I believe that no man or women should ever be allowed to serve as a minster or a leader of any church that represents God. Why?

To be frank, the Bible condemns homosexuality. No amount of verbal hocus-pocus can make scriptures like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26, 27 disappear.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Mankind has become very tolerant and will make all kinds of excuses and take the Bible and twist it to fit what they want it to, so as to do their own thing. They even go as far as saying that if a Christian is to love all people then they need to love the gay person. As a Christian myself, I do love all people including homosexuals, I though hate their behavior and their choice to go against God's laws. I am able to separate the person from their behavior or actions. God does not approve of homosexuality but He also does not approve of a Christian treating anyone harshly or to hate them in any way. I also feel that gays are welcome into the congregation I attend, but they will be asked to respect God's house by obeying His commandments and laws about proper conduct. A gay person would not be serving as a leader in the congregation that I attend. How could they? They are suppose to be representing the supreme Sovereign of the universe. They can not serve God and Satan. The Bible forcefully admonishes, "O you lovers of God hate what is bad." Psalm 97:10 Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms, not there own.

If Leaders in the Congregation of God allows these gays to enter into a leader position and to try to teach others to do God's will and they themselves are not obedient to God's laws, and they approve of homosexuals becoming priest and leaders of their church, this is detestable in God's eyes and I truly feel sorry for the future generations. Gay or homosexual behavior is not approved by God nor should their conduct be welcomed in any place of worship of those claiming to serve God.

As a minister of God, I welcome all persons gay, straight, thieves, murders and sinners, but once you enter the congregation of God, all the conduct that God does not approve of will never be welcomed. We can not serve the God of the Bible and not obey his laws against homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroy in Lots day. Why? Homosexuality was one of the reasons. One reason I don't go to the churches of this world is because of this very thing. As a Christian, Jesus Christ is the head of the Congregation. Those who take the lead in the congregation must become workers for the members of the congregation, under Christ. There are requirements that those taking the lead in the congregational affairs must adhere to. Notice what the Bible says these qualification are. Here is God's view on the matter.

I quote:
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2The overseer should therefore be irrepressible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God's congregation?) 6not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.

(Titus 1:5-9) 5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders; 6if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly. 7For an overseer must be free from accusation as God's steward, not self-willed, not prone to wrath, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his [art of] teaching, that he may be able both to exhort by the teaching that is healthful and to reprove those who contradict.

1 Thess. 4:3-8: "This is what God wills ... that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God; that no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter, because God is one who exacts punishment for all these things, just as we told you beforehand and also gave you a thorough witness. For God called us, not with allowance for uncleanness, but in connection with sanctification. So, then, the man that shows disregard is disregarding, not man, but God, who puts his holy spirit in you."

Eph. 5:5: "No fornicator or unclean person or greedy person-which means being an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God."
People do change though and many who used to practice homosexuality are now Christians and serving God and obeying his laws. They learn God's way of Cleanliness and they have changed their ways to gain God's approval and with His approval comes many blessings. You see, God is love and he does forgive, if we choose to obey Him and do things his way, not the way of this world. God wants his followers and servants to be clean because He is clean. Anyone overseeing the Christian congregation therefore will have to be clean in God's eyes.

Comments?
Take care,
Hope12

Those that live a life style where they are living with someone they are not married to, should not be a leader in a church.

So they can not be living unmarried to a man or women and be a leader.
Also marriage is considered by the church as a union of a man and women, so that leads gays out.

Those chuches that allow this are no longer truly Christian.

Religion is in a bind, especially Roman Catholicism, because being a Minister or Priest attracts male homosexuals, just like hair dressing and interior decorating. Always the scandals as the church members get outraged when their minister turns out to be gay.

In the American Catholic Church it is estimated that 50% or so of priests are homosexuals.
Being a minister is not an attractive job for a healthy heterosexual male in Catholic America; there is a shortage and priests are imported from Latin America and other countries such as India.

I have never seen statistics on FundiEv Christian churches, but there is always some kind of sexual scandal in the news, not necessarily over homosexuality. Recently, we had Ted Haggard seeing a homosexual prostitute. After he left his large mega church, the membership dropped precipitously. Who can forget Swaggert, Bakker and the others? FundEv ministers who are ambitious are able to make an extremely good living blowing smoke and staging mirrors so their faithful are lulled to sleep.

It would be wonderful if there were more Billy Grahams, but that era has passed, unfortunately.

As commissioner to Presbytery, I was part of voting down ordaining any not living in fidelity in marriage or chastity several years ago. Unfortunately the church leaders are allowing homosexuals to flout the constitution.

If enforced, it would also deny most lay leadership roles in the PCUSA

As commissioner to Presbytery, I was part of voting down ordaining any not living in fidelity in marriage or chastity several years ago. USA

In other words Labman, you would not disqualify a person from being ordained (or being your own minister) if that person was homosexual, but chaste. Well, that's a good starting point.

I guess someone here has to stick up for the liberal wings of the various US denominations that have ordained openly gay clergy - it may as well be me. I understand that anyone on this board whose religious views are driven by a belief in the literal interpretation of the english language version(s) of the bible is not likely to be persuaded. However, a few points to ponder:

As I believe Labman would agree, one can be gay and non-sexually active and still be ordained and could make a terrific minister or priest. Anyone disagree?

So let's address the issue of ordaining homosexuals who are in active, committed, monogamous, and loving relationships - that's where most of the controversy lies. The english language translations for many of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality inevitably are about male prostitution and promiscuousness. The concept of sexual orientation as we understand it today wasn't even considered back when the bible was formulated - for example, any male-on-male sexual activity in those days was considered a form of prostitution because people who did this there were inevitably involved with multiple partners, performing in orgies, etc. The bible is virtually silent on the issue of homosexuality between committed, monogamous, and loving partners.

Much of the argument in the liberal denominations in support of ordaining openly gay clergy has been based on a model of balancing (a) scripture, (b) reason, and (c) traditions in determining what the church should do on this issue. If you believe that only (a) applies, then there's no reason to be against slavery (which no where does the bible condemn) or child labor, or supportive of women's rights, at least from a religious perspective. The more liberal denominations have tended to believe that the bible should be read and understand in terms of broad themes, such as loving one's neighbor, forgiveness of sins, etc. and not so much word-for-word analysis of passages written by men from cultures long ago. These denominations do not believe the bible is inerrant, especially as translated into english by men who most certainly had their own biases. They also firmly believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, but are part of who each of us are, and so to treat homosexuality as inherently evil is counter to the notion that we are all God's children. And once again, to be clear, we are talking only about people who are in committed, monogamous, and loving relationships, which is a concept the bible does not address.

I'm all for equal rights (because of one of my best friends) but in all honesty, no, a person who is gay/lesbian should not be aloud to be a church leader. It is a sin and it would set a bad example unto the rest of the congregation.

Oh the intolerance.

Justifies why many don't belong to churches / groups who judge so ignorantly.

They have their own relationships.

Definitely agree

YESS!!! YOU FREAKIN ROCK!!! SOMEBODY THROW YOU A COOKIE!!! So many time i want people to understand that just because you are homosexual does not mean you are any worse than anyone else. we have all fallen short and the wages of ANY sin is death... but you have to make the committment to change, out of love. Freaking bonus points to you

The Bible has a definition for chastity which makes certain lifestyles incompatible with its definition. In short, a murderer, habitual, thief, habitual liar, adulterer, fornicator, idol worshipper, habiutual sloth, a person who is habitiually violent, or even one who entertains evil thoughts though he doesn't carry them out doesn't qualify as being virtuous. Now, we can disagree, ignore, and go our own way. But what we cannot say is that the Bible approves of these behaviors. Only that WE don't see it the way that the Bible sees it and bvased on that we will classify these behaviors as we see fit.

As for intolerance, the Bible doesn't describe God as tolerant of all behavior. It is very specific in telling us that he does view certain behaviors as wrong. Actually, only an idiot would be tolerant of all behaviors since many behaviors are violations of the human rights of others and toleration of them would lead to anarchy.

Also marriage is considered by the church as a union of a man and women, so that leads gays out.

You mean single gay people who are chaste, cannot be a model or leader, in the christian church?? You mean they can't have a same sex roommate either??

In other words Labman, you would not disqualify a person from being ordained (or being your own minister) if that person was homosexual, but chaste. Well, that's a good starting point.

I guess someone here has to stick up for the liberal wings of the various US denominations that have ordained openly gay clergy - it may as well be me. I understand that anyone on this board whose religious views are driven by a belief in the literal interpretation of the english language version(s) of the bible is not likely to be persuaded. However, a few points to ponder:

As I believe Labman would agree, one can be gay and non-sexually active and still be ordained and could make a terrific minister or priest. Anyone disagree?

So let's address the issue of ordaining homosexuals who are in active, committed, monogamous, and loving relationships - that's where most of the controversy lies. The english language translations for many of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality inevitably are about male prostitution and promiscuousness. The concept of sexual orientation as we understand it today wasn't even considered back when the bible was formulated - for example, any male-on-male sexual activity in those days was considered a form of prostitution because people who did this there were inevitably involved with multiple partners, performing in orgies, etc. The bible is virtually silent on the issue of homosexuality between committed, monogamous, and loving partners.

