Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[onemorequestion]

If you say so

Reality in its proper place.

So where? Where does the Bible mention same sex marriage? Chapter and verse please.

Nice try. The old spin game. I know Alinsky techniques too.

No, no, no . . . it is up to you to prove that gay marriage has any place in Christian truth. My position rests on what Christian holiness is, not on some bizaare humanistic approach to morality relabed Christian holiness.

And obviously you have never been able to and will never be able to.

 

[onemorequestion]

For what, exactly?

..."unfounded internet rumour that one of the Columbine murderers asked someone if they were a Christian before he killed her? HE WAS PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS!

Thank goodness, Christians are being persecuted,

____________________________________________________

You see nothing wrong here?

 

[vl32]

Again, I have never, ever, ever, seen anyone share that conclusion. I have read a bit about the Roman period too. I'm just saying.

Did it stun you?

It somewhat stuns me as I think about all the early Christian's who I know by pure logic were put to death over this issue as well as other issues.

I don't know how to reconcile that as much as I love people and want them to be happy, and I know how difficult it is to find happiness even as a heterosexual in a post-modern "dating" world... but how can the church support homosexuality as not being sin considering all the people who died to change the world into this Christian model of marriage, which has lasted for over 2,000 years of church history?

My spirit feels very torn right now, so perhaps I need a time out.

 

[LightHorseman]

Reality in its proper place.



Nice try. The old spin game. I know Alinsky techniques too.

No, no, no . . . it is up to you to prove that gay marriage has any place in Christian truth. My position rests on what Christian holiness is, not on some bizaare humanistic approach to morality relabed Christian holiness.

And obviously you have never been able to and will never be able to.

Tapdance all you like.

You guys claimed the Bible condemns homosexual marriage when in fact it doesn't even mention them. You were wrong. Period.

I'M not arguing about same sex marriage's place in "Christian truth". I'M arguing that you guys are in such a rush to condemn homosexuality that you'll say anything and claim its in the Bible.

 

[LightHorseman]

..."unfounded internet rumour that one of the Columbine murderers asked someone if they were a Christian before he killed her? HE WAS PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS!

Thank goodness, Christians are being persecuted,

____________________________________________________

You see nothing wrong here?

So, the use of quotation marks in a hypothetical soliloquy is a subtlety that you have yet to grasp, is it?

 

[LightHorseman]

Did it stun you?

Yes, frankly.

It somewhat stuns me as I think about all the early Christian's who I know by pure logic were put to death over this issue as well as other issues.

O...kay. With the best will in the world, just be mindful of the possibility of "projection".

I don't know how to reconcile that as much as I love people and want them to be happy, and I know how difficult it is to find happiness even as a heterosexual in a post-modern "dating" world... but how can the church support homosexuality as not being sin considering all the people who died to change the world into this Christian model of marriage, which has lasted for over 2,000 years of church history?

I don't think people died to "change the world into this Christian model of marriage" at all, since early Christian marriage, contemporary Jewish marriage and contemporary Roman marriage were all pretty similar.

I do disagree with your claim that there is a single model of marriage that has been unchanged for 2000 years until the homosexuals started asking for equality. Marriage has been a changing institution in the past, now, and will remain so. It changed long before any modern movement by homosexuals asking for parity.

My spirit feels very torn right now, so perhaps I need a time out.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[onemorequestion]

For what, exactly?

So, the use of quotation marks in a hypothetical soliloquy is a subtlety that you have yet to grasp, is it?

I grasp this. The victims of Columbine: http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/43232622.html


-- Cassie Bernall, age 17. Cassie was active in church youth programs and Bible study groups. She had recently visited Britain. Her favorite movie was Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."

-- Steven Curnow, age 14. Curnow was a freshman at Columbine. He dreamed of being a Navy top gun and piloting an F-16. He is said to have watched "Star Wars" movies so often he could recite dialogue. Steven played soccer as a boy and had learned to referee to earn pocket money.

-- Corey DePooter, age 17. Corey was a good student and loved to golf, hunt and fish. He was a former wrestler. Corey had taken a maintenance job at a golf club to save up for a boat with a friend.

