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
- Aug 10, 2012
- 5,623
- 6,892
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
In this situation there was repentance, as this man was willing to divorce the wife he loves to be right with God. He recognized the sin and wanted to correct it. How many people do you know willing to sacrifice everything for God? Matthew 10:37-39Aaron Lindahl said:
What your describing is adulterers who are unrepentant. The church should confront these sinners in the hope they will repent.
Hi lforrest, yes, I completely agree with you on that. It's so either very strange, or very telling, that the 'church' never so far 'confronts' such issues, and in so doing, is exposed for its utter hypocrisy and double-standards on these issues.lforrest said:
Hi Wormwood, 6,000 years is not even a blink of an eye compared to 2.6 million years ago when the earliest stone tools were created by humans, and all religion was based upon a mother goddess.. The Early Stone Age in Africa is equivalent to what is called the Lower Paleolithic in Europe and Asia. That said, I've already shared with you more than enough on this particular history regarding souls that God created as 'homosexual'. I find it extremely disconcerting that you don't want to discuss or address too deeply the fact of all the gay people who were imprisoned, tortured, beaten... or burned alive in public forums or squares in the past or right now.. resulting from the 'teachings' that many conservative people approve of, which at their end-point, eventually demonize and dehumanize people and souls who are born 'gay'.., by self-professed 'Christians', who used particular verses from the Bible to justify such demonic hatred and murder, just as ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda do within the Muslim faith now. Why is that? Does it make you uncomfortable to discuss such issues? I totally realize that 'you' disavow and disapprove of such things, but why do you not want to dwell upon too deeply or discuss about all the many souls of humans who were 'gay' that were beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and burned alive by 'Christians' who used a particular verse or a few verses from the Bible to justify such brutality and murder? Do you want to sweep all such uncomfortable history and evil under the proverbial rug and not address it?Wormwood said:
ROFL. This really cracked me up. You really believe that? This is called cherry picking scripture. Continue in mortal sin and you will not be in heaven.ATP said:
An earlier post of yours cracked me up too. ''God is love'' = we cannot judge. YES, God IS love. God LOVES EVEN the devil ....and for ALL eternity. BUT yet the devil...however....will not be with Him, will he. God loves the wicked SO MUCH that he respects their decision to HATE HIM. When we LOVE what He HATES....we HATE HIM. So telling / encouraging others to continue in their mortal sins is rather ingenious wouldn't you say? You need to tread cautiously you just may be guilty of being a false prophet / enemy. Prov 27:6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
Aaron, you are allowing common sense and scripture to fly over your head in your unnatural pursuit of justifying a mortal sin. You are guilty in your OP of using misdirection. ''Homosexuality is not that bad because we all do X and Y as Christians''. That is a weak tactic that will not hold water when you on your knees before God in a session of self judgment.Aaron Lindahl said:
Sure adultery is evil and Christians should not do it. The faithful party, the kids involved and the family are all terribly affected. It is a wicked act. A classic case of juicy apple with worms in it. That is why God ordained OT that the prophets and wise elders judge and oversee the stoning of adulterers.
Now...your attempt to compare that mortal sin to the mortal sin of homosexuality is laughable. Homosexuality would be on par with an adulterer marrying and committing adultery daily. The problem with continuing in mortal sin...is that NOBODY, not ourselves and not God trust the repentance thereof. If ONLY we would be honest in self judgment we would escape God's wrath 1 Cor 11:31. Ignoring the conviction of the Holy Spirit, OT scripture and common sense (+ and -) ....requires extreme defiance / deceitfulness from us / making us never truly pass a session of self judgment before God in fear and trembling Phil 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
As for your ''do not judge''. You are conveniently ignoring much other scripture on judgment. Proper exegesis of Matt 7 reveals clearly that it is referring to condemning others. There is much more powerful scripture rebuking us from doing such. But as for the judgment of discernment and tough love we have...the best is probably Pauls crystal clear instructions to us in 1 Cor 5.
1 Cor 5:10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. = we do not judge / condemn / avoid company altogether with the unsaved (bar casting pearl before swine).
But for the saved / professed to be saved and know scripture:
11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.
If anyone calls themselves a Christian and an active homosexual, we are to correct them with tough love. Tough love is STILL love. Giving them kisses and helping with excuses is what an ENEMY would do. Prov27:6.
Talking about hatred for homosexuals and how they are murdered is also misdirection by you. Jesus loves everyone and ALL scripture is against murder / any violent acts.
Hi King, we'll just have to agree to disagree that gay people are not being beaten, imprisoned, murdered, and burned alive right as I type this.KingJ said:
Again:
Op-Ed- 'How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad', by Kapya Kaoma. Rev. Kaoma is an Anglican priest and the senior religion and sexuality researcher at Political Research Associates in Boston. He wrote the reports "Colonizing African Values" and "Globalizing the Culture Wars."
If you live in the United States, it's easy to be lulled into thinking that the battle for broader civil rights for gay people is nearly over. The last few years have brought important victories in courts, legislatures and at the ballot box, and momentum is firmly on the side of increased equality.
That's not true, however, in other parts of the world. The hateful vitriol that has fueled U.S. culture wars for so long is now being exported, and some of our most ardent culture warriors are finding a far more receptive audience abroad.
The people of Uganda, Nigeria, Russia and elsewhere are leading their own struggles for human rights. Their fight is difficult enough without campaigns of vilification designed by American preachers who distort the meaning of the Gospels to justify the criminalization , and even murder, of innocents.