Much of the argument in the liberal denominations in support of ordaining openly gay clergy has been based on a model of balancing (a) scripture, (b) reason, and (c) traditions in determining what the church should do on this issue. If you believe that only (a) applies, then there's no reason to be against slavery (which no where does the bible condemn) or child labor, or supportive of women's rights, at least from a religious perspective. The more liberal denominations have tended to believe that the bible should be read and understand in terms of broad themes, such as loving one's neighbor, forgiveness of sins, etc., and not so much word-for-word analysis of passages written by men from cultures long ago. These denominations do not believe the bible is inerrant, especially as translated into english by men who most certainly had their own biases. They also firmly believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, but are part of who each of us are, and so to treat homosexuality as inherently evil is counter to the notion that we are all God's children. And once again, to be clear, we are talking only about people who are in committed, monogamous, and loving relationships, which is a concept the bible does not address.




Okay first of all to address your statement on ministers who are not acting out on that impulse... the notion that for instance "Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic" or anything else, is a secular point of view. And you can not combine the secular viewpoint with the christian.

If they are no longer maintaining a gay stance then they must think its wrong, therefore, have repented, therefore as God has forgiven them so should the congregation and they are no longer homosexual.

Also... the notion that homosexuality is something people are born with... secular viewpoint.
People are all born with a sin nature.
Some people are more likely to want to steal, some to lie, some to rebellion... and one in the same, some people are born with the tendency to want to be homosexual... but sorry, its not a gene.

As with anything, you can fight off any of those desires... but everything in society today revolves around accepting and acknowledging your wants and desires. If you want to have sex on the first date... GO For iT! Just make sure to wear a condom. If you want to get plastered at a party go for it... just don't drink and drive.

Im sad for the people. People who are brought up to believe such things therefore making it so much more difficult to acknowledge the fact that so many of these things are in fact wrong.
They continue to hurt themselves and get more and more violent and or depressed, but "its not what they are doing, its a chemical condition that requires medication to fix. not prayer nor repentance, jsut more and more pills."

God made the laws that he did to keep us from pain... because he loves us and no matter how much you want to contort the bible or say that it was meant differently, he told the writers of the bible what to write so even the most belligerent or unlearned people could understand and follow, but only if they want to.

The Bible has a definition for chastity which makes certain lifestyles incompatible with its definition. In short, a murderer, habitual, thief, habitual liar, adulterer, fornicator, idol worshipper, habiutual sloth, a person who is habitiually violent, or even one who entertains evil thoughts though he doesn't carry them out doesn't qualify as being virtuous.

Is it your position then that church leaders must be virtuous, per this definition? Do you know of any church leaders who measure up? I would bet that all people have had "lust in their hearts" (to quote Jimmy Carter) at some time in their lives - clergy included. I submit that this doesn't disqualify a person from being ordained. What's important is how one choses to act (or not) on these "impulses." So, I ask - as a first step: what is it about a person with homosexual tendencies who is chaste that in your view would disqualify that person from being an outstanding church leader? And would you also disqualify a heterosexual who has an occasional fantasy regarding the opposite sex?

There is a difference between fantasyzing and doing...

There is a difference between fantasyzing and doing...

Correct - so you therefore agree that a chaste homosexual person would be OK as a church leader, right?

Hmmm... there is still a difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual. But I'm begining to see what you mean..ish.

SnaveLeber the only difference between a true christian a sinner is the Holy Ghost:)

Is it your position then that church leaders must be virtuous, per this definition? Do you know of any church leaders who measure up? I would bet that all people have had "lust in their hearts" (to quote Jimmy Carter) at some time in their lives - clergy included. I submit that this doesn't disqualify a person from being ordained. What's important is how one choses to act (or not) on these "impulses." So, I ask - as a first step: what is it about a person with homosexual tendencies who is chaste that in your view would disqualify that person from being an outstanding church leader? And would you also disqualify a heterosexual who has an occasional fantasy regarding the opposite sex?



No one measures up. The only reason we are accepted is based on Jesus Ransom sacrifice. However, the stipulations for church leadership are found in the Bible itself
And are very clear and they disqualify a practicing homosexual. That you suggest they be ignored shows that you hold the Bible in little esteem. Which of course is again your privilege. But please allow others their right to respect the biblical view.


There are countless scriptures I could show you which encourage us to keep our minds free from evil thoughts. But since my computer doesn't permit it at present that will have to wait.

(1 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2The overseer should therefore be irrepressible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God's congregation?) 6not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.



From the op's biblical reference , I do not believe a homosexual should be church leader.
But not only does it speak to the issue of homosexuality, which everyone gets their underclothes in a wad about, but also about other character traits.

I certainly would not qualify, because I've been divorced [? Husband of one wife - or is that in reference to polygamy] and most of the time my kids are too rambunctious.




Grace and Peace

Well everyone knows that there aren't many people who can even qualify as it is. The people who do were chosen by God himself to lead the rest of his people in said community.

Hmmmmm... I think the church should focus on the bigger problem of getting rid of all the pedophile church leaders before even attempting to take a stand on this positition

You're right, but for some reason if we tackle the slightly less important issues, more gets done? <-sarcasm of course.
Getting rid of the pedophiles (church leaders or members) should be our number one task within our chuches. But on an over all basis I think is meant, because the church leaders influence sooo many people and set an example.

I find it strange that someone that possesses this quote:

"God Loves all People from all Nations. That being the case, why and what right do people have to hate one another?"

would have such a strong feeling toward this.

Is a homosexual not qualified to teach the Word of God? Whether you believe they are living in sin is one thing. But then again, show me a man who does not live in sin? They are few and FAR between.

How deep should the church dig into someone's personal life to ensure that they are NOT living in sin? Should the church set up secret scenarios to make sure someone isn't a pedophile? Or secretly gay? Or just to ensure they don't have a lustful eye? Or to ensure that they do not approach a woman during her time of uncleanliness? Or..?

Whoa now... I can see where you're coming from. But you're kind of right which i didn't want to admit because I try debating things when I don't believe them. But as far as I know as Christians we are suposed to be more understanding. And a strange way of looking at it taht jsut popped into my head is:
If love can teach someone of itself then why can't the word of God do it too?
I hope that makes sense to more people then just myself.:p

Makes perfect sense. Obviously, there is no one worthy of such a true position... and yet, the higher up the ranks you go, the more unworthy they become.

So where is the line drawn? At the one section where many religious heads focus the worlds attention... which most likely is to keep the world from seeing far worse truths?

Oh my... you're totally right and making me think. But that's where a God loving Christian becomes a stuck up Christian... when they are wanting to make the church look good more then to face true everyday issues.

I find it strange that someone that possesses this quote:

"God Loves all People from all Nations. That being the case, why and what right do people have to hate one another?"

would have such a strong feeling toward this.

Is a homosexual not qualified to teach the Word of God? Whether or not you believe they are living in sin is one thing. But then again, show me a man who does not live in sin? They are few and FAR between.

How deep should the church dig into someones personal life to ensure that they are NOT living in sin? Should the church set up secret scenarios to make sure someone isnt a pedophile? Or secretly gay? Or just to ensure they dont have a lustful eye? Or to ensure that they do not approach a woman during her time of uncleanliness? Or.....???
************************************************** ************************

"This should not be strange at all. I love the person but I have some of the things they do. "We can separate the two things. God hate when we sin and yet he does not hate us. So my quote is honest, I hate no one. I do though hate what God hates and he hates the act of homosexual conduct and I am to hate what God hates. I though never would hate the person, just their actions.

Have a good evening.
Hope12

Well put. Agreed.

But why is it JUST homosexuality? As I said before, why not investigate further into someone's life before ordaining them?

Im curious to know how people that hold this belief would react after learning that the minister that has led your church for YEARS, the minister that has helped you grow to be the best Christian you can be, the minister that has reached out to so many suddenly exposed the truth that he was gay and had been hiding this from both his wife and his church.

Would all those years just negate themselves?

Dr Jizzle true christians that have the life of Christ inside them ( Holy Ghost) sin no more, because it is not the person that lives anymore but God in the person, and God can't sin ;)

By pointing a finger at each other doesn't erase GODs decision that Homosexuality is WRONG. Leadership implies you are an example to others with your behavior and actions. If a you are a businessman that is expected to lead a company.. you had better know your business inside and out. If you are to be a leader in the Church you had better have a good grasp on how to lead the congregation as GODs word directs. As a leader in a church you must accept your life is under close observation. God holds you responsible if you mislead his children away from his teachings. You cannot live as a thief or a drunk or a homosexual and guide others in GODS teaching. GOD made the rules regarding homosexuality not man. It is a leaders responsibility to uphold what GOD commands in his house. It doesn't mean christians are judging if we uphold GODS rules. It is by obeying GODS rules that we are hope and light to a dark and thirsty world. GODS demands from us to OBEY. GOD is the judge not us. He is the only one that has the right to judge us all. As Christians its true we all sin and can ask for forgiveness through the mercy and grace of GODs son Jesus. If you practice homosexuality you are sinning. If you steal you are sinning. If you gossip or judge others you are sinning. All are welcome in GODS house to come and hear the good news of salvation and join the body of Christ. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Jesus is the ONLY way to GOD. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" I welcome all sinners to my church. The church is for sinners... thats what it is there for... I have not seen scripture that says accept a thief or a drunk or a homosexual and guide others in GODS teaching. The bible says to confess the sin ask for forgiveness and sin no more! I don't hear that here.. I hear we should have tolerance to sin. God does not want tolerance he wants us to OBEY.

