Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By definition, your church is liberal. That isn't always a bad thing mind you. The Protestant Reformation was a very liberal movement. Early Christianity was a very liberal sect within Judaism.
Liberal = Favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief, expression or lifestyle.
One must decide whether God does or does not have any expectations of us. If so, what are they? Does he expect us to repress sexually unnatural urges (urges to engage in sexual activities that have no reproductive capability) or does he not?
Personally, I love every gay person that ever lived with all my heart, but the Spirit tells me that their homosexual acts are an abomination to him. Note that it is not the person that is an abomination. It is the act. We live in a society that expects certain urges to be restrained. If you're 30 and you have a powerful mutual sexual attraction to a 13 year old girl going on, you are expected to find a way to stifle those urges -- and above all else not act on them. If you and your sister are extremely sexually attracted to each other, the same is true. You are expected to stifle those urges and ignore them. The same is true of some of the more pernicious sexual urges: beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. Homosexuality was one of those many things you were expected to simply repress and ignore. The vast majority of all cultures expected this of people -- and Judeo-Christian religion always condemned homosexual acts as sinful. The Biblical record is pretty clear about condemning homosexuality. Now the LGBT rights movement has slowly turned all of that on its head. Increasingly, society shuns and shames anyone who still believes that homosexuality is wrong and sinful.
Each person must decide for themselves: Where does God stand on the matter?
I like some of the spirit of your post, but you should read my post above...not that its as thorough as it should be or even that its very well worded or that its necessarily 100% biblical viable, but because it talks of a different perspective of what may actually have been condemned. You talk of beastiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, but there is one major difference with homosexuality...IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY VIOLATE THE SECOND GREATEST COMMANDMENT!!! ...Sorry for caps, but I've noticed alot of modern conservative Christians group these things together without even thinking of that. Animals, Children, and Dead people cannot consent because they are not mature or smart enough or even alive enough to understand the true significance of their actions. Its easy for us to say "God hates this or God hates that" without thinking what it is about that thing that God actually hates, and God forbid we ever have to walk a mile in their shoes...then we really might know what its like to have to...um...whatever... Stupid Everlast lyrics, lol. Anyways, there's alot at stake here for both sides of the argument and try not to close your mind before you've considered all the possibilities.
Last edited by Jrhockney; 10-07-2014 at 01:20 AM..
One must decide whether God does or does not have any expectations of us. If so, what are they? Does he expect us to repress sexually unnatural urges (urges to engage in sexual activities that have no reproductive capability) or does he not?
Sex for not-reproductive purposes is not "unnatural," it is secondary, yes, but serves a very important social function in supporting bonds of committed unions. Something it does as well in homosexual unions as well as heterosexual. As long as there is no longer an imperitive to increase population there should be no reason to support one type of union over the other.
Sex for not-reproductive purposes is not "unnatural," it is secondary, yes, but serves a very important social function in supporting bonds of committed unions. Something it does as well in homosexual unions as well as heterosexual. As long as there is no longer an imperitive to increase population there should be no reason to support one type of union over the other.
As I said, it comes down to what God thinks. What we think is irrelevant. My own experience tells me that homosexuals are worthy of being loved and respected. They are not demonic monsters as some would have you believe. They aren't out to destroy everyone and everything. They are not all good or all bad. Just people. But it is my opinion that their form of sexuality is seen as sinful. That is the conclusion that I've come to on the matter. Since it is a matter between myself and God, I do not support any government pretending to separate Church and State from prohibiting their chosen form of sexuality.
As I said, each of us must conclude what God's opinion on the matter is.
Even though I believe we should leave gays alone and let them have all the same Civil Rights as others, I personally would not marry a same sex couple. This may come as a shock to people who consider me ultra liberal. It just doesn't make sense to me for same sex couples to have a "church" wedding because it is not the same kind of marriage as what is described in the New Testament.
That said, I am not against allowing same sex couples to marry and even in a "church" if they can find one that is so liberal they allow for that. However, I don't think it squares with the teachings on marriage in the New Testament. Sorry about that. I have a gay daughter who probably will marry her partner in the future, but she wants nothing to do with the church so I can't even imagine her wanting a church wedding. Does this make me seem like a hypocrite? That I do not condemn gays but would not marry them in a church?
Does this make me seem like a hypocrite? That I do not condemn gays but would not marry them in a church?
No, you have a perception of marriage as a specific sacrament of the church that I don't share, but it is your perception. I think a church should be able to define its own sacraments. On the other hand, I don't see why any church should not ake any such relationship under its care (demonstrated concern for and help in the relationship) which is essentially my perception of marriage anyway.
You mean the aspects of Scripture that don't apply? We aren't Old Testament Jews.
What in the Bible makes you think the old rules don't apply? From my understanding, the Bible is not clear about that issue at all. There are references to the old covenant being replaced, but Jesus (who most say brought the new covenant) said he was not here to remove those laws. So, it's my understanding this idea of old testament laws not apply comes from outside the Bible. This means a church allow gay marriage is doing no different than a church that allows the consumption of pork.
