Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

"dgm":36dwhj1f wrote:
"zukiphile":36dwhj1f wrote:

[quote:36dwhj1f]Clayton, if a seven day creationist had asked about teaching in a biology department [for the purpose of teaching seven day creationism], would we expect him to be accepted?[/quote:36dwhj1f]

I think if it's a public school, they aren't allowed to discriminate in hiring decisions on the basis of a person's religious beliefs.[/quote:36dwhj1f][/quote:36dwhj1f]

I should have included the bracketed language.

“Despotism tempered by assassination, that is our Magna Carta”

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

"dgm":xexx3dz0 wrote:

Phelps and his gang of Westboro friends will be in a town near me Sunday and Monday showing their "public disapproval" of Jews and gays. Lovely bunch.[/quote:xexx3dz0]
Public disapproval doesn't have to look like what the Westboro group does. Disapproval can be done respectfully and lovingly.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

"zukiphile":27g99cap wrote:

Certainly, but pubic disapproval of homosexuality is what makes the Phelps family fuckwits.[/quote:27g99cap]

That was my point.

[quote:27g99cap]If an individual seeks to use a church as a platform for teaching the correctness of homosexual behavior, i.e. working against the teaching mission of that church, there is no injustice in the individual being asked not to do that.[/quote:27g99cap]

I agree.

[quote:27g99cap]Clayton, if a seven day creationist had asked about teaching in a biology department, would we expect him to be accepted?[/quote:27g99cap]

I think if it's a public school, they aren't allowed to discriminate in hiring decisions on the basis of a person's religious beliefs.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

"zukiphile":3ls7rpp6 wrote:

I should have included the bracketed language.[/quote:3ls7rpp6]

Of course not then. Any job applicant who openly states that they will be insubordinate if hired, should not be hired.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

Today at the office there was a discussion about religion and community.

One lady told a story about her lesbian friend wanting to get involved with the local church, when her friend mentioned to the pastor/minister that she and her "partner" would like to get involved the guy gave her some long winded answer basically saying "thanks but no thanks".

I asked why it was wrong for religious groups to exclude people with who they disagree.

The answers I got were basically the same:
Jesus preached acceptance of everyone, so churches that turn people away are huge hypocrites.

Thoughts?

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

"maxor":29pzd7u2 wrote:

Today at the office there was a discussion about religion and community.

One lady told a story about her lesbian friend wanting to get involved with the local church, when her friend mentioned to the pastor/minister that she and her "partner" would like to get involved the guy gave her some long winded answer basically saying "thanks but no thanks".

I asked why it was wrong for religious groups to exclude people with who they disagree.

The answers I got were basically the same:
Jesus preached acceptance of everyone, so churches that turn people away are huge hypocrites.

Thoughts?[/quote:29pzd7u2]

He also said "Go, and sin no more."
I have no wish to be a member of a church where people are made [i:29pzd7u2]comfortable in their wrongs[/i:29pzd7u2].  Stop being real bad then come, say you're sorry and turn your life around.

♂♀*†∞$



I see it!  The light at the end of the tunnel!
Ohhh Crap!  It's Obama with a flashlight and a bunch of SEIU thugs!

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

I happen to have just read a well stated explanation for why hypocrisy is a minor vice:

“Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after
igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of
smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late
twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions
were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves,
and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were
not hypocrites themselves—they took no moral stances and lived by
none.”
“So they were morally superior to the Victorians—” Major
Napier said, still a bit snowed under.
“—even though—in fact, because—they had no morals at all.”
There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around
the copper table.
“We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-
McGraw continued. “In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung,
a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of
a planned campaign of deception—he never held these beliefs
sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most
hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing,
flesh-is-weak sort of thing.”
“That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,”
Major Napier said, working it through, “does not imply that we are
insincere in espousing that code.”
“Of course not,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It’s perfectly obvious,
really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of
conduct. Really, the difficulties involved—the missteps we make
along the way—are what make it interesting. The internal, and
eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous
demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human.

The Diamond Age, Neal Stephenson, p 175.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Age-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0553573314">http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Age-Neal- ... 0553573314</a><!-- m -->

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;maxor&quot;:p25ti3kv wrote:

The answers I got were basically the same:
Jesus preached acceptance of everyone, ...[/quote:p25ti3kv]

Did he?  Our do silly people with weak minds read about JC and see him as silly and weak-minded?

&quot;maxor&quot;:p25ti3kv wrote:

...so churches that turn people away are huge hypocrites.

Thoughts?[/quote:p25ti3kv]

I don't see why a church would need to turn a woman away for being a homosexual.  Perhaps the woman was suggesting activity to the church people that was counter to their mission, and the story related to you was incomplete.

Maybe the minister made a mistake or knowingly committed an error.

“Despotism tempered by assassination, that is our Magna Carta”

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;dgm&quot;:18swcofa wrote:

Lovely bunch.[/quote:18swcofa]

Certainly, but pubic disapproval of homosexuality is what makes the Phelps family fuckwits.  They disrupt grieving families graveside and depart even from their free form branch of christianity.

If an individual seeks to use a church as a platform for teaching the correctness of homosexual behavior, i.e. working against the teaching mission of that church, there is no injustice in the individual being asked not to do that.

Clayton, if a seven day creationist had asked about teaching in a biology department, would we expect him to be accepted?

“Despotism tempered by assassination, that is our Magna Carta”

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

If the woman and her partner wanted to take a very public role in the church and also be very open and public about their homosexual relationship, I could see that causing problems. If the women belong to a denomination that teaches that homosexual behavior is a grave sin, giving their open and unapologetic homosexual relationship a significant role in the church could appear like tacit approval of their lifestyle.

To me their desire to be so active and involved in something they obviously fundamentally disagree with seems odd and perhaps even suspicious. The last thing a Christian church needs is a couple of lesbians agitating and pushing a gay rights agenda from a position of prominence within that church community.

Homosexuals need to come to terms with the fact that Christ saw homosexuality as a very grave sin, and that he expected people to discriminate between proper and sinful behavior, treating sinful behavior with public disapproval. If they can't come to grips with that, they need to forego Christianity. That is to say, no people are excluded from Christianity, only behaviors and attitudes. If a person refuses to accept those behavioral and attitudinal expectations, they exclude themselves from Christianity.

11

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;Bill Thompson&quot;:2l21bavz wrote:

Homosexuals need to come to terms with the fact that Christ saw homosexuality as a very grave sin, and that he expected people to discriminate between proper and sinful behavior, treating sinful behavior with public disapproval.[/quote:2l21bavz]

Phelps and his gang of Westboro friends will be in a town near me Sunday and Monday showing their &quot;public disapproval&quot; of Jews and gays. Lovely bunch.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

Christian churches are inclusive by definition -- the gospel is for all people in all times and places, no matter the sin(s) etc, of the people -- with a couple biblically-defined exclusions (for people who profess to be redeemed).  Non-believers are allowed in the worship services of the church (see 1 Cor 14:13ff).  Non-believers may not be made &quot;members&quot; of the church, for that requires spiritual regeneration (see below) but one does not have to be a &quot;member&quot; to be in or with the church during worship.

The kingdom of God is exclusive by definition -- one gains access by a converted and redeemed life, which necessarily means that practicing homoxexuals do not gain access (three known sins here, one is promiscuity -- sexual relations with one other than a marriage partner, sex with the same gender, and a marriage-type relationship without there being just a man and just a woman involved).

Sometimes people mix up the church and the kingdom of God...

Existence was given us for action.  Our worth is determined by the good deed we do, rather than by the fine emotions we feel."      George MacDonald, Scottish theologian and pastor

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;Maxor&quot;:eg69gllz wrote:

One lady told a story about her lesbian friend wanting to get involved with the local church, when her friend mentioned to the pastor/minister that she and her &quot;partner&quot; would like to get involved the guy gave her some long winded answer basically saying &quot;thanks but no thanks&quot;.

