• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

Status
Not open for further replies.

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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.
 
Upvote 0

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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?

 
Upvote 0

vl32

Active Member
Aug 26, 2010
28
1
✟22,661.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
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.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
So, the use of quotation marks in a hypothetical soliloquy is a subtlety that you have yet to grasp, is it?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
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 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.
 
Upvote 0

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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.

 
Upvote 0

vl32

Active Member
Aug 26, 2010
28
1
✟22,661.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship

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.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
I'll look forward to discussing it with you when you've had time to meditate on it more.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm sure you can understand why many don't feel the "Christian love" after seeing threads like these (not referring to you btw).
 
Upvote 0

vl32

Active Member
Aug 26, 2010
28
1
✟22,661.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Reactions: AngelusSax
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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]
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Reactions: LightHorseman
Upvote 0

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
In an attempt to end this derail, Two points:

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


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?
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
## 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.
## 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 ?
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
## 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.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.