-- Kelly Fleming, age 16. Was an aspiring songwriter and author, Kelly wrote scores of poems and short stories based on her life experiences. She was also learning to play guitar. Kelly had recently moved from Phoenix and was eager to get her driver's license and a part-time job.

-- Matthew Kechter, age 16. As a junior, Matthew had hoped to start for the football team. He enjoyed lifting weights and maintained an 'A' average.

-- Daniel Mauser, age 15. A sophomore, Daniel excelled in math and science and had earned straight A's on his last report card. Daniel ran cross country and was on the debate team.

-- Daniel Rohrbough, age 15. Daniel helped in his father's electronics business and worked on family farms in Kansas during the summer. He enjoyed computer games, stereos and home theater systems.

-- William "Dave" Sanders, age 47. Mr. Sanders was a Columbine teacher for 24 years. He taught classes in business and science. Mr. Sanders also coached girls' basketball and softball. He was married with three daughters and 10 grandchildren. Mr. Sanders was shot twice in the chest while directing students down a hallway to safety.

-- Rachel Scott, age 17. Rachel played the lead in a student-written play, "Smoke in the Room." She was active in Celebration Christian Fellowship church and liked photography. On the day of the tragedy, Rachel's younger brother Craig, 16, played dead in the library and helped lead others to safety.

-- Isaiah Shoels, age 18. Isaiah was due to graduate in May. He suffered health problems as a child and had heart surgery twice. Isaiah wanted to attend an arts college and become a music executive. He was small in stature but lifted weights, played football and wrestled.

-- John Tomlin, age 16. John enjoyed driving off-road in his beat-up Chevy pickup. He worked after school in a gardening store and belonged to a church youth group. John went on a missionary trip to Mexico and built a house for the poor. He hoped to enlist in the Army.

-- Lauren Townsend, age 18. Lauren was the captain of girls' varsity volleyball team, which was coached by her mother. She was a member of the National Honor Society and a candidate for valedictorian. Lauren hoped to major in biology in college.

-- Kyle Velasquez, age 16. Kyle had attended Columbine only three months before the shooting. Kyle loved computers, his family and the Denver Broncos. He dreamed of joining the Navy, as his father had. Kyle was buried with full military honors at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver.

 

[vl32]

Yes, frankly.

O...kay. With the best will in the world, just be mindful of the possibility of "projection".

I don't think people died to "change the world into this Christian model of marriage" at all, since early Christian marriage, contemporary Jewish marriage and contemporary Roman marriage were all pretty similar.

I do disagree with your claim that there is a single model of marriage that has been unchanged for 2000 years until the homosexuals started asking for equality. Marriage has been a changing institution in the past, now, and will remain so. It changed long before any modern movement by homosexuals asking for parity.

Sorry to hear that.

Thank you, and yes perhaps my synopsis was too simplistic regarding how the early Christians and Christianity may have changed marriage, or maybe it did for the gentile world?

I know there were different types of marriages -- arranged, financial necessity, etc, but that really wasn't what my spirit was feeling.
I just feel torn in regards of how to reconcile this new modernism with the Apostles and church tradition on this subject. And what the Apostles stood for and what they died for.

It's very difficult. However, gays, lesbians, all should know they are loved by Christians no matter how difficult this issue is. And if there is a gay-friendly church down the street from me I am not afraid to say hello, give you a hug, and so on and I'd hope they'd feel the same about me.

I think what I brought up is very deep and I need time to think about it.

 

[LightHorseman]

Perhaps the most irrelevant post of all time.

 

[LightHorseman]

Thank you, and yes perhaps my synopsis was too simplistic regarding how the early Christians and Christianity may have changed marriage, or maybe it did for the gentile world?

I know there were different types of marriages -- arranged, financial necessity, etc, but that really wasn't what my spirit was feeling.
I just feel torn in regards of how to reconcile this new modernism with the Apostles and church tradition on this subject. And what the Apostles stood for and what they died for.

It's very difficult. However, gays, lesbians, all should know they are loved by Christians no matter how difficult this issue is. And if there is a gay-friendly church down the street from me I am not afraid to say hello, give you a hug, and so on and I'd hope they'd feel the same about me.

