# Church?



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Is a denomination which allows openly gay pastors still considered a Christian Church?

http://www.twincities.com/ci_18036061?nclick_check=1


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Is a denomination which allows openly gay pastors still considered a Christian Church?
> 
> http://www.twincities.com/ci_18036061?nclick_check=1


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+6:9&version=NIV1984

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 1:18-31&version=NIV1984

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1:7&version=NIV1984

Jolly......all you need to answer your question is Scripture. 
Everything else, is opinion.
Scripture is from God's Lips to your ears!!:angel:


----------



## thestartupman (Jul 25, 2010)

Nope!!!!


----------



## AR Cattails (Dec 22, 2005)

Nope!


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Considered by whom??? 

Don't agree with their stand on homosexuality? Find another church. Considering how many Christian denominations there are and the fine points of doctrine that separate them, it's certainly not up to anyone else to make that judgment. If they call themselves believers in Jesus, then they're Christians, whether other Christians like it or not.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

bluesky said:


> Considered by whom???
> 
> Don't agree with their stand on homosexuality? Find another church. Considering how many Christian denominations there are and the fine points of doctrine that separate them, it's certainly not up to anyone else to make that judgment. *If they call themselves believers in Jesus, then they're Christians, whether other Christians like it or not.*


********************************************
chicken; the same holds true as to going to church and saying you're a christian. It doesn't necessarily make you one.

2 Peter 2:1 - But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers 
among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, 
bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;

and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, 
and their destruction is not asleep.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits 
of darkness, reserved for judgment;

and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, 
when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, 
having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Copperkid 3 lots of folks can read it is understanding is where the rub is .

The answer to to the op's question is NO :cowboy:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

All people who believe in Jesus as their christ and saviour are christians by definition because of their belief in Jesus, makes no difference if they're gay or not. It probably doesn't matter anymore what some other christians might think constitutes "real" christian. 

There are now 38,000 christian denominations around the world, some of them are cults and some aren't but one thing is for sure, christianity is no longer what it started out to be and Jesus is probably either pulling his hair out in frustration or rolling on the floor laughing his booty off because of what christianity has become. 

Jesus said to love everybody and that's probably all that really matters, what Jesus said, not what his divided followers say 2,000 years later. If you don't follow Jesus' injunction to love everybody then you aren't a real christian.

.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

He also said to bring his enemies before him and slay them. Does that mean if you don't do that you aren't a real Christian either?:hrm:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

My take:

One can certainly be a homosexual and a Christian. To act out one's homosexual passions, however, is a sin, and removes one from a state of grace until one repents, honestly regrets, and resolves not to repeat the offense.

Nothing singling out homosexuals here, as a great deal of heterosexual activity falls into the same category.

One can be inclined or attracted toward just about anything, and still obtain salvation and live in a state of grace. Acting on those inclinations or attractions however, is a different matter entirely.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

The Presbytarians are going to allow openly gay pastors. I also believe that some Episcopal churches are OK with it, too.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

The only thing that makes a person a Christian is that they claim Jesus as their savior. Anything else is for God's judgment, not yours. And a church that teaches Jesus as savior is a Christian church, whether it has your approval or not. 

As I said before, if you don't like a particular teaching/doctrine/whatever, find a different church - there are certainly many to choose from and you can surely find one that meets your particular doctrinal views on the inerrency/inspiration of the Bible, the trinity, the nature of Christ, the resurrection, angels, satan, Mary, human nature, original sin, free will, the means of salvation, grace, predestination, once saved, good works, judgment, end times, heaven, hell, purgatory, homesexuality, the role of women, etc, etc, etc... (and of _course_ all of these differing doctrines are fully backed by exhaustive study of the scriptures).


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

NoClue said:


> My take:
> 
> One can certainly be a homosexual and a Christian. To act out one's homosexual passions, however, is a sin, and removes one from a state of grace until one repents, honestly regrets, and resolves not to repeat the offense.
> 
> ...


This is probably the best answer I've seen.

I won't attempt to argue with the Bible; it's very clear about what it says about homosexuality, regardless of people's attempts to justify or explain it better.

This being said, the Bible is very clear about what it says concerning a NUMBER of sins, and they are most definitely NOT limited to homosexuals. If there's one unforgivable sin, and that sin ISN'T homosexuality (and it's not), then it's pretty clear. And as a few have said above, one's salvation state is tied to whether or not they accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, NOT whether or not they've managed to cleanse themselves of sin or imperfection. (Which can't be done anyways...that's the entire reason we NEED Christ in the first place.)

Besides, as I've heard many people say, the point of church isn't to become a country club for the already saved and cleaned up; it's to become a refuge for those who NEED exactly that. It's a shame, however, that churches seem to turn away from that. And I'll go so far as to target evangelical churches (I'm in a Baptist church so I include our church denomination in that) the most.

Now, this being said, what of those who persist in what the Bible calls sin? That's a different matter...but IMHO, if you're not going to call out other sins in front of the church or minister to them, then homosexuality shouldn't be singled out as well.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Yes-----it is christian.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

If a church accepts members who are living 'in sin' ie; shacking up or practicing fornication, is the church Christian?

Is it really any different if the sin is one of fornication, theft, lying or homosexuality? Ask yourself, if a church accepts sinners into it's congregation should they be considered a non Christian church? Would there be any churches labeled Christian churches if they didn't accept sinners?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

bluesky said:


> it's certainly not up to anyone else to make that judgment. If they call themselves believers in Jesus, then they're Christians, whether other Christians like it or not.


Exactly. I don't believe Jesus has given up his judgement seat to anyone on this board.

Does any member of any Church not sin in one form or another? 
If the body is a Temple and you are to keep it undefiled as the Bible say, is a Church that accepts: fat people, smokers, drug users, etc Christian?


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm not one to challenge anyone's claim to Christianity, and I would not deny that the right to judge an individual as to their salvation. That does not mean, however, that the standard or definition of sin is only in the eyes of the perpetrator. It would be a sin, and a failing as a fellow Christian to pretend so, or to pretend than sin does not matter, or even to pretend that feelings of romantic love between two humans in any way redefined sin.

If, for example, as a heterosexual, I loved a woman who was not my wife, I would be guilty of forming an unhealthy and sinful attatchment. It would be an inherently disordered and unnatural relationship. If I go on to consumate that love, even with my wife's permission, it would remain an act of adultery and fornication

For reference, The Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy:
1. Instruct the uninformed 
2. Counsel the doubtful
3. Admonish sinners
4. Bear wrongs patiently
5. Forgive offenses willingly
6. Comfort the afflicted
7. Pray for the living, sick and the dead


----------



## house06 (Jan 4, 2007)

I had one family member who was living with someone, who was physically abusive, condemn another family member for their homosexuality, condemning them to Hell. 

WHAT??? I too, wonder about those who truly do need the support and caring of God's churches being turned away as outcasts because of judgmental attitudes of others. 

I work hard everyday not to "harshly" judge others because I hope that at my moment of judgement one day to be judged mercifully rather than with any "justice" that I might deserve because of my sins.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church that followed Fred Phelps. I saw God as a terrible and angry being, raining fire and brimstone down on every sinner and only taking the perfect into heaven. We were taught that gays were evil and it was suggested that those who killed them were doing a good thing - though they would probably go to prison, it was a worthy sacrifice for those strong enough to make it. Women were to submit to their husbands and children were to be seen, not heard etc. etc. etc.

I tried so hard to be perfect. As a child, if I did anything the slightest bit bad, I layed in bed at night trembling. I thought God would let Satan come up through my floor boards and drag me right into Hell! I continued to try to be perfect right through high school and into marriage. I followed every rule and insisted my husband follow them too - until he got sick of my insanity and left without coming back. OMG! I was an adulteress because my husband had divorced me!!!! I was a bad, bad, bad person and so I quit going to church. I was pretty sure the church would burn down around me, if I went.

I continued to try to be perfect, though. I got married again - to an abusive man with custody of his 3 daughters. I thought I could save my soul by saving them. I wanted them to be perfect and not go to Hell. I tried to force them to be perfect. They hated me. The marriage ended after 10 years and that made me a double adulteress!

The third time around, I knew I was already doomed to Hell. I gave up even trying to be perfect. I insisted on an outdoor marriage - on a beach on a far away island. The minister was Lutheran or some other pagan religion. A woman!!! Everybody knows women are not to speak in church! I told her she couldn't make me say " 'til death do us part," but she either forgot or snuck it in and I didn't want to ruin the wedding by refusing to say it so I just crossed my fingers. 

I've been breaking the rules ever since - being nice to people I'm supposed to hate, slowly learning to keep my mouth shut about other people's faults, being nice to gay people.

My pagan husband even got me to start going to his church - ELCA Lutheran (THE church that allows gay ministers)! We have a female minister. She's straight, but two gay guys sit in the pew in front of us. They were the first people to say "hi" to us & make us feel welcome when we started attending the church. They go to church every single Sunday. They go to every single bible study and praise Jesus. They were raised Baptist, too (until they were condemned), and they're so grateful to have found a church where they're allowed to worship. A guy's house burned down & he wasn't a churchgoer, so they made sure to tell every member of the congregation what had happened to him & where he lived, what he might need to survive the winter. When our wonderful piano player had to be gone for a few months, the only person willing to play the piano was one of those two guys. He played faithfully (and badly) every Sunday until she came back. They take their turns as ushers and reading the word of God.

When I believed God was an angry being raining down fire and brimstone and ----ing people to Hell right and left, I was a terrified and angry person. I terrorized other people in my quest to "save" them and judged each person I met as being "good," "bad," "worthy," or "unworthy." Despite my best efforts to be perfect, I got divorced twice.

When I gave up trying to be as perfect as I thought the Terrible Father wanted me to be, I became more loving and accepting of the faults of others. My life became happier and my relationships with estranged family members blossomed again. I love, and I am loved. I now know that our Loving Father is love and light and kindness. I pray throughout the day - as I'm falling asleep and as I'm waking up, and I'm so grateful to Him for the wonderful new life He has given me.

When I gave up judging others, I gave up judging myself as well. I'm a kinder person now. How to be kind and nonjudgemental is what God TRIED to show us when he assumed the form of a man and came down to our level. Every day of his life he showed us how to be loving and kind and nonjudgemental - because that is the ONLY way to be saved. The only way to God is through Jesus - and to enter through him, you must believe what He told us, emulate His actions, and accept His forgiveness. Jesus never once told us it was OK to hate anybody - not the people who crucified him (he forgave him even as they were doing so), not EVEN gays. Jesus loves us WHILE we are sinners.

Of course, every now and again I slip. Old habits die hard. When I start judging other people again, my life becomes miserable again for a little while.

If you back off on judging other people, you back off on judging yourself. A huge weight is lifted off your shoulders and, without that weight, you have the strength to praise God and the energy to thank Him. When you don't judge others, He doesn't judge you either and you experience the miracle of forgiveness - right here on Earth. When you da mn others, you da mn yourself. Every curse you utter toward someone else is a curse you are uttering at yourself. Love as you want to be loved and forgive as you wish to be forgiven.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

sisterpine said:


> If a church accepts members who are living 'in sin' ie; shacking up or practicing fornication, is the church Christian?
> 
> Is it really any different if the sin is one of fornication, theft, lying or homosexuality? Ask yourself, if a church accepts sinners into it's congregation should they be considered a non Christian church? Would there be any churches labeled Christian churches if they didn't accept sinners?


Gays in Church yes but not being a Pastor.Lost one Pastor because he got caught soliciting a prostitute,lost another because he had an affair with another woman in the Church.

Lots of Pastors won't marry a couple if they are living together.I know one Church I could be a Pastor but not a Deacon.I had to question our Church wanting me as a Deacon considering my past but they know and are fine with it.

Another thing I don't agree with changing the Word of God to fit their agenda.

big rockpile


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

fffarmergirl - I'm no longer a practicing Christian but thank you for sharing your story! Your loving heart is an inspiration to me.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

bluesky said:


> fffarmergirl - I'm no longer a practicing Christian but thank you for sharing your story! Your loving heart is an inspiration to me.


I'm sending you a great big hug. Can you feel it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Two things to remember about Christians in general and leaders in specific: you past is no where near as important as your present and leaders must be held to a higher standard.

Its one thing if you used to be an adulterer, its a competently different matter if you are currently one.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

I think when Jesus comes for his bride (church) there will be many churches, especially the pastors/priests, etc., left dumb-founded.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

I just want to add - the ELCA's requirement for a minister, _whether gay or straight_, is that they be monogomous & in a long-term relationship (if in a relationship at all). Making the choice and having the self-discipline to be monogomous is much more difficult than being of one sexual orientation or another. A large # of people currently in the ministry in other churches could not meet that requirement.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

A practicing homosexual is no different than a practicing nymphomaniac....neither should be church leaders.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"A practicing homosexual is no different than a practicing nymphomaniac"

That's strange. My dictionary says they ARE two different things entirely.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Jan Doling said:


> A practicing homosexual is no different than a practicing nymphomaniac....neither should be church leaders.


A: Not the same and not up to you. 

B: I suggest you attend a church that has neither a practicing homosexual or a nymphomaniac in leadership and let others decide for themselves.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Mark 2:17 says

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, âIt is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.â

I believe that the scriptures are very clear on homosexuality. But Christ is also very clear in His message. 

I can't add anything more, because I'm not the Almighty.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> He also said to bring his enemies before him and slay them. Does that mean if you don't do that you aren't a real Christian either?:hrm:


No, he never did. He was telling a parable. There is a failure to understand the context there. The words found there in Luke 19:27, although spoken by Jesus, actually appear in a parable that Jesus was telling and are attributed to a slave-owner. You need to start reading back in v. 11 to get the whole story. *Jesus was stating what the slave-owner said in his parable, he was not commanding his disciples to slay anyone*. Look at v. 28 (Lk.19), the verse immediately after the verse in question. Luke writes, &#8220;When He had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem&#8221; (Luke 19:28). Jesus left immediately after he finished telling the parable. This rules out any possibility that Jesus intended people to be brought to where he was so they could be slain.

.


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

I wish Jesus was here. I'd love to hear his response to this thread.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

read Matthew 7:21 , 
not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of the Father 

I guess it is God who decides. 
In the meantime, churches can talk all they want to.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Why the focus on sexual orientation? Why is this "sin" considered worse than the others?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

bluesky said:


> Why the focus on sexual orientation? Why is this "sin" considered worse than the others?


Honestly, I think that's the point of this thread - from God's POV (in my opinion) sin is sin; but for some reason people look at homosexuality as being 'worse' than the other sins.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Kung said:


> Honestly, I think that's the point of this thread - from God's POV (in my opinion) sin is sin; but for some reason people look at homosexuality as being 'worse' than the other sins.


I don't think we look at it as being worse. I think it is because of the push by many to make it normal. If they were trying to convince us murder or stealing were normal and we should accept it, we would be discussing those too.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Kung said:


> Honestly, I think that's the point of this thread - from God's POV (in my opinion) sin is sin; but for some reason people look at homosexuality as being 'worse' than the other sins.


Not really.

There are a couple of points or questions to this thread:

1. Can a church endorse and consider normal, an act soundly condemned in the Bible?

2. Should the leaders of the church beheld to a higher standard than the laity?

3. Can an unrepetent sinner be the pastor of a church?

4. Has homosexuality become so PC, that we can no longer look at the act as sin?



Well, maybe math wasn't my strong suit...:grin:


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

I'd just like to have a talk with Jesus about his definition of 'sin'.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

stormwalker said:


> I'd just like to have a talk with Jesus about his definition of 'sin'.


That's an easy request. Get a Bible and start reading.


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

Jolly said:


> That's an easy request. Get a Bible and start reading.


Done. In my thirteenth year.
I said I'd like to talk with Jesus- not innumerable scribes with their own agenda.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

What amazes most historians is the accuracy by which oral traditions can survive millenia.

Jesus' Words were transcribed within decades of his "death", some just a bit later.

I think you'll be pretty safe with those words in red....


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Is a denomination which allows openly gay pastors still considered a Christian Church?
> 
> http://www.twincities.com/ci_18036061?nclick_check=1


It would be in rebellion against God.


----------



## Jakk (Aug 14, 2008)

fffarmergirl said:


> I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church that followed Fred Phelps. I saw God as a terrible and angry being, raining fire and brimstone down on every sinner and only taking the perfect into heaven. We were taught that gays were evil and it was suggested that those who killed them were doing a good thing - though they would probably go to prison, it was a worthy sacrifice for those strong enough to make it. Women were to submit to their husbands and children were to be seen, not heard etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I tried so hard to be perfect. As a child, if I did anything the slightest bit bad, I layed in bed at night trembling. I thought God would let Satan come up through my floor boards and drag me right into Hell! I continued to try to be perfect right through high school and into marriage. I followed every rule and insisted my husband follow them too - until he got sick of my insanity and left without coming back. OMG! I was an adulteress because my husband had divorced me!!!! I was a bad, bad, bad person and so I quit going to church. I was pretty sure the church would burn down around me, if I went.
> 
> ...


Fffarmergirl, this is most inspiring post I have read in a long time. Thank you for sharing!


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

Jolly said:


> What amazes most historians is the accuracy by which oral traditions can survive millenia.
> 
> Jesus' Words were transcribed within decades of his "death", some just a bit later.
> 
> I think you'll be pretty safe with those words in red....


I'm afraid Muslims say pretty close to what you say, only about Mohammad.
I'm not interested in living by oral tradition.
Especially since women "traditionally " were not allowed to open their mouths.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Kung said:


> Honestly, I think that's the point of this thread - from God's POV (in my opinion) sin is sin; but for some reason people look at homosexuality as being 'worse' than the other sins.


True,but God did destroy S&G for doing the same thing that some folks think is fine, and would make good pastors behind the pulpit.

A homosexual thats saved and washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ is one thing,but a practicing homosexual has no business behind the pulpit preaching, until he's forgiven of his sins.

If he's still practicing,he's still lost.If that person says they are still practicing homosexuality,its not judging to not support their wishes.Had it not been for Abraham's pleading with God,Lot and his family would have perished along with the wicked people of Sodom,for just being there.I don't know whether God thinks homosexuality is a worse sin,but He don't seem to be to fond of it.

I can't see God approving of a practicing homosexual preacher,along with his supporting parishners, calling themselves Christians.I doubt God would call them that.The blood of Jesus Christ is kinda scarce around these folks,kinda scarce indeed, and without that Blood, a Christian is an impossibility,church or person..


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Jolly said:


> 1. Can a church endorse and consider normal, an act soundly condemned in the Bible?


I have problems with churches that do that; but I do hope it's understood that there's a difference between allowing homosexuals in church, and allowing them to hold positions, be deacons/ministers/pastors, etc.



> 2. Should the leaders of the church beheld to a higher standard than the laity?


Of course they should - the Bible itself says this.



> 3. Can an unrepetent sinner be the pastor of a church?


Nope, so see my response to #1 above.



> 4. Has homosexuality become so PC, that we can no longer look at the act as sin?


You need to define the 'we.' I've no problem with a homosexual coming to our church but that's for the very same reason I've no problem with any OTHER sinner coming to our church.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

stormwalker said:


> Done. In my thirteenth year.
> I said I'd like to talk with Jesus- not innumerable scribes with their own agenda.


Ah, one of those.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> A homosexual thats saved and washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ is one thing,but a practicing homosexual has no business behind the pulpit preaching, until he's forgiven of his sins.


Agreed. But allowed in church, period? Sure.



> I can't see God approving of a practicing homosexual preacher,along with his supporting parishners, calling themselves Christians.I doubt God would call them that.The blood of Jesus Christ is kinda scarce around these folks,kinda scarce indeed, and without that Blood, a Christian is an impossibility,church or person..


Agreed.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

What about a practicing glutton? Or one who practices greed, sloth, envy, despair, or pride? What about the one who just can't stop yelling at his wife and kids? Or the one who fudges his taxes? The bigot? The one who watches pretty girls walk down the street with lust in his heart? What about the one who sews discord or stirs up mischief? Are churches with those men/women as their leaders still called Christian?


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

I second Kung's answers.

Any church that refuses admission to sinners should be empty, including the pulpit.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

stormwalker said:


> I wish Jesus was here. I'd love to hear his response to this thread.


He's free to chime in any time he wants, isn't he?:kung:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> He's free to chime in any time he wants, isn't he?:kung:


He already has.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> You need to define the 'we.' I've no problem with a homosexual coming to our church but that's for the very same reason I've no problem with any OTHER sinner coming to our church.


"We" is the Church. Not the building, but the people, of course.

I don't think anybody here has said anything about barring sinners from the fellowship of the Church.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Jolly said:


> "We" is the Church. Not the building, but the people, of course.
> 
> I don't think anybody here has said anything about barring sinners from the fellowship of the Church.


In the context of your numbered post above (in which all of them had to do with people being in or in charge of a church), I thought that's what you were speaking of. If I'm wrong, my mistake.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I won't attempt to argue with the Bible; it's very clear about what it says about homosexuality, regardless of people's attempts to justify or explain it better.


Maybe, but here's something interesting: morality has changed quite a bit since Biblical times, even among Christians.

Don't believe me? Try telling your wife you've decided to bring home a couple of concubines. Perfectly acceptable in Old Testament times ... not so much today! (Unless you have a very accommodating wife, of course.)

Another example. Most Americans believe we have a God-given right to freedom, but the god of the the Bible actually doesn't seem very concerned about freedom, or the lack thereof. Slavery was acceptable in the times in which the Bible was written, and God apparently didn't see fit to rock the boat. The New Testament states that God doesn't make distinctions between free and enslaved Christians, but nowhere does he condemn the practice or instruct slaveowners to free their captives. 

Despite this lack of Biblical condemnation, any American Christian attempting to reinstate slavery today probably would get some funny looks from his fellow parishioners. No?

So if our morality can change -- arguably for the better -- on the above issues, is it possible there is some wiggle room concerning homosexuality as well?

My personal belief is that the Bible doesn't address gay marriage for the same reason it doesn't talk about space travel: neither existed during the time in which it was written. Homosexuality only existed in the context of prostitution or other illicit relationships, and not in the context of loving, monogamous, joy-filled ones. Who knows what Jesus would have thought about the latter? We can only guess. :shrug:


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

I vaguely remember something in that book about casting the first stone....


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2011)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I vaguely remember something in that book about casting the first stone....


Yuppers..and the rest of what Jesus said was every bit as enlightening..
"Go. and sin no more." 

He didn't say, "Ok, it's all good." 
He didn't say, "Adultery is cool with me." 
He didn't say,"No big deal kiddo..party on."

He said: "Go. And SIN NO MORE."..He forgave her for her sin of adultery, AND told her not to continue doing that in the future. 

The New testament tells us all over the place to judge other people's actions..what it doesn't tell us is that we have the power to judge someone's eternal soul's status.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Originally Posted by stormwalker 
Done. In my thirteenth year.
I said I'd like to talk with Jesus- not innumerable scribes with their own agenda."

If you believe and accept Christ as your Savior, repent of your sins and strive not to repeat them, one day you WILL be able to talk with Him, face to face, and ask anything you want. But I bet once you're in front of Him, you won't need to ask anything. At least that's what I understand the scriptures to say, and what I personally anticipate.

Just my honest opinion.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I vaguely remember something in that book about casting the first stone....


 Thats right,but in the case of an openly gay preacher,admitting he is still practicing homosexually,he is casting the first stone himself.Admitting he is keeping on practicing his sinning,and thumbing his nose at God, and God's word.The folks that hire him,is just as guilty as he is,and one day will pay.



bostonlesley said:


> Yuppers..and the rest of what Jesus said was every bit as enlightening..
> "Go. and sin no more."
> 
> He didn't say, "Ok, it's all good."
> ...


Absolutely right.What if she had told Jesus she was going to keep on living the adulterous lifestyle, and pay his words no mind?

Thats exactly what the openly gay pastors are doing.If they want to ignore God's word about homosexuality,why do they want to be called a Christian anyway,why not just ignore that part as well??

I mean its not like that label is gunna score them any points passed the Pearly Gate, nor will it air condition their eternal home.:shrug:Theres a big difference in being called a Christian, than it is being a Christian.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

*1 Timothy 3*

*Overseers and Deacons*

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,*he* desires a noble task. 
2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, *the husband of but one wife*, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 
3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 
4 *He* must manage *his own family* well and see that *his children obey him *with proper respect. 
5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can *he* take care of Godâs church?) 
6 *He* must not be a recent convert, or *he* may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 
7 *He* must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that *he* will not fall into disgrace and into the devilâs trap. 
8 Deacons, likewise, *are to be men* worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 
9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 
10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. 
11 In the same way, *their wives are to be women* worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. 
12  *A deacon must be the husband of but one wife* and must manage *his* children and *his *household well. 
13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.


(Bold and large print I did to point out what Scripture says)


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Laura, but were those rules intended to exclude partners in gay couples, or were there simply _no gay couples in existence at the time? _


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Maybe, but here's something interesting: morality has changed quite a bit since Biblical times, even among Christians.
> 
> Don't believe me? Try telling your wife you've decided to bring home a couple of concubines. Perfectly acceptable in Old Testament times ... not so much today! (Unless you have a very accommodating wife, of course.)
> 
> ...


The concubine bit doesn't work, as evidenced in a post above about one man/one wife. We live in the Age of Grace, not Law.

You better argument is the one about slavery vis-a-vis changing morality.

But I think a pretty good case can be made that the New Testament's teaching were a driving force in the eradication of slavery in most of the world. Slavery is still practiced, but not in any Christian country that I am aware of.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Laura, but were those rules intended to exclude partners in gay couples, or were there simply _no gay couples in existence at the time? _


yes, there were PLENTY of 'gays' (homosexuality) in existence since The Fall. Sodom and Ghamora was full of them. Moses wrote out in the Levitical law the prohibition of homesexuality, and why. Jesus backed that Law in the NT.

As far as "who" should be leaders in the church, the above Scripture is crystal clear....
Those rules are clear to those who want to see it!:hammer:

MEN are to be leaders / elders / deacons of the church.
MEN who are married to ONE woman.
MEN who know how to run a family / household.
That's why I put everything in bold.

Men, who have only been married to ONE WOMAN, who have their children under control.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> yes, there were PLENTY of 'gays' (homosexuality) in existence since The Fall. Sodom and Ghamora was full of them.


Were there gay couples living in loving, supportive monogamous relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriages? 

I'm not sure about Sodom and Gomorrah, but I'm pretty certain those did not exist in the Jewish community of Christ's time. 



> The concubine bit doesn't work, as evidenced in a post above about one man/one wife.


Here we see morality evolving within the span of Biblical times ... something that initially was acceptable later is condemned or at least frowned upon. To my way of thinking, this _supports_ the notion of moral evolution continuing even after the Bible had been completed.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

"âOriginally Posted by Jan Doling 
A practicing homosexual is no different than a practicing nymphomaniac....neither should be church leaders.â 

bluesky replied:
âA: Not the same and not up to you. 

B: I suggest you attend a church that has neither a practicing homosexual or a nymphomaniac in leadership and let others decide for themselves.â"



No, I let God decide and I follow His Word. Those that donât will have to face God on Judgement Day and have to explain to Him why they taught others differently than He intended and chased His Children from churches their families had founded and attended for generations for chosing to do as He bade them and the new leaders chose to do their own thing and so sent His followers to âattend a church that has neither a practicing homosexual or a nymphomaniac in leadership.â Good luck with that!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

No 501C3 corporation can claim "Christian" church status, and that by IRS rules.

Incorporating with the IRS automatically negates any previous claim any group may have had to the "church" established by the Messiah.

There is a strict list, buried a little deeper in the IRS code, specifically referencing those groups that can apply for and claim 501C3 status.

Now, there is _the Church_, as referenced by IRS code 508a..... that entity that is completely outside of all governmental interference, that entity purportedly established by Jesus Christ, that church which is called out to be separate from all worldly affiliations and is actually recognized under the Law of Nations as a separate and autonomous political body......
Funny that only the Vatican has access to such privileged status.
Even funnier that the IRS codes are written by Jesuits.
Funniest of all is that the Vatican owns the Social Security Administration complex and all those little micro-corporations that carry and depend on a Social Security card for their position and well-being in life.

One world government is synonymous with one world religion, and, regardless of superficial denominational affiliation preferences, any SSN recipient is considered by the powers that be to be a consenting and participating possession of the Vatican.
For what it's worth, the _Mother of harlots_ referred to in Revelation is the Vatican, and the harlots are the duped congregations who have incorporated with her to be neutered and dissolved into the pit.

I can't wait for the beheadings and burnings at the stake to begin for handling dissenting heretics such as myself..


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Forerunner, do you grow that stuff yourself and is it the compost that makes it so powerful?

And ... can I buy some? :hysterical:


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I thought you might enjoy that one. 

When's the last time you went to confession ?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Don't believe me? Try telling your wife you've decided to bring home a couple of concubines. Perfectly acceptable in Old Testament times ... not so much today! (Unless you have a very accommodating wife, of course.)


Problem with this is that (unless I'm mistaken) God Himself never said "Thou shalt have a buncha concubines." Same thing with divorce - God allowed it but He never said "I think this is a great idea."



> Another example. Most Americans believe we have a God-given right to freedom, but the god of the the Bible actually doesn't seem very concerned about freedom, or the lack thereof. Slavery was acceptable in the times in which the Bible was written, and God apparently didn't see fit to rock the boat. The New Testament states that God doesn't make distinctions between free and enslaved Christians, but nowhere does he condemn the practice or instruct slaveowners to free their captives.


Suffice it to say that what WE know as slavery (and what was practiced as such), and what was ACTUALLY slavery in Biblical times, were two VERY different things. The Biblical 'slavery' was closer to bondserving; and the Bible DID, in fact, have a few things to say about treating them right and honorably.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> *1 Timothy 3*
> 
> *Overseers and Deacons*
> 
> ...


Thanks for the quote.

That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> When's the last time you went to confession ?


Oh my! Just the thought ... 

I mean can you imagine the look on the priest's face? ound: ound: ound:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> No 501C3 corporation can claim "Christian" church status, and that by IRS rules.
> 
> Incorporating with the IRS automatically negates any previous claim any group may have had to the "church" established by the Messiah.
> 
> ...


and now you lost me


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Oh my! Just the thought ...
> 
> I mean can you imagine the look on the priest's face? ound: ound: ound:


"Ma'am....MA'AM! I need a break...can we just schedule a series of appointments? My book's clear on Tuesdays for the next few months..."


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I rather think the priest would relish it Willow


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

1 John 2:4-6 (New International Version 1984)
4 The man who says, &#8220;I know him,&#8221; but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God&#8217;s love[a] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 

1 John 3:16-18 (New International Version 1984)

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 


Here is a definition of what is meant by a Christian Church.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

wyld thang said:


> I rather think the priest would relish it Willow


There are SO many good and funny responses to this, but in the interest of keeping it 'family oriented' I'll refrain. :gaptooth:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

So will I, Kung!


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Paul was quite a mysogynist, as were most men of his time and culture. Women were chattle and good for only a few things - like sex, childbearing, manual labor...


----------



## nduetime (Dec 15, 2005)

At the risk of being beat up...
As others have said, the Bible makes it very clear in regards to the leaders of the church and what standards they are to live by. 
In my opinion the Bible also makes it very clear to hate the sin, love the sinner. Tolerance is the worst of words in my opinion. Tolerance leads to this air of PC homosexuality on tv, romanticizing of demons (ie vampire stuff), approval of the language, dress, and drug and alcohol abuses shown on tv now compared to say the 50's.Tolerance has caused a great deal to people and their moral standards. Again just my opinion. Yes, I have family members who are homosexual. I love them, hate the sin. Same with those that are drug abusers etc.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Kung said:


> Honestly, I think that's the point of this thread - from God's POV (in my opinion) sin is sin; but for some reason people look at homosexuality as being 'worse' than the other sins.


Seems to me more people look at it as being a much smaller sin. After all do you think many churches would allow a known active adulterer to be its leader?


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

bluesky said:


> Paul was quite a mysogynist, as were most men of his time and culture. Women were chattle and good for only a few things - like sex, childbearing, manual labor...



You know, personally, I don't think Paul was a very nice person - I don't think I would have liked him, invited him over for dinner, or have wanted to just hang out with him. Regardless of that, he was a man of God who answered a direct calling that contradicted everything he believed and cherished prior to his calling.

The message he spread, even though bits of Paul himself come through, wasn't his, it was God's. Reading his Epistles, one does in fact, get the idea that Paul was something of a misogynist - personally. At the same time, he is the one who likened the Church to the Bride of Christ, and defined one's role to God and his Church as that between a husband and a wife and family. When you read his description of this relationship, one can hardly describe it as one in which the woman - the wife - is only chattel, fit for procreation, child birth, and menial labor. In fact, quite the opposite it true - the relationship he describes is one in which both are elevated and made greater together than either was as an individual.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

NoClue said:


> You know, personally, I don't think Paul was a very nice person - I don't think I would have liked him, invited him over for dinner, or have wanted to just hang out with him. Regardless of that, he was a man of God who answered a direct calling that contradicted everything he believed and cherished prior to his calling.
> 
> The message he spread, even though bits of Paul himself come through, wasn't his, it was God's. Reading his Epistles, one does in fact, get the idea that Paul was something of a misogynist - personally. At the same time, he is the one who likened the Church to the Bride of Christ, and defined one's role to God and his Church as that between a husband and a wife and family. When you read his description of this relationship, one can hardly describe it as one in which the woman - the wife - is only chattel, fit for procreation, child birth, and menial labor. In fact, quite the opposite it true - the relationship he describes is one in which both are elevated and made greater together than either was as an individual.


Of all the biblical writers, I think he's the most interesting person. He comes across as very human, personally conflicted (the thorn in his flesh), fanatical, and was obviously wildly dedicated to his new faith. Like you, I'm not sure I would have liked him personally but I'm certain he believed and did as he preached. I think a lot of culture comes through in his epistles and that's one place I've struggled with the popular Christian view of the inerrancy of the Bible - women are pictured as the beloved bride, as you noted, but on the other hand they should cover their heads and keep their mouths shut.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Jolly said:


> He already has.


Has he? Which posts are his?:bouncy:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Kung said:


> Problem with this is that (unless I'm mistaken) God Himself never said "Thou shalt have a buncha concubines." Same thing with divorce - God allowed it but He never said "I think this is a great idea."
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice it to say that what WE know as slavery (and what was practiced as such), and what was ACTUALLY slavery in Biblical times, were two VERY different things. The Biblical 'slavery' was closer to bondserving; and the Bible DID, in fact, have a few things to say about treating them right and honorably.


And it also outlined the rules for beating them. As long as you didn't do too much permanent damage or knock any body parts off, there was no problem.:teehee: I like it when the rules are spelled out. It avoids some confusion later, sometimes.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

watcher said:


> Seems to me more people look at it as being a much smaller sin. After all do you think many churches would allow a known active adulterer to be its leader?


LOL,we all let one run this country for eight years, and the one we have now is running around the world bowing to every Tom,Dick and Harry God that comes along.I can see some churches allowing a practicing adulterer to head up the church.Thats one way to be as close to God as the Man of the cloth is.:nana:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

bluesky said:


> Paul was quite a mysogynist, as were most men of his time and culture. Women were chattle and good for only a few things - like sex, childbearing, manual labor...


Not true. In one place he gives honor to a man and wife and the wife is the preacher.

I think it was Aquilla and Priscilla. He even had a pet name for Priscilla, Prisca I think.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I vaguely remember something in that book about casting the first stone....


There's also something about plucking out your eye if it offends you. That is talking about the church. Different groups have different jobs. If one church is teaching or doing things contrary to God's Word, He is saying to set it aside from the rest lest the whole church goes astray. A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Were there gay couples living in loving, supportive monogamous relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriages?


I do not read in Scripture the 'acceptance' for homosexual relationships back then......all I read is that homosexuality was an abomination.
(brace yourself, I am gonna use a scary word) I assume (shudder) that you are asking: that when 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' behavior was spoken of and addressed in Scripture....and it was always in the negative (don't do it)....you will not find anywhere in Scripture to "support alternative lifestyles'?
Because no, you will not find God saying it's ok, ever, anywhere.



> I'm not sure about Sodom and Gomorrah, but I'm pretty certain those did not exist in the Jewish community of Christ's time.


The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (thank you for the correct spelling) talks about open homosexuality, and how the gay men wanted to have relations with an Angel of the Lord..........and then The Almighty completely and utterly destroyed and erased that place of the face of His earth. 
So......no.....there was not any 'open tolerant acceptance' for what God Almighty called (and proved in the destruction of S&G) an abomination.



> Here we see morality evolving within the span of Biblical times ... something that initially was acceptable later is condemned or at least frowned upon. To my way of thinking, this _supports_ the notion of moral evolution continuing even after the Bible had been completed.


I think I answered your question? If not, bear with me.....public educated!:hysterical:


----------



## AR Cattails (Dec 22, 2005)

Our society today is being taught a watered-down, PC version of God's Word. Can't offend anyone anymore so they change His Word to fit their agenda so they feel good. God has made it pretty clear how He feels on this issue. 

Homosexuality = abomination.
We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner.
Welcome the sinner to church, yes, but a sinner should not be preaching to us from the pulpit.

I have a nephew, 17 years old, who just recently told his parents he is homosexual. His parents are taking it hard but they will always love him and be there for him and pray for him, as will I. He's a great kid.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

fffarmergirl -- that is, perhaps, the most thoughtful and sincere, and truly beautiful, testament to Christian faith that I have ever read. Thank you.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> The Presbytarians are going to allow openly gay pastors. I also believe that some Episcopal churches are OK with it, too.


There are people who think they are Christians all over this nation, all over the world who are deceived. Going to church does not make a person a believer. Neither does joining a church. And neither does baptism unless there is faith behind it. Believing that there is one true God doesn't make a person a believer.James 2.19. Even knowing Jesus is the son of God doesn't make people a believer. Mk 1.24 shows us that even the devil knows that. Ye must be born again with a new Spirit put in you so that you become In Christ a New Creation. Jhn 3.7, Cor 5.17.

There are churches all over this world where people are in sin. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. But knowingly and willingly living in sin as a choice is much worse than simply missing the mark. To stay in sin is wrong. And believers must be willing to separate themselves from groups that preach sin is Ok. If your pastor preaches greed and loves money more than God or people then separate yourself from that church. If your pastor preaches homosexuality is normal, and acceptable, then separate yourself from that church. If the pulpit at the church preaches adultery is ok, abandoning children is ok, or what ever doesn't line up with the scripture, then separate yourself from that church.

Believers must honor God more than man. And if a church is openly preaching sin is acceptable, repentance is not necessary, etc, then leave it. Come out from among them. We have to weigh everything in life by the scripture. God's Word is Truth. John 17.16 And if a church, especially the leader of a church, is not preaching truth, then they are not preaching the Word of God. And people who proclaim lies as truth are in great danger. Rev 22.18.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

In fact becoming a new creature in Christ was to lead to a sinless existence even while in the flesh.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

I think everyone here would benefit from a long look in the mirror! 
Stop pointing out whats wrong with everyone else and Be The Change you wish to see in the world.

I think my pastor is a great example of a loving family. Her and her wife are in a long term committed relationship and are good and loving parents to their son. If only all marriages were that good! Too bad they are not allowed to get married.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I think everyone here would benefit from a long look in the mirror!
> Stop pointing out whats wrong with everyone else and Be The Change you wish to see in the world.
> 
> I think my pastor is a great example of a loving family. Her and her wife are in a long term committed relationship and are good and loving parents to their son. If only all marriages were that good! Too bad they are not allowed to get married.


Good grief.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I think everyone here would benefit from a long look in the mirror!
> Stop pointing out whats wrong with everyone else and Be The Change you wish to see in the world.
> 
> I think my pastor is a great example of a loving family. Her and her wife are in a long term committed relationship and are good and loving parents to their son. If only all marriages were that good! Too bad they are not allowed to get married.


:thumb:


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

I once had a Methodist pastor who was divorced and remarried, and he grew up in a very fundamentalist church that to this day does not allow divorced clergy.

The first married ended while he was in seminary; he had been married to his second wife for about 30 years. They had no children, and it wasn't our business why but he told me once that he chose not to have them because he felt that the job would be so demanding, he could not be the kind of father he believes a child deserves.


----------



## SocialAnarchist (Mar 23, 2011)

I never cease to be amazed by the attitudes of the so called "loving Christians" on this site. Thank you once again for reminding me why I walked away from that. It never was about what the Bible had to say that drove me away it was the hypocrisy of the "Oh so righteous" standing in judgement of everyone that didn't believe EXACTLY as they did.

Time to remember a couple simple Bible verses:


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

SocialAnarchist said:


> *I never cease to be amazed* by the attitudes of the so called "loving Christians" on this site. Thank you once again for reminding me why I walked away from that. It never was about what the Bible had to say that drove me away it was *the hypocrisy of the "Oh so righteous" standing in judgement of everyone* that didn't believe EXACTLY as they did.
> 
> Time to remember a couple simple Bible verses:
> 
> ...


:hysterical:
You've been here, what, only two months... and you're judging about judging and not judging? Sorry, couldn't resist.

You missed a rather long thread not long ago where the "judge/judge not" topic was discussed at length. A simple search will find it for you.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

SocialAnarchist said:


> I never cease to be amazed by the attitudes of the so called "loving Christians" on this site. Thank you once again for reminding me why I walked away from that. It never was about what the Bible had to say that drove me away it was the hypocrisy of the "Oh so righteous" standing in judgement of everyone that didn't believe EXACTLY as they did.
> 
> Time to remember a couple simple Bible verses:
> 
> ...


That's why I post Scripture.
If folks find it offensive, or mean, or 'judgemental'..........they can take it up with the Author.
Not my words.......His!!

(Pst, I highly recommend you search out the judgement thread. It will explain what that verse REALLY means)


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That's why I post Scripture.
> If folks find it offensive, or mean, or 'judgemental'..........they can take it up with the Author.
> Not my words.......His!!
> 
> (Pst, I highly recommend you search out the judgement thread. It will explain what that verse REALLY means)


I ignore those long "Scripture" posts. If I want to know what the Bible says I can read it for myself and then decide what I think it means. I'd much rather hear what you think - if you actually do think for yourself and maybe you've chosen not to where religion is concerned, which seems common and accepted, even praised, amoung very conservative Christians (God said it, I believe it, that settles it!!!). 

I've known many, many religious people over the years who are fine with quoting the Bible and moving on. Seems as if once they found Jesus they had no need for their intellect or any need to engage in real, normal conversation. That's one of the problems I've found with those who view the Bible as inerrant - lack of critical thinking and an amazing ability to swallow some pretty tall tales and contradictions - but a real dogged determination to hang onto the whole of the Bible (even though I think you can be a godly person and recognize that the Bible is _not_ meant to be taken literally at all times).


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bluesky said:


> I ignore those long "Scripture" posts. If I want to know what the Bible says I can read it for myself and then decide what I think it means. I'd much rather hear what you think - if you actually do think for yourself and maybe you've chosen not to where religion is concerned, which seems common and accepted, even praised, amoung very conservative Christians (God said it, I believe it, that settles it!!!).


What *I* have to say is human (last time I checked, I am human :yuck thereby making what I say, flawed.
I quote Scripture because it is pure, Truth.



> I've known many, many religious people over the years who are fine with quoting the Bible and moving on. Seems as if once they found Jesus they had no need for their intellect or any need to engage in real, normal conversation. That's one of the problems I've found with those who view the Bible as inerrant - lack of critical thinking and an amazing ability to swallow some pretty tall tales and contradictions - but a real dogged determination to hang onto the whole of the Bible (even though I think you can be a godly person and recognize that the Bible is _not_ meant to be taken literally at all times).


I agree......religion sucks. 
However, when one enters into a relationship with Jesus Christ, the old self, dies, and Christ lives within us. It's pretty complicated, but you get a 'holy gut check, and a holy bridle' for your mouth. 
There are days, I wish my bit was larger!!!

Anyway, it's like trying to explain to a woman what it's like to have a baby. They can hear me, and kinda get what I am saying........but not really because if they have never HAD a baby, they really don't 'get it'.

That's why I quote Scripture.
It is God's Words, and He promises that they will not return to Him void!!


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Laura - As far as it being "complicated" goes - I'm completely capable of understanding what you're talking about. The jargon of belief is not new to me, having grown up in a devoutly Christian family. It's not just Christianity that can produce such profound results in terms of the old self dying - and it's also not a given that there will be miraculous change in an individual even when he/she is "born again". 

I'll spare you a long narrative of my personal journey but will say that I've come to know that there is a lot of truth in Christianity and a lot of truth in other faiths as well. There are a lot of fine and loving people who claim Jesus as their savior and a lot of fine and loving people who follow different paths. You know what you know and I know what I know and who's to say which "knowing" is more valid? Except - and this is a big "except" - Christians, almost without fail, are certain that what they "know" is the single truth and most who follow other spiritual paths are certain that their way is only one way to a larger Truth.

With you (and not just you) free discussion of matters of faith and truth is simply not possible. You've found what you sincerely believe to be the only truth and that puts a big full stop to curiosity and wondering. And that's too bad. You remind me of a pastor I once knew who told me that I had too many questions and needed to just accept things and "trust God". As if there could possibly be too many questions!!! 

As far as the OP goes - I'll say again what I said before. A church that preaches Jesus as Lord is a Christian church. Any other conclusion is completely inappropriate. If you don't like the specifics of what a particular church/denomination teaches, then find one that better suits your personal views and do your best to follow the path you've chosen.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

SocialAnarchist said:


> I never cease to be amazed by the attitudes of the so called "loving Christians" on this site. Thank you once again for reminding me why I walked away from that. It never was about what the Bible had to say that drove me away it was the hypocrisy of the "Oh so righteous" standing in judgement of everyone that didn't believe EXACTLY as they did.


Bluntly put, someone who doesn't want to believe, or has no intention of believing in the first place, will seize upon any means to justify their unbelief.

I don't think I've ever 'stood in judgment' of 'anyone' who 'doesn't do exactly as I do.' Yes, there are those that do that here; but bluntly put, as I've told people many times, the focus of Christianity SHOULD BE Christ, and not the 'believers.' I can't count the # of times that people have walked away from the faith but cited other BELIEVERS as the cause.

To me, that's like not buying a Ford because the last 5 guys who drove a Ford were all jerks. :shrug: While it's my desire for people to know Christ, I'd prefer that their disagreements be with the faith itself and not their believers. 



> 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


The only thing I want to add as far as this goes is that I hope people realize (but I know otherwise) that there's a difference between judging and PASSING judgment. Many people do the first, but the second is simply stating what the Bible says, and comparing people to that standard.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> I think everyone here would benefit from a long look in the mirror!
> Stop pointing out whats wrong with everyone else and Be The Change you wish to see in the world.


Just how do you change the world if you spend all your time ignoring it?




Buffy in Dallas said:


> I think my pastor is a great example of a loving family. Her and her wife are in a long term committed relationship and are good and loving parents to their son. If only all marriages were that good! Too bad they are not allowed to get married.


There are a lot of good loving people out there which are going to wind up in Hell. We have already been told this:

_âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â_ Matthew 7:21-23 TNIV


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

bluesky said:


> I've known many, many religious people over the years who are fine with quoting the Bible and moving on. _Seems as if once they found Jesus they had no need for their intellect or any need to engage in real, normal conversation. _That's one of the problems I've found with those who view the Bible as inerrant - lack of critical thinking and an amazing ability to swallow some pretty tall tales and contradictions - but a real dogged determination to hang onto the whole of the Bible (even though I think you can be a godly person and recognize that the Bible is _not_ meant to be taken literally at all times).


Spot on.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Kung said:


> Bluntly put, someone who doesn't want to believe, or has no intention of believing in the first place, will seize upon any means to justify their unbelief.
> 
> I don't think I've ever 'stood in judgment' of 'anyone' who 'doesn't do exactly as I do.' Yes, there are those that do that here; but bluntly put, as I've told people many times, the focus of Christianity SHOULD BE Christ, and not the 'believers.' I can't count the # of times that people have walked away from the faith but cited other BELIEVERS as the cause.
> 
> ...


The difference between judging and passing judgment is a very, very, very fine line and one that it not often walked well. I can't tell you the number of people I've known that have walked away from church and eventually given up on Christianity because they were brutally judged by those who should have known better. People in need, in crisis, in times of trouble, are exceptionally vulnerable and to further hurt those who are already suffering, to kill the wounded, is a great failing of the Church and one I've personally experienced and witnessed time and time again. Should people focus on God and not other believers? Of course. Does that always happen, particularly when things are going very badly? No, it does not. And I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who think it's their calling to correct others instead of loving them.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> I've known many, many religious people over the years who are fine with quoting the Bible and moving on. Seems as if once they found Jesus they had no need for their intellect or any need to engage in real, normal conversation. That's one of the problems I've found with those who view the Bible as inerrant - lack of critical thinking and an amazing ability to swallow some pretty tall tales and contradictions - but a real dogged determination to hang onto the whole of the Bible (even though I think you can be a godly person and recognize that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally at all times).


The flip side of that argument (which you may be more comfortable with) is that the Bible has lots of errors, that it is essentially just a guidebook, that the miracles are easily explained, that Jesus was just a nice Jew with a different view on how to live.

And that Virgin Birth stuff? No way!

Not to mention that mass hysteria that accompanied a supposed Resurection and Ascension.

That is the road the Presbyterians are currently on...they are applying man's logic to God's Word. IMO, with less than stellar results.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

SocialAnarchist said:


> I never cease to be amazed by the attitudes of the so called "loving Christians" on this site. Thank you once again for reminding me why I walked away from that. It never was about what the Bible had to say that drove me away it was the hypocrisy of the "Oh so righteous" standing in judgement of everyone that didn't believe EXACTLY as they did.
> 
> Time to remember a couple simple Bible verses:
> 
> ...


You might want to read just a bit farther to verse 5:

_You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the other personâs eye._

That verse clearly tells us once we are able to see clearly we are to look at our brothers eyes and make them see clearly.

You might also want to read the parts of the Bible where we are told to judge others. You can start in Mathew 12 and Luke 6.

You might also want to remember while God is a loving God who has given us grace He will judge us quite harshly. Read Nahum 1. 

_The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. The LORD is slow to anger but great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. _ Nahum 1:2-3 TNIV


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that all of us are sinners. Is the other persons sin so much worse than my own that God will not overlook it just as He has promised to forgive me of my own? Who among us is without sin? Who among us is righteous and without fault? Are fat people really Christians? Are gossips really Christians? What about those good folks who have forgotten the Lords day, and do not keep it Holy? Are they Christians? Did Christ say that He will grant my salvation, in spite of my own sins, and not forgive others of theirs?


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Jolly said:


> The flip side of that argument (which you may be more comfortable with) is that the Bible has lots of errors, that it is essentially just a guidebook, that the miracles are easily explained, that Jesus was just a nice Jew with a different view on how to live.
> 
> And that Virgin Birth stuff? No way!
> 
> ...


As Christianity is not my chosen faith any more (although it was for most of my life), it matters little to me how Christians accept/refute fine points of doctrine (or major doctrines like the virgin birth). There is a denomination for everyone, each basing its doctrines on the Bible. What I do care about is how people use their religion to determine how they're going to treat others and the judgments they make regarding the validity of someone else's faith or church. :cowboy:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I seem to recall reading somewhere that all of us are sinners. Is the other persons sin so much worse than my own that God will not overlook it just as He has promised to forgive me of my own? Who among us is without sin? Who among us is righteous and without fault? Are fat people really Christians? Are gossips really Christians? What about those good folks who have forgotten the Lords day, and do not keep it Holy? Are they Christians? Did Christ say that He will grant my salvation, in spite of my own sins, and not forgive others of theirs?


Which day is the Lord's day?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

bluesky said:


> As Christianity is not my chosen faith any more (although it was for most of my life), it matters little to me how Christians accept/refute fine points of doctrine (or major doctrines like the virgin birth). There is a denomination for everyone, each basing its doctrines on the Bible. What I do care about is how people use their religion to determine how they're going to treat others and the judgments they make regarding the validity of someone else's faith or church. :cowboy:


I have often wondered what happened to all those people that where resurrected from the graves along with Christ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> Which day is the Lord's day?


The way I read it... that would be the seventh day of the week.... Saturday on most folks calendar. the same day that Christ Himself reserved as His Holy day every week.  (Unless of course millions of Jews all over the world lost track somewhere along the line.)


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The way I read it... that would be the seventh day of the week.... Saturday on most folks calendar.  (Unless of course millions of Jews all over the world lost track somewhere along the line.)


Disregarding for the moment that Paul indicated that Christians are free of all ceremonial requirements of the Law including the observance of the Sabbath why has the first day of the week become the Holy day for Christians?

Is it simply because Christ rose on this day of the week?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> Disregarding for the moment that Paul indicated that Christians are free of all ceremonial requirements of the Law including the observance of the Sabbath why has the first day of the week become the Holy day for Christians?
> 
> Is it simply because Christ rose on this day of the week?


Naw, it was changed several hundred years after that little incident. Constantine was trying to get the sun worshipers to convert.... they had money that could fill his coffers, but they were used to worshiping on Sunday. Concessions must be made sometimes. Just like lawyers today, complete with plea bargains with the guilty, they found ways around the scripture to get the game in their court. I find it interesting that Paul could relieve Christians of observing Gods commandments... when Christ Himself went right on observing them.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, it was changed several hundred years after that little incident. Constantine was trying to get the sun worshipers to convert.... they had money that could fill his coffers, but they were used to worshiping on Sunday. Concessions must be made sometimes. Just like lawyers today, complete with plea bargains with the guilty, they found ways around the scripture to get the game in their court. I find it interesting that Paul could relieve Christians of observing Gods commandments... when Christ Himself went right on observing them.


"Nuther good one.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Once again, my take on where the thread has gone since the last take:

If you don't believe in sin, you are not, by definition a Christian, since the whole point of Christ's crucifixion was the atonement of sin. 

Although it isn't cool to do so anymore, I still believe in religion. The Church, we are taught, is the body of Christ. I'm not particular about how anyone defines the Church, and I adhere to my own definition. Religion by itself is like faith without works. Unless you believe and mind your own salvation, being part of a Church isn't going to do much for you (although it still isn't completely worthless). In the general sense, I define the Church as the community of believers. Personally, I don't find it possible to dismiss the Body of Christ and call myself a Christian. Maintain communion with the Body of Christ helps to ensure that I do not simply rationalize my failings away as 'that's just how God made me.'

Sin is the enemy of salvation, and to be avoided. In my tradition, we are taught that one method of avoiding sin is to avoid activities that while harmless in themselves, create conditions that make sin easy or more likely.

If we are then, to avoid sin, we must recognize what is sin, and those conditions that lead toward sin. Quite often, this involves people who engage in activities we know to be wrong, no matter how much we may love them, like them, or care about them. An example from my own life is alcohol. I know from experience that the consumption of alcohol weakens my resolve, and that under it's influence I am prone to doing things I have the strength not to do when I'm not drinking. So I don't drink. Not only do I not drink, but I avoid situations that might lead me to drink. I don't go to bars. Because I don't go to bars, I don't see a lot of my friends any more. I still like them and I still consider them friends, but I don't hang out with them because to do so would increase the likelihood of my failing to maintain my own integrity.

If we stick our hand in to the fire, we know that we will be burned. If we see our child about to stick their hand into a fire, we try to stop them, even at the cost of frightening them, frustrating them, or hurting their feelings. If other believers are the Church, part of the same Body of Christ of which we are part, can we in good conscience fail to warn them that they are in danger? To warn someone of the danger they are headed towards is not judgement, it is kindness. If they insist on pursuing such a path, then we cannot prevent them, but in no way are we expected to accompany them, participate in their failing, or encourage it. The Christian thing to do is to let them go their way without us, until they require our assistance to get out of the mess. Then, as Christ did, we help them to the best of our ability.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, it was changed several hundred years after that little incident. Constantine was trying to get the sun worshipers to convert.... they had money that could fill his coffers, but they were used to worshiping on Sunday. Concessions must be made sometimes. Just like lawyers today, complete with plea bargains with the guilty, they found ways around the scripture to get the game in their court. I find it interesting that Paul could relieve Christians of observing Gods commandments... when Christ Himself went right on observing them.


Hum. . .I don't remembering Him stoning the adulterous woman as required by the law.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Hum. . .I don't remembering Him stoning the adulterous woman as required by the law.


The law required her to be stoned.... not necessarily by any particular person. If I remember the story correctly He did not intervene with the stoning.... He only requested the person without sin to cast the first stone. Kinda like my comments in this thread. We are ALL sinners.... who here can honestly say to themselves they are not every bit as guilty of sin as anyone else? Do you suppose it makes a difference to God which sins we chose to keep and cherish for ourselves, while condemning others to eternal hellfire for theirs. :shrug:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The law required her to be stoned.... not necessarily by any particular person. If I remember the story correctly He did not intervene with the stoning.... He only requested the person without sin to cast the first stone. Kinda like my comments in this thread. We are ALL sinners.... who here can honestly say to themselves they are not every bit as guilty of sin as anyone else? Do you suppose it makes a difference to God which sins we chose to keep and cherish for ourselves, while condemning others to eternal hellfire for theirs. :shrug:



Oddly enough, not one person on this this thread has claimed to be sinless. Acknowledging one's own sinfullness is a precondition to salvation.

The question here is not whether or not we ourselves are sinners, but whether the practice of sin ought to encouraged and cheered on, rather than named for what it is and allowed to promote itself in the name of Christ.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> The Christian thing to do is to let them go their way without us, until they require our assistance to get out of the mess. Then, as Christ did, we help them to the best of our ability.


Interesting, and yet Christ sought them out, and dwelt among the sinners, eating with them, drinking with them, in an effort to show them the correct path. He did not let them wander aimlessly trying to find Him.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> Oddly enough, not one person on this this thread has claimed to be sinless. Acknowledging one's own sinfullness is a precondition to salvation.
> 
> The question here is not whether or not we ourselves are sinners, but whether the practice of sin ought to encouraged and cheered on, rather than named for what it is and allowed to promote itself in the name of Christ.


I have not seen any posts on this thread as of yet claiming that sin should be encouraged or promoted either. Actually sin seldom needs to be encouraged... Nerve endings seem to take care of that for us.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting, and yet Christ sought them out, and dwelt among the sinners, eating with them, drinking with them, in an effort to show them the correct path. He did not let them wander aimlessly trying to find Him.


That's why he was Christ.

My father was a human, and I inherited his weaknesses. There are some temptations I can withstand, and others I don't do so well with. I do no-one anygood by following them into the abyss and getting stuck there myself.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have not seen any posts on this thread as of yet claiming that sin should be encouraged or promoted either. Actually sin seldom needs to be encouraged... Nerve endings seem to take care of that for us.


Go back and read the entire thread.

The reference for definitions - the Bible - explicitly defines homosexuality as a sin. Naming someone who actively practices homosexuality without any sense of remorse as a spiritual shepherd counts as encouragement in my book.

I'm sure you see it differently.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> Go back and read the entire thread.
> 
> The reference for definitions - the Bible - explicitly defines homosexuality as a sin. Naming someone who actively practices homosexuality without any sense of remorse as a spiritual shepherd counts as encouragement in my book.
> 
> I'm sure you see it differently.


I have read the thread. I have also read the Bible and am familiar with how God views homosexuality... and gluttony, and bearing false witness (gossip) and defying His explicit commands. I have also read the part where Christ redeemed us, knowing full well that NO MAN is without sin and that NO MAN measures up to Gods expectations of us. I have seen a lot of fat preachers, who keep right on bellying up to the table, and a lot gossips, willing to reveal all the latest news (without any regard for truth) at every church picnic I ever attended. I have even noticed a few carryings ons in the balcony between some of the "faithful" from time to time. Yes, they were heterosexuals, and they were married... just not to each other. These sinners seem to be fine "in your book", why do you opt to pick and choose the sins that you find tolerable, while others are so vehemently distasteful to you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> That's why he was Christ.
> 
> My father was a human, and I inherited his weaknesses. There are some temptations I can withstand, and others I don't do so well with. I do no-one anygood by following them into the abyss and getting stuck there myself.


Christs mother was human too. lets not forget that part.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

I question the automatic assumption that the Bible outright condemns homosexuality. The citations for this belief are few and open to interpretations of original language and cultural influences.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bluesky said:


> I question the automatic assumption that the Bible outright condemns homosexuality. The citations for this belief are few and open to interpretations of original language and cultural influences.


I think its that part about it being "an abomination" that gets most of them riled up. I have noticed that a lot of folks dont care much for the other Obamanation either.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have read the thread. I have also read the Bible and am familiar with how God views homosexuality... and gluttony, and bearing false witness (gossip) and defying His explicit commands. I have also read the part where Christ redeemed us, knowing full well that NO MAN is without sin and that NO MAN measures up to Gods expectations of us. I have seen a lot of fat preachers, who keep right on bellying up to the table, and a lot gossips, willing to reveal all the latest news (without any regard for truth) at every church picnic I ever attended. I have even noticed a few carryings ons in the balcony between some of the "faithful" from time to time. Yes, they were heterosexuals, and they were married... just not to each other. These sinners seem to be fine "in your book", why do you opt to pick and choose the sins that you find tolerable, while others are so vehemently distasteful to you?


You're jumping to conclusions in assuming that any of those things are OK in my book. I framed my responses to the question posed in the original post. For the record, I also consider all other sins to be equally contemptable, and would question any spiritual leader who practiced any of those things proudly and without remorse.

That's what brought me into this thread: The fact that people would defend, in terms of Christianity, a Pastor, who openly and unashamedly - unreprentedly, that is - practiced and maintained a homesexual relationship.

All Christians (or most, at least) acknowledge that they are sinful, that they commit sins daily, 'through their own fault, in their thoughts and in their deeds, in what they have done and in what they have failed to do'. Most Christians, however, after this acknowledgement apologize, ask God for forgiveness and the strength to overcome their weakness. Is the openly homosexual pastor in their 'commited, monogamous, relationship' doing this? Most obvioulsly not. They are using the defense that the love, monogamy, and commitment they share with their partner redefines the nature of sin, and that the context makes homosexuality no longer a sin.

What is the theological basis for this?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> You're jumping to conclusions in assuming that any of those things are OK in my book. I framed my responses to the question posed in the original post. For the record, I also consider all other sins to be equally contemptable, and would question any spiritual leader who practiced any of those things proudly and without remorse.
> 
> That's what brought me into this thread: The fact that people would defend, in terms of Christianity, a Pastor, who openly and unashamedly - unreprentedly, that is - practiced and maintained a homesexual relationship.
> 
> ...


I think you are presuming these relationships involve sexual activity.... rather than a committed loving couple. Unless of course you have some first hand knowledge to support your claims... they are assumptions. I also think those folks will answer to God, just like you, and I, and everyone else will. What is the theological basis for continued gluttony, or worshiping on Sunday instead of on the Sabbath as God commanded us to do?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, it was changed several hundred years after that little incident. Constantine was trying to get the sun worshipers to convert.... they had money that could fill his coffers, but they were used to worshiping on Sunday. Concessions must be made sometimes. Just like lawyers today, complete with plea bargains with the guilty, they found ways around the scripture to get the game in their court. I find it interesting that Paul could relieve Christians of observing Gods commandments... when Christ Himself went right on observing them.


Paul indicates that Christ was observant to the Law because he as a descendant of Abraham was bound under the Old Covenant.


But at Christ's death he no longer was bound and was resurrected the first member of the New Covenant. in Christ and Gentiles And Jews alike can become heirs through the body of Christ albeit free from the "written code " which Paul likened to a curse on account of his belief that it could not be upheld by any human other than Jesus.

Paul goes to great length quoting scriptures and deducing logical arguments some of which I have some trouble justifying but which the Bible commentaries indicate Paul was authorised to do by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think its that part about it being "an abomination" that gets most of them riled up. I have noticed that a lot of folks dont care much for the other Obamanation either.


The term in question in the abomination verse is "arsenokoite" which, if memory serves me, means something like men who have sex with boy prostitutes. That's bad stuff but hardly refers to all gay men.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

bluesky said:


> The difference between judging and passing judgment is a very, very, very fine line and one that it not often walked well. I can't tell you the number of people I've known that have walked away from church and eventually given up on Christianity because they were brutally judged by those who should have known better. People in need, in crisis, in times of trouble, are exceptionally vulnerable and to further hurt those who are already suffering, to kill the wounded, is a great failing of the Church and one I've personally experienced and witnessed time and time again. Should people focus on God and not other believers? Of course. Does that always happen, particularly when things are going very badly? No, it does not. And I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who think it's their calling to correct others instead of loving them.


Oh, I don't disagree with any of this 100%. And I would like to point out that I'm fairly sure that in real life, many of the people here who seem very abrasive most likely will be the first ones to comfort people in times of need, though I can't say for sure, of course.  I may not agree with someone's lifestyle or problems but if someone's hurting, the best way to minister to them is to simply comfort them.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I seem to recall reading somewhere that all of us are sinners. Is the other persons sin so much worse than my own that God will not overlook it just as He has promised to forgive me of my own? Who among us is without sin? Who among us is righteous and without fault? Are fat people really Christians? Are gossips really Christians? What about those good folks who have forgotten the Lords day, and do not keep it Holy? Are they Christians? Did Christ say that He will grant my salvation, in spite of my own sins, and not forgive others of theirs?


 All of us are sinners.Some have repented and asked God for forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ.He has,and does forgive us.The others who haven't repented still has unforgiven sin.All they have to do is accept Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.

The gay pastor who is still practicing homosexuality is still an unrepentant sinner and his flock is up houlding him, an his sin.

Its not judging when the pastor himself says he's still living in sin according to the Bible.

God will forgive this man if he repents and asks God,but he wants to keep living his present lifestyle, which God's word calls an abomination.When Jesus was crucified two thieves were hanging on crosses beside him.One repented and accepted Jesus,and went to paradise with Jesus,and in God's eyes no longer a thief.The other one decided to remain a thief and will spend eternity in [email protected] because he died still a thief.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Christ had some unflattering things to say about folks who had more than they needed for daily survival.

Nobody seems to want to take those texts literally including myself but they are there in black and white.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you are presuming these relationships involve sexual activity.... rather than a committed loving couple. Unless of course you have some first hand knowledge to support your claims... they are assumptions. I also think those folks will answer to God, just like you, and I, and everyone else will. What is the theological basis for continued gluttony, or worshiping on Sunday instead of on the Sabbath as God commanded us to do?


There is no theological basis for continued gluttony or any other willful state of sin.

I'm not sure I believe that sexual activity is required, simply living as a couple, presenting themselves as if they were married, in an inherent perversion of the insitution of marriage, which was Biblically ordained by God. The same charge would apply to any Pastor simply living with a member of the opposite sex, and especially if they presented themselves as married or spouses.

As for the matter of the Sabbath, I don't have a good answer for that, and it troubles me. As often as I can, I try to observe the Sabbath and Sunday, the first day of the week as well. I'm told by the more theologically inclined than myself, that we are allowed, under the New Covenant to substitute the First day for the Sabbath day, but I've never found an explanation that conclusively settles the matter for me.

I do know however, that in Acts 15:28-29, the Apostles, in Council at Jerusalem declared, in answer to how much of Jewish law, the Gentiles were obligated to follow: 

15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 
15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 

Holy Bible, King James Version Kindle Edition.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> All of us are sinners.Some have repented and asked God for forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ.He has,and does forgive us.The others who haven't repented still has unforgiven sin.All they have to do is accept Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.
> 
> The gay pastor who is still practicing homosexuality is still an unrepentant sinner and his flock is up houlding him, an his sin.
> 
> ...


It's always a suprise when you and I are arguing on the same side of an issue.

Someday, I'll find myself arguing on the same side as Yvonne's Hubby and find myself in danger of a heart attack from the shock.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

NoClue said:


> There is no theological basis for continued gluttony or any other willful state of sin.
> 
> I'm not sure I believe that sexual activity is required, simply living as a couple, presenting themselves as if they were married, in an inherent perversion of the insitution of marriage, which was Biblically ordained by God. The same charge would apply to any Pastor simply living with a member of the opposite sex, and especially if they presented themselves as married or spouses.
> 
> ...


It seems that the Council was imposing the same Noahide dietary restrictions that Jews believed all Gentiles were obliged to follow?

Paul indicates Jews and Gentiles are equal in the body of Christ. The Councle seems to indicate otherwise.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

postroad said:


> It seems that the Council was imposing the same Noahide dietary restrictions that Jews believed all Gentiles were obliged to follow?
> 
> Paul indicates Jews and Gentiles are equal in the body of Christ. The Councle seems to indicate otherwise.


Paul was at the Council, so I have no explanation.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

bluesky said:


> The term in question in the abomination verse is "arsenokoite" which, if memory serves me, means something like men who have sex with boy prostitutes. That's bad stuff but hardly refers to all gay men.


It is true that Paul coined arsenokoite. But that does not illegitimize its meaning. He formed the word using two Greek words: arsane, which refers to "male" and is derived from the Greek translation of the Levitical passages, and koite, which means "bed" and is used in a sexual connotation. Therefore, Paul is speaking of men in bed together, in a sexual sense. 

Besides, there are other places such as Ezekial where the sins of Sodom are refererred to as an "abomination". Not to mention that Peter refers to the sins of Sodom as men who walked in the lust of uncleaness.

And I didn't even bother with Leviticus, which is quite blunt in its teachings about homosexuality.

No, I don't see how one can make the point that it is not a sin.

And if it is a sin, now we are back to the beginning, where we have an non-repetent sinner functioning as the pastor of a church.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bluesky said:


> Laura - As far as it being "complicated" goes - I'm completely capable of understanding what you're talking about. The jargon of belief is not new to me, having grown up in a devoutly Christian family. It's not just Christianity that can produce such profound results in terms of the old self dying - and it's also not a given that there will be miraculous change in an individual even when he/she is "born again".


I don't mean complicated, like you are "dumb" I am so sorry if it came across like that.......that was TOTALLY NOT my intention!! Scripture says that some things are 'not understandable' without The Spirit. For those who are not in Christ, they have not yet received the Spirit, and a lot of things in Scripture won't make sense to them, because they have not been sealed with the Spirit.




> I'll spare you a long narrative of my personal journey but will say that I've come to know that there is a lot of truth in Christianity and a lot of truth in other faiths as well. There are a lot of fine and loving people who claim Jesus as their savior and a lot of fine and loving people who follow different paths. You know what you know and I know what I know and who's to say which "knowing" is more valid? Except - and this is a big "except" - Christians, almost without fail, are certain that what they "know" is the single truth and most who follow other spiritual paths are certain that their way is only one way to a larger Truth.


There are a lot of people who do good, great, and even amazing things from all walks, beliefs and faiths. This is so true. 
The OP's question was:

*Church?* 

Is a denomination which allows openly gay pastors still considered a Christian Church?

My answer was Scripture. I wasn't talking about Salvation?



> With you (and not just you) free discussion of matters of faith and truth is simply not possible. You've found what you sincerely believe to be the only truth and that puts a big full stop to curiosity and wondering. And that's too bad. You remind me of a pastor I once knew who told me that I had too many questions and needed to just accept things and "trust God". As if there could possibly be too many questions!!!


Blue........I pulled my kids out of school, and home schooled them, because (for a zillion other reasons, but this was one) my son's 5th grade teacher hauled me into a parent teach conference to tell me, to tell my son, to stop asking so many questions.

In our home:
A) there is no such thing as a stupid question. 
B) there is an answer to every question. Regardless if you like the answer, or not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have read the thread. I have also read the Bible and am familiar with how God views homosexuality... and gluttony, and bearing false witness (gossip) and defying His explicit commands. I have also read the part where Christ redeemed us, knowing full well that NO MAN is without sin and that NO MAN measures up to Gods expectations of us. I have seen a lot of fat preachers, who keep right on bellying up to the table, and a lot gossips, willing to reveal all the latest news (without any regard for truth) at every church picnic I ever attended. I have even noticed a few carryings ons in the balcony between some of the "faithful" from time to time. Yes, they were heterosexuals, and they were married... just not to each other. These sinners seem to be fine "in your book", why do you opt to pick and choose the sins that you find tolerable, while others are so vehemently distasteful to you?


A couple of different things here.

First off as my pastor and my church view it there are things which some "ought not". Think of eating meat from idols. Its fine. . .unless therefore you "ought not".

Second there is a BIG difference in falling down in the mud and jumping into a mud hole.

Third, as has been posted before just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean you'll be seeing them in Heaven.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> Second there is a BIG difference in falling down in the mud and jumping into a mud hole.



THAT is good!!! I can't wait to tell my kids!!!


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Jesus didn't go to church.

He went to temple.

Go to just about any town, and you'll find at least two churches.

That's mainly because, even in worship, we seem pretty good at finding some disagreement to drive us apart.

For me, the simple truth is that Christianity is largely an internal journey, and the vehicle you use to make that journey matters far less than the journey itself.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Kung said:


> Honestly, I think that's the point of this thread - from God's POV (in my opinion) sin is sin; but for some reason people look at homosexuality as being 'worse' than the other sins.


Yes but I try to reform and ask for forgiveness of my sins most homosexuals don't care.

big rockpile


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

NoClue said:


> Paul was at the Council, so I have no explanation.


Paul also engaged in some blatent fabrications of the truth with the leadership at that Council.

What he did is having serious ramifications to this day.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

I find this passage particularly illuminating:

"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "*Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish*; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." 

So men wanting to rape the angels was sinful, but Lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob was apparently not - or why would he have been counted as righteous enough to escape the fire and brimstone? If that's your standard of righteousness, I think I'll pass.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"The question here is not whether or not we ourselves are sinners, but whether the practice of sin ought to encouraged and cheered on,"

*That strikes me as a strange comment. Do people think that unless they control every aspect of somebody else's life they are "encouraging and cheering on" that person? That seems very arrogant to me, the idea that WE are in charge of anybody else's life or that our actions(or inactions) are supposed to imply approval or something*.:hrm:

"rather than named for what it is and allowed to promote itself in the name of Christ."

*I always thought people could only speak in their own name. Anybody who presumes to try to speak for someone else seems to be demonstrating a bit of pride or something, presuming to speak in somebody else's name. I know any time anybody tries to speak in my name I have no problem letting them know that I never gave them permission to speak for me*.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bluesky said:


> I find this passage particularly illuminating:
> 
> "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "*Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish*; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."
> 
> So men wanting to rape the angels was sinful, but Lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob was apparently not - or why would he have been counted as righteous enough to escape the fire and brimstone?


Lot did exactly what God asked of him.
God said "Leave and do not look back".
Lot left, and did not look back
God said "Leave, do not look back"
Lot did.

No where does it say "God said to offer your virgin daughters".
That was Lot's "flesh, fear" speaking, not God.

Does this answer the question?


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I don't mean complicated, like you are "dumb" I am so sorry if it came across like that.......that was TOTALLY NOT my intention!! Scripture says that some things are 'not understandable' without The Spirit. For those who are not in Christ, they have not yet received the Spirit, and a lot of things in Scripture won't make sense to them, because they have not been sealed with the Spirit.


Or they don't make sense to them because they *don't make sense* and only those who have been "sealed with the Spirit" are willing to accept nonsense as gospel. Just my perspective, of course, but there is often a very visible arrogance to those who feel they have the inside track, special knowledge, etc. When you say to someone "you can't understand because you don't know or have what I have" it's not generally something that draws people to you or to whatever brand of religion you claim.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

bluesky said:


> I find this passage particularly illuminating:
> 
> "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "*Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish*; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."
> 
> So men wanting to rape the angels was sinful, but Lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob was apparently not - or why would he have been counted as righteous enough to escape the fire and brimstone? If that's your standard of righteousness, I think I'll pass.


You need some background...Lot was responsible for the well-being of those men, both under Jewish Law and the desert-derived morality of the day. This takes precedence over one's self or one's family and chattel.

Lot was performing a most righteous act.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Lot did exactly what God asked of him.
> God said "Leave and do not look back".
> Lot left, and did not look back
> God said "Leave, do not look back"
> ...


Certainly not. Lot was no more "righteous" than the men who wanted to commit rape. The fact that supposedly God spoke of Lot as "righteous" is just bizarre.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> "The question here is not whether or not we ourselves are sinners, but whether the practice of sin ought to encouraged and cheered on,"
> 
> *That strikes me as a strange comment. Do people think that unless they control every aspect of somebody else's life they are "encouraging and cheering on" that person? That seems very arrogant to me, the idea that WE are in charge of anybody else's life or that our actions(or inactions) are supposed to imply approval or something*.:hrm::


It seems to me you're reading something in to my words something other than what I wrote.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with control. It has to do with Right and Wrong, and whether or not we have the courage to hold to the Right and reject the Wrong. If we warn those who are doing wrong, we aren't controlling them. If we refuse to be part of their wrong-doing, we aren't controlling them. They remain free to do as they will, only without our participation or approval. Our approval may mean nothing to them, but that isn't really relevant.



