• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,702
5,045
✟1,020,478.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Again, I agree with all your comments. But then, I too am too politically liberal for the fundamentalists and too conservative for the theological liberals.

I do NOT believe that we understand the passages regarding homosexual conduct. I agree that cultural context is critical. The critical issues are nature fo marriage and the purpose of sex (and whether sex outsie marriage is acceptable).

I was merely advocating listening to the other side, for both people. That is the Christian attitude, it seems. Even Arius had a hearing. I can see the points for both sides.
As far as scripture being irrespective of culture: When was the last sermon you heard about not eating meat sacrificed to idols?
Does your church ask the women to cover their heads "on account of the angels?" Culture does seem to matter.
I think the issue is: What laws do Gentiles have to keep to be included in the church? Luckily, Acts 15 answers this:

19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

My point was merely that all these things, taken in context seem to be talking about idolatrous practices- every facet of them. Why weren't "don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse, believe in one God, etc." mentioned? Some things are assumed. I suppose they are asking if homosexuality, as we have it today, was assumed as well.

Again, I see both sides, but I am leery of ever saying God can't or hasn't saved anyone because of a sin in their life, even if the repentance we see is lacking or nil. Romans 1 lists plenty of other sins in that list, and some of them are pretty common, not necessitating being "given over." I would also say that Romans 1:23 seems to speak to idolatry too.
As with any ethic, the situation leads to other questions and so on and so forth. I suppose I would have been better off just keeping my mouth shut, as I was dealing with hypotheticals in a forum of peoples dealing differently with the issue. I should, however, qualify my statements by saying that I:

a) don't agree with redefining the term marriage. Call it a civil union if you want, take the rights given by the state such as insurance, taxes, whatever, but don't say God blesses something it doesn't seem He does. Marriage has a purpose, and kids have a purpose. I also don't agree with people in homosexual relationships adopting. Kids need a mother and a father. Period. That being said, would they be better off left in a foster home? I doubt it. This opens the question of "what is the purpose of sex?" That's sticky...

b) I don't agree with the idea of "gender reassignment."

c) I can't agree with the ordination of any minister we know is in a homosexual relationship UNTIL we can answer any questions about the sinfulness of the activities in the negative.

So, I'm essentially screwed as I'm too liberal for the fundamentalists, but too conservative for the LGBT agenda. lol.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Mark 1 empahsises the point well, even if we were to concede some arguments the LGB still have nothing to support their argument. Can people not see how serious this unbelief is? How deep the level of disbelief and denial? Its idolatry, they simply cant let go of what they hold most dear.

Drax’s post should indicate what it actually is, no longer Christianity but secular liberal humanism. It’s the culture replacing the truth, and that’s the cultural aspect of the Biblical testimony, where the cultures God’s people lived in or side by side had same sex practices, the word of God warns and guides His people not to do such things (Lev, Corinth, Rome.)
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
This should be a major concern but a stark education for all in the Christian church, but particularly for Anglicans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011y5qg/5_live_Breakfast_Your_Call_Religion_and_homosexuality/

Despite the contention made in the discussion, which is in fact supported by statements of the ASA, that there is no proof of genetics, Colin Coward rejects the other reasons given on account of his feelings, that he is convinced God made him as a gay man with his feelings and desires.
But that isn’t acceptable, anyone can say what they think God has said and done. It means nothing, it is just his opinion, and could mean he is deceived. Nor does it means it is acceptable. What if for example a man claims God made him a paedophile? It is really God who told them?

The Bible says in the beginning God created male and female and it was for this reason a man shall.. be united with his wife. There is nothing in the Bible to support Colin Coward’s claim that God made gay people. His argument is based on his feelings, feelings which acting on are contrary to God’s purposes in the Biblical testimony.

Then Colin Coward dismisses what he sees as 7 passages on the subject. He has no scripture to support his claim and then has the audacity to say 7 passages don’t matter. It is disgusting that the church gives space to such baseless claims.

Furthermore the accusation of picking and choosing from scripture was put to Colin Coward, but then he has the audacity to accuse others of picking and choosing, when he has NO scripture to pick or choose to support his claim. It is quite obvious he isn’t in a position to be talking about picking and choosing.

My advice, Anglicans, do not listen to the GLB arguments in your church, they are baseless unbelief. Correct, rebuke and encourage in the truth, those who puts such arguments, in love as the scripture tells you to. Pray that the scales will drop from their eyes and they will be delivered.

Colin Coward claimed he sees God as judgemental, Jesus will judge. That’s the God of the 7 passages he doesn’t like. That’s God!
The question is how can the LGB know God when it seems they don’t? God doesn’t wish any should perish but come to repentance. The gospel of Jesus Christ is good news, if he doesn’t see it as good news then he doesn’t have the gospel.

Further advice to Anglicans. you will likely be called bigoted, homophobic and obsessed with sex, listen to the link, the people who call you this talk of their gay life, gay world, gay body, gay heart and gay identity. Gay this and gay that, everything gay. Gay is their god, just listen.
 
Upvote 0

3Rivers

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
7
0
Springfield, MO
Visit site
✟22,617.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree. I cannot continue to entertain any notions of justifying prejudice towards these people any more. It makes no sense. I suppose the "defendants of Biblical marriage" like to try and convince us of the "classic definition, handed down by God." Hypocritically, they also fail to mention that while scripture says it's man+woman, it also says it's man + concubines, man+slave, man+ rape victim, man+brothers widow, etc. NO ONE HOLDS ON TO THESE ANYMORE! sorry, folks. CULTURE DEFINES MARRIAGE.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
3Rivers,
How sad and how sick.
I agree. I cannot continue to entertain any notions of justifying prejudice towards these people any more.
Then dont, because believers dont either, what believers recognise is same sex relations, not the person, read Lambeth 1.10, the people are loved, the relationship is wrong. Do you not know that bearing false testimony is also a sin, as well as sexual immorality?
Matthew 15:19, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
or did you think that was cultural as well?

I suppose the "defendants of Biblical marriage" like to try and convince us of the "classic definition, handed down by God."
Yes we do, and thats because it is God's purpose; it is also not only the Christian position but the position of the Anglican church. Its enshrined in the prayer book and liturgy and is a secondary sacrement or rite.
Got that?

Hypocritically, they also fail to mention that while scripture says it's man+woman, it also says it's man + concubines, man+slave, man+ rape victim, man+brothers widow, etc. NO ONE HOLDS ON TO THESE ANYMORE! sorry, folks. CULTURE DEFINES MARRIAGE.
Well Jesus said that wasnt God's purpose in the beggining, in the beggining. Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5.

Here is some culture for you..
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - The Boxer by Paul Simon.

Here is God's word.
2 tim 4:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear"




Stop being prejudice against God and start believing.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
God aligns Himself with despised people. For example, why did he choose Jacob?! God chooses the lowly so no one may boast.
I agree and He is aligned now as always with believers who are under attack from revisionism such as changingattitude and the like.
The Bible says do not be deceived men who have sex with men cannot enter the Kingdom.

The last post from 3Rivers merely illustrates the problem highlighted in the OP. The deception and lie. There is no concept of hetero or homo sexuality described in the Bible and all that is described are the actions of the relationships, man and woman in sexual relations affirmed and condemnation of men abandoning natural relations with women and comitting indecent acts with men. That means sexuality neither hetero nor homo is irrelevant
So changingattitude use concepts that are not Biblical and at cross purposes with the Biblical testimony, to judge the Biblical testimony. They do this to create a dualism that they then use as a weapon against the Biblical testimony and God.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
HisHomeMaker,
Please show me the scripture. I am sorry I have not read all of the posts.
Then you had better inform yourself better on the debate before commenting.

Here you go..
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Here you go..
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

A rather loose translation; may I ask which version it is? Arsenokoites, as we've discussed in the past, means "man-bedders", echoing Lev. 18:22, and might be rendered "men who lie with men", "lie" having the meaning "recline" and not "speak falsehood" in this case.

And one quick observation: it is Christ's place, not ours, to judge who will inherit the Kingdom; ours, such as we have any right to judgment, is to determine who shall be entitled to find evangelism, reconciliation, and fellowshp in the Church. "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" is not for those of us committed to it a facile slogan but a commitment that, just as Christ turned none away, neither should we.
 
Upvote 0

HisHomeMaker

Reading the Bible in 2011. Join me!
Nov 1, 2010
732
15
http://www.christianforums.com/f235/
✟23,461.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Then you had better inform yourself better on the debate before commenting.

My comment was based on scripture, more important than debate among believers. Thank you for the post.
 
Upvote 0

GodIsLove1

Beginner's Mind
Feb 21, 2010
33
2
Los Angeles
✟22,663.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I apologize up front for coming back before I said I would (“…I'll not be returning to even look here until the page count reaches over 50, which I believe hardly likely.”) Please take it in the spirit of the “first son” in Jesus’ Parable of the Two Sons from Matt. 21. I was wrong. I’ve repented and will do as my Father asks.

All this talk against “cultural relativism.” I’m wondering if anyone else sees the humor in someone saying God’s Word isn’t affected by the culture, saying, indeed, that there is no concept of hetero or homo sexuality described in the Bible, and then uses a (modern) translation of the Bible with the word “homosexual” in it, when it will “prove” his point.

The Bible may not be culturally relativistic but the translations certainly are (or, I should say, have become). Check out the older translations and you won’t find the word “homosexual.” I know the word itself is a recent invention. Still, that’s to the point. Without the word “homosexual” [and we’ve got to admit that in OUR culture that’s a Loaded Word], the KJV translators, and the American Standard Version translators and Darby were forced to translate the passage of 1 Cor 6:9 from the Greek, as closely as possible. Word for word it reads “abusers of themselves with mankind,” “abusers of themselves with men,” “nor who abuse themselves with men,” respectively. It’s never "abusers of men with each other" but “abusers of themselves....”

Now, “abusers of themselves” (self-abuse) is a nearly obsolete term as well, but we all Know What it Means. There is no idea proffered that Paul is speaking of (for or against) any Mutual Caring Relationship. In fact, to add to the point, Young’s Literal Translation translates the words as “sodomites.” [And as we know, the sin that day (in Genesis) wasn’t an offer of homosexual relationship, but a threat of homosexual RAPE.] Culturally speaking, I’d say those earlier translators, meant that these “abusers of themselves” were committing an act of masturbatory rape. Culturally, I’d say that happens most often in prisons these days, but it’s still a tragedy happening in society at large, as well. I'm thinking committing this crime/sin on a regular basis would hinder "inheriting the Kingdom."


Using “homosexual” in modern translation, takes us Further from the Truth, if we believe the Truth is found in how it was First written. We must be on guard against letting our Culture redefine and color the scriptures in a way God did not intend.

Peace be with you.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Polycarp1,
A rather loose translation; may I ask which version it is?
No you may not, he asked for the scripture he didnt ask for your disbelief of it.
We have discussed the meaning of the word arsenokoites before and it means what the Bible says in context of the other sexual sins in the passage.
And one quick observation: it is Christ's place, not ours, to judge who will inherit the Kingdom; ours, such as we have any right to judgment,
One quick observation back is that this is the teaching received by Paul from Christ and it is not for you to judge Christ’s teaching.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
GodisLove,
All this talk against "cultural relativism." I’m wondering if anyone else sees the humor in someone saying God’s Word isn’t affected by the culture, saying, indeed, that there is no concept of hetero or homo sexuality described in the Bible, and then uses a (modern) translation of the Bible with the word "homosexual" in it, when it will "prove" his point.
Firstly if one says God’s word is affected by culture then how would it be God’s word, it would really be human word. Thats the humour.
Secondly there is no concept of homosexuality in the Bible because the modern concept of homosexuality give creedance to things other than same-sex sexual relations. Just because the same sex acts condemned are in some translations referred to as homosexual doesn’t address the modern concept of sexual orientation. Of course one wont find the translated word ‘homosexual’ in older translations, there one finds the word sodomy or sodomites to describe the condemned same sex relationships, or abusers of themselves with mankind.
We know this because God made man and woman to be in union Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, and men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with men is error and wicked suppression of the truth, Romans 1.
Now sodomy derives from Genesis 19, and we see that men wanting sex with men (call it rape if you will, the text doesn’t say that) was wicked but Lot’s offer of the virgin daughters wasn’t (call it rape if you will) So the obvious question is why do YOU think homosexual rape is ok but not heterosexual?
Using "homosexual" in modern translation,
Let me stop you there because the version I have used does not use the word homosexual.
takes us Further from the Truth, if we believe the Truth is found in how it was First written.
We do. We know that those who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men are suppressing the truth with wickedness as are you by disputing passage after passage as not the correct translation.

This is why the church cannot inlcude same sex relationships.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Polycarp1,
No you may not, he asked for the scripture he didnt ask for your disbelief of it.

My belief or lack of it in the particular interpretation you put on a piece of Scripture does not equate to disbelief in Scripture itself. You will not again accuse me of disbelief in this forum; it may be a debate forum, but the overall rules of CF remain in place, and one of them is that you will not accuse another professed Nicene Christian of not being a Christian. Staff seem understandably loath to chastize you for doing so in a debate situation, so I am putting you on notice that I take offense at the accusation, and consider it a rules violation. You are welcome to tell me I am wrong in my understanding of things, and attempt to demonstrate why you think so. But you will not accuse me of disbelief in my Savior and Lord and in the Scriptures he left us, just because I do not always agree with you on how to understand them. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Polycarp1,
The Bible translations say what they say, along with the other texts that affirm only man and woman in union as God’s creation purpose and condemn men who lie with men and men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with men. One can not interpret it to mean the contrary, such an affirmation is disbelief by definition.
I was asked to provide the text which I did, it did not need you to once again dispute it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.