NEW AMENDMENT ON THE WAY...

Rev., do you believe the homosexual lifestyle and marriage between two people of the same gender is condoned in the Bible?

 

A basic knowledge of what sin is, is necessary for salvation. "Foggy" definitions of sin, downright disregard or as the Book says, stiffnecked and hardheartedness requires repentance, but harK!, we have a watered down definition there also. Liberal theology never gave birth to a revival or a soul.

Thanks ------Bart

 

This is simply not true. It's easy to say things like this when sitting around spouting rhetoric, but the reality is that there are plenty of people (I'm in a church full of them) whose lives have been transformed by Jesus through their faigh - a faith established through what you would consider liberal theology.


computerjunkie - you must be new here . First, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a lifestyle. Secondly, I think that homosexuality is completely compatible with a mature, healthy, consistent interpretation of the Bible (as is eating shellfish).

Joshua

 

No more absurd than state sanction of any currently legal marriage... and much less absurd than any motive I have seen for wanting the state to endorse homosexual unions of any sort.

In short, if the state has any interest in sanctioning marriage then it certainly has an interest in who can be legally married.

 

Or maybe you should just give it a rest, and realize a Christian is someone who trusts Jesus as their savior, and believes he is the Son of God who died for their sins and rose again - a "Christian" is not defined as "someone who agrees with Diane on all secondary doctrines". </font>[/QUOTE]Brian, You left out repentance. Salvation requires repentance and this is probably what is being questioned when one uses "christian."

Repentance requires a standard for determining what is right and what is wrong. When you deny the standard then you negate effectual repentance.

 

Yep...and happy to be here. Thanks!!

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. God created man, and God created woman, each for a specific purpose. (See Genesis.)

We must have different Bibles.

 

Homosexuality is an attitude. Unrepentant homosexuality is a sinful attitude not characterized by behavior but by a lack of submission to God's standard for sexual relationships.

With all due respect to what you think, homosexuality is expressly condemned in several passages. Worse yet for your position, neither the behavior nor the attitude and much less the notion of gay marriage are affirmed anywhere in scripture in any form. Homosexuality most certainly falls under the catagory of fornication.

The inescapable fact is that it is sin. God does not sanction same sex marriage and all sex outside of marriage is sinful.

BTW, "a mature, healthy, consistent interpretation of the Bible" would never equate an OT dietary or ceremonial law to a moral law. The moral position against homosexuality and sexual sins in general is clarified and affirmed by the NT. The ceremonial and dietary laws were expressly made non-binding for the church.

 

Joshua doesn't believe Genesis is a literal much less morally authoritative book.

It wouldn't matter. You two approach scripture from radically different perspectives.

 

This should read "...not necessarily characterized by behavior...

For some reason, the system will not allow me to edit.

 

Apparently.

 

Amen, preach it, Sister!

There are many wolves in sheep's clothing. And they are ravenous.

Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!

 

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.

While I ultimately disagree with Rev Joshua on matters of homosexual activity, I think it important to note that the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is limited specifically to same gender sexual activity. It does not condemn a homosexual person, for example, who chooses to remain celibate. Verbage that people "in the gay lifestyle" are condemned is more often than not the work of hyperfundamentalist propaganda.

I do, like Rev Joshua, think that we need to weigh the whole matter in context. If we don't we should then also abandon the usage of shellfish, not to mention refuse to sit in a chair that a menstruating woman sits in (these are also condemned in the OT).

It's unfortunate that well meaning Christians carry lit torches to hunt homosexuals, yet turn a blind eye to the multitude of heterosexual sins of fornication committed by folks in our own pews. I guess if you're a heterosexual, it's less of a sin to have sex outside of marriage, cheat on your taxes (stealing, and bearing false witness), exceed the speed limit (a form of coveting), and the like??? That's certainly the message that's being sent.

 

As usual John, You cut right to to the heart of the matter. Good post.

God's opinion is the only one that counts. Only God knows the roll.

 

The amendment wouldn't be necessary if the U.S. federal government would keep its nose out of state and local governments' business. But since everything is federalized these days, the amendment may be necessary. If everything wasnt' federalized we could let states handle it and if a state sanctioned homosexual marriages and we didn't like, we could move to a state that didn't sanction homosexual marriages.

Of course the best idea would be to have separation of marriage and state.

 

THIS John said it much better!

Of course, this apostle also had this to say:

Let's not forget Matthew who said:

 

How did I miss the lit torches? I don't remember seeing any. I don't remember seeing anyone post here that heterosexual sin is okay, either. I don't recall anyone saying it is okay to cheat on your wife or cheat on your taxes. I certainly didn't see any kind of message like that being sent. What thread is that on?

Links, please.

 

It's easier in concept than on paper. The problem there is, what if half the states recognize only opposite sex marriage, and other states recognize same sex marriages? Or what if some states don't recognize marriages among persons under 21? We thought the feds keeping their nose out of state recognized slavery would work, and it ended up being a major issue in the civil war.

Regardless of whether one is in favor of, or against, the amendment at hand, I think that it's a good idea for there to be a national standard on the issue.

 

That's why the best idea is separation of marriage and state. If marriage is recognized as the private matter that it is, then it wouldn't matter what state one lived in as no state would have any say in the matter - which they shouldn't have.