In nations such as these, an insidious homophobia engineered in America is taking root. I have seen this hate being spread with my own eyes. People who are gay, or suspected of being gay are being rounded up, beaten, murdered, and even burned to death by ‘Christian’ mobs who have learned such hatred from preachers and pastors in the U.S., who have exported such teachings abroad.
In March 2009, while in Kampala, Uganda, researching reports of U.S. right-wing evangelical involvement in attacks on LGBTQ equality and reproductive justice, I was invited to a three-day conference on homosexuality hosted by the Family Life Network, which is based in New York. The keynote speaker was Scott Lively from Springfield, Mass., who introduced himself as a leading expert on the "international homosexual agenda." I filmed Lively over the course of two days as he instructed religious and political leaders about how gays were coming to Uganda from the West to "recruit children into homosexuality."
Some of his assertions would have been laughable had he not been so deadly serious. He claimed that a gay clique that included Adolf Hitler was behind the Holocaust, and he insinuated that gay people fueled the Rwandan genocide.
In the United States, Lively is widely dismissed as an anti-gay firebrand and Holocaust revisionist. But in Uganda, he was presented — and accepted — as a leading international authority. The public persecution of LGBTQ people escalated after Lively's conference, with one local newspaper publishing the pictures and addresses of activists under the headline, "Hang Them."
Lively was also invited to private briefings with political and religious leaders, and to address the Ugandan parliament during his 2009 visit. The next month, Ugandan lawmaker David Bahati unveiled his Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which in its original form called for the death penalty as punishment for a new crime of "aggravated homosexuality."
In recent years, millions of dollars have been funneled from anti-LGBTQ evangelical conservatives to Uganda, funding local pastors and training them to adopt and mirror the culture-war language of the U.S. Christian right. Bahati and a notorious anti-gay pastor, Martin Ssempa, were personally mentored by U.S. conservatives. And powerful Christian right organizations such as the Family Research Council lobbied Congress to change a resolution denouncing the Uganda legislation.
Other prominent right-wing evangelicals have also made Uganda appearances, including California's Rick Warren and Lou Engle, who founded TheCall ministry. They met with politicians, hosted rallies and public meetings, and used their influence and credibility to contribute to a culture war in Uganda much more intense and explosive than anything seen in the United States; Lively himself described the work as a "nuclear bomb" in Uganda.
In December, the Ugandan parliament finally passed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and last month President Yoweri Museveni signed it into law. The death penalty provision was removed, but the law includes life sentences for homosexual "repeat offenders" and criminalizes advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ Ugandans.
Uganda has deservedly received widespread attention, but it's not the only country with a culture war that carries the fingerprints of U.S. campaigners. Nigeria has passed a bill almost identical to Uganda's, and Cameroon and Zambia are enthusiastically imprisoning LGBTQ people.
And let's not forget Russia. In 2007, Lively traveled throughout Russia to, as he put it, bring a warning about the "homosexual political movement." He urged Russians, among other things, "to criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality." Last year, President Vladimir Putin signed a bill into law that criminalizes distribution of "gay propaganda" to minors, including any material that "equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations." In Russia, because of this law, gay people are being beaten and even murdered now, with no response from the authorities.
I repeat: When the original Hebrew and Greek word are studied without any bias, more and more Biblical scholars now agree that actually the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is only a sin, when practiced in an abusive, coercive, or pagan setting.... which is why entire denominations now agree on this. When it is within the setting of a monogamous joining of two adult souls, it is a holy thing of beauty. Sometimes the protection of 'innocence' is only the coddling and nurturing of 'ignorance' and/or 'prejudice'.
Homosexual love is just as capable of virtue and vice as heterosexual love. Excluding that love from institutional recognition is prejudicial and deceptive. It reinforces irrational, biological disgusts of some heterosexuals that reflect more their own sexuality and social conditioning than any moral truth, and reinforces a crude fear of otherness barely any different than the primal fears of foreigners, other races, or menstrual blood.
In telling someone they are homosexual, gay people are not revealing a quirky bedroom desire that's impolite to mention in casual conversation, and to treat them like that's what they are doing demeans their entire love orientation, and disrespects some of the most important relationships and desires for love and companionship in their lives. This is why the homophobic cop out that goes, "I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, I just do not want to know about it" is so insulting to gays. Gays are not telling people about their sex lives when they tell them about their sexual orientation. They are telling them about a much deeper and much more central part of their identity—again, something as important to them as being straight is to a straight person.
The net sum gains of gay marriage: More marriages, more commitment, fidelity, love, self-sacrifice, responsibility among homosexuals. More stable homes for children. Less gays in sexually doomed marriages to straights with the concomitant divorces. No exclusion of citizens based on morally irrelevant factors from participating in cultural institutions. No "separate but equal" standards that make for second class citizens. Love and commitment are more clearly defined as the core of marriage rather than degrading economics or social transaction concerns that disregard individual happiness.
All of this is increase in freedom for all to pursue their own happiness as guaranteed by our Constitution. It's a further strike against slavery to our overly-ingrained tendencies of our species to be traditionalistic and fearful of Otherness. It's a teaching instrument for us to overcome our irrational disgusts and learn to separate knee jerk aversions from moral repulsion, which is an increase in our abilities to assess issues fairly, rationally, and only according to relevant distinctions.
It means less promiscuity (if decreasing promiscuity is a good you want), decreasing the chances of sexual diseases and emotional and relational instability. Mainstreaming gays, makes them happier, cuts down on their suicides, gives young people who are gay more confidence that they can be accepted for who they are in the larger culture and that they can pursue their dreams and consummate their loves just as well as if they were straight.
