Homosexuality

[SilenceInMotion]

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,.............


Go ahead, my point was the hypocrisy of condemning homosexuals here while protecting the homosexual priest of your faith.

Your point is that you have none. Tear down the stained glass in your church, burn any portrait of Jesus, etch out the cross on your Bible, and never get your picture taken or draw anything. Ever.

Then you will be living by your false interpretation of that commandment. That commandment speaks against worshiping false idols. Yet again, you just show the ugly desperation of people trying to bash the Church. There is even a statue of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism carved by Protestants.

What you have ben propelling is just another run of the mill anti-catholic claim, and one that miserably fails right on impact at that. So, you can either get back to the topic or I'm reporting you. I'm seriously tired of not being able to have a discussion without this nonsense.

 

[Rex]

Just who is the devil wearing red Prada's?

No, you are the problem. Those such as yourself who choose to do nothing then accuse and convict like the Devil himself, but then turn around and call yourself a Christian.
Those like you could actually learn from the Catholic perspective.

We're not the ones telling the entire world they are going to Hell if they don't confess Jesus is Lord, including all your non-Christian loved ones. I'm surprised at how society even accepts you. Perhaps if that fact was put explicitly to light, they wouldn't hate Catholics so much. If you ask me, it's all too clear who has a perverted perspective.

Your testimony convinces you not me, the same with your convicting homosexuality on one hand and on the other offering excesses.

 

[Axehead]

Thanks for the post, Axehead ...it made me feel quite humble. So much so that, while you and I may continue to have our disagreements on this topic, I'd prefer to say that we've simply reached an impasse and that we at least remain on as friendly terms as is possible. I realize that this can be difficult to do and one may well feel at times like reaching through the computer screen and wringing the neck of some other person who irritates us ... ...but I've gained respect for you and I'd prefer not to mess that up if I can possibly help it. Don't let that stop you chiding me, however, if you feel the need. Thanks again.

Hi KCKID,

Yes, I am sure we will have our disagreements, but just to be clear, any disagreement you may have with me and I have with you is simply what each one of us believe the Scriptures say and the nature of God demonstrates. This is a forum where ideas and beliefs and convictions are spoken about. I do not relate to those without Christ, specifically about their sin, per se. It all depends on the situation and how the Spirit of God is leading me. The core issue is always about someone being without Christ, and the root of that person's alienation with Christ is usually more than "skin deep". The Holy Spirit knows each man and woman, intimately and knows the path to freedom for each one.

It is an endless conversation or debate to talk about what is sin and what is not sin as the "flesh" is very good at self-justification and this happens in the Christian and non-Christian camps, too. What is important is if one is dwelling in the Kingdom of Darkness or the Kingdom of His Dear Son.

Dr. Rosaria Butterfield has demonstrated by her actions that her repentance was and is genuine. Though it was not in the interview, you can read more about it in her book if you are looking for details. For all of us, it is only repentance and a turning towards Christ that will bring one into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. There can be no "blurring of the lines". There really are no gray areas and once a person is serious about turning to the Lord with ALL their heart and turning away from their idols, their vision greatly improves.

All the best,
Axehead

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Just who is the devil wearing red Prada's?
Your testimony convinces you not me, the same with your convicting homosexuality on one hand and on the other offering excesses.

Offering realism is what I'm doing. Luther hated Jews with a burning passion, and that is why he made a theology in which only Christians can be saved. It is not traditional, biblical Christianity. His belief was made adulterated by his anti-semitism, which is one of the things he did not like about the Church who was laxing on Jewry and rather performing an inquisition on those who were Christians.

The history and origin of Protestant doctrine is what convinces me. Churches don't go wrong for 1500 years from the very beginning and then magically get 're-gospeled' by some random German monk.

 

[dragonfly]

Men do not have this problem (or its far far rare), and I have never known or heard of a man choosing to be gay;

Hi Jack,

Perhaps you did not see my earlier post with some reference to statistics for abuse of both males and females?