I think what I brought up is very deep and I need time to think about it.

I'll look forward to discussing it with you when you've had time to meditate on it more.

 

[Jase]

It's very difficult. However, gays, lesbians, all should know they are loved by Christians no matter how difficult this issue is. And if there is a gay-friendly church down the street from me I am not afraid to say hello, give you a hug, and so on and I'd hope they'd feel the same about me.

.

I'm sure you can understand why many don't feel the "Christian love" after seeing threads like these (not referring to you btw).

 

[vl32]

I'm sure you can understand why many don't feel the "Christian love" after seeing threads like these (not referring to you btw).

I thought this thread did get a little childish on both sides.

Anyhow, I have to run but I came to edit in "gay-friendly married/unioned/blessed churches" as gays have always been in the churches I've attended, though after they came to Christ they either stayed celibate or married heterosexually. I have no problem with differing churches... I just feel very heavy-laden over this schism. I don't like it much. But in my real neighborhood world I wouldn't mind visiting, sharing a picnic, hugs... the body of Christ does need to reason together.

I'd never believe in a schism where we don't talk to each other or the expel the immoral brother/sister thing. That would be going way too far for me and I would not be comfortable with a church that told me I had to stay away from gay people or married gay people. I think I'm a moderate and far from an extremist.

It's just hard to reconcile in my spirit the apostolic tradition on this matter.

Sorry if this was written in haste and I left some important points out, but I do have to go.

 

[OllieFranz]

And notice that nowhere in there, as crazy as some of that might seem to man, God NEVER in His word examples marriage as being between two people of the same sex, but rather, ALWAYS affirms such a coupling as sinful.

[sarcasm]Also, nowhere in the Bible is there an example of a descendant of Japheth (European stock "White race") marrying a descendant of Ham (African stock "Black race"). God never in His Scriptures examples marriage as being between two people of such diverse race, but always affirms a "coupling" as sinful. So I guess that the State of Virginia was right to ban interracial marriage and the Lovings were wrong.[/sarcasm]

 

[OllieFranz]

I grasp this. The victims of Columbine: Anniversary Remembers Victims of Columbine Massacre


-- Cassie Bernall, age 17. Cassie was active in church youth programs and Bible study groups. She had recently visited Britain. Her favorite movie was Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."

-- Steven Curnow, age 14. Curnow was a freshman at Columbine. He dreamed of being a Navy top gun and piloting an F-16. He is said to have watched "Star Wars" movies so often he could recite dialogue. Steven played soccer as a boy and had learned to referee to earn pocket money.

-- Corey DePooter, age 17. Corey was a good student and loved to golf, hunt and fish. He was a former wrestler. Corey had taken a maintenance job at a golf club to save up for a boat with a friend.

-- Kelly Fleming, age 16. Was an aspiring songwriter and author, Kelly wrote scores of poems and short stories based on her life experiences. She was also learning to play guitar. Kelly had recently moved from Phoenix and was eager to get her driver's license and a part-time job.

-- Matthew Kechter, age 16. As a junior, Matthew had hoped to start for the football team. He enjoyed lifting weights and maintained an 'A' average.

-- Daniel Mauser, age 15. A sophomore, Daniel excelled in math and science and had earned straight A's on his last report card. Daniel ran cross country and was on the debate team.

-- Daniel Rohrbough, age 15. Daniel helped in his father's electronics business and worked on family farms in Kansas during the summer. He enjoyed computer games, stereos and home theater systems.

-- William "Dave" Sanders, age 47. Mr. Sanders was a Columbine teacher for 24 years. He taught classes in business and science. Mr. Sanders also coached girls' basketball and softball. He was married with three daughters and 10 grandchildren. Mr. Sanders was shot twice in the chest while directing students down a hallway to safety.

-- Rachel Scott, age 17. Rachel played the lead in a student-written play, "Smoke in the Room." She was active in Celebration Christian Fellowship church and liked photography. On the day of the tragedy, Rachel's younger brother Craig, 16, played dead in the library and helped lead others to safety.