Thanks, Nate. Yes, I must have a different perception of what marriage means. I get confused when I think of the issue of 'Consummation' which I prefer not to think about when I think of two people of the same sex. I do not feel this way on purpose or to be mean. My husband and I have discussed this and he feels the same way - he'd prefer not to think about same sex couples having sexual intimacy because it just turns him off. If I feel this way, but keep silent about it out of respect for the feelings of homosexuals, does that make me a hypocrite? If I feel that way in truth, but keep it to myself, am I a silent bigot? I don't see this discussed much.
No, you have a perception of marriage as a specific sacrament of the church that I don't share, but it is your perception. I think a church should be able to define its own sacraments. On the other hand, I don't see why any church should not ake any such relationship under its care (demonstrated concern for and help in the relationship) which is essentially my perception of marriage anyway.
In a way I agree with you Nate. I do believe every church should have a policy of who they will marry, and who they won't. If marrying same-sex couples goes against your churches fundamental beliefs, then don't marry them. The church I serve will marry same-sex couples but like all couples, they have to meet with me several times and discuss why they want to be married in a church, our church; what it means to them versus having a civil marriage. Gay or straight the rules are the same.
At the end of the day the minister/governing body should have the right to decide who to marry, or not.
First I should start off saying that I like my Pastor and he is a good man, however I often feel confused by many of the things he says and that quite frankly I am often at odds with some of his teachings. The core message of the church is one I agree with, saved by Grace, God loves all, the door is open to all. I'm fully in support of that, and I am completely comfortable with having gay people join our church and even serve in it, as long as they renounce their sin. We're all sinners in our own way, and none of us should judge another because they sin differently than we do.
What I do have an issue with however is a conversation that him and I had over gay marriage and homosexuality in general in the church. He stated that because Paul said "There is no male or female in Christ" and that homosexuality is okay because there's no such thing as same-sex attraction anymore since none of us are truly male or female in Christ. He also said that people are born gay and that it's not debatable, I pointed out that there is no such proof to support that claim and that there could be several environmental factors involved, but he snubbed his nose at it. I told him that I would welcome a homosexual to church as God loves them like he loves everyone else, but that I know what scripture says and I won't even begin to try and justify a sin. He then stated that there are things that the Bible says are wrong but we ignore completely, such as women not being able to speak in church or divorced people getting remarried. He then implied that we should do the same thing with homosexuality and gay marriage. The Pastor's daughter, who agrees with him, stated that people like her and her father are "forward" thinkers and we should accept it because it will be accepted by everyone sooner or later.
This church is rather small, and I doubt it will be around in the next 10 years. What they consider to be a "great success" in attendance is 18 people, which only happens for Potluck, on average we have about 12-13 members and they're all older. They do not have a church of their own, they rent one from a Methodist Church. They also do not meet on Sundays, they meet on Saturday evenings (it used to be Saturday morning but they thought they would attract more people this way). Moderator cut: Keep the politics OUT of this forum.
I've been attending another church on the side. It's a younger community and it just got started less than a year ago, and it already has 30-40 members. I like this new community better, as I felt like I was not getting spiritually satisfied at the previous Church above. I attend on occasion just to touch base with old friends but I do not consider it my "home" church. My question is what kind of Church is the one I was describing? It just confuses me because I can't wrap my head around it.
If your pastor is saying that verse "there is no male or female in Christ" is about homosexuality, or that is means that we are neither male or female, it is best to move on and leave that church behind. Either he does not know what he is saying, or he is deliberately misleading the congregation, and neither is a good thing.
The verse means that all believers are children of God, regardless of their religious background, gender or profession.
In context:
"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Even though I believe we should leave gays alone and let them have all the same Civil Rights as others, I personally would not marry a same sex couple. This may come as a shock to people who consider me ultra liberal. It just doesn't make sense to me for same sex couples to have a "church" wedding because it is not the same kind of marriage as what is described in the New Testament.
That said, I am not against allowing same sex couples to marry and even in a "church" if they can find one that is so liberal they allow for that. However, I don't think it squares with the teachings on marriage in the New Testament. Sorry about that. I have a gay daughter who probably will marry her partner in the future, but she wants nothing to do with the church so I can't even imagine her wanting a church wedding. Does this make me seem like a hypocrite? That I do not condemn gays but would not marry them in a church?
In my church it's not called a marriage but a blessing of a union. We have a committed male couple in our parish, and they asked our priest if he could do a blessing of their union. The priest had to get permission from the bishop, who replied that he had no problem with anyone in the diocese doing such a blessing.
No one left. However, our church is known for its warmth, and a number of our parishioners are people who have been hurt by other churches but found a welcoming heart with us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...Sorry for caps, but I've noticed alot of modern conservative Christians group these things together without even thinking of that. Animals, Children, and Dead people cannot consent because they are not mature or smart enough or even alive enough to understand the true significance of their actions. Its easy for us to say "God hates this or God hates that" without thinking what it is about that thing that God actually hates, and God forbid we ever have to walk a mile in their shoes...then we really might know what its like to have to...um...whatever... Stupid Everlast lyrics, lol. Anyways, there's alot at stake here for both sides of the argument and try not to close your mind before you've considered all the possibilities.