I don't know if you would be able to interpret the information, but you show very little understanding of the aetiology of homosexual responses which have been cultivated by abusive situations. Men can rape boys and men just as often - if not more often - than most females who are raped within the family are raped, and while some of the victims will avoid risky situations with males, others find themselves addicted to them.

In the same way, some of the female abuse victims - who do not seek solace in lesbian relationshps - will become prostitutes, or find themselves unable to resist sexual encounters, or seek out sexual encounters, or avoid sexual encounters.

There are many factors which have not been mentioned in this discussion, which affect the way the victim deals with their physical and psychological responses to having been abused.

Regarding your disagreement with me... that matters not. But to suggest that the thesis you're putting forward is approved by God, is a fiction.

 

[KCKID]

Being mortally deviant. That is truly the only way one can justify it is by calling it an inborn trait, which is a completely arbitrary claim with no real evidence or even proper reasoning for that matter. And then adding insult to injury, the Bible is adamently against homosexuality and Christians are going around selling this crap that they are okay with God and that it's natural? No- there is something really wrong there. Be ready to give an account as to why in the world you decided to support such things when the fat lady sings because homosexual supporters do not get by with God, they get by with the world and that is serving two masters.

Be that as it may ...why are you taking this so personally and becoming so emotional and angry? Is God that petty that He needs you to fend for Him? Does it put you in better standing with God IF you fend for Him and get emotional and angry in the process? If YOU don't care for homosexuals and therefore bad-mouth them that's one thing - you might then be called a bigot if you can handle that. But, let God fight His own battles ...I'm sure that He can do so without your help.

It's not too difficult to figure out those who are pushing their own hate-filled aganda ...an agenda that has little or nothing to do with God/the Bible. There is much deception going on here and I doubt that this would be pleasing to an Almighty God.

If that is the implication, they are just normal people who are flawed just everyone else. I support homosexuality as a sexuality created by God, but I have met a few homosexuals that I personally did not like as individuals. Their sexuality was not a factor, they were just individuals who I did not care to associate with for other reasons.

I said what I said about marksman's implication that homosexuals are 'potential murderers' with a tone of irony. I'm sure you understood that. What I was saying, in effect, is that the assinine implication in marksman's post that homosexuals are potential murderers was/is nothing more than a piece of unadulterated garbage. And, I'm sure that others of both camps on this issue are intelligent enough to know that.

Pretty much. All evidence from the testimonies I've gotten from gays is that they are bi-sexual, and their homosexual lifestyle is a choice. Men are more sexually submissive then women, and while they may not come right out and say it, you can sense it being expounded indirectly in what they say.

I've never met a homosexual in my entire life who has never had sexual ties to a woman. The one I know most was married and has two children. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not merely a sexual preference, it is an entire lifestyle. A homosexual typically defines their life as such, it is not just a once in a while sexual gratification. That is why homosexuality is in fact idolatry, and Paul stated that they cannot inherit the Kingdom because he surely made the same assessment.

Inborn homosexuality, as it currently stands, is a myth. Society pretty much runs with it simply because it is convenient to do so, and homosexuals will try to foster the lie for their own justification.

Again, you're taking this far too personally for it to have anything to do with the scriptures. Homosexuality IS with us - whether you like it or not - and it matters not how much jumping up and down, tearing out your hair and frothing at the mouth you do to try to stop it. It isn't going to happen. Once you've preached your Bible message to those YOU perceive as being God's enemies then your task is finished. There is no need for you and like others to further involve yourselves in a witch-hunt. A witch-hunt has nothing to do with God or the Bible ...NOTHING! This is, as I say, a personal issue to you and some others here and your using the Bible/God with which to bolster your personal agenda is deceptive!

 

[Rex]

It's not too difficult to figure out those who are pushing their own hate-filled aganda ...an agenda that has little or nothing to do with God/the Bible. There is much deception going on here and I doubt that this would be pleasing to an Almighty God.

Agendas seems to be the norm these days, changing documents that have been preserved and dated from the first century and before is an agenda as well, wouldn't you agree?

