to jump from a partner to the other without serious intentions).

So the problem is that it sounds like it's forbidden "just because". There is no amount of "but the Bible says so!" that helps, because our conscience tells us the opposite. Actually the more this argument is brought up, the more people drop their trust in the OT "as written" (which for a Catholic point of view this is actually quite a good thing) rather than silencing their conscience. Add the fact that homosexuality is an unavoidable and not-chosen status of such people (although of course they can choose what to do with it, have sex or be chaste), and it even sounds plain cruel like condemning a cleptomaniac because of stealing out of his compulsive disorder.

So the personally righteous philosophy aside, Why are "members" of the church adopting this position? If "we" are to represent the will of God, and that will is written in scripture then why is church doctrine bending to popular morality? Just because a particular sin comes naturally to an individual, does not make it any less of a sin. teaching a doctrine of the permissibility of sin, usurps the doctrine of redemption that the bible teaches.

Infecting the church with this new doctrine modeled in popular morality only serves to undermines what we have been commissioned to do. This turns the church from a refuge for the redeemed, into a den of unrepentant sin, and sinners. Does not the cost popular morality, far exceed it's reward? Has the church sold it soul, and the souls of it's members for the titles of tolerant and understanding for the eyes of those who subscribe themselves to pop morality?

Are we not accountable to God and scripture alone? Then again, why do we seek the approval of this sinful world over that of God?

 

[ebia]

My objective here (as made clear by this thread) is not to openly to confront anyone about their preferred life style. It is to confront all of those, Christian, gay, the liberally minded or anyone else who pushes a "Christian doctrine" that promotes a homosexual life style that supposedly has been approved by God through what the bible does or does not say.
If anyone is being affected by me or my efforts it is because they are misrepresenting Scripture.

Your original question was

Why is there a need for liberally minded people to have God or The Whole of Christianity to accept Homosexuality?

Why not just be Gay, and shrug off what the bible or church says?

Why do we have to believe what you believe?

and that's what I'm trying to answer.

The compromise I am suggesting is: If you want to be gay then be gay. Leave, God, The Church and Christianity out of it. That sounds fair enough to me.

If the Church and Christianity left gay people alone - ie did not influence society and culture in ways that made life difficult for them, did not protest against gay marriage, etc - that might fly for many. But that's not the case and is unlikely to become the case because Christianity is even less a privatised activity any more than who someone lives with can be.

Maybe where you live.

I don't know where you're living where it doesn't, or what you think Christianity is doing if it isn't. Christianity should be trying to influence the wider culture - but it also shouldn't be surprised if not everyone always appreciates that.

What would be an example of unChrist like ways?

Lying and misrepresentation, failure to listen....

I don't know where you have been but look and read the last four threads on this subject. This is what spawned the questions I am asking. I want to know where the people are, who know the truth of God's word, and I want to know why they do not speak up.

People get bored of the same old rehersals - and quite rightly.

Are you seriously saying that homosexuality has absolutely no voice in the church and political sphere?

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that Christianity has a voice (or a cacophony of voices), and when it exercises that voice is shouldn't be surprised if some people don't like it.

At what point has it been made acceptable for those outside of the church to dictate policies and doctrine to those in the church?

I didn't say it had been.

Changing Genuine Church Theology To Fit A Homosexual Doctrine, Is Actually Doing, What It Is You Perceive The Church To Be Doing, In Society, And "The Political Sphere."

What?

Again where is your grandiose argument for God, and those new or weak in the faith? If this is a matter of principle then where are your observations and personally righteous stances for what the church holds sacred? Why defend one, and not the other? Are you only using this principle to only sell the open permissibility of sin? Isn't that abit Pharisaical in nature?

I've no idea what you are on about because it doesn't seem to have any connection with anything I've said.

 

[ebia]

Why is it that when ever someone says that they believe that homosexuality is a sin people automatically think that we as Christians are trying to harm them. We are just saying what the Bible says God gives people freedom of choice.

If I say "X is wrong and should be stopped" loudly and often so that it effects the way society thinks about X, the way government treats X, and so on. And if you percieve X as an inherent part of your identity. Then you will perceive me as causing you harm.

Compromises? We do not have to compromise our morals, or our beliefs. The Bible says it is incorrect, I cant compromise my beliefs in the bible. To do so is to deny my faith.

When two people's rights come up against each other then one or both of those has to give. And if one and only one is forced to give way to the other don't be surprised if that produces resentment.

How is it unChristlike?

Note that I was referring to some of the discussion on other issues. Go look at some of the threads in, say, GT.

It is my belief that a majority of these threads are started by 4 or 5 of the same posters using different names.

If you have evidence for that then report them for sock-puppeting. If not then on what basis do you conclude this?

If you expect internet discussion to ever actually resolve an issue so it doesn't need to crop up again you're living in fantasy land.

 

[visionary]

WHo opened the flood gate and is flooding the church with all kinds of unexceptables.

 

[drich0150]

Your original question was and that's what I'm trying to answer.

The questions you highlighted were only apart of my over all questions. One set of questions were direct at the unbeliever, and the other to the believer who's liberal moral center has shifted his beliefs just to the left of where they are supposed to be. Since you do not seem to believe to be an out and out unbeliever, I am and have been addressing the second set of questions with you. (this means I am trying to determine your reasonings and where exactly you stand.)

If the Church and Christianity left gay people alone - ie did not influence society and culture in ways that made life difficult for them, did not protest against gay marriage, etc - that might fly for many. But that's not the case and is unlikely to become the case because Christianity is even less a privatized activity any more than who someone lives with can be.

so by sanctioning or forcing the church to accept this practice as "doctrine" is the only acceptable compromise you can come up with? What happens to those of us will not yield to this sin?

I don't know where you're living where it doesn't, or what you think Christianity is doing if it isn't. Christianity should be trying to influence the wider culture - but it also shouldn't be surprised if not everyone always appreciates that.

I guess down under Christianity is the world power that it hopes to be in the US. A place where it controls Music, Magazines, Media, News, TV, Movies, it runs unchecked in schools, and the kids don't even have to be told to pray or not have sex or do drugs.. I can see if this is your reality the need for someone to hold the Christians in charge to some sort of accountable standard is a necessary evil.. Where I live Christianity is a mocked unwelcome standard unless one is sick or poor. there are few who do not fit these categories if they were not born into the church.

Lying and misrepresentation, failure to listen....

How does any of this differ from those who wish to implement The Homosexual doctrine in the Church?

People get bored of the same old rehearsals - and quite rightly.

So it is better to not listen, place yourself in a position where you can easily unintentionally misrepresent, or out and out lie rather than read up on what you are actually talking about? Because if you have heard one argument you've heard them all right?

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that Christianity has a voice (or a cacophony of voices), and when it exercises that voice is shouldn't be surprised if some people don't like it.

...To the point of changing doctrine so we can get people to like us again??? Or should we stay the righteous course? I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say.

I've no idea what you are on about because it doesn't seem to have any connection with anything I've said.

Simply put, I've Beeen on about your position. The questions I originally asked were rhetorical. I know what and why. My reasonings for asking them were to open a dialog with a person who wishes to defend the Homosexual Doctrine in the Church. Now because you do not seem to be an unbeliever, and because you have been speaking of unbiblical tolerance to sin, and allowing the society we live in to be allowed to dictate doctrine into the church. I for some reason assume that You are one of these individuals. Now if you are not my mistake and ignore everything I said.

If you are just say so and we can continue, otherwise i do not want to spend any more time having you try to break down and explain the "Legitimate" reasoning for the homosexual pride that drives these actions.

 

[drich0150]

WHo opened the flood gate and is flooding the church with all kinds of unexceptables.

What are unexceptables?

 

[KCKID]

Why does homosexuality have to enter into Christ's kingdom?

I personally find the above to be very pompous. Very pompous indeed! What this implies is that the poster (visionary) considers herself as righteous and worthy to enter into Christ's kingdom and questions from her perceived lofty position why anyone of 'lesser righteousness' would even be considered for the kingdom. You perhaps need to brush up on your scripture reading, visionary, because in my Bible it states that NONE are righteous and deserving of Christ's kingdom ...no, not one! (Romans 3:10) It even goes further than that ...it says that our righteousness (that includes YOUR perceived righteousness) is 'as filthy rags'. (Isaiah 64:6) Now, THAT is calling a spade a spade!

I would suggest that you (and several others on this forum) get off your high-horse and start taking some humble lessons!

 

[Rao]

So the personally righteous philosophy aside, Why are "members" of the church adopting this position? If "we" are to represent the will of God, and that will is written in scripture then why is church doctrine bending to popular morality?

