Common Ground: Homosexuality and the Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
HOWEVER, I also am realistic enough to recognize that many gay men and women do believe in Christianity, in particular the Christian sects that consider homosexuality to be sinful.

The common ground we’re discussing here is for the benefit of that population. If believers can genuinely accept gay brothers and sisters into their congregations, rather than judging and disparaging them, their path will be a little easier.
[/quote]
that’s a nice pile of cognitive dissonance there.

How will real christians ever be able to truly accept homosexuals?

It is for instance debatable whether women should be completly at their husband’s mercy, because the holy text is somewhat ambiguous with that topic.
But the scripture itself condemns homosexual extremely harshly multiple times.
It’s very, extremely clear.

[quote]forlife wrote:
If Christians recognize that people can’t change their orientation, but are still able to control their thoughts and behavior, then at least they won’t guilt gays into entering damaging reparative therapy programs.

Gay believers have a heavy cross to bear, and anything we can do to make that cross lighter is a service.
[/quote]

Let me honestly tell you,what you ask is wether to tread upon the path of needles or the path of pins, when instead your feet could peregrinate on grass or leaves.

You’ll never achieve anything then a shaky compromise.
These two views -archaic vs modern, liberally educated- aren’t reconcilable.

The thing is, there seems to be nothing bad in having, as you say, gay believers (as bizarre as that sounds) find a little christian haven.
But what it would do foremost is strengthen the side, that, if gained enough momentum, will, once more, try to oppress, condemn and burn our world right into another dark age.

There’s greener grasses and friendlier pastures, not only for gays but also for the rest of humanity. Let’s go there.
[/quote]

It’s not cognitive dissonance, I’m just being realistic.

No matter what you or I believe, there will always be gay men and women with conservative Christian beliefs who need to reconcile those beliefs with their sexual orientation. For these people, abandoning or changing their beliefs is not an option. The best we can hope for is to educate conservative Christians on the nature of homosexuality, and ask them to consider those facts, along with their religious convictions, in their treatment of gay believers. Sending them into quack reparative therapy programs, or trying to exorcise the gay demon out of them, is going to do more harm than good. Telling them to marry and have children despite being gay is also not likely to have a positive outcome. Celibacy is less than ideal, but it is still preferable to those other options.

62

Being the young Christian man that I am, I would not accept a gay into my church no matter what he believed or what he chose to do with his sexuality. Homosexuals shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. That’s that. Case closed. Unless they decide to change their ways, homosexuals will go to hell for their sins. It’s clearly stated in the Bible. I know it may seem a little harsh, but it’s what the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod teaches and it’s what I believe.

If a homosexual decides to change his ways, that’s awesome. I’m completely fine with that. But they are seen as immoral in the eyes of God and cannot receive his gift of everlasting life.

Luke

63

Being the young Christian man that I hope you are you know nothing of either your own sin or the Word and grace of the holy merciful God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB

Luke 18:9-14

[quote]9-And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10-"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11-"The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12-“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.” 13-"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” 14-“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” >>>[/quote]Take it from a much older Christian who knows first hand. If you are His and you hang on to this holier than thou attitude? You WILL receive most unpleasant discipline at the hands of He who places “haughty eyes” first on His list of things He hates. Proverbs 6:17

64

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Being the young Christian man that I hope you are you know nothing of either your own sin or the Word and grace of the holy merciful God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB

Luke 18:9-14

[quote]9-And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10-"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11-"The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12-“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.” 13-"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” 14-“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” >>>[/quote]Take it from a much older Christian who knows first hand. If you are His and you hang on to this holier than thou attitude? You WILL receive most unpleasant discipline at the hands of He who places “haughty eyes” first on His list of things He hates. Proverbs 6:17
[/quote]

Tirib and I certainly do not agree on many issues of faith, but on this one I am with him 100%.

65

I haven’t specifically researched the Missouri Synod’s view, but I refuse to believe from what I do know of them that they hold that homosexuals are ipso facto reprobate one n all with no hope of redemption. Not even the very conservative WELS Lutherans would say that. Regardless, the apostle Paul unequivocally disagrees. Corinth was an absolute cesspool of debauchery and perversion. That church was full of redeemed filth. Exactly the folks Jesus delights in confounding the self righteous with by doing mighty works of transformation in their lives.

