Neither the present nor the future can separate us from God (Rom 8:38-39) / All Sins are Covered (Col 2:13-15) / An inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade (1 Peter 1:4)Aaron Lindahl said:
Why can these Bible teachings and commands be ignored while others can not?
- Thread starter Aaron Lindahl
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
I never suggested that it was historical, but rather a carnal sociological phenomenon. In societies such as that of Ancient Rome and Greece homosexual behavior was socially acceptable, but heterosexuals have always considered the behavior abnormal. There have been societies (such as some native American tribes) where the behavior was accepted as something special of a spiritual nature, but this is a proof that it was considered an uncommon or abnormal behavior. From a purely biological and evolutionary point of view (which I neither believe or espouse) the behavior is counter productive and detrimental to the survival of a species. That men have a natural aversion to those who practice such behavior and even historically have persecuted such individuals in the more aggressive male dominated cultures is no surprise because of its detrimental affect upon society in the way of contributing to gender identity confusion.Aaron Lindahl said:
I'd like to remind you that although the church of our Lord Jesus Christ is not under the law of Moses, nor were the gentile nations ever subject to this law, the Law as such is still identified by the scripture as "good" and is an expression of the perfect will of God, and God calls such behavior an abomination and equates it by penalty to that of murder and adultery.
If you have been honest in identifying this doctrine as coming from the leadership of your church, then I would suggest that your church is actually a cult and by no means a part of the body of Christ. Furthermore, I would suggest that by publishing such material on any site (not just a Christian forum) you have made yourself as guilty as those apostate teachers that have been attacking the scripture by attempting to redefine truth. The good news is that you needn't suffer their fate, but may come to repentance, confessing your sin to God and trusting in the blood of our Savior to cover all your sin.
If this seems unloving and biased, let me say that I am less offended by homosexual behavior than I am by that which attacks the word of God and the character of God which it expresses, as well as His sovereignty in maintaining the integrity of His word over the course of at least 4 millennia. The proliferation of transliterations and paraphrases of scripture in our time is no less than the greatest attack upon the scripture since it was committed to stone, parchment or paper. The practice of altering meaning through alternative translation is common to the cults and a means of justifying rebellion against God. Sin remains sin regardless of whether we believe it or not, but the good news is that every sin can be forgiven and covered by the blood of Jesus, short of the sin of rejecting Him as the risen Lord of all creation, our God incarnate, blessed forever. Amen.
Hi Michael, thank you, but I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree with you on that it is detrimental to the survival of a species, as most biologists would as well. Homosexuals will always be a minority, so it does not affect the procreation rate of the heterosexual majority.Michael V Pardo said:
[SIZE=10pt]One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is entirely wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Over 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality.
Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.[/SIZE]
However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.
Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all.
This is true of bottlenose dolphins and killer whales, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.
In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.
The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random.
In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season.
Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. There are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is an undeniable fact. It is as natural as can be besides being beneficial in many circumstances as listed above, just as God created it.
As well, it was not just accepted and considered normal within Greek and Roman societies.
There is very strong evidence demonstrating the existence of same-sex unions, including legally recognized marriages, in Native American, African, and Asian cultures, evidence which is especially striking prior to those cultures' domination by Western Europe. The sources include traditional historical records, such as contemporary accounts, artifacts, myths, and stories, though the best evidence tends to be the work of social anthropologists and ethnographers, who, through their fieldwork in non-Western cultures, have been able to retrieve much of these cultures' pre-Western traditions and institutions.
Among the most frequently recurring of these institutions is same-sex marriage.
Native American Cultures:
Although few written records of pre-Columbian Native American cultures are accessible to us, we do have the benefit of histories describing those cultures written by Spanish explorers, missionaries, and bureaucrats. These sources provide early accounts of same-sex unions in the Americas. For example, Francisco Lopez de Gomara's History of the Indies (1552), proclaimed that "'the men marry other men who are impotent or castrated and go around like women, perform their duties and are used as such and who cannot carry or use the bow.' Alvar Cabeza de Vaca also witnessed unions between same-sex couples, stating in Narrative of the Expeditions and Shipwrecks of Cabeza de Vaca (1542) that he "'saw a man married to another man.' Juan de Torquemada, in the Monarchia Indiana (1615), described a common custom whereby "parents [gave] a youth to their young son, to have him for a woman and to use him as a woman; from that also began the law that if anyone approached the youth, they were ordered to pay for it, punishing them with the same penalties as those breaking the condition of a marriage."
