Homosexuality and The Bible

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

Delayed reaction, but -




....says you, who quoted Scott Lively, well known as an anti-gay activist and president of a hate group (as classified by the Southern Poor Law Centre)? They're also the guiding force between many Nazi atrocities, apparently, according to him.

And wonderfulname is naive?

I don't know who Scott Lively is. The Nazi atrocities were a long time ago - if this man is still living, how can he be held responsible? Is he really old?

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

I don't know who Scott Lively is. The Nazi atrocities were a long time ago - if this man is still living, how can he be held responsible? Is he really old?

The article you quoted from the defend the family website pdf was by Scott Lively. You should know who you're agreeing with before you do it?

It's his argument, in his publication the Pink Swastika, that LGBT people engineered the Nazi atrocities.

My original point previous to this explanation still stands.

Quo Vadis

Asry

Have you watched this vid yet, just wondering what your take is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

Asry

Hey That video filled me up with hope, and for a while there I saw the world through only one pair of eyes.

mcrdotcom

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/homosexuality-and-the-bible-part-2-response/

This is the rather late follow up blog to this thread! Hope you like it.

wonderfulname

Thanks for posting your response mcrdotcom. For the most part I found it a very well worded and considerate one, especially with regard the well worn paedophilia argument. However I felt the following comment a bit assumptive;

Well, yes, people do read [the Bible], and quite frankly, you cannot call yourself a true Christian unless you follow it word for word. So as above, should a new religion be established as a break away group from Christianity?

People have been breaking away from the traditional model of Christianity (Roman Catholic) since the reformation, which began in 1517 if I recall correctly. Actually I may be wrong in that, Eastern Orthodoxy may be older again.
Many denominations see the bible as the word of man, inspired by god, many do not see it as something to take literally.

With regard to the topic at hand it can be seen that various denominations, or branches within, hold a modern approach when it comes to sexuality. You will find that some are conducting study into the area to see if it is time to revise their views.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America don't have an official stance, but, as above, has been conducting a study of the issue in recent years. Its current policy is to allow gay people participate fully in its congregations and to encourage conversation on the issue. They ordain gay people to church positions, although considering how Lutheran ministers remain celibate, I don't see why they wouldn't.
Anglicanism is pretty much all over the place, they have no official stance other than to say that "Homosexual practice is incompatible with the scriptures" however this is balanced with a "listening process" on the issue, and from what I've seen they really are listening. Overall it appears that they are merely maintaining the status quo until they can find a way to rectify (is that the right word?) homosexuality with their teachings. At a parish level the CoI appears to be moving forward in leaps and bounds on the issue.
Quakerism, again is without an official stance in Ireland and again there is much thought being given to the issue, however their teachings push towards acceptance and Friends in GB have come out in support of same sex marriage. With these three examples and others like them I feel it is only a matter of time, I doubt the thought processes they are going through could result in a complete lack of change.

The United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Swiss Reformed Church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Danish National Church, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Iceland the Church of Norway, the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (say that 5 times fast) are all LGBT affirming, and all Christian (mostly mainline protestant).

So I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but I just wanted to point out that Christianity can be forward thinking, and that the bible is not always taken as gospel (ba dum dum...). Some Christians view the general message of the New Testament, of living your life well and treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself as far more important (and someway incompatible) with the idea that gay acts are sinful. In my eyes this does not make them any less Christian, Christianity has been constantly evolving (abet slowly) since its conception, and this evolution has always required different stances to be taken on scriptures, the whole word for word argument just doesn't fly.

philologos

wonderfulname: It is highly arguable to say that the RCC was "traditional Christianity". Christianity predates the RCC and if one takes the Reformation in prespective it could be argued that the Reformation was spurred out of a desire to restore Christianity to its original roots before practices such as indulgences, simony, and other forms of corruption entered.

The CofI is very much split on the issue. There are many that think that we should nonetheless maintain traditional Christian standards in respect to sexuality. There are others who think that we should modify our interpretation, but ultimately I don't really see how the Gospel is really ours to change. It is God's and He has entrusted it to us. Other denominations have no doubt done the same but Biblically there is little doubt as far as I can see it that marriage is the ultimate place for sexual expression and that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's rather derogatory to say that just because Christians hold to what they believe God revealed to them in Scripture that they are somehow regressive. I believe the Gospel is the exact same as it was 2,000 years ago. The only difference has been in terms of human structures. Treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself for me is rather simple as far as I would see it. If I were in that situation I would hope that God would give me the strength to follow Him and put people into my life who could offer me help in doing so just as God does when I deal with many of the ups and downs in life.

I don't hold to my beliefs to spite anyone, and I don't hold my beliefs to hate anyone, but it is a stretch in my opinion to bend the Bible to suit our own aims rather than to glorify the God who has our best interests in mind to begin with. To claim that loving our neighbours as ourselves should mean rejecting God's standard is somewhat of a misnomer when the first of the two commandments is to love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind. It is by loving God that we are better equipped to love our neighbour and to show them what our God stands for.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

wonderfulname: It is highly arguable to say that the RCC was "traditional Christianity". Christianity predates the RCC...

