Homosexuality and the Church

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
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? [/quote]

Did you read the article?

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?[/quote]

According to the Bible Christians profess to believe, it’s not ok. But a million wrongs don’t make a right. There is a difference in accepting imperfect (all) people and accepting their sins is there not? Jesus forgives all but the individual still strives to live a godly life as defined by the Bible? How is a church, the harbringer of Christian knowledge, doing any favors by amending the Bible on it’s own authority?

As far as I know, gays are accepted in churches, if they don’t like what the religion has to say about their sexuality and lifestyle, they don’t have to go. Philanderers, adulterers, alcoholics…“tax collectors”… are all welcome in church. And then they learn the “Truth”, aka, the Bible. They can accept it or rebel against it but they can’t change it.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

If a church allows members to divorce, without considering it a sin, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for women to speak in church or have their heads uncovered, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for men to have long hair, is it a Christian church?[/quote]

It is what you asked.

If a church condones homosexuality, is it a Christian church?

22

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Homosexuality is explicitly a sin in the Bible.

Accept the sinner, not the sin.

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.
[/quote]

And your opinion on other biblical condemnations against divorce, women speaking in church, etc.?
[/quote]

Women clearly can speak in the church. [/quote]

Why is it ok to ignore Paul’s condemnation of women speaking in the church, while accepting his condemnation of homosexuality as valid?[/quote]

I’m not. He talks about maintaining the family structure while in church and obeying the “good manners” of the time. Women are allowed to prophesy/speak in tongues ect.[/quote]

He doesn’t say it’s obeying the “good manners of the time”. He clearly says women should NOT be allowed to speak in church or have their heads uncovered.

Why is it easy for you to ignore these commandments as cultural artifacts, while not acknowledging that the views of homosexuality at that time were also cultural?

23

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Homosexuality is explicitly a sin in the Bible.

Accept the sinner, not the sin.

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.
[/quote]

And your opinion on other biblical condemnations against divorce, women speaking in church, etc.?
[/quote]

Women clearly can speak in the church. [/quote]

Why is it ok to ignore Paul’s condemnation of women speaking in the church, while accepting his condemnation of homosexuality as valid?[/quote]

I’m not. He talks about maintaining the family structure while in church and obeying the “good manners” of the time. Women are allowed to prophesy/speak in tongues ect.[/quote]

He doesn’t say it’s obeying the “good manners of the time”. He clearly says women should NOT be allowed to speak in church or have their heads uncovered.

Why is it easy for you to ignore these commandments as cultural artifacts, while not acknowledging that the views of homosexuality at that time were also cultural?
[/quote]

If a church condones homosexuality, is it promoting Christian ideals?

24

forlife, the answer to your question is that people who condemn homosexuality simply use the Bible to somehow rationalize their hatred and bigotry.

It was not the Bible who created their homophobia, otherwise the same people (to use your examples) would likewise hate the fact that males with long hair are always shoving their long hair lifestyles down our throats, or they would zealously use statistics or traits that put women in a negative light to justify keeping their heads covered or to keep them from speaking in church. Not to mention the terrible boycotts and protests the shellfish industry would face.

It’s a shame that so many churches allow their members to selectively use the Bible to justify their hatred, when Jesus’s teachings were clearly more about love, peace, and acceptance.

(I’ve read many of these threads on this forum before, and we all know how the discussion will go, so I probably won’t take the time to argue ad nauseum like some of you, but I wanted to drop an opinion in before it got too long and out of control.)

25

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
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? [/quote]

Did you read the article?

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?[/quote]

According to the Bible Christians profess to believe, it’s not ok. But a million wrongs don’t make a right. There is a difference in accepting imperfect (all) people and accepting their sins is there not? Jesus forgives all but the individual still strives to live a godly life as defined by the Bible? How is a church, the harbringer of Christian knowledge, doing any favors by amending the Bible on it’s own authority?

As far as I know, gays are accepted in churches, if they don’t like what the religion has to say about their sexuality and lifestyle, they don’t have to go. Philanderers, adulterers, alcoholics…“tax collectors”… are all welcome in church. And then they learn the “Truth”, aka, the Bible. They can accept it or rebel against it but they can’t change it.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

If a church allows members to divorce, without considering it a sin, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for women to speak in church or have their heads uncovered, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for men to have long hair, is it a Christian church?[/quote]

It is what you asked.

If a church condones homosexuality, is it a Christian church?
[/quote]

Why do you keep dodging the point?

