• 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.
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Jase,
They wouldn't hire a gay person, merely for being gay?
There is no such thing as being gay. There is no scientific proof and it is still a choice as to whether someone acts on their desires. The Christian faith once delivered has a testimony to people who used to be homosexual offenders.

I find that absolutely disgusting.
Then you find reality and the gospel of Jesus Christ disgusting… your choice.

Not necessarily, although I think intent is an important part of morality.
One the contrary, do not covet is unknown by anyone else unless professed, so it doesn’t harm anyone else, and it is the same with sexual immorality as described in 1 Cor 6, sexual immorality is primarily a sin against ones own body. The position you are describing is humanism, but homosexuality is paganism.

Sorry, I don't buy the whole Biblical definition of marriage.
the how can you have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord?


God originally supported incestuous marriage and polygamy. Marriage has always been a business arrangement, usually arranged by family members. In the Old Testament, women were nothing more than property.
No, God did not support it,



 
Upvote 0

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
[/color]## No, the people who set the Sabbath above human suffering, w/ whom Jesus did not agree. I'm trying to remember where Jesus reviles either tax-collectors or pagans; there are woes a-plenty for the Pharisees & scribes - but "tax collectors and pagans" ?


He said He came for Israelites. The "outsiders" were plenty in Roman Judea. Notice He didn't try to convert Pilate?

I do OTOH remember that He speaks of harlots & tax-collectors entering the Kingdom of Heaven - maybe you had that in mind ?

Those that "go and sin no more." You left that part out.


## Not exactly, but I'll grant the point. We have to ask: why ? That He used the word to refer to them, does not mean He was expressing His own opinion of them.

When Jesus spoke, it was pure opinion. Pure as in God speaking. You can't deny that He said He came for the lost sheep. The wolves He also paid negative attention to.

I read Him as speaking in that way so as to challenge the woman to even greater confidence in His ability to help her: not as expressing what He considered "outsiders" to be.

I see it as Jesus having an individual interaction with one person.

It is, I think, a "ploy" to coax her to be even bolder in asking Him. It is astonishing enough that she asked Him at all; & He builds the fence a bit higher, not to repel her, but to help her need even more confidence - on the same principle as in Luke 18: the disciples are to pray - to nag & pester God, in fact - all the more for not being answered at once. Confidence becames stronger for being exercised - for the woman in that episode, & for the disciples. And so - for us also.

All He did was pointed out that He was the Messiah. And also, that she had lots of guys.

Your reading, as I read it, makes Him too much a Pharisee, too stand-offish to treat them as as anything but what decent respectable God-fearing people would not touch with a twenty-foot pole.

Jesus is the Judge of all creation. He sometimes made that clear. He isn't some lovey-dovey Hippy guru. His parables were condemnation often.

There were people like that, & Matthew 23 tells us how much he respected them.

What about those weeping and gnashing teeth?

He, his wife, & others in Luke may have been anawim.

The Pharisees and Scribes were political appointees of Herod. There is real history here.

A different bunch from the Pharisees & scribes.

Yup.


## The scribes & Pharisees ? Is it likely they thought they "used religion badly" ? Yet Jesus rebuked them more than once for their piety.

And commend those that used scripture accurately. As conservative Christians do today on atheism and gay sex.

Why would the Pharisees & scribes think of themselves as unrepentant ?

You're getting warmer. Both homosexuality AND atheism is promoted as not being anything that is wrong.

Sound familiar?

They paid tithes, they avoided becoming unclean, they loved the Temple, they had no dealings with Samaritans, they avoided women with "[an] issue of blood" (gonorrhoea ?), they were zealous for the God of Israel (which is one reason they opposed Jesus), they were exceedingly familiar w/ the Law, they gave alms they sanctified the Sabbath by fencing it about with prohibitions on activities that might be seen as work - they were godly, pious, God-fearing, righteous people. Therefore, they rejected Jesus.

Jesus saw Nathanael walking and said: "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"


Homosexuality is demanded of us Christians to be a righteous behavior . . . and Atheists reject God.

They did not repent: why should such righteous people need to ?

Please ask that of people that demand that homosexuality is not a sin.

Their righteousness was their problem.

Haughtiness is just as much a problem. "Pride" is what haughtiness is. Ever hear that word "pride" bantered about? Paraded about?

The people who heard Jesus gladly were the people "outside the Law", the "sinners" that is; them, & people equally far removed from the Pharisees in their holiness.

Well, all of the Apostles were men of the law. Please refer back to Natahnael.

As for those words of Jesus, they are no objection: to use the words, is not the same as expressing one's own position. If Jesus had used the words to people He addressed in order to describe them, your objection would be fatal to my remark. But where does Jesus do so ?

