Will the Bible/Christianity evolve to accept homosexuality?

[awesome guy]

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

Anyhow, what I think this may all come down to is the basic question of how we are to use the Bible. That will be the question of our era for the Church in general.

I happen to believe that Christianity is more than just a book religion. I'm not an adherent to the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" necessarily. I'm more of a "Prima Scriptura" believer in that I think there are other sources we can use in order to determine the will of God for our lives. These include our traditions, our experiences, and our God given ability to reason.

Roman Catholics for instance seem to be much more focused on this concept of the Church's "tradition", probably more so than the Bible. It's actually been this way for the Universal Church for most of its history considering most Christians couldn't read or didn't have access to a Bible throughout its history.

A Pentecostal might tend to be guided by their "experiences" of God and of their worlds. These experiences are an emphasis and what seems to guide them often. Wasn't this what guided the early Church? Before there was even a Bible, the early Church grew quite rapidly and was being led by something other than texts.

And then a Mainline Protestant Christian may focus mostly on "reason." What does it seem reasonable the God we know would have us to do in a particular situation?

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church.

And when it comes to reason, I think the "born that way" evidence is compelling. God seems to have created these people with this different orientation. I for one can't remember ever choosing to be "excited" by the female form. I was always interested in it. And the thought of becoming intimate with a male friend simply repulses me (Like I would have a serious physical reaction and wouldn't do so for a million dollars type of repulsion). These things in me just seem so inherent that they couldn't have had much to do with the environment I grew up in. Anyhow, I do believe God created these persons, in His image, and also in this way.

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

curious, what if someone where stealing cars for a living. You tell him he's a sinner, he says it's his lifestyle. Can that person also be fully accepted into the church, leadership, membership, etc? Drugs? Prostitution? Masturbation? etc? Is there anything that makes the church member or leader unfit?

Invalid comparison since stealing a car damages another person. Being gay does not harm other people.

curious if the context of sin and the church escaped you?

[nolanvt]

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

Anyhow, what I think this may all come down to is the basic question of how we are to use the Bible. That will be the question of our era for the Church in general.

I happen to believe that Christianity is more than just a book religion. I'm not an adherent to the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" necessarily. I'm more of a "Prima Scriptura" believer in that I think there are other sources we can use in order to determine the will of God for our lives. These include our traditions, our experiences, and our God given ability to reason.

Roman Catholics for instance seem to be much more focused on this concept of the Church's "tradition", probably more so than the Bible. It's actually been this way for the Universal Church for most of its history considering most Christians couldn't read or didn't have access to a Bible throughout its history.

A Pentecostal might tend to be guided by their "experiences" of God and of their worlds. These experiences are an emphasis and what seems to guide them often. Wasn't this what guided the early Church? Before there was even a Bible, the early Church grew quite rapidly and was being led by something other than texts.

And then a Mainline Protestant Christian may focus mostly on "reason." What does it seem reasonable the God we know would have us to do in a particular situation?

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church.

And when it comes to reason, I think the "born that way" evidence is compelling. God seems to have created these people with this different orientation. I for one can't remember ever choosing to be "excited" by the female form. I was always interested in it. And the thought of becoming intimate with a male friend simply repulses me (Like I would have a serious physical reaction and wouldn't do so for a million dollars type of repulsion). These things in me just seem so inherent that they couldn't have had much to do with the environment I grew up in. Anyhow, I do believe God created these persons, in His image, and also in this way.

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

curious, what if someone where stealing cars for a living. You tell him he's a sinner, he says it's his lifestyle. Can that person also be fully accepted into the church, leadership, membership, etc? Drugs? Prostitution? Masturbation? etc? Is there anything that makes the church member or leader unfit?

Invalid comparison since stealing a car damages another person. Being gay does not harm other people.

curious if the context of sin and the church escaped you?