The Queen James Bible
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0615724531?tag=qjv-20

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Be that as it may ...why are you taking this so personally and becoming so emotional and angry? Is God that petty that He needs you to fend for Him? Does it put you in better standing with God IF you fend for Him and get emotional and angry in the process? If YOU don't care for homosexuals and therefore bad-mouth them that's one thing - you might then be called a bigot if you can handle that. But, let God fight His own battles ...I'm sure that He can do so without your help.

It's not too difficult to figure out those who are pushing their own hate-filled aganda ...an agenda that has little or nothing to do with God/the Bible. There is much deception going on here and I doubt that this would be pleasing to an Almighty God.



I said what I said about marksman's implication that homosexuals are 'potential murderers' with a tone of irony. I'm sure you understood that. What I was saying, in effect, is that the assinine implication in marksman's post that homosexuals are potential murderers was/is nothing more than a piece of unadulterated garbage. And, I'm sure that others of both camps on this issue are intelligent enough to know that.



Again, you're taking this far too personally for it to have anything to do with the scriptures. Homosexuality IS with us - whether you like it or not - and it matters not how much jumping up and down, tearing out your hair and frothing at the mouth you do to try to stop it. It isn't going to happen. Once you've preached your Bible message to those YOU perceive as being God's enemies then your task is finished. There is no need for you and like others to further involve yourselves in a witch-hunt. A witch-hunt has nothing to do with God or the Bible ...NOTHING! This is, as I say, a personal issue to you and some others here and your using the Bible/God with which to bolster your personal agenda is deceptive!

I'm not bolstering an attack against homosexuals, I'm bolstering attack against those who call homosexuality okay. What's deceptive is those such as yourself calling an idolatrous sin acceptable. You're issuing a lot of false hope and perpeuating sinful lifestyles by supporting it. I can't stop the hopeless, if that's what they claim to be, but you- yes, you are putting up a false image of what my religion details, ultimately trashing truth that those such as myself have to iron out againa and again.

 

[KCKID]

You squirm more than a snake. One thing I have noticed is that the pink mafia use the word "but" with condescending regularity. When they are caught with their pants down (their preferred position), they invent another "but" to wriggle out of an obvious case of what they say is complete mumbo jumbo and have to hide their lies with another lie.

Squirming like a snake is the last thing that I would ever need to do.

There appears to be no such organization as the Pink Mafia.

The last part of your paragraph was the epitome of mumbo-jumbo.

As for your comment "playing the straight role" you are condescending and snottish as you obviously enjoy putting down people who have made a genuine change and have blown the pink mafia's lies right out of the window.

I think that I already explained in fairly easy to understand English that someone can quite effectively play the role of a heterosexual while being of a homosexual orientation. This has been done countless times in the past and just as likely continues to be the case in many cases as we speak. One's marital partner may NEVER know that their spouse is covertly a homosexual. 'Playing the role' - and perhaps being quite happy and contented to do so - does not mean that a homosexual has become a heterosexual. Okay? What I just now repeated from previously is not 'putting down people who have made a genuine change'. They have NOT changed sexual orientation but have merely adapted to a relationship that, for the present at least, is satisfactory for them. Furthermore, being a 'covert' homosexual married to a heterosexual partner may have nothing to do with one's belief - or not - in Jesus. Neither need it have anything to do with 'repentence' at all. This type of thing goes on within Christian and nonChristian relationships alike. It's to do with 'appearance'. So, what does this tell you?

The more you talk the more you uncover your submission to the gay agenda and becoming an ambassador for it and I know you are going to say that is not true, but if you ask most people contributing here, they would agree with me, not you.

That is NOT TRUE with regard to my submitting to the gay agenda and becoming an ambassador for it! Dang!! I just fell into your trap just as you knew i would! BAZINGA!!

As for most people here agreeing with you and not me ...well, all I can say is that you're obviously a popular little cookie and I, obviously, am not . . . :unsure:

Agendas seems to be the norm these days, changing documents that have been preserved and dated from the first century and before is an agenda as well, wouldn't you agree?