Jesus amde it clear that there were people that would follow Him and peopel that would lie about it. He also detailed how to to know. Wolf in sheeps clothing describe a person that looks all humble and soft, but inward are anything but. Notice the "piety" of the homosexual position these days?


## It depends what you mean by "liberalism". W/o a definition, your question can't be answered.

I mean liberalism, as in warping the word of God to advance an agenda that is more in line with Godless humanism than anything resembling Christian truth.


## What about it ? If that's a link, it doesn't work.

The Bible is an exceptionally dangerous gift, because there is no corruption like the corruption of what is best; & the Bible is a very wonderful & precious gift.

My point always.

Precisely because it is so great a blessing, it is capable of being used in an extremely harmful way, & becoming a curse.

Please take note that liberal theology and atheism using scripture qualifies for your definition of extremely harmful. As in hell for all eternity.
------
 
Upvote 0

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
They wouldn't hire a gay person, merely for being gay? Even if he happened to be celibate or married to a woman? I find that absolutely disgusting.

Why do you believe that we have to live in the way the godless define the world? If God no longer remembers a peson by their confessed of and forgiven sins why would we?

No it hasn't. There has just been a push from some at the Pentagon to do it, since we're the only NATO country who don't allow gays to openly serve, and no other country's military has collapsed, because of it.

Don't ask, don't tell is still well in place.

I may be wrong, but I thought it was two different schools in Mississippi. Ironically, it occurred in the most obese state in the country. Lots of hypocrisy there, that's for sure....

Two wrongs make a right ploy? Why on earth do you think that's logical? It just reaffirms the sin 100%.



http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Gr-Im/Homosexuality-and-Sexual-Orientation.html
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Gr-Im/Homosexuality-and-Sexual-Orientation.html


Welcome to the upside down world. A little boy is a little boy per DNA and physiology.

Even though the overwhelming majority of children soon realize this is an error, many keep wishing they were of the opposite sex and try to act like they are, and this seems to be a strong disposing factor for later transsexualism and homosexuality.

A mental condition. Duly noted. I


Not necessarily, although I think intent is an important part of morality. One can't keep desire out of their head. Of course, you don't follow all of the commandments, so I don't know why you expect me to abide by them.

:confused:

So then you disagree with Jesus. There are many people that do that.

It doesn't exist, and never has. God originally supported incestuous marriage and polygamy.

Not per Adam and Jesus. Though technically, I guess, Eve was a clone. Though a different gender. Quite a trick huh.

Marriage has always been a business arrangement, usually arranged by family members. In the Old Testament, women were nothing more than property.

Tell that to Jacob.

The whole modern day version of "Christian marriage" that you cling to, has not been around very long.

Only since Jesus was 33.

Romantic love and ceremony were never requirements for marriage.

Song of Songs anyone?

The first "wedding" of sorts, wasn't until the 9th Century. The early church fathers in general opposed marriage, and considered it misery and completely inferior to celibacy.

Europeans. You guys keep leaving that part out.

Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, said the command to multiply was no longer necessary, therefore invalidating marriage.

NOT per Jesus.

Martin Luther called marriage a "worldly thing" and gave it over to the state to handle, since it was not something the church should be involved in. It wasn't until John Calvin that marriage required both state license, and be performed in a church. Catholics then added witnesses being required.

So? Keeping the "marriage bed" oure was still an original idea of an apostle. And Jesus. I forgot for a second.

I don't know where you got your concept of marriage from, but it's neither Biblical or historical.

Jesus and you are on different sides of this issue.

I'm going with the Jesus position.

For the 1st 1500 years of Christianity, marriage was never viewed how you view it.

And you were there how? In Europe that is?

By the way . . . ANY PRO gay sex or pro homosexual behavior in the Bible or any "European Christendom? Did they quote the Bible for that if there is any?
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
The Fathers didn't oppose marriage.
Some did.

They considered celibacy a higher call and was considered more honorable, but marriage was never condemned or considered misery and invalid.
Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa claimed that marriage was rooted in misery. They saw it as bondage, whose only cure was to be celibate. Tertullian claimed marriage "consists essentially in fornication".

Augustine considered it a sacrament, but he also said if everyone stopped marrying and became celibate, it would be a good thing.

Celibacy was considered a higher call but they knew that many would not be able to handle it. Read Ambrose's letter concerning virgins. Marriage always remained a sacrament, even before the Council of Trent. lastly the first recorded rite of marriage wasn't until the 9th century. Your forgetting all the marriages that existed before then that weren't recorded. if it was such a small thing as you say, St. Augustine would not have praised the institution as much and wrote about it as much as he did, nor Ambrose. The Church still had a rite for marriage long before the 9th century..
The rite of marriage was originally taken from the Roman Pagan rite. As I said, the first Christian wedding wasn't until the 9th Century, and the current model didn't become commonplace until after the Reformation.

And as I mentioned, Martin Luther opposed marriage being a religious institution.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
They wouldn't hire a gay person, merely for being gay? Even if he happened to be celibate or married to a woman? I find that absolutely disgusting.

Oh, I just figured most people understood we're talking about active and open homosexuality. If we found out someone was in a homosexual relationship, he'd be fired. I don't think it's bad for a church to want people who espouse what they believe working for them.

No it hasn't. There has just been a push from some at the Pentagon to do it, since we're the only NATO country who don't allow gays to openly serve, and no other country's military has collapsed, because of it.
Interesting, I thought Obama had actually come through on one of his promises. Guess not.

I may be wrong, but I thought it was two different schools in Mississippi. Ironically, it occurred in the most obese state in the country. Lots of hypocrisy there, that's for sure....
all research points to it being one school, one girl. First she was banned from wearing a tuxedo to prom, then they canceled the prom altogether because she wanted to bring a girl as her date. It got uglier from there, but it appears to be an isolated incident.

Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation - Children and Homosexuality - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

Though children gain a gender identity sometime between one and two years old, they do not yet have a sense of gender constancy. A little boy may believe, for example, that at some later point in life he will be a girl. Even though the overwhelming majority of children soon realize this is an error, many keep wishing they were of the opposite sex and try to act like they are, and this seems to be a strong disposing factor for later transsexualism and homosexuality.

This gives no more proof than you did. No research is cited. Has anyone followed a group of children and watched those who tried to act as a different gender to see how many went on to be gay? Or are they just guessing?

I suppose that experts around the world are saying that little Shiloh, Brad and Angelina's daughter, will be a lesbian because of her desires to be a boy.

Not necessarily, although I think intent is an important part of morality. One can't keep desire out of their head. Of course, you don't follow all of the commandments, so I don't know why you expect me to abide by them.
God expects you to, not me. God never said "something has to hurt someone before it's considered a sin." The bible talks about how even our thoughts can be sinful. How does that reconcile with what your view of sin is?

Sorry, I don't buy the whole Biblical definition of marriage. It doesn't exist, and never has. God originally supported incestuous marriage and polygamy. Marriage has always been a business arrangement, usually arranged by family members. In the Old Testament, women were nothing more than property.
The bible speaks about those things but God never EVER condones them. Do you really mix up "reporting" with "consenting"?

Those were never God's intentions for marriage and you'll note he punished OT followers on more than one occasion for their sinfulness.

But it sure is convenient to not buy into what the bible says about marriage, isn't it? Without any rules you think you need to follow, anything goes for marriage.

The whole modern day version of "Christian marriage" that you cling to, has not been around very long. Romantic love and ceremony were never requirements for marriage. The first "wedding" of sorts, wasn't until the 9th Century. The early church fathers in general opposed marriage, and considered it misery and completely inferior to celibacy. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, said the command to multiply was no longer necessary, therefore invalidating marriage. Martin Luther called marriage a "worldly thing" and gave it over to the state to handle, since it was not something the church should be involved in. It wasn't until John Calvin that marriage required both state license, and be performed in a church. Catholics then added witnesses being required.
I don't know where you got your concept of marriage from, but it's neither Biblical or historical. For the 1st 1500 years of Christianity, marriage was never viewed how you view it.[/quote]

I cling to marriage being between a man and a woman, as sanctioned by God. THAT has been around since creation.



I should also point out to those criticizing the Lutherans for their approval of same-sex marriage and homosexual pastors that the ELCA does not speak for all Lutherans. The ELCA does not even speak for Lutheranism these days. Confessional Lutheran Churches still teach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful. Confessional Lutheran Churches do not ordain homosexuals. ELCA is not a Confessional Lutheran Church and does not hold to the teachings of Luther much these days. Please remember that when condemning the Lutheran churches.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Oh, I just figured most people understood we're talking about active and open homosexuality. If we found out someone was in a homosexual relationship, he'd be fired. I don't think it's bad for a church to want people who espouse what they believe working for them.
And I hope they are in a state that makes this illegal so they can sue the employer for every dime he's worth.


The bible speaks about those things but God never EVER condones them. Do you really mix up "reporting" with "consenting"?
I've already provided verses on this issue. God handed multiple wives to David, and offered him even more if he wanted them. That's condoning. The Bible also shows that God's only disapproval with Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines was that some of them were foreign. God had no problem with the quantity. As usual, you are applying your 21st century views onto the Bible, by assuming since you don't like polygamy, that God disapproved. Women were property, and men could have as many wives as they wanted. This was never viewed as an issue unless they were foreign wives.


