Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[Zecryphon]

Sorry Z, Brieuse implied that I didn't even want gays in the church. You clarified that EVERYone is wanted in the church. I used your quote to emphasize that, and expounded that I don't think they should be involved with ministry. Sorry for the confusion.

That's okay, it's very easy to mininterpret things on an internet forum.

 

[Brieuse]

Sorry Z, Brieuse implied that I didn't even want gays in the church. You clarified that EVERYone is wanted in the church. I used your quote to emphasize that, and expounded that I don't think they should be involved with ministry. Sorry for the confusion.

Why shouldn't they be involved in ministry? Aren't they good enough for you?

 

[Brieuse]

No argument? Just sarcasm? What's your stance?
When I said infiltrating, I didn't mean it to sound as if they don't belong. What I meant was exactly what

...and that the argument to tolerate the lifestyle to the point of including them in the pulpit is wrong.



Umm - and that makes it right?
On the issue of telling a practicing gay minister they can't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, ChaliceThunder said:

Really? Sad. If homosexuality is not wrong, than neither is hatred, or adultery, I guess.




(Not trying to offend, here) What should it be called?

Well, let us know what gay lifestyle you are referring to then we can fill you in.

 

[Brieuse]

It's wonderful that they're in church and learning about God. I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem lies in how the gays will most likely react to the doctrinal stance of the Presbyterian church. That church denounces homosexuality and proclaims it to be a sin. If modern evangelical Christianity has taught us anything, it's taught us that NOBODY likes being called a sinner in church. I don't think the Presbyterian church is going to change it's position though, because a group of people may be offended by it. But we'll have to wait and see. Other churches have made concessions to them, the Presbyterians could go the same way. Time will tell.



Yes, let's sharpen our swords with the word of God on this matter.

Well, I grew up Presbyterian, and was confirmed in a Presbyterian church. So I can testify that it is an issue, but not intolerably so.

As more and more churches are realising the misunderstandings regarding homosexuality and the Bible, things are improving.

 

[Zecryphon]

Well, I grew up Presbyterian, and was confirmed in a Presbyterian church. So I can testify that it is an issue, but not intolerably so.

As more and more churches are realising the misunderstandings regarding homosexuality and the Bible, things are improving.

"As more and more churches are realising the misunderstandings regarding homosexuality and the Bible, things are improving."

What's the supposed misunderstanding that's being resolved?

 

[zsepthenne]

Quite an interesting topic. One that's been troubling me of late. Probably more troubling to me than others. I had a step-brother that was gay, He was molested and sodomized by a man when he was 15, the man told him "now you are gay" when he was done. At the time my brother was a Christian and this rape must have killed him. I wasn't a believer at the time and I remember him telling me I needed to come to Jesus so I wouldn't go to hell. He was rather dramatic.
My brother choose a homosexual lifestyle in his later years. Only thing that was different about him was that he was interested in men and went to clubs where men hung out, so did I, so it wasn't so weird. I met his boyfriends, saw them cuddle even kiss, it didn't freak me out, still doesn't. Later in his life he was deeply troubled about his gayness in relation to Christianity, he felt like he couldn't "go home" so to speak. He died at 24, soon after us talking about his faith. And NO not from AIDS!
I live in a homosexual area, An area that is accepted that you might see two women walking and holding hands, or two men with their arms around each other. No one who lives in this area bothers them. Nothing is different about this area except for a more artsy feel, and maybe a few more beauty salons. One gay girl walks her dog the same time every night, we say hello's, her girlfriend works up the street, one night I saw her walking home with a yellow rose, for her girl I assume.
I know it is not the "natural order" of a procreating human. I know there are passages in the Bible that seem to condemn it. I don't have a problem with it and I don't feel deep in my heart that God condemns people for being gay.
A few other things in reference to things such as "gay pride" festivals and such, where people are naked and, cavorting and looking like sinful loons? Don't you think there are gays who are mortified by these things? Most are family oriented and take no part in such nonsense. I'm just as mortified by the Mardi-gras! And girls gone wild and all that BS.

 

[walloffire]

Why shouldn't they be involved in ministry? Aren't they good enough for you?

Because you can't have the blind leading the blind, thats why.

 

[David Brider]

*giggles*

Y'know, I just love this notion that homosexuality is a "lifestyle". Always make me laugh when I read that.

(Not trying to offend, here) What should it be called?

Homosexuality is just being attracted to people of the same gender as oneself. That's all. Contrary to myth, there's no "one size fits all" lifestyle that goes with that, same as there isn't one for heterosexuality (although I suspect that if you look around you'll find that many homosexuals have lifestyles not dissimilar to many heterosexuals).

David.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because you can't have the blind leading the blind, thats why.

so, in your analogy, homosexuals (as sinners) are blind, and thus insuitable to lead a congregation?

Whom, pray, ARE suitable to lead a congregation? I was under the impression that we are ALL sinners... surely that excludes EVERYONE?

 

[HaloHope]

(Not trying to offend, here) What should it be called?

If there is a homosexual lifestyle there is also a "hetrosexual lifestyle". Which is quite obviously not the case.

Im homosexual, my lifestyle happens to involve working 7.5 hours a day, going home, then relaxing with my other half. At weekends we go out and have fun, sundays we go to church etc.. . The only thing thats remotely related to my sexuality in my lifestyle is my partner the person I love and have made a lifelong commitment too is female. My sexuality does not equate my lifestyle as contrary to popular belief not all gay people (in fact id venture to say most gay people) are not sex crazed nymphomaniacs with no self control who are completely defined by their sexuality.

Hetrosexuals live varied lifestyles. Homosexuals live varied lifestyles. Peoples lives are so different and sexuality makes up a miniscule part of someones lifestyle.

 

[Zecryphon]

so, in your analogy, homosexuals (as sinners) are blind, and thus insuitable to lead a congregation?

Whom, pray, ARE suitable to lead a congregation? I was under the impression that we are ALL sinners... surely that excludes EVERYONE?

Here's some scripture from 1 Timothy 3 that discusses the qualities that should be present in those who seek leadership positions in the church. Now as you read, you will see that the overseers are to be married to one wife, that right there excludes any homosexual from ever attaining this position as overseer of a church.

One key to remember when reading and correctly interpreting scripture is to place yourself in the mindset of the author and his audience. While society today may consider one member of a homosexual couple to be the "wife" that is not the understanding the people at this time had of a wife. They regarded a wife as being a female who is married to male husband.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
1Ti 3:9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
1Ti 3:13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

 

[David Brider]

Here's some scripture from 1 Timothy 3 that discusses the qualities that should be present in those who seek leadership positions in the church. Now as you read, you will see that the overseers are to be married to one wife, that right there excludes any homosexual from ever attaining this position as overseer of a church.

A verse which has also been used by some people as a 100% binding proof that we should have no women serving as overseers of churches either.

Of course, it's possible - as some have suggested - that what really matters is not the gender of the overseer, so much as his or her faithfulness to his or her spouse.

David.

 

[Zecryphon]

A verse which has also been used by some people as a 100% binding proof that we should have no women serving as overseers of churches either.

Of course, it's possible - as some have suggested - that what really matters is not the gender of the overseer, so much as his or her faithfulness to his or her spouse.

David.

"A verse which has also been used by some people as a 100% binding proof that we should have no women serving as overseers of churches either."

True. My church does not allow women as pastors either. Are you saying that by only allowing men as pastors, there has been a misinterpretation of the scripture? Is there another way of reading this scripture that allows a woman to hold the role of overseer of a church?

"Of course, it's possible - as some have suggested - that what really matters is not the gender of the overseer, so much as his or her faithfulness to his or her spouse."

Why are you trying to shift the focus here? There are some people in this thread who do not know what the qualifications are for an overseer of the church and don't understand why you can not have a homosexual in that role. I have simply provided the scriptures that answer that question. Now you seem to want to shift the focus from the qualifications of an overseer to the gender of an overseer. The gender of the overseer is plainly stated. What's the problem?

 

[Brieuse]

Here's some scripture from 1 Timothy 3 that discusses the qualities that should be present in those who seek leadership positions in the church. Now as you read, you will see that the overseers are to be married to one wife, that right there excludes any homosexual from ever attaining this position as overseer of a church.

One key to remember when reading and correctly interpreting scripture is to place yourself in the mindset of the author and his audience. While society today may consider one member of a homosexual couple to be the "wife" that is not the understanding the people at this time had of a wife. They regarded a wife as being a female who is married to male husband.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
1Ti 3:9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
1Ti 3:13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

oh dear, another excellent example of out of context.

Ok, so a minister/pastor has to have a wife and children before he's allowed to be a minister/pastor.

Ah, and a house.

 

[Zecryphon]

oh dear, another excellent example of out of context.

Ok, so a minister/pastor has to have a wife and children before he's allowed to be a minister/pastor.

Ah, and a house.

"oh dear, another excellent example of out of context.

"Ok, so a minister/pastor has to have a wife and children before he's allowed to be a minister/pastor."

These passages have been posted to show why a homosexual can not serve as a pastor. I remind you of that since you brought up the issue of context. The scripture is clear an overseer is a man, not a woman and certainly not homosexual. If this however, is the wrong interpretation of the scriptures, perhaps you could provide us with the correct one.

"Ah, and a house."

He's gotta live somewhere.

 

[OllieFranz]

One key to remember when reading and correctly interpreting scripture is to place yourself in the mindset of the author and his audience. While society today may consider one member of a homosexual couple to be the "wife" that is not the understanding the people at this time had of a wife. They regarded a wife as being a female who is married to male husband.

You are a little off on two counts.

It was during the late Republic and early Imperial eras that the Romans aknowledged same-sex marriages, and one of the participants usually the one who had the less to bring into the union was often the "bride" during the wedding ceremony, and the "weaker vessel" throughout the marriage. So the people of Paul's time would actually have been more familiar with male "wives" than we are today.

And, we do not see women as being inferior to men today. Marriage is an equal partnership. So there is no reason for any couple in a same-sex marriage to pretend one is "the husband" and the other is "the wife."

 

[Zecryphon]

You are a little off on two counts.

It was during the late Republic and early Imperial eras that the Romans aknowledged same-sex marriages, and one of the participants usually the one who had the less to bring into the union was often the "bride" during the wedding ceremony, and the "weaker vessel" throughout the marriage. So the people of Paul's time would actually have been more familiar with male "wives" than we are today.

And, we do not see women as being inferior to men today. Marriage is an equal partnership. So there is no reason for any couple in a same-sex marriage to pretend one is "the husband" and the other is "the wife."

"It was during the late Republic and early Imperial eras that the Romans aknowledged same-sex marriages, and one of the participants usually the one who had the less to bring into the union was often the "bride" during the wedding ceremony, and the "weaker vessel" throughout the marriage. So the people of Paul's time would actually have been more familiar with male "wives" than we are today."

The Romans may have acknowledged same-sex marriages, but that doesn't automatically mean that same-sex marriage was so prevalent that it would lead the people to adopt the idea of a male bride as the norm. Some states recognize same-sex marriage today, that doesn't mean that people have adopted the idea of a male bride as the norm, simply because some states recongize same-sex marriage.


"And, we do not see women as being inferior to men today."

Where did I use the word inferior?

"Marriage is an equal partnership. So there is no reason for any couple in a same-sex marriage to pretend one is "the husband" and the other is "the wife.""

I've seen examples of this in soceity. One person adopts the role of the husband and one adopts the role of the wife. It may not be true in every case, but I have seen plenty of lesbian couples where one is the "butch" and tries to act out the male role in that relationship. So obviously there is a reason behind this behavior. I will agree with you though, that you don't know what it is.

 

[Brieuse]

"oh dear, another excellent example of out of context.



These passages have been posted to show why a homosexual can not serve as a pastor. I remind you of that since you brought up the issue of context. The scripture is clear an overseer is a man, not a woman and certainly not homosexual. If this however, is the wrong interpretation of the scriptures, perhaps you could provide us with the correct one.

"Ah, and a house."

He's gotta live somewhere.

The real meaning:

"
b. Husband of one wife: The idea here is of “A one-woman man.” It is not that a leader must be married (if so, then both Jesus and Paul could not be spiritual leaders in our churches). Nor is the idea that leader could never remarry if his wife had passed away or was Biblically divorced. The idea is that is love and affection and heart is given to one woman, and that being his lawful and wedded wife.
i. This means that the Biblical leader is not a playboy, an adulterer, a flirt, and does not show romantic or sexual interest in other women, including the depictions or images of women in pornography."

 

[JayJay77]

from OllieFranz:
It was during the late Republic and early Imperial eras that the Romans aknowledged same-sex marriages, and one of the participants usually the one who had the less to bring into the union was often the "bride" during the wedding ceremony, and the "weaker vessel" throughout the marriage. So the people of Paul's time would actually have been more familiar with male "wives" than we are today.

Where'd you find that? Because a newsletter done by Prof. Bruce W. Frier says otherwise. He says in a "Classic Studies Newsletter Vol. X, Winter 2004" story called "Roman Same-Sex Weddings from the Legal Perspective" says that although same-sex weddings can be found, it wasn't commonplace enough to be widely accepted by Roman culture. What hurts the same-sex claim the most historically is that the sources that give details of the same-sex weddings were hostile and seemingly against homosexuality.

My point is that it's hard to point to history and claim it was an accepted practice. The facts are too obscure, unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[OllieFranz]

It was not my intention to claim it was common place or widely accepted. It was merely offerred as a counter-example to the claim that in Paul's time, same-sex marriage was unknown, that it is a modern invention. Paul's lifetime was the one time when that claim can be shown to be in error. I believe that it would be in error for other times as well, but the historical record is more ambiguous.