Changing perhaps well-intentioned but nevertheless bogus interpretations of those 'preserved' but ancient 'documents' with other just as valid - perhaps more so - interpretations cannot be a bad thing. The worst thing that can happen is that there are other interpretations available for scrutiny of the same scriptures that can either be accepted or rejected by whoever. What you seem to be saying is that it's better to remain in ignorance simply because something is dated 1st century. I'm not sure that redefining and correcting possible errors contained in 'previously accepted' documents would be considered to be 'an agenda' but it could be.

I am disagreeing with you because i don't agree with your perception.

This is also my thinking. There seems to be only one perception by most participants on this thread and that is, often, a personal one. And, guess what? That personal perception is the one that God appears to agree with. Is that the way for most of us, whichever camp we happen to be in on this issue? Yes, pretty much. The Bible is rarely 'black and white' and I doubt that it was ever written to be used in the manner that some - even many - use it. Some, many, of the scriptures are ambiguous in nature and oftentimes we don't get the full picture. In regard to Paul's letters, for instance, we often only get one side of what might be going on in any given situation. We are not privvy to the initial issues, situations, or the verbal complaints from other parties to whom Paul is responding. It's similar to hearing someone's telephone conversation just from 'this' end. Yes, we may be able to piece together the gist of the topic being discussed but we don't know exactly what is going on since we can't hear the comments from the other end of the line. The Bible is very much like this throughout. We have to guess or piece together much of what is going on. Anyone who claims to know for certain what the Bible claims to say about homosexuality as we refer to the term in its modern idiom is not telling the truth ...or, at least, they don't know whether it's the truth or not. Am I 'wicked' or 'squirming like a snake' for saying this? Well, that, again, is one's personal perception. And, the key word - as you pointed out, Jack - IS perception.

I believe God challenges us to think for ourselves as individuals, and expects us to speak out when we see injustice being imposed on others who have done no wrong\harm. This is what Jesus did.

Absolutely.

 

[Rach1370]

Offering realism is what I'm doing. Luther hated Jews with a burning passion, and that is why he made a theology in which only Christians can be saved. It is not traditional, biblical Christianity. His belief was made adulterated by his anti-semitism, which is one of the things he did not like about the Church who was laxing on Jewry and rather performing an inquisition on those who were Christians.

Actually, Luther in his early years was full of hope for the Jewish people. He seemed to believe that when faced with Paul's explanation of the good news of Christ and his gospel (Ephesians 2:8-9), that the Jews would swarm to Christ in numbers.
It appears as they years went by and the Jewish people remained in stubborn rebellion, his hope died. Indeed he did say some things that, especially now after the holocaust, would be seen as horrific anti-Semitism. But in actuality it's nothing that God himself hasn't said about his people in the past. Indeed, all we need to do is read the the accounts of God relating his people to an chronically unfaithful woman, to see how God felt about Israel...about how again and again they turned away from the truth and refused to hear God calling to her. We saw God's judgement upon her for murdering Christ in the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Finally, I should also mention....Protestants recognise Luther as an important figure in redirecting the Church back towards what Paul had originally taught (again, see Eph, and all the other passages in which Paul tells us that salvation comes through faith alone)...but...we do not see him as anything other than human. Flawed, struggling, human, sinful. Just like every single one of us. He was just used mightily by God.

The history and origin of Protestant doctrine is what convinces me. Churches don't go wrong for 1500 years from the very beginning and then magically get 're-gospeled' by some random German monk.

The history and origin of Protestant doctrine is the bible. The end.

However...even as I would say that I see some doctrinal mistakes in the Catholic church...then, and today....I would freely say the same of many, many Protestant Churches.
That is why it is so important to check, re-check, and check again, our doctrines against scripture. And in regards to the topic at hand....homosexuality IS a sin. The bible is so very clear on this fact.
And while scripture encourages us to see homosexuality outside the Church this way, it also tells us to look on those people as lost, enslaved to sin. In this way we respond to them with invitations to grace and love.
However...homosexuality inside the Church (and by 'inside' I mean active members or even pastors/elders/deacons, rather than just homosexuals attending church in effort to learn etc) is not to be tolerated. And in this issue, the Catholic church is succeeding beyond many of the Protestant ones. Yes, there are the priests who have been found to be homosexuals and even paedophiles. But to think there are not pastors in our denominations who have secret and horrible sins is just ignorance. What I am talking about here is that many Protestant denominations have made it 'legal' for homosexuals to have a place within the church...even teaching...even as they practice a lifestyle that the bible condemns. The Catholic church, thus far, has denied the legitimacy of this...and I do hope they continue to. And I can only pray that so many of the churches that have welcomed people living in open sin...indeed even given them a platform to teach and justify such sins, will be convicted of their mistake. It's a slippery slope.

