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.
That's okay, it's very easy to mininterpret things on an internet forum.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?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.
Well, let us know what gay lifestyle you are referring to then we can fill you in.
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, I grew up Presbyterian, and was confirmed in a Presbyterian church. So I can testify that it is an issue, but not intolerably so.
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.
"As more and more churches are realising the misunderstandings regarding homosexuality and the Bible, things are improving."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.
Why shouldn't they be involved in ministry? Aren't they good enough for you?
David Brider said:*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?
so, in your analogy, homosexuals (as sinners) are blind, and thus insuitable to lead a congregation?Because you can't have the blind leading the blind, thats why.
(Not trying to offend, here) What should it be called?
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.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.
"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."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.
oh dear, another excellent example of out of context.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.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.
"Ok, so a minister/pastor has to have a wife and children before he's allowed to be a minister/pastor."
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.
"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."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."
The real meaning:"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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?