-- Isaiah Shoels, age 18. Isaiah was due to graduate in May. He suffered health problems as a child and had heart surgery twice. Isaiah wanted to attend an arts college and become a music executive. He was small in stature but lifted weights, played football and wrestled.

-- John Tomlin, age 16. John enjoyed driving off-road in his beat-up Chevy pickup. He worked after school in a gardening store and belonged to a church youth group. John went on a missionary trip to Mexico and built a house for the poor. He hoped to enlist in the Army.

-- Lauren Townsend, age 18. Lauren was the captain of girls' varsity volleyball team, which was coached by her mother. She was a member of the National Honor Society and a candidate for valedictorian. Lauren hoped to major in biology in college.

-- Kyle Velasquez, age 16. Kyle had attended Columbine only three months before the shooting. Kyle loved computers, his family and the Denver Broncos. He dreamed of joining the Navy, as his father had. Kyle was buried with full military honors at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver.

In an attempt to end this derail, Two points:

1) That some, many, or even all of the victims were Christians is irrelevant. They were not killed because they were Christians. When the claim concerning the verbal exchange with that one student over her Christianity was examined, it turned out the conversation had nothing to do with hating Christianity, or hating her because she was Christian, or even hating her at all.

2) The sentence that you objected to was, in the original post, placed in the mouth of a Christian. A Christian who, in LightHorse's scenario, was looking for an excuse to feel persecuted. Lighthorse's whole point in that post is that most "persecution" of fundamentalist Christians in America simply isn't persecution. The rest of the country simply has too much else to worry about than to persecute you when it is easier to just ignore you most of the time. They only oppose you when you try to oppress another group or otherwise go out of your way to place yourselves squarely and resolutely in the way.

 

[onemorequestion]

In an attempt to end this derail, Two points:

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

1) That some, many, or even all of the victims were Christians is irrelevant. They were not killed because they were Christians. When the claim concerning the verbal exchange with that one student over her Christianity was examined, it turned out the conversation had nothing to do with hating Christianity, or hating her because she was Christian, or even hating her at all.

Where's the compassion for the murdered?

2) The sentence that you objected to was, in the original post, placed in the mouth of a Christian. A Christian who, in LightHorse's scenario, was looking for an excuse to feel persecuted.

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.

Lighthorse's whole point in that post is that most "persecution" of fundamentalist Christians in America simply isn't persecution.

"Fundamentalist Christian" is redundant.

The rest of the country simply has too much else to worry about than to persecute you when it is easier to just ignore you most of the time.

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

They only oppose you when you try to oppress another group or otherwise go out of your way to place yourselves squarely and resolutely in the way.

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?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Hairy Tic,

Western society has largely adopted the idea of gays and being gay despite there being no proof of being gay. To God, gays are not gays but men or women who experience anatomically disordered sexual attraction. For God there is no such thing as gays, His word shows the concept is error. So what you are referring to as ‘gay catholics’ is an oxymoron and has no place in a Christian forum.

## Sorry, but they exist. If the Churches can't face up to such realities, there is something wrong.

It is no use citing Romans 8 when one ignores the Bible hollistically. Romans 8 like a number of verses in the Bible is referring to those in Christ, to be in Christ is to agree with and seek to do what He teaches. (ie John 14-17)

## So far, agreed on all points.

To think of oneself as gay, or to seek same sex relationships is not an example of being ‘in’ Christ as one can see from scripture.

## And plenty of Christian gays, Protestant, Orthodox & Catholic, try to "agree with and seek to do what He teaches",just as other Christians do. As for Romans 8, if a Christian is in Christ before discovering he is homosexual, he is in Christ during the discovery, and after it. Otherwise, St.Paul's words mean nothing. They become a cruel joke. It is at that sort of time that those words would be especially precious, so unless the words are "almost nothing" rather than nothing", those Christians are among the beneficiaries of that passage. If only straight people can be saved, those who are not have no hope.

Of course it probably refers to Enoch 1’s prophecy, but the passage also says in a similar way the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. Don’t try and deceive people but cherry picking bits out of context to use against other verses.