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

[awesome guy]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

[nolanvt]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

Organized religion needs money and butts in the seats. The militant Christians of yesteryear also didn't accept interracial marriages citing the Bible, but Christianity evolved to at least not being outspoken against it if not acceptance by the vast majority of Christians. We've seen hints of this from the Pope already, but I think we'll first see campaigns to stop demonizing gays first since society as a whole is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If not Joel Osteen, then some other enterprising televangelist types will capitalize on this to create a new narrative within Christianity to accept gay people.

[awesome guy]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

Organized religion needs money and butts in the seats. The militant Christians of yesteryear also didn't accept interracial marriages citing the Bible, but Christianity evolved to at least not being outspoken against it if not acceptance by the vast majority of Christians. We've seen hints of this from the Pope already, but I think we'll first see campaigns to stop demonizing gays first since society as a whole is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If not Joel Osteen, then some other enterprising televangelist types will capitalize on this to create a new narrative within Christianity to accept gay people.

hopes and wishes, that's all you got. You had to jump from Canaanites to get to no interracial marriages, which is a very large leap. Homosexuality on the other hand is explicitly called an abomination in the scriptures. There's no ambiguity. So it's always going to be a sin. The churches that you're counting on already exist and have already seen less butts in the seat. The bottom line is your proposing teaching a fake version of Christianity. But the market wants just the real thing. And as much as you can't seem to understand it, many people don't and will not see the world as you do. Call it intolerant or whatever else you want to, but the bottom line is for homosexuality to be accepted as anything but sin is to collapse the bible and with it, the faith itself. And few people want to attend such a church, one that compromised itself to be more accepting of people at war with it.

[nolanvt]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

Organized religion needs money and butts in the seats. The militant Christians of yesteryear also didn't accept interracial marriages citing the Bible, but Christianity evolved to at least not being outspoken against it if not acceptance by the vast majority of Christians. We've seen hints of this from the Pope already, but I think we'll first see campaigns to stop demonizing gays first since society as a whole is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If not Joel Osteen, then some other enterprising televangelist types will capitalize on this to create a new narrative within Christianity to accept gay people.

hopes and wishes, that's all you got. You had to jump from Canaanites to get to no interracial marriages, which is a very large leap. Homosexuality on the other hand is explicitly called an abomination in the scriptures. There's no ambiguity. So it's always going to be a sin. The churches that you're counting on already exist and have already seen less butts in the seat. The bottom line is your proposing teaching a fake version of Christianity. But the market wants just the real thing. And as much as you can't seem to understand it, many people don't and will not see the world as you do. Call it intolerant or whatever else you want to, but the bottom line is for homosexuality to be accepted as anything but sin is to collapse the bible and with it, the faith itself. And few people want to attend such a church, one that compromised itself to be more accepting of people at war with it.

I'm not the one proposing anything. There will be a shift in the future to a type of Christianity that either doesn't demonize homosexuals or comes out more accepting of them. The Pope has set the tone on the former, and I think once a major church starts to regularly perform SSM ceremonies, said shift will occur with the latter.

[awesome guy]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

Organized religion needs money and butts in the seats. The militant Christians of yesteryear also didn't accept interracial marriages citing the Bible, but Christianity evolved to at least not being outspoken against it if not acceptance by the vast majority of Christians. We've seen hints of this from the Pope already, but I think we'll first see campaigns to stop demonizing gays first since society as a whole is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If not Joel Osteen, then some other enterprising televangelist types will capitalize on this to create a new narrative within Christianity to accept gay people.

hopes and wishes, that's all you got. You had to jump from Canaanites to get to no interracial marriages, which is a very large leap. Homosexuality on the other hand is explicitly called an abomination in the scriptures. There's no ambiguity. So it's always going to be a sin. The churches that you're counting on already exist and have already seen less butts in the seat. The bottom line is your proposing teaching a fake version of Christianity. But the market wants just the real thing. And as much as you can't seem to understand it, many people don't and will not see the world as you do. Call it intolerant or whatever else you want to, but the bottom line is for homosexuality to be accepted as anything but sin is to collapse the bible and with it, the faith itself. And few people want to attend such a church, one that compromised itself to be more accepting of people at war with it.

