Homosexual Churches

[seebs]

Originally posted by Homie
And they are wrong as well! I know christians who do not think abortion or gay sex is sin, they are called (by Americans) liberals. A typical trait of christian liberals is that being politically correct and "getting with the times" is more importent than the Bible. Although they may not have realized it, God has 2nd place to popular opinion.

Ahh, yes, and a typical trait of conservatives is longing for the good old days of keeping slaves and whupping 'em for sport.

Or maybe insulting stereotypes are rude and inaccurate at best?

The liberals I know are trying to follow Christ's example, not man's. Christ spent His life being accused of false teaching for being kind to sinners, and breaking people's interpretation of God's law.

 

[MizDoulos]

To all:&nbsp&nbspPlease be respectful in responding to other member's viewpoints. Don't let the discussion deteriorate into personal attacks.

Thank you.


[noflame][/noflame]

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Homie
And they are wrong as well! I know christians who do not think abortion or gay sex is sin, they are called (by Americans) liberals. A typical trait of christian liberals is that being politically correct and "getting with the times" is more importent than the Bible. Although they may not have realized it, God has 2nd place to popular opinion.

Isn't it possible that these "liberals" read the same Bible you do, place as much importance on it as you do, but just come to different conclusions about what it says?

I guess you're right and they're wrong -- silly me, I should have remembered that the conservative Christians have the monopoly on interpreting the Bible.

-Chris

 

[Homie]

seebs
Ahh, yes, and a typical trait of conservatives is longing for the good old days of keeping slaves and whupping 'em for sport.

Really mature, I was actually being serious.

kern
Isn't it possible that these "liberals" read the same Bible you do, place as much importance on it as you do, but just come to different conclusions about what it says?

Maybe for some that is true, but I see people that come to their own conclusions and write off what they do not like (thus not interptreting it differently), especially in the OT.

I guess you're right and they're wrong -- silly me, I should have remembered that the conservative Christians have the monopoly on interpreting the Bible.

Interpretation is only needed when the scriptures are figurative or symbolic, otherwise it is plain forward. Of course I believe I am right when I argue for something in a discussion, don't you? I would be stupid to argue for or against something (e.g. abortion) if I believed I was wrong, that would be really stupid.

Regarding your sarcastic tone, I will ignore it. After all, you are liberals and it is expected of you. (We discussed if leftists/liberals were in general mean-spirited, in another forum)

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Homie

Interpretation is only needed when the scriptures are figurative or symbolic, otherwise it is plain forward.

This is far from the truth. Culture and context are applicable regardless.

An example of this is when Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh to drink, and rejects it. This scene does not mean much unless you know that those condemned to crucifixion were given wine + myrrh as a narcotic to ease their pain. Jesus, "after tasting it", rejects it, thus choosing to bear the full weight of the pain himself.

This is why Biblical interpretation and cultural studies are necessary -- even passages that may seem clear as day may be misread if the cultural context is misunderstood.

-Chris

 

[Homie]

kern
This is far from the truth. Culture and context are applicable regardless.

An example of this is when Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh to drink, and rejects it. This scene does not mean much unless you know that those condemned to crucifixion were given wine + myrrh as a narcotic to ease their pain. Jesus, "after tasting it", rejects it, thus choosing to bear the full weight of the pain himself.

This is why Biblical interpretation and cultural studies are necessary -- even passages that may seem clear as day may be misread if the cultural context is misunderstood.

When you read the verse about Jesus he rejects the wine+myrra, plain and simple. Although you would get more out of it, if you knew that it was a narcotic, it still means the same: That Jesus was offered the wine+myrra and rejected it. When you add the extra knowledge (as you did) you are not interpreting it in a different way.

Different interpretations means that different meanings/messages are extracted from the same verse(s). Give me such an example, and where the scripture is not symbolic or figurative (like e.g. Jesus' parables)

 

[Job_38]

Originally posted by seebs
Ahh, yes, and a typical trait of conservatives is longing for the good old days of keeping slaves and whupping 'em for sport.

Or maybe insulting stereotypes are rude and inaccurate at best?

The liberals I know are trying to follow Christ's example, not man's. Christ spent His life being accused of false teaching for being kind to sinners, and breaking people's interpretation of God's law.

 

 You do know it was the Democrats that were the ones who were for slavory right? And that the Republican party was formed AGAINST it?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Job_38
You do know it was the Democrats that were the ones who were for slavory right? And that the Republican party was formed AGAINST it?

I know no such thing; politics is much more complicated than that.

I can say with certainty that the Southern Baptists split from the Northern Baptists over slavery, because that's the primary thing listed in the documentation of the time.

Seriously, read up on the religious response to slavery in America; everything you see about people who accept homosexuals was used against people who opposed slavery.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Homie
Really mature, I was actually being serious.

And your insulting generalization was every bit as wrong as my comment. The only difference is, I was using irony, to try to show a point, and you actually believe hateful lies.

 

[dignitized]

okay . .. anyhow - does Christ tell us to build a church around excluding people or around accepting people? I have to think that if Christ came today he would be hanging out with hookers and gays, just like he did in the "old days." Christ never judged nor condemned any SINNER for their sins. He edified and lifted them out of their sins through LOVE! The only time He spoke against some one was when he was speaking to those who were "righteous." . . . At least in their own eyes.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Homie
When you read the verse about Jesus he rejects the wine+myrra, plain and simple. Although you would get more out of it, if you knew that it was a narcotic, it still means the same: That Jesus was offered the wine+myrra and rejected it. When you add the extra knowledge (as you did) you are not interpreting it in a different way.

Different interpretations means that different meanings/messages are extracted from the same verse(s). Give me such an example, and where the scripture is not symbolic or figurative (like e.g. Jesus' parables)

The reason culture and context are important is that someone seeing Jesus reject wine could jump to the conclusion that alcohol is evil. With culture and context added to our interpretation, we can see how naive our first conclusion was.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Homie
preaching that homosexuality is ok and not a sin = false teaching. 

This is how you interpret God's intentions;  others do so differently.  it is not your place to judge them.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Andrew
if there's nothing wrong with what they are doing, then paedophiles might as well set up their own churches too, invite their own kind and preach that what they are doing is natural, ok and not a sin --- and give Christianity a bad name.

I'd say certain Catholic priests are already doing that, but that would be an improper hateful comment.  Of course most Catholics are shocked and dismayed at the pedophile priests scandals.  So are most gays/lesbians upon learning some of their number do this.  Most sexual abuse is of girls by heterosexual men, but that does not mean heterosexual men as a whole are evil.

Your blatant attempt to paint a group of harmless souls based on bad actions of a few is reprehensible.

 

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Br. Max
Can a person be a believing confessing Christian and a homosexual? 

I am.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Homie
People are seriously saying that homoxeuality is not a sin and they say they can back this up with the Bible!!! I'd like to see this interpretation, flawed I'm sure but it would be interesting to see how they figure homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible.

The web site for Cathedral of Hope www.cathedralofhope.com may be a good place to start, then.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Homie
And they are wrong as well! I know christians who do not think abortion or gay sex is sin, they are called (by Americans) liberals. A typical trait of christian liberals is that being politically correct and "getting with the times" is more importent than the Bible. Although they may not have realized it, God has 2nd place to popular opinion.

Smearing ad hominiem attacks don't cut it.  Get a clue.

Religious liberals believe such is in line with the message of Christ.

While it is analytical in scope the book They Only Look Dead by E.J. Dionne dissects the current status of political liberalism;  religious liberalism's best reference book is probably Challenge of a Liberal Faith by Jack Marshall though it's somewhat dated. 

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Homie
(We discussed if leftists/liberals were in general mean-spirited, in another forum)

I would appreciate if someone could direct me to that forum so i could put in my .02.  That seems an instance of the pot calling the sink black so to speak I know many individuals of various political persuasions are insensitive and we can all be at times, but it's hardly the nature of liberalism;  quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Homie]

TexasLynn
This is how you interpret God's intentions; others do so differently. it is not your place to judge them.

Do not put words in my mouth, I say it is a sin, but I do not say "exclude homosexuals from churches". Nor have I made any insulting or judging statement towards homosexuals, yet all of you persist on attacking me in this most unChristlike manner, why? Because I hold a different opinion than you.
Do you see any conservatives left in this thread but me? No, they all left because they saw how this thread would deteriorate, I should have seen that as well. Yet another example of how liberals "discuss". Like this one from Texas Lynn

Your blatant attempt to paint a group of harmless souls based on bad actions of a few is reprehensible.

in response to Andrews post

if there's nothing wrong with what they are doing, then paedophiles might as well set up their own churches too, invite their own kind and preach that what they are doing is natural, ok and not a sin --- and give Christianity a bad name.

You know very well that he wasn't trying to "paint a group of harmless souls based on bad actions of a few". He was advocating against gays opening their own churches were they thaught that it was not a sin. He did that by comparing to another sinful act, as did I, only that I used thieves as an example instead of pedophiles. So why do you try to cause turmoil instead of reading the posts for what they are and having a decent discussion.

Seebs, you say I believe hateful lies (regarding liberals being mean-spirited), you are wrong. Because I have not been told that, I have experienced it for myself in Real Life and on forums, and have reached that conclusion for myself. Leaving this thread now, as I see a decent discussion cannot be upheld.

 

[MizDoulos]

Since this discussion has deteriorated into personal attacks and disharmony, the thread has been closed.