• 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

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.

You think the Catholic church is what founded Christianity? Or that it did not exist LONG before the Catholic church?

I would recommend if you really want to know more, study about the history of the Christian religion.

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

No one has said that, except you?

You say it is relevant then you say it isn't.

It depends on the context. Something you continue to ignore.

It's convienent when you can pick when an idea expressed in the Bible is relevant to your argument and when it is not.

This completely ignores my statement and has yet again nothing to do with what I said or even implied.

Either come up with a coherent argument that does not rely on fallacy's and mis information, or lets be done with this.
 
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.

You have not responded to any of my points. I have asked for respectful and rational debate. I must excuse myself from this thread for the time being. I respect you and your beliefs, but I don't see this discussion being productive at all.
 
You think the Catholic church is what founded Christianity? Or that it did not exist LONG before the Catholic church?

I would recommend if you really want to know more, study about the history of the Christian religion.

Sigh, I even made the effort to say "preceding religous leaders" but it was ignored.

No one has said that, except you?

I say it, you practice it.

It depends on the context. Something you continue to ignore.

Oh, the context? Funny how a book inspired by God has to be interpretted within a certain context. Even funnier is that how people interpret the context is subjective. There are entire books written explaining the "correct" context people should accept before they even begin interpreting the Bible.

This completely ignores my statement and has yet again nothing to do with what I said or even implied.

Either come up with a coherent argument that does not rely on fallacy's and mis information, or lets be done with this.

Pretty much all you have done is argue that anything I say that you do not like is a red herring. Do you really think you have made any sort of coherent argument aside from, "I believe my interpreation of Christianity above all others and all other religions because I don't believe that a bunch of people who lived hundreds of years ago could have been motivated to concoct a religion for the sake of their own profit."
 
You have not responded to any of my points. I have asked for respectful and rational debate. I must excuse myself from this thread for the time being. I respect you and your beliefs, but I don't see this discussion being productive at all.

You haven't exactly made any points, but okay. As they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
 
You haven't exactly made any points, but okay. As they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I have made points that you have ignored. It's not so much that I can't take the heat, I just don't like feeding the trolls.
 
I have made points that you have ignored. It's not so much that I can't take the heat, I just don't like feeding the trolls.

So far the only point I have observed you make is that your religious beliefs give you license to call the views of those who believe differently than you "wicked" and to then demand respect from others for your views. I find that wonderfully absurd.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Critical Thought is banned from this thread at this time. Any further posts will be 5 point infractions. I let you have your say, but you've had a dozen posts to troll and that's enough already.
 
Sigh, I even made the effort to say "preceding religous leaders" but it was ignored.

Because they were in prison or dead at the time. It is irrelevant because again I already addressed that.

I say it, you practice it.

That would be a lie.

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

Want to try again?

Oh, the context? Funny how a book inspired by God has to be interpretted within a certain context. Even funnier is that how people interpret the context is subjective. There are entire books written explaining the "correct" context people should accept before they even begin interpreting the Bible.

Yes, but each person guided by the Holy Spirit should read it for themselves. Of course you would rather pick certain out of context or irrelevant factors that do not even apply as you find them on the Internet.

Pretty much all you have done is argue that anything I say that you do not like is a red herring.

Not at all, go back and read it. Your comments as I pointed out had nothing to do with anything I said. You go from one rant to the next completely ignoring my points for the most part.

Do you really think you have made any sort of coherent argument aside from, "I believe my interpreation of Christianity above all others and all other religions because I don't believe that a bunch of people who lived hundreds of years ago could have been motivated to concoct a religion for the sake of their own profit."

Yes actually I have. All you have to do is look at what I wrote.

Just because you wish to ignore and go off topic with points that have no connection to my point matters little.

If my arguments were no good, you would have laughed and moved on long ago. ;)
 
Jesus loves gays but homosexuality is a sin. How can this man openly live in sin and call himself a Christian? He's a hypocrite.

By that definition we Christians are all hypocrites. I glory in it... or rather seek to bring glory to God who forgives me.

Including the man that wrote so much of the New Testament:

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." - 1Tim. 1:15.

(forgive me for answering this old old post here.. I just saw I went 15 pages deep... I will refrain until I have read most of the thread now. ;) )
 
I'm not saying that all people who hate gays are religious; I am saying that hatred of gays came from religion.

I would beg to differ here somewhat. Not to say that religion and homosexuality have been fast friends, just that I think there is a more basic drive in human culture to reject homosexuality built into our biological imperative. So I think it goes deeper than religion.

Other practices which go against the biological imperative are also shunned or considered taboo within and outside of religion like incest for example. And no, I am not drawing any parallel between homosexuality and incest. I am just pointing out that our species is wired to resist them for the sake of survival.
 
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.

I understand where you're coming from, but the God that we have is the way that He is. I know that He should be easier to get along with and all the things that make Him hard to believe in in this day and time. I have all the same doubts about it as you do. Knowing what we know today and that gays have no choice really makes it tough to think, "oh they just need to control themselves". I'm thinking that obviously God gives some people more "problems to bear" than others, like some people have terrible handicaps, some get terrible diseases, some people have really unlikeable personalities etc. etc. Not being able to have sex with the person you love is a tough one, but it happens to most of us at least once in our lifetimes if you think about it, but still, we do get to eventually have sex with someone we love, or like, and then maybe not, it's just how our lives happen to unfold. I look at the world and all the children that are starving, and think, "how can God let this happen". There are so many questions that have no answers. Look at the crucifiction. Why in the world would God want that to happen so we could go to heaven and be with Him? Why didn't He just let bygones be bygones?
I'm hoping in the end God takes everybody, and the Bible and religion were just there to keep us on our toes, cause if things go the way of the Catholics, I probably won't be gettin' in.:)
 
Wow - I know that, at times, I start some pretty controversial threads, but I honestly had no idea that this thread would garner such emotional reactions. Now, if someone wants to troll me, and call me a retard for stating this, after the reactions that have been expressed in this thread, I guess I would have to agree with the troll - I am a retard - LOL.

Seriously, here is my take on the whole issue:

1) To those on one side, who are saying that homosexuality is not sinful, I would have to honestly disagree. If you believe the Bible, which is purported to be God's word, being gay IS a sin. There can be no argument here.

2) To those on the other side, who are judging the pastor so harshly, with all due respect, you are also wrong. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is lust, gluttony, greed, cheating on your taxes, not being willing to help the poor, cussing, supporting wars that did not have to be, in which innocents are slaughtered, putting politics above religion, and a kajillion other practices which, according to the Bible, will result in hell for those of us who practice these sins. So, who is going to hell? Each and every one of us, that's who. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". This, of course, is why Christ died for us. Without sin, Christ would never have been needed.

3) So what about the preacher who came out as gay? Should he still be the head of the church? Why not? Since we are all sinners, who is going to be left to teach the love of Jesus Christ, if none of us is worthy to teach it?

4) The preacher coming out, and admitting that he is a sinner, in the face of so much "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy, IMHO, was a courageous act, even if done after many years. I am sure that the preacher knew what was going to be coming his way, in the form of blowback, but he came out anyways. Again, IMHO, he is just the sort of person that I would want to head a church, and teach the love of Christ. He knows he is a sinner, but he is not getting up on his high horse and telling everybody else how they are going to hell, while being a sinner. That is in stark contrast to those who want to use the rule of law to regulate the lives of everybody else while, at the same time, not being willing to admit that they are sinners themselves. That is in even starker contrast to the Fred Phelps' of this world, and those who believe that God gives them the right to shoot abortion doctors. This pastor's honesty is refreshing, and yes, very much like the teachings of Christ. Once again, there is NO sinless person in this world, other than one who died a couple of millenia ago. He died for our sins, and we are all sinners. According to the Bible, that is the key to salvation. What is not the key to salvation is pointing out the mote in the eyes of others, while ignoring the beam in our own eye.

