Homosexuality and the Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

No, because customs are different.

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

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

Exactly the point of the article.

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

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

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

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

No, you are practicing willful ignorance.
The other poster was right. willful ignorance is impossible to argue with.

By your logic because I think a psalm telling me to sing should be contextual to what psalms are, that means the 10 commandments have to be considered contextual.

And even if that were true, you have provided no evidence that calling homosexuality a sin has changed in today’s context.

42

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

So clearly the church should condone beastiality.

43

There is no getting around the fact that homosexuality is condemned from cover to cover in not only the bible but every religious text I am familiar with. There really is no way to get around that fact. Brining it into the church is simply not going to happen, end of story. It’s not and never will be an accepted life style in the church. Homosexuality will be regarded as grievous sin always. Few things are explicit and clear in scripture, but this isn’t one of those cases, it’s clear.
That doesn’t mean that homosexuals are necessarily condemned, just that they are engaging in what is accounted generally as a grievously sinful act. I don’t know the heart and I cannot and will not judge.
But I do know this much:
Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but to call sinners. Christ was not sacrificed for the righteous but for sinners. We are all sinners and we all have hope in Christ. I also know that salvation for man is impossible, but for God all things are possible. This is what I know.

In the RCC you can worship, but you cannot take part in the sacraments save for confession, if you are a catholic and an active homosexual you are living in excommunication with the church.

Understand this FL, I do not wish to change you, I do not condemn you or judge you. I am merely stating facts as I know them.

44

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

Yes, churches consider divorce bad. Period.

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

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

Hell no. [/quote]

The Catholic church considers divorce a sin, although it gets around it by pretending some marriages never actually happened.

But most Christian churches don’t even go that far. They may discourage unnecessary divorce, but most wouldn’t consider it to be a sin.

And I’m not aware of any mainstream Christian church that considers it a sin for women to pray with their heads uncovered. At least the Muslims have stayed true to that particular commandment.

45

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?

46

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

So, what is the point of this thread? You’ve already chosen your path.

47

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

Yes, churches consider divorce bad. Period.

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

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

Hell no. [/quote]

The Catholic church considers divorce a sin, although it gets around it by pretending some marriages never actually happened.

But most Christian churches don’t even go that far. They may discourage unnecessary divorce, but most wouldn’t consider it to be a sin.

And I’m not aware of any mainstream Christian church that considers it a sin for women to pray with their heads uncovered. At least the Muslims have stayed true to that particular commandment.
[/quote]

psalm 1:1-2
" 1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night. "

You heard it right there, you have to meditate on the law all every second of your entire life.

Churches actively discourage divorce just like homosexuality. That proves the point.

Churches actively encourage the traditional family structure. That also proves the point.

48

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

No, because customs are different.

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

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

Exactly the point of the article.

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

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

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

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

No, you are practicing willful ignorance.
The other poster was right. willful ignorance is impossible to argue with.

By your logic because I think a psalm telling me to sing should be contextual to what psalms are, that means the 10 commandments have to be considered contextual.

And even if that were true, you have provided no evidence that calling homosexuality a sin has changed in today’s context.
[/quote]

And yet Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. all consider it biblical for their members to be in committed same sex relationships.

Hmmm, it couldn’t possibly be subject to interpretation, right? Like your interpretation of women praying in church with their heads uncovered?

49

[quote]forlife wrote:

And yet Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. all consider it biblical for their members to be in committed same sex relationships. [/quote]

It’s a good thing we BOTH know they’re lying.

50

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
The problem I have with a Christian church accepting homosexuality is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits homosexuality.

It’s pretty black and white. Multiple verses clearly prohibit homosexual behaviour.

Accepting homosexuality blatantly defies Christianity. You are left with a congregation worshipping a modified religion. It is no longer Christianity. It’s your right to worship as you please of course, and I am no saint, I don’t even go to church, but you are not following the tenants of the religion once you willingly choose to break it’s rules.

It’s my understanding sin is a mistake a Christian actively works to oppose where as a blatant disregard for the Bible is just defiance.

This doesn’t mean churches shouldn’t welcome all people as members, I believe the Sermon on the Mount mentioned this, but you can’t be half in and half out. Isn’t there a vs. about being luke warm?

If you play football and ignore the line of scrimmage, and the NFL allows you to do so, you really aren’t playig football any more, right? [/quote]

Did you read the article?

