Should the Church accept homosexuality?

[drich0150]

Not looking for another debate, just looking for an honest yes or no

And then, if you voted yes, i want to follow up with another question (Yes or No) Should the church be made to accept homosexuality? (Again just looking for honest answers, not for another debate.)

 

[KCKID]

Not looking for another debate, just looking for an honest yes or no

And then, if you voted yes, i want to follow up with another question (Yes or No) Should the church be made to accept homosexuality? (Again just looking for honest answers, not for another debate.)

Some churches already do accept homosexuality while others do not. People 'should' do or not do what they deem as the right thing in regard to homosexuality. Having said that, no Christian should refuse anyone entry to their particular church based on their sexual orientation.

Also, people - gay or straight - should not be judged based on what they may or may not do in their bedrooms. And, it's THIS form of perverse voyeurism that Christians are resorting to whenever they think about homosexuality. It's actually quite disgusting!

 

[wayseer]

Along with drunks, drug addicts, used car salesmen, women, old prostitutes, politicians, gang members, the homeless and me, you have no idea where the church will end up.

 

[mandyangel]

no and no the church should NOT be made to accept homosexuality, who would make them? im not for judging gay people though because i believe they are god's kids too who have just run astray and they can be saved

 

[asianangel]

Of course the church accepts homosexual PEOPLE but they should not accept the homosexual ACT. Would an athiest dare to burst into a church and tell people that they should not believe in God? NO. For the same reason why should the church change to please people. God is constant and never changing and His word will never have anything added or taken away or twisted.

 

[KCKID]

Of course the church accepts homosexual PEOPLE but they should not accept the homosexual ACT. Would an athiest dare to burst into a church and tell people that they should not believe in God? NO. For the same reason why should the church change to please people. God is constant and never changing and His word will never have anything added or taken away or twisted.

If the homosexual ACT - or the heterosexual ACT for that matter - be displayed in the church then that is one thing and should be vetoed. Should the homosexual ACT - or the heterosexual ACT for that matter - be confined to one's bedroom then that is NO ONE ELSES BUSINESS!!

When are Christians going to learn?!

 

[dayhiker]

I believe the church should accept homosexuals. But I don't beleive they should be forced to do so.

 

[AngelusSax]

I believe the church should accept what the Living Word through the Sprits commands, which through my studying and such I do believe includes accepting homosexuals and even homosexuality. However, this should not be forced upon any church, for no action done under force is done with the heart in it, and no action done without the heart in it is of any real good.

If anyone wants to converse with me on this, since this isn't a debate thread, please PM me (and be nice, and I'll be nice, and we'll have a good discussion that may just produce some good fruit).

 

[bibleblevr]

Lets accept those people into our churches and lives with open arms.

However dismissing homosexality as anything less then sin, is giving up the fight against this area of morality. Moreover, it is denying help to those wishing to overcome it, as it would be seen as acceptable behavior, and in no need of modification.

 

[lux et lex]

I believe the church should accept what the Living Word through the Sprits commands, which through my studying and such I do believe includes accepting homosexuals and even homosexuality. However, this should not be forced upon any church, for no action done under force is done with the heart in it, and no action done without the heart in it is of any real good.

I agree with this! It's worth reading again.

 

[drich0150]

Most of you have ignored the actual question at hand and answered a totally different question of your own choosing.

I Asked Should the Church view Homosexuality as a sin or not. This has absolutely nothing to do with how one is treated. Should the Sin of homosexuality be ignored or permitted? is another way to ask this question.

With that in mind should the church be forced to ignore the sin of homosexuality?

These are yes/no questions.

These are the two questions I am asking. Again they have nothing to do with individual church membership policies, how people are treated or anything else not related to this question.

 

[[serious]]

Not looking for another debate, just looking for an honest yes or no

And then, if you voted yes, i want to follow up with another question (Yes or No) Should the church be made to accept homosexuality? (Again just looking for honest answers, not for another debate.)

My view is "the church" should not have any opinion on such things. Everyone is responsible for their own opinions and their own religion. I do not think Christians should defer their own moral and religious beliefs to any other person or body. If you ask whether Christians should view homosexuality as a sin, that is a question each must answer for themselves.

 

[drich0150]

My view is "the church" should not have any opinion on such things. Everyone is responsible for their own opinions and their own religion. I do not think Christians should defer their own moral and religious beliefs to any other person or body. If you ask whether Christians should view homosexuality as a sin, that is a question each must answer for themselves.

Did not Christ Himself refer to the Body of (individual Christians) as the Church? Then again how is it wrong to refer to Christianity as the "Church?" (In a more biblical view?)

Even as individuals, people who believe themselves to be "Christian" answer to Christ or Rather the Expressed will of God do they not? Then How is it, that you can say that they are to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong? Does this not run contrary to God's will for us? If we insist on giving ourselves the ability to label sin, does that not make us on par with God in our own hearts? at which point we cease being Christian (Individuals) or members of the Church, and are separated from God much like Lucifer was when he was found guilty of the very same thing.

Avoiding the question won't make it go away, neither will trying to reclassify Christianity in a non scriptural way.

If you believe in Christ then you in turn believe in how the bible structures belief in Christ. This includes recognizing the Church or the Body of Believers, as being a valid way to organize structure or govern belief.

That said, the original questions remain.

 

[[serious]]

Did not Christ Himself refer to the Body of (individual Christians) as the Church? Then again how is it wrong to refer to Christianity as the "Church?" (In a more biblical view?)

Even as individuals, people who believe themselves to be "Christian" answer to Christ or Rather the Expressed will of God do they not? Then How is it, that you can say that they are to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong? Does this not run contrary to God's will for us? If we insist on giving ourselves the ability to label sin, does that not make us on par with God in our own hearts? at which point we cease being Christian (Individuals) or members of the Church, and are separated from God much like Lucifer was when he was found guilty of the very same thing.

Avoiding the question won't make it go away, neither will trying to reclassify Christianity in a non scriptural way.

If you believe in Christ then you in turn believe in how the bible structures belief in Christ. This includes recognizing the Church or the Body of Believers, as being a valid way to organize structure or govern belief.

That said, the original questions remain.

I did not say that the church doesn't exist, merely that it cannot have opinions of it's own. Some try to project the perceived consensus of opinion as the opinion of the church, but if this is what we are doing, let's do so openly and simply vote on it.

 

[drich0150]

I did not say that the church doesn't exist, merely that it cannot have opinions of it's own.
Some try to project the perceived consensus of opinion as the opinion of the church, but if this is what we are doing, let's do so openly and simply vote on it.

If there can not be an opinion, then we must default to the standards found in the bible. My "vote" was in part, to try and determine who or how many believe this issue to be a matter of opinion. Not as a way to establish a new doctrine. This is why I have asked for a simple yes or no response.

 

[[serious]]

If there can not be an opinion, then we must default to the standards found in the bible. My "vote" was in part, to try and determine who or how many believe this issue to be a matter of opinion. Not as a way to establish a new doctrine. This is why I have asked for a simple yes or no response.

So why ask what the Church should accept? Let each meditate on God and the bible and follow as they are led by God.

 

[Jase]

I Asked Should the Church view Homosexuality as a sin or not. This has absolutely nothing to do with how one is treated. Should the Sin of homosexuality be ignored or permitted? is another way to ask this question.

You've presented a leading question, which makes it obvious you don't care what this poll concludes since you already stated the answer.

Millions of Christians disagree with your interpretation that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, it's an invalid question.

 

[drich0150]

So why ask what the Church should accept? Let each meditate on God and the bible and follow as they are led by God.

Is it a sin to know or ask where the church stands?

 

[drich0150]

You've presented a leading question, which makes it obvious you don't care what this poll concludes since you already stated the answer.

Please explain.. as i have stated their is no answer this was a simple litmus test to see where the "church" stood. That Is why I have asked for simple yes or no responses.

Millions of Christians disagree with your interpretation that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, it's an invalid question.

[Serious-ly]?
By this logic, because their are million more who do agree with scripture that says Homosexuality is a sin, it validates my question. Look at the poll results for yourself. Even if you believe I am asking a rigged question there is no way for me to rig the results.

..Try again..

 

[Jase]

Did not Christ Himself refer to the Body of (individual Christians) as the Church? Then again how is it wrong to refer to Christianity as the "Church?" (In a more biblical view?)

Because no 2 Christians on Earth agree on everything and it is therefore impossible to have a unified body of believers. About the only thing you can claim "the Church" would agree on, is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Beyond that, there is no unified body.

Even as individuals, people who believe themselves to be "Christian" answer to Christ or Rather the Expressed will of God do they not? Then How is it, that you can say that they are to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

Because the Bible is vague, and humans all interpret it differently. You may believe that you read the Bible correctly, but you cannot read something as complicated as the Bible at face value in a modern day language and expect there to be perfect understanding.

Does this not run contrary to God's will for us? If we insist on giving ourselves the ability to label sin, does that not make us on par with God in our own hearts?

Had God wanted every human on Earth to agree on everything, he would have made sure it happened that way. For starters, maybe he should have personally written the Bible in the language of math, since I believe that is considered the universal language. Or he could have given each human an individual copy of the Bible perfectly written for their individual comprehension, so that while everyone has a different approach to understanding it, they all come to the same conclusion.

The fact that God opted to have humans write the Bible in ancient languages that aren't used today, and then we have humans translate the Bible based on their own personal knowledge and biases in modern languages that cannot convey the exact same message as the originals (even though God never commanded this), and then have each individual human with all their prejudices, biases, quirks, deficiencies, etc. personally determine what they think the Bible says I think is quite a testament to the fact that God never intended all humans to agree on everything. Everyone reaches God in their own way and time.

at which point we cease being Christian (Individuals) or members of the Church, and are separated from God much like Lucifer was when he was found guilty of the very same thing.

Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah qualifies as a Christian by definition. Nothing else falls under the title "Christian". And Lucifer is a fictional character - he's not Biblical.

Avoiding the question won't make it go away, neither will trying to reclassify Christianity in a non scriptural way.

Christianity changes as society and humanity changes. It's an organized religion - they are not static.

If you believe in Christ then you in turn believe in how the bible structures belief in Christ.

Sorry, John 3:16 does not require one to take the Bible as 100% literal to be a Christian. Only American fundamentalists require that.

This includes recognizing the Church or the Body of Believers, as being a valid way to organize structure or govern belief.

And yet, this organized structure called "the Church" has caused more destruction on this Earth than anything else in existence. Jesus never approved of organized religion.

That said, the original questions remain.

Once again, you've already made your answer quite clear, so why are you begging the question? I would think by now you already know who believes what and who doesn't. Do you really think another tainted poll is going to change things?