I'm not the one proposing anything. There will be a shift in the future to a type of Christianity that either doesn't demonize homosexuals or comes out more accepting of them. The Pope has set the tone on the former, and I think once a major church starts to regularly perform SSM ceremonies, said shift will occur with the latter.

You realize you're "not proposing anything" in the same paragraph as prophesying of unholy matrimony in major churches right? The catholic church won't even remarry people without an annulment. And you expect them to perform gay marriages? I hope you can see you're speaking from Nolan's Santa wishlist and not within the confines oh how the world is. There's no way to get around homosexuality's sinfulness. It's to explicitly stated as sin. Not just in word but tradition. For a church to say that no longer matters is for them to say they're now longer Christian. That's what you're dealing with to get weddings between people who's "love" is called an abomination.

You're better off sticking with the court battles and railroading gay marriages through via the courts. It fails most everywhere public opinion matters. Then you can have secular marriages administered by the local goofballs who've become ordained ministers just to marry gays. Or judges or a very small number of churches. I doubt it'll ever happen in mainstream churches or ones that take the bible seriously.

[Valencia Hokie]

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church...

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

[One4VT]

I have no doubt that certain churches and denominations will (some have already). However, there is nothing new under the Sun- these churches will fall by the wayside, just like the churches in Asia Minor chastised In Revelations for allowing sexual sin.

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

Anyhow, what I think this may all come down to is the basic question of how we are to use the Bible. That will be the question of our era for the Church in general.

I happen to believe that Christianity is more than just a book religion. I'm not an adherent to the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" necessarily. I'm more of a "Prima Scriptura" believer in that I think there are other sources we can use in order to determine the will of God for our lives. These include our traditions, our experiences, and our God given ability to reason.

Roman Catholics for instance seem to be much more focused on this concept of the Church's "tradition", probably more so than the Bible. It's actually been this way for the Universal Church for most of its history considering most Christians couldn't read or didn't have access to a Bible throughout its history.

A Pentecostal might tend to be guided by their "experiences" of God and of their worlds. These experiences are an emphasis and what seems to guide them often. Wasn't this what guided the early Church? Before there was even a Bible, the early Church grew quite rapidly and was being led by something other than texts.

And then a Mainline Protestant Christian may focus mostly on "reason." What does it seem reasonable the God we know would have us to do in a particular situation?

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church.

And when it comes to reason, I think the "born that way" evidence is compelling. God seems to have created these people with this different orientation. I for one can't remember ever choosing to be "excited" by the female form. I was always interested in it. And the thought of becoming intimate with a male friend simply repulses me (Like I would have a serious physical reaction and wouldn't do so for a million dollars type of repulsion). These things in me just seem so inherent that they couldn't have had much to do with the environment I grew up in. Anyhow, I do believe God created these persons, in His image, and also in this way.

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

curious, what if someone where stealing cars for a living. You tell him he's a sinner, he says it's his lifestyle. Can that person also be fully accepted into the church, leadership, membership, etc? Drugs? Prostitution? Masturbation? etc? Is there anything that makes the church member or leader unfit?

Invalid comparison since stealing a car damages another person. Being gay does not harm other people.

curious if the context of sin and the church escaped you?

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

[USN_Hokie]

I've been really intrigued by your perspective in this thread.

Do you have any titles in particular that you would recommend reading?

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church...

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

[VoiceOfReason]

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

Anyhow, what I think this may all come down to is the basic question of how we are to use the Bible. That will be the question of our era for the Church in general.

I happen to believe that Christianity is more than just a book religion. I'm not an adherent to the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" necessarily. I'm more of a "Prima Scriptura" believer in that I think there are other sources we can use in order to determine the will of God for our lives. These include our traditions, our experiences, and our God given ability to reason.

Roman Catholics for instance seem to be much more focused on this concept of the Church's "tradition", probably more so than the Bible. It's actually been this way for the Universal Church for most of its history considering most Christians couldn't read or didn't have access to a Bible throughout its history.

