• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Megachurch Pastor Comes Out Of Closet

Let us assume that I were a Jeffersonian Christian.

No such thing. A Christian accepts Jesus as his/her savior and accepts the divinity of Christ.

In other words, if I followed the Jefferson Bible. How likely would I be to percieve homosexuality as a sin?

You probably would not as you have already thrown out all the teachings of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament.

Furthermore, why would his Bible be any less valid than the one that was crafted by ancient religious leaders who were motivated by their own political ambitions?

It was put together by man, but inspired by God.
 
Homosexuality is a sin. I think that is quite clear in the Bible. On the other hand, everyone is a sinner so it doesn't really serve us to come down on someone for sinning. In an ideal world it should be possible to be a gay Christian for this reason, or even a pastor. He showed some humility when he came out of the closet and it took a lot of guts to do that. I don't particularly like megachurches and half of the stuff they talk about, but I still know what it means to come out... and I'm not even someone who had to come out to my world wide network of peers. My family was hard enough.

I realize we are talking about Christians here, but this still goes back to the idea of homosexuality as being a choice. If Christians could get past that, they would see that the pastor can't control who or what he is, and it shouldn't have a bearing on his good work. But... the whole reason why hate of gays exists is because of religion, and pretty much only religion.

I think back in biblical times it may have been seen as unclean cause nobody had easy access to bathing and cleaning up. Sex in general probably created problems for men and women, especially women. Men weren't supposed to touch women when they were on their periods. Seems the Indians had that rule as well. Today, it's not that big of a deal.

The pastor, as far as religion goes, can be gay all day, and as long as he doesn't act upon it, he hasn't sinned is how I would take it. But... he could also repent, or just be a believer, in some Christian groups, and he's good to go. Someone already mentioned that.
 
Until he renounces his Christianity, he'll get no applause from me.
 
I think avoiding it is supposed to make a person stronger. The more effort you put forth, the closer you will be to God.

Should I avoid the color of my hair and the length of my fingers while I am at it? When it is encoded into who we are, it is no longer something we can avoid, and I cannot think of a supernatural being would be sadistic enough to do that to his creatons.
 
Struggling with gay thoughts is one thing, but living openly gay is another.

I've always found this term "struggling" with gay thoughts to be funny. It is amazingly arroagant to assume that people are fighting against who they are simply because you do not their behavior.
 
You probably would not as you have already thrown out all the teachings of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament.

I have never been one to worship a book. And frankly that is what people do when they pretend that a book compiled by a bunch of religious leaders who debated what should and should not be in it 1500 years ago is somehow an authority on anything but the politics of that era.

It was put together by man, but inspired by God.

Terrorists were inspired by God to fly planes into the towers and our last president was inspired by God to invade Iraq. Inspiration from God seems to coincide quite nicely with political ambition.
 
Last edited:
I have never been one to worship a book. And frankly that is what people do when they pretend that a book compiled by a bunch of religious leaders who debated what should and should not be in it 1500 years ago is somehow an authority on anything but the politics of that era.

We don't worship any book. We worship God. The book does however give us incite into what God wants and expects.

You have the wrong idea if you think otherwise.

As for the "politics" angle, again you are dead wrong. The Bible is not a book on or about government. It is about our spiritual guidance in this life.
 
We don't worship any book. We worship God. The book does however give us incite into what God wants and expects.

Oh does it now? Which of the hundreds of translations and versions of this book has that exactly right?

You have the wrong idea if you think otherwise.

My idea is that people are often motivated by money and power and selling a book said to be inspired by an invisible and silent supernatural deity and orchestrasting a church around it, seems to coincide nicely with those motivations.

As for the "politics" angle, again you are dead wrong. The Bible is not a book on or about government. It is about our spiritual guidance in this life.

ROFL! Yup,establshing a paternal hierachy and declaring certain groups of people the "chosen ones" is certainly not political, it is about good ol' spiritual guidance. :roll:
 
Terrorists were inspired by God to fly planes into the towers and our last president was inspired by God to invade Iraq. Inspiration from God seems to coincide quite nicely with political ambition.

They are free to claim such, does not necessarily make it true. The Bible teaches that either one was wrong, so logic dictates they were not inspired by God. It is pretty simple.
 
They are free to claim such, does not necessarily make it true. The Bible teaches that either one was wrong, so logic dictates they were not inspired by God. It is pretty simple.

Yes, the book compiled of books written by politcialy motivated people and editted by politically motivated people and translated and published by politically motivated people, all of whom say they were "inspired by God" stands above any other peron's claim that their actions were truly inspired by God. It makes perfect logical sense.
 
I used to pass this church everytime I got on the interstate, and my school almost had our graduation at this church. It's crazy this made national news, and good for him. I hope the church accepts him, but of course I'm not holding my breath.
 
Oh does it now? Which of the hundreds of translations and versions of this book has that exactly right?