## I thought that trying to trace the words to their likely source might be of interest, not least for the light it throws on Jude's use of his sources. Where was the deception ?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Hairy Tic,
You have proposed why some of the texts might not be what they say and a couple of other generalisations with texts.
Here is the truth again.

God’s creation purpose for man and woman
Gen 2 – “23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Matt 19 “4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh']?
Mark 10 “"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one”
Eph 5 “31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
1 Cor 7 “It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. “

God’s condemnation of homosexuality
Gen 19 “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Leviticus 18 “22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "
Leviticus 20 “13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 1- “26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion


One of the warnings to believers.
Jude 1 “3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

## Thanks

I've given a great deal of thought to Gen.19 - FWIW, I don't see any persuasive reason to treat it as condemning modern homosexuality.

I don't know Hebrew BTW, but I can see how one passage can be related to another - knowledge of Hebrew is not required to see that different authors make different use of the Sodom passage. FWIW, Gen. 19 echoes the Flood narrative, which is fascinating to know.

FWIW, the quotation from Jude says nothing about homosexuality, & does not say how Jude would deal with gay Christians. So Christians on different sides of the argument have to deal w/ that as best they can.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Lighthorseman,
It is the common meaning, its forcing the church to accpet homosexuality.
Hope this helps.

## Sorry to ask, but what is "accept[ing] homosexuality" intended to mean ?

 

[OllieFranz]

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

No, you were responding to your own misreading of the post and of the meaning of the statement in context.

Where's the compassion for the murdered?

My compassion, (or your compassion, for that matter) for the victims does not change the facts, nor does the fact that they were Christian make it an act of hatred against Christianity and your questioning it only serves to show that you have no point and need to cofuse things emotionally to hide that fact.

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

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.

Buffalo Chips! Disagreement with your conclusions and irritation at your attitude is not harrassment or attack. As I said earlier, we would be happy to ignore you (or even enter into fruitful discussion) if you didn't go out of your way to be seen as rude and intrusive.

Additionally, only those who do things like protest funerals and disrupt events are "attacked." But many of these people have duped otherwise peaceful Christians into believing that an "attack" on them is an attack on all Christians. It's scare tactics that work. It worked in the Fourties, it worked in the Fifties, it worked against human rights for Blacks in the Sixties, it worked against human rights for women in the Seventies, and in all cases, it was eventually seen as the ham it was. It is working today against gays, but it will eventually be seen to be just as much of a sham.

"Fundamentalist Christian" is redundant.

I don't think so, since many of those who (you claim) are "attacking" Christianity are Christians. If anything "fundamentalist Christian" is not narrowed enough. There are lots of Christians who would meet the definition of "fundamentalist" who are not the target of any persecution, and know that.

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.

A Christian should preach the Gospel by protesting the funerals of Christian soldierss who died as heroes? A Christian should preach the Gospel by disrupting traffic, and attempting to start a riot when the authorities politely ask them to simply step out of the flow of traffic before continuing their tirade?

It is not the message that causes the reaction, it is the messenger. Do you really want to hold these up as examples of proper Christian behavior?

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?

There are two parts of that question: "force" and "accept"; and there are multiple ways to "accept homosexuality."

Accept that it exists? That's a fact. Whether or not I like it I have to accept facts. There is no question of for or against.

Accept that homosexuals are people, and simply as people, they should be accorded all the dignity that I would hope others accord me because I'm a person? I would hope anyone would be for that.

Accept that God does not condemn homosexuality, per se? I do hope that more and more of the Church will come to recognize that truth. hat they will learn to study context as well as prooftext.

Force? Is it force to hold discussion with them? Is is force to pray for them?

I don't see any force, nor any attempt to use the law to control the Church (which is what I assume you actually mean by force). Every proposed law I've seen that could in any stretch of the imagination be connected with "championing" gays contains exceptions for religious organizations and many of them also include exceptions for personal religious convictions.

 

[LightHorseman]

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

Which I never endorsed.

Where's the compassion for the murdered?

Pointing out that they weren't murdered as an act of Christian persecution is hardly the same as lacking compassion for them.

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?

Against it, if it were happening. But no one is trying to "force" the church to do anything, so the question is pretty baseless.