> "rather than named for what it is and allowed to promote itself in the name of Christ."
> 
> *I always thought people could only speak in their own name. Anybody who presumes to try to speak for someone else seems to be demonstrating a bit of pride or something, presuming to speak in somebody else's name. I know any time anybody tries to speak in my name I have no problem letting them know that I never gave them permission to speak for me*.


By calling ourselves CHRISTIANS, we are acting in Christ's name. We do this with his permission, and by his command.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Jolly said:


> You need some background...Lot was responsible for the well-being of those men, both under Jewish Law and the desert-derived morality of the day. This takes precedence over one's self or one's family and chattel.
> 
> Lot was performing a most righteous act.


I don't need "background", but thanks. And your statement is complete nonsense (except for the chattel part, which Lot's daughter most certainly were).


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bluesky said:


> Or they don't make sense to them because they don't make sense and only those who have been "sealed with the Spirit" are willing to accept nonsense as gospel. Just my perspective, of course, but there is often a very visible arrogance to those who feel they have the inside track, special knowledge, etc. *When you say to someone "you can't understand because you don't know or have what I have"* it's not generally something that draws people to you or to whatever brand of religion you claim.


Interesting........
That was the VERY reason, I was 'curious'. That was the catalyst that drew me unto a relationship with Christ!

Religion sucks.
Jesus, is the Answer!
I try to tell anyone who will listen to run away from religion like their hiney's on fire and their head's a catchin'.....
Again, religion, sucks.

When I go to a class at college, I expect the teacher to know more than me. That's what I am there for. To gain knowledge. I don't think he's 'arrogant'.......he just knows things I don't.....and it I WANT to know, then I better get in class and listen.
If I really don't want to know, I will mock him, and call him names, and walk away feeling pretty smart about myself!:sing:


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Interesting........
> That was the VERY reason, I was 'curious'. That was the catalyst that drew me unto a relationship with Christ!
> 
> Religion sucks.
> ...


I learn things from others almost daily (learning is a wonderful thing), but rarely from someone who tells me I can't understand what they're talking about because I've not been initiated into their special club. And if joining that club makes nonsense become sensible, then I don't want to belong anyway. 

I prefer not to delude myself into accepting fables and folk tales as fact and that is the biggest reason Christianity no longer holds any appeal for me - there are parts of the Bible that I dearly love and parts that I completely reject on the grounds that they are contradictory, culturally based, and sometimes complete nonsense. 

Talking with you about this reminds me of talking with my brother (which is a good thing and a bad thing).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Or they don't make sense to them because they *don't make sense* and only those who have been "sealed with the Spirit" are willing to accept nonsense as gospel. Just my perspective, of course, but there is often a very visible arrogance to those who feel they have the inside track, special knowledge, etc. When you say to someone "you can't understand because you don't know or have what I have" it's not generally something that draws people to you or to whatever brand of religion you claim.


If you look at individual verses you will get confused but if you look at the Bible as a whole and gain an understanding of God it doesn't.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

bluesky said:


> I don't need "background", but thanks. And your statement is complete nonsense (except for the chattel part, which Lot's daughter most certainly were).


From Webster's:

_igÂ·noÂ·rant adj \&#712;ig-n(&#601;-)r&#601;nt\

Definition of IGNORANT

1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors> 
2: unaware, uninformed 
â igÂ·noÂ·rantÂ·ly adverb 
â igÂ·noÂ·rantÂ·ness noun 
_

I gave you the background because you were making your argument from a position of ignorance. What you are calling complete nonsense was no more, or no less, than the cultural norm of the day.

Variations thereof exist in many societies, the world over. Many American Indian tribes would never (under penalty of death or shunning) let harm come to an invited guest, even if they were at war with that individual or his tribe.

This is why Lot offered up his daughters. To be honorable, yea, to be righteous, he could do no less than to place himself or his loved ones in harm's way, because he must protect his visitors at all costs.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

But he didn't offer up himself. He just offered up his daughers.:whistlin:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"By calling ourselves CHRISTIANS, we are acting in Christ's name. We do this with his permission, and by his command."

Yes, so you SAY, but you have no permission slip or anything like that with your name on it giving you that authorization(or permission or command), do you? All you have is your claim that you are authorized to do that.:huh:
Maybe I'm just too skeptical, but I've heard people CLAIM they were authorized to do all kinds of things.:teehee:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> But he didn't offer up himself. He just offered up his daughers.:whistlin:


I know you're playing silly booger, but is there any doubt Lot would have offered himself, if he thought it would buy off the crowd?


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Well to be Frank, I do know a GAY Misinister and he would give the shirt off his back to a pwerson who needed it, tkae 40 kids fromt he reservation to a movie for the first time in their lives ,support 5-6 kids a years in foreign countries thru Save The Children and I would say he was a far better person than many people I have met who have to tell me what good Christians they are. I have never seen him look down on any person and to always give a kind word to even those who would be hurtful to him. If I had to wonder who would be given a better reception in the afterlife I don't think I would be betting on the nasty gossiping Christian who gives nothing of himself to his fellow man.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> It is true that Paul coined arsenokoite. But that does not illegitimize its meaning. He formed the word using two Greek words: arsane, which refers to "male" and is derived from the Greek translation of the Levitical passages, and koite, which means "bed" and is used in a sexual connotation. Therefore, Paul is speaking of men in bed together, in a sexual sense.
> 
> Besides, there are other places such as Ezekial where the sins of Sodom are refererred to as an "abomination". Not to mention that Peter refers to the sins of Sodom as men who walked in the lust of uncleaness.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing the point I been attempting to make. Lemme try again. Since we know that all men are sinners, and that NOT ONE among us is above sin...... why are some so adamant about the condemnation of any particular sin opposed to any other? A gay person is no more a sinner than any of the rest of us...... *unless you honestly believe that someone who has repented of past transgressions is now righteous and above sin.* Sorry but I find that one pretty tough to swallow. All churches are being led by mortal, sinful men and or women.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean you'll be seeing them in Heaven.


You and I are in complete agreement on this point! I have always felt that its a good thing we will be beyond the need for spiritual guidance once we enter the pearly gates...... coz I have a feeling preachers will be mighty scarce in heaven.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NoClue said:


> Someday, I'll find myself arguing on the same side as Yvonne's Hubby and find myself in danger of a heart attack from the shock.


I can see that being quite true..... most folks do get quite a shock when they realize just how wrong they have been when the light finally comes on and they see things correctly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> You need some background...Lot was responsible for the well-being of those men, both under Jewish Law and the desert-derived morality of the day. This takes precedence over one's self or one's family and chattel.
> 
> Lot was performing a most righteous act.


Well offering up his daughters does seem a bit over the top.... why didnt he just offer them a few of his goats?


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you are missing the point I been attempting to make. Lemme try again. Since we know that all men are sinners, and that NOT ONE among us is above sin...... why are some so adamant about the condemnation of any particular sin opposed to any other? A gay person is no more a sinner than any of the rest of us...... unless you honestly believe that someone who has repented of past transgressions is now righteous and above sin. Sorry but I find that one pretty tough to swallow. All churches are being led by mortal, sinful men and or women.


Its not just about being gay,its still practicing homosexuality as he pastors the church.If the Op question was can a denomination that says practicing alcoholics can keep preaching and the denomination remain Christian,IMO NO.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Its not just about being gay,its still practicing homosexuality as he pastors the church.If the Op question was can a denomination that says practicing alcoholics can keep preaching and the denomination remain Christian,IMO NO.


And you are entitled to your "OPINION", but a church that is led by an alcoholic can still be a Christian church in my "OPINION". I think the tricky part here would be to define alcoholic? and what sin is being committed by being addicted to alcohol?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HOTW said:


> Well to be Frank, I do know a GAY Misinister and he would give the shirt off his back to a pwerson who needed it, tkae 40 kids fromt he reservation to a movie for the first time in their lives ,support 5-6 kids a years in foreign countries thru Save The Children and I would say he was a far better person than many people I have met who have to tell me what good Christians they are. I have never seen him look down on any person and to always give a kind word to even those who would be hurtful to him. If I had to wonder who would be given a better reception in the afterlife I don't think I would be betting on the nasty gossiping Christian who gives nothing of himself to his fellow man.


I've met atheist, agnostics, Buddhist, and people who call themselves all kinds of things which the same thing could be said of. But I really don't think they are going to face a real good reception in the afterlife.

OTOH, I have also meet people who call themselves Christians who are nasty, mean and more. I also think they aren't going to get a good reception.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you are missing the point I been attempting to make. Lemme try again. Since we know that all men are sinners, and that NOT ONE among us is above sin...... why are some so adamant about the condemnation of any particular sin opposed to any other? A gay person is no more a sinner than any of the rest of us...... unless you honestly believe that someone who has repented of past transgressions is now righteous and above sin. Sorry but I find that one pretty tough to swallow. All churches are being led by mortal, sinful men and or women.


To me one sin is just like another. A liar is just as big of a sinner as a homosexual who is just as big of a sinner as an adulterer who is just as big of a sinner as a murder. As a Christian I know we all sin but its how we react when we sin that separates Christians from others. Its this reaction, AKA a person's "fruits", we use to judge people.

Say you have two neighbors both of which claim to be Christians. The neighbor on your left who who commits adultery and then is truly repentant, stops screwing around and commits to their spouse. Your neighbor on the right commits adultery again and again and again. Which one would you judge to be more closely following the teachings of Christ? Which one do you think would be better at teaching others the teachings?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you are missing the point I been attempting to make. Lemme try again. Since we know that all men are sinners, and that NOT ONE among us is above sin...... why are some so adamant about the condemnation of any particular sin opposed to any other? A gay person is no more a sinner than any of the rest of us...... unless you honestly believe that someone who has repented of past transgressions is now righteous and above sin. Sorry but I find that one pretty tough to swallow. All churches are being led by mortal, sinful men and or women.


Are you deliberately ignoring what many of us have had to say about repentance vs. non-repentance?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> To me one sin is just like another. A liar is just as big of a sinner as a homosexual who is just as big of a sinner as an adulterer who is just as big of a sinner as a murder. As a Christian I know we all sin but its how we react when we sin that separates Christians from others. Its this reaction, AKA a person's "fruits", we use to judge people.
> 
> Say you have two neighbors both of which claim to be Christians. The neighbor on your left who who commits adultery and then is truly repentant, stops screwing around and commits to their spouse. Your neighbor on the right commits adultery again and again and again. Which one would you judge to be more closely following the teachings of Christ? Which one do you think would be better at teaching others the teachings?


 Well, thats difficult to say, a good teacher really should know the subject material... so the neighbor on the right may be the best choice. By the same token, he may not be, because he is obviously being pretty stupid about his activities or I would know nothing about them. Lemme get some more data on the two guys before we pass judgement. The guy on the right is cheating on his wife regularly, and doing it pretty stupidly or we wouldnt know about it. The guy on the left could very well be doing the same thing, with 10 year old boys, but being discrete so no one knows. Which of the two are killing people in their sleep in the middle of the night? which of the two are lying to their customers in order to swindle them into buying bogus stocks? which of the two are pimping their wives and daughters out for a little extra spending money? I need a lot more info before I would sit in judgement of either of these men.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Are you deliberately ignoring what many of us have had to say about repentance vs. non-repentance?


Nope, I think I mentioned the repenting thing in the very post you replied to. I will go back and bold that part, just for you.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And you are entitled to your "OPINION", but a church that is led by an alcoholic can still be a Christian church in my "OPINION". I think the tricky part here would be to define alcoholic? and what sin is being committed by being addicted to alcohol?


Any unrepented of and practiced sin.

*1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (King James Version)*



"*9*Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
*10*Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

*The next verse tells how to erase those bad names from God's mind*

" *11*And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God".

Now go preach in a Christian church and be a light to the world.:angel:


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

Kung said:


> Ah, one of those.


Yup!
I would guess it would be one of the best conversations I've ever had!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Any unrepented of and practiced sin.
> 
> *1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (King James Version)*
> 
> ...


So you are saying that once a person has repented, and been sanctified... that their sins will no longer count against them? If it were that simple to become righteous, would we have needed Christ at all? Could we not have just behaved ourselves and accomplished our salvation through our good works? According to what you are saying, men no longer sin once they have been "washed"..... to me thats a tougher nut to swallow than the story about Jonah and his whale!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bluesky said:


> I learn things from others almost daily (learning is a wonderful thing), but rarely from someone who tells me I can't understand what they're talking about because I've not been initiated into their special club. And if joining that club makes nonsense become sensible, then I don't want to belong anyway.
> 
> I prefer not to delude myself into accepting fables and folk tales as fact and that is the biggest reason Christianity no longer holds any appeal for me - there are parts of the Bible that I dearly love and parts that I completely reject on the grounds that they are contradictory, culturally based, and sometimes complete nonsense.
> 
> Talking with you about this reminds me of talking with my brother (which is a good thing and a bad thing).


Blue, typed 'words' can not convey the true intent of what I am trying to say....
I don't mean to be combatitive, mean spirited, haughty, or some 'know it all'........because I can promise you this, I don't know it all!:shocked:

Belief is a choice. We have made, different choices!

It was good to talk with you!!:happy:


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

I'm just wondering- In what century do you guess spin-doctors put out their shingle?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

stormwalker said:


> I'm just wondering- In what century do you guess spin-doctors put out their shingle?


I am not real certain what century that took place..... but I would put it around the same time period that man minted the first coins, possibly a few thousand years earlier.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, thats difficult to say, a good teacher really should know the subject material... so the neighbor on the right may be the best choice. By the same token, he may not be, because he is obviously being pretty stupid about his activities or I would know nothing about them. Lemme get some more data on the two guys before we pass judgement. The guy on the right is cheating on his wife regularly, and doing it pretty stupidly or we wouldnt know about it. The guy on the left could very well be doing the same thing, with 10 year old boys, but being discrete so no one knows. Which of the two are killing people in their sleep in the middle of the night? which of the two are lying to their customers in order to swindle them into buying bogus stocks? which of the two are pimping their wives and daughters out for a little extra spending money? I need a lot more info before I would sit in judgement of either of these men.


No you don't because you can only judge them by what you see. That's the point you judge a tree by its fruit and a person by their action. 

As I have said before you can't really tell if someone is a Christian because the could be hiding their true self. But you CAN tell if someone is not a Christian if they are blatantly living outside God's teachings.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> No you don't because you can only judge them by what you see. That's the point you judge a tree by its fruit and a person by their action.
> 
> As I have said before you can't really tell if someone is a Christian because the could be hiding their true self. But you CAN tell if someone is not a Christian if they are blatantly living outside God's teachings.


This is also why I tend to NOT judge people..... normally I simply do not have enough concrete facts to judge them. Appearances are all too often quite deceiving. Your last line concerns me a bit here. How can any of us KNOW that someone is truly living outside Gods teachings? There are too many interpretations that conflict with one another.... on some of the easy stuff... much less the finer points for any of us to really know what is Gods teachings and what is the preachers interpretation of His Word. Let me illustrate by asking you a fairly simple question.... What were Christ's final words upon this earth prior to being taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb? Some will quote scripture and answer "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." others will quote scripture and answer "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" Both are scripturally correct, yet the meanings are in direct conflict with one another.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you are saying that once a person has repented, and been sanctified... that their sins will no longer count against them? If it were that simple to become righteous, would we have needed Christ at all? Could we not have just behaved ourselves and accomplished our salvation through our good works? According to what you are saying, men no longer sin once they have been "washed"..... to me thats a tougher nut to swallow than the story about Jonah and his whale!


Good works cannot save you.

I think you know what the poster is referring to, since it is a universal belief in Christian faith.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you are missing the point I been attempting to make. Lemme try again. Since we know that all men are sinners, and that NOT ONE among us is above sin...... why are some so adamant about the condemnation of any particular sin opposed to any other? A gay person is no more a sinner than any of the rest of us...... *unless you honestly believe that someone who has repented of past transgressions is now righteous and above sin.* Sorry but I find that one pretty tough to swallow. All churches are being led by mortal, sinful men and or women.


It is because so many are pushing to make homosexuality a non-sin by bringing it into churches and passing laws. If they were doing this with other sins like stealing or adultery, we would be focusing on those instead.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you are saying that once a person has repented, and been sanctified... that their sins will no longer count against them? If it were that simple to become righteous, would we have needed Christ at all? Could we not have just behaved ourselves and accomplished our salvation through our good works? According to what you are saying, men no longer sin once they have been "washed"..... to me thats a tougher nut to swallow than the story about Jonah and his whale!


No,if this is what you are refering to... *11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God".
*You need to question God,those are his words not mine,and so is the story of Jonah and the Whale.
Come on you know you believe that? eb


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Good works cannot save you.
> 
> I think you know what the poster is referring to, since it is a universal belief in Christian faith.


I am well aware of the universal belief of the Christian faith. And it is the pivotal point of my discussion here. If our works do not save us, only Christ can do that, then what difference does it make which particular sin we commit? We already know that we are all sinners, each and every one, and we will always be sinners, until the day we die. I do not believe that any particular sin is any different from another, and we are all guilty. I thank God that He sent His son to act as our "attorney" come judgement day! Theres nothing quite like a rigged courtroom, when its rigged in our favor.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> No,if this is what you are refering to... *11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God".
> *You need to question God,those are his words not mine,and so is the story of Jonah and the Whale.
> Come on you know you believe that? eb


I have never doubted the Word, not even the whale of a tale.... what I do question however is some folks interpretation of His Word.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> It is because so many are pushing to make homosexuality a non-sin by bringing it into churches and passing laws. If they were doing this with other sins like stealing or adultery, we would be focusing on those instead.


Ahhh I see, its just because this particular sin is currently receiving attention. We dont care about the other sins that have already become basically non-sins... like gluttony.... look around your church congregation next Sunday for the evidence.... oops, better make that next Saturday... but that particular sin has long since been "legalized" now hasnt it? whenever you go, grab a quick listen to the gossip section.. where you can get all the latest news about who is fooling with whom and ......... I think you get my point. If you havent got it yet, buy a used car from the preacher himself.... you will for sure get it then... in more ways than one.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

allow me to copy the topic of the thread:

Is a denomination which allows openly gay pastors still considered a Christian Church?

http://www.twincities.com/ci_18036061?nclick_check=1
Reply With Quote

It says specifically homosexual preachers. Other preachers may be liers, preaching to fleece the flock, gluttons, a dozen different sins, but they are not under discussion . Homosexual preachers are. None else.
To accept the Biblical injunction concerning homosexuality does not mean condoning, accepting, or excusing 
any other sin, (especially not my own weak points). . Where do people get such notions? I think the crux of the problem is, that the Bible defines homosexuality as evil and the adherents of the practice refuse to accept that and want it to be removed from the catalogue of sins. 

some scriptures to consider in this context
2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Acts 20:29-31

29 For I know that after my departing savage wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also will men arise from among your own selves, speaking distorted things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease warning everyone night and day with tears.

Question:
Does God set the standard? 

I guess what it boils down to is, who has the authority to decide what is and is not evil. What is that authority based on? Paul said no homosexual will enter the kingdom of God. I guess Christian homosexuals feel free to disregard Paul, (and of course other relevant scriptures) and the average Bible believing person does not. This seems to greatly irritate the gay side. What do they expect of the Bible believing Christian?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I guess what it boils down to is, who has the authority to decide what is and is not evil. What is that authority based on? Paul said no homosexual will enter the kingdom of God. I guess Christian homosexuals feel free to disregard Paul, (and of course other relevant scriptures) and the average Bible believing person does not. This seems to greatly irritate the gay side. What do they expect of the Bible believing Christian?


I can't recall Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. 

He also called for a new covenant between men and God. 

So maybe these believers to whom you object are followers strictly of Jesus, but not of Paul? :shrug:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I can't recall Jesus saying anything about homosexuality.
> 
> He also called for a new covenant between men and God.
> 
> So maybe these believers to whom you object are followers strictly of Jesus, but not of Paul? :shrug:


So let us look at the words of Jesus...

*Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. *

*The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man preset into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. *

Seems pretty cut and dried to me....


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Jolly said:


> So let us look at the words of Jesus...
> 
> *Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. *
> 
> ...


Did not Jesus fulfill the Law at his death and resurrection and thus usher in the New Covenant?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am well aware of the universal belief of the Christian faith. And it is the pivotal point of my discussion here. If our works do not save us, only Christ can do that, then what difference does it make which particular sin we commit? We already know that we are all sinners, each and every one, and we will always be sinners, until the day we die. I do not believe that any particular sin is any different from another, and we are all guilty. I thank God that He sent His son to act as our "attorney" come judgement day! Theres nothing quite like a rigged courtroom, when its rigged in our favor.


Actually being baptised in the Holy Spirit was to lead to a sinless not sin less state.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Thinkign back to the original topic Who here has the right to judge?

Thsi si why I stay away from organized religion. So if you're jewish i guess the Kingdom is closed to you because of the New Covenant you all are speaking of? Was Jesus not trrying to bring God to men who beleived in pagan Gods? Was that the New Covenant he was speaking of, that All Men should have the chance to stand before god on his Judegement Day?

Done. Not coming back to this thread methinks


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

HOTW said:


> Thinkign back to the original topic Who here has the right to judge?
> 
> Thsi si why I stay away from organized religion. So if you're jewish i guess the Kingdom is closed to you because of the New Covenant you all are speaking of? Was Jesus not trrying to bring God to men who beleived in pagan Gods? Was that the New Covenant he was speaking of, that All Men should have the chance to stand before god on his Judegement Day?
> 
> Done. Not coming back to this thread methinks


Paul indicates that the Jews had been blinded to the gospel until the full number of Gentiles had been brought into the kingdom.

Although this theory would have been contested by the Jewish believers and leadership in Jerusalem.

Acts 21:19-24 (New International Version 1984)
19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: &#8220;You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 

After all Christ had personally opened their minds to Scripture


Luke 24:44-46 (New International Version 1984)

44 He said to them, &#8220;This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.&#8221; 

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, &#8220;This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> Actually being baptised in the Holy Spirit was to lead to a sinless not sin less state.


Hmmm, hows that workin for ya?


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

#184
I am well aware of the universal belief of the Christian faith. And it is the pivotal point of my discussion here. If our works do not save us, only Christ can do that, then what difference does it make which particular sin we commit? We already know that we are all sinners, each and every one, and we will always be sinners, until the day we die. I do not believe that any particular sin is any different from another, and we are all guilty. I thank God that He sent His son to act as our "attorney" come judgement day! Theres nothing quite like a rigged courtroom, when its rigged in our favor


Is not the point of this thread one particular sin? The question is, if you are a willful practicioner of this specific sin, and pastoring a church and your church is in agreement, can it be considered Christian if the holy Book of the Christians, the Bible, says it is an abomination??? 

It seemingly has not occured to anybody to apply the same argument to other sins, like, oh, shady business deals. 
If a pastor, due to human avarice, (to which preachers are not immune) engages in some deceptive money schemes, and his congregation subscribes to the same standards, can they still be considered a Christian church?

What about if a pastor and his church agree that it is okay to kill the unborn, etc. , etc. there are enough explosive topics to go around, but they are not up for discussion. I thought it was gay preachers that are being discussed. Why compare sins. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death....applies to all and sundry in the sin department. 

Some want their particular sin declared not a sin, and everybody should accept their standard. Nothing to do with salvation, nothing to do with Christ's sacrifice. Jesus did not exempt any sin or sinner, he did not say "this particular sin is the sin I am not dying for", no. But it does require repentance, doesn't it? And he did tell the woman caught in adultery "go and sin no more."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tabitha said:


> Is a denomination which allows openly gay pastors still considered a Christian Church?
> 
> This seems to greatly irritate the gay side.
> 
> What do they expect of the Bible believing Christian?


addressing these three points.....

One.. I do think that those denominations do consider themselves to be a part of the Christian church. 

Two. I see a LOT more irritation among the non gay side than I do among the gay Christians that I have talked to. 

Three. From what I have heard them say, they expect a Bible believing Christian to practice Christian beliefs, and to be forgiven, loved and respected as imperfect human beings,,,,, just like every other Christian. 

Now for my part... I am not gay.... but if I were I may have had to opt out of any Christian church simply because of the unforgiving, unloving, and non-respecful attitudes I see displayed toward them. Oh wait.... maybe its the meddling, hateful, unforgiving attitude towards anyone other than themselves that keeps me from joining in their "religious zealotry" even as a non gay sinner.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

#192

Thsi si why I stay away from organized religion. So if you're jewish i guess the Kingdom is closed to you because of the New Covenant you all are speaking of? Was Jesus not trrying to bring God to men who beleived in pagan Gods? Was that the New Covenant he was speaking of, that All Men should have the chance to stand before god on his Judegement Day?


I apologize for even opening my mouth , but do you not have to stay on topic here? The above would be a very interesting topic for discussion, but shouldn't it have it's own thread?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is also why I tend to NOT judge people..... normally I simply do not have enough concrete facts to judge them.


Then you are falling down on the job. We are told to judge others by their actions and to use this judgment to determine what help they need. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Appearances are all too often quite deceiving. Your last line concerns me a bit here. How can any of us KNOW that someone is truly living outside Gods teachings? There are too many interpretations that conflict with one another.... on some of the easy stuff... much less the finer points for any of us to really know what is Gods teachings and what is the preachers interpretation of His Word. Let me illustrate by asking you a fairly simple


Let's see. If they lie all the time? If they cheat you or others at every turn? If they steal and steal and steal? IOW, you look at their fruits. If you see a bunch of apples on a tree do you wonder if it might really be an orange tree or do you know it is an apple tree?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> question.... What were Christ's final words upon this earth prior to being taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb? Some will quote scripture and answer "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." others will quote scripture and answer "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" Both are scripturally correct, yet the meanings are in direct conflict with one another.