That's not correct. Jesus founded His Church on the Apostles with Peter at the head (Mt. 16:18). Jesus Christ founded only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Pope and the Bishops today only continue the work that was passed on by the laying on of hands from the Apostles to our present time. The College of Apostles with Peter at the head gave way in time to the College of Bishops, with the bishops as successors of the Apostles, led by the successor of Peter, the Pope. This was the divine plan for the Church that it should have shepherds on the earth after the heart of the Founder, Jesus Christ.

I think you must be confused about Constantine, who some accuse of corrupting Christianity. But Constantine did not establish the Church - Jesus Christ did. He didn't corrupt the faith either, for that would conflict with the promises of Christ. This claim has been refuted elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqLBeCmyaKY

gucis

In 2000 year period Bible was overwritten several times by different people, and all of them put something from themselves in it.

We will never know what Jesus Christ actually said about homosexuality.

Donatello

gucis wrote: »

In 2000 year period Bible was overwritten several times by different people, and all of them put something from themselves in it.

We will never know what Jesus Christ actually said about homosexuality.

What was the point of the Incarnation then if we can't know what God meant to teach us? Seems like a waste of time if that's the case.

It's also not what was promised by the Lord in the Gospels. He promised to send the Holy Spirit, and He promised that the Church would be guided into all truth, that same Church which gave us the Bible.

Quo Vadis

gucis wrote: »

In 2000 year period Bible was overwritten several times by different people, and all of them put something from themselves in it.

Can you give us some examples ?

gucis

Donatello wrote: »

What was the point of the Incarnation then if we can't know what God meant to teach us? Seems like a waste of time if that's the case.

It's also not what was promised by the Lord in the Gospels. He promised to send the Holy Spirit, and He promised that the Church would be guided into all truth, that same Church which gave us the Bible.

Where did you get this?

Donatello

gucis wrote: »

Where did you get this?

It's the teaching of the Church.

Note also what Crist said of Himself - 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' Jesus Christ brought God to man. It would be a bit of a disappointment if the mission of Jesus ended up in meaningless confusion. We don't believe that is the case.

You could have a root round here for information on any particular topic.

Quo Vadis

Donatello wrote: »

You could have a root round here for information on any particular topic.

I really like that site, and have used it before.
That's a great overall link, thanks.

gucis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Can you give us some examples ?

You can find on internet ''black bible''. People wrote out some fragments of the Bible, that are in contradiction with 10 Commandments. I am absolutely convinced that these fragments are made by people to impact minds of nations.

gucis

Donatello wrote: »

It's the teaching of the Church.

Note also what Crist said of Himself - 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' Jesus Christ brought God to man. It would be a bit of a disappointment if the mission of Jesus ended up in meaningless confusion. We don't believe that is the case.

You could have a root round here for information on any particular topic.

Yes it's the teaching of Church based on the Bible that it has today.
Absolutely, the mission of Jesus and crucifixion was not meaningless.

Christ said of Himself - 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' Same time the God gave the permit for people to make mistakes. And modern Bible is striking example of people mistakes, cause Christ's preaching based on love, love to everybody, everything. And that is 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.'

Quo Vadis

gucis wrote: »

You can find on internet ''black bible''. People wrote out some fragments of the Bible, that are in contradiction with 10 Commandments. I am absolutely convinced that these fragments are made by people to impact minds of nations.

Can you list out some specifics that you'd like to discuss ?

mcrdotcom

wonderfulname wrote: »

Thanks for posting your response mcrdotcom. For the most part I found it a very well worded and considerate one, especially with regard the well worn paedophilia argument. However I felt the following comment a bit assumptive;

People have been breaking away from the traditional model of Christianity (Roman Catholic) since the reformation, which began in 1517 if I recall correctly. Actually I may be wrong in that, Eastern Orthodoxy may be older again.
Many denominations see the bible as the word of man, inspired by god, many do not see it as something to take literally.

With regard to the topic at hand it can be seen that various denominations, or branches within, hold a modern approach when it comes to sexuality. You will find that some are conducting study into the area to see if it is time to revise their views.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America don't have an official stance, but, as above, has been conducting a study of the issue in recent years. Its current policy is to allow gay people participate fully in its congregations and to encourage conversation on the issue. They ordain gay people to church positions, although considering how Lutheran ministers remain celibate, I don't see why they wouldn't.
Anglicanism is pretty much all over the place, they have no official stance other than to say that "Homosexual practice is incompatible with the scriptures" however this is balanced with a "listening process" on the issue, and from what I've seen they really are listening. Overall it appears that they are merely maintaining the status quo until they can find a way to rectify (is that the right word?) homosexuality with their teachings. At a parish level the CoI appears to be moving forward in leaps and bounds on the issue.
Quakerism, again is without an official stance in Ireland and again there is much thought being given to the issue, however their teachings push towards acceptance and Friends in GB have come out in support of same sex marriage. With these three examples and others like them I feel it is only a matter of time, I doubt the thought processes they are going through could result in a complete lack of change.