A Pentecostal might tend to be guided by their "experiences" of God and of their worlds. These experiences are an emphasis and what seems to guide them often. Wasn't this what guided the early Church? Before there was even a Bible, the early Church grew quite rapidly and was being led by something other than texts.

And then a Mainline Protestant Christian may focus mostly on "reason." What does it seem reasonable the God we know would have us to do in a particular situation?

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church.

And when it comes to reason, I think the "born that way" evidence is compelling. God seems to have created these people with this different orientation. I for one can't remember ever choosing to be "excited" by the female form. I was always interested in it. And the thought of becoming intimate with a male friend simply repulses me (Like I would have a serious physical reaction and wouldn't do so for a million dollars type of repulsion). These things in me just seem so inherent that they couldn't have had much to do with the environment I grew up in. Anyhow, I do believe God created these persons, in His image, and also in this way.

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

Great post chuckd4vt! Very well thought out and logical. I love your explanation of the use of reasoning as well. No doubt, there are many on here who take more strict book approach and do not think The Lord provided us the ability to reason for a reason. I agree with your view.

[Valencia Hokie]

I've been really intrigued by your perspective in this thread.

Do you have any titles in particular that you would recommend reading?

Particularly related to what? I've rambled quite a bit in this thread. )

In no particular order, I've found David Wells extremely helpful of assessing the current condition of evangelicalism. His trilogy is probably his best work. Losing Our Virtue, Above All Earthly Pow'rs, The Courage to be Protestant,

Ian Murray's, Evangelicalism Divided is also pretty helpful on the pragmatic angle.

Eph 5 stuff comes from a bunch of commentaries and books on marriage by John Piper and Tim Keller.

DA Carson's, Gagging of God, The Intolerance of Tolerance, Christ and Culture Revisited are also helpful on some of these matters.

Just a few that come to mind.

[USN_Hokie]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

Organized religion needs money and butts in the seats. The militant Christians of yesteryear also didn't accept interracial marriages citing the Bible, but Christianity evolved to at least not being outspoken against it if not acceptance by the vast majority of Christians. We've seen hints of this from the Pope already, but I think we'll first see campaigns to stop demonizing gays first since society as a whole is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If not Joel Osteen, then some other enterprising televangelist types will capitalize on this to create a new narrative within Christianity to accept gay people.

hopes and wishes, that's all you got. You had to jump from Canaanites to get to no interracial marriages, which is a very large leap. Homosexuality on the other hand is explicitly called an abomination in the scriptures. There's no ambiguity. So it's always going to be a sin. The churches that you're counting on already exist and have already seen less butts in the seat. The bottom line is your proposing teaching a fake version of Christianity. But the market wants just the real thing. And as much as you can't seem to understand it, many people don't and will not see the world as you do. Call it intolerant or whatever else you want to, but the bottom line is for homosexuality to be accepted as anything but sin is to collapse the bible and with it, the faith itself. And few people want to attend such a church, one that compromised itself to be more accepting of people at war with it.

I'm not the one proposing anything. There will be a shift in the future to a type of Christianity that either doesn't demonize homosexuals or comes out more accepting of them. The Pope has set the tone on the former, and I think once a major church starts to regularly perform SSM ceremonies, said shift will occur with the latter.

Funny thing is - all the Catholics I've spoken to have said the Pope's comments were really thing new.

[One4VT]

The left goes giddy anytime they think they can turn a Pope... but the Catholic Church has been historically consistent on these issues.

Funny thing is - all the Catholics I've spoken to have said the Pope's comments were really thing new.

[VoiceOfReason]

The left goes giddy anytime they think they can turn a Pope... but the Catholic Church has been historically consistent on these issues.

Funny thing is - all the Catholics I've spoken to have said the Pope's comments were really thing new.

Not speaking for the left, but I like Papa Frank for his focus on issues of love, charity and humility. He has not, and likely will not, formally change the church's view on homosexuality or abortion or contraception. But he is significantly deemphasinzing them as far as points of focus for Catholics.

