BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dread, you don't get it. Heterosexuals = IDEAL, Homosexuals = downfall of society...
Did he not make that clear?
Did he not make that clear?
Dreadsox said:I was thinking.....
Would Christ be pushing for IDEALS or dealing with reality.
The only time he is violent, based on my recollection is towards the money changers at the TEMPLE.
The rest of the time, it seems to me, he looked at reality....
this sick need healing...shudder...even on the Sabbath....so he did against the IDEAL of the day.
He ate with the TAX collector, against the IDEAL of the day.
He accepted the gentile, against the IDEAL of the day.
I think GOD would love the ideal, and I dare say, there are people who make it in this word who fit the mold, but I also believe GOD a realist...look at the people he chose to work with...They were certainly not the ideal.....
There were many IDEALISTS in Jesus' day...I am not certain he hung with them.
Why is Billy Joel going through my head......
AEON said:
Good point. To add to it - Jesus promises to make us INTO the ideal. That is the common theme in most of my posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
So did he say reject those until then? Because that's what seems like your common theme.
Let's remember how Christian marriage was defined a century ago...AEON said:
What? Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.
AEON said:
Genetic homosexuality cannot be passed down as a trait because of the very simply fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate. There is nothing to pass down because “the buck stop here.” – so to speak…
AEON said:
This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine.
kimby said:
(I'm going on what I learned in science classes and what I've read on the subject(s) of genetics and cystic fibrosis, so forgive any errors--or correct them, if ya'll like.)
kimby said:(I'm going on what I learned in science classes and what I've read on the subject(s) of genetics and cystic fibrosis, so forgive any errors--or correct them, if ya'll like.)
AEON said:
What? Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.
silja said:
You got it in one try except that, unlike CF, there might be several genes involved.
melon said:Nevermind.
AEON said:
What? Because I believe Christian marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman does not mean I "reject" anybody.
kimby said:Why "nevermind"?
melon said:
Well, that's it. Someone with a *simple* understanding of genetics would understand how homosexuality could be passed on genetically. An in-depth study of genetics would reveal *several* mechanisms as to how it would be possible.
It just amazes me the kind of misinformation that is passed on. Last I remembered, lying/"bearing false witness" was a sin too. Maybe "ignorance" gets a free pass in many circles, but not in my book.
Melon
Dreadsox said:[Q]While one liners are cute and get a nice round of applause from the peanut gallery - that does not make them true.[/Q]
This is insulting to many here in this forum.
Many of us, straight, and gay, attend churches with Gay/Lesbian ministers and with Gay Married Couples, with children who are very happy and loved.
[Q]I would simply point him (as well as everyone else) into the direction of Christ and let him and God work it out.[/Q]
[Q]I realize that sin does not have a meaning for non-believers, but it certainly does for believers. And as a pastor – I would not perform gay marriages. I cannot and will not officially endorse what I believe God calls sin.[/Q]
How dare you imply with this statement that Christians who may embrace homosexual marriage be non-believers!!!! How dare you imply that if we as Christians do not recognize what you do as sin, we are non-believers.
AEON said:
Not what I said. Please re-read post.
Dreadsox said:
If I do not recognize homosexuality as sin....your staement in and of itself implies I am not a believer.
No other way to read it.
Dreadsox said:
If I do not recognize homosexuality as sin....your staement in and of itself implies I am not a believer.
No other way to read it.
Dreadsox said:
This in and of itself is my biggest issue with Conservative/Evangelical/Born again denominations. They feel they have the ultimate grasp on right and wrong, and at the expense of the manner in which God has revealed himself to other denominiations.
How dare you imply with this statement that Christians who may embrace homosexual marriage be non-believers!!!! How dare you imply that if we as Christians do not recognize what you do as sin, we are non-believers.
AEON said:4) Because I believe homosexual behavior is a sin, I cannot as a pastor endorse it.
AEON said:
I cannot as a pastor endorse it.
I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism? An ethos which at it's core says truth comes from inside, not outside ourselves, that all experiences and expressions are equally valid--all life choices equally conventional.Dreadsox said:
This in and of itself is my biggest issue with Conservative/Evangelical/Born again denominations. They feel they have the ultimate grasp on right and wrong, and at the expense of the manner in which God has revealed himself to other denominiations.
INDY500 said:
I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism? An ethos which at it's core says truth comes from inside, not outside ourselves, that all experiences and expressions are equally valid--all life choices equally conventional.
Has any major church leader, Christian thinker, prophet or teacher argued in favor of same-sex marriage prior to this generation?
Same-sex marriage as a political/social issue decided democratically in a free society is one thing, let the best man win. But to "do what is right in our own eyes" is not an option for believing Christians. My eyes included.
Irvine511 said:
hasn't the church admitted to making many, many errors in its past? are you arguing for church infalibility? that tradition is always correct? that there's no value in rethinking the past?