Same-sex unions between women were also reported. Pedro de Magdlhaes' The Histories of Brazil (1576) describes Native American women in northeastern Brazil who "give up all the duties of women and imitate men, and follow men's pursuits as if they were not women.... “Each has a woman to serve her, to whom she says she is married, and they treat each other and speak with each other as man and wife."
What these (and other) accounts describe is the berdache tradition in the Americas, which was institutionalized in the Indies and throughout what is now the United States, as well as in the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan civilizations.
The Native American berdache is a person-male or female-who deviates from his or her traditional gender role, taking on some of the characteristics and perceived responsibilities of the opposite sex. The berdache does not, however, cross gender lines so much as mix them. Indeed, many Native American cultures considered berdaches to be a third sex. Most important, berdaches (like the account of We'wha) married individuals of the same sex, and those transgenderal marriages were well recognized by Native American laws and cultures.
Outsiders' depictions of the Native American berdache have often been colored by their anti homosexual attitudes. The accounts of Spanish authors such as those quoted above usually expressed shock, invoking Native American same-sex unions as evidence of these cultures' barbarism, which they sought to correct. Until the twentieth century, accounts by Western anthropologists suppressed the tradition.
The first detailed academic study focusing on Native American same-sex unions was George Devereux's article on the Mohave berdaches. Devereux reported that gender-crossing, homosexual men (alyha) and women (hwame) had long been tolerated by the Mohave, and that their same-sex marriages were institutionalized and socially accepted. Thus, under tribal custom and law alyha married (and divorced) men, and hwame married (and divorced) women.
African cultures:
Krige (Eileen J. Krige- Note on the Phalaborwa and Their Morula Complex, Bantu Stud. -1937) describes woman marriage as "the institution by which it is possible for a woman to give bridewealth for, and marry, a woman, over whom and whose offspring she has full control, delegating to a male genitor the duties of procreation." Krige suggests that woman marriage is "closely bound up with rights and duties arising from the social structure" of the culture, a "flexible institution that can be utilized in a number of different ways to meet a number of different situations." For example, in African cultures where women occupy a high position and can acquire property or other forms of wealth, woman marriage is one way that a woman may strengthen her economic position and establish her "household."
Ifeyinwa Olinke was a powerful and prosperous woman who advanced her position by taking many wives. Woman marriages were not uncommon in Africa. "The term female husband ... refers to a woman who takes on the legal and social roles of husband and father by marrying another woman according to the approved rules and ceremonies of her society. She may belong to any one of over 30 African populations," writes Denise O'Brien. (Denise O'Brien- Female Husbands in Southern Bantu Societies, in Sexual Stratification: A Cross-Cultural View -Alice Schlegel ed., 1977). She reports that the institution is most popular in three parts of Africa: West Africa, especially Nigeria and Dahomey, South Africa, including the Southern Bantu upon whom O'Brien reports, East Africa, and the Sudan.
Those are just a few examples, although there are many more from around the world.
As to being 'guilty' of anything, I would have to agree to disagree as well. I am a Christian, and this debate forum says it is expressly created to be a "Christian forum for intra-faith debate of the 'open-handed' and 'controversial' issues within the faith." Proverbs 27:17 (As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.)
That said, I also would have to agree to disagree with you that my church is a 'cult', unless you believe the Lutheran church is a cult. The 2009 ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis passed 'Human Sexuality, Gift and Trust', which approved positive assessments of same-gender partnerships in the church. On August 21st, 2009, the same body passed four ministry policy resolutions that opened the way for congregations to recognize and support such partnerships and for those in committed same-gender partnerships to be rostered leaders within the ELCA.
Hello again, Aaron,Aaron Lindahl said:
I see that you remain a product of the times, but because of my age I'm well aware of the genuine research that has been done on animal behavior (my BS degree is in biological sciences ) and of the activist agenda to attempt to reinterpret data in the most comical ways to support their notions that perversion is somehow normal and natural. What activists have called animal "homosexual behavior" is in reality dominance demonstration of social order. That is, what are sometimes referred to as alpha males, the ones at the top of the social order of a herd or other social group, commonly mount other males, not for the purposes of sexual gratification, but to display their dominance in the social structure. Activists, being fairly simple minded and attempting to provide "evidence" to a warped agenda, commonly attribute human emotions and motivations to animal behaviors which are totally unrelated to them. In the confines of a "zoo" environment and under the social strains of an abnormally large population for a small territory, the "normal" behaviors observed in social animals are generally far less than normal, hence the necessity of doing studies from "blinds" in the wild, where such "normal" behaviors actually serve their natural purpose in establishing and maintaining social hierarchies that play a role in the survival of the group. The reason homosexual behavior is observed in very small numbers in the wild (if at all) is that it reduces the energetic viability of the organisms that participate and the overall viability of the group. That is, the energy wasted in nonproductive coupling, is at the cost of productive coupling as well as food gathering, and reduces the viability of all that participate in it. Animal survival is a matter of energy dynamics. Animals must consume sufficient food to grow, to fight disease processes and injury, to provide energy for hunting or gathering, and to reproduce. As you move up the food chain from primary consumers such as herbivores to secondary and tertiary consumers, carnivores and scavengers, an increasingly staggering food intake is required to survive and reproduce. Wasting energy on behaviors that serve no survival purpose is suicidal. We observe young animals at play and might consider this energetically wasteful, but the play of animals (much like the play of humans) is a form of training for hunting, gathering, or eluding capture and consumption by predators, and adds to long term viability. If you have no understanding of "energetics" in animal populations, then you really don't understand anything with regard to their behavior.
