Two openly gay principals hired in same town: a first!

[fix]

jayc:

In original Biblical texts it is now widely believed amongst scholars that there were very few, if any, references to homosexuality in the Bible. The mentions are thought to stem from the condemnation of “Temple Prostitution”. This was common in established Pagan religions, who believed that the point of sexual climax was the closest anyone could come to divinity. Thus, if you wanted to experience “God” (or “Godess” in the case of many pre-christian temples), you would simply engage with a Temple Prostitute (many of whom were male). Scholars now believe that somewhere along the line (let’s not forget that the Bible has been translated and passed down by hundreds of unreliable and unofficiated sources prior to the Bible we know today), a translator/scribe has placed his/her own homophobic agenda onto the words of the Bible.

So the Church, founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, got the Scriptures all wrong, but the present day “scholars” are infallible?

As for Leviticus (don’t lay down in another man’s bed, i think is the line), this is the same book of the Bible that tells us not to eat pork, and I don’t see any thread about the unnatural sin of eating pigs.

Do you think the Church teaches that the ceremonial law is the same as the constant moral law?http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Shrimp_Homosexuality.htm

 

[gilliam]

jayc:

In original Biblical texts it is now widely believed amongst scholars that there were very few, if any, references to homosexuality in the Bible. The mentions are thought to stem from the condemnation of “Temple Prostitution”. This was common in established Pagan religions, who believed that the point of sexual climax was the closest anyone could come to divinity. Thus, if you wanted to experience “God” (or “Godess” in the case of many pre-christian temples), you would simply engage with a Temple Prostitute (many of whom were male). Scholars now believe that somewhere along the line (let’s not forget that the Bible has been translated and passed down by hundreds of unreliable and unofficiated sources prior to the Bible we know today), a translator/scribe has placed his/her own homophobic agenda onto the words of the Bible.

As for Leviticus (don’t lay down in another man’s bed, i think is the line), this is the same book of the Bible that tells us not to eat pork, and I don’t see any thread about the unnatural sin of eating pigs.

Your reading too much popular “gay theology” which is written, primarily, to make people who engage in sinful homosexual behavior, feel OK about sinning.

 

[stevendmo]

BlindSheep:

Also, dontcha think these gay principals will do everything in their power to ensure that no student leaves their school with “homophobic” (read: Christian) attitudes intact?
It would be naive to think otherwise.

How on earth do you know that these people are **not **Christians? Do you really believe that no one who is gay can be a Christian? (Even if you want to believe that homosexual behavior – or even a homosexual orientation – is sinful, are not heterosexual sinners also capable of being Christians…flawed Christians, that is, which is the kind that most of us are on any given day?) Why do you assume that being gay and being a Christian are mutally exclusive states?

Steve

 

[setter]

stevendmo:

How on earth do you know that these people are **not **Christians? Do you really believe that no one who is gay can be a Christian? (Even if you want to believe that homosexual behavior – or even a homosexual orientation – is sinful, are not heterosexual sinners also capable of being Christians…flawed Christians, that is, which is the kind that most of us are on any given day?) Why do you assume that being gay and being a Christian are mutally exclusive states?

Steve

The Church makes it perfectly clear, supported by the bible, those who persist unrepentent in an active homosexual lifestyle are facing the prospect of eternal damnation. Yes, being “gay” (active homosexual) is a mutually exclusive state for one professing to be a Christion.

Please let us know what about this clear teaching that you do not understand.

 

[stevendmo]

setter:

The Church makes it perfectly clear, supported by the bible, those who persist unrepentent in an active homosexual lifestyle are facing the prospect of eternal damnation. Yes, being “gay” (active homosexual) is a mutually exclusive state for one professing to be a Christion.

Please let us know what about this clear teaching that you do not understand.

You’re assuming, first off, that anyone who is gay or lesbian (that is, has a sexual orientation that involves same-sex attraction) is active sexually. Are all heterosexuals sexually active? No one is capable of living a chaste life – is that the idea you’re selling? Or do you assume that someone who is gay is automatically a great sinner – a greater sinner than a heterosexual, for instance, who has premarital sex or extramarital sex?

It’s nice (mighty convenient) to assume that others are greater sinners than ourselves, or that sexual sin (someone else’s sexual sin) is worse than cheating on one’s taxes or failing to reach out to the poor or whatever consequential sinful behavior you or I might be guilty of.

And if you’re tempted to reply that cheating on taxes and neglecting the poor are venial sin, whereas two adults involved in a caring, committed relationship are committing grave sin, consider how many times Jesus discussses in the Gospels the way the poor are treated against how many times Jesus condemns people for sexual sin. Yes, there **is **such a thing as sexual sin; yes, human sexuality is a gift that can be misused in a thousand different ways…by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. But before you condemn two educators who happen to be gay simply because they are gay, shouldn’t you try to find out first whether they’re good teachers, good administrators, caring human beings, effective in their professional responsibilities, etc.? Does hearing that they’re “gay” tell you all the important things you need to know about them? If that’s the case, why did Christ waste his time talking about so many more consequential ways of measuring character and spiritual life – e.g., feeding the poor, visiting the imprisoned, caring for those who are ill? Don’t those kinds of things matter anymore?

Steve

 

[fix]

stevendmo:

You’re assuming, first off, that anyone who is gay or lesbian (that is, has a sexual orientation that involves same-sex attraction) is active sexually.

Perhaps I read the article incorrectly, but one of the “gay” principals wants to “marry” his partner. Is it wrong to draw a conclusion?

consider how many times Jesus discussses in the Gospels the way the poor are treated against how many times Jesus condemns people for sexual sin.

Surely, this is not sound moral reasoning or a proper understanding of the faith?

If that’s the case, why did Christ waste his time talking about so many more consequential ways of measuring character and spiritual life – e.g., feeding the poor, visiting the imprisoned, caring for those who are ill? Don’t those kinds of things matter anymore?

It all matters. Christ upheld all the moral law. We too frequently minimize sexual sins as we refuse to accept Christ’s teaching in these matters.

 

[setter]

]You’re assuming, first off, that anyone who is gay or lesbian (that is, has a sexual orientation that involves same-sex attraction) is active sexually.

You must have over looked my qualification of active homosexual:

Originally Posted by setter
Yes, being “gay” (active homosexual) is a mutually exclusive state for one professing to be a Christion.

Are all heterosexuals sexually active? No one is capable of living a chaste life – is that the idea you’re selling? Or do you assume that someone who is gay is automatically a great sinner – a greater sinner than a heterosexual, for instance, who has premarital sex or extramarital sex?

How do you differentiate “homosexual” from “gay” or “lesbian”? I agree, sin is sin, but not all sin is equal – some sin is mortal, some is venial. Almost every sin of the flesh is mortal sin.

It’s nice (mighty convenient) to assume that others are greater sinners than ourselves, or that sexual sin (someone else’s sexual sin) is worse than cheating on one’s taxes or failing to reach out to the poor or whatever consequential sinful behavior you or I might be guilty of.

Not all sin cuts one off from the life saving [sanctifying] grace needed to exist in heaven.

But before you condemn two educators who happen to be gay simply because they are gay, shouldn’t you try to find out first whether they’re good teachers, good administrators, caring human beings, effective in their professional responsibilities, etc.? Does hearing that they’re “gay” tell you all the important things you need to know about them?

Judgment is left to God alone. That being said, as far as I know “they’re good teachers, good administrators, caring human beings, effective in their professional responsibilities, etc” are not requisite qualifications for entry into either heaven or hell.