 

[KCKID]

Hahahahaha... . Rubbish!

That was a response to Jack Safari's post. If you, JB, were on a debating team a mocking tone and a one-liner term of insult such as the one you gave would either be rejected outright OR you would need to justify the remark with a suitable discourse of WHY you term Jack's post as "Rubbish!" I do realize, of course, that haughty laughter, a pious tone and a mocking smiley face win pats on the back from those who happen to be on the same team on most Christian forums. In reality it's nothing less than cheap point-scoring in the most immature, non-productive and demeaning way.

 

[JackSafari]

Hi Jack,

Perhaps you did not see my earlier post with some reference to statistics for abuse of both males and females?

I don't know if you would be able to interpret the information, but you show very little understanding of the aetiology of homosexual responses which have been cultivated by abusive situations. Men can rape boys and men just as often - if not more often - than most females who are raped within the family are raped, and while some of the victims will avoid risky situations with males, others find themselves addicted to them.

In the same way, some of the female abuse victims - who do not seek solace in lesbian relationshps - will become prostitutes, or find themselves unable to resist sexual encounters, or seek out sexual encounters, or avoid sexual encounters.

There are many factors which have not been mentioned in this discussion, which affect the way the victim deals with their physical and psychological responses to having been abused.

Regarding your disagreement with me... that matters not. But to suggest that the thesis you're putting forward is approved by God, is a fiction.

Rape is bad, regardless who does it. There is nothing to suggest homosexuality causes men to rape. Your disregarding the point of my previous post which is that that girls who have been raped\molested by heterosexual men find it very very difficult to have healthy sexual relationships with men, and some choose lesbian relationships as method to cope with their abuse. Many\most of them return to heterosexual relationships later once they have gone through a healing process. Clearly not all abuse girls choose lesbian relationship, but some do. Going back to heterosexual relationships is simply returning to their inherent sexual orientation, not rejecting being a lesbian.

There is no evidence that Homosexuality is bad\unhealthy for a person, or that sexual orientation is a choice a person makes (or its forced upon them). Simply because some believe that God rejects homosexuality is not evidence, it is simply a religious belief. I accept that some people reject homosexuality based on their religious beliefs, and that is between them and God, not between them and there reset of the world. It is not a matter for public policies or laws that gives them lesser legal rights.

 

[KCKID]

However...homosexuality inside the Church (and by 'inside' I mean active members or even pastors/elders/deacons, rather than just homosexuals attending church in effort to learn etc) is not to be tolerated.

And, lest the Church be accused of hypocrisy, the very same intolerance afforded to those who are divorced and remarried.

 

[Rach1370]

And, lest the Church be accused of hypocrisy, the very same intolerance afforded to those who are divorced and remarried.

There are biblical grounds for both marriage and divorce...none whatsoever for homosexuality.

 

[KCKID]

I'm not bolstering an attack against homosexuals, I'm bolstering attack against those who call homosexuality okay. What's deceptive is those such as yourself calling an idolatrous sin acceptable. You're issuing a lot of false hope and perpeuating sinful lifestyles by supporting it. I can't stop the hopeless, if that's what they claim to be, but you- yes, you are putting up a false image of what my religion details, ultimately trashing truth that those such as myself have to iron out againa and again.