Other behaviors that are commonly misinterpreted by the perverse are grooming behaviors. Social organisms sometimes maintain communal bonds by having regular physical contact through mutual grooming. In primates this is usually performed with the hands and is typically no more than the practice of removing parasites and debris from each other's fur, but in simpler mammals and birds, tongues and beaks are commonly used for such purposes, as well as for removing shedding hair and molting feathers. With some animals, cats for example, communal recognition is largely olfactory. That is, cats recognize members of their own social group by smell, and they commonly use their claws or their heads to spread secreted substances from their own bodies onto other members of their group and onto objects within their normal territory. If you bath a cat that lives with a group of cats, it is not uncommon for the cat to be attacked by the others in the group until it is able to reestablish the groups communal scent on its body. People of perverse minds will often see grooming behaviors and label them as sexual, because in their own minds they might play a part in sexual activity, but this doesn't make the animal behavior sexual, it only reveals the perversity of the observer.
The studies that you reference are what smart people would call "bad" science. On these forums it isn't unusual to find people who read meaning into scripture based upon their own experience or own sinful bents. The process is referred to as Isogetical interpretation. A sound hermeneutic is actually studying the words of scripture in their context (including their historical context) and attempting to draw the intent of the author from the written word, rather than placing meaning into the written word drawn from your own context. In the case of the scripture, God has given His Holy Spirit to those who have received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior by faith, and the Holy Spirit illuminates the scripture to give us understanding of the spiritual meaning or implication of the text. Unfortunately, the same sort of Isogetical practice is commonly used in the interpretation of scientific data and observation, and the Holy Spirit remains uninvolved in providing meaning from such results, so that the world suffers from poor interpretation of observed phenomena and poor scientific practice.
Now with regard to your church, it may be of the Lutheran denomination, but a denomination is not in reality a church. The word "church" is in part derived from the same word as "congregation" and a congregation is a gathering of people of common belief and purpose. Not all congregations are alive in Christ, many are not. I've sat in dead churches as well as live ones. Some churches are no more than social clubs or the remnant of a cultural phenomena maintained for a sense of society and established root in tradition. God's church consists of those who have been made alive by His Spirit and have Him in common as well as a common faith. Those that are dead do have a spirit in common, but it remains the spirit of this age and in rebellion against God (although sometimes only in very subtle ways.)
There's nothing worse than being deceived, because being deceived, the deceived are unaware that they are deceived. What the Lord's church has in common, beyond His Spirit, is the understanding which comes from His Spirit and can only be known through Him. I've known Buddhists and Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, and even agnostics of a calm and loving demeanor that believe it is right to do good to others, but this doesn't make them right with God, nor does it indicate that their spirits are alive. Such well meaning people have pressed for laws protecting children from violence and in the process made parents into criminals for using corporal punishment, resulting in a generation of self absorbed and self serving young members of society that are just as likely to find themselves behind bars as sitting above one making judgments on their peers. Such individuals have cried tears and yelled protests to prevent capital punishment, allowing bloodshed to go unanswered in defiance of God's covenant, yet allowed their own unborn children to be torn out of their uterus (or that of their wives.) Such individuals have fought and struggled to preserve forests and coastlines while turning a blind eye on homeless people, migrant workers, day laborers, and the masses struggling long hours to keep shoes on their children's feet, clothe their nakedness, and put food on their tables.
Should we care that homosexuals and lesbians are treated badly by people who are not homosexual or lesbian because the nature of their sin is gross and repugnant to them? All sin is repugnant to God, but He has shown us grace in the person of His Son, and His church (not the blind organization of denomination) is called to show mercy and grace to sinners. But His church is holy because of His presence in it and when we allow it to be defiled by the acceptance of sin, it is close to destruction, even as this is true of us as believers: Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17
And God's law says to Israel: "Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it; but you shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing. Deuteronomy 7:26
But the church who turns from God's law is like a widow who says `I am, and there is no one else besides me; I shall not sit as a widow, nor shall I know the loss of children'; and that path is destruction.
