Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 310

Thread: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discrimination?

  1. #201
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,236

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    You dont seem to understand: Jesus's words were recorded by 'men.' Common ordinary men and not for a moment do I believe that Jesus or God would demand such as I wrote.
    The Bible includes Jesus' words - the history of the scripture does not support a narrative wherein items like this get made up and later included.

    In my real life, I avoid ignorance and hate whenever possible and that was not taught in the United Methodist Church that I grew up in either, nor was it taught by my Sunday-school-teaching father. Jesus preached love and forgiveness... no matter what homophobic followers of the past wrote....
    Well, (though it's a odd qualification; I'm not sure why you brought it up), my father is a Pastor in the United Methodist Church, and he understands enough to know that, yes, indeed, the Gospels are accurate. He also knows broader Christianity enough to know that you do not love people by enabling them. Having also grown up in the United Methodist Church, attending a United Methodist college, and studying under United Methodists bishops, I also understand UMC doctrine enough to know that your Sunday-school-teaching-father should have taught you that it is their belief that Scripture is not only driven and shaped by the Holy Spirit, but the primary source for proper doctrine.

    United Methodists share with other Christians the conviction that Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine. Through Scripture the living Christ meets us in the experience of redeeming grace. We are convinced that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God in our midst whom we trust in life and death. The biblical authors, illumined by the Holy Spirit, bear witness that in Christ the world is reconciled to God. The Bible bears authentic testimony to God’s self-disclosure in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as in God’s work of creation, in the pilgrimage of Israel, and in the Holy Spirit’s ongoing activity in human history....

    The Bible is sacred canon for Christian people, formally acknowledged as such by historic ecumenical councils of the Church. Our doctrinal standards identify as canonical thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

    Our standards affirm the Bible as the source of all that is “necessary” and “sufficient” unto salvation (Articles of Religion) and “is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Confession of Faith).


    The beliefs of the United Methodist Church stand solidly against a description of any Scripture as "homophobic".

    Methodism was founded by John Wesley, his brother Charles, and, to a lesser extent, George Whitefield (they disagreed sharply on some issues, notably predestination, which the Methodist Church does not teach). The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is the description of the way in which Methodists are supposed to arrive at theological conclusions. The First and Foremost source? The Bible. If the Bible says it, there you go. If the Bible does not directly address the issue? Tradition. If the Bible does not address the issue and there is no Tradition concerning the question? Then you use your Reason. If the Bible does not address something, there is no Tradition concerning it, and your Reason is unable to come to a conclusion, rely instead on what you have Experienced.

    You will note that, in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, there is no entry for "If you feel like the Bible is mean and disagrees with your beliefs, then well the Bible must be wrong". Quite the opposite. In such a situation, you (the generic "you)" are wrong, and thanks be to God that the Bible is there for our edification and correction. There are parts I instinctively rebel against too, and the battle to conform myself and give up on my pride is a regular one .

    Wantoness in Jesus's day was frowned upon for many reasons, mostly ones that had a basis in social stability. Kids born out of wedlock and women who were single and had kids were mostly unprotected. Because of this sex out of wedlock was seen as harmful to society. As was the spread of disease thru multiple partners. Men having sex was an extension of this and in the traditions of the time, they had no option to legitimize their relationship. I doubt Jesus examined it beyond that and didnt know it was not a choice.
    On the contrary - Jesus rooted his teachings on sexuality not in the Physical, but firmly in the Spiritual.

    Dissect it all you want....I'm not going to change my mind and you can keep your depressing, repressive beliefs yourself, they are all yours.
    They are not "mine". They are His. That's why I'm quoting Him.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-03-15 at 03:18 PM.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  2. #202
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    42,444

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I did say that the Catholic Church still does not marry adulterers.

    But all of them marry fornicators.


    Yes I expect they do... and I'm reasonably sure that nobody seeking a marriage in church goes out of his way to point out to the pastor that he (or she) has previously fornicated. It's not as if it is obvious in most cases.

    That doesn't mean the church approves of fornication. It doesn't mean the church is ok with the newly married couple continuing to fornicate outside marriage (that would now be adultery).

    The issue with SSM is the couple in question are seeking the church's blessing on a union most believe the bible says is sinful, and intend to continue in that sin.

    Basic protestant theology asserts that there is a world of difference between having sinned and repented, and living in an ongoing state of sin with no intention to alter that. Repentant sinners are generally welcomed... and should be, since we are ALL repentant sinners... but the latter is a different matter because there is an expressed intention to CONTINUE the sin and they are in effect asking the church to BLESS THEIR SIN.

    For those who believe the bible defines homosexual acts as sin, this is something that they cannot do in good conscience.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #203
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post

    That doesn't mean the church approves of fornication.

    .
    Exactly and that's pretty much my point. It seems that some religions and churches and religious organizations decided to pick homosexuality to actually condemn and not entitle *those* sinners to marriage, but turn a blind eye to the others....or just give them lip service but not actually campaign to and/or forbid them.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  4. #204
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,236

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    So only extremists believe that gays should be able to marry?
    No - I was mirroring your reasoning to demonstrate to you that it is problematic.

    And those that fight for equality in America are aggressors (well, maybe. Fighting for equality is noble IMO)?
    it can be - aggression is not in and of itself a bad thing.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  5. #205
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    42,444

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Exactly and that's pretty much my point. It seems that some religions and churches and religious organizations decided to pick homosexuality to actually condemn and not entitle *those* sinners to marriage, but turn a blind eye to the others....or just give them lip service but not actually campaign to and/or forbid them.