5) Therefore, I stand by what I originally posted. To one side - I agree with your assessment on what sin is, but disagree with your assessment that the pastor should relinquish his position. To the other side, I agree that there is much hypocrisy, but homosexuality is still a sin, as is any other sin.

6) However, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Per the Bible, absolutely NONE of us has this right. IMHO, the pastor is very qualified to preach from his pulpit - Much more qualified than those who demand that he step down, for he has been true to the word of God, by stating the obvious - That he is a sinner - When even the obvious is light years out of reach to many of his detractors, who would rather point a finger at him instead of themselves, which is where their own finger of blame should really be pointed.

7) Once again, God bless you, pastor.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why folks subject themselves to a particular religion whose deity claims that you are commiting a bad act when you live an otherwise productive, happy lifestyle. If you are homosexual and your religion tells you that you are engaging in so-called 'sinful acts' by shacking up with a same-sex partner, then it's time to chuck that ideology and move on to one more that's accepting. And if one can't be found, ignore them all or start your own.
 
2) To those on the other side, who are judging the pastor so harshly, with all due respect, you are also wrong. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is lust, gluttony, greed, cheating on your taxes, not being willing to help the poor, cussing, supporting wars that did not have to be, in which innocents are slaughtered, putting politics above religion, and a kajillion other practices which, according to the Bible, will result in hell for those of us who practice these sins. So, who is going to hell? Each and every one of us, that's who. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". This, of course, is why Christ died for us. Without sin, Christ would never have been needed.

Leaders of the church are to be above reproach...

Titus 1:7Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

Tim. 3:1 1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

3) So what about the preacher who came out as gay? Should he still be the head of the church? Why not? Since we are all sinners, who is going to be left to teach the love of Jesus Christ, if none of us is worthy to teach it?

He should step down according to the teachings of Christ. This includes many other "leaders" who have made mistakes in public. It is not about forgiveness, it is about leadership and his role in the church.

He knew this would be a huge contraversy, no way he could not have known. Yet he did this.

It was brave, but that really does not matter. We certainly can judge his abuility to be a rightious leader in the church. What we are not to judge is his heart. That is between him and God, as I have said.

He is no longer above reproach.
 
Leaders of the church are to be above reproach...

Titus 1:7Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

Tim. 3:1 1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.



He should step down according to the teachings of Christ. This includes many other "leaders" who have made mistakes in public. It is not about forgiveness, it is about leadership and his role in the church.

He knew this would be a huge contraversy, no way he could not have known. Yet he did this.

It was brave, but that really does not matter. We certainly can judge his abuility to be a rightious leader in the church. What we are not to judge is his heart. That is between him and God, as I have said.

He is no longer above reproach.

And neither is anybody else, which is my whole point.
 
And neither is anybody else, which is my whole point.

Plenty of pastors etc are above reproach and blameless. Has nothing to do with being sinless, has to do with being honest from the beginning. He was a liar from the start as he knew. This more than anything else makes him no longer eligible according to scripture.
 
Wow - I know that, at times, I start some pretty controversial threads, but I honestly had no idea that this thread would garner such emotional reactions. Now, if someone wants to troll me, and call me a retard for stating this, after the reactions that have been expressed in this thread, I guess I would have to agree with the troll - I am a retard - LOL.

Seriously, here is my take on the whole issue:

1) To those on one side, who are saying that homosexuality is not sinful, I would have to honestly disagree. If you believe the Bible, which is purported to be God's word, being gay IS a sin. There can be no argument here.

2) To those on the other side, who are judging the pastor so harshly, with all due respect, you are also wrong. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is lust, gluttony, greed, cheating on your taxes, not being willing to help the poor, cussing, supporting wars that did not have to be, in which innocents are slaughtered, putting politics above religion, and a kajillion other practices which, according to the Bible, will result in hell for those of us who practice these sins. So, who is going to hell? Each and every one of us, that's who. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". This, of course, is why Christ died for us. Without sin, Christ would never have been needed.