[chuckd4vt]

I'm not going to overthink this particular topic. Christianity will eventually evolve to accept homosexuality.

Evolution implies turn into something better. What you're seeking isn't better or more modern. In any regard, the idea of the church dismissing homosexuality as a sin has been debunked here well enough. You're about at max acceptance already. Those looking for more than a Joel Osteen type of gospel won't accept it because it's so plainly a sin in the bible. So to accept it as not a sin, you have to dismiss the bible and then you're no longer Christian.

Organized religion needs money and butts in the seats. The militant Christians of yesteryear also didn't accept interracial marriages citing the Bible, but Christianity evolved to at least not being outspoken against it if not acceptance by the vast majority of Christians. We've seen hints of this from the Pope already, but I think we'll first see campaigns to stop demonizing gays first since society as a whole is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If not Joel Osteen, then some other enterprising televangelist types will capitalize on this to create a new narrative within Christianity to accept gay people.

I don't think it's fair at all to suggest Christians were the ones lagging behind society when it comes to racial equality. Christians were at the forefront in leading the abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement. Actually, it's pretty safe to say those were Christian movements. Yes, there were some who attempted to use the Bible to support their racist beliefs, and there probably still are some RWNJs trying to do so, but they were/are in the minority.

As I mentioned earlier, the Church was the headlights for society when it came to that issue and we're the taillights when it comes to acceptance of homosexuals.

[chuckd4vt]

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

I disagree completely. This is anything but pragmatism on my church's part. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm a member of the UMC. First of all, this movement toward more acceptance of homosexuals is coming more from the pulpit than from the pews. Most of the folks in the pews don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the leaders of the church seem to. Having witnessed this first hand, there's little doubt in my mind that the proponents of more inclusion feel they are leading the UMC in the direction that God desires them to.

Second, the church is split nearly exactly down the middle here. When this is eventually fully accepted, the church is most definitely going to lose congregations and members. It's going to be VERY painful. It already is whenever the topic is discussed at our annual and quadrennial conferences. Actually, we've already lost members because of the bickering over this issue. This has nothing to do with filling pews.

Obviously, what's happening in the UMC, and what's happened in the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church is as genuine a movement as there can be within these churches. There's been no easy answer here. And there's been no REALLY popular one either.

And what about Ephesians 6? Did the entire Gospel crumble when slaves ceased to obey their "earthly masters with fear and trembling"?

I think this comes down to the question of how we are going to use the Bible in the future. I think we're at a hinge point in the Church that will probably be something akin to the Great Reformation. Some have labeled this the Great Emergence possibly. But whatever it's called, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is probably not going to be as prevalent. I think folks are going to become more aware of other sources of divine revelation. The Church will move past the bibliolatry that seems to be so present in the American Protestant Church today and focus more on Jesus, the Word became Flesh.

[awesome guy]

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

I disagree completely. This is anything but pragmatism on my church's part. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm a member of the UMC. First of all, this movement toward more acceptance of homosexuals is coming more from the pulpit than from the pews. Most of the folks in the pews don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the leaders of the church seem to. Having witnessed this first hand, there's little doubt in my mind that the proponents of more inclusion feel they are leading the UMC in the direction that God desires them to.

Second, the church is split nearly exactly down the middle here. When this is eventually fully accepted, the church is most definitely going to lose congregations and members. It's going to be VERY painful. It already is whenever the topic is discussed at our annual and quadrennial conferences. Actually, we've already lost members because of the bickering over this issue. This has nothing to do with filling pews.

Obviously, what's happening in the UMC, and what's happened in the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church is as genuine a movement as there can be within these churches. There's been no easy answer here. And there's been no REALLY popular one either.

And what about Ephesians 6? Did the entire Gospel crumble when slaves ceased to obey their "earthly masters with fear and trembling"?