In actuality I'm not saying that either heterosexuality or homosexuality is 'okay'. I'm saying that one's sexual orientation is simply not an issue for me. Nor do I believe it to be an issue with an almighty, powerful, non-human, non-petty Deity. It simply makes no sense to keep on pursuing such a pointless topic so relentlessly. All it does - since homosexuality will NOT disappear from society no matter how many people we might bash over the head with scripture - is to create and to perpetuate disunity within the Church and encourage the mocking games between one professed Christian against another professed Christian that we see going on in these Christians forums. This surely CANNOT be indicative of the message of Jesus Christ!

There are biblical grounds for both marriage and divorce...none whatsoever for homosexuality.

I would say that very few divorces occur on biblical grounds. Therefore, in a huge many cases, divorce would be unbiblical. As for remarriage ...the jury might be out on that one but I maintain that "God" is against remarriage in all cases except where a former spouse is deceased. In any event, it's rather a slippery slope argument when it comes to the Church determining which divorce is 'biblical' and which divorce is not! A great deal of disunity and falling apart would occur within the Church if this course of action were ever to be taken. In fact, there would be an upheaval the likes as have not been witnessed ever before within the Church. The 'homosexual issue' would pale by comparison. Being intolerant toward unbiblical divorce/remarriage won't happen for this reason. Better to slide this one under the carpet! But, "God" knows. Regardless, where one specific 'sin' is not to be tolerated nor should another be tolerated. Otherwise the apt term is, unfortunately ...hypocrisy.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Pretty much. All evidence from the testimonies I've gotten from gays is that they are bi-sexual, and their homosexual lifestyle is a choice. Men are more sexually submissive then women, and while they may not come right out and say it, you can sense it being expounded indirectly in what they say.

I've never met a homosexual in my entire life who has never had sexual ties to a woman. The one I know most was married and has two children. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not merely a sexual preference, it is an entire lifestyle. A homosexual typically defines their life as such, it is not just a once in a while sexual gratification. That is why homosexuality is in fact idolatry, and Paul stated that they cannot inherit the Kingdom because he surely made the same assessment.

Inborn homosexuality, as it currently stands, is a myth. Society pretty much runs with it simply because it is convenient to do so, and homosexuals will try to foster the lie for their own justification.

Thanks for putting in the time to consider my albeit short response. Indeed, the hyperbole, lies and misinformation that is slung around under the guise of homosexual rights and orientation is laughable - Quite frankly I often don't have the motivation to break apart such diabolical but yet obvious disinformation published through popular media and espoused on christian discussion forums like this.

The age old trick... HAS GOD REALLY SAID?.. Comes to mind.

They always come up with another set of lies etc or offer one a redirection.

That was a response to Jack Safari's post. If you, JB, were on a debating team a mocking tone and a one-liner term of insult such as the one you gave would either be rejected outright OR you would need to justify the remark with a suitable discourse of WHY you term Jack's post as "Rubbish!" I do realize, of course, that haughty laughter, a pious tone and a mocking smiley face win pats on the back from those who happen to be on the same team on most Christian forums. In reality it's nothing less than cheap point-scoring in the most immature, non-productive and demeaning way.

You know, you are really starting to entertain me. Thanks..

 

[KCKID]

Thanks for putting in the time to consider my albeit short response. Indeed, the hyperbole, lies and misinformation that is slung around under the guise of homosexual rights and orientation is laughable - Quite frankly I often don't have the motivation to break apart such diabolical but yet obvious disinformation published through popular media and espoused on christian discussion forums like this.

The age old trick... HAS GOD REALLY SAID?.. Comes to mind.

They always come up with another set of lies etc or offer one a redirection.



You know, you are really starting to entertain me. Thanks..

Hey, you're welcome and no need to apologize ...not everyone can keep up with me on an intellectual level . . .

 

[Rach1370]

KCKID said:
I would say that very few divorces occur on biblical grounds. Therefore, in a huge many cases, divorce would be unbiblical. As for remarriage ...the jury might be out on that one but I maintain that "God" is against remarriage in all cases except where a former spouse is deceased. In any event, it's rather a slippery slope argument when it comes to the Church determining which divorce is 'biblical' and which divorce is not! A great deal of disunity and falling apart would occur within the Church if this course of action were ever to be taken. In fact, there would be an upheaval the likes as have not been witnessed ever before within the Church. The 'homosexual issue' would pale by comparison. Being intolerant toward unbiblical divorce/remarriage won't happen for this reason. Better to slide this one under the carpet! But, "God" knows. Regardless, where one specific 'sin' is not to be tolerated nor should another be tolerated. Otherwise the apt term is, unfortunately ...hypocrisy.