This is one of those examples which really have nothing to do with God's heart. IIRC, Christ said a few things on the cross. He talked directly to the criminal on the other cross, to His mother and even to the men in charge of of His crucifixion. 

BTW, I disagree that your two examples are in direct conflict.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am well aware of the universal belief of the Christian faith. And it is the pivotal point of my discussion here. If our works do not save us, only Christ can do that, then what difference does it make which particular sin we commit? We already know that we are all sinners, each and every one, and we will always be sinners, until the day we die. I do not believe that any particular sin is any different from another, and we are all guilty. I thank God that He sent His son to act as our "attorney" come judgement day! Theres nothing quite like a rigged courtroom, when its rigged in our favor.


Its not the particular sin, its the continuation of sinning which is the problem.

Would you think it good or wise to have a leader in your church who was a habitual liar? How about one who regularly used vulgar language? Or one who was constantly gossiping?

We all fail to live up to the standards set by God but if someone has given up even trying to reach those standards is he really living his life for God?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tabitha said:


> Is not the point of this thread one particular sin?


The original question was posed toward a particular sin... that is correct. 



Tabitha said:


> The question is, if you are a willful practicioner of this specific sin, and pastoring a church and your church is in agreement, can it be considered Christian if the holy Book of the Christians, the Bible, says it is an abomination???


 I think its pretty obvious that many folks do consider these denominations to be of the Christian faith... in short.... YES



Tabitha said:


> It seemingly has not occured to anybody to apply the same argument to other sins, like, oh, shady business deals.
> If a pastor, due to human avarice, (to which preachers are not immune) engages in some deceptive money schemes, and his congregation subscribes to the same standards, can they still be considered a Christian church?


Actually yes, that did occur to me... and is why I mentioned those other sins when I first got involved with this thread. 



Tabitha said:


> What about if a pastor and his church agree that it is okay to kill the unborn, etc. , etc. there are enough explosive topics to go around, but they are not up for discussion. I thought it was gay preachers that are being discussed. Why compare sins. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death....applies to all and sundry in the sin department.


In the old testament, it was mentioned that the wages of sin is death.... According to the Christian faith I think that got changed to the wages of unforgiven sin is death. 



Tabitha said:


> Some want their particular sin declared not a sin, and everybody should accept their standard. Nothing to do with salvation, nothing to do with Christ's sacrifice. Jesus did not exempt any sin or sinner, he did not say "this particular sin is the sin I am not dying for", no. But it does require repentance, doesn't it? And he did tell the woman caught in adultery "go and sin no more."


I had not heard that denominations that accept homosexuals into their church were insisting that others accept their standards.... only that they wish to worship according to their beliefs. I do hear some of the other denominations crying foul, and insisting that the gay churches accept their standards. Personally, I think its the meddling nature of religious fanatics creating this issue. The Christ that I read about had a very loving, forgiving nature and wanted everyone to get along together, lose the hate, lose the bitterness and stop the bickering. According to my book, yes, JC told the woman to go and sin no more.... but I dont think he was stupid enough to believe that she would. I think he was generous enough to forgive her.... knowing that she was an imperfect human, and would sin again.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

But is not that the crux of the opening question?

When a Christian Church knowingly approves of sin and then goes so far as to place people in leadership who are openly committing(or flaunting, if you like) that sin, has that Church ceased to be Christian?

A cow can long to be a horse, but it's still a cow.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HOTW said:


> Thinkign back to the original topic Who here has the right to judge?
> 
> Thsi si why I stay away from organized religion. So if you're jewish i guess the Kingdom is closed to you because of the New Covenant you all are speaking of? Was Jesus not trrying to bring God to men who beleived in pagan Gods? Was that the New Covenant he was speaking of, that All Men should have the chance to stand before god on his Judegement Day?
> 
> Done. Not coming back to this thread methinks


We not only have the right to judge we are told to judge a tree by its fruit then given what fruit to look for on those trees?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Jolly said:


> But is not that the crux of the opening question?
> *
> When a Christian Church knowingly approves of sin and then goes so far as to place people in leadership who are openly committing(or flaunting, if you like) that sin, has that Church ceased to be Christian?*
> 
> A cow can long to be a horse, but it's still a cow.


The building called church ceases to be a House of God. It ceases to be a place of worship and prayer. It ceases to be a Bible based place for Believers to worship, and pray.

And there are plenty of Scriptures to back this up......
For those who want to hear.
That's the problem........

2 Timothy 4:2-4

2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage&#8212;with great patience and careful instruction. 
3 For the time will come when men 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.* 
4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm, hows that workin for ya?


Have not been baptised in the Spirit.

Have not been baptised at all.

Still waiting and studying.

Don't want to be in the group who think they are saved and end up in hell.

Don't want to be on the wrong side if the Jewish God if Christianity proves to be a false doctrine.

Don't know what to think. Raised very conservative Anabaptist but something does not feel right with the body of Christ.

If I am in the elect I suppose I will feel an overwhelming compulsion to accept Christ before I die. If not I guess I would be one of those blinded to the truth.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

I think the core issue is that people are assuming preachers_ can_ be perfect. A preacher is a human, just like you or me. Every single preacher/minister is a practicing sinner.

If a church says a preacher has to be perfect in order to preach, then the preacher is forced to hide his sins and pretend to be perfect. ALL preachers who do this are lying in front of their entire congregations and the entire congregations either know that or believe that their preachers are perfect - which would equate either to preacher worship or to choosing to allow a liar to lead them.

Jesus said "call no man Father, but the Father which is in heaven." Jesus asked "Why do you call me good? Only the Father who is in heaven is good." I'm paraphrasing here - I don't have my bible in front of me.

The Bible also says that the blind can't lead the blind and that a person must move the log from their own eye before they can remove the mote from another person's eye. We are ALL blind and we ALL have logs in our eyes. None of us can lead the other. We must follow Jesus, not people.

Ministers are necessary because somebody has to minister to the needs of others, churches need some sort of leadership to keep things organized and prevent chaos, somebody has to serve communion etc. etc. etc.

That's one of the reasons I like our church - we have a lay minister. She makes absolutely no claims to be perfect, but she keeps things going so we all have a place to go worship. She has dedicated her entire life to serving the needs of our congregation & she has had to live up to certain expectations to be allowed to minister to us. She ministers to us, she does not lead us. We do not follow her, we follow Jesus.

The church liturgy is set by the national synod & the individual congregations can vary somewhat - there is a place for the minister to deliver a short sermon, but our ministers don't preach. The lessons and gospel read each week are predetermined. We go to church to worship, to accept forgiveness, and to praise God.

We trust that when the church leaders gather together and pray and make decisions, the Holy Spirit is among them because "where two are gathered in my name, there will I be also." We don't put our faith in individual people but in the church as a whole and in the Holy Spirit.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

fffarmergirl said:


> That's one of the reasons I like our church - we have a lay minister. She makes absolutely no claims to be perfect, but she keeps things going so we all have a place to go worship. She has dedicated her entire life to serving the needs of our congregation & she has had to live up to certain expectations to be allowed to minister to us. She ministers to us, she does not lead us. We do not follow her, we follow Jesus.


See this is what I person like me has got to reconcile.

I personally have no objection to any woman being in a position of authority in a church.

And at the same time I know that this is something that Paul under the authority of the Holy Spirit disallowed in no uncertain terms.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> See this is what I person like me has got to reconcile.
> 
> I personally have no objection to any woman being in a position of authority in a church.
> 
> And at the same time I know that this is something that Paul under the authority of the Holy Spirit disallowed in no uncertain terms.


So a woman being forbidden to lead the church is ok with you.... as long as she is not a lesbian?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> If I am in the elect I suppose I will feel an overwhelming compulsion to accept Christ before I die. If not I guess I would be one of those blinded to the truth.


I apparently was, as Christ came to me, and showed me around heaven many years ago. It certainly changed my attitudes toward "Christians" and their preachers in particular. That experience obviously altered my life greatly.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So a woman being forbidden to lead the church is ok with you.... as long as she is not a lesbian?


Now now you did not see me partaking in the gay debate. But for the record I personally have no problems with a lesbian woman leading a church and at the same time I know That the concept would have Paul ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

postroad said:


> See this is what I person like me has got to reconcile.
> 
> I personally have no objection to any woman being in a position of authority in a church.
> 
> And at the same time I know that this is something that Paul under the authority of the Holy Spirit disallowed in no uncertain terms.


Yeah . . . . that's a really hard thing to reconcile. I have no clue what the answer to that is. I do know that's one of the many reasons I stopped going to church and reading the bible for a long time.

Some day, we will have the answers.

IMO, if a woman was fit to meld with the Holy Spirit and grow God's son in her womb, carry him and nurse him every day . . . . . wash his body after death and anoint it, wash his feet with her hair and her tears (different woman, I know). . . . . a woman is good enough to minister to me.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I apparently was, as Christ came to me, and showed me around heaven many years ago. It certainly changed my attitudes toward "Christians" and their preachers in particular. That experience obviously altered my life greatly.


Who knows he may come for me yet. My problem is that those who I have personally met who where Spirit baptised believers where often vehemently on the opposite sides of an issue. This left me very confused.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> We not only have the right to judge we are told to judge a tree by its fruit then given what fruit to look for on those trees?


That is perfectly scriptural.... no doubt in my mind on that.... however I notice that a lot of Gods other instructions seem to be forgotten for many Christians. In my mind we are not allowed to "pick and choose" which of Gods rules we are to obey. We are either in His family... or we are not. I choose to follow His guiding hand in all things, every day. If you really want to break it all down, it boils down to a couple things.... Love God, Love thy neighbor... and leave his wife alone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> But is not that the crux of the opening question?
> 
> When a Christian Church knowingly approves of sin and then goes so far as to place people in leadership who are openly committing(or flaunting, if you like) that sin, has that Church ceased to be Christian?
> 
> A cow can long to be a horse, but it's still a cow.


Yep, and all of us can long to be righteous, and sinless... but we are still sinners. Must we argue over which turd is the cleanest? :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> Who knows he may come for me yet. My problem is that those who I have personally met who where Spirit baptised believers where often vehemently on the opposite sides of an issue. This left me very confused.


Yup, it does get confusing sometimes. Christ tells us to be loving and forgiving of one another...yet the preachers insist we fight among ourselves and condemn one another. go figure, eh?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

fffarmergirl said:


> Yeah . . . . that's a really hard thing to reconcile. I have no clue what the answer to that is. I do know that's one of the many reasons I stopped going to church and reading the bible for a long time.
> 
> Some day, we will have the answers.
> 
> IMO, if a woman was fit to meld with the Holy Spirit and grow God's son in her womb, carry him and nurse him every day . . . . . wash his body after death and anoint it, wash his feet with her hair and her tears (different woman, I know). . . . . a woman is good enough to minister to me.


Not to mention that Paul is not in agreement with the OT in my non Holy Spirit influenced opinion.

2:28 (New International Version 1984)

The Day of the LORD
28 âAnd afterward, 
I will pour out my Spirit on all people. 
Your sons and daughters will prophesy, 
your old men will dream dreams, 
your young men will see visions. 

Or Peter who quotes the text.

Acts 2:14-21 (New International Version 1984)

Peter Addresses the Crowd
14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: âFellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These men are not drunk, as you suppose. Itâs only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 
17 ââIn the last days, God says, 
I will pour out my Spirit on all people. 
Your sons and daughters will prophesy, 
your young men will see visions, 
your old men will dream dreams. 
18 Even on my servants, both men and women, 
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, 
and they will prophesy. 
19 I will show wonders in the heaven above 
and signs on the earth below, 
blood and fire and billows of smoke. 
20 The sun will be turned to darkness 
and the moon to blood 
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. 
21 And everyone who calls 
on the name of the Lord will be saved


And what to make of verse 21?

Which Christ himself seems to refute.

Matthew 7:22-24 (New International Version 1984)


22 Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â 23 Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and all of us can long to be righteous, and sinless... but we are still sinners. Must we argue over which turd is the cleanest? :shrug:


:hysterical: I like that.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Jolly said:


> I know you're playing silly booger, but is there any doubt Lot would have offered himself, if he thought it would buy off the crowd?


Of course there is some doubt. Since the story mentions NOTHING about him offering himself to a mob that was looking to take sexual liberties with two male angels, it would seem they'd be more interested in him than in his daughters, but if the objective of the story was to show how "righteous" he was, then it would make sense for him to offer himself. His offering the mob his daughters would seem to make him look more like a coward to most people.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So let us look at the words of Jesus...
> 
> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> 
> ...


But wouldn't that mean Christians would be obliged to keep the Levitical laws? Circumcision, kosher, stoning people, no pork or shellfish, no polyester? 

Yet most don't, of course. Now why is that?



> We not only have the right to judge we are told to judge a tree by its fruit then given what fruit to look for on those trees?


And what if that 'tree' is a gay couple that does its best to love God and its neighbors? :shrug:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Don't want to be bound by the Law.

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it

Perfection was the minimum requirement. This was not possible through the Law but it was believed was possible through the Spirit

Romans 8:1-8 (New International Version 1984)

Romans 8
Life Through the Spirit
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,* God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. 
5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God&#8217;s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.*


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> But wouldn't that mean Christians would be obliged to keep the Levitical laws? Circumcision, kosher, stoning people, no pork or shellfish, no polyester?
> 
> Yet most don't, of course. Now why is that?


That is because their pharisees (lawyers) were able to find loopholes in the law after Christ left the scene... and they liked pork chops and shrimp and lobster and all them other yummies the gentiles were eating!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> And what if that 'tree' is a gay couple that does its best to love God and its neighbors? :shrug:


You chop it down, burn the stump and pour salt on the cursed thing of course! Its for its own good dontcha know.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is because their pharisees (lawyers) were able to find loopholes in the law after Christ left the scene... and they liked pork chops and shrimp and lobster and all them other yummies the gentiles were eating!


I think the Jewish Church remained faithful to the Law. It was Paul who believed that the Law had been fulfilled and set aside through Christ.

Romans 7
An Illustration From Marriage
1 Do you not know, brothersâfor I am speaking to men who know the lawâthat the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. 
4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

bluesky said:


> What about a practicing glutton? Or one who practices greed, sloth, envy, despair, or pride? What about the one who just can't stop yelling at his wife and kids? Or the one who fudges his taxes? The bigot? The one who watches pretty girls walk down the street with lust in his heart? What about the one who sews discord or stirs up mischief? Are churches with those men/women as their leaders still called Christian?



Good question. I will never understand the christian infatuation with what people do in their bedrooms. Seems creepy to us non christians. I mean seriously, my husband and I don't sit around thinking about what other people do in the bedroom - who cares. We do however get quite a bit of entertainment out of reading these chrisitian threads. /eats popcorn


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> I think the Jewish Church remained faithful to the Law. It was Paul who believed that the Law had been fulfilled and set aside through Christ.


I am thinking you are probably correct on this one. He musta liked pork chops too.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You chop it down, burn the stump and pour salt on the cursed thing of course! Its for its own good dontcha know.


That's what they said about the Inquisition, too. They tortured and dismembered people to keep them from going to Hell.:gaptooth: I wish somebody loved me enough to do that for me.:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am thinking you are probably correct on this one. He musta liked pork chops too.


To me there are some profound questions surrounding the concept that the two camps were so bitterly divided on such a fundamental point.

To put it into perspective using Christ's own standard.

Mark 3:25-27 (New International Version 1984)
25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong manâs house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> To me there are some profound questions surrounding the concept that the two camps were so bitterly divided on such a fundamental point.
> 
> To put it into perspective using Christ's own standard.
> 
> ...


Well, those of the Jewish faith were born into it by blood only, they were not looking to recruit. They had the only wheel in town as far as getting into heaven and didnt need the gentiles. Then Christ comes along, and creates a bit of a stir among them. Christ had come to give everyone salvation, jews and gentiles alike. Christ knew He would not be around much longer in the flesh, so He surrounded Himself with some followers and instructed them to make sure His Word was heard throughout the world. In order to accomplish this the new gang needed to recruit new blood. Its much easier to recruit new members if you are willing to compromise with them a little bit. You know, sit down at their tables, eat their food and not howl too loudly over fine points of law. before you know it, the legal beagles have figured out loopholes to get around the old law, and they pretty much abandon it entirely.. cept of course for the parts they liked. The eat what they want, where they want and when, they worship with the heathens, adopt some of their customs as their own, but win them over just the same. Then of course some cant be won over so easily, and so the new gang forms armies, and fights bloody crusades in an effort to convince folks to join up with them. As the years go by, the new gang begins to bicker among themselves, fighting, feuding, arguing and killin one another... yep, this whole Christian movement has evolved nicely... I am quite sure that Christ is proud of all of us.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Makes one wonder where the prophecies concerning the New Covenant went wrong?

The intervention of the Spirit into the hearts and minds in order to create a unified body of believers to inherit the kingdom.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> *That strikes me as a strange comment. Do people think that unless they control every aspect of somebody else's life they are "encouraging and cheering on" that person? That seems very arrogant to me, the idea that WE are in charge of anybody else's life or that our actions(or inactions) are supposed to imply approval or something*.:hrm:


Applying the bible to any situation is not approving or disapproving of anyone's life. It's not making a personal opinion at all. It is simply giving honor to the Word of God as the ultimate authority.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

SocialAnarchist said:


> I never cease to be amazed by the attitudes of the so called "loving Christians" on this site. Thank you once again for reminding me why I walked away from that. It never was about what the Bible had to say that drove me away it was the hypocrisy of the "Oh so righteous" standing in judgement of everyone that didn't believe EXACTLY as they did.
> 
> Time to remember a couple simple Bible verses:
> 
> ...


Applying the Word of God and what it says about any situation isn't judging. It is honoring the judgment of God. Nobody here wrote the book. But as believers we must believe it and honor it as truth. Right is right and wrong is wrong. God's word simply tells us which is which. That's not judging another human or their heart, it is honoring the Word of God, and believing it. If the Word of God calls homosexuality an abomination, then it is. I didn't just come up with that thought by looking at another person or judging their heart. It is biblical. And the Word of God is Truth.
If anyone (me, you, or anyone) doesn't like what the bible says about a specific situation, then your problem is not with believers. It is with God. And it is not a good thing to stand in defiance of a Living God. Righteousness is Righteousness and Sin is sin. There is no middle ground. The Bible is true. And if the bible calls something sin, it is. That is not being judgmental, nasty, arrogant or hateful. It is just honoring the bible as truth. And that is what most people here are doing when they post things that seem to be bothering you. Don't believe them. Just read it yourself.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> Makes one wonder where the prophecies concerning the New Covenant went wrong?
> 
> The intervention of the Spirit into the hearts and minds in order to create a unified body of believers to inherit the kingdom.


Oh, I have no doubt of the accuracy, and that the deliverance of the chosen righteous will be fulfilled according to His divine plan in time. You must remember that He is really only looking for 144,000 souls in his Covenant. He has to sort through a tremendous amount of prideful, stiff necked, self righteous sinners, dedicated to meddlesome gossip, to find that many who are filled with enough love for heaven.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I have no doubt of the accuracy, and that the deliverance of the chosen righteous will be fulfilled according to His divine plan in time. You must remember that He is really only looking for 144,000 souls in his Covenant. He has to sort through a tremendous amount of prideful, stiff necked, self righteous sinners, dedicated to meddlesome gossip, to find that many who are filled with enough love for heaven.


I have looked over those texts as well. Whats to happen to the ones excluded from the 144,000 but who still considered themselves Christians.

Surely not millions if not billions who are going to hear this?

Matthew 7:22-24 (New International Version 1984)
22 Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â 23 Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> I have looked over those texts as well. Whats to happen to the ones excluded from the 144,000 but who still considered themselves Christians.
> 
> Surely not millions if not billions who are going to hear this?
> 
> ...


Its my guess that those that dont "make the cut" will end up side by side with the rest of the sinners they were so quick to condemn, ridicule and scorn. But then I am not the judge... I will let God handle that part.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is perfectly scriptural.... no doubt in my mind on that.... however I notice that a lot of Gods other instructions seem to be forgotten for many Christians. In my mind we are not allowed to "pick and choose" which of Gods rules we are to obey. We are either in His family... or we are not. I choose to follow His guiding hand in all things, every day. If you really want to break it all down, it boils down to a couple things.... Love God, Love thy neighbor... and leave his wife alone.


And if you see him cheating on his wife tell him he should stop.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But wouldn't that mean Christians would be obliged to keep the Levitical laws? Circumcision, kosher, stoning people, no pork or shellfish, no polyester?
> 
> Yet most don't, of course. Now why is that?


Remember what Christ said as the great commandments? Remember that part about loving God? (something about with all your heart, sole, mind right) Thing about this. Say the smell of cooking and cooked cabbage literally makes you ill, even the lingering odor of it in the house makes you puke. None the less every day your husband brings home a head of cabbage and cooks it for dinner then warms up the left overs for breakfast. You have told him what effect this has on you but he still does it everyday. Now just how much would you say he *REALLY* loves you?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Haven said:


> Good question. I will never understand the christian infatuation with what people do in their bedrooms. Seems creepy to us non christians. I mean seriously, my husband and I don't sit around thinking about what other people do in the bedroom - who cares. We do however get quite a bit of entertainment out of reading these chrisitian threads. /eats popcorn


We are told to care about those we see as going to Hell. Think about it this way, if you knew someone who was huffing paint in their bedroom would you just ignore what they were doing knowing it was slowly killing them?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> We are told to care about those we see as going to Hell. Think about it this way, if you knew someone who was huffing paint in their bedroom would you just ignore what they were doing knowing it was slowly killing them?


well, there aint no law against a feller painting his bedroom now is there? :shrug:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its my guess that those that dont "make the cut" will end up side by side with the rest of the sinners they were so quick to condemn, ridicule and scorn. But then I am not the judge... I will let God handle that part.


So Salvation is not as simple as repeating the sinners prayer and repeating as necessary?

What are your thoughts on predestination of the elect?


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well, there aint no law against a feller painting his bedroom now is there? :shrug:


Long as it ain't pink:hysterical:



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its my guess that those that dont "make the cut" will end up side by side with the rest of the sinners they were so quick to condemn, ridicule and scorn. But then I am not the judge... I will let God handle that part.


 And He will.

*Matthew 7:13-14 (King James Version)*


*13*Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: *14*Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

*King James Version (KJV)*


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Ok,any of you folks that think that Jesus is such of a loving Jesus, and a forgiving Jesus,that a practicing homosexual preacher is just fine to preach in Christian churches,,read his words to the angel of the church of Thyatira.

Some of the members allowed this teaching,others refused to be taught the message of this Profitess.

*Revelation 2:20-26 (King James Version)*



*20*Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 
* 21And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. *
*22*Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 
*23*And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 
*24*But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. 
*25*But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. *26*And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:..

*If you notice,he did not call her a prophetess,He said she called herself a prophetess.There is absolutely no way Jesus would approve of a practicing homosexual,an abomination to God,to stand behind the pulpit and preach as a Christian.Just like this prophetess,the still practicing gay preacher is commiting fornication and has not repented, nor has he been forgiven.*

*We indeed are responsible as Christians,for who we let teach and preach*.

*Don't think we won't be held accountable.If Jesus held the church of Thyatira accountable,every other church there was,is,and will be,He will hold accountable.*


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> We are told to care about those we see as going to Hell. Think about it this way, if you knew someone who was huffing paint in their bedroom would you just ignore what they were doing knowing it was slowly killing them?


Caring about people around you is one thing. Trying to use that "caring" as an excuse to try to run their lives is another thing entirely.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> *Caring about people around you is one thing. Trying to use that "caring" as an excuse to try to run their lives is another thing entirely*.


POW!!
You are SO right!
These Scriptures speak to what you have said. 

1 Thess. 4:11-12
11 Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, 
12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 

1 Peter 3:15-16

15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 
16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Ahh, but where's the fun in THAT, Laura?! LOL

Let me tell you a (true) story: The people who live across from my farm are ALL ABOUT their religion! When I first met them, they even invited me to their church (I declined politely). Whenever I chanced to speak to them after that, they would brag about something they were doing for their church -- mowing its lawn, organizing a bazaar. Brag, brag, brag. I'd just smile and nod.

They also spent the next year and a half reporting me to every state, local and federal agency they could think of, trying to run me off my place because, as the fellow once told me, "If I wanted to look out my window and see cows, I would have bought the place across from H's," (dairy farm up the road). I was accused of polluting the groundwater (AFTER I'd spent $1,000 to safely divert a spring underground across my pasture and into an existing culvert). I had to allow a Humane Society investigator onto my property to see that none of my animals were being abused or neglected. (Luckily all their accusations were judged to be unfounded and nothing came of them.)

You know what? Those people's religion isn't worth a plugged nickel to me.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well, there aint no law against a feller painting his bedroom now is there? :shrug:


IOW, you'd just ignore them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> Caring about people around you is one thing. Trying to use that "caring" as an excuse to try to run their lives is another thing entirely.


Its not my nor any other Christian's job to run anyone's life. BUT we are told we are to judge people's actions and point out to them their failings. Now we are also told if after they hear it they have no interest we are to 'knock the dust from our feet' and move on.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

watcher said:


> Its not my nor any other Christian's job to run anyone's life. BUT we are told we are to judge people's actions and point out to them their failings. Now we are also told if after they hear it they have no interest we are to 'knock the dust from our feet' and move on.


I wonder if a Christians job is more to be an example to the world and the judging more localised to their own ranks?


1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (New International Version 1984)

9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral peopleâ 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 


New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

watcher said:


> We are told to care about those we see as going to Hell. Think about it this way, if you knew someone who was huffing paint in their bedroom would you just ignore what they were doing knowing it was slowly killing them?


Personally I wouldn't compare huffing toxic chemicals to a person's private sexual acts...but that's just me...

If someone wants to dress up like a french maid and roll around in Crisco...whatever floats their boat. I don't concern myself with another person's private matters.

If your faith tells you that other people will burn in hell for various reasons, that is fine. Just don't expect people that have differing beliefs embrace your condemnation and judgement with open arms.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Haven said:


> Personally I wouldn't compare huffing toxic chemicals to a person's private sexual acts...but that's just me...


In the eyes of a Christian both are a danger and should be pointed out.




Haven said:


> If someone wants to dress up like a french maid and roll around in Crisco...whatever floats their boat. I don't concern myself with another person's private matters.


I don't either. But when someone starts taking about their private matters in public are those matters still private? 




Haven said:


> If your faith tells you that other people will burn in hell for various reasons, that is fine. Just don't expect people that have differing beliefs embrace your condemnation and judgement with open arms.


I will be judged for not only what I do but what I fail to do. If I see someone living wrong and fail to point it out to them then I will be judged for that. But once I have pointed out their error the ball is in their court. I have posted many, many, many times if someone tells me they don't want to hear what I have to say I leave them alone, just as the Bible tells me. But if they want to engage me in a discussion then I'm going to discuss it with them.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Its not my nor any other Christian's job to run anyone's life. BUT"

I never saw any need for a "but" after the first sentence. It's not ANYBODY'S job to run any other person's life.PERIOD
If you think somebody(or something) is telling you to interfere in other people's lives, it seems to me like that might conflict with that "Golden Rule" I've heard so much about. If you don't want other people interfering in your life, it seems only fair to me to not go around interfering in other people's lives.

"In the eyes of a Christian both are a danger and should be pointed out."

Perhaps, but not everybody follows YOUR religion, so you are saying that what YOUR religion tells you means you have the right(and responsibility) to go around telling everybody what you think of their lifestyle.

"I don't either. But when someone starts taking about their private matters in public are those matters still private?"

Just as private as YOU talkiing about your private matters in public. Religion is considered a private matter by many people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I will be judged for not only what I do but what I fail to do.


Ok, help me out here a second. My preacher told me that Christ was going to act as my attorney on judgement day, and that it made no difference what sorta crimes I had committed, nor good works I had failed to do.... as long as I had given my heart to Christ I would NOT BE JUDGED but given a free pass into heaven. Something about a cross, a carpenter and a long, bloody, painful afternoon paid for my transgressions whatever they may have been.... period. Now you are telling us that we must do other stuff to avoid the judgemental wrath of the Father who knew from the gitgo that we as humans could NEVER live up to His expectations?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, help me out here a second. My preacher told me that Christ was going to act as my attorney on judgement day, and that it made no difference what sorta crimes I had committed, nor good works I had failed to do.... as long as I had given my heart to Christ I would NOT BE JUDGED but given a free pass into heaven. Something about a cross, a carpenter and a long, bloody, painful afternoon paid for my transgressions whatever they may have been.... period. Now you are telling us that we must do other stuff to avoid the judgemental wrath of the Father who knew from the gitgo that we as humans could NEVER live up to His expectations?


Wrong.

You're making the once-saved-always-saved argument. YOU will be judged at the White Throne and there it will be determined where you spend eternity.

How many times does one have to say by your fruits ye shall be known, until that concept sinks in?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

An argument could be made that once baptised in the Spirit a person should become sinless. 

I keep harping on it but the text does seem to point that way

Romans 6:17-23 (New International Version 1984)
17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 

19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord. 

Hebrews 9:14-15 (New International Version 1984)
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[a] so that we may serve the living God! 

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance&#8212;now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. 


Hebrews 10:25-27 (New International Version 1984)
25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another&#8212;and all the more as you see the Day approaching. 

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Wrong.
> 
> You're making the once-saved-always-saved argument. YOU will be judged at the White Throne and there it will be determined where you spend eternity.
> 
> How many times does one have to say by your fruits ye shall be known, until that concept sinks in?


Oh, I am sorry, I was not making any argument, I was asking a question. I was hoping to clarify what I had been told by numerous people, whom I presumed to be well educated in such matters, (being preachers and the like) that Christ was our only way to salvation. And that He had died on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice that would free us of our sins. Yet others seem to be of the mindset that it is through our good works, and by our fruits that we will be judged.... kinda like in the old covenant? Since we know that no man is without sin, nor can he be, how can we be expected to be fairly judged on the day of ultimate reckoning? Perhaps this is why there will only be the 144 thousand admitted through the gates, they will be those who die in the flesh at the same moment they gain Christs forgiveness and do not have time to commit further sins.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I will be judged for not only what I do but what I fail to do. If I see someone living wrong and fail to point it out to them then I will be judged for that. But once I have pointed out their error the ball is in their court. I have posted many, many, many times if someone tells me they don't want to hear what I have to say I leave them alone, just as the Bible tells me. But if they want to engage me in a discussion then I'm going to discuss it with them.


But it also says anything done without love is useless. 

Unless your motivation truly is love, I suggest you "save your breath for cooling your oatmeal," as a woman I knew used to say.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If someone wants to dress up like a french maid and roll around in Crisco...whatever floats their boat. I don't concern myself with another person's private matters.


Whew! That's reassuring.

I was worried you didn't like me ... ound:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

I knew a couple who liked to take the sheets off the waterbed and roll around in vegetable oil

And no, its not me and the better half.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I am sorry, I was not making any argument, I was asking a question. I was hoping to clarify what I had been told by numerous people, whom I presumed to be well educated in such matters, (being preachers and the like) that Christ was our only way to salvation. And that He had died on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice that would free us of our sins. Yet others seem to be of the mindset that it is through our good works, and by our fruits that we will be judged.... kinda like in the old covenant? Since we know that no man is without sin, nor can he be, how can we be expected to be fairly judged on the day of ultimate reckoning? Perhaps this is why there will only be the 144 thousand admitted through the gates, they will be those who die in the flesh at the same moment they gain Christs forgiveness and do not have time to commit further sins.


This remind me of a argument based on logic that a minister attempted on me.

His premise was that there was no down side to accepting Christ as my Savior. Best case I got to live in Heaven for eternity or if it was not true I would never know the difference after I died anyway.

I pointed out the texts showing the Israelites entering into the Covenant of the Law and how that had turned out for them.

At the time they where given assurances that keeping the Law was not beyond their capacity. But yet in the NT Paul indicates that keeping the Law was an impossibility in the flesh. In fact the Law was a curse designed to bring the chosen people into condemnation.

I indicated that I was not going to be making any deals with this God until I had done some more research.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"His premise was that there was no down side to accepting Christ as my Savior. Best case I got to live in Heaven for eternity or if it was not true I would never know the difference after I died anyway."

That's called Pascal's Wager, and it's been tried as an argument for around 300 years. Of course, it's also been shown to be completely wrong for around 300 years(but people still keep trying to use it).ound:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I am sorry, I was not making any argument, I was asking a question. I was hoping to clarify what I had been told by numerous people, whom I presumed to be well educated in such matters, (being preachers and the like) that Christ was our only way to salvation. And that He had died on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice that would free us of our sins. Yet others seem to be of the mindset that it is through our good works, and by our fruits that we will be judged.... kinda like in the old covenant? Since we know that no man is without sin, nor can he be, how can we be expected to be fairly judged on the day of ultimate reckoning? Perhaps this is why there will only be the 144 thousand admitted through the gates, they will be those who die in the flesh at the same moment they gain Christs forgiveness and do not have time to commit further sins.


First, I suggest you do your own Bible study, since it is you alone who will be judged, not your preacher, your Sunday School teacher or your parents. Each person will answer for his own deeds.

Second, there is only one way to have Eternal Life and that is through Salvation. What you do with your Salvation, again, is up to you. You may squander it if you wish.

God knows we are inherently sinful creatures, but with the His help and the help of the Holy Spirit, we can try to live as best we can. And that is your benchmark, not perfection. God will judge you on how well you can walk in the Light He gives you.

Third, I see nowhere where it is written that only 144,000 will enter into the Kingdom, except in a Jehovah's Witness tract.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Haven said:


> If someone wants to dress up like a french maid and roll around in Crisco...whatever floats their boat.


Now everyone knows why I was too busy to keep the server from glitching yesterday. Thanks a lot. :hammer:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

postroad said:


> An argument could be made that once baptised in the Spirit a person should become sinless.
> 
> I keep harping on it but the text does seem to point that way
> 
> ...


One can make the argument. I think if one looks at the New Testament _in toto_, however, a continuous theme is the sinful nature of man and what man must do to overcome it.

I think the best one can do is sometimes called Sanctification, or the second working of Grace. Wesley called it the "second blessing". I leave you to his writings, as he explained it better than I ever could.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, help me out here a second. My preacher told me that Christ was going to act as my attorney on judgement day, and that it made no difference what sorta crimes I had committed, nor good works I had failed to do.... as long as I had given my heart to Christ I would NOT BE JUDGED but given a free pass into heaven. Something about a cross, a carpenter and a long, bloody, painful afternoon paid for my transgressions whatever they may have been.... period. Now you are telling us that we must do other stuff to avoid the judgemental wrath of the Father who knew from the gitgo that we as humans could NEVER live up to His expectations?


You might just want to sit down and have a long talk with your preacher. Ask him is he's saying now that you have accepted Christ you can just go out and do what every you wish and not face judgment for it.

If he says that's just what he said, you might just want to be looking for another preacher.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But it also says anything done without love is useless.
> 
> Unless your motivation truly is love, I suggest you "save your breath for cooling your oatmeal," as a woman I knew used to say.


Correct. As my pastor puts it; Truth without love is legalism. Love without truth is liberalism.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Kung said:


> Now everyone knows why I was too busy to keep the server from glitching yesterday. Thanks a lot. :hammer:


Now we will know whats really going on when the forum crashes, lol.:happy0035:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Kung said:


> Now everyone knows why I was too busy to keep the server from glitching yesterday. Thanks a lot. :hammer:


Ummm, just a tip I picked up in the cooking forum..... crisco is "shortnin".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> You might just want to sit down and have a long talk with your preacher. Ask him is he's saying now that you have accepted Christ you can just go out and do what every you wish and not face judgment for it.
> 
> If he says that's just what he said, you might just want to be looking for another preacher.


Actually I quit having discussions with preachers a long time ago. I go directly to "the man" ever since He came to me and showed me the way, the truth, and the light (which btw, are all one and the same).


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> First, I suggest you do your own Bible study
> Third, I see nowhere where it is written that only 144,000 will enter into the Kingdom, except in a Jehovah's Witness tract.


First... been there done that

Third. KJV rev 7


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Jolly said:


> One can make the argument. I think if one looks at the New Testament _in toto_, however, a continuous theme is the sinful nature of man and what man must do to overcome it.
> 
> I think the best one can do is sometimes called Sanctification, or the second working of Grace. Wesley called it the "second blessing". I leave you to his writings, as he explained it better than I ever could.


I have been trying to reconcile the text indicating that only those who Christ "knew" are saved with these texts.

1 John 3
1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. 

4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devilâs work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because Godâs seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually I quit having discussions with preachers a long time ago. I go directly to "the man" ever since He came to me and showed me the way, the truth, and the light (which btw, are all one and the same).


If "the man" told you that once you are saved you can do what ever you want and not be judged because Christ will cover for you, you better check to see just *which* "man" you are talking to.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> First... been there done that
> 
> Third. KJV rev 7


NIV REV 7:

_ 9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice: 
âSalvation belongs to our God, 
who sits on the throne, 
and to the Lamb.â 

11 All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: 

âAmen! 
Praise and glory 
and wisdom and thanks and honor 
and power and strength 
be to our God for ever and ever. 
Amen!â 

13 Then one of the elders asked me, âThese in white robesâwho are they, and where did they come from?â 

14 I answered, âSir, you know.â 

And he said, âThese are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore, 

âthey are before the throne of God 
and serve him day and night in his temple; 
and he who sits on the throne 
will shelter them with his presence. 
16 âNever again will they hunger; 
never again will they thirst. 
The sun will not beat down on them,â[a] 
nor any scorching heat. 
17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne 
will be their shepherd; 
âhe will lead them to springs of living water.â* 
âAnd God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.â[c]â 

*_*

KJV is essentially identical. Care to tell me how you reconcile 144,000 with a multitude so vast that no one could count it?*


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Just read over the text. Seems to be the 144 000 are set aside from the 12 tribes of Israel and the great multitude are from the Gentiles

Are we to believe that only 144 000 Jews will be saved but the entire population of the Gentiles will be in heaven to be their servants?

Maybe according to this text.

Isaiah 66:12-24 (New International Version 1984)

12 For this is what the LORD says: 

&#8220;I will extend peace to her like a river, 
and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; 
you will nurse and be carried on her arm 
and dandled on her knees. 
13 As a mother comforts her child, 
so will I comfort you; 
and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.&#8221; 

14 When you see this, your heart will rejoice 
and you will flourish like grass; 
the hand of the LORD will be made known to his servants, 
%2


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

postroad said:


> Just read over the text. Seems to be the 144 000 are set aside from the 12 tribes of Israel and the great multitude are from the Gentiles
> 
> Are we to believe that only 144 000 Jews will be saved but the entire population of the Gentiles will be in heaven to be their servants?
> 
> ...


Since we know that the 144 thousand were sealed, and set aside for their place in heaven and the great multitude was in the presence of the court... it becomes quite clear that they are indeed two separate groups. When you read further into revelations we find that the 144K were indeed pure and without sin, virgins and true followers of God. The great multitude were indeed to be judged according to their "fruits" and actions. It does not say they have any particular place in heaven, only that they will be judged and those that are found to be pure of heart will be cared for and be shown the waters of the river of life. I have not been able to find much as to their actual destiny. There are references to their possible place on earth during the 1000 years period, but to me those references are rather vague and I cannot determine with any certainty what exactly does become of the great multitude.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

those sealed from the Jews are all male?

Revelation 14:3-5 (New International Version 1984)
3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Lot did not know he was hosting angels, nor did the inhabitants of the town. The story shows they were well able to take care of themselves. 
We do not know too much about the culture of Lot's family.

Lot was not Jewish and there was no Jewish law at the time. 

From Travel reports of the middle East in the 19th century, I read hospitality was a sacred duty . If you came under someone's roof they would protect you with their lives. Now there is a long span of time between Lot and the 19th century. I have no idea if the same standard existed, but it may well have. To be willing to give your all, your children, an ultimate sacrifice, can very well have struck the angels as utterly righteous. Would you toss the guests out to save your own hide? 
They obviously did not want Lot,or his wife, or he would have offered himself. His daughters were the only desirable "assets" he had under the circumstances, which were to his way of looking, dire and desperate. In the end, he was protected from the mob. We have not been in a situation of a mob clamoring in front of our house.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Tabitha said:


> Lot did not know he was hosting angels, nor did the --------s. The story shows they were well able to take care of themselves.
> We do not know too much about the culture of Lot's family.
> To the post above, Lot was not Jewish and there was no Jewish law at the time.
> From Travel reports of the middle East in the 19th century, hospitality was a sacred duty . If you came under someone's roof they would protect you with their lives. Now there is a long span of time between Lot and the 19th century. I have no idea if the same standard existed, but it may well have. To be willing to give your all, your children, an ultimate sacrifice, can very well have struck the angels as utterly righteous. *Would you toss the guests out to save your own hide?*


Probably not, but I wouldn't toss my virgin daughters to the mob either!


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Then you're not a "righteous" person.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> Then you're not a "righteous" person.


He was not counted "righteous" because he DIDN'T throw the angels to the crowd.
He was not counted "righteous" because he DID offer his daughters.


He was counted "righteous" because he DID DO WHAT GOD SAID.......
Leave the city, and don't look back.
HE DID what God asked. He obeyed. 
He was also the Nephew of Abraham.......

Look up the word "righteous" in context in the Greek language for a more clear explanation.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

I prefer when definitions don't change horses in mid-stream, especially in an area that is big on absolutes. If a person is considered a "righteous" person and they do something which most people would consider cowardly, I'd consider them a bit less-than-righteous, no matter why they said they were doing it. Actions speak louder than words to me.:cowboy:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> I prefer when definitions don't change horses in mid-stream, especially in an area that is big on absolutes. If a person is considered a "righteous" person and they do something which most people would consider cowardly, I'd consider them a bit less-than-righteous, no matter why they said they were doing it. Actions speak louder than words to me.:cowboy:


That's why looking it up in Greek, will help understand the original intent.:thumb:


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That's why looking it up in Greek, will help understand the original intent.:thumb:


Except the Old Testament wasn't written in Greek, was it?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bluesky said:


> Except the Old Testament wasn't written in Greek, was it?


Nope, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.


But the Scripture reference of "Lot was righteous" comes from  2 Peter 2:7. That is the NT and it was penned in Greek.
That is the only verse in the Bible that has "lot and righteous" in the same verse.
Hope that helps.


----------



## seagullplayer (Nov 6, 2008)

*Matthew 7:21* Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
*Matthew 7:22* Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
*Matthew 7:23 * And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


*2 Corinthians 5:17* Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

*1 Corinthians 6:9* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
*1 Corinthians 6:10* Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
*1 Corinthians 6:11* And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

These organizations that allow gays in the ministry are no longer Christian.
They have lost their way and now worship the creature more than the creator. Read Romans chapter one.

*Romans 1:21* Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
*Romans 1:22* Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

seagullplayer said:


> *Matthew 7:21* Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> *Matthew 7:22* Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> *Matthew 7:23 * And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 
> ...



Thank you for all the Scriptures.
For those who have ears, they will hear!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I am just as guilty as some of the others here, pulling out a scripture here and there to make a point sometimes.... but I have to wonder if we are not all failing to "see the forest, on account of all these trees standing in our way". When I read through the new testament, I get a very distinct message.... one of love... light... and truth and forgiveness. From reading the tone in this thread..... they dont match up very well. Jesus never said He would forgive us our sins except (insert sin of your choice here) He sacrificed Himself in order that ALL our sins be forgiven in the eyes of God the Father.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am just as guilty as some of the others here, pulling out a scripture here and there to make a point sometimes.... but I have to wonder if we are not all failing to "see the forest, on account of all these trees standing in our way". When I read through the new testament, I get a very distinct message.... one of love... light... and truth and forgiveness. From reading the tone in this thread..... they dont match up very well. Jesus never said He would forgive us our sins except (insert sin of your choice here) He sacrificed Himself in order that ALL our sins be forgiven in the eyes of God the Father.


Did you know that Jesus mentioned Hell more than Heaven?

Many people want to build a small box around God. God is Love, yes, but God is so much, much more. God is the Creator. God is our Saviour. God can also be an omnipotent Force. God can be the ultimate Judge and Bringer of Justice. And so many other things...

God loves us, but God will judge us. God will reward us or God will punish us.

It's all the same God, though...


----------



## seagullplayer (Nov 6, 2008)

Repent, what does it mean to you? What does the Bible have to say about it?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Repent, Repentance
(Greek)

[ A-1,Verb,G3340, _metanoeo_ ] 
lit., to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive;" nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke 17:3-Luke 17:4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, Revelation 2:5 (twice), Revelation 2:16, Revelation 2:21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2nd part); Revelation 3:3, Revelation 3:19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Corinthians 12:21. See also the general Note below. 

[ A-2,Verb,G3338, _metamelomai_ ] 
meta, as in No. 1, and melo, "to care for," is used in the Passive Voice with the Middle Voice sense, signifying "to regret, to repent oneself," Matthew 21:29, RV, "repented himself;" Matthew 21:32, RV, "ye did (not) repent yourselves" (AV, "ye repented not"); Matthew 27:3, "repented himself" 2 Corinthians 7:8 (twice), RV, "regret" in each case; Hebrews 7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God. 

[ B-1,Adjective,G278, _ametameletos_ ] 
"not repented of, unregretted" (a, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies "without change of purpose;" it is said 
(a) of God in regard to his "gifts and calling," Romans 11:29; 
(b) of man, 2 Corinthians 7:10, RV, "[repentance (metanoia, See C)] ... which bringeth no regret" (AV, "not to be repented of"); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between "repentance" and "regret." 

[ C-1,Noun,G3341, _metanoia_ ] 
"afterthought, change of mind, repentance," corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of "repentance" from sin or evil, except in Hebrews 12:17, where the word "repentance" seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac's mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau's birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss. As regards "repentance" from sin, 
(a) the requirement by God on man's part is set forth, e.g., in Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20; 
(b) the mercy of God in giving "repentance" or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17, as in the RV. 

Note: In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, See under RECONCILE). 

In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to "repentance" from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to "repentance," Matthew 4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, "repentance" is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist's preaching; in John's Gospel and 1st Epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (John 3:3; John 9:38; 1 John 1:9), as in the NT in general.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> God can be the ultimate Judge and Bringer of Justice.
> 
> God loves us, but God will judge us. God will reward us or God will punish us.


I would say that God "is" the ultimate Judge rather than "can be", other than that, you have hit the nail squarely upon the head.


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

This thread makes my eye twitch. As one of my professors says, "a prooftext taken out of context is a pretext for misunderstanding." Sooooo, with that in mind I am going to share with you my paper from my seminary ethics course. I'm not sure how well the Greek will come through on the forum, but we'll give it a try...


I chose this topic because it seems to be the issue that schisms and divides Christians more than any other. For as much as we as a modern church debate and discuss this topic, youâd think that the Bible has a lot to say about homosexuality. Youâd be wrong. New Testament scholar, Richard Hays says, âThe Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behavior. There are perhaps a half a dozen references to it in all of scripture. In terms of emphasis, it is a minor concern, in contrast, for example, to economic injustice.â Sadly, in the heated debate on homosexuality the scriptures are taken out of their linguistic, historical and cultural context to condemn and justify the oppression of an entire group of people.
Looking at the Bible
There are seven main passages in the Bible that have been used in modern times in reference to homosexuality. These are:
Genesis 1-2 
Genesis 19:1-29 
Judges 19:1-30
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 
Romans 1:18-27 
1 Corinthians 6:9 
1 Timothy 1:10 

Some Key Terms
Homosexual- âThe English word homosexual is a compound word made from the
Greek word ****, meaning âthe same,â and the Latin term sexualis, meaning âsex.â The term homosexual is of modern origin, and it was not until about a hundred and fifty years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
New Testament was the first translation to use the word homosexual.â 
--------- âThere is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for âsodomyâ or â--------â as these terms have been used in contemporary times. A -------- would have been simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite would have been an inhabitant of Moab. Any translation of New Testament passages that make use of the words sodomy or --------s, other than to simply refer to inhabitants of the town, are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.â 

Arsenokoites-â This Greek noun is formed from the joining together of the Greek adjectival prefix for male (arseno-) and the Greek word for beds (koites). Literally then it would mean, âmale beds.â It is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is the first appearance of the word in preserved Greek literature, and outside of these two verses this word does not appear at all in the Bible. The meaning of the word arsenokoites in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1
Timothy 1:10 is debated. Because of the obscurity of this word and the lack of outside sources to shed light on its meaning, we must derive its meaning from the text.â 

Malakos-â The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means âsoft.â In Matthew 11:8 it has been used as an adjective in reference to John the Baptistâs clothing. In this text, however, it is used as a noun and its meaning is debated.â The Jerusalem Bible translates the term malakos as catamites, which were young soft prepubescent âpetâ boys. It appears to be the translation that the scholars that I read seem to feel best embodies the word.

<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Genesis 1-2 ~The Creation Accounts

Some authors include the creation narratives in their discussions of homosexuality in the Bible while others do not. The ones that do not include it, skip it because it does not reference homosexual acts at all. The reason that others include it is it has been used over the years to say that homosexuality is not part of the natural order of creation, especial because homosexual sex is not procreative. Victor Paul Furnish explains,

âAccording to one interpretation of these verses, the statement about being created âmale and female)â (v. 1:27b) is connected just as closely with the preceding statement about being created in Godâs image ( vv. 1:26-27a)as it is with the blessing that follows, to âbe fruitful and multiplyâ (v. 28) If so, then it would seem to follow that âheterosexualityâ is part of what it means to bear âthe image of God,â and that any kind of homosexual relationship would be a violation of that divine message. But to read the passage that way would be to misread it, for several reasons. 

First, Genesis 1 is about nature and humankind in general Here the Hebrew word adam refers to the whole of humanity and is properly translated âhumankindâ (e.g. NRSV) which is understood to be inclusive of both âmaleâ and âfemale.â This account does not deal with human culture (the social terms, âmanâ and âwomanâ are not used in it), with particular individuals or situations, with historical circumstances, or with ethical issuesâ¦

Second, this is an âaetiologicalâ account, told in order to explain why things are as they are, not to proscribe what people ought to doâ¦

Third, the statement about creation in Godâs image and âlikenessâ is meant to emphasize that humankind is set apart from the rest of creation by reason of its special relationship to God. This relationship is shared by all members of the human species, both male and female. Nothing is said about how humankind is like God, only that this âlikenessâ is what distinguishes humankind from other species.

Thus, the distinctiveness of humankind is not that it has been created âmaleâ and âfemaleâ and enabled to reproduce itself. Precisely in these respects, humankind is like every other created species and unlike Godâ¦Indeedâ¦only Israelâs God was regarded as asexual. 

Because the text says it is ânaturalâ that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are âunnatural.â They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships
that donât lead to having children: for example, couples who are unable to have children, couples who are too old to have children, couples who have chosen not to have children and people who are single. Does that mean that these situations are also âunnaturalâ?

Thomas Schmidt and other theologians believe that Genesis 2:24 is a proscription for human marriage. According to their interpretation verse 24 says that marriage is ordained to be monogamous and heterosexual and covenantal. However, Genesis 1-2 contains no reference to homosexuality or marriage. 

In The Good Book, The Rev. Peter Gomes writes the following concerning the creation
narrative:
ââ¦the authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question âWhere do we come from?â Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a womanâ¦ The creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem.â 

In other words, the relationship of Adam and Eve is the only relationship that would make sense for an account on creation. This is a story about where humanity came from, and only a procreative relationship (i.e. heterosexual) would be appropriate for this particular story. This does not mean a procreative relationship is for everyone, or that God intends such for every, just that that is from whence humanity has come. Keep in mind that many of the saints and even Jesus lived a solitary, celibate life that does not conform to the model of the creation account. As such, we must read this account for what it is and not as Godâs infallible guide to all human relationships. If someone, in spite of this, were to base his or her opinion of homosexuality on the Creation story alone, their stance would not only be out of context, but also based on a weak argument.

<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Judges 19:1-30~

Judges 19 tells another story that is an obvious parallel to the story of Sodom. &#8220;Clearly, the story of the Levite&#8217;s concubine is indifferent to homosexuality or heterosexuality-as is the story of Sodom. A man or a woman would serve as equally valid sex objects. And rape in either case was equally heinous. Sexual orientation is not the point. In fact, neither is the sex. In both stories, the sexual assault only serves to highlight the wickedness of the townspeople.&#8221; 

<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 20:13~

Leviticus includes a collection of laws known as the Holiness Code. This comes from Leviticus 19:2: &#8220;You shall be Holy, for I the Lord your God am Holy.&#8221; The Holiness Code was developed by the Israelites who had been enslaved in Egypt, wandered the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation and diseases. They need cohesiveness, cleanliness and order in all facets of life in order to survive as a people. The Holiness Code allowed them to define their religious civic and cultural identity. The main theme throughout the Holiness Code is that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and the Canaanites, into whose land they had come. 
Victor Paul Furnish explains that the Holiness Code 
as we have it reflects ancient Israel&#8217;s concern for purity, which was understood as the state of being clean and whole as opposed to unclean and polluted. To be &#8220;pure&#8221; meant to be an unblemished specimen of one&#8217;s kind , unmixed with any other kind (which would be pollution). Within this context, therefore, &#8220;defilement&#8221; does not mean moral defilement but uncleanness in a literal physical sense. This is why the Holiness Code prohibits such things as breeding animals &#8220;with a different kind,&#8221; sowing a field &#8220;with two kinds of seeds,&#8221; and just wearing a garment that is made with two different materials&#8221; (Lev. 19:19)&#8230;It is important to note that this Levitical rule takes no specific account of what is &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;just&#8221; or &#8220;loving.&#8221; The single concern is for purity, understood in an objective, literal sense. 
Another key component to the holiness code is that male gender superiority had to be maintained. Actions in Leviticus that undermined patriarchal hierarchy and male gender superiority incurred a death penalty. A child who curses his parents could be put to death, because it threatened the social order in a patriarchal society. The Patriarch of a tribe was like the mayor of a city, for someone to challenge him would akin to treason. Adultery was also punished by death, because it was an unlawful use of a woman who was a man&#8217;s property, and it jeopardized lines of ownership and inheritance. Besides being a personal offense against the husband it involved a financial loss, the husband had paid his father-in-law a bridal price for her, and her ability to bear his children was important to the increase of his family and property. Engaging in penetrative homosexual acts was also punishable by death, because by a man taking a passive role and being penetrated, he was taking on the role assigned to a woman. Such &#8220;mixing of kinds&#8221; was impure, an abomination. By mixing genders, he had crossed a cultural boundary which could not be tolerated. 
The Leviticus verses focus on men and their role within a patriarchal society. They have nothing to do with homosexual love. In fact, lesbian sex is not even prohibited in the Holiness code. Dana Nolan Fewell and David M Gunn write, &#8220;For readers bent on culling from the Bible a blanket condemnation of &#8216;homosexuality&#8217; this omission [lesbian sex] is an embarrassment. The text does not construct an essential category of &#8216;homosexuality&#8217; but rather it defines sexual boundaries which are part of the construction of patriarchy through the privilege of male control of seed.&#8221; 
The Hebrew word toevah which is translated here as &#8220;abomination&#8221; refers to something that makes a person ritually unclean, such as having intercourse while a women is menstruating. Ritual purity was important because it distinguished the Israelites from their pagan neighbors. 
Even New Testament professor Marion Soards, who opposes homosexuality on other grounds, agrees that &#8220;it is impossible to declare the necessary relevance of these verses for our world today&#8221; He says that discerning relevance is impossible &#8220;given the historical setting and purpose of the Holiness Code in which Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 occur, and more, given that we confess in faith that Christ is the end of the Law. (Romans 10:4)&#8221; 
<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Romans 1:18-27~
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness (asebeia) and wickedness (adekia) of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 
19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (akatharsia), to the degrading (atimazesthai) of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to degrading (atimias) passions. Their women exchanged natural (physiken) intercourse for unnatural (para physin), 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural (physiken) intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless (aschemosyne) acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 


In Romans 1:18-32, Paul is writing about idolatry, that is giving our ultimate allegiance to anything in the creation instead of God, the creator. Paul has been criticizing the idolatrous Corinthian Gentiles. Paul is driving home the point that no one is righteous before God. Here in Romans, he is saying to his Jewish colleagues. (And to us!)
Victor Paul Furnish places this text in its Biblical context:
This sentence contains no specific moral instruction or commandment, nor is &#8220;homosexual&#8221; practice the topic. The subject of the sentence is God (see v. 26a), and it stands in a passage where Paul is commenting on &#8220;the revealing of God&#8217;s wrath&#8221; within the Gentile world (1:18-32). In the wider context (1:18-3:20), the topic is the human predicament and, consequently, humanity&#8217;s need for the saving grace of God. The &#8220;bottom line&#8221; is summed up by the apostle himself when he emphasizes that &#8220;there is no distinction&#8221; between Jew and Gentile, meaning humankind as a whole, because all have sinned and fall short of God&#8217;s glory (3:22b-23). In these chapters, Paul is not trying to specify what Christians should or should not do. His specific moral instructions and appeals come at the end of Romans, in chapters 12-15. 
Jack Rogers comes at it from a different angle. He explains that:
The theme of male gender dominance appears again and again in the texts that many claim deal with homosexuality, including Romans 1. Both Hebrew and Greek cultures were patriarchal. Men were and intended to remain dominant over women. Paul assumes these conventions of the cultures he is addressing. He uses terms familiar in the Greek speaking synagogues such as &#8220;impurity&#8221; (1:24) and &#8220;shameless&#8221;(1:27) which are a part of the Jewish language of purity. And he is equally familiar with terms that are rooted in Greek stoic philosophy such as &#8220;lusts&#8221; (1:24) and &#8220;passions&#8221; (1:26)&#8230;In Romans 1:26, Paul writes &#8220;Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural.&#8221; As Nissinen notes the phrase &#8220;their women&#8221; is a clear understanding of a gender role structure. But he contends, Paul&#8217;s understanding of the naturalness of men&#8217;s and women&#8217;s gender roles is not a matter of genital formation and their functional purpose, which today is considered by many the main criterion for the natural and unnatural. Rather in the culture Paul is addressing, a man and a woman each had a designated place and role in society, which could not be exchanged&#8230;In that culture, to violate those rules would be a matter of shame before God. 
For Paul, &#8220;unnatural&#8221; is a synonym for &#8220;unconventional.&#8221; It means something surprisingly out of the ordinary. The most significant evidence that &#8220;natural&#8221; meant &#8220;conventional&#8221; is that God acted &#8220;contrary to nature&#8221; (Rom 11:13-24). That is, God did something very unusual by pruning the Gentiles from a wild olive tree, where they grew in their natural state, and grafting them into the cultivated olive tree of God&#8217;s people (Rom 11:24) Since it cannot be that God sinned, to say that God did what is &#8220;contrary to nature&#8221; or &#8220;against nature&#8221; (v. 24) means that God did something surprising and out of the ordinary 
Paul is not talking in Romans 1:26-27 about a violation of the order of creation. In Paul&#8217;s vocabulary, physis (nature) is not a synonym for ktisis (creation). In speaking about what is &#8220;natural&#8221; Paul is merely accepting the conventional view of people and how they ought to behave in first-century Hellenistic-Jewish culture. 
So when the Paul says that God acts para physin regarding Jews and Gentiles it would follow that Paul has the same meaning in mind in Romans 1:26 when he also uses the words para physin to describe gender and sexual behaviors.
Another train of thought is that para physin applies to any sex act that is not procreative such as homosexual acts or intercourse during a woman&#8217;s period. Sex that was procreative was kata physin or &#8220;according to nature.&#8221; So it could logically follow that sex para physin could apply to homosexual sex acts. 

<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10~

NRSV
9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, --------s, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers&#8212;none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 

RSV
9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 


In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul is listing a bunch of types of people who, in his judgment, will not be allowed to enter the kingdom of God. According to Victor Paul Furnish, Paul has other such lists throughout scripture, but despite some overlapping terms, none of Paul&#8217;s lists are identical. 

The term translated &#8220;sexual perverts&#8221; above in the RSV translation is actually two different words. The first word is malakoi and the second term is a mysterious word arsenokoitai (Gr. &#7936;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#8150;&#964;&#945;&#953. 

According to Daniel A. Helminiak:

Various modern translations translate those words differently, arsenokoitai is rendered as &#8220;homosexuals&#8221;, &#8220;--------s&#8221;, &#8220;child molesters&#8221;,&#8221;perverts&#8221;,&#8221;homosexual perverts&#8221; or &#8220;people of infamous habits.&#8221;

Malakoi is rendered as &#8220;catamites&#8221;, &#8220;the effeminate&#8221;, &#8220;boy prostitutes&#8221; or even as &#8220;sissies.&#8221; The 1985 New Jerusalem Bible provides the most accurate translation:&#8221;the self-indulgent.&#8221; But until the Reformation in the 16th Century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th Century, the word malakoi was thought to mean &#8220;masturbators.&#8221; It seems that as predjudices change, so have translations of the Bible.

The Catholic Church&#8217;s recent New American Bible invites the same cynicism. It translated arsenokoitai as &#8220;practicing homosexuals.&#8221; How amazing! A first Century text would now seem to teach exactly what Roman Catholicism began teaching in only the mid-1970s:to be homosexual is no fault, but to engage in homogenital acts is wrong. The attempt to nuance the translation is certainly understandable and welcome. Still this translation reads as a whole new worldview into the original Greek text, for there was no elaborated awareness of sex in first-century Christianity. Even worse, &#8220;practicing homosexuals&#8221; and &#8220;homosexual perverts&#8221; in those other translations-includes women as well as men. But arsenokoitai certainly refers only to men. 

Justin Cannon further clarifies the translation of malakoi and arskenokoitai:

The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means &#8220;soft.&#8221; In Matthew 11:8 it has been used as an adjective in reference to John the Baptist&#8217;s clothing. In this text, however, it is used as a noun and its meaning is debated&#8230; The Jerusalem Bible even translates the term malakos as catamites, those young soft prepubescent &#8220;pet&#8221; boys mentioned earlier. The syntactical and historical context of 1 Timothy 1:10 reveals the meaning of the word arsenokoitai as men who sleep with prostitutes, and the fact this also fits the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems to confirm that we have found the meaning of these obscure words. It makes perfect sense that Paul would rebuke not only the prostitute, but also the &#8220;male-bedder&#8221; or the man who sleeps with that prostitute. As we see, these two verses are about this practice of prostitution and possibly pedophilia, but what about Romans 1:27. It clearly says, &#8220;&#8230;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.&#8221; Is this not clear enough? 

Be sure to take a look at Appendix 1 at the end of this paper for a
more complete list of the countless ways malakoi and arsenokoites have been translated through time. 


<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

1 Timothy 1:8-10~
NRSV
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, --------s, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 
RSV
8Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, --------s, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 


Opponents of equal rights for homosexuals cite 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as informing us about homosexuality. Interestingly, both scriptures interpretations are hinged on two words whose translations have been all over the map over the years of Bible translations, and is still debated. The two words are arsenokoites and malakos and in 1 Timothy, an additional term is added, andrapodistes. Justin Cannon has explained his translation in a way that makes sense and I think seems to follow many modern scholars take on these three words. Justin Cannon explains:
The word translated as --------s in the list above is none other than the Greek word arsenokoites. Right now we should ask, &#8220;What exactly does this word mean?&#8221; Just as you or I might do when going shopping, it is not common when writing lists to group common things together.

If you closely at 1 Timothy 1:9-10, you can see that there are structural pairs that are reflected below in the English as well as in the Greek&#8211; the original language of the New Testament:
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (RSV) &#8211; English
Group A: lawless and disobedient
Group B: ungodly and sinners
Group C: unholy and profane
Group D: murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers
Group E: immoral persons --------s kidnappers
Group F: liars perjurers&#8230;

As you will notice&#8230; there is an obvious relationship between the words in each Group. The chart below illustrates how the words in each Group are either synonyms or closely related in some manner:
Group A: lawless & disobedient = two synonyms
Group B: ungodly & sinners = two synonyms
Group C: unholy & profane = two synonyms
Group D:murderers of fathers,murderers of mothers, manslayers= three types of murderers
Group E: Immoral persons, --------s, kidnappers = ? (see below)
Group F: liars & perjurers = two synonyms

The relationship between the words in Groups A&#8211;D and Group F are evident, but what about Group E? What do &#8220;immoral persons, --------s, and kidnappers&#8221; have in common? To answer this question beyond a shadow of a doubt, we will need to explore the Greek. The three Greek words present in line E are: pornos (&#960;&#972;&#961;&#957;&#959;&#962, arsenokoites
(&#7936;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#943;&#964;&#951;&#962, and andrapodistes (&#7936;&#957;&#948;&#961;&#945;&#960;&#959;&#948;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#942;&#962. Some commonly read Bible translations include the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), New King James (NKJ), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and New English Bible
(NEB). These words were, respectively, translated in the following manner:
pornos arsenokoites andrapodistes

KJV: whoremonger &#8220;them that defile themselves with mankind&#8221; men-stealers
NIV: adulterers perverts slave traders
NKJ: fornicators --------s kidnappers
RSV: immoral persons --------s kidnappers
NEB: fornicators perverts kidnappers

As we see there is no clear-cut agreement as to what these words mean, though the above translations agree on the general sense of such words. See Appendix 1 at the end of this (paper) for a more complete list of the countless ways arsenokoites has been translated through time. To determine the precise meanings of these words, we will use a
lexicon. A lexicon is a scholarly dictionary used to determine the general meaning of biblical words. A search through the online Greek lexicon available at searchgodsword.org gives the following information on the Greek term pornos, the first of the three words:

Pornos derives from the verb pernemi meaning &#8220;to sell&#8221; and the
following three definitions are given:
1. a male who prostitutes his body to another&#8217;s lust for hire
2. a male prostitute
3. a male who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a
Fornicator

Andrapodistes, the third word, returns the following definitions:
1. slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a. of one who unjustly reduces free males to slavery
b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Arsenokoites, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koites). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could
translate this as &#8220;a man who has sex&#8221; or &#8220;male bedder.&#8221; We have, first of all, a male prostitute, the &#8220;male-bedder&#8221; (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. The New American Bible offers a footnote that might shed some light on the historical context of the time:
&#8220;The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the &#8220;cupbearer of the gods,&#8221; whose Latin name was Catamus. The term translated practicing homosexuals refers to males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys&#8230;&#8221; (New American Bible, footnote for 1 Corinthians 6:9 where arsenokoites is also used) It was a common practice for men of Paul&#8217;s time to have slave &#8220;pet&#8221; boys whom they sexually exploited. Dr. Ralph Blair explains, &#8220;The desired boys were prepubescent or at least without beards so that they seemed like females.&#8221; Today, this practice is referred to as pedophilia.
Regardless, we know that the pornos is a prostitute, and most probably a young boy prostitute. Keeping this in mind, let&#8217;s look back at what we have so far: the young male prostitute, the &#8220;male-bedder&#8221; (arsenokoites), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoites as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute&#8212;the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying, &#8220;male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them].&#8221; 
Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoites itself. If this translation of arsenokoites is correct, it should also make logical sense where it is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, either confirming or refuting this understanding of arsenokoites. 

<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Mark 10:7-8
7&#8220;For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8and the two shall become one flesh.&#8221; So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 


&#8220;The objection to this argument by some Christians is to raise up Mark 10:7-8 where Jesus states that "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." The argument is then made that this is the only form scriptural marriage can take. The issue addressed in this passage, however, is divorce. Jesus is responding to a hard-hearted test of his authority. Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text. Moreover, it is uttered by a single Christ who did indeed leave his mother and father to engage in his Incarnate mission. So long as we are dealing with a single Christ who left father and mother for a different reason, we must be open to other possible options, especially options that fulfill the ends of Christian marriage traditionally understood.&#8221; 

So where do I fall after all this research and writing? I believe that the scriptural justifications traditionally used for condemning and discriminating against GBLT people do not hold water when examined using modern scholarship and a historical&#8211;critical approach. If people are looking to know outright whether GLBT relationships and sex is wrong, they will have to look elsewhere for an answer. The Bible never addresses that question. Even more so the Bible seems deliberately unconcerned about it. From my understanding, the scriptural references are based in purity rules that forbid anything that undermined patriarchal hierarchy and male gender superiority. Paul&#8217;s writings are clearly based in those Jewish purity laws, but have had issues with translation and lack of contextual exegesis. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality. (Although Daniel A. Helminiak points out that there is compelling textual evidence that Jesus encountered a male same-sex relationship during his ministry (Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10) and said nothing about it , and that Jonathon and David (1 and 2 Samuel) were lovers. ) I think his silence on this topic is deafening as it was certainly a part of his culture at the time. The Church needs to embrace and support GLBT people, not despite scripture and tradition, but in light of scripture and tradition.
My judgment based on the analysis I have presented, falls where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah did not. I think the response must be radical Biblical hospitality. In as much as Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, Jesus said a lot about hospitality. Especially radical hospitality of those who don&#8217;t look or act like us. In the United Methodist church we say that GLBT people are persons of sacred worth, made in God&#8217;s image, saved by God&#8217;s love &#8211; but we rarely treat them that way. It is sad that our churches cannot even offer a safe place to wrestle with these questions, but instead have presented ourselves as just one more place of condemnation, ridicule, and judgment. We have been too quick to see an &#8220;issue&#8221; rather than a living, breathing, sacred person in our midst.
Personally, I rather like the analogy given by a few Biblical scholars on the topic, that is, the long narrative in Acts 10-15 that tells the story of how the church opened itself to receive Gentiles on whom God&#8217;s Spirit had fallen, without requiring them to behave like Jews. Individuals from the &#8220;sect of Pharisees&#8221; resisted this and insisted that in order to be saved, it was necessary for men to be circumcised and all people to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5) Paul and Peter had both welcomed Gentiles to the church based solely on the Holy Spirit being given to these Gentiles. These non-Jews did not have to meet any of the former Jewish requirements. Peter had challenged the church leadership by saying: &#8220;Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?&#8221; (Acts 15:10) God gave Peter a new revelation, that in God&#8217;s sight there were no clean or unclean people and therefore all were to be included in full participation in the church. Peter said, &#8220;God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us&#8221; (Acts 15:8-9)
Luke Timothy Johnson, professor of New Testament at Candler School of Theology reminds us, &#8220;Remember please the stakes: The Gentles were &#8216;by nature&#8217; unclean and were &#8216;by practice&#8217; polluted by idolatry&#8230;The decision to let Gentiles in &#8216;as such&#8217;&#8230;came into direct conflict with the accepted interpretation of Torah and what God wanted of humans.&#8221; Jeffrey Siker, accepting the analogy, gives his testimony: &#8220;Just as Peter&#8217;s experience of Cornelius in Acts 10 led him to realize that even Gentiles were receiving God&#8217;s Spirit, so my experience of various gay and lesbian Christians led me to realize that these Christians have received God&#8217;s Spirit as gays and lesbians and that the reception of the Spirit has nothing to do with sexual orientation. 

<continued>


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Bibliography
Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality. Unknown Publisher. 2009
Gomes, Peter J., The Good Book. William Morrow & Company, 1996
Gomes, Peter J., Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible in the New York Times, August 17, 1992
Helminiak, Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). Alamo Square Press, 2000
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality, Louisville, KY. Westminster John Knox Press 2009
Sample, Tex., Homosexual Marriage. http://nolongersilent.org/SampleArticle.html
Siker, Jeffrey, &#8220;How to Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible and Gentile
Inclusions.&#8221; Theology Today 51 (1995), p.221.
Siker, Jeffrey S., ed. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994
The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used from http://bible.oremus.org .


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Footnotes:

1. Richard B. Hayes, âAwaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies: The Witness of Scripture concerning Homosexuality,â in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed, Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) 

2. Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality. (Unknown Publisher. 2009)p. 5-6

3. Ibid, p. 6.

4. Ibid, p.9

5. Ibid, p.14

6. Ibid, p.14

7. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

8. See John n. Oswalt, âThe Old Testament and Homosexuality, ed. Charles W. Keysor (Grand Rapids, Zondervan) 69-71. Compare Frederick J. Gaiser, âHomosexuality and the Old Testament,â Word and World 10 (1990), esp. 162-163; John R.W. Stott âHomosexual Partnerships?â Involvement, vol. 2, Social and Sexual Relationships in the Modern World (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1985), esp. 227-29.

9. Here I (Victor Paul Furnish) am especially indebted to Phyllis A. Bird, Genesis 1-3 as a source for a contemporary Theology of Sexuality,â Ex Audito 3 (1987): 31-44.

10. Furnish, Victor Paul in in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed, Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) pp. 21-22

11. Schmidt, Thomas E. Straight and Narrow, Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1995) p.39 

12. Gomes, Peter J., The Good Book. William Morrow & Company, 1996, p. 49-50

13. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

14. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). Alamo Square Press, 2000

15. Siker, Jeffrey, âHow to Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible and Gentile Inclusions.â Theology Today 51 (1995), p.221.

16. Lindsey Louise Biddle, Hospitable Interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah in Open Hands 9, p. 18-20

17. Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality. (Unknown Publisher. 2009) pp. 8-9

18. Gomes, Peter J., Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible in the New York Times, August 17, 1992

19. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

20. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). (Alamo Square Press, 2000) p.47.


21. Rogers, Jack. Jesus, The Bible and Homosexulity, (Louisville, KY. Westminster John Knox Press 2009) p. 68

22. Furnish, Victor Paul in in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed, Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) p. 20

23. Fewell, Danna Nolan and Gunn, David M., Gender, Power and Promise:Stories of Desire and Division in the Hebrew Bible, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1993) p. 192-193

24. Rogers, Jack. Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality, (Louisville, KY. Westminster John Knox Press 2009) p.69

25. Soards, Marion L. Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) p. 17

26. ibid

27. Furnish, Victor Paul in in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed, Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) p. 25

28. Nissinen, Martii, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) p. 107

29. Ibid, p. 107

30. Rogers, Jack. Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality, (Louisville, KY. Westminster John Knox Press 2009) p. 75

31. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). (Alamo Square Press, 2000) p. 80

32. Nissinen, Martii, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) p. 107

33. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). (Alamo Square Press, 2000) p. 83

34. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

35. Revised Standard Version of the Bible is copyright Â© National Council of Churches of Christ in America

36. Furnish, Victor Paul in in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed, Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994)p.24

37. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). (Alamo Square Press, 2000) p. 106

38. Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality. (Unknown Publisher. 2009)p.14

39. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

40. Revised Standard Version of the Bible is copyright Â© National Council of Churches of Christ in America

41. Blair, Dr. Ralph. Available Online at http://www.ecinc.org/Scriptures/clbrpg.htm

42. Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background
for Contemporary Debate. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1983), p.120.

43. Cannon, Justin R., The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality. (Unknown Publisher. 2009)p.14

44. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

45. Tex Sample, Homosexual Marriage http://nolongersilent.org/SampleArticle.html

46. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality(Millenium Edition). (Alamo Square Press, 2000) pp. 127-130

47. Helminiak, Daniel A. PhD. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millenium Edition). (Alamo Square Press, 2000) p p. 123-126

48. Johnson, Luke Timothy, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church (Nashville, Abingdon Press 1996,)p.147

49. Siker, Gentile Wheat and Homosexual Christians: New Testament Directions for the Heterosexual Church, in R.L. Brawley, ed., Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), p.146


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Hey, the Greek showed up correctly, Cool!

An additional note. If anyone is engaging in hetero-sexual intercourse in which the woman is on top in any way or while the woman is menstruating, you are also engaging in an "abomination" equal in scope to ****-genital sex according to Jewish purity laws. Food for thought...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wagvan said:


> Hey, the Greek showed up correctly, Cool!
> 
> An additional note. If anyone is engaging in hetero-sexual intercourse in which the woman is on top in any way or while the woman is menstruating, you are also engaging in an "abomination" equal in scope to ****-genital sex according to Jewish purity laws. Food for thought...


Sorry, we don't live under those laws.

When people bring up Leviticus or other OT prohibitions against homosexuality, they are generally buttressing Paul's words, by showing continuity.

Speaking of Paul's words, much of your thesis fails if one takes the easiest meaning of the Greek word "arsenokoites". It was not uncommon in Paul's day for a writer to join two words to make a new word and I think Paul wrote what he meant...seldom do people twist themselves into knots trying to explain other plainly written passages, unless they have an agenda.

Take the words as you find them, not the way you want them to be.


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

No we don't live under the law, but a great many people in this thread used that as their reason why homosexuality was a sin.

They are plainly written, if you have a OT and NT era understanding, ie context. When you apply 21st century context to a 1st century text things are not always so clear. An example of that is the verse that talks about a rich man getting to heaven is like a camel going through the eye of a needle. In a modern context we would say that is impossible, so a rich man can't get into heaven. But a person living in the ME in the 1st century would understand the context of the gate to the city called "the eye of the needle" that is so narrow that in order for camels with their loads to make it into the city, the camels packs and saddles had to be removed from the camel then the camel would go through the gate and be reloaded. So rather than saying rich men can't get into heaven, it is saying, in effect "you can't take it with you". Also a person hearing those stories or even hearing them read in the original languages are not struggling with the huge amounts of issues with translations and that is a large part of the issue with literal readings of scripture without context. Particularly with many of the notoriously inaccurate translations. Biblical scholarship is there for a reason... And I have no agenda, I am a happily married, conservative mom of 7, who used to think that homosexuality was a sin until I really started examining the facts. I had to pray to God to forgive me for my ignorance. My denomination does not ordain practicing homosexuals, so I have no dog in the fight. I am just correcting misinformation about what the bible really says about homosexuality. If you have a legitimate argument with the biblical scholarship on this, I am all ears. (And there are are well respected historical contextual biblical scholars like Richard Hays at Yale Divinity who have come to the opposite conclusion to me on this. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Homosexuality-Rebellion-Against-God.aspx?p=3 is one of his articles, but you will see that he points out the exact same biblical scholarship that I do (at least NT, as he is a NT scholar...) he just draws a different conclusion than I (and many other biblical scholars) do. My post is not to say I am right and you are wrong. It is to correct the ridiculous exegesis and isogesis in the thread and to show that the answer to the OP's question is not so clear cut nor easy as people want to make it. I for one, think the fact that Jesus never spoke of it is a glaring omission. 

I would encourage you to thoughtfully read what I have written (There is nothing that I have written that a biblical scholar who disagrees with homosexuality will disagree with in my paper, other than my opinion and conclusion at the end. The biblical scholarship is sound for both sides of the argument. Even the anti-homosexuality scholars think the OT arguments about homosexuality are laughable at best) and then do a search on "Richard Hays homosexuality" and read some of his articles or even get his book that is referenced in the article he wrote that I linked. I think Hays makes an EXCELLENT point about "homosexual believers (who) "draw their identity from their sexuality" and thus to shift the ground of their identity subtly and idolatrously away from God." That is wrong.
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chr...lity-Rebellion-Against-God.aspx#ixzz1NHvZ5tRP
Also, you might read :Furnish, Victor Paul in in "Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate", ed, Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) If I can think of some other biblical scholars who share Hays' POV I will come back and repost them. I would just encourage people to do the research in current biblical scholarship and prayerfully draw your conclusions. If you do that, and disagree with me, I'm fine with that. We can even have a thoughtful, engaging, respectful discussion and be okay with drawing different conclusions. Don't repeat the same ignorant dreck that you heard someone else spout off and take it as gospel and don't think a quick literal reading of the KJV is going to give you clarity on God's word on homosexuality. (and that is not aimed at any individual person, to be clear...)


----------



## wagvan (Jan 29, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Speaking of Paul's words, much of your thesis fails if one takes the easiest meaning of the Greek word "arsenokoites". It was not uncommon in Paul's day for a writer to join two words to make a new word and I think Paul wrote what he meant...seldom do people twist themselves into knots trying to explain other plainly written passages, unless they have an agenda.


I am not sure of your point, as that is exactly what I say in my paper:

"Arsenokoites, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koites). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could
translate this as âa man who has sexâ or âmale bedder.â We have, first of all, a male prostitute, the âmale-bedderâ (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer."

I go on to explain that the male prostitute is most likely a child and it is a case of pederasty. And pointing out all the many different ways that that word (and a few others) have been translated over the years to suit the current agenda.

But you are arguing with me by agreeing with what I wrote?:huh:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

wow, I was incommunicado for nine days, and this thread is still going....


----------



## seagullplayer (Nov 6, 2008)

NoClue said:


> wow, I was incommunicado for nine days, and this thread is still going....


Attempted justification for sin started in the garden, it appears as strong today as ever. Nine days ain't nothing...


----------



## Louisiana Mom (Oct 15, 2004)

poppy said:


> I don't think we look at it as being worse. I think it is because of the push by many to make it normal. If they were trying to convince us murder or stealing were normal and we should accept it, we would be discussing those too.


Just because the media & some keep saying it's ok doesn't mean it is.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wagvan said:


> I am not sure of your point, as that is exactly what I say in my paper:
> 
> "Arsenokoites, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koites). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could
> translate this as âa man who has sexâ or âmale bedder.â We have, first of all, a male prostitute, the âmale-bedderâ (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer."
> ...


Nope.

I think you are trying to stretch Paul's words past what he was talking about.

What was the attitude of first century society and particularly Jewish society towards homosexuality? Yep, abomination would be about the right word...now, take Paul's views on homosexuality, since he was well versed in Jewish Law (Paul's father was a Pharisee as was his father), look at what he is writing and tell me how you can stretch that to pederasty?

You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

This thread has been going on for awhile now ... OK, let's get down to brass tacks. 

Let me preface my remarks by saying that they apply to normal, mature adults ... not to toddlers, or to psychopaths. Yes, there may be some exceptions, but generally speaking ... 

People who walk in the light do not need rules, any more than a conscientious driver needs speed limit signs. Both will do the right thing naturally, because they are predisposed to strive for goodness.

People want rules NOT because rules tell them how to avoid being bad, but because rules spell out how much they can get away with without getting into trouble. "Honor thy father and mother," says the Ten Commandments -- read with glee by the fellow who has an issue with his _grandparent_. 

People -- religious people -- have performed all sorts of interesting contortions to make the official rules excuse their bad behavior. A Jewish fellow once told me (although this may be apocryphal) that somewhere in their book of religious laws (I assume the Talmud), special dispensation was granted in the case of a man who fell off a roof while naked and sporting an erection, and inadvertently deflowered a woman who happened to be lying on the ground! (Yeah, right, buddy.  ) Along the same lines, I believe Islam allows men to dodge the requirement to be faithful to their wives by permitting hours-long "marriages" to be contracted with prostitutes. Fulfills the letter of the law, perhaps, but falls a bit short of the spirit, don't you think?

Remember Matthew 18? "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, &#8220;Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?&#8221; Jesus answered, &#8220;I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."

Peter probably thought he was being righteous by not only following but exceeding the rules. Christ pointed out that the rules aren't what's important, but what's in your heart. 

Achieving goodness is a bit tougher than merely following the rules. But I think we all know good people, people who walk in the light -- I've certainly met a few. What's the other parable, about judging a tree by its fruit? When you find someone who is good, wise and truthful -- as evident by their fruit -- you will come to realize that it doesn't matter what color they are, or what language they speak, or what god they worship (if any), or whether they insert Tab A in Slot B, or some other variation. :shrug:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Clearly, you've put a great deal of thought into your beliefs and I applaud that. I disagree with you, as specified below, but personally I'd much rather deal with a rational non-believer than a blind-believer who doesn't really know what they believe or why they believe it.



willow_girl said:


> This thread has been going on for awhile now ... OK, let's get down to brass tacks.
> 
> Let me preface my remarks by saying that they apply to normal, mature adults ... not to toddlers, or to psychopaths. Yes, there may be some exceptions, but generally speaking ...
> 
> People who walk in the light do not need rules, any more than a conscientious driver needs speed limit signs. Both will do the right thing naturally, because they are predisposed to strive for goodness.


This would be true if everyone had perfect knowledge of the world and circumstance of the world around them. Unfortunately, no one I know of does. Thus, rules like speed limits are necessary.



> People want rules NOT because rules tell them how to avoid being bad, but because rules spell out how much they can get away with without getting into trouble. "Honor thy father and mother," says the Ten Commandments -- read with glee by the fellow who has an issue with his _grandparent_.


That's a pretty cynical assesment of humanity. People who have no interest in pushing the envelope of acceptability can also want rules. There are plenty of objective reasons for this - foremost is to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of acceptability. All adults are aware that any two or more intelligent, rational, well-intentioned individuals can look at a given situation or set of facts and come away with radically different understandings. A common set of rules provides context.



> People -- religious people -- have performed all sorts of interesting contortions to make the official rules excuse their bad behavior. A Jewish fellow once told me (although this may be apocryphal) that somewhere in their book of religious laws (I assume the Talmud), special dispensation was granted in the case of a man who fell off a roof while naked and sporting an erection, and inadvertently deflowered a woman who happened to be lying on the ground! (Yeah, right, buddy.  ) Along the same lines, I believe Islam allows men to dodge the requirement to be faithful to their wives by permitting hours-long "marriages" to be contracted with prostitutes. Fulfills the letter of the law, perhaps, but falls a bit short of the spirit, don't you think?


Obvious examples of people trying to game the system. It isn't logical though that everyone everywhere is always trying to game the system.

The premise of religion isn't about rules. It is an individual and collective acknowledgement that humans, left to their own devices and intellect can rationalize a great deal of behaviors that are objectively 'bad'. Coupled with a belief in a higher power, religion is a surrender to an external set of rules, independent of rationalization. When individuals consciously choose to adopt this - there isn't any room for gaming the system. All these technical rules come about when religion becomes a cultural or environmental default rather than a moral endeavor.



> Remember Matthew 18? "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, âLord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?â Jesus answered, âI tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."
> 
> Peter probably thought he was being righteous by not only following but exceeding the rules. Christ pointed out that the rules aren't what's important, but what's in your heart.
> 
> Achieving goodness is a bit tougher than merely following the rules. But I think we all know good people, people who walk in the light -- I've certainly met a few. What's the other parable, about judging a tree by its fruit? When you find someone who is good, wise and truthful -- as evident by their fruit -- you will come to realize that it doesn't matter what color they are, or what language they speak, or what god they worship (if any), or whether they insert Tab A in Slot B, or some other variation. :shrug:


You are correct that being good is about more than following the rules. It does not follow, however, that being good is the same thing as breaking the rules.

The issue at hand, the one that started the thread, isn't specifically about being good. It's about being Christian AND Homosexual. I happen to believe that it's possible to be good without being a Christian. I also believe that in order to be a good Christian, one has to follow the rules of Christianity. Regardless of whether or not we judge, critique, or admonish others who claim to be Christian, the rules of Christianity are such that all human passions - including romantic love, the urge to procreate, and the biological urge for sex - are to be subordinated to what all Christians believe is the greater good. 

Lately, science has informed us that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is a state of existence. Whether or not this is true or not is irrelevant. Christians have always believed that that humans have had natural urges, cravings, desires, etc. but that very few of them were actually acceptable to act upon in accordance with the rules we have all voluntarily chosen to accept as Christians. Christianity doesn't put down the law as homosexuality is evil and heterosexuality is good. It puts down the law as all human sexuality is dangerous, and that there is only one acceptable context for it - that of a husband and a wife.

Now, if your motivation is to find a justification for a homosexual relationship, or an adulterous relationship, or a promiscuous relationship, history shows us that human intellect will find a way to manipulate any given set of rules - whether it is Christianity or the US Constitution to rationalize it. If however, your motivation is to be good and Christian you try to change yourself, and not find a loophole in the rules.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Noclue, I think I will let you try to be a Christian ... I will focus on merely trying to be _good._

(Thank you for your thoughtful reply.)


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"People want rules NOT because rules tell them how to avoid being bad, but because rules spell out how much they can get away with without getting into trouble."

Many of the religious people I've known want rules not because the rules tell THEM how to behave, but so they can tell other people how to behave. I used to work with one guy who said he used his religion to decide how to vote on every question. He also said he loved freedom for everybody. I told him if he tried to vote his religion into our laws, he loves his religion more than he loves freedom for everybody. Nothing wrong with that, but it's good to have the truth out in the open.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

If you know enough to be pastor then you should know enough that if you are gay you cant be a pastor, a priest or a rabbi if you actively embrace that alternative lifestyle. I think some of these openly gay people who try to force themselves into christian leadership rolls do it because they hate christianity and want to destroy and make a mockery of it and not because they actually care about being christians.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Willow, if you or others are doing what you consider to be the right thing, then you are following a rule. You chose one way over another by virtue of some kind of reasoning. Religious rules are a form of reasoning also. if you believe they truly are communications from god then they are god's reasoning.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

City Bound said:


> If you know enough to be pastor then you should know enough that if you are gay you cant be a pastor, a priest or a rabbi if you actively embrace that alternative lifestyle. *I think some of these openly gay people who try to force themselves into christian leadership rolls do it because they hate christianity and want to destroy and make a mockery of it and not because they actually care about being christians*.



*Ephesians 6:10-20*



It is the evil one, using whatever human is available, to destroy as many souls as he can.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Willow, if you or others are doing what you consider to be the right thing, then you are following a rule. You chose one way over another by virtue of some kind of reasoning. Religious rules are a form of reasoning also.


I think religious rules are designed to allow people to feel holy even if their hearts look like the inside of a septic tank. 

Think about it. The Israelites had myriad rules, rules governing virtually every situation imaginable. Jesus said that all the laws of the prophets come down to two things: Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.

Now, which is more difficult to follow -- the Israelites' rules, or Christ's?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> I think *religious rules* are designed to allow people to feel holy even if their hearts look like the inside of a septic tank.


You are TOTALLY right. 



> Think about it. The Israelites had myriad rules, rules governing virtually every situation imaginable. Jesus said that all the laws of the prophets come down to two things: Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.


Totally right again.....

*Luke 10:27-28 *
27 He answered: &#8220;&#8216;Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind&#8217;[a]; and, &#8216;Love your neighbor as yourself.&#8217;[b]&#8221; 28 &#8220;You have answered correctly,&#8221; Jesus replied. &#8220;Do this and you will live.&#8221; 
*Footnotes:*

Luke 10:27 Deut. 6:5
Luke 10:27 Lev. 19:18



> Now, which is more difficult to follow -- the Israelites' rules, or Christ's?


Both, are impossible, if you do not have faith.
*
Hebrews 11:6 *
6 And without faith it is *impossible* to please God, because anyone who comes to him *must believe that he exists *and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Willow, I agree. Most rules in religion are there to guide the faithful to a higher state, to clense and awaken them. I guess you can think of them more as tools, weapons, or road signs that help you build, defend, and navigate your way. For faithful people, when they are unsure of what to do or how to handle something in life, it safer for them to take shelter of what they believe to be god's love and guidance in the form of his written word. Some how or other god's word rings true in your life, if not directly at the moment at hand, then some where down the road. Living a faithful life bares good fruit.

You are right, there are way too many people out there taking on a pretentious holy attitude, and that has nothing to do with faith, that is just pure worldliness, egotism, fear, and self promotion. Some churches have used god's words and teachings to oppress, rob, and dominate church members and all that is not of god. Those people who twist and use god's word in such a selfish and destructive way are just false prophets and worldly antichrists.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> This thread has been going on for awhile now ... OK, let's get down to brass tacks.
> 
> Let me preface my remarks by saying that they apply to normal, mature adults ... not to toddlers, or to psychopaths. Yes, there may be some exceptions, but generally speaking ...


Agreed




willow_girl said:


> People who walk in the light do not need rules, any more than a conscientious driver needs speed limit signs. Both will do the right thing naturally, because they are predisposed to strive for goodness.


I agree to a point. My area of disagreement is the fact your "light" maybe a different color than mine. This is proven by the vast differences in cultures around the world. 




willow_girl said:


> People want rules NOT because rules tell them how to avoid being bad, but because rules spell out how much they can get away with without getting into trouble. "Honor thy father and mother," says the Ten Commandments -- read with glee by the fellow who has an issue with his _grandparent_.


As you should know this is the very thing the Jews were doing. They were, or were trying, to follow the letter of the law not the intent. If you do that then you can interpret it in such a way as to allow you to dishonor your grandparents. But if you are following God's intent you will honor your entire family, not just mom and dad. So your thinking is flawed.





willow_girl said:


> Achieving goodness is a bit tougher than merely following the rules. But I think we all know good people, people who walk in the light -- I've certainly met a few. What's the other parable, about judging a tree by its fruit? When you find someone who is good, wise and truthful -- as evident by their fruit -- you will come to realize that it doesn't matter what color they are, or what language they speak, or what god they worship (if any), or whether they insert Tab A in Slot B, or some other variation. :shrug:


But there *ARE* some rules set by God which has set down which must be followed no matter how good you are in other areas. The main one is you are either following Him or not. And with Him there is no gray area. You can't say "Well God, I agree with and follow all Your teaching except that adultery thing." and expect Him to go; "Fine, what ever."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I think religious rules are designed to allow people to feel holy even if their hearts look like the inside of a septic tank.
> 
> Think about it. The Israelites had myriad rules, rules governing virtually every situation imaginable. Jesus said that all the laws of the prophets come down to two things: Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.
> 
> Now, which is more difficult to follow -- the Israelites' rules, or Christ's?


If you check you will find they are the same. One is like a written contract in today's court system, the other is like a good old fashion handshake deal. In both cases people break the agreement but in one they take their case before others and say "Well the contract did not _specifically_ say I couldn't do that." In the other the situation is handled privately between the two parties.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But there ARE some rules set by God which has set down which must be followed no matter how good you are in other areas. The main one is you are either following Him or not. And with Him there is no gray area. You can't say "Well God, I agree with and follow all Your teaching except that adultery thing." and expect Him to go; "Fine, what ever."


For me, the jury's still out as to whether God even exists. I don't think I'll get a definitive answer -- at least not in this lifetime -- and I'm content to leave it at that. :shrug:

I do like the way Jesus summed up human morality so succinctly. Personally, I favor the Golden Rule. (Some variation of it exists in virtually all the world's major religions.) Anything additional probably is superfluous, IMO.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Whether god exist or not can not be proven ether way. You can not prove god exists or does not exist, that is why religion is more philosophy and personal belief.
Some people say the bible or some other religious book is proof that god exist because it is believed that god dictated the contents to humans, but who have we gotten that story from, the humans who wrote the books. 

Live and let live. Religious people cant seem to do that, and nonreligious people cant do it ether.

I have found nothing in the old testiment that advocates the amount of hate people feel for gays in america. Sodom and gamora was not destroyed by god because of homosexuality alone, it was destroyed because the collective wickedness or rape, incest, homosexuality, beastiality and all other kind of filth had gotten to bad.

Other then that episode, I only saw few other mentions to homosexuality in the old testiment. Moses said it was an unclean sexual act and that it should not be done, but if two people have fallen into that temptation then they must bathe, burn all clothing that semen had touched and the two people should make efforts to cleanse their desires.
BEastiality is totally sick, but all the bible says about beastiality is that it is fallen and if a person is found doing it the animal must be slaughtered and person must wash and change his or her ways.
hate the sin, not the sinner.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I find that very few people in America "hate" gays.

Americans are generally pretty much live and let live, at least on a personal basis.

Secondly, I find many people have too broad a definition of "hate". Some go so far as to define any nonacceptance of someone else's lifestyle as hate.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

It's worthy to note that whenever homosexuality is mentioned in scripture it is the context of 'lust'. The same thing that makes for heterosexual sins. Sexual sins comes from satisfying a need or control of another person. It is not motivated by love or a partnership.

At no time does the Bible condemn sex of any type when done in a loving and committed relationship. Notice at no time is being gay even mentioned when same sex partners in a _committed_ relationship where love is the motivation and sex is only the result of that love. 

Even if you use the argument that same-sex marriage or partnerships didn't exist in biblical times, didn't God know the future and would have addressed it regardless; considering it's such a huge issue today?

If it's such a horrible sin (above all others), then why is homosexuality only mentioned 12 times in the Bible, yet in comparison, the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Karen said:


> *It's worthy to note that whenever homosexuality is mentioned in scripture it is the context of 'lust'.* The same thing that makes for heterosexual sins. Sexual sins comes from satisfying a need or control of another person. It is not motivated by love or a partnership.
> 
> *At no time does the Bible condemn sex of any type when done in a loving and committed relationship*. Notice at no time is being gay even mentioned when same sex partners in a _committed_ relationship where love is the motivation and sex is only the result of that love.
> 
> ...


Please re-check Scripture.
You are incorrect. You are so grossly incorrect.

*Leviticus 18
* 
*Leviticus 18:22 
&#8220;&#8216;Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. *

God was clear.
Homosexuality was an abomination. 
To justify it is........


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> God was clear.
> Homosexuality was an abomination.
> To justify it is equally, abominable.


No. Let's be truthful. _The people who wrote the Bible_ considered homosexuality an abomination.

We can't possibly know what God(s) thinks of homosexuality. We don't even know whether God(s) exist. 

It is sheer human speculation. 

The only question is whether you believe Person A's speculation, or Person B's. :shrug:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> No. Let's be truthful. _The people who wrote the Bible_ considered homosexuality an abomination.
> 
> We can't possibly know what God(s) thinks of homosexuality. We don't even know whether God(s) exist.
> 
> ...


Willow, dahling.......

For a Believer, one who BELIEVES that The Holy Spirit penned Scripture, for those who BELIEVE that the Word of God is infallible, for those who BELIEVE in Christ.......
It is clear.

For those who are *not* Believers, sealed by the Holy Spirit, it is all "foolishness" to them......

For those who claim to be Believers but preach a different gospel, they are falsehoods, anti-Christs.

I am only speaking, to Believers!!

For me, if I went to a thread talking about the book of ______ (pick a religion) that I have no faith in, or little knowledge of....and then inject my opinion....that's all it would be for other followers / believers of that religion, my opinion, which will not line up or even come close to the core of their beliefs.
Does that make sense?
That is why what I type, is meant for Believers.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Christianity doesn't put down the law as homosexuality is evil and heterosexuality is good. It puts down the law as all human sexuality is dangerous, and that there is only one acceptable context for it - that of a husband and a wife.


I have always found it a little suspect that God supposedly gave heterosexuals -- who are, of course, in the majority -- a sanctioned outlet for their natural desires, but (again, supposedly) denied the same to homosexuals.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Willow, dahling.......


Why, hello, Zsa Zsa. Didn't realize you'd taken up homesteading ... or religion, for that matter.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Why, hello, Zsa Zsa. Didn't realize you'd taken up homesteading ... or religion, for that matter.


I meant it in the most affectionate way!!:buds::kiss:
And you know I don't do "religion"!!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Likewise.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> For me, the jury's still out as to whether God even exists. I don't think I'll get a definitive answer -- at least not in this lifetime -- and I'm content to leave it at that. :shrug:
> 
> I do like the way Jesus summed up human morality so succinctly. Personally, I favor the Golden Rule. (Some variation of it exists in virtually all the world's major religions.) Anything additional probably is superfluous, IMO.


I can't remember the guy's name but he wrote a book about how he set out to use logic and science to prove there was no God (IIRC, he was an atheist) and the evidence he found convinced him otherwise. If someone here doesn't come up with his name I'll ask the wife later.

Also there was a lawyer who was challenged to try, in his mind, Christ to see if it could be proven Christ was not the messiah, the lawyer was a practicing Jew (again IIRC). And again if no one else comes up with the name I'll ask the wife.

So you might want to do some more searching yourself.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> No. Let's be truthful. _The people who wrote the Bible_ considered homosexuality an abomination.
> 
> We can't possibly know what God(s) thinks of homosexuality. We don't even know whether God(s) exist.
> 
> ...


You are trying to de-link the authors from the Inspired Word of God.

I guess one can make that point, if one does not believe. For those who do, the argument is childish and laughable.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I can't remember the guy's name but he wrote a book about how he set out to use logic and science to prove there was no God (IIRC, he was an atheist) and the evidence he found convinced him otherwise. If someone here doesn't come up with his name I'll ask the wife later.
> 
> Also there was a lawyer who was challenged to try, in his mind, Christ to see if it could be proven Christ was not the messiah, the lawyer was a practicing Jew (again IIRC). And again if no one else comes up with the name I'll ask the wife.
> 
> So you might want to do some more searching yourself.


Not sure about the second book, but the first sounds like Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ."

I've read it ... it's probably still around here somewhere. :shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Not sure about the second book, but the first sounds like Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ."
> 
> I've read it ... it's probably still around here somewhere. :shrug:


I think that's the guy. The second one is Jay Sekulow.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

There are probably just as many books by people who read the Bible and decided it was not true, going from being religious to being atheists(or at least agnostics). They can be found if you're looking for them.:thumb:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> There are probably just as many books by people who read the Bible and decided it was not true, going from being religious to being atheists(or at least agnostics). They can be found if you're looking for them.:thumb:


YOU are totally right!
That's why if and when I read a book, outside of the Bible, I read it with one crooked eye.
1. It's a human being writing the book, therefore, not infallible.
2. It is either that humans interpertation, or misinterpertation.
3. The Spirit speaks to us, individually. He never contridicts Scripture, but each of us is in a different place in our walk. One book may be good for a new Believer, where another book may be WAY to deep. (if that makes sense) 
4. I don't trust humans.:smack

So, back to the OP, homosexuality is a sin and to Ordain someone to lead a flock of Believers, is blasphemous.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So, back to the OP, homosexuality is a sin and to Ordain someone to lead a flock of Believers, is blasphemous.


But here's the kewl thing: This is America. You can worship god(s) any way you want (or not at all). You can worship whatever god(s) you want! You can make up an entirely new religion somewhat based on the Bible (for instance, like Joseph Smith did, aka Latter-Day Saints). You can even make up a religion that isn't based on the Bible (L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics) and garner thousands of followers. 

And all of these believers and non-believers coexist more or less peacefully in this great nation most of the time. That's pretty amazing, no? :shrug:


----------

