Homosexuality and the Church

Booko · May 13, 2006

wmam said:
Funny how even the unmentionables cannot seem to stick to the OP. LOL

Will whoever is hanging the panties out on the line to dry please do it in the BACK yard and not the FRONT yard?

We do have covenants in this neighborhood, ya know. Did you want someone to put a lien on this thread?

wmam · May 13, 2006

Booko said:
Will whoever is hanging the panties out on the line to dry please do it in the BACK yard and not the FRONT yard?

We do have covenants in this neighborhood, ya know. Did you want someone to put a lien on this thread?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Now that is funny.

roli · May 16, 2006

Pah said:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=430

Homosexuality and the Church

by James B. Nelson

Dr. Nelson is professor of Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, New Brighton, Minnesota. This article appeared in the Christianity and Crisis April 4, 1977. This text was prepared for Religion Online by John R. Bushell.

The gay caucuses now active in virtually every major American denomination no longer will let us forget that the church must face the issue of homosexuality more openly, honestly, and sensitively than it has yet done. Beyond this legitimate and appropriate pressure, however, there are other compelling reasons for the church to reexamine its theology and practice:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Watever this actually means ,is he actually saying we must adopt a new doctrine and theology that will imbrace and support this lifestyle into all churches

1. Homosexual Christians are sisters and brothers of all other Christians, earnestly seeking the church's full acceptance without prejudgment on the basis of a sexual orientation regarding which they had no basic choice.

Click to expand...

Any church that advocates support of homosexuality because of it's bias views involving participation in that lifestyle is not fit to be woven into the fabric of the church that Jesus built upon. But endeavors to continue to do so for some apprent reason in which I think may be nothing less then justification
First of all,we must consider the origin of this article and who it is that writes it.
Does it come from the United Church head office representing the already active homosexuality within many of it's mainstream churches today, which also have Pastors who are they themselves active in that lifestyle. Is this, Dr Nelson, propagating this message from a active and bias position.
If so how can he even attempt to include the remaining churches as supporters and fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, a brother is one born of God spiritually and not by mere affiliation of churches,by their fruit you will recognise them,wishful thinking on his part if this is the case.

2. While antihomosexual bias has existed in Western culture generally, the church must take responsibility for its share in shaping, supporting, and transmitting negative attitudes toward homosexuality.

Click to expand...

I agree,we are to love to the point of warning them,Christ says to warn them, show them their sin,pray that the scales will be removed,but He also says warn him once ,twice and after that expel him from your midst if he does not turn from his sin.
Have nothing to do with the deeds of unrightousness,have no partnership with them. Does not say to hate them.

3. The Christian mandate for social justice will not let us forget that discrimination continues today against millions of gay persons in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and in the enjoyment of fundamental civil liberties.

Click to expand...

It may exist , but those that discriminate are they themselves not also subject to God 's judgement.We must love them to the point they see their sin before God.
This lifestyle in God's eyes is sin just as liars,thieves,murders,Jesus loves the sinner hates the sin.
To God no sin is rated different from any other,that is man's doing and to that I disagree

4. The church is called to do its ongoing theological and ethical work as responsibly as possible. Fresh insights from feminist theologians, gay Christians, and those secular scholars who frequently manifest God's "common grace" in the world remind us of the numerous ways in which our particular sexual conditions color our perceptions of God's nature and presence among us. If the Protestant Principle turns us against absolutizing historically relative theological judgments, so also our openness to continuing revelation should convince us, with some of our ancestors-in-faith, that "the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth

Click to expand...

."
I have a problem with anyone who claims to be a practicing christian yet with no conviction or guilt of what God's word says about sin, continues in it, denying and disobeying what it says in regards to sin and more so with those who profess to be a follower of Christ and expect acceptance.It goes against everything Jesus preached.Those who serve Christ depart from sin,abstain from those lust that war against the flesh.Jesus is very clear,man has perverted the scriptures to suit the lifestyle

5. The heterosexually oriented majority in the church has much to gain from a deeper grappling with this issue: an enriched capacity to love other human beings more fully and with less fear.

Click to expand...