But it sure is convenient to not buy into what the bible says about marriage, isn't it? Without any rules you think you need to follow, anything goes for marriage.
Marriage changes as society changes. Always has always will.



I cling to marriage being between a man and a woman, as sanctioned by God. THAT has been around since creation.
Marriage predates the Bible, and you have no evidence that God ever ordained anything since creation. Especially since "creation" was over 13 billion years ago.



I should also point out to those criticizing the Lutherans for their approval of same-sex marriage and homosexual pastors that the ELCA does not speak for all Lutherans. The ELCA does not even speak for Lutheranism these days. Confessional Lutheran Churches still teach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful. Confessional Lutheran Churches do not ordain homosexuals. ELCA is not a Confessional Lutheran Church and does not hold to the teachings of Luther much these days. Please remember that when condemning the Lutheran churches.
I'm glad I have absolutely no involvement with organized religion and these churches.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Hairy Tic,
Homosexuality is often found in ancient paganism - but so is belief in One God.
Ah but so is a belief in many gods. However the Bible describes homosexuality as what pagans do, and what people who turn away from God do. I assume people who turn away from God can be considered pagan. This means that the value judgement Christians should make upon it is that it is pagan. You are suggesting otherwise, but that being opposite to what the Bible is surely what paganism might claim.

Abraham was a pagan - but he is also a major Biblical "goodie". Before Christ, all the world was pagan, Jews only excepted.
How could Adam and Eve have been pagans?


## There is a difference, yes - circumcision was commanded by God in Gen.17, whereas no passage commands gay sex.
ah yes that similarity, But circumcision was required and same sex relations were condemned.

And St. Paul trashed the command - he altered what God had revealed every bit as thoroughly as gays are said to be trying to do.
On the contrary he was preaching Christ’s fulfilment, the gospel. I cant see nay contradiction.

Yet wicked old Paul is a central source for Protestant understanding of the NT.
and Roman as well. That’s Christianity for you. You may not like it but you cant change it or it will no longer be Christianity.


## But it did not confine Him. But it seems to confine a lot of Christians - especially Evangelical Protestants of a conservative bent of mind. Far more needs saying about the issue, but there it is for now.
Nonsense, the RC is taking a more prominent stand against homosexuality than the protestant church.

Is the writer prescribing - or describing ?
He is recording Jesus affirmation of God creation purpose and God’s word. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5.


The two-persons-of-different-sexes model of marriage is not the only one.
Except that it obviously is, from what the Bible says, from the logic of the Bible countenancing one of the only two possibilities, and condemning the other, and the anatomy of the human species.



 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Jase,
I've already provided verses on this issue. God handed multiple wives to David, and offered him even more if he wanted them. That's condoning.
except that God didn’t ever allow same sex unions.

But it sure is convenient to not buy into what the bible says about marriage, isn't it? Without any rules you think you need to follow, anything goes for marriage.
Marriage changes as society changes. Always has always will.
No so. Firstly that’s not Christianity, Christ’s command to His disciples was to teach other disciples to obey all He taught, that is the opposite of your philosophy of changing. Secondly homosexuality isn’t a change, its is the paganism the Bible refers to. All that has changed is the nature of the deception, a new concept of monogamous loving faithful homosexuality, its still condemned as its man with man and woman with woman.


Marriage predates the Bible, and you have no evidence that God ever ordained anything since creation. Especially since "creation" was over 13 billion years ago.
God created everything, if you think it was by change then that’s an atheist and pagan view again.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
And I hope they are in a state that makes this illegal so they can sue the employer for every dime he's worth.

Because while you yell and holler for tolerance from us, you don't tolerate our own beliefs. You would rather force a religious institution to hire someone who actively and openly sins.

Nice.

You're no better than what you try to paint us as.

I've already provided verses on this issue. God handed multiple wives to David, and offered him even more if he wanted them. That's condoning. The Bible also shows that God's only disapproval with Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines was that some of them were foreign. God had no problem with the quantity. As usual, you are applying your 21st century views onto the Bible, by assuming since you don't like polygamy, that God disapproved. Women were property, and men could have as many wives as they wanted. This was never viewed as an issue unless they were foreign wives.

Trust me, I'm not the one applying 21st century views to the bible. I'm not the one continuously saying that because society changes, the bible needs to change too.

That would be YOUR camp.

Again, God never condoned these marriages. You've proven nothing.

Marriage changes as society changes. Always has always will.

The secular view of marriage has changed. God's intentions for marriage has not.

Marriage predates the Bible, and you have no evidence that God ever ordained anything since creation. Especially since "creation" was over 13 billion years ago.

No, creation wasn't 13 billion years ago. There you go again, cherry picking. What parts of the bible do you actually believe? Do you even bother with it?