I asked why it was wrong for religious groups to exclude people with who they disagree.[/quote:eg69gllz]

&quot;Bill&quot;:eg69gllz wrote:

If the woman and her partner wanted to take a very public role in the church and also be very open and public about their homosexual relationship, I could see that causing problems. . . . The last thing a Christian church needs is a couple of lesbians agitating and pushing a gay rights agenda from a position of prominence within that church community.[/quote:eg69gllz]
Bingo.

&quot;Bill&quot;:eg69gllz wrote:

Homosexuals need to come to terms with the fact that Christ saw homosexuality as a very grave sin, and that he expected people to discriminate between proper and sinful behavior, treating sinful behavior with public disapproval. If they can't come to grips with that, they need to forego Christianity. That is to say, no people are excluded from Christianity, only behaviors and attitudes. If a person refuses to accept those behavioral and attitudinal expectations, they exclude themselves from Christianity.[/quote:eg69gllz]
Bingo.

God holds leaders to a higher standard.  Moses did not enter the Promised Land due to a screw-up so minor you have to look for it.  It's in Numbers 20.  God said to speak to the rock, but Moses struck the rock.  Water came out, all drank, but God condemned Moses for disobedience.  Moses had [i:eg69gllz]such[/i:eg69gllz] a high position in a critical time when God was [i:eg69gllz]very[/i:eg69gllz] interested in teaching His holy standard precisely. 

I see no problem with homosexuals (and adulterers, for that matter) being a member of a local congregation.  We are [i:eg69gllz]all[/i:eg69gllz] sinners. 

At the same time, [i:eg69gllz]membership[/i:eg69gllz] in a church for certain congregations (beliefs vary) entails being [i:eg69gllz]regenerate,[/i:eg69gllz] having a new-made heart.  A common fruit of a regenerate heart is [i:eg69gllz]repentance[/i:eg69gllz], a turning away from sins.  Now, I haven't turned from all my sins yet, but many persistent sins honestly bother me, and I'm 99% positive I am plagued with other sins I have not even become aware of.  Homosexual practices, not forsaken, may be a sign of unrepentance, or it may be God has not yet convicted that individual's heart.  This is a normal process of sanctification that all believers undergo. 

But the rules change for leaders.  1 Timothy 3 outlines many desirable attributes for leaders.

&quot;Maxor&quot;:eg69gllz wrote:

Jesus preached acceptance of everyone, so churches that turn people away are huge hypocrites.[/quote:eg69gllz]
Jesus accepted [i:eg69gllz]people[/i:eg69gllz], never their [i:eg69gllz]sins[/i:eg69gllz].

&quot;1 Corinthians 10&quot;:eg69gllz wrote:

&quot;Everything is permissible&quot;—but not everything is beneficial. &quot;Everything is permissible&quot;—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
. . .
Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God.[/quote:eg69gllz]
This is an operational rule of thumb in many churches.  Would a practicing adulterer as a leader cause anybody to think that adultery is what God wants?  Causing others to stumble is very bad, even if your intentions were innocent.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

I'm trying to remember the parable about the homosexual in the vinyard where Jesus called his lifestyle a very grave sin...I'll look it up.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

Try looking in the Gospel according to Eat a Dick. It's actually not a parable at all, but a real event in Jesus' life. It starts out by Christ trying to help a hapless and mentally challenged worker named Svenichais who has somehow gotten his head stuck up his own ass. Christ realizes Svenichais' true persuasion when the worker discourages Jesus from performing a miracle and freeing his stuck head. Turns out, Svenichais actually enjoys having things up his anal cavity and has stuck his head up it intentionally. Whereupon Christ declares the evil of sodomy and punishes Svenitus by giving him an explosive case of diarrhea that dislodges his cranium from his rear orifice.