I have no fear of loving all people for it is the compassion I have on their souls that compels me to declare the gospel to them regardless of misunderstanding,persecution etc

muichimotsu · May 16, 2006

So you'll use that book with IT'S biased positions towards homosexuality and be called a hypocrite yourself? Because that's what you'd be trying to say that that author is biased for homosexuality and then try to justify an argument where the authors are just as biased AGAINST homosexuality. And if you try to further the debate by basing the truth of the bible by your faith, that does NOT substantiate absolute truth, especially considering you seem to not want to ask homosexuals about their feelings about their orientation, why they feel that way, but instead dismiss anything they say as being led astray.

roli · May 16, 2006

muichimotsu said:
So you'll use that book with IT'S biased positions towards homosexuality and be called a hypocrite yourself? Because that's what you'd be trying to say that that author is biased for homosexuality and then try to justify an argument where the authors are just as biased AGAINST homosexuality. And if you try to further the debate by basing the truth of the bible by your faith, that does NOT substantiate absolute truth, especially considering you seem to not want to ask homosexuals about their feelings about their orientation, why they feel that way, but instead dismiss anything they say as being led astray.

I don't use this book for anything but an example of those who want to practice unrightousness and then attempt to justify it and make it poltically acceptable
I don't know who this Dr is but it sounds as if he is defending homosexuality and that is not a problem in itself ,but if he is practicing that lifestyle and encouraging the rest of christians to support that lifestyle he is in error of what Jesus preached .
He also says the homosexual has no choice, quote" Homosexual Christians are sisters and brothers of all other Christians, earnestly seeking the church's full acceptance without prejudgment on the basis of a sexual orientation regarding which they had no basic choice."
You see the only thing I am saying here is that Jesus says the soul that sins will perish. End of story,Christ will restore those who are repentent but those who excuse and justify will be subject to what God wrath indicates in the word of God ,not my words

muichimotsu · May 17, 2006

Just because your personal opinions are against homosexuality being righteous or natural without choice doesn't mean you can use that book to justify denying gays basic human rights. And that Dr. presented evidence to prove that there are many questionable biases and language issues in translation of the Bible, especially concerning homosexuality, and you just seem to want to deny that. What is wrong with homosexuality not being a sin, as long as we can agree on teh more universal sins?

Booko · May 17, 2006

muichimotsu said:
Just because your personal opinions are against homosexuality being righteous or natural without choice doesn't mean you can use that book to justify denying gays basic human rights. And that Dr. presented evidence to prove that there are many questionable biases and language issues in translation of the Bible, especially concerning homosexuality, and you just seem to want to deny that. What is wrong with homosexuality not being a sin, as long as we can agree on teh more universal sins?

Since this is under the more generic "religious debates" I should mention that while you might make this case with Biblical texts, it's a lot harder to make it wash with later religions.

None of that alters the points that have been made about secular law, of course.

Mister_T · May 17, 2006

muichimotsu said:
What is wrong with homosexuality not being a sin, as long as we can agree on teh more universal sins?

This brought a question to my mind specifically geared towards people who want to deny gay people their rights.

I seriously doubt I'll get a straight answer but here it goes. Entertain me for a second: What if the Bible never said anything about homosexuality? Or better yet, what if God condoned it? Would you then let gays marry and attend church?

muichimotsu · May 18, 2006

I wouldn't doubt it. Seems to me, as long as the bible says something in both the OT and NT, God's against it for some reason. Then again, there's that scriptural canon issue with the "four" gospels, when there's more like ten practically now...somewhere around that number. Moving on then.

wmam · May 18, 2006

Mister_T said:
This brought a question to my mind specifically geared towards people who want to deny gay people their rights.

I seriously doubt I'll get a straight answer but here it goes. Entertain me for a second: What if the Bible never said anything about homosexuality? Or better yet, what if God condoned it? Would you then let gays marry and attend church?

Well.... I am very much surprised that no one has answered this. I mean, really amazed. I for one would have to answer that of course if there was either no mention of such in the law and or anything that the act of homosexuality could be of breaking any said laws of YAH, and that ,as you say, that YAH somehow condoned such acts as being behavior that He was o.k. with then where is the sin? If it isn't a sin then whats the problem? If it wasn't a sin from the beginning of our life times to say that we never was raised in knowing that it was a sin or that the law that is written on the beings had no mention of such being a problem then how would we have ever know it to be a sin? If all was true then we would not even have to ask. But then again, I believe church is wrong anyways so it don't really matter. To want to be a member of something that I do not hold as true, and is and of itself a lie, is just foolish. But again, thats just me. :sleep:

sojourner · May 18, 2006

if he is practicing that lifestyle and encouraging the rest of christians to support that lifestyle he is in error of what Jesus preached .