3) So what about the preacher who came out as gay? Should he still be the head of the church? Why not? Since we are all sinners, who is going to be left to teach the love of Jesus Christ, if none of us is worthy to teach it?

4) The preacher coming out, and admitting that he is a sinner, in the face of so much "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy, IMHO, was a courageous act, even if done after many years. I am sure that the preacher knew what was going to be coming his way, in the form of blowback, but he came out anyways. Again, IMHO, he is just the sort of person that I would want to head a church, and teach the love of Christ. He knows he is a sinner, but he is not getting up on his high horse and telling everybody else how they are going to hell, while being a sinner. That is in stark contrast to those who want to use the rule of law to regulate the lives of everybody else while, at the same time, not being willing to admit that they are sinners themselves. That is in even starker contrast to the Fred Phelps' of this world, and those who believe that God gives them the right to shoot abortion doctors. This pastor's honesty is refreshing, and yes, very much like the teachings of Christ. Once again, there is NO sinless person in this world, other than one who died a couple of millenia ago. He died for our sins, and we are all sinners. According to the Bible, that is the key to salvation. What is not the key to salvation is pointing out the mote in the eyes of others, while ignoring the beam in our own eye.

5) Therefore, I stand by what I originally posted. To one side - I agree with your assessment on what sin is, but disagree with your assessment that the pastor should relinquish his position. To the other side, I agree that there is much hypocrisy, but homosexuality is still a sin, as is any other sin.

6) However, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Per the Bible, absolutely NONE of us has this right. IMHO, the pastor is very qualified to preach from his pulpit - Much more qualified than those who demand that he step down, for he has been true to the word of God, by stating the obvious - That he is a sinner - When even the obvious is light years out of reach to many of his detractors, who would rather point a finger at him instead of themselves, which is where their own finger of blame should really be pointed.

7) Once again, God bless you, pastor.


While your post is carefully considered and thoughtful, you're leaving aside a number of points, Dana.

In the ultimate spiritual sense, sin is sin yes. All sin is seperation from God, without the intercession of Jesus' Grace.

This does not mean that there are not distinctions made in scripture, where some sins are more strongly condemned than others. Adultery and habitual drunkenness, for example... and also homosexual practices. None of which are acceptible in a minister.

This brings us to another question: is this something he did once long ago? Something he did a LOT, long ago? Something he did RECENTLY a lot? Something he's doing RIGHT NOW and intends to continue doing?

Offhand I don't know of any Christian denomination that doesn't make the distinction between falling into temptation once or twice, repenting and trying to forsake one's sin, as compared to an ongoing and continual state of sin that one has no intention of forsaking. That latter sort of thing will even get ordinary members "churched" in many Baptist churches, let alone a minister.
 
I have no idea why folks subject themselves to a particular religion whose deity claims that you are commiting a bad act when you live an otherwise productive, happy lifestyle. If you are homosexual and your religion tells you that you are engaging in so-called 'sinful acts' by shacking up with a same-sex partner, then it's time to chuck that ideology and move on to one more that's accepting. And if one can't be found, ignore them all or start your own.


I see where you are coming from, but that is a very human-centric and individual-preferences-centric viewpoint. It treats spiritual beliefs systems as if they were as changeable, and about as significant, as one's underwear.

The case in question is that of a Baptist minister, and particularly whether he should continue in that capacity or not. Therefore to be properly addressed, it has to be addressed from that context: the standards and beliefs of Christians of the Baptist denominations.
 
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from, but that is a very human-centric and individual-preferences-centric viewpoint. It treats spiritual beliefs systems as if they were as changeable, and about as significant, as one's underwear.

The case in question is that of a Baptist minister, and particularly whether he should continue in that capacity or not. Therefore to be properly addressed, it has to be addressed from that context: the standards and beliefs of Christians of the Baptist denominations.

Man my response was almost word for word the same. So I decided to let yours stand.
 