    You either didn't read what I wrote, or chose to ignore all but the part you replied to.


    As I said, there is a difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone in an ongoing state of sin who expresses no intent to alter that.

    The first case is practically the very essence of Christianity... ALL Christians are repentant sinners. To repent means to have a change of heart and mind, a realization of sinfulness, and typically means the repentant person will endeavor to avoid their sin henceforward.

    A couple seeking SSM in a church that believes homosexual activity is Biblically a sin, is outright saying they will continue in sin and is furthermore asking the church to conduct a Christian wedding for, and thus put the church's blessings upon, a union the church believes is sinful and a state of being of the couple the church believes is an ongoing state of sin.


    Nor is this strictly limited to SSM. I know of many churches that, if they are AWARE that the prospective couple is a product of adultery (ie Mr left his wife for Miz New Bride) will not conduct a wedding for them in church. Those churches that have a strict interpretation of Biblical scriptures about marriage and divorce would hold that the couple began in adultery and continues in adultery, and that the church cannot bless such a union because the union itself is sinful!

    Now if the disappointed adulterous couple shops around, yeah they will find a theologically-liberal church somewhere that will marry them in the sanctum... but such a church is typically not going to be one that takes the Bible too seriously. Theologically fluffy, some of us call them.


    Are you getting why there is a difference at all now? I've tried several different ways to explain it. Seems obvious enough to me:

    Couple1 acknowledges their sin, repents and vows to do right from now on = ok it's good.
    Couple2 refuses to admit sin and vows to continue sinning, just wants church's blessing on their sin = not ok.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #206
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,236

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Exactly and that's pretty much my point. It seems that some religions and churches and religious organizations decided to pick homosexuality to actually condemn and not entitle *those* sinners to marriage, but turn a blind eye to the others....or just give them lip service but not actually campaign to and/or forbid them.
    You are either skipping or missing his point about the intention to continue in sin. If the married couple intends to (for example) immediately enter the Swinger Culture, and the Church is aware of that, then no, the Church should not marry them. It's not about "punishing sinners" by not letting them access marriage in a Church, it's about not teaching or blessing sinful unions.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  7. #207
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,236

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You either didn't read what I wrote, or chose to ignore all but the part you replied to.
    That's happened several times.


    As I said, there is a difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone in an ongoing state of sin who expresses no intent to alter that.

    The first case is practically the very essence of Christianity... ALL Christians are repentant sinners. To repent means to have a change of heart and mind, a realization of sinfulness, and typically means the repentant person will endeavor to avoid their sin henceforward.

    A couple seeking SSM in a church that believes homosexual activity is Biblically a sin, is outright saying they will continue in sin and is furthermore asking the church to conduct a Christian wedding for, and thus put the church's blessings upon, a union the church believes is sinful and a state of being of the couple the church believes is an ongoing state of sin.


    Nor is this strictly limited to SSM. I know of many churches that, if they are AWARE that the prospective couple is a product of adultery (ie Mr left his wife for Miz New Bride) will not conduct a wedding for them in church. Those churches that have a strict interpretation of Biblical scriptures about marriage and divorce would hold that the couple began in adultery and continues in adultery, and that the church cannot bless such a union because the union itself is sinful!

    Now if the disappointed adulterous couple shops around, yeah they will find a theologically-liberal church somewhere that will marry them in the sanctum... but such a church is typically not going to be one that takes the Bible too seriously. Theologically fluffy, some of us call them.


    Are you getting why there is a difference at all now? I've tried several different ways to explain it. Seems obvious enough to me:

    Couple1 acknowledges their sin, repents and vows to do right from now on = ok it's good.
    Couple2 refuses to admit sin and vows to continue sinning, just wants church's blessing on their sin = not ok.
    Pretty much it right there. I will say, however, that much of the current American church has found it "easier" (and wrongfully so) to relax on divorce/adultery - and that they are right to be critiqued for doing so.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  8. #208
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You are either skipping or missing his point about the intention to continue in sin. If the married couple intends to (for example) immediately enter the Swinger Culture, and the Church is aware of that, then no, the Church should not marry them. It's not about "punishing sinners" by not letting them access marriage in a Church, it's about not teaching or blessing sinful unions.
    No, as I wrote in my response to you....Jesus would no longer consider that a sin, if he even did then (since his Words were intepreted by others).
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #209
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    42,444

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No, as I wrote in my response to you....Jesus would no longer consider that a sin, if he even did then (since his Words were intepreted by others).


    That's a theologically liberal position, one which requires a much looser view of scripture and interpretation.

    Theologically conservative churches tend to take scripture in a relatively literal manner until there is compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.



    These two viewpoints are going to be incompatible. You're basically saying "ignore what the bible says' and the theologically-conservative reply is an astonished 'Um, we can't do that. The bible is the core of our beliefs."



    There's not going to be a meeting of the minds here.


    However I would at least HOPE there could be a measure of mutual respect, as in agreeing to disagree and acknowledging that the other is sincere in their belief and not merely BSing.


    Yes? No?

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #210
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,236

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No, as I wrote in my response to you....Jesus would no longer consider that a sin, if he even did then (since his Words were intepreted by others).
    His words have absolutely been interpreted by others, but the words of his in the Gospels were merely written down by others. Jesus, having been around since before Creation, is rather immune to changing Western social sensibilities.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •