[NeedKarma]

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.

[Canada_Sweety]

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!

[DrJ]

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.

[XMouse]

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

[Mockinbird]

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.

[SnaveLeber]

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?

[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 wouldn't be embracing that temptation.

[talaniman]

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!!

[Marily]

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 ;)

[talaniman]

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?

[Marily]

There is no problem that I know of :)

[DrJ]

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)

[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 just stated, from the old testament. BY THE WAY--- I'm 18.

[DrJ]

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

[ebaines]

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."

[_Chris_]

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".

[_Chris_]

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.

[Starman]

((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

[Toms777]

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".

[Young-Love]

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.