Why is it ok to ignore biblical condemnations of divorce, men with long hair, women speaking in church, etc. as cultural artifacts, while obsessing about a tiny number of passages on homosexuality, none of which were even uttered by Jesus?[/quote]

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

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

I’m not sure you’re understanding the point of the article. Maybe this will help:

The problem I have with a Christian church accepting divorce is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits divorce.

The problem I have with a Christian church accepting men wearing their hair long is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits men wearing their hair long.

The problem I have with a Christian church accepts women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered.

The problem I have with a Christian church promoting marriage over celibacy is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, promotes celibacy over marriage.[/quote]

I do understand and I have no qualms with your most recent post, except that the Bible doesn’t promote celibacy over marriage. Paul stated his own personal opinion, there is no doctrinal belief putting one over the other.

But your post only elaborates on my point. Maybe I can make it more simple for you.

The Bible lists a set of beliefs and rules that constitue the very fabric of the Christian religion. If you are editing, ignoring or intentionally ignoring the rules and beliefs, you are not truly practicing Christianity. A Church preaching that homosexuality is ok and acceptable is not a Christian church, even if they use other elements of the Bible in it’s sermons and tenents.

A church preaching divorce, murder, slander et cetera as acceptable behaviours is not a Christian church.

A church that accepts gay, divorced, murderous members and loves them for who they are, but preaches the Bible as it is, is a Christian church.
[/quote]

Why is it Paul’s opinion when he discusses the superiority of celibacy, but it is not Paul’s opinion when he is discussing homosexuality?

And since you didn’t mention the other biblical condemnations, I assume you believe a truly Christian church wouldn’t allow divorce, requires men to wear their hair short, requires women to have their heads covered, and disallows them from speaking in church?[/quote]

Just as another poster mentioned, a Christian church accepts the sinner, not the sin. For all sins, not just homosexuality. I did address that. 1 million wrongs don’t make a right, I will say it again.

Gays, long headed fellows, divorcees et cetera are all accepted in church. That doesn’t mean the church suggests people get divorced grow their hair out and engage in gay sex. If it did, would it be preaching a Christian message?
[/quote]

That’s not what I asked.

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

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

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

It is what you asked.

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

Why do you keep dodging the point?

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

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

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

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

How about a simple yes or no?

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

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

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

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

Are they, or are they not, truly Christian?

Yes or no?[/quote]

I’ve answered this at least three times now. Churches condoning and preaching anything in direct conflict with the Bible are not preaching the Christian doctrine. From divorce to homosexuality.

52

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Which is the point.[/quote]

Yes they are.

Your point was open ended. It was a question regarding the issue one may have with a church condoning homosexuality.

If you meant to ask what people think about a church condoning any thing in direct conflict with the Bible, you should have asked that question.

A church preaching or condoning a message that directly conflicts with the Bible is not preaching a Christian message, be it divorce, homosexuality or any other topic. Your question has been answered now at least five times and directly so.

Christianity is defined by the Bible and is what it is. A church that goes against any tenant of the Bible is not preaching the Christian doctrine. Accept it or don’t, that is your choice and that is all there really is to say about your question.

53

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
The problem I have with a Christian church accepting homosexuality is that its principle source of existance, the Bible, prohibits homosexuality.
[/quote]

Um…what? Well, I guess the rest of your statement doesn’t apply to the Catholic Church if this is your first premise. Mostly because Catholicism is not a religion of the book.

54

[quote]forlife wrote:
honestly ask
yourself how consistently you are applying the teachings of the bible.
Why do you wink at some things like divorce, hair length, women
speaking in church, celibacy, etc. while focusing your hatred toward
homosexuality? Why not at least be consistent in what you choose to
believe and enforce?
[/quote]

Well, besides using an article from the religion blog at CNN (which I can forgive), you should know better. Though I can’t speak for protestants, beyond that if they believe the truth through their private interpretations then it is either because of following tradition or even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

The Catholic Church, as well I, are consistent in applying the teaching of the Bible. As I pointed out though, that Catholicism is not a religion of the book. Further more, there are misconceptions of what the Bible actually teaches. That is one of the purposes of the Catholic Church, to help understand the teachings.

55

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Which is the point.[/quote]

Yes they are.

Your point was open ended. It was a question regarding the issue one may have with a church condoning homosexuality.

If you meant to ask what people think about a church condoning any thing in direct conflict with the Bible, you should have asked that question.

