O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
That is not what t says nor is it what the Jewish people have held it say they did not hold that it did not apply to a loving committed relationship they held that it is wrong just the way it reads.
Discerning homosexuality & same sex marriage in the light of the gospel.
- Status
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Okay,
Are you trying to say you have gained victory over sin? The Apostle Paul sure went from being the least of all saints, to least of all Apostles, to finally chief sinner. What you have to recogonize is that not all Christians have come to the conclusion that same sex marriage is sin. There are many Christian churches around the world who do not consider same sex marriage to be sin.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
All sex outside of marriage is sin. That’s clearly taught in Scirpture. Please make sure you correct those in your Parish , clergy and laity alike that they need to repent of the sins that you personally consider sin. I consider it sin when you intentionally change the Scriptures from the historical biblical account of the women caught in adultery to the gay man for own personal agenda. Peter doesn’t speak very highly about those who twist the Scriptures.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I was not the one to use the scripture passage of the women caught in adlutry, it was used as a responce to my post and I responded inturn. Second I am to busy with th log in my own eye to speck of the splinter in my brothers. But if it is placed in front of me were i have to deal with it then i do and God help me I try to in a loveing manner. It is not I that have a personal agends here sir. Nor have I twisted any Scpriture. Since you no nothing of me nor my family you have made a judgment about my motives for responce to this thread.
To enlighten you it caught my eye as the subject matter is one that i hav to del with with in my family as there are members of my family that are gay. I know what they deal with I could not love them any more than I do their sexuallity does not change that. It also does not change what God has said about it,
So next time you start to accuse someone of haveing and agenda you may want to lok in the mirror first.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
I do apologize for my attitude with you. Please forgive me for my offense… I really believe the official Catholic position of prohibiting same sex marriage cannot be supported in the Scriptures. As a Protestant, my discernment on the subject ends with the Scirptures. Your family members who are gay do not have to leave the Christian Faith because they are gay. Nor are they necessarily doomed for a life of celibacy. Sex outside of marriage is sin. If you understand 1 Cor chapter 1, God chooses the foolish and debase things of this world to be in Christ. It seems to me that God may truly honor same sex marriages. There are many grounded and mature straight Christians who have come to this conclusion. It is a highly debatable issue in our generation inside and outside the church.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” – 1 Cor 1
D
Dokimas
Guest
The context of this discussion is homosexual sex. Are you saying that if it is sin it is legitamized in marriage? Of course I don’t have complete victory. Remember you like us to take Romans 1 in context of Romans. Romans 6 tells us not to sin; grace doesn’t abound by our sin but over our sin.
Does it matter what other Christians believe or what God’s word says? Thank God that the truths of the Word of God has nothing to do with my beliefs, nor yours, nor any other person.
I homosexuality is sin like anyother sin, God says stop it and He is willing to give us grace to do so, stop the sin.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Heterosexual sex can be very sinful too. Therefore, God says stop it and He is willing to give us grace to do so, stop the sin. However, heterosexual and homosexual sin goes much deeper in the light of adultery of the heart according to Jesus. Paul tells that those of us who cannot exercise self control… that is better to marry than burn with passion.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
God is the same today as he was yesturday and will be tommorow. God did not say( as he did with hetro sex) that sex between those is a sin only out side side of marriage. He said it was a sin. I you continue in the passage from Leviticus that I gave it is also stated about sex with animals is a sin. Do we now say well if you married the animal then it would be alright? I do not mean to equate the two but to show that by following the train of thought you have set we open up to many things that are wrong.
By God words we know that homosexual sex is a sin it did not ned to be outlined futher that marriage of people of the same sex is not allowed as it is already stated that sex between them is a sin. I am not looking at the CCC or any other documents of the Cathloic Church this come directly fom the Bible alone.
There are those that call themselves Christian that have many beliefs and teachings that do not hold with Traditional Christian Teaching be that Catholic or Protestant. That my friend is the real sad part of the reform of the 1600’s is that every man with a bible in his hand now thinks he has the insight into the correct Faith and can hang a sign on his front door and start a church.
We have those out there saying they are christian yet deny the Trinity, or they haave a twisted since of what the Trinity is. There are those that deny the Divinity of Jesus. there are those that deny the virgin birth and all call themselve christian. So in stateing that there are those that now say it ok for a man to marry another man is not a shock.
We live in a aera that people find it to much to ask that they go without their coffee for a hour to worship the Lord. they have to have padded pews with drink holders. but now I am getting off the subject I do apoligize for that.
D
Dokimas
Guest
That’s your Biblical grounds for same sex marriage (better to marry than burn with passion)?
Here’s the context of the verse you quote…1 Cor 7:1-9
1 ¶ Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self–control.
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self–control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Context is men with women, no mention of men with men or women with women.
May I caution you to take care you don’t add your opinion to the Word of God.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Allowing such would simply be redefining the meaning of marriage to “excuse” sin. It is clear that any sex outside of marriage is sin, and that marriage is one man/one woman. (The passages from scripture have already been quoted.) What you are suggesting is that “sin” would be reduced if WE “allowed” same-sex marriage. But it’s clear that WE don’t have the power to do that. God set the definition of marriage and he made no provision for “committed monogamous homosexual unions.” That sort of arrangement has no Divine sanction. For the Church to say the opposite is for the Church to turn a blind eye to sin.
2d Adam:
Divorce is also common. Should the Church come about on that issue as well? Will that help marriage or hurt it as an institution?
2d Adam:
This argument seems to concede that homosexual sexual activity is deviant behavior? Are you sure you want to go down that road? I thought your position was that homosexuality was just part of the “bell curve” spectrum of normal sexuality? Does predatory pedophilia fall within that “normal” curve as well?
2d Adam:
And thereby two persons engaged in a lifestyle of sinfulness would be falsely led… by the Church… to believe that their conduct is not sinful.
2d Adam:
And a lot of good people are being misled into a sinful lifestyle to their detriment. It is sad.
The way I see it, what “gay marriage” accomplishes is the same thing that would occur if the sin of adultery were redefined to be acceptable if the cheating spouses were “unhappy” or “unfullfilled” by their marriage. Clearly, we can see that the act of sex outside of marriage is still sinful even if the adulterer is unhappy with married life. The feelings of the person may mitigate (or aggravate) the situation but from an objective point of view the conduct cannot be seen as accepatable to God even if the Church were to redefince the term.
Peace,
Robert
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I hesitate to enter this thread, as someone who doesn’t believe in the truth of your gospel (or any religion for that matter). However, having a good familiarity with your bible it is pretty clear that it views homosexuality as sinful (and arguably just being homosexual violates this standard, not solely homosexual conduct since I believe Paul speaks out against effeminate males).The “Jesus didn’t say anything about x, y, z” argument is sooooo worn out already.
Jesus didn’t warn against paedophilia or incest, although these abominations are condemned by St Paul and others throughout scripture. I take it Jesus must really approve of the aforesaid acts as he remained silent on condemning them.
Just deal with the truth in scripture: Homosexual acts are an abomination. Period. Is it a difficult cross to carry? Yes. But acting on it will bar one from entry into heaven.
Let’s stop obfuscating.
The question is how literally do you take this message, and how accurate are these translations? I understand the theist believes god somehow ensured the accuracy of this message through the ages, and protects his church from error. However, just to mention the obvious, the church at one time believed the earth stood at the center of the universe (so obviously this infallibility cannot mean the church is right at all times, it can only mean when there is error it will eventually be steered back on course). As far as renditions of the biblical text, the only manuscripts we have are copies of copies written a century (or longer) after the alleged facts they describe occurred.
Moreover, how far fetched is it to think Paul was prone to hyperbole (and not everything he said was divinely inspired). It seems to me Jesus reversed all the dogmatic (and pharisaic) religious practices of the Jewish people; and ushered in real a paradigm shift. However, some of what I’m reading here sounds little different from how a pharisee might have treated a sinner (of whatever sort). So is it really consistent with the redemptive message of the Gospel to imagine a god who creates people who are, by nature, homosexual (just to destroy them)? I suppose if you’re a Calvinist you would have no problem taking this view, but again is this really consistent with a message of love, a god who forgives man despite his many imperfections, and benevolence?