Well, saying that very few divorces occur on biblical grounds is a very hard thing to prove really, since we cannot be privy to the actual sins within each and every relationship that breaks down. But yes...there is a very good chance that many, many divorces come unbiblically. But the topic, unlike the one of homosexuality, is not simple. Within divorce there could be sin on one side or both. Either the man or the woman...Christian...could find themselves left, sinned against by the other...and then left within some church families as disgraced and shamed. This should not be, as they have not sinned, but have been sinned against.

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15 ESV)

Also, in cases of abuse, the abusing partner has clearly, repeatedly, broken the vow he gave before his spouse and God. He (or she) is sinning in such a way that negates the sanctity of their relationship, and as we have a clear reflection of Christ and his bride as to how God sees how the relationship should work, I don't feel the blame should in any way lie on the abused spouse.

And also we see in scripture that divorce is acceptable in the case of adultery.

So...we have several cases in which divorce may be acceptable, and we also see that the very situation is "messy" because of the different people and sins involved...and only God can know every particular instances of these sins. Of course, I do agree that if someone divorces a spouse and refuses to admit to sin on their behalf when it is quite obvious that it is there...then Church discipline needs to come to bear...in some cases they would even need to be expelled.

As far as the situation of re-marriage...If people love Jesus as Lord and Saviour, if they long to serve and follow him...even IF the sin was on their behalf, if such sin is repented of and turned away from, then they are forgiven. And this is the very big difference we have with homosexuality....

If a couple is living in a homosexual relationship, do not see it as a sin, have no intention of stopping or repenting...then it is a sin still. Now...I'm not speaking of people who have homosexual tendencies, but do not act on those feelings, they are restraining them with the Holy Spirit. These people are of course welcome in church...along side all the other sinners who are repentant and walking sanctification with the Spirit! The situation in comparison between divorce/re-marriage and homosexuality is only consistent if a person was forever getting married and then divorced, and was not in the least bit interested or concerned that it could be their own sin that lead to such things. They go on unrepentant. The same goes for allowing the pastor to keep a mistress, to allow the treasurer to steal a little every week. It's the consistent nature of the sin that is in question. The very fact that many homosexual couples demanding entrance into the Church are doing their best to convince us, themselves and even God, that it is not a sin. I don't even understand why it is up for debate really...God has declared ALL sexual immorality outside of a covenant heterosexual marriage to be sin. He has also declared that sin not repented of is sin that will land on our own heads at judgement. And anything other than that....is simply not up for debate...the God of the universe has spoken...do we really think we have the right or the clout to nay say him?

 

[JackSafari]

That was a response to Jack Safari's post. If you, JB, were on a debating team a mocking tone and a one-liner term of insult such as the one you gave would either be rejected outright OR you would need to justify the remark with a suitable discourse of WHY you term Jack's post as "Rubbish!" I do realize, of course, that haughty laughter, a pious tone and a mocking smiley face win pats on the back from those who happen to be on the same team on most Christian forums. In reality it's nothing less than cheap point-scoring in the most immature, non-productive and demeaning way.

Thanks for the support. Such responses as the one you are referencing ultimately uncut themselves, its like dealing with someone who is racist, and have similar responses to the idea that all races are equal. If they believe they have a valid counter argument, they state it. If they don't, but want to respond anyway, they post an insult. I have respect for those who stand behind their religious beliefs if they can defend them in a respectful way, and they are not suggesting harm should come to others. If they can't rise to the occasion of respect, then they are unworthy to remain in the discussion, just like a racist who can't defend racism other than through insults and attacks.

IMHO, it always come down to the question of "What Jesus would do?