What, exactly, did Jesus preach about homosexuality? Jesus never touched on the subject. And don't hand me that line about "observing the Law." Jesus broke the Law, forgiving sin, healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners, and all in the name of loving his neighbor. Therefore, in favor of loving our brothers and sisters, I say it's incumbent upon us to dismiss a Levitican Law that addressed more of a cultural issue of the day than a moral issue.

Ceridwen018 · May 18, 2006

Excellent point, sojourner!

Indeed, in the very next paragraph after homosexuality is condemned as being "abominable" in Leviticus, the Israelites were then instructed that disobedient children were to be taken outside the city walls and stoned. In the very next chapter, men are warned that approaching a woman while she is on her period is an unclean and sinful act! Obviously, the Christian Churches have been doing an extraordinary amount of picking and choosing when it comes to what they are willing to make people feel bad for, and what they are willing to let slide in these modern times.

Let us not also forget to mention the parts in Leviticus where the eating of shellfish and the wearing of clothing woven with multiple threads is prohibited! It just keeps getting more and more ridiculous from there.

wmam · May 18, 2006

sojourner said:
And don't hand me that line about "observing the Law." Jesus broke the Law, forgiving sin, healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners, and all in the name of loving his neighbor.

First off, This is your understanding and not that of everyone, as is the belief that I hold to be true. To me, as well as others,I believe that Yahshua was clean of all sins after His purification and in no way was guilty of any iniquity. It would be impossible for that to have been for the Spirit that abode in Him, being a high ranking member of the Malakhim, would not, and could not, have resided in that which was unclean. I believe that the law in which you refer to is that of the law that was handed down to Moshe' by way of a messenger, yet another member of the Malakhim, in what we know as the burning bush? Then I would have to ask for you to show me where in all that law does it state any of the actions of Yahshua, while being possessed of the Malak, was a transgression? I mean no disrespect but I would have to ask that we not use the interpretations of mere mortal men but only that of the true word of YAH. In other words we would need to stick completely to Torah.

sojourner said:
Therefore, in favor of loving our brothers and sisters, I say it's incumbent upon us to dismiss a Levitican Law that addressed more of a cultural issue of the day than a moral issue.

I rather would choose to be in favor of the will of YAH the Most High than that of mere mortal men. But hey..........It hasn't stopped the disobedience of man for all these millennium. Man's way has seemed to work just fine so far, don't ya think?

wmam · May 18, 2006

Ceridwen018 said:
Excellent point, sojourner!

Indeed, in the very next paragraph after homosexuality is condemned as being "abominable" in Leviticus, the Israelites were then instructed that disobedient children were to be taken outside the city walls and stoned. In the very next chapter, men are warned that approaching a woman while she is on her period is an unclean and sinful act! Obviously, the Christian Churches have been doing an extraordinary amount of picking and choosing when it comes to what they are willing to make people feel bad for, and what they are willing to let slide in these modern times.

Let us not also forget to mention the parts in Leviticus where the eating of shellfish and the wearing of clothing woven with multiple threads is prohibited! It just keeps getting more and more ridiculous from there.

You'll get no argument out of me on the fact that the christian churchs seem to pick and choose as it seems to fit them. Sounds like that they say we are no longer under the law but oh wait, with the exception of this and that and this and maybe this one over here as well........ etc. etc. etc. etc.

sojourner · May 19, 2006

wmam said:
First off, This is your understanding and not that of everyone, as is the belief that I hold to be true. To me, as well as others,I believe that Yahshua was clean of all sins after His purification and in no way was guilty of any iniquity. It would be impossible for that to have been for the Spirit that abode in Him, being a high ranking member of the Malakhim, would not, and could not, have resided in that which was unclean. I believe that the law in which you refer to is that of the law that was handed down to Moshe' by way of a messenger, yet another member of the Malakhim, in what we know as the burning bush? Then I would have to ask for you to show me where in all that law does it state any of the actions of Yahshua, while being possessed of the Malak, was a transgression? I mean no disrespect but I would have to ask that we not use the interpretations of mere mortal men but only that of the true word of YAH. In other words we would need to stick completely to Torah.

I rather would choose to be in favor of the will of YAH the Most High than that of mere mortal men. But hey..........It hasn't stopped the disobedience of man for all these millennium. Man's way has seemed to work just fine so far, don't ya think?

the Priests and Sanhedrin (which knew the Law) had Jesus crucified for blasphemy. They certainly didn't think Jesus was pure.

I'm a Christian. I shouldn't "stick completely to Torah."