Yes, we should not be tolerant to sin;)

And if God had issues with gays leading churches... he made them like that why?
Cause homosexuals are born not made.

Homosexuality is not something that is instilled from birth. Sorry to break it to you. It's a choice.

And if God had issues with gays leading churches.... he made them like that why?
Cause homosexuals are born not made.

You must be thinking of another God. Because if you're believing in the Christian God, then you have to abide by the entire Bible... and that means the parts that say that Homosexuality is a sin. Also the part that says God would never allow you to face a trial that you can't defeat. Homosexuality is just another temptation to something that is wrong, just like lying or stealing. Just anothing thing you need to deny to yourself, just like premarital sex.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. At all. In any way.
And some of the gay people I know are much better people then most of the straight or "normal people'

SnaveLeber - you said:

"homosexuality is not something that is instilled from birth. Sorry to break it to you. Its a choice."

Do you have any evidence for this? Or is just something you believe because it fits with your world view of homosexuality being a sin, therefore if anyone is pre-disposed to it they must be sinful? How do you know it's not simply a matter of whatever genes one happens to be born with?

This is really the crux of the matter - one side (yours) views homosexuality as a choice, like deciding to rob a bank, and the other side (mine) views homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, as a pre-disposition one is born with, like having red hair.

The Gay life style is contrary to Christian morals so a gay cannot be a minister. There are a number of references in the Bible to homosexuality as sin so Christians should not be led by a person who espouses sin in any form.

Well of course, because everyone is born with sin, but not one fixated sin

There is nothing wrong with being gay. At all. In any way.
And some of the gay people i know are much better people then most of the straight or "normal people'
Xmouse the standpoint of homosexuality as a sin is based in the Bible. Apparently you don't agree with the Bible. Thus to argue regarding evidence is moot. A world without Gods laws is left to its own morals. Morals that change like the wind to suit personal desires. No God?. then No rules. You exist to chart your life as you see fit. Problem with that is someone may want to take what they want of your life for themselves. You may think stealing is wrong. Someone else may think its fun. They would think you're a chump and take your car. That's OK since his morals are different than yours. You can't expect him to abide by YOUR morals. Does that make sense to you? Its Gods morals and views that matter. Note one thing. You CAN be a wonderful person and still be a sinner. I have no problem with Gays more than I do other sinners. Its not an issue until they intend to be a leader or a example to others in Gods house. The Bible does not allow them to teach others while openly displaying a lifestyle unacceptable to God. There is much more going on than just outright choices when it comes to sin. Environment, childhood, abuse, neglect... we all are a product of an environment. Still as a society, or as a portion of the body of Christ, rules are placed. A thief cannot say... its because of... blank... I'm a thief. Or I was born to be a thief... its much more complicated than that. The fact remains if you steal.. society punishes you.. and rightly so. In Gods society... sin is wrong. To sin and say you had no choice I was born this way.. won't wash. You will be judged. NOT by me, but by God whom is the one that has the right. Homosexuality is not an acceptable behavior... its not "normal" Its wrong it so many ways. Just because its more accepted by the world we should ignore what the Bible says? Should God adapt his expectations to our NEW tolerant world? If stealing became more acceptable would that make it right? Realize by repeating the Bible to the world Christians are not judging the world. We are warning the world. Gods Grace and forgiveness is a finite thing. They day will come when it will be to late to repent.

If you walked into your house and your child was dead and your husband was sitting in the living room watching TV and tells you "I didn't shoot her, not my fault." Would you be able to just be okay with that and not hate him passionatly ? Why can god not be held up to the same standards as a common man ?

Did you just equate someone being gay to a parent shooting dead their child?? Then you say in the same post that god hates gays passionately?
I think you need to take a step back and put some perspective in your life.

If you walked into your house and your child was dead and your husband was sitting in the liveing room watching tv and tells you "I didn't shoot her, not my fault." Would you be able to just be okay with that and not hate him passionatly ? Why can god not be held up to the same standards as a common man ?
Are you out of your mind? You do realize that GOD IS GOD! God allows us to make our own choices. Are you saying that you want everyone to not be able to die? Are you saying that God is just like the father who may or may not have killed his child!? Are you trying to say that God is bad? Dude, i don't know you, but it sure does sound like you need to... I don't even know because I've never heard, seen or read anything so ridiculous!

A few things here...

There is MUCH more evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic than not. By removing a certain chromosome in (I can't remember... a rabbit or a mouse or something), scientists have found that this animal had begun showing signs of homosexuality.

The "all or nothing" idea of the Bible is definitely for another thread... but I will say that there are plenty of Christians that do not believe that what is written in the Bible is 100%... 100% true... 100% accurate... or 100% valid

Also, if homosexuality is SUCH a big issue with Christianity, why doesn't Jesus mention it once? Not one time does He mention it. Yes, He does say to uphold the Law but also abolishes parts of that same Law. Just seems strange for Him not to mention anything about it... unless what was mentioned was intentionally stricken from the Bible long before any of us could have had a chance to see it.

That's not what I'm saying.
Read: The End of Faith- It's a book that might open your eyes.

Thats not what im saying.
Read: The End of Faith- Its a book that might open your eyes.
Tell you what. I will read your entire book if you actually read the entire Bible.

Also, if homosexuality is SUCH a big issue with Christianity, why doesnt Jesus mention it once?? Not one time does He mention it. Yes, He does say to uphold the Law but also abolishes parts of that same Law. Just seems strange for Him not to mention anything about it... unless what was mentioned was intentionally stricken from the Bible long before any of us could have had a chance to see it.


Because Jesus never mentions homosexuality are we to assume then that Jesus did not care about wife beating or incest, just because He said nothing about them? Besides, why would you care what Jesus says or not? You wouldn't believe or follow it even if He did... would you?

Sorry, but if he was gay, why would he be married? Many ministers will admit that they STRUGGLE with those temptations, but they fight them, not embrace. And a married minister wouldn't be embracing that temptation.

Should a Christian allow those taking the lead in the Church such as Ministers be gay

I believe that no man or women should ever be allowed to serve as a minster or a leader of any church that represents God. Why?


The whole problem with your argument is you put "gay" sin above all others, and that is discrimination of one sin over another. Not only is it prejudicial, but short sighted as sin is sin, and there is no priority set, only by man. God commands us to love the sinner, but if you discriminate against him you are going against what God commands us to do. You have effectively negated what God has told us, and put the sin before what is Gods' commandment. Okay hate the sin, but why make the person an object of your hate?? Justifying your position is putting your own opinions before Gods, and we know that will not work, and makes you a self richeous ------, and a hypocrite to the teachings of the Creator. That sin is greater than homosexuality!!

Talaniman sin is sin to me, there are no big sin and small sin, the topic was homosexuallity, that's why we are discussing this specific sin, yes there are many other sin but we are just trying to relate to this topic ;)

Thank you for pointing that out, but all due respect that is exactly what I have done. Responded to the question asked with my opinion. Is there a problem?

There is no problem that I know of :)

Because Jesus never mentions homosexuality are we to assume then that Jesus did not care about wife beating or incest, just because He said nothing about them? Besides, why would you care what Jesus says or not? You wouldn't believe or follow it even if He did... would you?

Do not assume to know what I believe. I typically never state what my beliefs are here... so you really have no room to make such an assumption.



Ok, well I assume that things that ARE mentioned still must hold true? (do we really have to go here AGAIN? )

~Burning a bull on the altar as a sacrifice as it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9)

~Selling my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7

~No contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24)

~Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

~Exodus 35:2 clearly states that anyone working on the Sabbath should be put to death.

~Eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10)

~Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.

~Getting your hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27

~Lev 11:6-8 touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean

~Violating Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field - or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend) permits stoning (Lev 24:10-16) Or burning to death at a private family affair like people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)


(Yes, this was all taken - but cleaned up to be less offensive - from that infamous letter)




SnaveLeber : Sorry, but if he was gay, why would he be married? Many ministers will admit that they STRUGGLE with those temptations, but they fight them, not embrace. And a married minister wouldnt be embracing that temptation.

Who are you to say what my hypothetical minister does or doesn't do? He's my hypothetical minister and he'll do what I want him to... and I say that he was a closet homosexual that just decided to come out.

And many o' married ministers have succumb to FAR worse temptations that just homosexuality... like pedophiles.

(yes, I had to go back to that as well... but if someone wants to make a infinite/blanket statement like "married ministers dont embrace temptation" well then... I have to lol)

When Christ died he died to make us not need to follow the old laws of the jews, which is everything that you had just stated, from the old testament. BY THE WAY--- I'm 18.

Dontchaknow : When Christ died he died to make us not need to follow the old laws of the jews, which is everything that you had jsut stated, from the old testament. BY THE WAY--- im 18.

Ok, then why does the old law of the jews against homosexuality still hold true?

And why did you tell me your age? Are you trying to hit on me? Lol

In addition to slavery... People always think of the masters as control freaks and cruel a holes. But the bible consistently and directly states the rules of conduct for a master to treat a slave... which is to treat them with kindness and respect.