Hi Michael, thank you but we're just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on these topics.
You said: "Now with regard to your church, it may be of the Lutheran denomination, but a denomination is not in reality a church. The word "church" is in part derived from the same word as "congregation" and a congregation is a gathering of people of common belief and purpose. Not all congregations are alive in Christ, many are not. I've sat in dead churches as well as live ones."
It's not only 'my' particular church and congregation... it's my entire denomination who believe as I do. I assure you, we are not dead, but are quite alive in Christ. There are very many other entire Christian denominations who share our beliefs as well on these subjects.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with about 4 million members in nearly 10,000 congregations across the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Regardless, here's a link you might find useful though: [SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Same-Sex Behavior Seen in Nearly All Animal Groups, Review Finds- [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]http://newsroom.ucr.edu/2122 [/SIZE]
You said: "Now with regard to your church, it may be of the Lutheran denomination, but a denomination is not in reality a church. The word "church" is in part derived from the same word as "congregation" and a congregation is a gathering of people of common belief and purpose. Not all congregations are alive in Christ, many are not. I've sat in dead churches as well as live ones."
It's not only 'my' particular church and congregation... it's my entire denomination who believe as I do. I assure you, we are not dead, but are quite alive in Christ. There are very many other entire Christian denominations who share our beliefs as well on these subjects.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with about 4 million members in nearly 10,000 congregations across the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Regardless, here's a link you might find useful though: [SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Same-Sex Behavior Seen in Nearly All Animal Groups, Review Finds- [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]http://newsroom.ucr.edu/2122 [/SIZE]
I think it is clear that the differences of opinion here are not going to be changed.
But as we all know, God loves us all, and if we accept Jesus we are saved, so I don't think heated debate is necessary.
I'm Going back to the original question of the post because I found it interesting - why do we think it is that Churches and Christians tend to place more 'significance' lets say on certain sins more so than others? Do we think it's just for cultural reasons?
But as we all know, God loves us all, and if we accept Jesus we are saved, so I don't think heated debate is necessary.
I'm Going back to the original question of the post because I found it interesting - why do we think it is that Churches and Christians tend to place more 'significance' lets say on certain sins more so than others? Do we think it's just for cultural reasons?
The edu suffix on the address is sufficient proof that the source is untrustworthy. I commonly visit and sometimes engage members of "educational" institutions in conversation over topics of interest such as cosmology and have found the universities to be populated with simple minds more concerned with status quo and the agenda of the world system, than with the advancement of pure science or truth. They tend to be towers (or fortresses) built upon misconception and out right deception, though it was not always this way. Again, same-sex behavior "seen in nearly all animal groups" is an intentional misrepresentation of non-sexual behavior by those whose minds lean to the perverse (and yes, I've met some very perverse individuals that made the claim to be Christian in the denominations, including the Lutheran denomination.Aaron Lindahl said:
I realize that you are presently unable to receive this, but denominations typically present religion as a means to God rather than relationship, and religion as a means is death.
Hi Michael,Michael V Pardo said:
We'll simply have to respectfully agree to disagree that the Biology Department at University of California Riverside, and universities in general, are full of simple and perverse-minded people, that my entire Lutheran denomination consisting of 4 million souls with nearly 10,000 congregations is perverse, and on the naturality of homosexuality among both humans and the animal kingdom.
That said, perhaps you might like to address Tess' question above?
This is not an excuse, but it is because of the fallen state of the churches in our day and age that there is so much hypocrisy and evil in the churches. They have became exactly like those whom they are to be different from. They are like the world. And because they are like the world, they will reason like the world. They have become a cage of every unclean and hateful bird because they are friends with the world. They are the enemies of God.Aaron Lindahl said:
Revelation 18:1-4 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
While context is always key when reading the Scriptures, we are to understand that adultery is not an acceptable practice, neither is homosexuality acceptable. Sin is an intolerable evil, and it must be removed from the lifestyle of each and every single Christian. A woman usurping authority over a man is not allowed, simply because it is Gospel order.
1 Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Eve was to stand at Adam's side, she was his equal in the garden. But upon sin entering into the world, she was to become subjected unto Adam. Adam was formed first, and then Eve was formed. But, Adam was not deceived in the garden of Eden. He was not deceived into sin, but he chose to sin. Eve, although was her choice, was deceived. No, I am not saying that women are worthless, or that there cannot be woman teachers, and women prophets. But woman cannot usurp the authority over men. Men are to be the Pastors in the churches, not the women. There are things women can do, that men cannot, and vice-versa.