Many a homophobic religious person has infamously claimed that when it comes to gays he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" and many a defender of the full dignity and ethical lives of gay people has judged such a compromised offer of love inadequate (if not insincere).
To gay people, who understand their homosexuality as a key part of their very psycho-sexual identity—which is as fundamental to their self-conception as heterosexuality is to straight people—their homosexuality is not just a "behavior" but a rather fundamental expression of themselves with far reaching consequences for their entire lives.
Of course, that is not to say that being gay is the only important, identity-forming thing in their lives—anymore than a heterosexual person's straightness is the only thing in his or her life which contributes in an essential way to his or her identity. Gay people want and deserve both to not be belittled by being reduced to being only their sexuality as though they were not also full people in the whole other range of ways that straight people are, and at the same time they want and deserve not to have their sexuality treated like just an unusual kinky fetish, a dirty secret, or an embarrassing "unnatural", "disordered" urge which they "struggle to control".
How can one hate a fundamental, non-malevolent, harmless, loving, and psychologically orienting, part of a person while claiming that they simultaneously love that person. Do they even grasp what the word love means? Do they really have a good grasp on what either accepting or, minimally, respecting someone even means? Loving, or, at least, accepting and honoring gays as equal, means not hating a central part of their identities..
Matthew 7:1-5
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Proverbs 10:12
"Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs."
Ephesians 4:2
“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”
James 4:12
"There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Romans 14:1-13
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
Titus 3:2-7
"To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.."
James 4:11-12
"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Romans 12:16-19
"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.."
1 Corinthians 13:1-8
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.."
Matthew 6:14-15
"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Romans 12:10
“Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.”
1st John 4:7-8
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
Matthew 22:36-39
“Teacher,” he asked, “which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and the most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’"
1 John 4:20
"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
John 13:34-35
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Matthew 5:22
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
1 Peter 4:8
"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins."
Romans 12:8
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.”
Luke 6:37
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.."
John 3:17
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him."
The Pharisees, a popular Jewish renewal movement in the time of Jesus, accepted into their fellowship only men who adopted priestly purity laws in daily life. The Pharisees looked down upon the majority of the Jews as "the people of the land," the un-spiritual masses, as many people do today upon gay people.The Essenes, who gathered in Qumran near the Dead Sea, took exclusion to a level far beyond the Pharisaic standard. Entrance into the Essene community required, not only that one be a male who practiced priestly purity, but virtual separation from all who were not part of their monastic community. Not only were outsiders unwelcome in the Essene fellowship, but also they had nothing to look forward to from the Lord other than fiery judgment.
When contrasted to the exclusionary practices of the Pharisees and the Essenes, Jesus' teachings of openness, acceptance, and love to common people – even those who were ritually unclean or regarded as sinners – stands out starkly.
As Jesus said in John 8:7 - "..Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
These teachings of love, non-judgement, and acceptance towards others over how they are naturally born, and who they naturally love and wish to join their souls with, is what marks Christians apart from our modern day equivalent of the Pharisees.
Yawn. Is there anyone on this planet that does not know John 3:16?? / Matt 5:44 and ''he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Hence anyone with half a working brain knows that a Christian mistreating anyone is a Christian's behind.Aaron Lindahl said:
The same cannot be said for Islam though. Now you dare to compare Christianity to Islam. Really?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Your post # 65 is annoying Aaron. You seem like a troll. Would you reply to such a long copy / paste post from me?
Try and grasp what tough love is. Try and grasp that YOU stand ALONE before God and that YOU need to work out your own salvation in fear and trembling before God.
If I was a homosexual on my knees before God...I would have a really hard time justifying my immoral desires when I see He clearly gave me a sex, He stoned my type to death OT. I think it is going to be funny to hear a Christian homosexual justify themselves before God. '''so many bad Christians hurt my type and that put me off Christianity'''....''I was really feminine and decided being with another guy when there are billions of woman was better''' ... ''I was blind to the existence and purpose of sex and woman''' ....'''When I used my body against its natural purpose, I never knew that would anger you'''....'''Many Christians said it would be ok''''...''You are supposed to love me as I am'''...
h34r: h34r:TRY and understand that Christianity 101 = Matt 16:24' Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me''
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
KingJ said:
Hi King, if this topic makes you feel tired or bored, perhaps another discussion thread would be more exciting for you to read about.
That said, here is a link to another discussion on here in which Christianity at the time behaved exactly like certain Muslim fanatics do today: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21040-what-happens-when-a-few-fanatics-force-their-beliefs-on-others/
Wormwood
Chaps
I am failing to see the point here Aaron. We have 6,000 years of recorded history of God in covenant relationship with humanity. All the evidence says that those people ALL viewed homosexuality (of any type) as an abomination based on their Scriptures. I think that is more than telling. Are you retracting your claim that the early church practiced homosexual marriages? Im still waiting for that source.
Aaron, I thought I addressed this issue thoroughly in a previous post. I will say it again that all such actions are horrible and should be denounced as unChristlike by all Christians. There is no excuse for such behavior. I think the Scriptures are clear that Christians are to show love to everyone, just as Christ taught. It does not make me uncomfortable to say these things in the least. I would never condone such behavior towards others. However, as I clearly explained before, the mistreatment of a people does not automatically make their views right. For instance, the inquisition primarily targeted the Cathars. Although I would claim that those leading the inquisition were anything but Christian (likely more politically driven), it still was a complete atrocity that was done in the name of Christ. Yet, just because the Cathars were unjustly treated does not make Duelism correct. Just because those who claimed the name of Christ mistreated the Cathars, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals and others during periods of history does not mean that the Bible is wrong and the Koran is right. Does this make sense? So let me emphasize the best way I know how... I think it is a horrific tragedy that person who claims to be a Christian would burn a homosexual alive at a stake, or commit any of the other abusive acts you shared in your post. All such actions are unbecoming of a Christian.