Because it's not the will of God. The OT is a source of wisdom but is not always a commandment. Even when it was a commandment for the Jews thousands of years ago, it's not always a commandment for us today, in fact we are today to take one wife only, we don't impregnate our servant maids to increase the population, we don't annihilate our enemies and so on. The will of God for us is in the latest commandment spelled out by Jesus to love our neighbor, and everything descends from it. As Jesus also explained, evil things comes from the heart of men. So the question is if homosexuality violates the rule of christian love, and it doesn't, unless it also comes with things like promiscuity, infidelity, or violence (it probably does more often than heterosexuality, but statistics don't change the point); the second question is if homosexuality comes from evil feelings of the heart, but it doesn't, once again it's those things above that do.

And the church is not bending to popular morality, in fact hating gays is popular morality like hating the jews or hating the black used to be in the past. The church is just thinking on the matter, like it has always done with other things in the past 2000 years. We are all involved in the discussion, we have not reached the truth, but things will become clear in time, one way or another.

Just because a particular sin comes naturally to an individual, does not make it any less of a sin. teaching a doctrine of the permissibility of sin, usurps the doctrine of redemption that the bible teaches.

Yes, but perhaps it's not a sin. If it doesn't harm others, if it doesn't violate Jesus commandment, if its forbiddance doesn't descent naturally from the commandment, then it's not a sin. When Jesus said He did not abolish the old law but brought it to completion, it means that He didn't negate that God had instituted some forbiddances or rules to previous people for historical reasons, but that those rules don't exist in a vacuum but must descend from the One Commandment. Ancient jews could not eat certain food, and that was for their own safety then, but it's not a rule now. Ancient jews had to increase their numbers or disappear, so everyone was called to multiply offspring, and bi-people were called to choose heterosexuality, but that maybe is not a necessity anymore.

Are we not accountable to God and scripture alone?

We clearly disagree on this. I say that as Christians we are accountable
to God (love, as summarized by Jesus in His final commandment), Jesus Christ (His exemplar life), and the Holy Spirit (which blows in our consciences). Scripture is a source of wisdom but not a manual or a checklist, it must be used with the wisdom of the Commandment in the heart and mind, or it becomes dry and make our hearts hard.

 

[Phinehas2]

Rao,

Scripture is a source of wisdom but not a manual or a checklist, it must be used with the wisdom of the Commandment in the heart and mind, or it becomes dry and make our hearts hard.

Your remarks contradict Jesus Christ’s Biblical testimony.
Jesus NT teaching affirms scripture, He didn’t abolish any of the OT law and prophets. All scripture is God breathed, His NT record is that He taught His words are spirit and life and those who obey them and do them love Him and produce fruit. See for example John 14-16, Matthew 28 and James 1. 2 Tim 3.
So it is a manual and checklist to those who see it as something one has to do. However the Holy Spirit changes the heart and mind of people so that this what they seek to do with love and joy. It is also a test for those to know whether they are being lead by the Spirit of God, or another spirit. This is the problem with liberalism sounds the same on the surface but couldn’t be more opposite.

Yes, but perhaps it's not a sin.

But if it isnt a sin then how would you know any of the other sins are sins. Your statement is merely disbelief, the Bible describes same sex relationships as sin.

If it doesn't harm others,

It harms oneself, ones own body which is supposed to be a temple of the Holy Spirit. See 1 Cor 6-7. Also see Matt 19, Mark 10 and Eph 5. which describe how God has created male and female to be in union.

it doesn't violate Jesus commandment,

It does violate all Jesus commanded. Jesus taught for faithful marriage between a man and a woman and that same sex relations, like all sexual relations outside that are wrong.

When Jesus said He did not abolish the old law but brought it to completion, it means that He didn't negate that God had instituted some forbiddances or rules to previous people for historical reasons, but that those rules don't exist in a vacuum but must descend from the One Commandment.

I basically agree with you, however He said He fulfilled it, fulfilled is slightly different from completing. For example, sacrifices were made under the old law, we no longer need them, Christ has become our perfect sacrifice once and for all. Christ’s teaching on relationships however is the same as Genesis, marriage is for faithful union of man and woman, celibacy is the alternative. Fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality are all condemned through the Bible.

Ancient jews had to increase their numbers or disappear, so everyone was called to multiply offspring, and bi-people were called to choose heterosexuality, but that maybe is not a necessity anymore.

Wrong. You will see the ancient Jews were given the law by Moses so they didn’t choose heterosexuality, they knew God had created man and woman to be in union and a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman, that is detestable to God.