Mathew Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Here's my quick take because I haven't got any bible background to speak of. The distiction I have never had qualified to me is such, people choose to steal, people do not choose to be gay, period. I haven't met God but if he or she can't make the distinction I'd rather not meet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 And we all know gays are never religious... How could they practice religion with a straight face when all the major ones condemn homosexuality? Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 How could they practice religion with a straight face when all the major ones condemn homosexuality? Just a thought. Not too long ago all the major protestant ones forbid women preachers, Catholicism was in Latin, in some fairly weighty denominations women still have to have their heads covered. Does the main stream denominations falling away from the docterines that were previously pushed mean that we're wrong now? No, it means we are just now starting to understand the social context in which those letters were written. ALL OF THAT STUFF comes from the letters of Paul. All of thsoe were letters to a specific group of people to deal with SPECIFIC probles. Paul did not forsee they would still be docterin 1,900 years after he wrote them because they were sort of like the Dear Abby for the church of his day. I know precisely WHERE in the Bible it says all of that about homosexuality. But, dang, if you're going to take that stuff--then you better start practicing ALL of what Paul preaches.  And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus (not Paul, founding fathers, etc) said on this issue. I've never read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Not too long ago all the major protestant ones forbid women preachers, Catholicism was in Latin, in some fairly weighty denominations women still have to have their heads covered. Does the main stream denominations falling away from the docterines that were previously pushed mean that we're wrong now? No, it means we are just now starting to understand the social context in which those letters were written. ALL OF THAT STUFF comes from the letters of Paul. All of thsoe were letters to a specific group of people to deal with SPECIFIC probles. Paul did not forsee they would still be docterin 1,900 years after he wrote them because they were sort of like the Dear Abby for the church of his day. I know precisely WHERE in the Bible it says all of that about homosexuality. But, dang, if you're going to take that stuff--then you better start practicing ALL of what Paul preaches. Â And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus (not Paul, founding fathers, etc) said on this issue. I've never read it. Â you keep asking for people to tell you where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong...but can you tell me anywhere in the bible it says homosexuality is a good thing..that its ok???..the only thing i see in the bible homosexuality is that its wrong..but those who believe in God and think homosexuality is ok say that the parts about homosexuality were added by man to fit their agenda and not God's.. Â so who is right??....guess it depends on your point of view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 thaw shall not judge others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 How could they practice religion with a straight face when all the major ones condemn homosexuality? Just a thought. Episcopalian and Methodist are two who do not. Others have a "Love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 thaw shall not judge others. Good advice when dating, allowing a handyman into your home, picking a caregiver for your child, selecting a Doctor. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Episcopalian and Methodist are two who do not. Others have a "Love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude. Texsox, not a response to you at all, but a riff on things...  Being gay is not a sin and the quote "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not Biblical, in that the Bible enver says that, God never says that, it is a sound btye made up by some people to excuse their hate or get around their hate.  The only things that God says God hates are in the Scriptures and they have nothing to do with sexuality but everything to do with injustice and callousness to the plight of the poor by religious peple. See the book of Amos for the use of the word.  The Roman Catholic teaching is that being gay is not a sin. So will all mainline American church bodies and almost everyone in Europe, Christian wise.  There is diversion on whether acting on being gay in physical sexual expression is sinful. The Roman Catholic teaching would be yes. For almost everyone (Christian church body) in Europe and most/almost all mainline protestant bodies, no. For church bodies in Africa in particular and for American non-mainline church bodies the answer would tend to be mixed; certainly for some, yes, but others (Disciples of Christ comes to mind), no.  A distinction further gets made in that believing that acting on being gay in physical sexual expression is fine for laity, whether it is appropriate for clergy, and the issue of blessing unions. That is not that surprizing a distinction. In the Ev. Lutheran Ch. in America for example clergy are forbidden from being Masons and laity aren't, and in any church body the realistic expectations of what is expected from clergy differ from those of laity. And the matter isn't one of sinfulness (i.e. the Mason issue) but what is appropriate behavior.  So nuke, without moving on to other religions (Judaism shows the same may I say rainbow of views as does Christianity whether one is orthodox, reform, or conservative) it is not correct to say that all major religons condemn homosexuality.  To everyone, it is not true that being gay is a sin for the majority of Christendom. Questions follow on what is *done* with it - but *being* it is not a matter of sin, and acting on it is *not* considered sinful in many church bodies. And that leaves out a definition of sin - sin is not actions per se as much as something much more basic as a commonality in humanity that all share.  Theology/church doctrine happens to be a stock in trade for me. If I comment on on base percentage and someone expounds at length on far more complexities than I see in understanding stats, I am grateful because someone has shared their expertise with me. I am not posting to be in anyone's face. I am trying to clarify the church bodies postions (agan, excuse the phrase) on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 Thank you for expanding on my thought. Love the sinner = not a problem to be gay Hate the sin = the sex may be a problem I believe that is what you are saying? Â In reality, a gay couple in most Churches, even those who's belief is "gay friendly", would have a difficult time being mainstreamed into the Church. Like elsewhere in society, there will be a large percentage that do not approve of the behavior. So the official teachings of that religion isn't much comfort to a gay couple who are left out of Church life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Real life experience is that it depends on the congregation, not the church teaching, whether people feel accepted. Â It helps in a church body such as the United Church of Christ (the Congregationalists, Americas oldest church body) where none of this is an issue, for all congregations to be accepting to everyone. Â In the Episcopal dioceses where it is felt not to be an issue, it generally isn't in the local congegations. Â But in real life it comes down to the local congregations. Some parishes of whatever chuch body tend to be very open and people feel very comfortable there, and others are very forboding and forbidding, and that cuts across denominational lines. Same with race. Some congregations are just more comfortable with diversity than others, regardless of national affiliation. Â So the official teachings of that religion isn't much comfort to a gay couple who are left out of Church life. Â that would be true - but the inverse is so also, there are congregations where the official position is not so great but the local congregation is just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 How could they practice religion with a straight face when all the major ones condemn homosexuality? Just a thought. Just as much as you can practice religion after advocating killing people... Remember all sins are equal under God's eyes. And by advocating a sin you have committed a sin under God's eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Just as much as you can practice religion after advocating killing people... Remember all sins are equal under God's eyes. And by advocating a sin you have committed a sin under God's eyes. Very wise 2K4. My thoughts precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Just as much as you can practice religion after advocating killing people... Remember all sins are equal under God's eyes. And by advocating a sin you have committed a sin under God's eyes. Who said I actively practiced religion?  