Hi Wormwood, I've already gone into great detail on the history of same-sex marriage where it is mentioned many times by Classical authors before it was declared illegal in 342. As well, the Bible in its current form did not exist during those first 300 years of Christianity, a time span longer than our own nation has even existed.Wormwood said:
Please show me your source that the Church prior to 305 did 'not' welcome gay people into the church and practice same-sex marriage.
305-306 – Council of Elvira (now Granada, Spain). This council was representative of the Western European Church and among other things, it barred homosexuals the right to Communion.
314 – Council of Ancyra (now Ankara, Turkey). This council was representative of the Eastern European Church and it excluded the Sacraments for 15 years to unmarried men under the age of 20 who were caught in homosexual acts, and excluded the man for life if he was married and over the age of 50.
342 – Under advice from their bishops, the first law against same-sex marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
390 – Under advice from their bishops, Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.
As to Christians persecuting gay people today, simply see below:
In a country where 85 percent of the population identifies as Christian, Ugandan pastors have been the most vocal supporters of the new bill that mandates life-imprisonment for gay people. As a result, homophobia has become almost universal. Several prominent American evangelical pastors, including Scott Lively, a minister and self-proclaimed expert on 'the gays', traveled to Uganda and were the main reason for the creation of this horrific legislation.
Kampala, Uganda – Auf Usaam Mukwaya is a 26-year-old gay man and human rights activist. Because of that, he has been arrested, jailed, abducted and tortured. He endured constant homophobic taunts from his neighbors since he was outed in one of the local papers and his face was shown on television following creation of the anti-gay bill that was created at the request of American pastors. It became impossible for him to fight back, so he had to flee the country for his own safety. In June 2010 he arrived in France, where he received political asylum.
In one particularly high-profile incident, a Kampala tabloid, Rolling Stone, outed several gays and lesbians under the headline “Hang Them” after passage of the bill. Among those pictured were an Ugandan bishop supportive of the gay and lesbian community and a lesbian who was later stoned to death by her neighbors.
Wormwood
Chaps
Aaron,
So all you have provided are decisions by Christian councils to officially condemn any homosexual acts. There is nothing here that suggests the church approved of these acts prior to these councils. Prior to the Edict of Milan, Christians were heavily persecuted and thus did not have any "official" decisions about anything. They were simply trying to survive. After the Edict of Milan in the 300's, Christians were accepted and free to gather and establish official decisions on a host of matters due to the rise of all kinds of heresy and false teaching that was spreading in the now accepted Christian faith. Thus, these decisions were simply confirmations of what the Christians prior to these dates had already accepted and these were nothing more than official proclamations. There are abundant sources that show the early church condemned homosexuality:
The Didache
"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
Clement of Alexandria
"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment" (The Instructor, 8). AD 193
Tertullian
"[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
Novatian
"[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them" (Letters., 1:9). AD 253
Eusebius of Caesarea
"[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
Aaron, I have noticed you are copying and pasting the same material on dozens of websites. If you want to engage in a discussion, fine. You need to stop copying and pasting stuff from other websites across a host of platforms. To me, this shows that you are on an agenda and are not really interested in dialogue. I also find it alarming how you are misrepresenting history in these continual copy & paste jobs across all of these sites.
So all you have provided are decisions by Christian councils to officially condemn any homosexual acts. There is nothing here that suggests the church approved of these acts prior to these councils. Prior to the Edict of Milan, Christians were heavily persecuted and thus did not have any "official" decisions about anything. They were simply trying to survive. After the Edict of Milan in the 300's, Christians were accepted and free to gather and establish official decisions on a host of matters due to the rise of all kinds of heresy and false teaching that was spreading in the now accepted Christian faith. Thus, these decisions were simply confirmations of what the Christians prior to these dates had already accepted and these were nothing more than official proclamations. There are abundant sources that show the early church condemned homosexuality:
The Didache
"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
Clement of Alexandria
"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment" (The Instructor, 8). AD 193
Tertullian
"[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
Novatian
"[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them" (Letters., 1:9). AD 253
Eusebius of Caesarea
"[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
Aaron, I have noticed you are copying and pasting the same material on dozens of websites. If you want to engage in a discussion, fine. You need to stop copying and pasting stuff from other websites across a host of platforms. To me, this shows that you are on an agenda and are not really interested in dialogue. I also find it alarming how you are misrepresenting history in these continual copy & paste jobs across all of these sites.
Hi Wormwood, I rather doubt it would take 305 years for the Church to finally formally address such an important issue, unless it was very different for gay Christians during the preceding 3 centuries.Wormwood said:
That said, 'copying & pasting' is merely a technology used to easily transfer information from one place to another, no different than using a function within Word software. It does not invalidate the information. Much of it are my own words, and none of it is copy-righted. When it's written by someone else, you'll notice I include the author's name.
I'm also unaware that people aren't allowed to be involved in discussion on any site they wish to that is open to the public for just such a purpose, and we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree that I am misrepresenting history. I have been deeply involved in the study of Classical and church history for well over 20 years.
Some of the early church fathers you quote and others you did not had questionable advice and dishonest intentions.
Eusebius of Caesarea (Christian theologian from 260-340) also stated the following:
"Other writers of history recorded the fighting of wars waged for the sake of children and country and other possessions. But our narrative of the government of God will record in ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul."
Eusebius of Nicomedia (Christian emperor Constantine's overseer of church doctrine and history, 342)
"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."
John Chrysostom (5th century theologian and bishop to emperor Constantine)
"For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived." -Treatise on the Priesthood, book 1
"In the person whose mind is sound there is no need to learn letters." -St Anthony
"It should be enough for you to know that there is a good shepherd who gave his soul for his sheep ... How big God is, what His limits are, and of what essence ... such questions are dangerous ... they shall be taken care of with silence." – St Basil
"Let us Christians prefer the simplicity of our faith to the demonstrations of human reason ... For to spend much time on research about the essence of things would not serve the edification of the Church." – St Basil.
"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius
Regardless, I have been engaged in very deep dialogue and discussion here on this thread so I really don't understand why you would imply that I'm not.
Hi TessTess said:
We are not saved just because we accept Jesus. We are saved once we can call Jesus Lord. This only happens when the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus as Lord to us 1 Cor 12:3. That only happens after God judges our heart and mind Jer 17:9-11. That only happens after we are drawing close to Him James 4:8. We draw close to Him by HATING what He hates. God HATES sin. God hates some sin more then others. Wormwood hit the nail on the head in his reply to you on this.
Just think of a married couple. Would you say a husband who commits adultery (mortal sin) is still married to / loves / respects his wife? Wouldn't you rather say that he has shipwrecked his marriage? Husbands and wives can get away with many sins against each other as marriage showed a depth of intent. The same is true with God in our salvation / born again experience. James 5:20 is an example of how one action can cover a multitude of sins too. But just as in marriage, so too with God we play with fire when we continue in mortal sin. An affair causes the cheating spouse heart to move on. Likewise with God.
Just to add to Wormwoods post. Have a look at Matt 5. Matt 5:28 says if we just look at a another person with immoral thoughts that we have committed adultery in our heart. Proving that we have all sinned. Now most quote only that scripture on sin. But if we look simply a ferw verses down we see that vs 32 says if anyone divorces except for actual marital affair / sexual immorality....NOT thoughts, not swearing, not stealing..we see context. Matt 5:28 is a rhetorical overstatment much like Matt 5:39 ''do not resist an evil person'. So in a nutshell, if you believe sin = sin / all sin is the same...do you also believe that if a rapist comes for you that you must just lie there? Why don't preachers who preach sin = sin preach that too? Or that we should ALL get divorced because we have all thought immorally of another person?
Homosexauls are continuing daily in a mortal sin. Calling themselves homosexuals is offensive to any Christian because they are basically calling themselves ''adulterers / sinners'' and proud of it. Now we can / should expect that of the unsaved but NOT the saved as 1 Cor 5:12 clearly explains.
You seem to have no interest in actually tackling this subject properly, the irony. I propose you read and study scripture more. Anyone can type in Google ''Christianity is old fashioned'' or ''Christianity approves of homosexuality''' or '''we have the bible wrong for many centuries, homosexuals will be in heaven''. You are simply choosing to formulate your belief system on biased / already prejudiced advice from false prophets.Aaron Lindahl said:
Evil people who know some of the bible / consider themselves Christians because they said some airy fairy magical words a few times in their head want to live the life THEY want. God sees right through it. It is time to take judging yourself before God seriously. God is NOT A FOOL. You are ONLY fooling yourself.
-By John Shore, who invites anyone to freely share his writings below. John Shore (who is a heterosexual Christian pastor) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians, and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog. (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME, The Washington Post, and many others.
God does not ask us to choose between compassion and faith in the Bible.
Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The debate itself is usually framed as essentially pitting the Bible, on one hand, against compassion and social justice on the other. Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.
Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?
The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their compassion and their faith.
Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, or deconstructing the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care that we would any other passage of the book.
We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.
And we can trust that we can—and that we certainly should—take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his word.
If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then it is morally indefensible for Christians to continue to do so.
What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:
-Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church.
-Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage.
-Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families.
-Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.
Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They assert that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.
Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community’s treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as one-half of God’s most important commandment: to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.
The gay community has cried out for justice from Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the suffering imposed on gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people would have to be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.
Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins” that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible’s 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the “clobber passages,” since they are typically used by Christians to “clobber” LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the lack of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.
While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community’s call to them for justice?
Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. — John 8: 7
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law — Romans 13:8-10
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you — Colossians 3:11-13
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. — Matthew 23: 23-24
A fundamental tenet of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust, or tell a lie.
As we’ll see below, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don’t think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk, between a lustful thought and committing adultery, between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.
Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war—we recognize that there are times when taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified and even heroic act.
Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin’s perpetrator.
They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.
Virtually any degree of homosexual “transgression” gets treated by some Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Such Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.
Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual “sins” that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from the discrimination against and condemnation of gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differences between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?
Here are a couple of Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. — Matthew 7:1-2
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. — Luke 6:41-42
The Bible isn’t a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from it, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.
The New Testament is two thousand years old, the old Testament much older. The Bible’s cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.
To excerpt any isolated short passage from the Bible, and then claim for that passage absolute authority, is to fail to take the Bible on its own terms. If we wish to follow the word of God, then we must take the entirety of God’s words into account. For example, when the Bible itself identifies some of its words as proverbs, it is bestowing upon those words less moral weight than other words that it identifies as commandments. The Bible itself tells us that some of its contents are songs, some visions, some histories, some dreams, some parables, and some commandments. The Bible itself also instructs Christians that New Testament moral directives supersede Old Testament moral directives. The Bible itself tells us that its moral principles supersede any of its moral “rules.”