These things cannot be ignored which you state. What you are witnessing is the long prophesied fallen state of the churches in the world. This is not evidence of lack of the power of God, but the sure result of walking away from God, and rejecting His messages of mercy, and rejecting the truth. What the churches are doing is not acceptable. But while those things are not acceptable, it is neither acceptable for homosexuals to live in open and bold sin.
Should we work on the churches? Should we work on bringing them back to God? Only if we will ignore what God said. He said for His people to come out of those churches. Not stay in and try to repair, but to come out of them. If we obey, then there is no doubt that God will lead us to where all those true Christians are standing.
Wormwood
Chaps
Tess,
I think there are a couple of reasons, and they are good ones. First, not all sin is the same. The Bible makes it clear that some sins are more perverse than others. Think about it: If someone takes your kid's lunch money, you get mad. If someone beats your kid to a bloody pulp, you get furious. If someone murders your kid...well, you get the idea. Just because all sin causes us to fall short of God's glory does not mean all sin is equal. This is a common and terrible perception. If we see variations in sin, why would we think God does not? After all, God is the one who designated various punishments for different sins in the OT. Clearly there is variation. In my estimation, both the OT and NT indicate that sexual sins are among the most perverse. This includes both heterosexual sins as well as homosexual ones.
Second, the issues such as homosexuality and abortion are hot-button issues in our culture because there are movements in our culture that want to normalize and accept these behaviors. Thus, I find it perfectly logical that this should be an issue that causes more angst and frustration. So, yes, I agree with you that there are also cultural reasons why these issues have greater significance. I mean, if there was a movement in America that was pushing to show pornography on NBC, and it was being accepted by national networks....the sin of these film makers and network producers would have greater significance, and rightly so.
In sum, some sins have greater significance in the Bible (and sexual sins are among them), and our cultural situation is the reason why this issue is shown greater significance. It has nothing to do with people picking a sin out of the thin blue air in an act of Phariseeism as it is often portrayed.
I think there are a couple of reasons, and they are good ones. First, not all sin is the same. The Bible makes it clear that some sins are more perverse than others. Think about it: If someone takes your kid's lunch money, you get mad. If someone beats your kid to a bloody pulp, you get furious. If someone murders your kid...well, you get the idea. Just because all sin causes us to fall short of God's glory does not mean all sin is equal. This is a common and terrible perception. If we see variations in sin, why would we think God does not? After all, God is the one who designated various punishments for different sins in the OT. Clearly there is variation. In my estimation, both the OT and NT indicate that sexual sins are among the most perverse. This includes both heterosexual sins as well as homosexual ones.
Second, the issues such as homosexuality and abortion are hot-button issues in our culture because there are movements in our culture that want to normalize and accept these behaviors. Thus, I find it perfectly logical that this should be an issue that causes more angst and frustration. So, yes, I agree with you that there are also cultural reasons why these issues have greater significance. I mean, if there was a movement in America that was pushing to show pornography on NBC, and it was being accepted by national networks....the sin of these film makers and network producers would have greater significance, and rightly so.
In sum, some sins have greater significance in the Bible (and sexual sins are among them), and our cultural situation is the reason why this issue is shown greater significance. It has nothing to do with people picking a sin out of the thin blue air in an act of Phariseeism as it is often portrayed.
Hi Raeneske, what then do you think of the following verse which shows that there was a female deacon that Paul trusted as his emissary to Rome? In addition, interestingly enough, Paul identifies himself as a Jew.Raeneske said:
Romans 16:1-7
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”
Phoebe (Koine Greek Φοίβη) was a first-century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul as a deacon in his Epistle to the Romans, verses 16:1-2. A notable woman in the church of Cenchreae, she was trusted by Paul to deliver his letter to the Romans. In writing to the church that almost surely met in her home, Paul refers to her both as a deacon (Gk. diakonon masc.) and as a patron of many (Gk. prostatis). This is the only place in the New Testament where a woman is specifically referred to with these two distinctions. Paul introduces Phoebe as his emissary to the church in Rome and, because they are not acquainted with her, Paul provides them with her credentials.
Phoebe's exceptional character, noted by her status as a deacon and prostatis - one who should be esteemed highly "because of their work" - may be the reason Paul sent her to Rome where she delivered the letter to Rome. By referring to Phoebe as a prostatis, Paul solicits the attention and respect of the leaders in Rome's church, which also included other women, namely Prisca/(Priscilla), Mary, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis.