Hmmm... makes you wonder why Moses ever implored the pharaoh to "let my people go."

In addition to slavery... People always think of the masters as control freaks and cruel a holes. But the bible consistently and directly states the rules of conduct for a master to treat a slave... which is to treat them with kindness and respect.

((Speaking from my perspective, a Catholic male))

All right, first it says slavery, and then it says "but treat your slaves with respect". I think it's safe to assume that "treating them with respect and kindness" would be more up to what the slave "owner" would consider kind and respectful than the actual slave right? Right.

Wives were also to be treated with respect right? But then they were kept from going to school, and this dehumanizing act was thought to still be "respectful" for a woman's place was not in the realm of education, but it was only in the "house" or "kitchen". So then, I ask you, what sort of shape or form do you think this "respect or being kind" could have taken towards a "slave".

If Christains were treating Christian women in what they considered to be "respectful", then I assume the Christians of the past would treat their "slaves" with the same dehumanzing definition of "respect", but worse. Like, "no education, only bread and water, two beatings instead of three, etc". Just like they wouldn't let them read.

The least you could do is not "make little" of the hardship that many slaves went through by brining that line in. I'm not saying all Christians did this, but every Christian that justfied having a slave, "did".

Dontchaknow disagrees: The women did thise things out of culture, they respected their husbands, and the husbands provided for and respected the wives. This is a forign concept to america. So yes... As a woman Ill say it easily. Women need to get in their place.

No they didn't do this out of culture. Many pagans let women be educated. But the religion of Christianity justified not permitting women to go to school. The Catholic Church actually had a big hold over how culture functioned. You are denying this? They had a whole book on how to go out and kill women for being witches. You need to go back to the books my darling because there is a big chunk of history which you are not aware of.

And you are silent about belittling what many slaves have gone through.

What do you mean the respect of women is a foreign concept to America? Are you talking about back in the day? Because yes, back in the day it was, but if you are talking about today, I'm sorry, you are very wrong and racist. Thanks for proving you are a racist by not putting what you said in past terms or at least giving your logic as to why what you have said applies to "today". No need to talk to you anymore, because I've never considered racist people to understand rational debate anyway.

What do you mean women need to get in their place? Are you sure you are a modern-day Christian woman? Or have you found some time-machine and have come from the year 1800? Christian women can run for president here in America.

((Speaking from my perspective, a Catholic male))

Alright, first it says slavery, and then it says "but treat your slaves with respect". I think it's safe to assume that "treating them with respect and kindness" would be more up to what the slave "owner" would consider kind and respectful than the actual slave right? Right.

Wives were also to be treated with respect right? But then they were kept from going to school, and this dehumanizing act was thought to still be "respectful" for a woman's place was not in the realm of education, but it was only in the "house" or "kitchen". So then, I ask you, what sort of shape or form do you think this "respect or being kind" could have taken towards a "slave".

If Christains were treating Christian women in what they considered to be "respectful", then I assume the Christians of the past would treat their "slaves" with the same dehumanzing definition of "respect", but worse. Like, "no education, only bread and water, two beatings instead of three, etc". Just like they wouldn't let them read.

The least you could do is not "make little" of the hardship that many slaves went through by brining that line in. I'm not saying all Christians did this, but every Christian that justfied having a slave, "did".


It is an error to judge first-century Christians by what nominal Christians who were products of the apostasy did later. For example, 1st century Christians did not participate in the Roman military, did not involve themselves in politics, and were persecuted for their refusal to worship the emperor. Later, those claiming to be Christians would eventually make up the legions of the Roman armies, participate in politics, and, instead of being persecuted, persecute those who dared to disagree with them. So there is a big difference in behavior between these two groups.

As for women, first-century Christians would go strictly by scripture and not by man-made customs or rules. That was the WAY of early Christianity.

Excerpt

Women's roles in the early Christian Church
There is evidence to suggest that women in the early Christian church had significant status and roles, despite patriarchal theology. This was particularly true in the first three centuries of the Common Era

From the beginning of the early Christian church, starting with Jesus, women were important members of the movement. The gospels of the New Testament often mention Jesus speaking to women publicly and openly against the social norms of the time. He reached out to the marginalized in his society and thus, his appeal was great. He had female followers who were his sponsors and Mary Magdalene is recorded to be the first person to have the privilege of seeing Jesus after resurrection. As time went on and the disciples continued to spread Jesus' message by word of mouth, groups of Christians organized within the homes of believers, the private sphere of the woman. Those who could offer their home for meetings were considered important within the movement and assumed leadership roles.[2]

By the time Paul began his missionary movement, women were important agents within the different cities. The Pauline letters mention women such as Chloe, Prisca, Euodia and Syntyche as well as Phoebe.

Chloe appears to be a head of a household of an extended family.[3] Prisca is mentioned several times in the Bible, as either a missionary partner with the Apostle Paul or the wife of Aquila. Out of five times Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned as a couple, her name appears before Aquila's three times. This has prompted speculations by scholars that she may have been more important than Aquila, especially since it is believed they often organized gatherings within "her" home in Corinth.

There are also Euodia and Syntyche who were involved with the missionary work and traveled unaccompanied without male restrictions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the article can be read at the following website:
Christian views about women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_about_women)

I believe that no man or women should ever be allowed to serve as a minster or a leader of any church that represents God. Why?

To be frank, the Bible condemns homosexuality. No amount of verbal hocus-pocus can make scriptures like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26, 27 disappear.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Mankind has become very tolerant and will make all kinds of excuses and take the Bible and twist it to fit what they want it to, so as to do their own thing. They even go as far as saying that if a Christian is to love all people then they need to love the gay person. As a Christian myself, I do love all people including homosexuals, I though hate their behavior and their choice to go against God's laws. I am able to separate the person from their behavior or actions. God does not approve of homosexuality but He also does not approve of a Christian treating anyone harshly or to hate them in any way. I also feel that gays are welcome into the the congregation I attend, but they will be asked to respect God's house by obeying His commandments and laws about proper conduct. A gay person would not be serving as a leader in the congregation that I attend. How could they? They are suppose to be representing the supreme Sovereign of the universe. They can not serve God and Satan. The Bible forcefully admonishes, "O you lovers of God hate what is bad." Psalm 97:10 Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms, not there own.

If Leaders in the Congregation of God allows these gays to enter into a leader position and to try to teach others to do God's will and they themselves are not obedient to God's laws, and they approve of homosexuals becoming priest and leaders of their church, this is detestable in God's eyes and I truly feel sorry for the future generations. Gay or homosexual behavior is not approved by God nor should their conduct be welcomed in any place of worship of those claiming to serve God.

As a minister of God, I welcome all persons gay, straight, thieves, murders and sinners, but once you enter the congregation of God, all the conduct that God does not approve of will never be welcomed. We can not serve the God of the Bible and not obey his laws against homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroy in Lots day. Why? Homosexuality was one of the reasons. One reason I don't go to the churches of this world is because of this very thing. As a Christian, Jesus Christ is the head of the Congregation. Those who take the lead in the congregation must become workers for the members of the congregation, under Christ. There are requirements that those taking the lead in the congregational affairs must adhere to. Notice what the Bible says these qualification are. Here is God's view on the matter.

I quote:
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2The overseer should therefore be irrepressible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God's congregation?) 6not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.

(Titus 1:5-9) 5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders; 6if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly. 7For an overseer must be free from accusation as God's steward, not self-willed, not prone to wrath, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his [art of] teaching, that he may be able both to exhort by the teaching that is healthful and to reprove those who contradict.

1 Thess. 4:3-8: "This is what God wills ... that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God; that no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter, because God is one who exacts punishment for all these things, just as we told you beforehand and also gave you a thorough witness. For God called us, not with allowance for uncleanness, but in connection with sanctification. So, then, the man that shows disregard is disregarding, not man, but God, who puts his holy spirit in you."

Eph. 5:5: "No fornicator or unclean person or greedy person-which means being an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God."
People do change though and many who used to practice homosexuality are now Christians and serving God and obeying his laws. They learn God's way of Cleanliness and they have changed their ways to gain God's approval and with His approval comes many blessings. You see, God is love and he does forgive, if we choose to obey Him and do things his way, not the way of this world. God wants his followers and servants to be clean because He is clean. Anyone overseeing the Christian congregation therefore will have to be clean in God's eyes.

Comments?
Take care,
Hope12
Ministers must be happy people. The Bible says, "Is any happy; let him sing".

There is nothing wrong with sexuality. I'm sorry but this is one reason I no longer go to church. They commend people for so many wrong doings. When my church found out I was pregnant at 16 where in the bible does it say that is wrong. I'm sorry god warshipping people but to me you have been brain washed.

The whole problem with your argument is you put "gay" sin above all others, and that is discrimination of one sin over another. Not only is it prejudicial, but short sighted as sin is sin, and there is no priority set, only by man. God commands us to love the sinner, but if you discriminate against him you are going against what God commands us to do. You have effectively negated what God has told us, and put the sin before what is Gods' commandment. Okay hate the sin, but why make the person an object of your hate??? Justifying your position is putting your own opinions before Gods, and we know that will not work, and makes you a self richeous ------, and a hypocrite to the teachings of the Creator. That sin is greater than homosexuality!!!