The context of any Bible passage is as integral to its meaning as the passage itself. It may be appropriate to give equal weight to each clause within a business contract, each step within a set of mechanical instructions, or each rule within a game rulebook. But the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is not a uniform document, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific, and all passages having equal value. The Bible is not a rulebook for being Christian. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take a small section of the Bible out of its larger context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that section. Isolating a clobber passage from its context, and then claiming a sort of moral helplessness because “it’s in the Bible,” is failing to take the Bible either literally or seriously.
Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any Christian directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
The Bible’s first four references to homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.
While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. —Hebrews 7:18-19
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. — Galatians 3:23-25
So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another … — Romans 7:4
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. — Romans 6:14
In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork, and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses would be forbidden. If Christians followed the dictates of the Old Testament, then today if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband’s request, prove that she was a virgin, that bride would have to be stoned to death. Christians would also have to stone to death any Christian guilty of adultery. And the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday.
Clearly, Christians no longer cleave to the rules of the Old Testament.
Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any Christian directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive, and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans—and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
Because Christians’ understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed the dictates of the New Testament. Whenever a specific biblical injunction is found to be incongruous with contemporary mores, a reshaping of the conception of that injunction is not only widely accepted by Christians, it’s encouraged, as long as the new thinking is understood to be in keeping with overriding timeless biblical moral principles. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul’s directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It’s also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.
Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.
Here are the three references to homosexuality in the New Testament:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." —1 Timothy 1:9-10
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. —Romans 1:26-27
During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.
The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:
“… the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”
This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians must acknowledge when seeking to understand and interpret the three New Testament clobber passages. Yes, Paul condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him—because it was coercive, without constraint, and between older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts, as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
It is critical to our reading of the New Testament’s three clobber passages to understand that while Paul would have known about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he would have had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul’s time was “out”; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no reference point for an entire group of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.
Here is the opening of the OCD’s article on homosexuality:
“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”
We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smartphones, iPads, or televisions. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between people whom he understood to be heterosexual.
The Bible does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive, and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself, much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians, therefore, have no Bible-based moral justification to condemn such acts.
Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts within the context of gay marriage.
The Bible routinely, clearly, and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because when the Bible was written there was no concept of gay people—let alone, then, of gay marriage—the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts within the context of marriage.
By denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful. Christians, in other words, cause gay people to sin, and then blame the gay people for that sin. By any decent standard of morality that is manifestly and egregiously unfair.
Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn’t make homosexual sex a sin.
In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their own emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn’t repulsed by the idea of their own parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did—at least once!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn’t always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.
It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises from the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our reading of God’s sacrosanct word.
“The greatest of these is love”
The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love, Jesus preached love, Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obligated to always err on the side of love. Taken all together, the evidence—the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul’s time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of exclusion from God’s church on earth and from human love as the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice—conclusively shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice.
That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13:
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
God does not ask us to choose between compassion and faith in the Bible.
Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The debate itself is usually framed as essentially pitting the Bible, on one hand, against compassion and social justice on the other. Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.
Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?
The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their compassion and their faith.
Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, or deconstructing the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care that we would any other passage of the book.
We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.
And we can trust that we can—and that we certainly should—take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his word.
If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then it is morally indefensible for Christians to continue to do so.
What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:
-Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church.
-Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage.
-Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families.
-Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.
Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They assert that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.
Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community’s treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as one-half of God’s most important commandment: to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.
The gay community has cried out for justice from Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the suffering imposed on gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people would have to be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.
Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins” that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible’s 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the “clobber passages,” since they are typically used by Christians to “clobber” LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the lack of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.
While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community’s call to them for justice?
Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. — John 8: 7
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law — Romans 13:8-10
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you — Colossians 3:11-13
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. — Matthew 23: 23-24
A fundamental tenet of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust, or tell a lie.
As we’ll see below, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don’t think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk, between a lustful thought and committing adultery, between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.
Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war—we recognize that there are times when taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified and even heroic act.
Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin’s perpetrator.
They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.
Virtually any degree of homosexual “transgression” gets treated by some Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Such Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.
Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual “sins” that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from the discrimination against and condemnation of gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differences between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?
Here are a couple of Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. — Matthew 7:1-2
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. — Luke 6:41-42
The Bible isn’t a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from it, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.
The New Testament is two thousand years old, the old Testament much older. The Bible’s cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.
To excerpt any isolated short passage from the Bible, and then claim for that passage absolute authority, is to fail to take the Bible on its own terms. If we wish to follow the word of God, then we must take the entirety of God’s words into account. For example, when the Bible itself identifies some of its words as proverbs, it is bestowing upon those words less moral weight than other words that it identifies as commandments. The Bible itself tells us that some of its contents are songs, some visions, some histories, some dreams, some parables, and some commandments. The Bible itself also instructs Christians that New Testament moral directives supersede Old Testament moral directives. The Bible itself tells us that its moral principles supersede any of its moral “rules.”
The context of any Bible passage is as integral to its meaning as the passage itself. It may be appropriate to give equal weight to each clause within a business contract, each step within a set of mechanical instructions, or each rule within a game rulebook. But the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is not a uniform document, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific, and all passages having equal value. The Bible is not a rulebook for being Christian. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take a small section of the Bible out of its larger context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that section. Isolating a clobber passage from its context, and then claiming a sort of moral helplessness because “it’s in the Bible,” is failing to take the Bible either literally or seriously.
Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any Christian directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
The Bible’s first four references to homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.
While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. —Hebrews 7:18-19
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. — Galatians 3:23-25
So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another … — Romans 7:4
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. — Romans 6:14
In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork, and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses would be forbidden. If Christians followed the dictates of the Old Testament, then today if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband’s request, prove that she was a virgin, that bride would have to be stoned to death. Christians would also have to stone to death any Christian guilty of adultery. And the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday.