It is amazing isn't it? Through all those translations etc. The morals of it's teachings stay exactly the same.

My idea is that people are often motivated by money and power and selling a book said to be inspired by an invisible and silent supernatural deity and orchestrasting a church around it, seems to coincide nicely with those motivations.

In the case of the original authors of the different books of the Bible, they had literally nothing to gain, this does not fit. In the case of Jesus, he taught us that material things are not the way.

Of course people have done evil in the name of God, but it is in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ.

ROFL! Yup,establshing a paternal hierachy and declaring certain groups of people the "chosen ones" is certainly not political, it is about good ol' spiritual guidance. :roll:

The Old Testament, is God's law for his chosen people. It was a political system at that time and it helped them survive very trying times. That said, as for modern day Christians it is an historical reference into God's wants for us.
 
Last edited:
I've always found this term "struggling" with gay thoughts to be funny. It is amazingly arroagant to assume that people are fighting against who they are simply because you do not their behavior.

Were men made to have sex with every woman on earth? Straight Christians struggle against straight thoughts too. This pastor has chosen a path of sinful perversion and should not be allowed to serve as a pastor. It would be like having an adulterer leading a church as a pastor and saying sexual immorality is not sinful.
 
Yes, the book compiled of books written by politcialy motivated people and editted by politically motivated people and translated and published by politically motivated people, all of whom say they were "inspired by God" stands above any other peron's claim that their actions were truly inspired by God. It makes perfect logical sense.

No proof exists at all that political motivation had anything to do with the original writings. The books were not written by kings or princes. They were written by common folk who died in obscurity for the most part, or as martyrs. So the majority of the authors gained nothing but death.

So again historically you are off course.
 
It is amazing isn't it? Through all those translations etc. he morals of it's teachings stay exactly the same.

Do they now? That must be why we have so many different sects of Christianity, many of which have a history of killing each other.

In the case of the original authors of the different books of the Bible, they had literally nothing to gain, this does not fit. In the case of Jesus, he taught us that material things are not the way.

Money and power is definately nothing to gain. I'm sure when Joseph Smith was translating his holy book out of a hat he had "nothing" to gain. That is why his church is one of the most powerful and wealthiest in the world now. Funny how that works.

Of course people have done evil in the name of God, but it is in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ.

Those darn Christians, so unlike ther Christ.

The Old Testament, is God's law for his chosen people. It was a political system at that time and it helped them survive very trying times. That said, as for modern day Christians it is an historical reference into God's wants for us.

Oh yes, because stoning adulterers and homosexuals is all in a day of God's work.
 
Were men made to have sex with every woman on earth? Straight Christians struggle against straight thoughts too. This pastor has chosen a path of sinful perversion and should not be allowed to serve as a pastor. It would be like having an adulterer leading a church as a pastor and saying sexual immorality is not sinful.

This is what I like about sin. It's a category that you can use to compare vastly different things on equal moral terms. If I tried to argue that murder and homosexuality were more or less the same, then people would think I had lost it. Obviously murder is the taking of a person's life, it is an act where one individual violates the rights of another and homosexuality typically occurs between consenting adults. But if I argue that homosexuality and murder are both sins, then I can treat them as exactly equal. A sin is a sin, and a homosexual is no different than a murderer. It's fun. Then of course, arguing things like adultery, where one person violates the trust of their partner, is the same as homosexuality is easy as well. Where it gets complicated are those pesky sins that nobody takes seriously anymore, such as observing the Sabbath. If we want to be technical, all those pesky people who work at Wal Mart on the Sabbath are no better than the homosexual, adulterers, and murderers. So of course, then you need a church to come in and create special categories of sin, that are not discussed in the Bible, so that people continue to take some sins seriously. It is definitely an amusing thing to observe.
 
Last edited:
This is what I like about sin. It's a category that you can use to compare vastly different things on equal moral terms. If I tried to argue that murder and homosexuality were more or less the same, then people would think I had lost it. Obviously murder is the taking of a person's life, it is an act where one individual violates the rights of another and homosexuality typically occurs between consenting adults. But if I argue that homosexuality and murder are both sins, then I can treat them as exactly equal. A sin is a sin, and a homosexual is no different than a murderer. It's fun. Then of course, arguing things like adultery, where one person violates the trust of their partner, is the same as homosexuality is easy as well. Where it gets complicated are those pesky sins that nobody takes seriously anymore, such as observing the Sabbath. If we want to be technical, all those pecky people who work at Wal Mart on the Sabbath are no better than the homosexual, adulterers, and murderers. So of course, then you need a church to come in an create special categories of sin that are not discussed in the Bible so that people continue to take some sins serously. It is defninlty an amusing thing to observe.

Sin is sin, but where did I bring in murder? I would say some sins are more "severe" than others, but all sin is wrong. I think it's sad that many Christians excuse some sins as "ok." But how is this relevant? This pastor is going directly against God's word and openly living in sin and still serving as a pastor. This isn't right. Say you had a band of militant atheists, and their leader openly confessed that he has become a Christian. Should he still lead the group?
 