I imagine you think the story of Adam and Eve is just allegorical fairytale, so I'm in no mood to converse about how God created Adam and Eve with you. It's hard to debate with someone who cherry picks because the minute they don't have anything, they merely say "well, I don't believe what the bible says about that".

I'm glad I have absolutely no involvement with organized religion and these churches.

Of course you are...in our church you can't have the laissez faire attitude about God that you have now. In our church, you are accountable for your actions and your sins and we don't sugar coat the truth. We preach law and gospel, because without one the other is useless. You preach "whatever feels right in your relationship with God" whereas we preach "here is what God says".

I'm sure that anyone trying to justify a life of sin would rather join your church.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Because while you yell and holler for tolerance from us, you don't tolerate our own beliefs. You would rather force a religious institution to hire someone who actively and openly sins.

Nice.

You're no better than what you try to paint us as.
Funny, I wasn't aware that they only hired sinless people. I thought everyone was a sinner, but you selectively refuse to hire gays, despite you having no idea what their "sins" might be.

Jesus didn't fire the apostles for sinning. He didn't refuse to associate with prostitutes.



Trust me, I'm not the one applying 21st century views to the bible. I'm not the one continuously saying that because society changes, the bible needs to change too.

That would be YOUR camp.
No, even some of the early church fathers said, if our interpretation of the Bible doesn't match the evidence, it's our interpretation that's wrong.

Again, God never condoned these marriages. You've proven nothing.
You must have a different meaning of condone. What do you call God handing David multiple wives, and saying he would give him many more?



The secular view of marriage has changed. God's intentions for marriage has not.
Prove it.



No, creation wasn't 13 billion years ago. There you go again, cherry picking. What parts of the bible do you actually believe? Do you even bother with it?
It's a fact that the universe is over 13 billion years old. Genesis is a myth.

I imagine you think the story of Adam and Eve is just allegorical fairytale, so I'm in no mood to converse about how God created Adam and Eve with you. It's hard to debate with someone who cherry picks because the minute they don't have anything, they merely say "well, I don't believe what the bible says about that".
Yes, Adam and Eve are metaphorical, not real. Science long ago proved Genesis to not be literal. But you cherry pick too, since you ignore most of the 613 Mitzvot, and only use one of them to condemn gay people due to your dislike of them.





Of course you are...in our church you can't have the laissez faire attitude about God that you have now. In our church, you are accountable for your actions and your sins and we don't sugar coat the truth. We preach law and gospel, because without one the other is useless. You preach "whatever feels right in your relationship with God" whereas we preach "here is what God says".
You preach whatever you think is wrong, regardless if evidence proves you wrong. You are completely unwilling to admit you could be wrong about anything.

I'm sure that anyone trying to justify a life of sin would rather join your church.
I've justified a life of sin, where? What sins have I committed that I'm justifying?
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Jase,
I thought everyone was a sinner, but you selectively refuse to hire gays, despite you having no idea what their "sins" might be.
‘gays’? What do you man buy ‘gays’ as there is no concept in the Bible or for that matter any scientific proof of people ‘being’ gay. As to sinning, yes all sin and believers fall short, but non-believers don’t fall short as they have no benchmark to fall short by. When you say everyone is a sinner, in what way can that distinguish Christ in the believer form everyone else?

No, even some of the early church fathers said, if our interpretation of the Bible doesn't match the evidence, it's our interpretation that's wrong.
Well the Bible records Jesus Christ requiring disciples to obey all He taught. Besides the evidence is the species has two sexes for sexual reproduction through sexual intercourse.

You must have a different meaning of condone. What do you call God handing David multiple wives, and saying he would give him many more?
How does that lend any support to homosexuality? That’s still man and woman. Besides, Jesus explained what the real purpose was, faithful man woman marriage.

Prove it.
???? A Christian can’t prove the Bible wrong.


It's a fact that the universe is over 13 billion years old. Genesis is a myth.
Prove there was no ‘c’ decay.

Yes, Adam and Eve are metaphorical, not real.
But they are male and female and according to Jesus Christ God made them male and female for the reason they shall be united.

them to condemn gay people due to your dislike of them.
You mean who you think of as gay people feel condemned by the word of God, in fact they can do what they like, no-one here is condemning them.


 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Funny, I wasn't aware that they only hired sinless people. I thought everyone was a sinner, but you selectively refuse to hire gays, despite you having no idea what their "sins" might be.

Jesus didn't fire the apostles for sinning. He didn't refuse to associate with prostitutes.

He told them to go and sin no more, though.

We don't hire people who are living unrepentant sinful lifestyles. That goes for more than just homosexuality, too.

No, even some of the early church fathers said, if our interpretation of the Bible doesn't match the evidence, it's our interpretation that's wrong.

You must have a different meaning of condone. What do you call God handing David multiple wives, and saying he would give him many more?

Prove it.

It's a fact that the universe is over 13 billion years old. Genesis is a myth.

See, it's so easy for you to formulate an argument around something you don't even believe in. I'll admit, I can't overcome that kind of illogic. All you have to do is say "I don't believe that part of the bible" and voila...no accountability from you.

Yes, Adam and Eve are metaphorical, not real. Science long ago proved Genesis to not be literal. But you cherry pick too, since you ignore most of the 613 Mitzvot, and only use one of them to condemn gay people due to your dislike of them.

Of course, if you actually read what I post instead of projecting your feelings about my faith onto me, you would see that I do not condemn homosexuals. But you're too busy condemning my beliefs.


You preach whatever you think is wrong, regardless if evidence proves you wrong. You are completely unwilling to admit you could be wrong about anything.

No one has shown that what my church teaches is wrong. I've compared what my church teaches to what is in the bible and I've found the two to be in line with each other.

I've justified a life of sin, where? What sins have I committed that I'm justifying?

Oh yeah, right, another flaw in debating you. You aren't justifying a sinful life because you don't believe that the sin you commit is a sin.

The point was, those who do not want to be accountable for their sins would clamor to join your church of "do what you want because God loves you and don't worry about the bible, it's just a myth". If I was a weak Christian struggling with my sin, I'd want to join it so I wouldn't have to struggle anymore. Gosh, how wonderful that would be...at least right up to the point where God would say to me "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer".
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

I think that 'liberally minded people' - whatever that means - would be less interested in challenging the current accepted orthodoxy that homosexuality is a chosen life-style that is necessarily sinful if the various cults of Christianity who hold and proliferate this [questionable] belief would be satisfied with expressing it strictly within the realm of their own churches or social communities and not forcing others to accept it as well through the power of law.

The question that is asked is 'Why do we have to believe what you believe?' That same question can easily be turned around and asked of the OP and of all those cults who would use the force of law to bend the world to their will.

The questions of the OP are based upon many unstated and simply asserted premises, none of which are or have been adequately articulated or defended.
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
Unfortunately, too many people do that, whether on sexual orientation grounds, or race grounds, or what-have-you. There are many people who try and take situations beyond what the core is calling for. I hate when anyone gets hired because they happen to be either gay, black, hispanic, a female, or... well, insert anything else in there. Job qualifications shouldn't include that stuff, and legally it isn't supposed to, but... unfortunately, many people fear being labeled as discriminatory so they over-non-discriminate.

Still, I'm not sure how this means "they" are failing miserably. Some will "casually mention" they are gay, but most of the people I know who are gay aren't open about it, and won't bring it up, even if it could conceivably "help" them at that moment.

But then, maybe that's just a local area culture thing.



If I remember right, it sort of was repealed. I think it was "recommended" that it be repealed, but there's a further study the Pentagon is going to do to figure out how and when to implement it... so it's heading towards being repealed, but AFAIK, there's enough time allotted in the study to allow for a new president and congress to come in and "recommend" the repeal of the repeal... or something.
## Does DADT arise for any other issues ?
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
He told them to go and sin no more, though.

We don't hire people who are living unrepentant sinful lifestyles. That goes for more than just homosexuality, too.
And how do you determine who is unrepentant and who isn't? Do you hire obese people? I find it hard to believe you haven't hired a fornicator, divorcer, or adulterer at some point. How would you even know what sins anyone has committed?

I still find it highly hypocritical that you would fire a gay person for being gay when 1) You have no clue whether they have sinned 2) What goes on in another's bedroom is none of your business and 3) You have no authority to tell other people that their convictions from God are not genuine. We've have plenty of gay Christians on this board who have spent 10, 20 40 years praying to God over and over asking about this issue, and he has not once, told them they are abominations, or are unrepentant sinners. Why on Earth should I ever accept your opinion over theirs?

This is the biggest problem I have with fundamentalists. I would have a tiny bit more respect for your beliefs if you understood the concept of interpretation, and that yours is not automatically the correct one. Just because, you read a 21st Century English Bible, and automatically assume that it condemns modern day homosexuality, despite all the evidence to the contrary, does not make you right.

You are completely unwilling to ever admit you could be wrong, because the fundamentalist mind set is "The English Bible says it, that settles it". You have no respect for context, language, or culture.



See, it's so easy for you to formulate an argument around something you don't even believe in. I'll admit, I can't overcome that kind of illogic. All you have to do is say "I don't believe that part of the bible" and voila...no accountability from you.
Um, no - I actually examine the original language, culture, and context - and I'm willing to accept that my modern day understanding of certain verses may not be correct. In the face of indisputable evidence that indicates something is not factual, for example Genesis, I have no logical or rational choice but to dismiss the literal view. God gave me a brain, and I intend on using it. It's not my fault if it indicates to me some 4000 year old book translated into faulty English is not perfect.

Augustine held this position, and if it applied in his day, it most certainly applies to the 21st Century, where our understanding of the universe is exponentially better.
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19
More Christians need to heed Augustine's advice, and this applies to all of scripture, not just Genesis.


Of course, if you actually read what I post instead of projecting your feelings about my faith onto me, you would see that I do not condemn homosexuals. But you're too busy condemning my beliefs.
Yes, you do condemn homosexuals. You already stated you fire them under the assumption they are in a same-sex relationship.

Condemn:

to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.





No one has shown that what my church teaches is wrong. I've compared what my church teaches to what is in the bible and I've found the two to be in line with each other.
No one could show you that your church teaching even might be wrong. You are so unwilling to consider other views, you dismiss them immediately.



Oh yeah, right, another flaw in debating you. You aren't justifying a sinful life because you don't believe that the sin you commit is a sin.
You keep claiming I'm committing a sin, and yet you haven't told me which one. Which sin have I committed that I'm justifying?

The point was, those who do not want to be accountable for their sins would clamor to join your church of "do what you want because God loves you and don't worry about the bible, it's just a myth". If I was a weak Christian struggling with my sin, I'd want to join it so I wouldn't have to struggle anymore. Gosh, how wonderful that would be...at least right up to the point where God would say to me "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer".
And what makes you think that your views, won't result in God saying that? How do you know God won't hold you accountable for the judgement you place on others? Since you guys continue to judge gays according to the Law, you will be judged by that same law.
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
Hairy Tic,
Jesus also said to people, do what the Pharisees teach but don’t do what they do.
## He did - but what are we to conclude from that ?
Perhaps if the Pharisees had known the spirit of the OT law and prophets they would have recognised Jesus.
But onemorequestion is correct, this is typical liberalism, to freely and accurately discuss one aspect and a passage of scripture that poses no threat to liberalism whilst avoiding the clear passages excluding and condemning of homosexuality; which is a humanistic approach.
## But you've not defined or sketched or outlined what "liberalism" is - that is, what it is supposed to be. The word seems to have become a "boo-word" for whatever the speaker dislikes:

  • Communism
  • abortion
  • Biblical criticism
  • unfamiliar interpretations of Biblical passages
  • the policies of the US Democratic Party
  • health care reform
  • reading any Bible but the 1611 English Bible
  • modern Bible translations
  • not being opposed to gun control
  • being ready to re-examine old conclusions, old certainties
  • being ready to rephrase old recognised truths in new words
  • being ready to adopt new methods of study
  • protecting workers from exploitation by bosses
  • Freemasonry
  • not being absolutely "conservative" about the Bible
  • encouraging French Catholics to support the Republic after 1871
A few "liberals":

  • Stalin & Hitler
  • Obama
  • John Paul II
  • John Dewey
  • Leo XIII
  • Julius Wellhausen
  • Karl Barth
  • J. S. Mill
  • W.E. Gladstone
Leo XIII was very "conservative" about the Bible in 1893 - he was thought liberal b/c he remined employers that their works had rights in 1891. So it is possible for a single person to be "conservative" & "liberal" about diff. things. And to change his or her views.

J.H. Newman was thought to be a "liberal" in the 1850s in the RC - he was very anti-"liberal" in certain respects. By today's standards he would count as Fundamentalist in Biblical interpretation, b/c ideas taken for granted in his time no longer are. Some of those he criticised for their "liberalism" on OT matters in the 1820s while he was an Anglican would count as Fundamentalist. It cannot be sufficiently be emphasised that what counts as "liberal" is entirely relative.

What counts as "liberalism" depends on one's POV, & on where one is standing - the USA is much further to the political right than most European countries, from their POV. Attitudes to health care illustrate this well. THe US thinks Europe is pretty "Commy", we see the US as inclining to the extreme right. Both perceptions are relative, not absolute.

What I understand by the word is generosity of spirit, readiness not to condemn what is unfamiliar, having the humility to realise that what is helpful to oneself may be anything but helpful to others, being open to correction by others, refusing to be deaf to the possibility that one's thinking may need a shake-up, being prepared to learn from anyone rather than being deaf to them because they don't belong in one's own crowd.

I believe liberalism is all these things. I don't see it as the only right POV, because I believe that it cannot flourish & bring forth all the good fruit that it might, unless it is joined with a "conservative" POV. I don't see any necessary contradiction betw. them - I believe both are subject to corruption & that both can be weapons in ideological warfare,but not that either is incapable of being purified of the possibilities for evil in it. Both are needy, both can be redeemed, neither is The Only Christian POV. I do not in the least believe that to be liberal is to be amoral, weak in character, or malicious. These are human flaws, not flaws peculiar to those of any one POV.