Clearly, Christians no longer cleave to the rules of the Old Testament.
Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any Christian directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive, and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans—and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
Because Christians’ understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed the dictates of the New Testament. Whenever a specific biblical injunction is found to be incongruous with contemporary mores, a reshaping of the conception of that injunction is not only widely accepted by Christians, it’s encouraged, as long as the new thinking is understood to be in keeping with overriding timeless biblical moral principles. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul’s directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It’s also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.
Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.
Here are the three references to homosexuality in the New Testament:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." —1 Timothy 1:9-10
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. —Romans 1:26-27
During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.
The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:
“… the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”
This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians must acknowledge when seeking to understand and interpret the three New Testament clobber passages. Yes, Paul condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him—because it was coercive, without constraint, and between older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts, as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
It is critical to our reading of the New Testament’s three clobber passages to understand that while Paul would have known about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he would have had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul’s time was “out”; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no reference point for an entire group of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.
Here is the opening of the OCD’s article on homosexuality:
“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”
We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smartphones, iPads, or televisions. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between people whom he understood to be heterosexual.
The Bible does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive, and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself, much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians, therefore, have no Bible-based moral justification to condemn such acts.
Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts within the context of gay marriage.
The Bible routinely, clearly, and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because when the Bible was written there was no concept of gay people—let alone, then, of gay marriage—the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts within the context of marriage.
By denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful. Christians, in other words, cause gay people to sin, and then blame the gay people for that sin. By any decent standard of morality that is manifestly and egregiously unfair.
Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn’t make homosexual sex a sin.
In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their own emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn’t repulsed by the idea of their own parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did—at least once!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn’t always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.
It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises from the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our reading of God’s sacrosanct word.
“The greatest of these is love”
The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love, Jesus preached love, Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obligated to always err on the side of love. Taken all together, the evidence—the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul’s time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of exclusion from God’s church on earth and from human love as the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice—conclusively shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice.
That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13:
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
Every argument here 'for homosexuality' is weak and easily debunkable as poo. Is there one that you actually believe and want to discuss?
Hi King, we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue. It's obvious you do not agree, and since it would be un-Christian to argue merely for argument's sake when neither person is going to agree with the other, I don't believe there is anything further for you and I to discuss. No one has to agree with me, and just the same, I am not required to agree with you.KingJ said:
I feel I need to repeat this again: It is not just 'me' who believes this to be the truth. These are the many entire denominations consisting of tens of thousands of congregations, and many millions of Christians, who agree with what I share with you concerning this subject:
North America
• Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
• Anthem Phoenix & Family of Churches
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community of Christ
• Ecclesia Gnostica
• Ecumenical Catholic Church
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• The Evangelical Network
• Friends General Conference
• Friends of Jesus Fellowship
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Inclusive Orthodox Church
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Old Catholic Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Progressive Christian Alliance
• Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Church
Europe
• German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
• German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
• Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
• Protestant Church in the Netherlands
• Church of Denmark
• Church of Norway
• Church of Sweden
• Church of Iceland
• United Protestant Church in Belgium
• Portugal - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• British Quakers
• Wales - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Albania - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)
• Poland - Christian United Church in Poland
• United Kingdom - United Ecumenical Catholic Church
Central and South America
• Brazil - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
• Colombia - Affirming Pentecostal Church International
Australia
• Baptist Affirming
• Uniting Church in Australia
• Anglican
• Metropolitan Community Churches
• Ecumenical Catholic Communion
• Pentecostal Reformed
Wormwood
Chaps
The church didn't have councils prior to the 300's because Christianity was not approved by the Roman empire prior to the Edict of Milan in 313. If people are killing you for your faith, the last thing you want to do is have a big formal meeting with all the leadership....
Yes, but when you are copying and pasting the exact same material and phrases over dozens of websites, it becomes clear you are pushing an agenda...not engaging in an open dialogue. Especially when these quotes are often taken out of context. For instance:
This quote has nothing to do with lying about history or misleading people about actual events that have happened in the past (such as the church's view on homosexuality as you infer). This quote is in reference to the Apostle Paul going to Jerusalem and having Timothy circumcised so that he could gain an audience with the Jewish people. Chrysostom is saying that while Paul's actions seem deceptive, they were really it was an act of good management in order to use whatever resources he had to be able to speak to these people. The way you presented this quote is horribly misleading and blatently false. If you really have studied Classical church history for over 20 years than you know very well what the context of this quote was and you are deliberately misleading people to make it sound as though this quote is about misleading people about the views of the early church, particularly regarding homosexuality. Shame on you.
If you were to do 5 min of research on this quote, you will learn that Eusebius likely didn't write this, but that it was added by a later writer...and even if he did, this quote is criticizing something PLATO TAUGHT in his dialogue with Cleinius in his work "Laws." Again, this is out of context and has nothing to do with Eusebius encouraging lying.
I am very disappointed in the tactics you use in these discussions. It seems you are intent to spread this misinformation in as many venues as possible. It also seems that you use such large quantities of quotes and citations with the hope that no one will follow up on actually looking up the sources you quote, or you yourself have mindlessly grabbed them from other websites without doing any actual research to see if the quotes are properly represented. However, since you claim to have devoted decades of your life to such research, I can only assume it is the former.
You claim to be someone who is wanting honest answers and truthful discussion, but by the looks of things you are intent on spreading large amounts of false information in as many venues as possible without regard to context of the accuracy of the things you are citing. This is very troubling and quite unbecoming of one who claims to be a Christian, Aaron.