Jesus cured on the Sabbath -- a clear transgression of the Law as the Jews understood it.

sojourner · May 19, 2006

wmam said:
You'll get no argument out of me on the fact that the christian churchs seem to pick and choose as it seems to fit them. Sounds like that they say we are no longer under the law but oh wait, with the exception of this and that and this and maybe this one over here as well........ etc. etc. etc. etc.

Darn right we do! I make no excuses or apologies for that! If observing a certain Law brings me closer to God in the culture in which I live, great! If not, cut the branch and burn it.

unk:

michel · May 19, 2006

Mister_T said:
This brought a question to my mind specifically geared towards people who want to deny gay people their rights.

I seriously doubt I'll get a straight answer but here it goes. Entertain me for a second: What if the Bible never said anything about homosexuality? Or better yet, what if God condoned it? Would you then let gays marry and attend church?

Good point. Fruballs.

Jerrell · May 19, 2006

sojourner said:
What, exactly, did Jesus preach about homosexuality? Jesus never touched on the subject. And don't hand me that line about "observing the Law." Jesus broke the Law, forgiving sin, healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners, and all in the name of loving his neighbor. Therefore, in favor of loving our brothers and sisters, I say it's incumbent upon us to dismiss a Levitican Law that addressed more of a cultural issue of the day than a moral issue.

Jesus never broke the law:
John Says " Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" ( 1 John 3:4)

Peter says " Christ...did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:21-22)

Jesus never broke the law, nor should you we are to follow after Jesus who was an Example unto us.(1 Peter 2:21)

God gave the law through Moses, saying to rest and do not work on the sabbath. The jews wanted to define what "work" was. So they said no healing, no gathering crops, ect... this was not what God said. Healing is not doing something Bad, and Jesus did nothing wrong by helping the man.

Homosexuality is not only talked agiast in the Old testament but also in the new.

The BIble declares that the effeminate wont enter the Kingdom of God. From the greek meaning of the Word it means a male who takes on the role of a woman.

Romans
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

Green Gaia · May 19, 2006

Jerrell said:
The BIble declares that the effeminate wont enter the Kingdom of God. From the greek meaning of the Word it means a male who takes on the role of a woman.

[SIZE=-1]"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]1Corinthians 6:9 KJV[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]

For Whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1 Timothy 1:1 KJV[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]There are two words which appear to have been mistranslated. Malakee (effeminate) which appears in 1 Corinthians, and arsenokeeteh (abusers of themselves with mankind) which appears in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The Greek term malakee is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender. It wasn't until 1946 that malakee was given a sexual connotation when it was translated to mean "sexual perverts" in the Revised Standard Version.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
The second term arsenokeeteh literally means "male-active-bed". Unfortunately, arsenokeeteh has been interpreted by some to mean homosexual. The term arsenokeeteh is obscure, as evidenced by the variety of interpretations it has been assigned throughout history (including "people with infamous habits", and "child molesters"). If Paul was addressing male homosexuality why did he choose such an obscure word when there were Greek words that were more commonly used to describe homosexual behavior? Given Paul's concern with temple prostitution, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that "male-active-bed" was a reference to the male cult prostitution that was prevalent in Greco-Roman culture at that time? [/SIZE]

Romans
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

[SIZE=-1] In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

source
[/SIZE]

sojourner · May 19, 2006

Jerrell said:
Jesus never broke the law:
John Says " Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" ( 1 John 3:4)

Peter says " Christ...did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:21-22)

Jesus never broke the law, nor should you we are to follow after Jesus who was an Example unto us.(1 Peter 2:21)

God gave the law through Moses, saying to rest and do not work on the sabbath. The jews wanted to define what "work" was. So they said no healing, no gathering crops, ect... this was not what God said. Healing is not doing something Bad, and Jesus did nothing wrong by helping the man.

Homosexuality is not only talked agiast in the Old testament but also in the new.

The BIble declares that the effeminate wont enter the Kingdom of God. From the greek meaning of the Word it means a male who takes on the role of a woman.

Romans
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

Then why did they kill him? The problem here is that we're talking about two different ideas of law. According to human interpretation of law, Jesus was a transgressor. That's why they killed him. My point is that the Levitican Law against homosexuality was also a man-made interpretation of a human act. The Law of God to love our neighbor overrides the Levitican Law in this case.

Again, Jesus never mentions homosexuality.

Homosexuality and the Church

Deviled Hen

Active Member

Born Again,Spirit Filled

Holding All and None

Born Again,Spirit Filled

Holding All and None

Deviled Hen

Forum Relic

Holding All and None

Active Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006