And yet it lists in the exact same verse that some churches use to condemn and make the sins of gay people seem greater than others as you admitted above.. the sin of adultery.Wormwood said:
Exodus 20:14 (One of the 10 Commandments)
"You shall not commit adultery.”
Luke 16:18
“Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
1 Corinthians 6:9
“Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit the kingdom of God? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime.”
And yet the vast majority of churches openly welcome into their congregations divorced and remarried people who are living in adultery every day as defined in the Bible verses above, while they reject gay people who want to marry each other, and sponsor huge political campaigns against them as well, while they don't do that with divorced or remarried people. Why is that?
Wormwood
Chaps
The difference, Aaron, is no one is standing up in the pulpit in churches today claiming that God accepts adultery. There are no movements in our culture to embrace adultery as an acceptable lifestyle. Although our world is full of adultery, it is generally not an action that people are trying to validate as one that is approved and accepted by God. I think that is a key difference as to why homosexuality and abortion are issues that are being so heavily focused on today. I think many feel the "greatness" of this sin is that it is being embraced and encouraged through movements, tv programming and all sorts of literature (such as that which you have been sharing on this forum).
Hi Wormwood, then why do most congregations accept and welcome into their churches, people who are living in open adultery every day as defined by the following verse? The verse is exceptionally clear in its definition.Wormwood said:
Luke 16:18
“Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
A perfect example of the Christian moral gross hypocrisy daily committed by conservative leaders who regularly attack the dignity, and basic human and constitutional rights of homosexuals while repeatedly ignoring the sins they and their followers commit themselves such as the sin of adultery is Newt Gingrich.
A former Southern Baptist, Gingrich converted to Catholicism in 2009 and has become a champion of conservative Catholic doctrine ever since. After losing the Republican presidential primary in 2012, he has become a champion of "religious freedoms," which he says are being eroded by the secular state. The former front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, unloaded a detailed explanation of why he believes same-sex marriage is eroding American families and why "don't ask, don't tell" would have been his policy as president, while even floating a theory that U.S. military commanders were lying about whether they support its repeal.
However, the marriage rate in Massachusetts has stayed basically the same, while the divorce rate has plummeted to amongst the lowest in the nation after being the first state to legalize same-sex marriage 11 years ago, so it actually 'strengthened' the institution of marriage rather than weakened it. And years later, we now can see that the repeal of DADT did nothing to weaken our military.
On top of all that, Gingrich says people choose to be gay, like priests choose to be celibate, which is patently false.
As part of his appeal to social conservatives, Gingrich announced that he agreed to anti-gay pledges from the Iowa Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage, which both committed him to a backing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In the NOM pledge, Gingrich also promised to use his power as president to investigate those who support marriage equality for alleged harassment of groups like NOM.
Prominent Atlanta-based pastor and Religious Right figure Richard Lee said the nation’s evangelicals needed to support Gingrich.
Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Christian oriented Liberty University, supported him for president as well.
And yet, Newt Gingrich has divorced twice and been married three times, living in open adultery. His two previous marriages ended in divorce after he had affairs with younger women and when his wives were seriously ill.
And so again I ask: Why do most congregations who condemn and reject gay people who wish to marry each other, accept and welcome into their churches, people who are living in open adultery every day as defined by the following verse? The verse is exceptionally clear in its definition.
Luke 16:18
“Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
- Aug 10, 2012
- 5,611
- 6,878
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
Someone I knew who lives in Bangladesh was kicked out of their church when it was found he was remarried. He was even considering devorcing his new wife to try and repent of his sin. His church found that would be a sin as well, and recognised his difficult situation. He was allowed back into the church when they saw his willingness to repent.
God does not trap us in hopeless situations. It is my opinion that he was forgiven, and is not living in sin with his second wife.
God does not trap us in hopeless situations. It is my opinion that he was forgiven, and is not living in sin with his second wife.
Hi lforrest, that's interesting. It sounds like adulterers get an extremely convenient free pass from sin and can continue to divorce and re-marry any amount of times they wish, even though the Bible clearly says that adulterers cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Is that why the vast majority of congregations who condemn and reject gay people who wish to marry each other, accept and welcome into their churches, people who are living in open adultery every day ?lforrest said:
Wormwood
Chaps
Aaron,
I cannot speak for all churches. However, the churches I have been associated with always encourage people to remain faithful to their marriage and not divorce. First, I know many ministers who will not marry divorced people if their previous divorce was not the result of marital infidelity. Second, divorce is something that happens once or twice in a person's life. Many people I have spoke with regret their divorce and recognize that what they did was not in line with God's desires. Are you saying that the church should not embrace people who have divorced in the past and have repented of that decision? Finally, some would argue that Jesus, here is using hyperbole. Paul provides abandonment by an unbeliever as another reason for a legitimate divorce and the point that Jesus seems to be making is that one should not divorce for "any and every reason" as many of the Jewish rabbis taught.