Hi Wormwood. Please show me exactly where I 'claimed' I was here only for answers. I never said anything of the sort. The original question on this post is meant to highlight the fact that many churches ignore the sin of adultery and do not follow the teachings on women, and yet use the same verse on adultery to clobber gay people with. It says on my profile explicitly that I came here to share Scripture and history that is not often seen. I am a born again Christian, born in blood, and have shared with you the denomination of the congregation I attend, which is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which has 4 million members and 10,000 congregations. Are you insinuating that all my fellow congregants are not Christian as well?Wormwood said:
Are these quotes out of context as well?
"In the person whose mind is sound there is no need to learn letters." -St Anthony
"It should be enough for you to know that there is a good shepherd who gave his soul for his sheep ... How big God is, what His limits are, and of what essence ... such questions are dangerous ... they shall be taken care of with silence." – St Basil
"Let us Christians prefer the simplicity of our faith to the demonstrations of human reason ... For to spend much time on research about the essence of things would not serve the edification of the Church." – St Basil.
"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius
That said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on these issues. Since it became obvious quite awhile ago that we are not going to agree with each other on these issues or on our understanding of history, I don't understand why you keep coming on this thread I started when you expressly told me that no one here is required to agree with you, or what 'your' particular church teaches.
I've also said repeatedly that no one has to agree with me. I don't go on to other people's threads and try to argue with them when I can see that we are never going to agree on a certain subject, and yet some people seem to feel the need to do this to me. I've been extremely polite, respectful, and loving to every single person who has ever talked to me here.
This forum says it is open for 'all' Christian faiths and denominations to discuss the 'controversial' issues within the Church. Is that not true anymore? Should I tell my own congregation of 2000 souls that they are not welcome on this Christian site that says 'Loving People Living Community'?
And that bud is exactly why you should be worried. It is the end times is it not?Aaron Lindahl said:
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Please be wiser! Call sin, sin and ask God for help to deal with it. Don't sweep it under the carpet.
1 Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Some people constantly say that it is not them, but only 'God' who is the one judging gay people over how they were born, but it is not God down here speaking through a burning bush to us.. rejecting, condemning, and making other people feel like dirt or worthless, but 'they' themselves who are doing that, while exhorting others to do the same sinful and hateful thing; thus taking the place of God in doing so. We can see that happening on a much more violent level today in Islam by the ISIS and Al-Qaeda fanatics... who seem to believe that they are 'Allah' or 'God' themselves on this Earth, and taking it upon themselves to brutalize, condemn, reject, judge, and in many cases kill the perceived 'sinners' in the name of their God, ignoring all teachings to not take the place of God in judgement, and all teachings of love and acceptance toward our fellow human souls we share this Earth with. Thus began the shameful Christian Inquisition of our past... from precisely such misguided people.
I think the following Biblical Scripture describes them very well, as they are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees, who used the 'Law' at the time to condemn all others over even the slightest variance from such rigid, static, and unforgiving beliefs, and who even plotted to arrest and then assassinate Jesus Himself, over breaking Scriptural Law because He 'worked' on the Sabbath by picking grain from the fields to feed his hungry followers. Their professed 'love' of others (i.e. 'love the sinner, hate the sin') ends up being, or already is the same type of love as a spouse who beats his wife almost to death, and then tells her "I love you so much." It is a truly evil and hateful sickness of both the spirit and the mind, that they infect entire congregations with:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
James 4:12
"God alone, who gave the law, is the Judge. He alone has the power to save or to destroy. But you--who do you think you are to judge your neighbor?"
Matthew 23:13-15
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
Matthew 23:28
"In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
Matthew 23:27
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all that is foul and unclean."
1 Timothy 4:1-4
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude.
We can see that happening today from people whose consciences have been totally seared away, and who have no care or feeling whatsoever as to the spiritual and emotional pain and torment they cause gay people, many times to the point of suicide, or the teachings they spread that today are being used to murder gay people over in Uganda and many other places around the world. We can see such people today attempting to forbid marriage to gay people as well, just as was prophesied while they reject instead of receiving with gratitude the unique way that God created gay people. It is truly horrific and goes against all teachings of Christ to Love and accept one another as God created us.
I think the following Biblical Scripture describes them very well, as they are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees, who used the 'Law' at the time to condemn all others over even the slightest variance from such rigid, static, and unforgiving beliefs, and who even plotted to arrest and then assassinate Jesus Himself, over breaking Scriptural Law because He 'worked' on the Sabbath by picking grain from the fields to feed his hungry followers. Their professed 'love' of others (i.e. 'love the sinner, hate the sin') ends up being, or already is the same type of love as a spouse who beats his wife almost to death, and then tells her "I love you so much." It is a truly evil and hateful sickness of both the spirit and the mind, that they infect entire congregations with:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
James 4:12
"God alone, who gave the law, is the Judge. He alone has the power to save or to destroy. But you--who do you think you are to judge your neighbor?"
Matthew 23:13-15
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
Matthew 23:28
"In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
Matthew 23:27
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all that is foul and unclean."
1 Timothy 4:1-4
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude.
We can see that happening today from people whose consciences have been totally seared away, and who have no care or feeling whatsoever as to the spiritual and emotional pain and torment they cause gay people, many times to the point of suicide, or the teachings they spread that today are being used to murder gay people over in Uganda and many other places around the world. We can see such people today attempting to forbid marriage to gay people as well, just as was prophesied while they reject instead of receiving with gratitude the unique way that God created gay people. It is truly horrific and goes against all teachings of Christ to Love and accept one another as God created us.
- Status
Similar threads