Do they now? That must be why we have so many different sects of Christianity, many of which have a history of killing each other.

And humanist sects have done exactly the same thing on a much larger scale. So what? That is just human nature and using God as an excuse. In fact AGAIN it directly contradicts what the Bible teaches, period.

Do you want to address my actual replies? or are you going to continue with rants that just make me repeat myself over and over?

Money and power is definately nothing to gain. I'm sure when Joseph Smith was translating his holy book out of a hat he had "nothing" to gain. That is why his church is one of the most powerful and wealthiest in the world now. Funny how that works.

Mormons are not Christians. They did not even call themselves that until recently to gain more public acceptance. This is a known fact.

Joseph Smith was a known con-man and the "Book of the Mormon" is historically inaccurate to a large degree. Another fact.

So yes he did exactly what you are saying, as did L Ron Hubbard with Scientology. This is nothing but a Red Herring as it has nothing at all to do with the original church of Christ.

Those darn Christians, so unlike ther Christ.

Are you going to make a valid point?

Oh yes, because stoning adulterers and homosexuals is all in a day of God's work.

Back in the time if the Israelites, it was the law. This again has no bearing at all on modern Christians and is just another red herring.
 
Last edited:
Sin is sin, but where did I bring in murder? I would say some sins are more "severe" than others, but all sin is wrong. I think it's sad that many Christians excuse some sins as "ok." But how is this relevant?

I'm just pointing out something I find funny. I just imagine that one day practicing homosexuality will join the long list of sins like "not observing the Sabbath" that have been deemed to be so much less "severe" than the other sins. Of course, I'm sure that Christians believe that the world will suddenly come to an end when such a thing occurs and that the world will suddenly be horribly wicked for allowing gays to live their lives in a way that doesn't really hurt anyone but which violates the sexual norms. Christians are certainly an entertaining bunch.
 
I've never been one who enjoys being told what to do by people who know less than me
Especially when writing, use "know less than I," not "know less than me."

"I've never been one who enjoys being told what to do by people who know less than I [know]"
"I've never been one who enjoys being told what to do by people who know less than I [do about...]"
 
I'm just pointing out something I find funny. I just imagine that one day practicing homosexuality will join the long list of sins like "not observing the Sabbath" that have been deemed to be so much less "severe" than the other sins. Of course, I'm sure that Christians believe that the world will suddenly come to an end when such a thing occurs and that the world will suddenly be horribly wicked for allowing gays to live their lives in a way that doesn't really hurt anyone but which violates the sexual norms. Christians are certainly an entertaining bunch.

Many Christians in the US have atrophied to force Biblical truth to conform to wickedness and what they want the Bible to say. I find your disrespect of Christians to be offensive. I'm willing to debate rationally and respectfully, I only ask for the same in return.
 
Mormons are not Christians. They did not even call themselves that until recently to gain more public acceptance. This is a known fact.

Joseph Smith was a known con-man and the "Book of the Mormon" is historically inaccurate to a large degree. Another fact.

So yes he did exactly what you are saying, as did L Ron Hubbard with Scientology. This is nothing but a Red Herring as it has nothing at all to do with the original church of Christ.

So let me get this right...people could con other people into believing a religion they concocted and they could profit immensely from it...but the immensely powerful and wealthy Catholic Church and their preceding religious leaders did not do this because they were...immune to such ambitions? Hm....you really do have to appreciate the gullibleness of human nature.

Are you going to make a valid point?

Certainly. Anyone who makes Christinaity look bad is not a Christian.

Back in the time if the Israelites, it was the law. This again has no bearing at all on modern Christians and is just another red herring.

You say it is relevant then you say it isn't. It's convienent when you can pick when an idea expressed in the Bible is relevant to your argument and when it is not.
 
To clarify something:

I do not take issue with Mormons at all. Some of the finest people I have ever met. I do however take issue with some of the practices of the church of LDS, and the writings of Joseph Smith. So take it for what it is.
 
Especially when writing, use "know less than I," not "know less than me."

"I've never been one who enjoys being told what to do by people who know less than I [know]"
"I've never been one who enjoys being told what to do by people who know less than I [do about...]"

Well if the ancient Hebrews knew more about modern English grammar than I do, then I guess you have a point.
 
Many Christians in the US have atrophied to force Biblical truth to conform to wickedness and what they want the Bible to say. I find your disrespect of Christians to be offensive. I'm willing to debate rationally and respectfully, I only ask for the same in return.

Do you work on the Sabbath by chance? I'm just curious how wicked you are.

I mean obviously, I'm a wicked American who doesn't take some parts of the Bible as literally as you do.

Funny how people can spout respect from one side of their mouth and condemnation from the other. It's good fun.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom