what would you do?

[Jet_A_Jockey]

As we know, marriage was about inheritance more than anything else

How do you come to this conclusion? Genesis tells me it's main purpose is for love, and a close second, procreation.

 

[David Brider]

This poll is mainly geared towards hetero's but all are welcome to post their thoughts.

Hypothetical situation.

An openly homosexual couple join your church, are you compelled to do anything?

If anyone feels inclined to respond, I'd also like to know what your position is at your church, and also what you would do if you were the head pastor (if anything different).


By starting this discussion I am hoping to try to give some insight to fellow brethren so please use your best efforts not to completely derail the thread

Probably me and a bunch of friends would offer to take them out for a drink and a meal, maybe see a film together, something like that.

David.

 

[Zaac]

How do you come to this conclusion? Genesis tells me it's main purpose is for love, and a close second, procreation.

He read it in some commentary. I'm never amazed at how so many are more apt to believe what a commentator writes over what God says.

 

[Zaac]

"homosexual fornication", not much of a difference.

If you want to equate homosexuality with the perfroming of homosexual sex acts, be my guest. There are plenty of homosexuals in here who will chew you out for that.

So by that token, you have freely admitted that God's Word has changed with the translations. Preposterous.

You saying what you think I said doesn't make it any more true than you saying God's Word isn't His Word makes it true.

 

[Zaac]

I agree, but that is a tough issue to really speak on. To be fair you'd have to address all unmarried hetero couples as well, since the days of arranged marriages are long gone.

Why would unmarried hetero couples have to be addressed? God intends for a man to be joined with a woman as one flesh, so there is no tacit approval of anything unGodly as is the case with a homosexual couple.

With all of the different false doctrines floating around, as well as antichristian agendas, its hard to justify the reason for this type of weeding out, so to speak. Why dwell on the splinter when it is in the shadow of a sea of planks?

Because a splinter in a sea of planks is still made of wood.

Sin is sin. One doesn't become less need to be dealt with just because there is a lot of other sin.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Why would unmarried hetero couples have to be addressed? God intends for a man to be joined with a woman as one flesh, so there is no tacit approval of anything unGodly as is the case with a homosexual couple.

I think because in general we are more apt to single out a homosexual couple than a hetero one, solely due to our perceptions and assumptions of their relationship. The bottom line is that a hetero couple is just as likely to commit fornicative acts as a homosexual one, so I think to single them out is a very biased action. However if it spurs on a discussion of fornication addressed to the general audience, that would have some positive potential.

Because a splinter in a sea of planks is still made of wood.

Sin is sin. One doesn't become less need to be dealt with just because there is a lot of other sin.

Sure it doesn't, but to focus on one in particular while not equally focusing on other related ones is hypocrisy at its best.

I'm not saying we shouldn't reinforce the Truth, just that we have to be careful how we go about it.

 

[davedjy]

You saying what you think I said doesn't make it any more true than you saying God's Word isn't His Word makes it true.

Is this a lazy attempt to dodge the point I made?
E.G., God's Word does not change. Arsenokoitai was universally translated as "masturbator" at the time of Martin Luther, and is now translated as "male prostitute" and "homosexual" in others. God's Word does not change, and it means one thing, so there are many holes in your above statement.

If the translators are not universally agreeing on a translation, how the heck can you feel at liberty to say that we are rejecting God's Word?

If you want to equate homosexuality with the perfroming of homosexual sex acts, be my guest. There are plenty of homosexuals in here who will chew you out for that.

I personally think many will chew you out for isolating a sex act from a valid sexual orientation. Nonetheless, the sex acts are all part of the definition of "homosexuality", anyways. Kinda hard to chew out a pro-gay debater who IS gay, over an anti-gay debater, who thinks using specific phrases will win him credibility in what is being condemned here. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", is usually what will get you chewed out, ironically enough for you to mention. Mention things like "your chosen lifestyle", and "stay celibate if you aren't attracted to a woman", "be lonely for the rest of your life, God is more important than your happiness".

I'm here arguing that homosexuality is NOT a sin, so there isn't any reason to chew me out, I'm rooting for the gays. Thank you for the laughs.

 

[Zaac]

I think because in general we are more apt to single out a homosexual couple than a hetero one, solely due to our perceptions and assumptions of their relationship.

That's because God has not ordained that two people of the same sex be a couple.

The bottom line is that a hetero couple is just as likely to commit fornicative acts as a homosexual one, so I think to single them out is a very biased action.

They are singled out because endorsing a homosexual coupling goes against God's order and who He says a man is to be joined.

However if it spurs on a discussion of fornication addressed to the general audience, that would have some positive potential.

I wouldn't even see a need to address the fornication issue at that point because we don't know what they are doing. The greater issue is do we want to give the impression that same sex coupling is okay when God's expressed intent is that a man be united with a wife?

Sure it doesn't, but to focus on one in particular while not equally focusing on other related ones is hypocrisy at its best.

Absolutely. That's why the Church needs to be the Church and discipline in all areas the way God instructs.

It's the pointing out of this sin while turning a blind eye to the heterosexual sin that neither I nor others can stand from the church. Speaking up about such things usually gets me in trouble. But life is an adventure so a little trouble everynow and then is good for the blood.

I'm not saying we shouldn't reinforce the Truth, just that we have to be careful how we go about it.

Agreed. Hypocrisy accomplishes nothing for the name of Christ.

 

[Zaac]

Is this a lazy attempt to dodge the point I made?
E.G., God's Word does not change. Arsenokoitai was universally translated as "masturbator" at the time of Martin Luther, and is now translated as "male prostitute" and "homosexual" in others. God's Word does not change, and it means one thing, so there are many holes in your above statement.

Is he still talking about translations?

If the translators are not universally agreeing on a translation, how the heck can you feel at liberty to say that we are rejecting God's Word?

Watch this: Because you are.

I personally think many will chew you out for isolating a sex act from a valid sexual orientation. Nonetheless, the sex acts are all part of the definition of "homosexuality", anyways. Kinda hard to chew out a pro-gay debater who IS gay, over an anti-gay debater, who thinks using specific phrases will win him credibility in what is being condemned here. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", is usually what will get you chewed out, ironically enough for you to mention. Mention things like "your chosen lifestyle", and "stay celibate if you aren't attracted to a woman", "be lonely for the rest of your life, God is more important than your happiness".

I'm here arguing that homosexuality is NOT a sin, so there isn't any reason to chew me out, I'm rooting for the gays. Thank you for the laughs.

You feel free to keep arguing. Doesn't change what God's Word says. I tend to think that the God who created the universe knows a lil bit more about His Word than you and your biased band of researchers do.

As such, He is right, and you and your boys are STILL wrong.

 

[dies-l]

That's because God has not ordained that two people of the same sex be a couple.



They are singled out because endorsing a homosexual coupling goes against God's order and who He says a man is to be joined.




I wouldn't even see a need to address the fornication issue at that point because we don't know what they are doing. The greater issue is do we want to give the impression that same sex coupling is okay when God's expressed intent is that a man be united with a wife?

Am I correct in understanding that you believe that it would be sinful if two men (or two women) considered themselves a couple and had an emotionally and spiritually intimate relationship with one another that had no sexual element whatsoever? I am not saying that such relationships are common, but for the sake of argument, would you hold that such a relationship is against "God's expressed intent"?

By the same token, what would you say about people who choose a lifestyle of complete celibacy? By your reasoning wouldn't this also run contrary to "God's expressed intent . . . that a man be united with a wife?"

 

[David Brider]

If the translators are not universally agreeing on a translation, how the heck can you feel at liberty to say that we are rejecting God's Word?

Watch this: Because you are.

How does attempting to ensure that we accurately translate what Paul wrote into English equate to "rejecting God's Word"? As opposed to just trying to understand it better?

David.

 

[David Brider]

That's because God has not ordained that two people of the same sex be a couple.

Even if you make the assumption that the texts interpreted as speaking against male-male sex a.) mean what you think they mean and b.) apply universally, that's still a long way from what you're claiming here.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

David Brider,

Even if you make the assumption that the texts interpreted as speaking against male-male sex a.) mean what you think they mean and b.) apply universally, that's still a long way from what you're claiming here.

If you are assuming the texts dont speak against male-male sex, then you are a long way from what the texts say. The texts are not interpreted as speaking against male-male sex, they speak against male-male sex. If however we interpretated this as sarcasm then one could say the texts dont mean what they say, but then that would mean idolotry, adultery and the rest were ok too.
No the texts speak that male-male sex is error, my interpretation is that the texts mean what they say.

 

[Phinehas2]

You see
'The big red bus went up the hill'
thats what its says a big red bus went up a hill. how can I interpret that differently?
If it means the little green bus went down the hill, how is anyone else going to know what I mean?

Sorry, the Bible texts say what they say and they speak against same-sex sex.
If some dont believe the Bible texts fine but that unbelief not interpretation.

 

[Polycarp1]

"If" is not the question. There are 3.5 gay couples at our church (the "half" is an interfaith marriage; her partner is Reform Jewish). They are welcomed and accepted as people whom God loves, whom Christ redeemed, whom the Holy Spirit has led to us, our brothers and sisters in Him.

Of course, our church believes in following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, not some legalistic dogmatist's views on who is and is not worthy of salvation.

 

[Polycarp1]

You see
'The big red bus went up the hill'
thats what its says a big red bus went up a hill. how can I interpret that differently?
If it means the little green bus went down the hill, how is anyone else going to know what I mean?

Sorry, the Bible texts say what they say and they speak against same-sex sex.
If some dont believe the Bible texts fine but that unbelief not interpretation.

I find this absurd. Yes, if the Bible was talking about big red buses that would be just fine. But you are bringing to the table the assumptions that God inspired and Paul intended the particular meanings you put on the terms translated "homosexual offender," "sexual immorality," "strange flesh," "the sinfulness of Sodom," and so on. As has been explored at length for years here and elsewhere, the meaning of those terms and their proper translation is nowhere near as clear.

Does "Bobby and Sam rode in the car to London, where they were picked up by some peelers" mean "They went in an automobile and trysted with strippers" (modern reading) or "They rode a train to London and were arrested by the police" (Victorian era reading)? What does a word that Paul coined mean? Are the implications of a connotative term like "soft" the same today as when he wrote it?

 

[Zaac]

Am I correct in understanding that you believe that it would be sinful if two men (or two women) considered themselves a couple and had an emotionally and spiritually intimate relationship with one another that had no sexual element whatsoever?

No. Your understanding would be incorrect.

I am not saying that such relationships are common, but for the sake of argument, would you hold that such a relationship is against "God's expressed intent"?

I would hold that any intimate relationship that encourages a unioning other than the God ordained union of man and woman is one the Church should not endorse.

By the same token, what would you say about people who choose a lifestyle of complete celibacy?

A life of complete celibacy does not encourage fornication or lust. Neither does a life of celibacy encourage an intimate relationship outside of the God ordained unioning of a man and a woman.

By your reasoning wouldn't this also run contrary to "God's expressed intent . . . that a man be united with a wife?"

I'm not reasoning. I'm telling you what God's Word says. His intent is that if a man is in an intimate relationship for the purpose of unioning with someone, that person be of the opposite sex.

Knowing this, how can I as a Christian place before a congregation a relationship that encourages something other than what God prescribes?

 

[Zaac]

How does attempting to ensure that we accurately translate what Paul wrote into English equate to "rejecting God's Word"? As opposed to just trying to understand it better?

David.

I have yet to see a one of you who is trying to understand better. Maybe someone else has.

All I have seen is a bunch of folks who want to be in homosexual relationships presenting word studies from homosexual sympathizers about why God's Word doesn't say what it does so that they can feel less guilty about committing sin.

If you were looking for better understanding, you guys would be doing so on every issue and not just this one that you hold so dear.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

I find this absurd. Yes, if the Bible was talking about big red buses that would be just fine. But you are bringing to the table the assumptions that God inspired and Paul intended the particular meanings you put on the terms translated "homosexual offender," "sexual immorality," "strange flesh," "the sinfulness of Sodom," and so on. As has been explored at length for years here and elsewhere, the meaning of those terms and their proper translation is nowhere near as clear.

Does "Bobby and Sam rode in the car to London, where they were picked up by some peelers" mean "They went in an automobile and trysted with strippers" (modern reading) or "They rode a train to London and were arrested by the police" (Victorian era reading)? What does a word that Paul coined mean? Are the implications of a connotative term like "soft" the same today as when he wrote it?

LOL. This is too much. As I was told long ago. If a literalist read from the Bible, a phrase that said "Jesus was in left field"..they would believe Jesus was literally standing..in a field...to the left of where the writer was. To many others, who interpret the Bible, one would read that to quite possibly mean that Jesus was not of his full abilities, or was a bit outta sorts, perhaps, being way off base with something he maybe said as to many "in left field" means someone that isn't making sense.

The point of the matter is nothing is what it seems unless you intepret. We ALL interpret when we read..and are certainly heavily influenced by what we are taught. End of story.

 

[dies-l]

No. Your understanding would be incorrect.




I would hold that any intimate relationship that encourages a unioning other than the God ordained union of man and woman is one the Church should not endorse.

Your politically worded answers are confusing me. So, here's a hypothetical to help me understand your perspective: A same-sex couple and an unmarried opposite sex couple both begin attending your church. Both couples obviously have a spiritually and emotionally intimate relationship with each other. Neither couple gives you any reason to believe that they are sexually active. Based on these facts, and these facts alone, in your opinion, is either couple inherently "sinful"?

A life of complete celibacy does not encourage fornication or lust. Neither does a life of celibacy encourage an intimate relationship outside of the God ordained unioning of a man and a woman.

Intimate relationships are a human need. It is how we were created. Even those who are celibate usually seek intimate relationships with other people; they just don't have sex with them.

I'm not reasoning. I'm telling you what God's Word says. His intent is that if a man is in an intimate relationship for the purpose of unioning with someone, that person be of the opposite sex.

I have to disagree with your first assertion. You are not telling me what "God's Word" says. Only the Bible can do that. You are telling me what your understanding and interpretation of God's Word says. There is a huge difference.

But, I do have a question for you. By "unioning" do you mean "having sex"? If so, just say what you mean to avoid confusion. If not, please explain what you mean by "unioning."

Knowing this, how can I as a Christian place before a congregation a relationship that encourages something other than what God prescribes?

Are you saying that you have never made a decision that is other than what God prescribes?