The United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Swiss Reformed Church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Danish National Church, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Iceland the Church of Norway, the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (say that 5 times fast) are all LGBT affirming, and all Christian (mostly mainline protestant).

So I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but I just wanted to point out that Christianity can be forward thinking, and that the bible is not always taken as gospel (ba dum dum...). Some Christians view the general message of the New Testament, of living your life well and treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself as far more important (and someway incompatible) with the idea that gay acts are sinful. In my eyes this does not make them any less Christian, Christianity has been constantly evolving (abet slowly) since its conception, and this evolution has always required different stances to be taken on scriptures, the whole word for word argument just doesn't fly.

Christianity is pretty much always associated with Roman Catholicism, and currently, that is a portraying a terrible outlook on the Religion.

What I mean to say is that, maybe it is time for Roman Catholicism to branch out into something new, a modern version of the religion, that takes into account modern thinking. But the main point here is that the Vatican itself must follow.

I am a firm believer in religion, or a common belief in something that can unite a people. I am a atheist, but I find unity with other atheists, because, it is not that we are 'non-believers', but rather, believers in no God. But unfortunately, I don't see a future for Christianity, or more specifically, Roman Catholicism if the church continues down its current path.

I think the next Pope will be a major 'make or break' moment for the church, and if he is anything like the current Pope, then I fear for the religion.

gucis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Can you list out some specifics that you'd like to discuss ?

I do not wish to make big discussion of this here, cause it leads nowhere, I just say very fundamental things.

Bible's central concepts are just concepts of morality and conscience - Be good to other people, believe in their creator. And that's it.


And Jesus said - ''God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life''.

gucis

Should agree with you. Just no need to connect faith with church.

mcrdotcom

Nobody seems to be viewing this anymore, but if you are interested in my blog I will post the next link HERE and I will create a thread in the appropriate category.

Hope you all subscribe if you have a wordpress.com account.

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com

Also, the next post might not be for a good while, and the response will be slow because I am doing my Leaving Certificate in two weeks time.

Thanks all.

philologos

I think what is more likely to cause churches in general to decline is compromising their beliefs and becoming just like the rest of society. If Christians and churches stand up for what everyone else stands for what marks out Christianity as different to anything else. You might say its just one thing, but who are we claiming Christianity is from? Man or God?

This site is based in the UK but the statistics on church attendance are very interesting and challenge many misconceptions about the reality. The fact is that those churches which most closely hold to Biblical truth are the ones which are growing. Just look at point 5 on the link.

The Economist in November 2007 when it dealt with this subject noted much the same. Obviously this isn't solely restricted to the subject at hand but the idea that if we don't like something we should just change it doesn't seem to be the solution.

Rezident

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Christianity is pretty much always associated with Roman Catholicism,

It is but really they're two different things. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. A Roman Catholic is a follower of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which includes lots of manmade stuff like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the books the RC church wrote and priests not being allowed to get married and enforced celibacy on priests etc.

Donatello

Rezident wrote: »

It is but really they're two different things. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. A Roman Catholic is a follower of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which includes lots of manmade stuff like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the books the RC church wrote and priests not being allowed to get married and enforced celibacy on priests etc.

It's funny, but those who say the CC should just change everything to suit the modern world do not seem to realise that the Church would then have no claim whatsoever to the truth.

The other thing is, nobody is forced to be a priest. It is celibacy taken up voluntarily for the sake of the Kingdom. Every man who chooses priesthood knows that there is the celibacy requirement.

mcrdotcom

Donatello wrote: »

The other thing is, nobody is forced to be a priest. It is celibacy taken up voluntarily for the sake of the Kingdom. Every man who chooses priesthood knows that there is the celibacy requirement.

Good luck having enough priests to service half the parishes in Ireland in the next 50 years if you keep that up.

Its a choice that not many men would be willing to take in this day and age.

Donatello

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Good luck having enough priests to service half the parishes in Ireland in the next 50 years if you keep that up.

Its a choice that not many men would be willing to take in this day and age.

I think it was Satan himself who said to St. John Marie Vianney that if there were three like him in the world, his reign over this world would collapse. What we need is not a load of mediocre priests, but a few good men.

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Good luck having enough priests to service half the parishes in Ireland in the next 50 years if you keep that up.

Its a choice that not many men would be willing to take in this day and age.

We have a 1-2 new priests ordained in our diocese every year and that is a noticeable improvement on a few years back. Things are slowly on the way back up. It's quality not quantity these days. A smaller Church with more authentic Catholics will be no harm.

Ash.J.Williams

Donatello wrote: »

I think it was Satan himself who said to St. John Marie Vianney that if there were three like him in the world, his reign over this world would collapse. What we need is not a load of mediocre priests, but a few good men.

Satan reigns?

Donatello

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Satan reigns?

Well, he is the prince of this world.

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

We have a 1-2 new priests ordained in our diocese every year and that is a noticeable improvement on a few years back. Things are slowly on the way back up. It's quality not quantity these days. A smaller Church with more authentic Catholics will be no harm.

This isn't an English essay... If there are not enough priests then the parish can't be serviced properly...