However, the point I think you need to carefully consider is that pointing to one fault does not excuse another. We will all give an account for our own actions. God will not excuse those who were careless with their oaths, were unfaithful in their marriages, or practiced other forms of unrepentant sexual immorality. Again, the issue that makes homosexuality such a hot-button issue in our culture is that it is being endorsed as an acceptable lifestyle. I have never heard someone try to defend divorce for any reason from the pulpit as acceptable to God. I have never read any books or online literature that claims that Jesus didn't really mean that we should honor our marriage vows. Yet, this is precisely what you and others have done on the issue of homosexuality...which makes this an entirely different discussion. We both agree that divorce is wrong and we should not excuse it. People can repent and be forgiven of divorce. I also happen to believe that people can commit a homosexual act, or series of acts and later repent and find forgiveness as well. Both are sins and both can be forgiven. However, if someone claims that their divorce is not a sin and continues to marry and divorce unrepentantly as an ongoing lifestyle, claiming it is both acceptable and honoring to God, then we have a different issue. This is what is taking place with homosexuality and why it has caused such focus from Christians.
I can tell you that our church would not allow someone to be a member who is living in a known sinful relationship. We have had people who live this lifestyle attend our church and they have been counseled to be married rather than living together as an unwed couple. Thankfully, over time, this couple did just that. I imagine if a gay couple attended our church that the policy would be the same. We would certainly not cast them out. However, we would affirm that our position on their lifestyle is sinful and counsel them to separate and repent from homosexual acts before they would be allowed to become members. I think most conservative church pastors I have spoke to in my life would take a similar approach.
Again, it seems your argument is "well the church embraces other people's sins, why not mine" is ill founded. Not all churches embrace these sins and we should never allow grace to be an excuse to engage in ongoing sinful behavior (no matter what Church A down the street may do). Being a Christian is not about what sins or actions we can commit and still be considered "Christian." Being a Christian is about dying to self and living for Christ. This is why Jesus demanded that people repent and be willing to give up their own lives before they could follow him. This same standard applies today..for all of us.
Hi Wormwood, so why do you think that it lists adultery in the Bible as one of the very few sins that make it impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, if one can divorce and re-marry over and over again as so many people do, Newt Gingrich being a great example, if they merely say "I repent" each time?Wormwood said:
It seems rather strange that it would have been mentioned in the Bible as a sin so grave as to deny one entry to the Kingdom of Heaven if it were so simple and easy to make null and void as a sin.
As for homosexuality, it's already been gone over in great detail earlier in this thread that the Bible only condemns specific homosexual acts: pagan, abusive, or going against one's own nature. It does not condemn monogamous, loving, and committed relationships between 2 adults of the same gender, which is why my entire denomination and so many others openly welcome gay people and their significant other into our congregations.
Wormwood
Chaps
Aaron,
I agree that God is not interested in lip-service. If people use grace as a means to engage in ongoing sin, then they do not understand grace. As the Apostle Paul declared, "Their condemnation is deserved." However, God is immensely forgiving. Someone can fail over and over again and still be given grace if their repentance is genuine. We all need continual grace. Only God knows the heart. If someone is genuinely repentant, but later fails and repents again, I believe God will receive them. There is a difference between lip-service and genuine repentance. God knows the difference, and he is the Judge of Newt and both of us. I think we should each focus on ourselves and make sure that we are prepared to give an account for how we lived.
Again, I don't see anyone writing articles defending divorce as a commendable act. I think that is the big difference here in this discussion on homosexuality. People are claiming that it is an acceptable practice that should be welcomed and embraced by the church and even allowed to be practiced by its leaders. That makes this discussion a completely different situation in my estimation. It is one thing to say the church should be more strict in dealing with a known sin, and another to say the church should embrace and celebrate a known sin. It seems you have been arguing for the latter.
To be frank, this is nonsense. The Bible condemns the act of men and women engaging in unnatural relationships with each other. It says nothing about this being only related to paganism....this has been inferred by those who already accept the position. The Bible says no such thing. No verse says monogomous homosexual acts are acceptable, or that only homosexuality related to certain practices is to be condemned. This is verified both by the clear language of the Greek and Hebrew as well of ALL of Jewish and Church history. There is no hint in all of Jewish history or Church history that ANY homosexual act or relationship was seen as acceptable. This is a modern development based on a cultural trend. I know of no historical Jewish or Christian figure who ever taught that monogamous, homosexual relationships were permitted by the teaching of the OT or NT. Not one.