I believe in the existence of God, I often say that people should be responsible for their actions and I believe killing children ( abortions ) is wrong but I havent seen the inside of a church in 3 years and never attended regularly.  Never assume anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Who said I actively practiced religion? I believe in the existence of God, I often say that people should be responsible for their actions and I believe killing children ( abortions ) is wrong but I havent seen the inside of a church in 3 years and never attended regularly.  Never assume anything. There were no assumptions made. Just a statement of fact. It doesn't matter whether you have gay sex or think bad thoughts, a sin is a sin is a sin. It is biblical fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 righteous, these days, are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 righteous, these days, are we? :finger  Nah just all knowing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 you keep asking for people to tell you where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong...but can you tell me anywhere in the bible it says homosexuality is a good thing..that its ok???..the only thing i see in the bible homosexuality is that its wrong..but those who believe in God and think homosexuality is ok say that the parts about homosexuality were added by man to fit their agenda and not God's.. so who is right??....guess it depends on your point of view Well, Baggio, the thing is you didn't really read my response the way it was meant. My point is that Paul was not writing "one for the ages" he was simply writing letters to help out certain start up churches. So, we tend to pick and choose our way through Paul. I call the letters the Ala Carte section of the Bible because everyone chooses what they will and won't believe out of it. When most people talk about The Bible condemning homosexuality they are talking about Paul (very tenuously at that)--a lot of modern Pastor's today even argue that the social and historical context of Paul needs to be taken into account here.  In fact, the male on male relationships (interesting the bible never mentions women on women--and also the OT forbids male masturbation--but not female--because it spills the seamen on the ground which in the ancient Isreal view was thought to be the equivilent view of an abortion--every sperm is sacred...) talked about in the are NOT really even same type of homosexual relationships that we think about now. Those are a modern development. Often what is talked about in the Bible is an illicit relationship between an older man and a young boy--I would recommend finding a Scholar's Bible and checking out those notes--NOT the Bible study notes which, I think we can pretty much agree, have a political spin on them. So, basically, what we have here is a brand new sort of problem--people that want to commit to loving long term monogomous relationships. I may not go to church or even be a Christian but I do remember this verse from 1 Corin. 7: To the unmarried and the widows I say it is better to stay unmarried like me. But if you cannot control your desires then you should marry--for it is better to marry than to burn.  So, I guess you could say old Paul wasn't exactly pro-marriage either. But if you're going ot argue the Bible point I REALLY think you need to take into context the history and the society... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 There were no assumptions made. Just a statement of fact. It doesn't matter whether you have gay sex or think bad thoughts, a sin is a sin is a sin. It is biblical fact. As far as I'm concerned the Bible is a book that was written a long time ago and thats about all. I dont consider it to be a binding script for living ones life like some people I know do. I dont look at issues through the prism of religion but rather I decide what I think is right and wrong and do it or not do it based on that judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 and also the OT forbids male masturbation--but not female--because it spills the seamen on the ground which in the ancient Isreal view was thought to be the equivilent view of an abortion--every sperm is sacred...) Everytime I see this quoted, I think of the scene in Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life' where Michael Palin is singing about that subject. Â Damn it, now I want to continue playing my Monty Python's Meaning of Life computer game (I missed something the first time and couldn't get into to Heaven so I restarted the game and now have completed 4 levels). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 As far as I'm concerned the Bible is a book that was written a long time ago and thats about all. I dont consider it to be a binding script for living ones life like some people I know do. I dont look at issues through the prism of religion but rather I decide what I think is right and wrong and do it or not do it based on that judgement. You asked how homosexuality and religion could be practiced together. That is how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 You asked how homosexuality and religion could be practiced together. That is how. I made mention of that because it seems like a glaring contradiction that people practice the same religions that scorn their behaivior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I made mention of that because it seems like a glaring contradiction that people practice the same religions that scorn their behaivior. It goes accross the spectrum of life. Religious people practice behavior in direct contradiction with their rules all of the time. Heck every Christians life is a contradiction of their religion, because they could never possibly hope to live the life that God requires for them. Homosexuality is no different under the eyes of God than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 It goes accross the spectrum of life. Religious people practice behavior in direct contradiction with their rules all of the time. Heck every Christians life is a contradiction of their religion, because they could never possibly hope to live the life that God requires for them. Homosexuality is no different under the eyes of God than anything else. Who really knows what God requires of him/her. Did he tell someone? That's why I dont read too much into religion. I just live what I think is the right way and I have no trouble sleeping at night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Who really knows what God requires of him/her. Did he tell someone? That's why I dont read too much into religion. I just live what I think is the right way and I have no trouble sleeping at night. That is what the bible is to Christians. If you don't believe in that, you aren't a Christian, so the exestensialism is all unnecesary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.