I think this comes down to the question of how we are going to use the Bible in the future. I think we're at a hinge point in the Church that will probably be something akin to the Great Reformation. Some have labeled this the Great Emergence possibly. But whatever it's called, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is probably not going to be as prevalent. I think folks are going to become more aware of other sources of divine revelation. The Church will move past the bibliolatry that seems to be so present in the American Protestant Church today and focus more on Jesus, the Word became Flesh.

What "other sources" are you referencing? The pro-gay movement hasn't sprung from revelation or been divinely inspired. So how are you jumping from gay priests and unholy matrimony to divine revelation? IMHO, it's your politics masquerading as religion.

[UpstateSCHokie]

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

I disagree completely. This is anything but pragmatism on my church's part. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm a member of the UMC. First of all, this movement toward more acceptance of homosexuals is coming more from the pulpit than from the pews. Most of the folks in the pews don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the leaders of the church seem to. Having witnessed this first hand, there's little doubt in my mind that the proponents of more inclusion feel they are leading the UMC in the direction that God desires them to.

Second, the church is split nearly exactly down the middle here. When this is eventually fully accepted, the church is most definitely going to lose congregations and members. It's going to be VERY painful. It already is whenever the topic is discussed at our annual and quadrennial conferences. Actually, we've already lost members because of the bickering over this issue. This has nothing to do with filling pews.

Obviously, what's happening in the UMC, and what's happened in the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church is as genuine a movement as there can be within these churches. There's been no easy answer here. And there's been no REALLY popular one either.

And what about Ephesians 6? Did the entire Gospel crumble when slaves ceased to obey their "earthly masters with fear and trembling"?

I think this comes down to the question of how we are going to use the Bible in the future. I think we're at a hinge point in the Church that will probably be something akin to the Great Reformation. Some have labeled this the Great Emergence possibly. But whatever it's called, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is probably not going to be as prevalent. I think folks are going to become more aware of other sources of divine revelation. The Church will move past the bibliolatry that seems to be so present in the American Protestant Church today and focus more on Jesus, the Word became Flesh.

What "other sources" are you referencing? The pro-gay movement hasn't sprung from revelation or been divinely inspired. So how are you jumping from gay priests and unholy matrimony to divine revelation? IMHO, it's your politics masquerading as religion.

I think his politics IS his religion.

[chuckd4vt]

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

I disagree completely. This is anything but pragmatism on my church's part. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm a member of the UMC. First of all, this movement toward more acceptance of homosexuals is coming more from the pulpit than from the pews. Most of the folks in the pews don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the leaders of the church seem to. Having witnessed this first hand, there's little doubt in my mind that the proponents of more inclusion feel they are leading the UMC in the direction that God desires them to.

Second, the church is split nearly exactly down the middle here. When this is eventually fully accepted, the church is most definitely going to lose congregations and members. It's going to be VERY painful. It already is whenever the topic is discussed at our annual and quadrennial conferences. Actually, we've already lost members because of the bickering over this issue. This has nothing to do with filling pews.

Obviously, what's happening in the UMC, and what's happened in the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church is as genuine a movement as there can be within these churches. There's been no easy answer here. And there's been no REALLY popular one either.

And what about Ephesians 6? Did the entire Gospel crumble when slaves ceased to obey their "earthly masters with fear and trembling"?

I think this comes down to the question of how we are going to use the Bible in the future. I think we're at a hinge point in the Church that will probably be something akin to the Great Reformation. Some have labeled this the Great Emergence possibly. But whatever it's called, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is probably not going to be as prevalent. I think folks are going to become more aware of other sources of divine revelation. The Church will move past the bibliolatry that seems to be so present in the American Protestant Church today and focus more on Jesus, the Word became Flesh.

What "other sources" are you referencing? The pro-gay movement hasn't sprung from revelation or been divinely inspired. So how are you jumping from gay priests and unholy matrimony to divine revelation? IMHO, it's your politics masquerading as religion.