If condoning homosexuality is non-Christian, then condoning divorce, long-haired men, women speaking in church, and women having their heads uncovered is also non-Christian.

26

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Homosexuality is explicitly a sin in the Bible.

Accept the sinner, not the sin.

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.
[/quote]

And your opinion on other biblical condemnations against divorce, women speaking in church, etc.?
[/quote]

Women clearly can speak in the church. [/quote]

Why is it ok to ignore Paul’s condemnation of women speaking in the church, while accepting his condemnation of homosexuality as valid?[/quote]

I’m not. He talks about maintaining the family structure while in church and obeying the “good manners” of the time. Women are allowed to prophesy/speak in tongues ect.[/quote]

He doesn’t say it’s obeying the “good manners of the time”. He clearly says women should NOT be allowed to speak in church or have their heads uncovered.

Why is it easy for you to ignore these commandments as cultural artifacts, while not acknowledging that the views of homosexuality at that time were also cultural?
[/quote]

Because what paul is giving is advice, not commandments.

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

Clearly indicates that women can speak.

Homosexuality is explicitly labeled a sin and equated with things like murder.

The 2 things aren’t the same.

27

[quote]Ulty wrote:
forlife, the answer to your question is that people who condemn homosexuality simply use the Bible to somehow rationalize their hatred and bigotry.

It was not the Bible who created their homophobia, otherwise the same people (to use your examples) would likewise hate the fact that males with long hair are always shoving their long hair lifestyles down our throats, or they would zealously use statistics or traits that put women in a negative light to justify keeping their heads covered or to keep them from speaking in church. Not to mention the terrible boycotts and protests the shellfish industry would face.

It’s a shame that so many churches allow their members to selectively use the Bible to justify their hatred, when Jesus’s teachings were clearly more about love, peace, and acceptance.

(I’ve read many of these threads on this forum before, and we all know how the discussion will go, so I probably won’t take the time to argue ad nauseum like some of you, but I wanted to drop an opinion in before it got too long and out of control.) [/quote]

Well said. It’s the inconsistency, and the disingenuousness about that inconsistency, that not only puts the lie to their claim to be Christian, but completely obfuscates the message that Jesus brought.

As noted in the article:

[quote]So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.[/quote]

28

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Homosexuality is explicitly a sin in the Bible.

Accept the sinner, not the sin.

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.
[/quote]

And your opinion on other biblical condemnations against divorce, women speaking in church, etc.?
[/quote]

Women clearly can speak in the church. [/quote]

Why is it ok to ignore Paul’s condemnation of women speaking in the church, while accepting his condemnation of homosexuality as valid?[/quote]

I’m not. He talks about maintaining the family structure while in church and obeying the “good manners” of the time. Women are allowed to prophesy/speak in tongues ect.[/quote]

He doesn’t say it’s obeying the “good manners of the time”. He clearly says women should NOT be allowed to speak in church or have their heads uncovered.

Why is it easy for you to ignore these commandments as cultural artifacts, while not acknowledging that the views of homosexuality at that time were also cultural?
[/quote]

Because what paul is giving is advice, not commandments.

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

Clearly indicates that women can speak.

Homosexuality is explicitly labeled a sin and equated with things like murder.

The 2 things aren’t the same.[/quote]

So you condemn women that pray with their head uncovered, since the bible clearly does?

29

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
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? [/quote]

Did you read the article?

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?[/quote]

According to the Bible Christians profess to believe, it’s not ok. But a million wrongs don’t make a right. There is a difference in accepting imperfect (all) people and accepting their sins is there not? Jesus forgives all but the individual still strives to live a godly life as defined by the Bible? How is a church, the harbringer of Christian knowledge, doing any favors by amending the Bible on it’s own authority?

As far as I know, gays are accepted in churches, if they don’t like what the religion has to say about their sexuality and lifestyle, they don’t have to go. Philanderers, adulterers, alcoholics…“tax collectors”… are all welcome in church. And then they learn the “Truth”, aka, the Bible. They can accept it or rebel against it but they can’t change it.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

If a church allows members to divorce, without considering it a sin, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for women to speak in church or have their heads uncovered, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for men to have long hair, is it a Christian church?[/quote]

It is what you asked.

If a church condones homosexuality, is it a Christian church?
[/quote]

Why do you keep dodging the point?

If condoning homosexuality is non-Christian, then condoning divorce, long-haired men, women speaking in church, and women having their heads uncovered is also non-Christian.[/quote]

I never disagreed. Although, I would like for you to post the vs. about long hair, in context because plenty of vs. talk about men avoiding a razor touching their head, Sampsons power came from his hair et cetera…

What I said is 1 million wrongs don’t make a right. What does this mean to you? You are correct, churches condoning divorce and anything else in direct conflict with the Bible are not preaching a Christian message. Condoning a behavior and accepting a person are two very different things. I said this pretty early in your thread.

Again, if a church condones homosexuality, is it preaching a Christian message?

30

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Homosexuality is explicitly a sin in the Bible.

Accept the sinner, not the sin.

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.
[/quote]

And your opinion on other biblical condemnations against divorce, women speaking in church, etc.?
[/quote]

Women clearly can speak in the church. [/quote]

Why is it ok to ignore Paul’s condemnation of women speaking in the church, while accepting his condemnation of homosexuality as valid?[/quote]

I’m not. He talks about maintaining the family structure while in church and obeying the “good manners” of the time. Women are allowed to prophesy/speak in tongues ect.[/quote]

He doesn’t say it’s obeying the “good manners of the time”. He clearly says women should NOT be allowed to speak in church or have their heads uncovered.

Why is it easy for you to ignore these commandments as cultural artifacts, while not acknowledging that the views of homosexuality at that time were also cultural?
[/quote]

Because what paul is giving is advice, not commandments.

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

Clearly indicates that women can speak.

Homosexuality is explicitly labeled a sin and equated with things like murder.

The 2 things aren’t the same.[/quote]

I believe contextual understanding is the issue here. I also believe it is intentional, which makes any kind of debate pointless. Unfortunately, forlife kills his own thread and soap box by ignoring the obvious.

Too bad, it could have been a good discussion.

31

[quote]forlife wrote:

So you condemn women that pray with their head uncovered, since the bible clearly does?[/quote]

No, because customs are different.

You also have to understand, I am not personally a literalist.

You aren’t including context in your assertions. If one of the psalms says “sing praises to god forever” (I’m making that up) it would be dumb to suppose that the Bible is commanding you to sing endlessly and not ever shut up.

32

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

Again, if a church condones homosexuality, is it preaching a Christian message?
[/quote]

No. In fact, it would be better for them to not make any claim to Christianity.

If anything, it’s an argument for more orthodox practices (even if some of the suggestions are misinformed). It pretty much admits that homosexuality itself can’t be reconciled with the bible, Christ, and the apostles. Basically it’s a plea to just accept it because some folks accept some other stuff.

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

Again, if a church condones homosexuality, is it preaching a Christian message?
[/quote]

No. In fact, it would be better for them to not make any claim to Christianity.

If anything, it’s an argument for more orthodox practices (even if some of the suggestions are misinformed). It pretty much admits that homosexuality itself can’t be reconciled with the bible, Christ, and the apostles. Basically it’s a plea to just accept it because some folks accept some other stuff.[/quote]

I know, and I think forlife does too. I just want his soap box to be fair and equal. It’s pretty black and white.

34

FL,

What fruits are there to be had by homosexuality ? In other words, neither side (gay or lesbian) can reproduce in their respective lifestyles, so other than physical/emotional pleasure, what else can come to fruition ? Why do you feel compelled to rag on “breeders” ? After all, none of us would be here if they didn’t do what upsets you so much.

In Genesis 1:28, the Lord says to “be fruitful and multiply.” Now whether you believe in Creationism or Evolution, both corroborate that reproduction can only happen in hetero reproduction.

I think the position of the Church, as well as most people who have kids, are that they are the greatest gift a person can receive. I don’t have any so I will take their word for it. But in homosexuality, none of that is possible.

So I am asking you, from a scientific position of maintaining the human race, or the gratifying position of having and raising a kid, what has homosexuality done for you lately ?

35

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
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? [/quote]

Did you read the article?

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?[/quote]

According to the Bible Christians profess to believe, it’s not ok. But a million wrongs don’t make a right. There is a difference in accepting imperfect (all) people and accepting their sins is there not? Jesus forgives all but the individual still strives to live a godly life as defined by the Bible? How is a church, the harbringer of Christian knowledge, doing any favors by amending the Bible on it’s own authority?

As far as I know, gays are accepted in churches, if they don’t like what the religion has to say about their sexuality and lifestyle, they don’t have to go. Philanderers, adulterers, alcoholics…“tax collectors”… are all welcome in church. And then they learn the “Truth”, aka, the Bible. They can accept it or rebel against it but they can’t change it.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

If a church allows members to divorce, without considering it a sin, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for women to speak in church or have their heads uncovered, is it a Christian church?

If a church doesn’t consider it a sin for men to have long hair, is it a Christian church?[/quote]

It is what you asked.

If a church condones homosexuality, is it a Christian church?
[/quote]

Why do you keep dodging the point?

If condoning homosexuality is non-Christian, then condoning divorce, long-haired men, women speaking in church, and women having their heads uncovered is also non-Christian.[/quote]

I never disagreed. Although, I would like for you to post the vs. about long hair, in context because plenty of vs. talk about men avoiding a razor touching their head, Sampsons power came from his hair et cetera…

What I said is 1 million wrongs don’t make a right. What does this mean to you? You are correct, churches condoning divorce and anything else in direct conflict with the Bible are not preaching a Christian message. Condoning a behavior and accepting a person are two very different things. I said this pretty early in your thread.

Again, if a church condones homosexuality, is it preaching a Christian message?
[/quote]

How about a simple yes or no?

And again, I’m not talking about churches accepting sinners.

I’m talking about churches with official doctrines and practices that are contradicted by these biblical commandments.

Most Christian churches do not consider divorce a sin, but the bible provides no escape clause. It says divorce is a sin, period.

Most Christian churches are filled with women praying, with their heads uncovered, and do not consider this a sin either.

Are they, or are they not, truly Christian?

Yes or no?

36

[quote]forlife wrote:

Most Christian churches do not consider divorce a sin, but the bible provides no escape clause. It says divorce is a sin, period.[/quote]

Yes, churches consider divorce bad. Period.

What they don’t do is accept people who express purpose and desire is divorce.

You actually think churches are accepting of people who are openly pro-getting divorced? Who go through life trying to get divorced?

Hell no.

37

You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

So you condemn women that pray with their head uncovered, since the bible clearly does?[/quote]

No, because customs are different.

You also have to understand, I am not personally a literalist.

You aren’t including context in your assertions. If one of the psalms says “sing praises to god forever” (I’m making that up) it would be dumb to suppose that the Bible is commanding you to sing endlessly and not ever shut up.[/quote]

Exactly the point of the article.

Paul never said it was contextual, or cultural. He condemned these practices unequivocally.

Yet many Christians rationalize ignoring these condemnations, because, y’know, they are contextual or cultural.

But hey, it’s impossible that the cultural views of the Jews at that time had any influence whatever on Paul’s similar condemnations of homosexuality!

At least be consistent. If clear condemnations of women praying with their heads uncovered can be cultural, then clear condemnations of homosexuals by the same man can also be cultural.

39

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

Again, if a church condones homosexuality, is it preaching a Christian message?
[/quote]

No. In fact, it would be better for them to not make any claim to Christianity.

If anything, it’s an argument for more orthodox practices (even if some of the suggestions are misinformed). It pretty much admits that homosexuality itself can’t be reconciled with the bible, Christ, and the apostles. Basically it’s a plea to just accept it because some folks accept some other stuff.[/quote]

I know, and I think forlife does too. I just want his soap box to be fair and equal. It’s pretty black and white.[/quote]

Condemnations of divorce and of women praying with their heads uncovered are pretty black and white too.

Which is the point.

40

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
FL,

What fruits are there to be had by homosexuality ? In other words, neither side (gay or lesbian) can reproduce in their respective lifestyles, so other than physical/emotional pleasure, what else can come to fruition ? Why do you feel compelled to rag on “breeders” ? After all, none of us would be here if they didn’t do what upsets you so much.

In Genesis 1:28, the Lord says to “be fruitful and multiply.” Now whether you believe in Creationism or Evolution, both corroborate that reproduction can only happen in hetero reproduction.

I think the position of the Church, as well as most people who have kids, are that they are the greatest gift a person can receive. I don’t have any so I will take their word for it. But in homosexuality, none of that is possible.

So I am asking you, from a scientific position of maintaining the human race, or the gratifying position of having and raising a kid, what has homosexuality done for you lately ?[/quote]

Why did Paul promote celibacy over marriage? Clearly, celibacy produces no children.

People don’t choose their sexual orientation, so the question is moot. The real question is how to live with happiness, health, and purpose given the sexual orientation that you have.