Offhand I don't know of any Christian denomination that doesn't make the distinction between falling into temptation once or twice, repenting and trying to forsake one's sin, as compared to an ongoing and continual state of sin that one has no intention of forsaking. That latter sort of thing will even get ordinary members "churched" in many Baptist churches, let alone a minister.

I think you're getting your theology a little backwards. I know the Catholic position at least is that we are always in a state of ongoing and continual sin, no matter what we do. We can't really even help it, it's the taint of the original sin. I think most Christian denominations are in agreement on original sin, but I can't really speak to Protestants.

So no, there really is no distinction between an ongoing sinner and somebody who "sins once or twice" and it's a fallacy to think such a thing as "sinning once or twice" or avoiding sin is possible.

To the issue of whether homosexual relations is sin, it is. Just like any other form of sex outside of marriage and for nonprocreative purposes is a sin (and even then you aren't supposed to enjoy it, enjoying it is a sin). The ideal state of Christianity is perfect celibacy, even for the laity.

So why treat homosexuality like it is some special brand of sin? It's no different than a straight couple living together out of wedlock, or a married couple having sex with condom. Who cares? As Christians we should live and let live with homosexuality as we do with all these other forms of sin that we tacitly accept. Anything less is hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from, but that is a very human-centric and individual-preferences-centric viewpoint. It treats spiritual beliefs systems as if they were as changeable, and about as significant, as one's underwear.

I disagree. The situation of the homosexual subject within religion is often one of debasement by fellow practitioners based something as arbitrary as who the person is attracted to (and in some cases, it can be outright harmful to the individual). Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin, which justifies practitioners to label those who engage in homosexuality as somehow wrong and worthy of punishment, yet no logical argument exists as to why the lifestyle is so deserved of condemnation. The best argument anyone can come up with is 'because my deity says so' - an explanation that is not only illogical, but just silly. In any case, this paves the way to view homosexuality as something which can be 'cured' if the individual voluntarily chooses, and if not, then that individual must not be allowed equal access to rights and privileges accorded heterosexuals. Any rational human being who happens to be homosexual would remove themselves from such a toxic ideology; after all, there is nothing at all wrong with their lifestyle. If a religion preaches such a silly notion, then the three options are to 1) change religions, 2) change the religion, or 3) leave religion entirely. I don't think that there is any more logical motivation to follow option #2 than there is #1 or #3. Only an irrational belief that one particular path of spirituality is 'the only way' could account for someone to believe option #2 is somehow more appealing than the others.

The case in question is that of a Baptist minister, and particularly whether he should continue in that capacity or not. Therefore to be properly addressed, it has to be addressed from that context: the standards and beliefs of Christians of the Baptist denominations.

The problem isn't with the minister but with the religion. If you are going to teach that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, either in this life or by a supernatural deity, then let's call it what it is - radicalism. There is zero room for such nonsense. You're a pretty rational fellow, Goshin. I seriously doubt that you take such a belief to be true. I think you believe that homosexuality is no more 'wrong' than heterosexuality, regardless of what your religion says.
 
I disagree. The situation of the homosexual subject within religion is often one of debasement by fellow practitioners based something as arbitrary as who the person is attracted to (and in some cases, it can be outright harmful to the individual). Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin, which justifies practitioners to label those who engage in homosexuality as somehow wrong and worthy of punishment, yet no logical argument exists as to why the lifestyle is so deserved of condemnation. The best argument anyone can come up with is 'because my deity says so' - an explanation that is not only illogical, but just silly. In any case, this paves the way to view homosexuality as something which can be 'cured' if the individual voluntarily chooses, and if not, then that individual must not be allowed equal access to rights and privileges accorded heterosexuals. Any rational human being who happens to be homosexual would remove themselves from such a toxic ideology; after all, there is nothing at all wrong with their lifestyle. If a religion preaches such a silly notion, then the three options are to 1) change religions, 2) change the religion, or 3) leave religion entirely. I don't think that there is any more logical motivation to follow option #2 than there is #1 or #3. Only an irrational belief that one particular path of spirituality is 'the only way' could account for someone to believe option #2 is somehow more appealing than the others.