Hello Skell, No sin is sin, all sin is bad, the only difference is that the sin of homosexuality is the sin being discusse here in this post. No one but yourself seems to think that the discussion is prejudicial. We should and will always love the person who sins, but we must hate what God hates, the act of the sin. We hate the act of homosexuals but we do not hate those who are homosexuals. When I wrote my original post there is not hate for the homosexual person/s but there is only hate for the actions of the homosexual because this is what God hates. Really then if the sinner or the act of sin they committ cause hate of others to come up into their heart, is it not the homosexual themselves who promote the hate or make themselves objects of hate?

No post I have ever posted, either this one or any other posts would show hate towards any person. I only show hate towards there sinful actions. If they continue in their sinful actions then they cause people to hate them. Is that wrong for people to hate the person? Yes it is, but I do not promote or condon that hate. God teaches us to hate the sin they commit not the sinner.

The hate of the act of homosexuality is what God hates and warning others is the doing of God's will not putting myself first but God and what he states is right and wrong, what is sin and what is not sin. How can one approve of the sinful act of homosexuality and say they love God? They can not, but they can place the homosexual person above the sin when it come to loving the person who commits the sinful act of homosexuality. Yes we must hate the sin and not the sinner.

Take care,
Hope12

SnaveLeber - you said:

"homosexuality is not something that is instilled from birth. Sorry to break it to you. Its a choice."

Do you have any evidence for this? Or is just something you believe because it fits with your world view of homosexuality being a sin, therefore if anyone is pre-disposed to it they must be sinful? How do you know it's not simply a matter of whatever genes one happens to be born with?

This is really the crux of the matter - one side (yours) views homosexuality as a choice, like deciding to rob a bank, and the other side (mine) views homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, as a pre-disposition one is born with, like having red hair.


Hello Ebaines,

It is a choice because why would God condemn something like homsexuality and then allow infants to be born with homosexuality born in them? That just don't make sense.

A father would not tell his son, I will punish you if you smoke one more time. Then take cigirettes and give them to his son.

Come on, lets get real here. God did not put these feeling in humans and then condemn them and tell us it is a sin and they will be punished unless they change. The only way a child is pre-disposed to homosexality is if that is what they learn as they are growing up, then they choose to follow that course.

I can't believe that people believe in such false propaganda as people being born homosexuals. It just is so unbelievable the extent some would go to practice a sinful course and then try to justify it with unreasonable comments as, "they were born that way." That is just wrong, they did not inherit homosexuality, they have chosen to be that way themselves.

Take care,
Hope12

Your entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong, or close minded it is.

The man is an idiot!

We are all born sinners, even an evil thought is considered a sin. That is why Jesus died on the cross, so that we can be forgiven for our humanly sins.
As far as being a minister who is homosexual or bisexual I personally feel like a minister should be the ultimate example of purity and living accordingly to the bible.

Hello Ebaines,

It is a choice because why would God condemn something like homsexuality and then allow infants to be born with homosexuality born in them? That just don't make sense.



This is the crux of the discussion: you argue that homosexuality is a sin and therefore must be a personal choice; I argue that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore is not a sin. Your belief is based on a literal interpretation of a few passages in the bible (the "clobber" passages). My belief is based on a broader interpretation of general biblical themes (love, fairness, etc.), scientific findings, and personal experiences.

I am glad this thread was resurrected. Makes me even happier that I am now an atheist. I don't have to judge anyone and I can look at everyone in the same light and not be judging people on who they want to love or be with. This is why I don't believe in God or the bible. I believe you should love everyone EQUALLY. Shame on some of you... shame. :D

P.S.

Karma Karma Karma

Every part of your statement doesn't make any sense regarding those you are blatantly accusing of judging others.


Makes me even happier that I am now an atheist. I don't have to judge anyone.

My question for you is: what CULT were you a part of that required you to judge someone else?
Because it definitely wasn't any religion I have heard of! More specifically it definitely couldn't have been Christianity (which is what this thread is talking about), which means you are either off topic if you are talking about a cult you were in, or you are ill-informed regarding the Bible if you are talking about Christianity.

Why? Because Christians are taught in many different scriptures that judging others is a sin and that they are not to do it (just like they are taught homosexuality is a sin). A sin is a sin and all are viewed in the same light in God's eyes (this is from the Bible by the way). People that feel that they are to judge homosexuals have miss-interpreted the Bible and have ignored important scriptures as Christians should not hate homosexuals but instead their choice to continually sin! Therefore people that choose to sin continually should not be rewarded – especially with the job of teaching others how to stay away from sin.

They should also look at the conclusion of the Bible and act on that… what is it?… well it's the New Testament and what does it incite us to do? Follow Jesus's example! Jesus doesn't treat gays unfairly nor should any Christian do so because Christians should follow his example!



This is why I don't believe in God or the bible. I believe you should love everyone EQUALLY.

And so does the Bible and Jesus shows this through his actions in the New Testament! So wait… why was it again that you don't believe in the Bible??




Shame on some of you....shame.

This phrase says a lot regarding the integrity of your whole statement/argument! You condemn people that judge others; you accuse the Bible (unless you really were talking about some cult you were in) of being a book that incites people to judge others and also say that this is the reason you have lost your faith BUT you are finishing by using a word that is intended for judgment!



P.S. Karma Karma Karma

In case you didn't know, Karma is a Buddhist term. You are atheist. Now I understand what you are probably trying to say is you use this as your morals so all I have to say is that is wonderful that you still have good morals, but don't forget the definition/explanation of the word is also found in the Bible when it says to “treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.”

Need I say more? Every part of your statement does not flow with the rest of itself or hold water period. If you are going to say something don't contradict it seconds later. I think you should also try reading the Bible without putting your own twist on what it says. Because I know for a fact even though English may not be my mother tongue, Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" is pretty straight forward and doesn't mean "You have to judge anyone" like you said at the start of your message, but actually "Do not judge" means... Do not judge! No matter what language you translate that to.

If someone is attracted to the same sex, but is celibate, does that make a difference? Is just being gay a sin? This is a double edge sword because it may include in this sin, a committed monogamous couple, who can never marry his/her partner.

Hi Everybody,
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; what is detestable. Lev. 18: 22 are clearcut words that should not be ignored. Detestable stands for abhorred, atrrocious, god-awful, despicable , disgusting. God says we should love them as we are suppose to love our neighbors, but He also says not to condone their sin. To give someone that is homosexual a leading position in church, is therefore clearly wrong.

Hi Magarita Moma,
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they new God , they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkend. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fool,s and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impuruty for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped created things rather than the Creator- who is forever praised. Amen
This is taken word for word from God's true word the bible in Romans 1: 20-25 NIV
It would not hurt you to read the rest of the chapter. I hope you did not burn your bible. It is never to late to repent.

I'm still confused since how do you know if someone is gay or not, unless they say so?? I mean if the head minister never says he is gay, how can you not stop him from being head minister, or whatever title is correct?

Hope12:
How many 'divorced' men are serving as leaders in your church???? Jesus denounced 'divorce' in no uncertain terms. He never denounced Homosexuals!

Perhaps because there were no open homosexuals at that time, and of course he did when he accepted all of the scriptures as valid and taught from them in the temple.

And of course since all sin can be forgiven a divorced person can be forgiven for his divorce, and a homosexual can be forgiven, all he has to do is stop his sexual activities, since being forgiveen needs repentance, so the sinner has to admit their sin ( at least to thierself) and ask to be forgiven, That is the homosexuals problem, they can not truly get forgiven, since they are not turning from their sin

My question was a gay person who is celibate, being a leader of the church.

A gay person who is celebrate is not in sin, and can easily be a leader in the church, we have several in our church who are priests, Bishops and also hermits who are gay but have turned from the active life style.

Every part of your statement doesn’t make any sense regarding those you are blatantly accusing of judging others.



My question for you is: what CULT were you a part of that required you to judge someone else?
Because it definitely wasn’t any religion I have heard of! More specifically it definitely couldn’t have been Christianity (which is what this thread is talking about), which means you are either off topic if you are talking about a cult you were in, or you are ill-informed regarding the Bible if you are talking about Christianity.

Why? Because Christians are taught in many different scriptures that judging others is a sin and that they are not to do it (just like they are taught homosexuality is a sin). A sin is a sin and all are viewed in the same light in God’s eyes (this is from the Bible by the way). People that feel that they are to judge homosexuals have miss-interpreted the Bible and have ignored important scriptures as Christians should not hate homosexuals but instead their choice to continually sin! Therefore people that choose to sin continually should not be rewarded – especially with the job of teaching others how to stay away from sin.

They should also look at the conclusion of the Bible and act on that… what is it?… well it’s the New Testament and what does it incite us to do? Follow Jesus’s example! Jesus doesn’t treat gays unfairly nor should any Christian do so because Christians should follow his example!




And so does the Bible and Jesus shows this through his actions in the New Testament! So wait… why was it again that you don’t believe in the Bible?!??





This phrase says a lot regarding the integrity of your whole statement/argument! You condemn people that judge others; you accuse the Bible (unless you really were talking about some cult you were in) of being a book that incites people to judge others and also say that this is the reason you have lost your faith BUT you are finishing by using a word that is intended for judgment!




In case you didn’t know, Karma is a Buddhist term. You are atheist. Now I understand what you are probably trying to say is you use this as your morals so all I have to say is that is wonderful that you still have good morals, but don’t forget the definition/explanation of the word is also found in the Bible when it says to “treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.”