At some point something has to give (logically speaking anyway). Love and mercy is simply not consistent with creating people for the sole purpose of tossing them into an eternal furnace (although I would argue tossing anyone at all, even the worse of men, into an eternal furnace is sadistic). You might counter that it’s a matter of human choice; but IMO that’s an ill informed view (that fails to consider the realities of human psychology). Leaving aside homosexuality for a moment, consider people who are clinically psychotic (and even though they might know right from wrong, cannot control their deviant desires). Pedophiles are incurable (and we know, short of castration, they will strike again if we leave them on the streets). Psychosis can fun in families (so it obviously has a genetic component). Indeed we have little problem accepting the biological cause of everything ranging from mental illness to alcoholism, yet mention homosexuality and biology in the same sentence and the fire and brim stone comes heaping down. It seems like obvious hypocrisy to me.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Very nice post above. Here is my response as a Calvinist for same sex marriage…
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world (homosexuals, mentally ill, the untouchables, the poor, the uneducated, those would a low IQ, etc) , even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” - 1 Cor 1 (Paul)
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I’m obviously very glad to see there are Calvinists in favor of same-sex marriage. Obviously the Presbyterian Church (one of my grandparents was Presbyterian) is pretty diversified these days. I’m not sure how welcomed your stance would be in some of the more conservative denominations of the PC, but I know PC(USA) has become very tolerant (and I applaud them for it). They’re pretty much in line with the UMC and the ELCA (and I think they entered into some sort of communion with those denominations & maybe also the Episcopal Church … the denomination much of my family is nominally part of, though we’re not a very religious bunch).
I did study a little Calvin (it’s been several years, but I still remember some of his teachings). I believe Calvin believed in passive reprobation, in contrast to how he’s misrepresented by “hyper-Calvinists” (in other words god didn’t directly intervene to shape the lives of the reprobate; but by passing them over they will inevitably find their way to perdition, since we’re all, according to Calvin and most protestant theologians, by default totally depraved).
I remember Calvin to have a very complex theology, along the lines of Augustine (as compared to Arminian theology). Still, the the idea of total depravity, or even the diluted Catholic version, always struck me as odd (but I digress).
Anyways, once again
I did study a little Calvin (it’s been several years, but I still remember some of his teachings). I believe Calvin believed in passive reprobation, in contrast to how he’s misrepresented by “hyper-Calvinists” (in other words god didn’t directly intervene to shape the lives of the reprobate; but by passing them over they will inevitably find their way to perdition, since we’re all, according to Calvin and most protestant theologians, by default totally depraved).
I remember Calvin to have a very complex theology, along the lines of Augustine (as compared to Arminian theology). Still, the the idea of total depravity, or even the diluted Catholic version, always struck me as odd (but I digress).
Anyways, once again
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
You just may be one of the elect even though you are an agnostic at this stage of your life. It’s impossible for the elect to run from God. It’s interesting you are on a Christian site discussing the Christian Faith.I’m obviously very glad to see there are Calvinists in favor of same-sex marriage. Obviously the Presbyterian Church (one of my grandparents was Presbyterian) is pretty diversified these days. I’m not sure how welcomed your stance would be in some of the more conservative denominations of the PC, but I know PC(USA) has become very tolerant (and I applaud them for it). They’re pretty much in line with the UMC and the ELCA (and I think they entered into some sort of communion with those denominations & maybe also the Episcopal Church … the denomination much of my family is nominally part of, though we’re not a very religious bunch).
I did study a little Calvin (it’s been several years, but I still remember some of his teachings). I believe Calvin believed in passive reprobation, in contrast to how he’s misrepresented by “hyper-Calvinists” (in other words god didn’t directly intervene to shape the lives of the reprobate; but by passing them over they will inevitably find their way to perdition, since we’re all, according to Calvin and most protestant theologians, by default totally depraved).
I remember Calvin to have a very complex theology, along the lines of Augustine (as compared to Arminian theology). Still, the the idea of total depravity, or even the diluted Catholic version, always struck me as odd (but I digress).