66

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sounds like a flaming gay priest would fit right in with Jesus and his beloved motley band of believers :wink:
[/quote]

Eh, I don’t think so. If you look at the “composition” of the character of his friends, they went from left of center no bodies to what people today would consider “bad” religious people. I don’t see it but I guess some people think that if someone has conviction of their religion they are bad.

They were zealots though, they hadn’t learned charity (though Mary was pretty good at it, but we can chalk that up from being saved from being stoned and being a woman). The difference between that and a priest who is open about his SSA is that the priest would be going against what Jesus taught, while the rest can possibly be accused of over-simplifying his teachings and missing the entire picture.[/quote]

Why would the priest be going against what Jesus taught? We’re talking about a priest who, despite being attracted to people of the same gender, controls his thoughts and actions according to what the Catholic church believes Jesus taught.[/quote]

Using the verbiage flaming gay gives the connotation that the priest is open about his SSA.

67

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

To be clear, I’m talking about a faithful member who had same sex attractions but never acted on them. If others knew about his sexual orientation, but he was 100% faithful in thought and deed, could he still be ordained as a priest?[/quote]

Depends on those others. Some people just aren’t educated enough etc. to understand. If it were a village full of simple people (not saying this in a derogatory manner), probably not. If those others understand that his attraction is a desire he doesn’t act upon, I’d guess that he might be.
It depends on the bishops best judgment, whether people knowing of his SSA would “stumble” (or how much they would) because of this. The priest, apart from his virtue, must be trusted by his parishioners in order to be able to do his “job”. (talking about parish priests, here. If he were in a monastery…or simply choose to serve somewhere else… based on Canon, he would be certainly ordained)

Better and shorter: he could be ordained, but probably he couldn’t serve (I don’t know the English term for this) in the parish where his SSA is known. “probably” and “couldn’t”, depending on the parishioners.

Now, while “sins of the flesh” ARE in a different category (and, indeed, of a greater gravity. Here included are fornication, adultery, bestiality, sodomy. Masturbation is oh-so-much smaller), of course murder and sadism, for example, or renouncing one’s faith, are much worse.

And, homosexuality is as bad as adultery. (sometimes, adultery might be considered worse)

And

@Schwarzfahrer:

yep, homosexuality will not, EVER, stop being a sin. Neither will adultery. Neither will premarital sex. “Accepting” can only mean that people understand this is nor better nor worse than adultery, and that if they’re lieing, wife-beating, conniving…creatures… they’re not better than a “homosexual” just because they don’t have sex with the same sex.[/quote]

That seems fair to me, given your religious beliefs. The only question I have is why would the opinions of parishioners have any bearing on one’s worthiness to serve? If the priest is holy before god, and the flaw is in the parishioner who refuses to accept the priest as if he is wiser than god, shouldn’t the priest be allowed to serve?

I’m thinking of 1 Corinthians 1:26-30:

[quote]26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were
called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were
influential; not many were of noble birth.

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -
and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are,

29 so that no one may boast before him.[/quote]

68

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Being the young Christian man that I am, I would not accept a gay into my church no matter what he believed or what he chose to do with his sexuality. Homosexuals shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. That’s that. Case closed. Unless they decide to change their ways, homosexuals will go to hell for their sins. It’s clearly stated in the Bible. I know it may seem a little harsh, but it’s what the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod teaches and it’s what I believe.

If a homosexual decides to change his ways, that’s awesome. I’m completely fine with that. But they are seen as immoral in the eyes of God and cannot receive his gift of everlasting life.

Luke[/quote]

I’m confused. You said you wouldn’t accept a gay person no matter what they do with their sexuality, yet you say you would welcome them if they change their ways. What do you mean by “change their ways”?