Need I say more? Every part of your statement does not flow with the rest of itself or hold water period. If you are going to say something don't contradict it seconds later. I think you should also try reading the Bible without putting your own twist on what it says. Because I know for a fact even though English may not be my mother tongue, Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" is pretty straight forward and doesn't mean "You have to judge anyone" like you said at the start of your message, but actually "Do not judge" means... Do not judge! No matter what language you translate that to.

Wow! Didn't you have a whole mouth full of pent up bible crap that you just had to get out on someone? Do you feel better now? Good! I'm happy for you. I started out commenting on all your little snide comments and bible versus but what is the use. You are just a brainwashed bible thumper and I am an atheist heathern. I have my thoughts and views and you have your bible and god.

And yes, you are correct. I use Karma as a moral reference and I know the terms religious background, but seriously, there was no need for you to quote your little bible versus to me.

I suppose in my original post I did judge some people by insinuating that a lot of them were just judging homosexuals because the bible says its bad. But in my defense, any God that would say a good, God-fearing person that happens to love someone of the same sex will burn in hell when they die just because He doesn't like it, is a little sick to me. When I was a believer, I had my own image of God that didn't include the bible, only to be shuned from my church because I didn't believe in the so called Word of God. How can people believe in and live by a book that wasn't even written in the same century as when Jesus supposedly walked. Anyways...good luck with bashing other non believers. Its been fun. Happy New Year Everyone! :cool:

A gay person who is celebrate is not in sin, and can easily be a leader in the church, we have several in our church who are priests, Bishops and also hermits who are gay but have turned from the active life style.

If someone is celibate to the extent that they have absolutely no sex life then how are they gay... or even heterosexual? Wouldn't they just be 'celebate', or 'neutral'?

If someone is celibate to the extent that they have absolutely no sex life then how are they gay...or even heterosexual? Wouldn't they just be 'celebate', or 'neutral'?

The term generally used is sexual orientation. If I were to take your argument for a moment, and apply it to every young person who is a virgin, then the logical conclusion would be that every virgin is non-sexual. My point is that whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with whether they are active but has everything to do with what they choose to be attracted to.

Now for this reason I disagree that the orientation is not a sin. Jesus spoke a great deal about our orientation in Matthew Chapter 5:

Matt 5:21-30
21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,' and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you are thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
NKJV

Notice that it is not the act which is considered a sin, but rather Jesus tells us that it is what is first in our heart - our orientation. For this reason, I would take the position that a person needs to deal with that orientation first in order to be a leader in the church.

What you are referring to is NOT orientation, but desire!! Attraction is not a choice; and orientation is no more a choice than is left-handedness.

Bravo Mama. It has always amazed me that certain Christians feel it is o.k. to dump on non-believers, but go ballistic when they get some of their own back!!

desidario,

Re: Your comment to my answer:

One's orientation drives one's attraction. If one is not oriented to desire something, one does not desire it. Scripture describes orientation as more than just desires but speaks of these as desires of your heart, what motivates/excites your innermost being.

As for attraction or orientation being a choice, you are now dealing with opinion. There is no scientific basis for stating that it is not a choice, but scripture does speak to this matter. Scripture tells us that certain desires of our hearts are sinful and need to be changed, for example:

Acts 8:21-22
22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.
NKJV

I did a study on this a number of years ago, and due to the amount that scripture has to say regarding our orientation, it would be different to go through it on a Q&A forum, but suffice it to say that God would not tell us to change our orientation and then make it impossible. Can homosexuals become heterosexual? Again, let's look to scripture for that answer:

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

So since we are speaking about the church, direction for what to do in this matter must be scripturally based.

Oh the intolerance.

Justifies why many don't belong to churches / groups who judge so ignorantly.

They have their own relationships.

Greetings, the posted question has produced much interest on both sides of this matter and having done some research, I found the following websites that one should read thoroughly for a better understanding of this topic matter (don't just look at the links, see what they are actually saying). I do believe that when someone "comes out" to another, it is already painful for them to do so but to want to serve a Higher Calling that comes from God is truly not for our human judgment. Can you only imagine a person who is scorned, spat upon, whipped and beaten, discriminated, ridiculed, fired from their jobs, laughed at, picked on, ostracized by society, kicked out of the house, many times by their own parents just for being gay or lesbian, having the courage to reach out to another in their time of need and especially to still want to serve the Lord? I can only imagine that is very hard and if we are to truly "Love One Another" as Jesus said we should do, we should do so to literally everyone, without any reservations, since He never qualified His statement with " ... except for gays and lesbians ... ". Therefore, a friend should never be abandoned nor should his or her higher spiritual calling. Their pain should never be made worse by rubbing their wound with little misunderstood Biblical words that act as alcohol on their pain. Let's see what, in effect, scholars actually say about what those passages that seem to excoriate homosexuals are actually saying.

It is easy, I would imagine, for those who wish to belittle others to say that they should change, but can one really change something that science now says is not a matter of choice? It would be very difficult, in effect. The only "choice" I see here is a person's willful choice to be promiscuous. Promiscuity is never right for both heterosexuals or homosexuals in the eyes of God. That is what is truly sinful in His eyes. Therefore, people should be in a fully committed, loving relationship to avoid the temptation. However, people, in their humanity, are people with an apparent innate need and given desire for sexual expression. Few words, if any, can literally change that desire any more than yelling at a young person to not engage in sexual activity when their hormones are raging. Perhaps some would be stronger than others, but that unfortunately, would still not remove their basic biological need for the expression as all are inherently born with, with few exceptions let's face it. Therefore let's all follow Jesus' exemplary words, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Let's first work on removing heterosexual desire as in lusting or coveting a neighbor's spouse or another within our own community before we ask those of the gay or lesbian orientation to do the same. When we can successfully accomplish that task within our own, we can feel free to call ourselves "masters" of change and can feel free to point the finger at others who are of a different lifestyle and say to them that they are wrong in what they do.

The following websites should certainly peak the interest of everyone who has ever battled with this question and has searched for answers and has wanted to see what scholars, scientists and clergy have to say.

"The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals", is MUST reading and also contains very interesting links at the bottom of the page. Six Bible Passages (http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html)

Another page with great food for thought -- www.mccbath.org.uk - (http://www.mccbath.org.uk/wouldjesusdiscriminatecampaign)

United Methodists -- untiedmethodist.com: The Question I Am Most Often Asked By People Visiting My Church's Website -- Part One (http://www.untiedmethodist.com/untiedmethodist/2005/04/the_question_i__1.html)

For those more acclimated to higher learning, there is this website that should be read all the way through, especially to see what the American Psychological Assn. the AMA, the American Psychiatric Assn. and the National Assn. of Social Workers have to say about this important matter from a learned, professional standpoint: Did You Ever Wonder (http://www.emory.edu/CAMPUS_LIFE/LGBTOFFICE/wonder/index.html)

Actually the studies quoted as saying that homosexuality is not a matter of choice have all been discredited - sloppy methodology.

The second point that I would like to address is that I find that people on both side4s of the issue try to make this sin some sort of special sin. In reality it isn't. The sin of homosexuality is no worse a sin than other sexual sins, or indeed other sins in general. Homosexuals should therefore not be treated worse than other people - Romans 3:23 says that we have all false short of the glory of God, and we are all sinners. Those who have received Christ as Saviour are sinner saved by grace, homosexuality or not.

That being said, I would not expect any more from a person in dealing with the sin of homosexuality than I would from a person who was involved in a sin of pornography, or hypersexuality - they are all sins, and for those who profess to be Christians, we called to submit our lives to Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to work on us to change us, just as those in the church in Corinth were changed from their sinful ways, including homosexuality. Just because a sin may be hard to deal with is not a good reason scripturally to avoid dealing with it head on.

The saddest thing is that so many see the Word of God as hateful, instead of the love letter for living for God. He only wants His best for us, which is very often contrary to our flesh. If we will surrender our way of thinking to His was of things we will choose His will over ours every time.

According to what has been written, homosexuality is grounds to exclude him from leading a ministry, then a minister must be without sin to lead? If all sin is equal, where do you find perfection among not perfect humanity to lead? Even among the saved, are they deemed perfect, or without sin? How can they be more perfct than a celibate gay man, who gives his life to his God?

That being said, I would not expect any more from a person in dealing with the sin of homosexuality than I would from a person who was involved in a sin of pornography, or hypersexuality - they are all sins, and for those who profess to be Christians, we called to submit our lives to Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to work on us to change us, just as those in the church in Corinth were changed from their sinful ways, including homosexuality. Just because a sin may be hard to deal with is not a good reason scripturally to avoid dealing with it head on.

Your speaking as if being a homosexual is souly a "choice". I am not gay but people I know that are, do not feel that it was a choice to be gay. They feel attracted to their same sex just like heterosexual people are attracted to people of the opposite sex. Its not like they can just wake up one morning and say, "I'm going to stop having feelings like I do for my boyfriend or girlfriend because its wrong in the eyes of God." Its not a choice you can just decide to stop doing. These people are not harming anyone by loving someone of the same sex. I'm sorry but I just can't understand how some christians see it as a choice unless they are the ones that believe the stuff in the bible. The bible was written by man centuries after Jesus's death. Don't you think their own views and ideas would be included in their writings? The fact that the bible was written by man is one of the main reasons I can't believe in it. Homosexuality was looked on in disgust back in those days because it was different from the norm. Don't you think that would reflect in some of the writings?