16

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;Bill Thompson&quot;:192nckst wrote:

Try looking in the Gospel according to Eat a Dick. It's actually not a parable at all, but a real event in Jesus' life. It starts out by Christ trying to help a hapless and mentally challenged worker named Svenichais who has somehow gotten his head stuck up his own ass. Christ realizes Svenichais' true persuasion when the worker discourages Jesus from performing a miracle and freeing his stuck head. Turns out, Svenichais actually enjoys having things up his anal cavity and has stuck his head up it intentionally. Whereupon Christ declares the evil of sodomy and punishes Svenitus by giving him an explosive case of diarrhea that dislodges his cranium from his rear orifice.[/quote:192nckst]

QFE

Quoted For Epicness

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

It is one of the better lessons in the New Testament.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;Sven&quot;:2v7un7n7 wrote:

I'm trying to remember the parable about the homosexual in the vinyard where Jesus called his lifestyle a very grave sin...I'll look it up.[/quote:2v7un7n7]

Do you admit that the Christian worldview incorporates the idea of a pre-incarnate Christ, who is called in several places in the Bible &quot;The Word&quot;?

Existence was given us for action.  Our worth is determined by the good deed we do, rather than by the fine emotions we feel."      George MacDonald, Scottish theologian and pastor

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

Look. It's patently obvious that different denominations exclude people for a variety of reasons.

Just because YOUR denomination THINKS and is CERTAIN that it has the truth of God on its side and therefore has an infallible reason, doesn't make its practices non-exclusionary.

Maybe you believe one &quot;needs&quot; to accept Jesus as Lord to be &quot;saved&quot;.
Maybe you believe that infants are not to be baptised, or one MUST be baptised to marry, or take communion. Or be &quot;saved&quot;.
Maybe you don't want women as clergy. Or as decision makers of any sort.

Regardless, these practices and tenents are chosen (or choosen) by people and the net result is that others are excluded. That's fine if you think you have God's Will on your side. I might well disagree. But to claim your religious group doesn't &quot;exclude&quot; people is absurd. Odds are it does. Just admit it and move on.

The way I read it Jesus was drawn to the sick, the poor, the outcast. The leper. The widow. The Samaritan. It is self-evident that Jesus was inclusive in his daily practices. If anything He excluded middle class white guys by telling them &quot;sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me&quot;.

We have no record of his statements regarding gays - and if he were cornered with the question I'm guessing he would frame the answer in a parable or a &quot;render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's&quot; type thought-provoking message. Again, if you want to exclude gays for some reason, go ahead. But don't hide behind Jesus while you are doing it.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

Sven, you can choose to be selective as you want in your reading of the Bible, and make yourself feel good about whatever you want to believe by ignoring the things you don't want to hear, but the Bible in both the Old and New Testament makes it's opposition to homosexual behavior very clear. While you may not be able to find a direct quote from Christ about homosexuality in the Gospels, St. Paul speaks about it explicitly and condemns it. So unless you think St. Paul was all mixed up about Christ's message, you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming Jesus would have been totally fine accepting homosexual behavior.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

It's a bit strange when, after you show what the Bible says, people say, &quot;well, that's what [i:1k5revxi]you[/i:1k5revxi] think!&quot;  It's a bit like denying the Capulet house hated the Motegue house in [i:1k5revxi]Romeo and Juliette[/i:1k5revxi].  It's right there in black and white.  This may offend you as an &quot;all is love&quot; philosophy hippie or whatever, but there's no sense arguing against the reality of the printed meaning, or trying to twist the meaning into something else. 

&quot;Sven&quot;:1k5revxi wrote:

Maybe you believe one &quot;needs&quot; to accept Jesus as Lord to be &quot;saved&quot;.[/quote:1k5revxi]
The Bible is clear on this point.  I [i:1k5revxi]believe[/i:1k5revxi] the Bible speaks truthfully on spiritual matters due to a slew of reasonable evidences.  If you'd like to argue against the Bible's truthfulness, you are free to try, but what it takes to be &quot;saved&quot; has nothing to do with what [i:1k5revxi]I[/i:1k5revxi] or any other person believes.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