I told you earlier. I consider the Bible, the Church Traditions, my experiences and reason. WRT reason, I feel God is communicating to us about this issue through the sciences with quite revealing evidence. And I've also begun to experience how persons from the LBGT community are fruitfully serving the Church and the world in the name of Jesus Christ. I truly feel that God is calling us in this here and now to accept these persons for who God has created them to be. And I think that's being spoken to us in numerous ways.

If anything, this represents my religion bleeding over into my politics. I'm a recovering conservative, believe it or not, who has become quite the liberal upon choosing to become a disciple of Jesus.

[BigDave]

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

The only posts I have deleted are ones that someone obviously wanted deleted (because they edited them to say "please delete this" or "accidental post" or something similar) or that were grossly, extremely, and unambiguously inappropriate. On that second half, I have erred far and away on the side of caution. You will note, for instance, that Houtex railing against me has not been deleted.

I don't remove something merely because I don't agree with it. As I have said repeatedly, non-conservative opinions should be welcomed and valued here - this board is not interesting if it's only a debate between conservatives and libertarians.

Below is the entire moderator log dating back to the beginning of this month. (If you edit or delete your on post, it is in the moderator log - that is why not everything in here is me.)

moderator log page 1.png (83.85 KiB) Viewed 1096 times

moderator log page 2.png (87.88 KiB) Viewed 1096 times

[chuckd4vt]

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

The only posts I have deleted are ones that someone obviously wanted deleted (because they edited them to say "please delete this" or "accidental post" or something similar) or that were grossly, extremely, and unambiguously inappropriate. On that second half, I have erred far and away on the side of caution. You will note, for instance, that Houtex railing against me has not been deleted.

I don't remove something merely because I don't agree with it. As I have said repeatedly, non-conservative opinions should be welcomed and valued here - this board is not interesting if it's only a debate between conservatives and libertarians.

Below is the entire moderator log dating back to the beginning of this month. (If you edit or delete your on post, it is in the moderator log - that is why not everything in here is me.)

moderator log page 1.png

moderator log page 2.png

In said I probably hit the wrong button. My phone is garbage for these boards. I thought itbwasban outside possibility your head would explode due to my heresy.

[awesome guy]

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

I disagree completely. This is anything but pragmatism on my church's part. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm a member of the UMC. First of all, this movement toward more acceptance of homosexuals is coming more from the pulpit than from the pews. Most of the folks in the pews don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the leaders of the church seem to. Having witnessed this first hand, there's little doubt in my mind that the proponents of more inclusion feel they are leading the UMC in the direction that God desires them to.

Second, the church is split nearly exactly down the middle here. When this is eventually fully accepted, the church is most definitely going to lose congregations and members. It's going to be VERY painful. It already is whenever the topic is discussed at our annual and quadrennial conferences. Actually, we've already lost members because of the bickering over this issue. This has nothing to do with filling pews.

Obviously, what's happening in the UMC, and what's happened in the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church is as genuine a movement as there can be within these churches. There's been no easy answer here. And there's been no REALLY popular one either.

And what about Ephesians 6? Did the entire Gospel crumble when slaves ceased to obey their "earthly masters with fear and trembling"?

I think this comes down to the question of how we are going to use the Bible in the future. I think we're at a hinge point in the Church that will probably be something akin to the Great Reformation. Some have labeled this the Great Emergence possibly. But whatever it's called, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is probably not going to be as prevalent. I think folks are going to become more aware of other sources of divine revelation. The Church will move past the bibliolatry that seems to be so present in the American Protestant Church today and focus more on Jesus, the Word became Flesh.

What "other sources" are you referencing? The pro-gay movement hasn't sprung from revelation or been divinely inspired. So how are you jumping from gay priests and unholy matrimony to divine revelation? IMHO, it's your politics masquerading as religion.

I told you earlier. I consider the Bible, the Church Traditions, my experiences and reason. WRT reason, I feel God is communicating to us about this issue through the sciences with quite revealing evidence. And I've also begun to experience how persons from the LBGT community are fruitfully serving the Church and the world in the name of Jesus Christ. I truly feel that God is calling us in this here and now to accept these persons for who God has created them to be. And I think that's being spoken to us in numerous ways.