Exactly! No one, literally no person is without sin in this world. That much is known. In my opinion, those who are celibate and wish to serve the Lord should be allowed. However, there is inequity about that, inasmuch as some Protestant religions allow their ministers to marry, therefore, they are not celibate and can still serve the Lord. So, a dichotomy exists here.

The sad thing concerning gay people is that throughout history so many have been killed by those who felt somehow superior to them and used inept Biblical passages to try to justify their horrendous deeds. God does not allow murder according to His Sixth Commandment. But for those so-called murder-minded "Christians" (Actually they are without God. Remember The Inquisition?) presumably saying that they would do these things to gays, and I know many have heard the stomach-turning and chilling phrase "Kill a queer for Christ", they are trying to justify murder, perhaps as a way to try to prove or make others believe they themselves are not gay, when in effect, who knows? Or they might not be able to come to terms with it. Yet, they must realize that Jesus, in His Loving Compassion, never spoke about homosexuality nor condemned it in the Bible. He was silent about it. That much is known and we must remember that it is by His blood that we are Saved. However, some people with an agenda of hate will always try to justify their horrific acts through some other means and even try to tie their harmful behavior to other inappropriate passages but it falls short of the truth about our Loving Heavenly Father Jesus Christ who had a policy of inclusion of everyone. He even sat at the table with thieves.

In the case of Mary Magdalene (who later became a saint), a sinner whom Jesus had cast out seven devils, Jesus did not ask her to change her sexual orientation, which was obviously heterosexual, but rather to "go and sin no more", to quit living a promiscuous lifestyle. This is a lesson all should learn about trying to "change" a person from what he or she is or the orientation they are born with. So, quit being promiscuous and serve the Lord is His message and it applies to ALL. It worked in the case of Mary Magdalene! His message should also have applied to the Catholic Church and its priests but we all know how unfortunate that turned out as the matter has been widely publicized. Was it their innate biological desire that led them to do what they did? Was it simply turning their back from God? Some were even still serving in the clergy until caught. But we cannot judge these people. God does, in His own time, in His own way as is appropriate.

Will we ever know why those who choose to serve the Lord also have biological needs and desires as ordinary humans do? It is difficult to be chaste and still serve the Lord but with the allowance of marriage in the clergy, for some, and even raising a family (requiring a sexual act), especially when a priest cannot do so nor a nun, it is quite out of line to expect others of a different orientation to refrain from expressing a basic biological need. Equalize this mandate for ALL or for none in order to be equitable to all those who wish to serve the Lord.

According to what has been written, homosexuality is grounds to exclude him from leading a ministry, then a minister must be without sin to lead? If all sin is equal, where do you find perfection among not perfect humanity to lead? Even among the saved, are they deemed perfect, or without sin? How can they be more perfct than a celibate gay man, who gives his life to his God?

Just to note that my recent reply was to this posting.

According to what has been written, homosexuality is grounds to exclude him from leading a ministry, then a minister must be without sin to lead? If all sin is equal, where do you find perfection among not perfect humanity to lead? Even among the saved, are they deemed perfect, or without sin? How can they be more perfct than a celibate gay man, who gives his life to his God?

Good question. Let's put it in perspective. If a candidate to be a pastor for your church came up to the pulpit and said "I am a pedophile - I am sexually attracted to children and I cannot help it and there is nothing wrong with it". Would he be qualified to be a pastor in your opinion?

That is not the same as a candidate coming up and saying that he is a sinner saved by grace before God, and that he acknowledges his sin and has submitted himself to be changed by the Holy Spirit.

see the difference?

It is not a case that a man be without sin, but rather that the man be willing to acknowledge his sin and be willing to change. We all come to God as we are, sinners and thus a homosexual is a still a homosexual when he receives Christ, but a person who is truly save will seek to be chnaged from their sinful desires through the wotrk of the Holy Spirit.

Your speaking as if being a homosexual is souly a "choice". I am not gay but people I know that are, do not feel that it was a choice to be gay. They feel attracted to their same sex just like heterosexual people are attracted to people of the opposite sex. Its not like they can just wake up one morning and say, "I'm going to stop having feelings like I do for my boyfriend or girlfriend because its wrong in the eyes of God." Its not a choice you can just decide to stop doing. These people are not harming anyone by loving someone of the same sex. I'm sorry but I just can't understand how some christians see it as a choice unless they are the ones that believe the stuff in the bible. The bible was written by man centuries after Jesus's death. Don't you think their own views and ideas would be included in their writings? The fact that the bible was written by man is one of the main reasons I can't believe in it. Homosexuality was looked on in disgust back in those days because it was different from the norm. Don't you think that would reflect in some of the writings?

First, there is no scientific basis for claiming that it is not a choice. The studies which did claim this have been long since discredited.

Second, scripture says that when a persons come to Christ, that change is possible:

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

Notice that some in the church in Corinth were homosexuals before coming to Christ?

As for it being hard to change, no doubt it is. Scripture says that when Adam, sinned that we all were subjected to the sin nature, which is the orientation to sinful desires - of all types including homosexuality. Paul says that we are slaves to sin without Christ, but once we receive Christ as Saviour, we become slaves to righteousness and are no longer subject to being controlled by the sinful orientations.

Rom 6:11-14
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
NKJV

Lastly, there are a couple of organizations started by former homosexuals who were changed through Christ, therefore we have living evidence that it is possible. But the key is that the person must be willing to submit themselves to the Holy Spirit and to allow this change to take place. Some years back I had a similar discussion with a homosexual who said that he had accepted Christ, and told me that he had no choice and could not change. We discussed how he though about his homosexual orientation and he said that he "loved and embraced it". That being the case, he clearly had not come to the point where he was prepared to acknowledge it as sin and to submit to the changing power of the Holy Spirit.

If a candidate to be a pastor for your church came up to the pulpit and said "I am a pedophile - I am sexually attracted to children and I cannot help it and there is nothing wrong with it". Would he be qualified to be a pastor in your opinion? But it happens. Many priests were pedophiles, they ruined thousands of lives and the church did nothing to stop it. See: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases)

Being christian makes one no morally better that the next person. Divorces, rapes, murders, bestiality, drug abuse, spouse battering... these are in no less numbers among the religious community than among the non-religious.

But it happens. Many priests were pedophiles, they ruined thousands of lives and the church did nothing to stop it. See: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases)

Agreed. That is my point. It should not happen.

1 Tim 3:1-7
3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
NKJV


Being christian makes one no morally better that the next person. Divorces, rapes, murders, bestiality, drug abuse, spouse battering... these are in no less numbers among the religious community than among the non-religious.

First, let's be clear that there are two types of people called Christian - those who profess to be but are not and those who truly are Christian. Jesus spoke of the first category in this passage:

Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
NKJV

Often people assume that if a person acts nice, does good works or in some cases performs signs and wonders, that they are automatically a Christian. This is not true. A Christian is a person who has received Jesus as Lord and Saviour (that is more than just saying the words). Frequently, when Christians are reported to have done these things, they are in the first category, but not always. Even those of us who are saved do fall from time to time and do things that we should not. That is unfortunate but true. Regardless, I think that whatever the point is of that comment, that it has strayed off topic.

Lastly, there are a couple of organizations started by former homosexuals who were changed through Christ, therefore we have living evidence that it is possible.


This is called denial.

First, let's be clear that there are two types of people called Christian - those who profess to be but are not and those who truly are Christian. That's always the fallback isn't: it someone does something that you deem unworthy then they were not a 'true' christian. That makes it real easy for you. :rolleyes:

This is called denial.

Interesting - is your judgment of these people based upon some valid evidence of substance that you can share with us, or is it because their experience does not agree with your belief?

That's always the fallback isn't: it someone does something that you deem unworthy then they were not a 'true' christian. That makes it real easy for you. :rolleyes:

I did not say that. Read again before you pronounce judgment. Here is what I said (bold/underline added to clarify points that you apparently missed on the first read):

Often people assume that if a person acts nice, does good works or in some cases performs signs and wonders, that they are automatically a Christian. This is not true. A Christian is a person who has received Jesus as Lord and Saviour (that is more than just saying the words). Frequently, when Christians are reported to have done these things, they are in the first category, but not always. Even those of us who are saved do fall from time to time and do things that we should not. That is unfortunate but true. Regardless, I think that whatever the point is of that comment, that it has strayed off topic.

Now as I said, I believe that we should move on to address the question at hand.

Interesting - is your judgment of these people based upon some valid evidence of substance that you can share with us, or is it because their experience does not agree with your belief?

I believe the people you are speaking of probably suppressed their feelings so they could be excepted by other Christians without fear of being called out as a sinner or because they are probably brainwashed by bible versus like a few people I know. Yes, that is souly my belief and opinion. ;)

I believe the people you are speaking of probably surpressed their feelings so they could be excepted by other Christians without fear of being called out as a sinner or because they are probably brainwashed by bible versus like a few people I know. Yes, that is souly my belief and opinion. ;)

Interesting. Why do you assume that what the people on one side "believe" to be true is absolute fact, where what the other side "believes" to be true is denial on their part. Why not a consistent approach on the manner in which you judge the beliefs of both sides?