 

[KCKID]

KCKID said:
I would say that very few divorces occur on biblical grounds. Therefore, in a huge many cases, divorce would be unbiblical. As for remarriage ...the jury might be out on that one but I maintain that "God" is against remarriage in all cases except where a former spouse is deceased. In any event, it's rather a slippery slope argument when it comes to the Church determining which divorce is 'biblical' and which divorce is not! A great deal of disunity and falling apart would occur within the Church if this course of action were ever to be taken. In fact, there would be an upheaval the likes as have not been witnessed ever before within the Church. The 'homosexual issue' would pale by comparison. Being intolerant toward unbiblical divorce/remarriage won't happen for this reason. Better to slide this one under the carpet! But, "God" knows. Regardless, where one specific 'sin' is not to be tolerated nor should another be tolerated. Otherwise the apt term is, unfortunately ...hypocrisy.




Well, saying that very few divorces occur on biblical grounds is a very hard thing to prove really, since we cannot be privy to the actual sins within each and every relationship that breaks down. But yes...there is a very good chance that many, many divorces come unbiblically. But the topic, unlike the one of homosexuality, is not simple. Within divorce there could be sin on one side or both. Either the man or the woman...Christian...could find themselves left, sinned against by the other...and then left within some church families as disgraced and shamed. This should not be, as they have not sinned, but have been sinned against.

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15 ESV)

Also, in cases of abuse, the abusing partner has clearly, repeatedly, broken the vow he gave before his spouse and God. He (or she) is sinning in such a way that negates the sanctity of their relationship, and as we have a clear reflection of Christ and his bride as to how God sees how the relationship should work, I don't feel the blame should in any way lie on the abused spouse.

And also we see in scripture that divorce is acceptable in the case of adultery.

So...we have several cases in which divorce may be acceptable, and we also see that the very situation is "messy" because of the different people and sins involved...and only God can know every particular instances of these sins. Of course, I do agree that if someone divorces a spouse and refuses to admit to sin on their behalf when it is quite obvious that it is there...then Church discipline needs to come to bear...in some cases they would even need to be expelled.

As far as the situation of re-marriage...If people love Jesus as Lord and Saviour, if they long to serve and follow him...even IF the sin was on their behalf, if such sin is repented of and turned away from, then they are forgiven. And this is the very big difference we have with homosexuality....

If a couple is living in a homosexual relationship, do not see it as a sin, have no intention of stopping or repenting...then it is a sin still. Now...I'm not speaking of people who have homosexual tendencies, but do not act on those feelings, they are restraining them with the Holy Spirit. These people are of course welcome in church...along side all the other sinners who are repentant and walking sanctification with the Spirit! The situation in comparison between divorce/re-marriage and homosexuality is only consistent if a person was forever getting married and then divorced, and was not in the least bit interested or concerned that it could be their own sin that lead to such things. They go on unrepentant. The same goes for allowing the pastor to keep a mistress, to allow the treasurer to steal a little every week. It's the consistent nature of the sin that is in question. The very fact that many homosexual couples demanding entrance into the Church are doing their best to convince us, themselves and even God, that it is not a sin. I don't even understand why it is up for debate really...God has declared ALL sexual immorality outside of a covenant heterosexual marriage to be sin. He has also declared that sin not repented of is sin that will land on our own heads at judgement. And anything other than that....is simply not up for debate...the God of the universe has spoken...do we really think we have the right or the clout to nay say him?

With all due respect ...I disagree. If someone divorces and remarries and is accepted into membership by the Church then so too should a homosexual, no ifs, ands or buts. As for someone 'living in sin' before repentence, they would still be 'living in sin' after repentence unless the situation is changed. Annulment of such a marriage and a vow of life-long celibacy or reconciliation with the former spouse would be the actual evidence of repentence. I realize that this is not a practical solution, I quickly add, and I'm not personally suggesting that anyone do this. But then, neither am I against homosexuals in the Church. Anyway, the 'divorce/remarrieds' situation has become very problematic for the Church. To insist on annulment for unbiblical marriages would result in huge membership loss as well as heartache for many. Since the Church cannot afford this it therefore tends to sweep divorce/remarriage under the carpet in the hope that no one will question it.