A church preaching or condoning a message that directly conflicts with the Bible is not preaching a Christian message, be it divorce, homosexuality or any other topic. Your question has been answered now at least five times and directly so.

Christianity is defined by the Bible and is what it is. A church that goes against any tenant of the Bible is not preaching the Christian doctrine. Accept it or don’t, that is your choice and that is all there really is to say about your question.[/quote]

No.

The point is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS WHO USE THE BIBLE LIKE A CLUB TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY ARE HYPOCRITES, BECAUSE THEY DON’T SIMILARLY FOLLOW CLEAR BIBLICAL INJUNCTIONS AGAINST DIVORCE, WOMEN SPEAKING IN CHURCH, WOMEN PRAYING WITH THEIR HEADS UNCOVERED, MEN HAVING LONG HAIR, ETC.

You’ve said that your church actually follows every single one of these biblical injunctions. I’m dubious, because I have yet to find a Christian sect that does. But I’ll take you at your word. Clearly, you are the exception and if what you say is true, at least you are CONSISTENT with what the bible teaches. Feel free to ignore this thread, because obviously it doesn’t apply to you.

Now, I’d like to hear from the 99% of Christians to whom this thread actually does apply.

How about Catholics, for one? I have been in Catholic mass, and I assure you that Catholic women habitually pray in church with their heads uncovered. Why do you blatantly ignore this clear biblical injunction, while cherry picking the injunction against gays?

Why do you harp about homosexuality being “unnatural”, when Paul directly says that men with long hair, or women with short hair, are also UNNATURAL?

Why do you rationalize this by dismissing these biblical injunctions as “only cultural, a reflection of the times”’ while refusing to admit that Paul’s injunction against gays may also have been “only cultural, a reflection of the times”?

Why the hell can’t you just be CONSISTENT?

56

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Which is the point.[/quote]

Yes they are.

Your point was open ended. It was a question regarding the issue one may have with a church condoning homosexuality.

If you meant to ask what people think about a church condoning any thing in direct conflict with the Bible, you should have asked that question.

A church preaching or condoning a message that directly conflicts with the Bible is not preaching a Christian message, be it divorce, homosexuality or any other topic. Your question has been answered now at least five times and directly so.

Christianity is defined by the Bible and is what it is. A church that goes against any tenant of the Bible is not preaching the Christian doctrine. Accept it or don’t, that is your choice and that is all there really is to say about your question.[/quote]

No.

The point is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS WHO USE THE BIBLE LIKE A CLUB TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY ARE HYPOCRITES, BECAUSE THEY DON’T SIMILARLY FOLLOW CLEAR BIBLICAL INJUNCTIONS AGAINST DIVORCE, WOMEN SPEAKING IN CHURCH, WOMEN PRAYING WITH THEIR HEADS UNCOVERED, MEN HAVING LONG HAIR, ETC.

You’ve said that your church actually follows every single one of these biblical injunctions. I’m dubious, because I have yet to find a Christian sect that does. But I’ll take you at your word. Clearly, you are the exception and if what you say is true, at least you are CONSISTENT with what the bible teaches. Feel free to ignore this thread, because obviously it doesn’t apply to you.

Now, I’d like to hear from the 99% of Christians to whom this thread actually does apply.

How about Catholics, for one? I have been in Catholic mass, and I assure you that Catholic women habitually pray in church with their heads uncovered. Why do you blatantly ignore this clear biblical injunction, while cherry picking the injunction against gays?

Why do you harp about homosexuality being “unnatural”, when Paul directly says that men with long hair, or women with short hair, are also UNNATURAL?

Why do you rationalize this by dismissing these biblical injunctions as “only cultural, a reflection of the times”’ while refusing to admit that Paul’s injunction against gays may also have been “only cultural, a reflection of the times”?

Why the hell can’t you just be CONSISTENT?[/quote]

I’ve got short hair and keep my head unconvered, divorce is a sin, etc. Not talking to me either, then.

57

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?

58

If god has such a problem with homosexuality, then why does he insist on creating so many homosexuals?

59

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

In christianity? No. It’s completely incompatible. It’s not simply shameful, it’s an abomination mentioned alongside adultery, fornication, murder, and the like. Homosexuality just by it’s nature can never be acceptable. It doesn’t fit into the sacrament of marriage (man and wife, no exceptions made) and is thus always a form of fornication.

60

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.