If people want to have a name for what is called "liberalism", a lot of the things criticised, such as attitudes to sexual morality, already have a name: licentiousness. Why not use that (where applicable), instead of extending the use of the word "liberal" to refer to so many different things that becomes meaningless ?

"Humanism" is another slippery word...
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
And how do you determine who is unrepentant and who isn't? Do you hire obese people? I find it hard to believe you haven't hired a fornicator, divorcer, or adulterer at some point. How would you even know what sins anyone has committed?

If I was hired by the church, and I had an affair, and I saw nothing wrong with that affair and I did not repent, you can bet the church would fire me.

You call that bad, I call it church discpline.

I still find it highly hypocritical that you would fire a gay person for being gay when 1) You have no clue whether they have sinned 2) What goes on in another's bedroom is none of your business and 3) You have no authority to tell other people that their convictions from God are not genuine.

If someone wishes to work at our church or be members of our church (we generally also don't hire people outside of the WELS to help minimize these issues) then they need to subscribe to what we believe. If they can't, they don't need to work for us and they don't need to be members.

We've have plenty of gay Christians on this board who have spent 10, 20 40 years praying to God over and over asking about this issue, and he has not once, told them they are abominations, or are unrepentant sinners. Why on Earth should I ever accept your opinion over theirs?

How about they read their bible, in its entirety?

Just now I asked God whether it would be sinful of me to go have sex with someone else besides my spouse. He gave me nothing! Does this mean I should go have sex with someone besides my husband?

THAT'S the logic you're using.

This is the biggest problem I have with fundamentalists. I would have a tiny bit more respect for your beliefs if you understood the concept of interpretation, and that yours is not automatically the correct one. Just because, you read a 21st Century English Bible, and automatically assume that it condemns modern day homosexuality, despite all the evidence to the contrary, does not make you right.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times, we use the Hebrew and the Greek and the old texts.

You are completely unwilling to ever admit you could be wrong, because the fundamentalist mind set is "The English Bible says it, that settles it". You have no respect for context, language, or culture.

Again, see above. I realize that you can't possibly see where I'm coming from because you don't even believe the bible! How can I have a rational discussion with you when I don't know which parts you think are accurate and which parts are just made up??

Um, no - I actually examine the original language, culture, and context - and I'm willing to accept that my modern day understanding of certain verses may not be correct. In the face of indisputable evidence that indicates something is not factual, for example Genesis, I have no logical or rational choice but to dismiss the literal view. God gave me a brain, and I intend on using it. It's not my fault if it indicates to me some 4000 year old book translated into faulty English is not perfect.

There is no indisputable evidence that Genesis is not real.

We also have no evidence of Jesus' death on the cross. Please tell me you at least haven't shoved that aside, right?

Augustine held this position, and if it applied in his day, it most certainly applies to the 21st Century, where our understanding of the universe is exponentially better.
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19
More Christians need to heed Augustine's advice, and this applies to all of scripture, not just Genesis.

Augustine, like any other man, was human and sinful as well and not always correct.

Yes, you do condemn homosexuals. You already stated you fire them under the assumption they are in a same-sex relationship.

There would be no assumption.

And again, I'd have to question someone's motives if they tried to get a job with our church being gay and knowing our stance on homosexuality.

Condemn:

to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

Please, you who say you view everything in context. Condemn from a religious standpoint is to condemn from heaven, not merely say something bad about. :doh:

No one could show you that your church teaching even might be wrong. You are so unwilling to consider other views, you dismiss them immediately.

People have tried, but they've failed. Please...show me where my church is wrong. I'm giving you an open door. Go ahead. Go to wels.com, view what we believe, and then give me evidence why we're wrong.

You keep claiming I'm committing a sin, and yet you haven't told me which one. Which sin have I committed that I'm justifying?

You are gay. You have said as much in other posts. Were you lying? Misrepresenting yourself?

And what makes you think that your views, won't result in God saying that? How do you know God won't hold you accountable for the judgement you place on others? Since you guys continue to judge gays according to the Law, you will be judged by that same law.[/quote]
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Did you just accuse him of being a sinful BECAUSE he's gay?

because he's gay and trying to make everyone believe that there's nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle. If he was simply gay and struggling against that and fighting it, that would be a different story. Instead, he cuts down those who believe that homosexuality is wrong and does to us exactly what he claims that we do to him.

What does the bible say about people who cause others to sin, just out of curiosity?
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,093
19,753
USA
✟2,068,924.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
MOD HAT

closed for review


Edit - leaving the thread closed.
There are many violations in the thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffwhosoever
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.