The problem isn't with the minister but with the religion. If you are going to teach that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, either in this life or by a supernatural deity, then let's call it what it is - radicalism. There is zero room for such nonsense. You're a pretty rational fellow, Goshin. I seriously doubt that you take such a belief to be true. I think you believe that homosexuality is no more 'wrong' than heterosexuality, regardless of what your religion says.

As I have said before: I am a theologically-conservative Christian. I am therefore obligated to view homosexual behavior as a sin. This does not mean that I hate anyone or wish anyone to be persecuted. It is a religious matter. It does mean that I am forbidden by my beliefs to support gay marriage and similar issues. While I appreciate your compliment regarding my rationality, it doesn't alter the fact that I do take my religious beliefs seriously.

I have nothing personal against gay people as people. I am simply obligated to view their lifestyle, if they actively engage in homosexual behaviors, as sinful. Sorry bud, that's just the way it is for me.

Baptist churches are independent and run congregationally. His congregation will decide whether he will continue as their minster or not, according to their beliefs/conscience/preferences. While there might be some Baptist churches that are theologically-liberal enough to accept him in a ministerial capacity, I expect that would be rare. I think it is more likely that he will either step down or be required by his congregation to do so. Based on my religious beliefs, he should indeed retire from the ministery.
 
As I have said before: I am a theologically-conservative Christian. I am therefore obligated to view homosexual behavior as a sin. This does not mean that I hate anyone or wish anyone to be persecuted. It is a religious matter. It does mean that I am forbidden by my beliefs to support gay marriage and similar issues. While I appreciate your compliment regarding my rationality, it doesn't alter the fact that I do take my religious beliefs seriously.

I have nothing personal against gay people as people. I am simply obligated to view their lifestyle, if they actively engage in homosexual behaviors, as sinful. Sorry bud, that's just the way it is for me.

Baptist churches are independent and run congregationally. His congregation will decide whether he will continue as their minster or not, according to their beliefs/conscience/preferences. While there might be some Baptist churches that are theologically-liberal enough to accept him in a ministerial capacity, I expect that would be rare. I think it is more likely that he will either step down or be required by his congregation to do so. Based on my religious beliefs, he should indeed retire from the ministery.

While I think your view is a misreading of the bible, I do agree that a pastor has to at least try to live what he preaches and tells his congregation to live.
 
While I think your view is a misreading of the bible, I do agree that a pastor has to at least try to live what he preaches and tells his congregation to live.


I honestly don't see how it could be. Even leaving aside the OT except for reference purposes, there's NT scripture that is quite clear on the matter. I've even asked top-rank posters on DP to prove me wrong within the context of scripture, assuring them that if they could do so I would alter my views on the subject. The only arguments they have put forward involve non-literalism and how it was a historical thing and is outdated now... but they can't quote scripture that refutes it. As a theologically-conservative Christian, I don't normally accept religious arguments that can't be backed up with scripture. :shrug:
 
I honestly don't see how it could be. Even leaving aside the OT except for reference purposes, there's NT scripture that is quite clear on the matter. I've even asked top-rank posters on DP to prove me wrong within the context of scripture, assuring them that if they could do so I would alter my views on the subject. The only arguments they have put forward involve non-literalism and how it was a historical thing and is outdated now... but they can't quote scripture that refutes it. As a theologically-conservative Christian, I don't normally accept religious arguments that can't be backed up with scripture. :shrug:

I've read books on the matter. And I think the Bible says very little. Much in the old testiment is a mistranslation, refering to behavior related to a ceremonial observance and including heterosexual sex as well. And much in the new testement has been added. King James added a lot during a time of the believe in Naturalism, and many translation come from that effort, not wanting to diviate too far from the current accepted reading.

I can't link the books at this point, but would suggest visiting your library, but this web site gives a fair is incomplete overview:

Homosexuality and bisexuality

BTW, I'm a Catholic who grew up Baptist. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom