Perhaps believers, if they are honest at least, would do well to consider this article and what it means for their convictions against homosexuality. I include those opposed to same sex relationships in this group, irrespective of whether they welcome gays into their congregation, "as long as they don't act on it".
I realize many believers (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) don't fall into this camp. As a believer committed to equality for gays, I would invite you to share why you believe as you do.
Not that I expect anyone to change their opinion, but honestly ask yourself how consistently you are applying the teachings of the bible. Why do you wink at some things like divorce, hair length, women speaking in church, celibacy, etc. while focusing your hatred toward homosexuality? Why not at least be consistent in what you choose to believe and enforce?
The problem I have with a Christian church accepting homosexuality is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits homosexuality.
It's pretty black and white. Multiple verses clearly prohibit homosexual behaviour.
Accepting homosexuality blatantly defies Christianity. You are left with a congregation worshipping a modified religion. It is no longer Christianity. It's your right to worship as you please of course, and I am no saint, I don't even go to church, but you are not following the tenants of the religion once you willingly choose to break it's rules.
It's my understanding sin is a mistake a Christian actively works to oppose where as a blatant disregard for the Bible is just defiance.
This doesn't mean churches shouldn't welcome all people as members, I believe the Sermon on the Mount mentioned this, but you can't be half in and half out. Isn't there a vs. about being luke warm?
If you play football and ignore the line of scrimmage, and the NFL allows you to do so, you really aren't playig football any more, right?
Why is it ok to ignore biblical condemnations of divorce, men with long hair, women speaking in church, etc. as cultural artifacts, while obsessing about a tiny number of passages on homosexuality, none of which were even uttered by Jesus?
I'm not sure you're understanding the point of the article. Maybe this will help:
The problem I have with a Christian church accepting divorce is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits divorce.
The problem I have with a Christian church accepting men wearing their hair long is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits men wearing their hair long.
The problem I have with a Christian church accepts women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered.
The problem I have with a Christian church promoting marriage over celibacy is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, promotes celibacy over marriage.
I do understand and I have no qualms with your most recent post, except that the Bible doesn't promote celibacy over marriage. Paul stated his own personal opinion, there is no doctrinal belief putting one over the other.
But your post only elaborates on my point. Maybe I can make it more simple for you.
The Bible lists a set of beliefs and rules that constitue the very fabric of the Christian religion. If you are editing, ignoring or intentionally ignoring the rules and beliefs, you are not truly practicing Christianity. A Church preaching that homosexuality is ok and acceptable is not a Christian church, even if they use other elements of the Bible in it's sermons and tenents.
A church preaching divorce, murder, slander et cetera as acceptable behaviours is not a Christian church.
A church that accepts gay, divorced, murderous members and loves them for who they are, but preaches the Bible as it is, is a Christian church.
Sins are why we have church, if we didn't sin, we wouldn't need it. Kicking out someone for sinning is stupid.
The difference with homosexuality is that many want the church to condone it. They don't want churches to tell them it's a sin. In that case, the person is denying the teachings of the church, and should just leave. (this would mean people being openly gay and being offended when told it?s wrong and wanting the church to "accept them for who they are").
All that said, it is no inherently different than any other sin. If I were an open alcoholic and wanted the church to accept me as such and not tell me drunkenness is a sin, I'd expect to be told to get bent too.
Why is it Paul's opinion when he discusses the superiority of celibacy, but it is not Paul's opinion when he is discussing homosexuality?
And since you didn't mention the other biblical condemnations, I assume you believe a truly Christian church wouldn't allow divorce, requires men to wear their hair short, requires women to have their heads covered, and disallows them from speaking in church?
"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Paul clearly states married life and celibacy are both acceptable life choices.
And the gay:
LEV 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
No option here.
LEV 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
And Paul on gay, murder, divorce et cetera:
1CO 6:9 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1TI 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers- -and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"
Black and white. And Paul mentions that Christianity is open to all, but changing the doctrine is not.
I took your tangent but the point to your OP is that Christianity is what it is as defined by the Bible. Take it or leave it.
Just as another poster mentioned, a Christian church accepts the sinner, not the sin. For all sins, not just homosexuality. I did address that. 1 million wrongs don't make a right, I will say it again.
Gays, long headed fellows, divorcees et cetera are all accepted in church. That doesn't mean the church suggests people get divorced grow their hair out and engage in gay sex. If it did, would it be preaching a Christian message?