Jesus DID have some things to say about homosexuality -- just not in the direct manner that gays would like to see (or, actually, not see -- they seem to like the argument from silence even though it is an intentional fallacy).  He spoke about the proper sexual relationship through marriage as defined by Genesis 1:26 -- ONE husband with ONE wife in a bond that lasts for life:

[i:3f1hmcab]Matthew 19:4-10 (ESV) He [Jesus] answered, [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,[/color:3f1hmcab]  5 &quot;and said, [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? [/color:3f1hmcab] 6 [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.&quot; [/color:3f1hmcab] [/i:3f1hmcab]

[i:3f1hmcab]7 They said to him, &quot;Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?&quot;  8 He said to them, [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [/color:3f1hmcab] 9 [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.&quot; [/color:3f1hmcab][/i:3f1hmcab]

[i:3f1hmcab]10 The disciples said to him, &quot;If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.&quot;  11 But he said to them, [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. [/color:3f1hmcab] 12 [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.&quot;  [/color:3f1hmcab][/i:3f1hmcab]

Note here what Jesus DID say (positive argument, versus negative, argument from silence) concerning sexual relationships.  First, they are between a man and his wife -- only.  ANY other sexual encounter is seen as adultery, and because there is NO biblical position that EVER favors the concept of man marrying man, nor woman marrying woman, ANY sexual liason man to man or woman to woman is by definition adultery or fornication -- unlawful acts worthy of punishment.

There is no way to make Jesus say or even suggest that a &quot;loving partnership between two men&quot; is something that He would condone, even using the larger picture of the loving and forgiving nature of Jesus grace.

Jesus said also, concerning the OT Scriptures:

John 5:46-7 (ESV) [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. [/color:3f1hmcab] 47 [color=#FF0000:3f1hmcab]&quot;But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?&quot;  [/color:3f1hmcab]

Which, is the problem for a lot of folks that want to pick and choose their way through the Bible, cafeteria-line style.  The Jesus they want to have -- all loving, permissive -- &quot;tolerant&quot; -- doesn't exist in reality.

So, to be fair, what did Moses say about homosexuality?

[i:3f1hmcab]Lev 18:22-30 (ESV) &quot;[color=#0040FF:3f1hmcab]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.[/color:3f1hmcab]  23 &quot;And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.  24 &quot;Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 &quot;and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.  26 &quot;But [color=#0040FF:3f1hmcab]you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you  [/color:3f1hmcab]27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean),  28 &quot;lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.  29 &quot;For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.  30 &quot;So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.&quot;  [/i:3f1hmcab]

[i:3f1hmcab]Lev 20:10-21 (ESV) &quot;If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.  11 &quot;If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.  12 &quot;If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.  13 [color=#0080FF:3f1hmcab]&quot;If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.[/color:3f1hmcab]  14 &quot;If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.  15 &quot;If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.  16 &quot;If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.  17 &quot;If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.  18 &quot;If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people.  19 &quot;You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity.  20 &quot;If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.  21 &quot;If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity.  He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.  22 &quot;You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.  23 &quot;And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.  [/i:3f1hmcab]

I pasted larger portions of the text surrounding what Moses wrote concerning God's Law for sexual sin so that the readers can see that God is not just a tad &quot;miffed&quot; at guys (or girls) that &quot;lay with one another&quot; but rather, He promises death and destruction to them and their lands. 

God also promises the same for promiscuity in general -- He has, from the first, intended that sexual relationships be freely practiced between husband and wife, those defined as male and female -- one each, and for life.

What of another NT example?  Is there one?  Paul said:

[i:3f1hmcab]Rom 1:21-32 (ESV) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,  25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  [/i:3f1hmcab]

[i:3f1hmcab]26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. [color=#0080FF:3f1hmcab]For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;[/color:3f1hmcab]  27 [color=#0080FF:3f1hmcab]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 themselves the due penalty for their error.[/color:3f1hmcab]  28 [color=#0080FF:3f1hmcab]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.[/color:3f1hmcab]  29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,  30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.  [/i:3f1hmcab]

But, the word &quot;homosexual&quot; is not used in Romans 1, did Paul really mean homosexual when he penned those words?  Let's see what else he wrote:

[i:3f1hmcab]1Ti 1:8-11 (ESV) Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,  9 understanding 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 those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,  10 [color=#0080FF:3f1hmcab]the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, [/color:3f1hmcab]enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...[/i:3f1hmcab]

Or this:

[i:3f1hmcab]1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV) [color=#0080FF:3f1hmcab]Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[/color:3f1hmcab] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  [/i:3f1hmcab]

In the end, I think it is fair to say that both the OT and NT well establish that there is to be absolutely NO homosexual relationship or actually, ANY sexual relationship apart from that with husband and wife.

One last thing...  God is not a stodgy Victorian when it comes to the actual sexual practice between husband and wife.  Far from it.  He simply forbids THAT sort of experience with any other human being.

Existence was given us for action.  Our worth is determined by the good deed we do, rather than by the fine emotions we feel."      George MacDonald, Scottish theologian and pastor

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;glfredrick&quot;:103gpn9u wrote:

There is no way to make Jesus say or even suggest that a &quot;loving partnership between two men&quot; is something that He would condone, even using the larger picture of the loving and forgiving nature of Jesus grace.[/quote:103gpn9u]
Yet at the same time, I don't think he would reject the homosexual. 

&quot;John 8:11&quot;:103gpn9u wrote:

&quot;Neither do I condemn you,&quot; Jesus declared.  &quot;Go now and leave your life of sin.&quot;[/quote:103gpn9u]
Jesus said that to the adulterous woman.  He accepts the person but desires she reform her acts.

I ran into a problem a few weeks ago.  Apparently homosexuals identify who they are with what they do:  if they don't practice homosexual acts, they aren't homosexual.  Maybe it's not phrased that way, because that phrasing makes it sound fallacious.  But if Jesus rejects their lifestyle, it is seen as Jesus rejecting [i:103gpn9u]them[/i:103gpn9u].  That's clearly wrong, but I'm not sure what to do with that.

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

fallacious, or fellatious?

Re: Religious Groups Excluding People

&quot;Buho&quot;:2033lujf wrote:
&quot;glfredrick&quot;:2033lujf wrote:

There is no way to make Jesus say or even suggest that a &quot;loving partnership between two men&quot; is something that He would condone, even using the larger picture of the loving and forgiving nature of Jesus grace.[/quote:2033lujf]
Yet at the same time, I don't think he would reject the homosexual. 

&quot;John 8:11&quot;:2033lujf wrote:

&quot;Neither do I condemn you,&quot; Jesus declared.  &quot;Go now and leave your life of sin.&quot;[/quote:2033lujf]
Jesus said that to the adulterous woman.  He accepts the person but desires she reform her acts.

I ran into a problem a few weeks ago.  Apparently homosexuals identify who they are with what they do:  if they don't practice homosexual acts, they aren't homosexual.  Maybe it's not phrased that way, because that phrasing makes it sound fallacious.  But if Jesus rejects their lifestyle, it is seen as Jesus rejecting [i:2033lujf]them[/i:2033lujf].  That's clearly wrong, but I'm not sure what to do with that.[/quote:2033lujf]

I agree with both statements.

I posted this above:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 [b:2033lujf]And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [/b:2033lujf]

Merely being homosexual in orientation is not a disqualifier.  Practicing homosexuality, which is both sex apart from marriage and a forbidden sex act between two of the same gender, is a disqualifier.  As long as the homosexual identifies the act with the person, they remain disqualified based on their own actions.  Additionally, the homosexuals that attempt to reconcile Scripture or theology with their position, do so out of their own worldview lens, not the scriptural view on the subject.  Christianity is rightly seen as a scripturally-driven faith practice, not a faith practice that uses some of what is contained in the scriptures to satisfy some religious need.

Existence was given us for action.  Our worth is determined by the good deed we do, rather than by the fine emotions we feel."      George MacDonald, Scottish theologian and pastor

Posts [ 25 ]

Pages 1

Post reply



Currently installed 8 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.