If anything, this represents my religion bleeding over into my politics. I'm a recovering conservative, believe it or not, who has become quite the liberal upon choosing to become a disciple of Jesus.

What reason? That you have a gay uncle? What of the evidence of homosexuality being a coping mechanism for sexual abuse? How is it any different than drugs and alcohol abuse in this context? Are they too no longer sins because there may a functioning alcoholic in the congregation?

Part of accepting Christ means turning our back on sin to show our love for him. I don't see how you're helping anyone by just saying sins really aren't when they're giant obstacles to salvation. So you're telling someone they're on a path to salvation when they're on a path to community service. Of course homosexuals can pick up trash and help in soup kitchens, but if they refuse to atone for and stop sinning then are they really saved? I don't see how they are. Really don't see how the unsaved could lead a church.

[awesome guy]

This thread just won't die. I attempted to post something along these lines a few days ago, but I'm pretty sure I hit the wrong button or something. Maybe Dave found it to be heretical. I'm sure he probably did/does.

The only posts I have deleted are ones that someone obviously wanted deleted (because they edited them to say "please delete this" or "accidental post" or something similar) or that were grossly, extremely, and unambiguously inappropriate. On that second half, I have erred far and away on the side of caution. You will note, for instance, that Houtex railing against me has not been deleted.

I don't remove something merely because I don't agree with it. As I have said repeatedly, non-conservative opinions should be welcomed and valued here - this board is not interesting if it's only a debate between conservatives and libertarians.

Below is the entire moderator log dating back to the beginning of this month. (If you edit or delete your on post, it is in the moderator log - that is why not everything in here is me.)

moderator log page 1.png

moderator log page 2.png

In said I probably hit the wrong button. My phone is garbage for these boards. I thought itbwasban outside possibility your head would explode due to my heresy.

Get Tapatalk

[Uprising]

Anyhow, I think all of these should be considered when pondering difficult issues such as this one. There are indeed a couple of verses within the Scriptures that I feel truly condemns homosexuality. But it certainly isn't something any of the biblical authors focused on, nor did Jesus even mention it. And the traditions of the Christian church also seem to forbid the act, at least most of them.

However, it's been my experience that homosexual relationships can be quite loving and fruitful. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for 25+ years and I can't imagine them living any other way. They are a benefit to my family and to society in general. They are even Christians despite having been treated incredibly poorly by other followers of Christ. Also, I know of two servants of the Lord at my current church who have become leaders in a number of ministries there. I can see God working through them as much, or even more so, than practically any heterosexual person in the church...

Thus with all of this being considered, I think God would have us to allow these persons to be FULLY included into our Church communities. And this is how I feel MOST within the Church will view this issue 50 years from now. And I also feel that is a good thing.

What you are expression here, while compassionate, is really the root problem in the church today. I don't mean that as a personal shot. This is simply pragmatism. Does it work in the eyes of the many? Many churches today are shells of anything Biblical. In fact, many are little more than community self-help groups. They arrived there by doing what works or more specifically what people want over what God desires. Numerous volumes have been written on this, most of which started with Robert Schuler. Being practical can be helpful but, overall, pragmatism has only been a destructive force to the universal Church - IMO.

I don't disagree with idea that a gay couple can be committed and loyal and faithful in the context of a church community. But so can adulterers or others who are engaging in sex outside of the Bible's parameters. I think the more important question that needs to be asked (which I tried to point out in my first post) is what does marriage, as defined and exampled in the Bible (spec. Eph 5) communicate? If that is corrupted, for reasons of tolerant love, then the whole foundation of the Gospel crumbles with it - IMO.

As defined by and exemplified in the bible, marriage was always between two consenting males...

Who were bartering for an unconsenting adolescent female. Usually a little silver or some grain was the appropriate price for a life of obedience, or slavery, whichever you prefer.

As far as the sanctity of the bible, our friends over at conservapedia are currently rewriting it to get all that liberal Jesus bs out of it.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project