Interesting. Why do you assume that what the people on one side "believe" to be true is absolute fact, where what the other side "believes" to be true is denial on their part. Why not a consistent approach on the manner in which you judge the beliefs of both sides?

Umm... because I am human and I have an opinion just as you do. That is all you are speaking as well. There is no scientific evidence that any of the stuff you are talking about happened and if it did happen, if it was legit. I speak my opinion even though I have no evidence to back it up, just as you speak about "your god" when you have no evidence to back it up.

Umm...because I am human and I have an opinion just as you do. That is all you are speaking as well. There is no scientific evidence that any of the stuff you are talking about happened and if it did happen, if it was legit. I speak my opinion even though I have no evidence to back it up, just as you speak about "your god" when you have no evidence to back it up.

I think that this is getting off topic because it seems that rather than the topic of the acceptability of a gay minister, you are arguing the validity of the evidence supporting the existence of God. This has been discussed in other threads and I do not feel that it is appropriate to raise that issue once again here. By the fact that we are discussing a matter of the church, the truth of God is assumed, otherwise the church would not exist. If you wish to discuss the evidence for God, then please feel free to engage the topic on one of those other threads.

As for your opinion, you are more than welcome to put forward your opinion. My point was that you were not being consistent on the way that you were judging the beliefs of others.

So a gay celibate guy can be a minister, as FR Chuck has pointed out, and even acknowledges that it is in fact so. It seems that opinions are moot at this point, because the answer is yes.

So a gay celibate guy can be a minister, as FR Chuck has pointed out, and even acknowledges that it is in fact so. It seems that opinions are moot at this point, because the answer is yes.

The question was not whether it is possible - certainly various churches permit it and can do so - but the question was whether a Christian should allow it. When we look at scripture, the answer is clearly "no". When we are speaking about Christian doctrine, then opinions must fall aside when scripture speaks.

I really don't care, as I choose not to be affiliated with any denomination. Some allow it some don't. I will leave it for you Christians to figure out. Interpretation is only the opinion of the interpreter.

I really don't care, as I choose not to be affiliated with any denomination. Some allow it some don't. I will leave it for you Christians to figure out. Interpretation is only the opinion of the interpreter.

I am not affiliated with a denomination either. Scripture tells us that the Bible is of no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), so we are to allow it to speak for itself and interpret itself.

There is ample evidence and the difference between you and Christians is that we KNOW and you DONT know..;)This is an example of the divisiveness that drives people away from religion. The superiority attitude is a big turn off.

Yes it is true, poeple are turned off by absolute Truth. Sorry honey, there is no such thing as 'absolute truth'. You take what you believe and call it "the truth". Every religion/denomination does the same.

Originally Posted by waterlilly
Yes it is true, poeple are turned off by absolute Truth.

Everyone has the absolute truth, that makes you one of many.

Yes it is true, poeple are turned off by absolute Truth. It is too black and white for some poeple. They are more confortable with grey areas because it gives them the leverage to avoid truth and make up their own rules as they go.

Its funny how a lot of overly religious people, like yourself, think the only reason non-believers don't believe is because we don't want to follow the rules and want to avoid the truth. A lot of us don't believe because honestly religion just sounds like a lot of made up opinions by other people. Its people like yourself that have that snotty Hollier than though mentality that turned me away from religion in the first place.

Oh and NeedKarma... I agree with your last post. I have just agreed with you so much the site won't let me do it anymore. Ha ha!

but having a personal relationship with the Living God.

I agree on that, but though The God that I understand guides me, I don't know the whole story, and don't care who is right or wrong. There can be no absolute truth with us humans, only what we choose to believe. God put us here but the means is beyond us. The overwhelming evidence, is we don't really know. As humans we fill in the blanks with our own truth, but we learn as we grow, if we grow and are openminded, and can accept what is true.

This is an example of the divisiveness that drives people away from religion. The superiority attitude is a big turn off.

NK,

Christians do not see themselves as superior. We are all sinners, and we know that unless we humbled ourselves and acknowledged our sin before God that we would be on our way to hell. It is only through acknowledging that we cannot save ourselves and it is our own sin that has condemned us that we can saved by grace through the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross to pay the price for our sins.

Tom

Christians do not see themselves as superior. Hi Tom,

I see what you are saying and that is my experience with my local christian friends as well. But hang around this website long enough and you'll see what I am talking about.

Yes it is true, poeple are turned off by absolute Truth. It is too black and white for some poeple. They are more confortable with grey areas because it gives them the leverage to avoid truth and make up their own rules as they go.

There is no Black and White in religion that can be taken as Absolute Truth!! Absolute Truth for a Roman Catholic is Papal infallibility... for a Jehovah's Witness it is the idea of a renewed earth for the faithful... for monophysites it is the Single Nature of Christ. When a religionist claims Absolute Truth he/she is merely saying "the absolute truth can only be found in MY belief system". That is patently false.

I am not affiliated with a denomination either. Scripture tells us that the Bible is of no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), so we are to allow it to speak for itself and interpret itself.

You have merely confirmed that you have INTERPRETED Scripture to your own satisfaction. Without interpretation the conflicting reports in the bible have to be taken literally and that turns the bible into a field strewn with land mines for those seeking guidance, e.g. The Gospels tell us that Jesus Baptized. (John 3:22).. and the same Gospel has already told us that Jesus did NOT Baptize (John 4:2). If we let the bible speak for itself... what do these verses tell us? Does the inpiration of God allow for this kind of mis-speaking??

You have merely confirmed that you have INTERPRETED Scripture to your own satisfaction.

Really? If it was on topic, I would ask you how you came to that conclusion, but since it is not, I'd rather see this thread stay on topic. It is however interesting how people so often try to distract from the topic to focus on the person.


Without interpretation the conflicting reports in the bible have to be taken literally and that turns the bible into a field strewn with land mines for those seeking guidance, e.g. The Gospels tell us that Jesus Baptized. (John 3:22).. and the same Gospel has already told us that Jesus did NOT Baptize (John 4:2). If we let the bible speak for itself... what do these verses tell us? Does the inpiration of God allow for this kind of mis-speaking??

I have seen the lists of so-called contradictions on internet and have spent far too many hours just reading people the context - usually one verse before and after makes it abundantly clear that there is no contradiction. I find that rarely do those copying and pasting these comments actually read the context themselves, I have chosen not to waste my time dealing with these claims.

But again, your comments are off topic.

Hi Tom,

I see what you are saying and that is my experience with my local christian friends as well. But hang around this website long enough and you'll see what I am talking about.

You have obviously been on this web site long enough.. maybe too long... lol Do you have a life (you know job, wife, kids) besides harassing christians on this website? Just currious because it seems like you are on the Christian forums 24 7 I can't imagine how you have time for anything else. For someone who is a professed atheist you sure do invest a lot of time in religion. Funny :D

Really? If it was on topic, I would ask you how you came to that conclusion, but since it is not, I'd rather see this thread stay on topic. It is however interesting how people so often try to distract from the topic to focus on the person.



I have seen the lists of so-called contradictions on internet and have spent far too many hours just reading people the context - usually one verse before and after makes it abundantly clear that there is no contradiction. I find that rarely do those copying and pasting these comments actually read the context themselves, I have chosen not to waste my time dealing with these claims.

But again, your comments are off topic.


How can you claim that MY comments were "off topic" when YOU were the one who introduced the new thread of biblical interpretation??
And though you claim that verses "rarely" contradict each other... you do nothing to explain how two contradictory verses can appear in the same chapter?? Either Jesus Baptized or he did NOT Baptize. One claim is wrong. If it was a simple 'mis-speak' that puts the idea of divine inspiration in jeopardy. I should think you would want to address THAT.

How can you claim that MY comments were "off topic" when YOU were the one who introduced the new thread of biblical interpretation??


No I did not. Check post #96.


And though you claim that verses "rarely" contradict each other

No I didn't. I said that rarely do those making these claims ever check the context first. I have yet to see a real contradiction.


... you do nothing to explain how two contradictory verses can appear in the same chapter??

No, because it is off-topic. If you wish to discuss what you believe to be contradictions, I believe that another thread would be appropriate.

No I did not. Check post #96.



No I didn't. I said that rarely do those making these claims ever check the context first. I have yet to see a real contradiction.



No, because it is off-topic. If you wish to discuss what you believe to be contradictions, I believe that another thread would be appropriate.


Not so: In post #95 you begin your "scripture" claim with "opinions must fall aside when Scripture speaks'. THAT is an opinion.

And you follow in post #99... '... the bible is of no private interpretation'. MY response came AFTER you went off topic.

tertullian: Are you attacking the messenger because you do not like the message?? You seem to make a habit of sniping at all those who do not agree with you. Why is that??

No, actually I was just making an observation that I found funny that's all.

Not so: In post #95 you begin your "scripture" claim with "opinions must fall aside when Scripture speaks'. THAT is an opinion.


But not discussing interpretation.

Now get back on topic.

Now get back on topic.
a) it's not your thread
b) you aren't a moderator here

:)

a) it's not your thread
b) you aren't a moderator here

:)

True. But I do not believe that it appropriate for people to hijack threads... do you?

Thread closed due to intolerant alias abuse