Anyways, once again
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I can imagine the psychological appeal of thinking a creator god who existed eternally, controls the entire universe (and beyond), is omniscient, present everywhere, can do anything, and so on … chose you (to the exclusion of billions of others); not only that but created the entire universe just for the sake of you and the elite class of people you belong to … but suffice it to say, I think it’s hogwash. Just ancient stories, derived from earlier mythology, that emerged from a primitive and superstitious culture, which was pushed on the west by an imperial empire (who was already prone to bizarre ritual and worshiping a panoply of gods).You just may be one of the elect even though you are an agnostic at this stage of your life. It’s impossible for the elect to run from God. It’s interesting you are on a Christian site discussing the Christian Faith.
V
VARC
Guest
How about these abominations…
Lev19:19" 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Where did Jesus excuse is from keeping these decrees?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Many texts refer to the cities of the plain or their destruction - no other OT episode is so often referred to. And many of the passages condemn one or other or all of the cities for a variety of reasons - Isaiah 1.10 for one reason, Ezekiel 16.49 for another.
The condemnation in Ezekiel is not the same as the complete absence of any condemnation of homosexual activity anywhere in the Bible - it states Ezekiel’s use of the theme of Sodom & its sin; that does not mean Sodom was not thought of as committing other sins. Though it is a good thing to be reminded of those sins, given that they are very fashionable. So thanks.To talk of “loving and compassionate same sex relationships founded on mutual respect and compassion” is to pre-judge the issue - **if **sodomy is a sin, then no relationship based on it can be really loving: in such a relationship - not if it is to be tried by the full rigour of the demands of Christ upon us. And Christians are not held to any lower standard. One condemns oneself in saying this - but one must acknowledge it. The sins we commit are not a reason to “lower the bar” - the change has to be in us, to conform us to Christ, & not the other way around. Homosexual practice is sinful. So it must be repented of, turned round from; but so must all other sins. Of all Christians; painful as this may well be. So Christian homosexuals are not being expected to do anything others do not have to do. Neither they, nor we, are alone. One does not need to be homosexual to find that a challenge to believe.
It must seem pitiless and inflexible to bang on like this; this* is* an issue affecting human beings
- but what other standard is there 
? How does Christian obedience allow a positive evaluation of homosexual practice ? One thing that makes me very suspicious is that such conduct was common in the Greco-Roman world - what reason is there not to think the Churches are being tempted to return to behaviour that are frankly pagan ? Homosexual practice does not stand alone. How is valuing it favourably a faithful development in Christian conduct, and not an abandonment of Christian obedience ? That I would like very much to know. How does it show forth the power of Christ and His Spirit in us, and the Father’s ownership of us ?I’m not condemning anyone. This kind of behaviour can be very appealing to human nature. That is just what makes it so dangerous. Therefore, it must be resisted with the most absolute determination. To makes terms with it, or to surrender to it, is suicidal.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
but how is the pre-Christian Greco-Roman world an accurate analogy in this case? What about looking at pre-Christian Scandinavian and German history? There are no recorded instances of homosexuals couples in Viking history. The Visigoths were brutally intolerant of homosexuality.
It seems Christians always point to the Greco-Roman world as their analogy of the slippery slope we will drive ourselves down if we become more tolerant of homosexuality, but Americans will never culturally be anything like the ancient Romans or Greeks. The ideal of heterosexual masculinity in this country is not conducive to what we saw in ancient Rome or Greece (the ancient Greco-Roman world was a culture of pedastry – an aberration in American culture).
Therefore, this hypothetical slippery slope seems more like demagoguery and fear mongering (in other words, classic bigotry) than a theory with any basis in logic.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
I think Scripture bears testimony that God does everything for His own glory including choosing vessels for His own good pleasure and purpose. God has two kinds of vessels that are from the same lump of rotten clay.
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— rom 9
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
oh no .,… I’m gonna burn in the eternal fire of hell
god didn’t choose me, oh well (I guess you can’t expect brains and heaven huh?)
- Status