69

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sounds like a flaming gay priest would fit right in with Jesus and his beloved motley band of believers :wink:
[/quote]

Eh, I don’t think so. If you look at the “composition” of the character of his friends, they went from left of center no bodies to what people today would consider “bad” religious people. I don’t see it but I guess some people think that if someone has conviction of their religion they are bad.

They were zealots though, they hadn’t learned charity (though Mary was pretty good at it, but we can chalk that up from being saved from being stoned and being a woman). The difference between that and a priest who is open about his SSA is that the priest would be going against what Jesus taught, while the rest can possibly be accused of over-simplifying his teachings and missing the entire picture.[/quote]

Why would the priest be going against what Jesus taught? We’re talking about a priest who, despite being attracted to people of the same gender, controls his thoughts and actions according to what the Catholic church believes Jesus taught.[/quote]

Using the verbiage flaming gay gives the connotation that the priest is open about his SSA.[/quote]

Not necessarily, think about Pat’s example of a priest that everyone knows is gay, but he is still respected and allowed to serve. Is it any different than people being aware of other struggles, and why would it matter as long as the priest is faithful in thought and deed?

70

[quote]forlife wrote:
Using the verbiage flaming gay gives the connotation that the priest is open about his SSA.[/quote]

Not necessarily, think about Pat’s example of a priest that everyone knows is gay, but he is still respected and allowed to serve. Is it any different than people being aware of other struggles, and why would it matter as long as the priest is faithful in thought and deed?[/quote]

I understand not necessarily, but particularly it is used that way. My point being that you don’t see people labeling those with other struggles like “raging alcoholic” priest, or “greasy overeating” priest. :slight_smile:

71

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Using the verbiage flaming gay gives the connotation that the priest is open about his SSA.[/quote]

Not necessarily, think about Pat’s example of a priest that everyone knows is gay, but he is still respected and allowed to serve. Is it any different than people being aware of other struggles, and why would it matter as long as the priest is faithful in thought and deed?[/quote]

I understand not necessarily, but particularly it is used that way. My point being that you don’t see people labeling those with other struggles like “raging alcoholic” priest, or “greasy overeating” priest. :)[/quote]

True, I’m just saying that if a parishioner knows the priest likes alcohol, food, or people of the same gender it shouldn’t matter as long as the priest isn’t a drunkard, a glutton, or a practicing homosexual.

72

[quote]forlife wrote:
True, I’m just saying that if a parishioner knows the priest likes alcohol, food, or people of the same gender it shouldn’t matter as long as the priest isn’t a drunkard, a glutton, or a practicing homosexual.[/quote]

Yeah, it shouldn’t. But, it still does unfortunately.

73

[quote]forlife wrote:

That seems fair to me, given your religious beliefs. The only question I have is why would the opinions of parishioners have any bearing on one’s worthiness to serve? If the priest is holy before god, and the flaw is in the parishioner who refuses to accept the priest as if he is wiser than god, shouldn’t the priest be allowed to serve?
[/quote]

Their opinions have no bearing on his worthiness. But if they don’t want/trust him as their shepherd, practically, he can’t do his work.

On the other hand…
…
…he might, in a short time, manage to make them understand that there’s a great big difference between a thought that passes through somebody’s mind and deed. So, he might actually be ordained even in that parish - as, unlike in some churches, he wouldn’t be a “homosexual” priest, but a celibate priest - and - come to think of it - people might get to appreciate him. If not, he could simply go to another parish and that’s that.
Also, during his ordination, his bishop could actually tell the people that their priest is whiter than fresh snow/pure etc. (if people know he has/had an SSA, why not let them know he didn’t/doesn’t act on it? He could and would actually be a GREAT example for many who fight/give in to sin, be that of any kind, since his fight is probably much greater that theirs)

Now, if his parishioners are all drunkard bigot undiscerning “rednecks” (or whatever else; no, I don’t have anything against rednecks, and don’t imply that they are drunkards or bigots or undiscerning)…it would be bad for both the parishioners and the priest…
By bigot, I mean someone who is hateful and aggressive with his faith (lacks ~love and wisdom - love, you understand why, wisdom because he doesn’t understand that no one, ever, will listen to someone who’s aggressive and hateful)