Hi Wormwood... yes, I've been very clear in my religious beliefs that many millions of other Christians share and have said that we will simply have to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue. In addition you have previously assured me that no one here would ever attempt to force anyone to have to believe as they do on all issues. Most importantly, for the first 300 years of Christianity, gay people were allowed to marry each other and were openly welcomed into the Church. It was not until 305 that they began to be stigmatized, not until 342 that they suddenly were denied marriage, and not until 390 that Christians started burning them alive in public.Wormwood said:
That said, here is a very good article to read concerning this topic:
The Christian case for gay marriage: According to the Pew Forum, and many other polls, a majority of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics now favor legalizing same-sex marriage. So when our more conservative Christian kin claim that gay marriage is against God and against the Bible, we beg to differ. And since Christians are a "people of the Word," we look to the Bible to justify our thinking. That's essential to Christianity, although all too often we get it wrong, at least at first.
In various eras, those who claimed to follow Christ used specific Bible passages to argue that the Inquisition was God's will, the Crusades were a good idea, slavery was legitimate, women should not be allowed to own property or have the right to vote, disabled people must have sinned to deserve their disabilities and God hated Jews.
Although each of these beliefs was based on the literal words of a particular Bible passage, all of them were in opposition to the message and life of Jesus and the prophets. So when Christians eventually rejected these positions, they returned to the Scriptures, in their original form, to reconsider the text.
This time around, it's the same process. Most New Testament Greek scholars now point out that there are only three passages that deal with homosexuality in the New Testament — Romans 1:23-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 — and those passages don't deal with homosexuality as we define it today but rather with temple prostitution and other abuses. Because of dated (and often loved) translations, many versions of the Bible imply otherwise.
Jesus never addressed the subject of homosexuality, other than what can be inferred from his example of loving and accepting everyone, especially the oppressed and those whom the religious establishment considered unclean.
Some Christians will disagree, pointing out that Jesus said marriage was between a man and a woman. What they are referring to is Mark 10:2-12, where Jesus protested the practice of men getting rid of inconvenient wives by simply handing them a certificate of divorce.
In this passage Jesus is objecting to a system that excessively penalized women, often causing financial devastation, loss of children and other unjust consequences..
Jesus never spoke against homosexuality, but he did speak very clearly against divorce. Yet the majority of churches today — including those who view same-sex marriage as a sin — not only accept divorced members but also allow them to be church leaders. Why? Because marriage and divorce were different institutions in the time of Christ, and there are valid reasons for contemporary cultures to allow divorce in certain cases.
Literalism leads to using Bible passages as weapons. Instead of taking the Bible literally we should take it seriously, with deep faithfulness to the Old and New Testaments' core values of compassion, justice and peace.
An ever-growing number of Christian clergy and lay people now believe that rejecting gay civil rights because of a literal adherence to certain verses directly contradicts these themes. They point out how these views are hurting all of the church, especially its most vulnerable members: young gay people who are convinced that their very essence is sinful.
Furthermore, they can no longer support unjust laws that penalize committed same-sex couples and their families.
As more and more church members thoughtfully and prayerfully confront the evidence, it will only be a matter of time before the majority of Christians of all stripes become allies rather than antagonists for justice and equal rights for gay people. Then we will come out on the right side of history once again.
-By C.S. Pearce. C.S. Pearce has been writing about religious and ethical issues, public affairs, and natural science since 1992. She was the publicist for Claremont School of Theology for 4 years. She received her journalism training from San Diego State University, her bachelor’s degree in mathematics from University of California, Irvine, and her MBA from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. An Episcopalian, she is married to a Mennonite public health doctor.
Wormwood
Chaps
I don't think my comments are in any way an act of force to make anyone believe anything. I just think that we 6,000 years of history between God and his people showing no acceptance of homosexuality is telling. Can you point me to a document that shows the early church accepted homosexuality and gay marriage? This is news to me.
Mainline protestants have also, in large part, given up on the authority of the Scriptures and have declined by 60% in attendance over the past 75 years.
This argument is meaningless. I wont go into the corrupt politics and such surrounding these issues, but the fact is that things like the Inquisition and mistreatment of the Jews were often sporadic events led by particular individuals and were not reflective of the teaching of the church throughout history. The view that homosexuality is sin has been the view of Christians throughout all of church history.
Gotta run. Will try to respond to the rest later.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
