• 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

Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...

New versions of the Bible are taken directly from the ancient records we do have. For example we know "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder." So this is no longer an excuse to not follow the law as presented.

Even with the mistakes made the morals stay the same. This is an amazing feet for many old books put together wouldn't you say?

Jesus is very clear about what marriage is and supposed to be...

Matthew 19: 3-6 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,
5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

With crystal clarity and no mistranslation.

Boo Radley said:
BTW, I'm a Catholic who grew up Baptist. ;)
Click to expand...

Well God bless you brother. I was raised Catholic and went non-denominational.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then I hope you can understand why I view religion warily. I can't fathom why someone would teach that well-adjusted human beings should be made out to be morally wrong based on something as arbitrary as their sexual preference. I think such teachings are not only silly, but inherently dangerous. We'll have to just agree to disagree I suppose, but it's a shame that we can't have religions teaching acceptance when it comes to homosexuality.
 
Blackdog said:
New versions of the Bible are taken directly from the ancient records we do have. For example we know "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder." So this is no longer an excuse to not follow the law as presented.

Even with the mistakes made the morals stay the same. This is an amazing feet for many old books put together wouldn't you say?

Jesus is very clear about what marriage is and supposed to be...

Matthew 19: 3-6 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,
5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

With crystal clarity and no mistranslation.
Click to expand...

But says nothing about homosexuality. The specific parts I speak of are the homosexuality parts. I do wish I had the books with me today, but it has been years.

Well God bless you brother. I was raised Catholic and went non-denominational.
Click to expand...

Wem moved in opposite directions. Someday it might be fun to discuss our journey. But for today, God bless you as well my friend.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...


This is essentially an argument for the invalidity of the Bible as we currently possess it. That is a long argument I've engaged in here before and don't care to re-open. Suffice it to say I am not convinced.
 
Goshin said:
This is essentially an argument for the invalidity of the Bible as we currently possess it. That is a long argument I've engaged in here before and don't care to re-open. Suffice it to say I am not convinced.
Click to expand...

More that I see the Bible as the begining of the conversation and not the end of it. It has been around a long time, touched by man, who are imperfect. That said, my reading of it has convinced me that it was not intended to be absolute, the end of the search, but instead a beginging that we were to use to sart our search. During Jesus' time, homosexuality was everywhere, yet he speaks to in personally nowhere. I find that odd if it is the sin suggested.
 
Boo Radley said:
But says nothing about homosexuality. The specific parts I speak of are the homosexuality parts. I do wish I had the books with me today, but it has been years.
Click to expand...

Did he have to? I mean "let not man separate" is pretty clear. No one can redefine or break up a marriage without being involved in sin, period. Homosexuality by it's very nature is a sin as two men cannot be married according to this quote. This means any same sex couple is guilty of fornication at least.

Boo Radley said:
Wem moved in opposite directions. Someday it might be fun to discuss our journey. But for today, God bless you as well my friend.
Click to expand...

We will, that would be interesting.
 
Boo Radley said:
More that I see the Bible as the begining of the conversation and not the end of it. It has been around a long time, touched by man, who are imperfect. That said, my reading of it has convinced me that it was not intended to be absolute, the end of the search, but instead a beginging that we were to use to sart our search. During Jesus' time, homosexuality was everywhere, yet he speaks to in personally nowhere. I find that odd if it is the sin suggested.
Click to expand...


As I've mentioned, I'm theologically conservative. I believe that the Bible contains God's message to his creation, humanity. Yes, proper interpretation is important, but the first principle of hermaneutics is "interpret scripture with more scripture".

Arguments that depart from the Bible or question its legitimacy are not going to sway my view on a matter of Christian theology.

Jesus did not speak on every concievable matter in the world. He didn't need to, as we have the Bible as a whole to refer to. I take the words of the Apostles very seriously as well, because Jesus conferred on them the authority to speak on such matters.

When engaged in serious Bible study, I use Greek and Hebrew lexicons, view the original text, and try to make sure of the meaning of all key words involved. I have heard the arguments about how the homosexuality being referenced referred to certain "pagan" practices, and am not convinced that this is the case. I've argued the meaning of arsenokoites and Greek pederasty with persons well-read on the subject, and they have not persuaded me that scripture does not mean what it appears to plainly say.

If someone had some new argument to make, I'd examine it. I haven't seen one in quite a while. :shrug:
 
Blackdog said:
Did he have to? I mean "let not man separate" is pretty clear. No one can redefine or break up a marriage without being involved in sin, period. Homosexuality by it's very nature is a sin as two men cannot be married according to this quote. This means any same sex couple is guilty of fornication at least.
Click to expand...

I think that is very debatable, but let me ask this: what is sin?



We will, that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Goshin said:
As I've mentioned, I'm theologically conservative. I believe that the Bible contains God's message to his creation, humanity. Yes, proper interpretation is important, but the first principle of hermaneutics is "interpret scripture with more scripture".

Arguments that depart from the Bible or question its legitimacy are not going to sway my view on a matter of Christian theology.

Jesus did not speak on every concievable matter in the world. He didn't need to, as we have the Bible as a whole to refer to. I take the words of the Apostles very seriously as well, because Jesus conferred on them the authority to speak on such matters.

When engaged in serious Bible study, I use Greek and Hebrew lexicons, view the original text, and try to make sure of the meaning of all key words involved. I have heard the arguments about how the homosexuality being referenced referred to certain "pagan" practices, and am not convinced that this is the case. I've argued the meaning of arsenokoites and Greek pederasty with persons well-read on the subject, and they have not persuaded me that scripture does not mean what it appears to plainly say.

If someone had some new argument to make, I'd examine it. I haven't seen one in quite a while. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I can't read greek and hebrew, but have no problem listening to those who can. As i have said, I've read a few books on the subject. And when discussing mistranslations, you do have to step outside the text to hear from someone who has studied and can read the orginial. Those who refer to pagan practices do refer to the original maenings of the words use used and the context, which is a reasonable approach.

For me, this raises doubt. Kind of like the concept of reasonable doubt. I'm not prepared to "convict" anyone based on something that can be reasonably doubted. And I have listen to both sides with people who are well read. I don't need them to agree to be convinced, nor do i need the side i want to be true to be convinced. I just need there to be doubt to make me pause.

Like I said, I see the Bible as the beginning and not the end.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not prepared to "convict" anyone based on something that can be reasonably doubted.
Click to expand...

Well, you are off the hook entirely. We are clearly instructed as Christians not to be in the conviction business, but to have discernment. Conviction, or judgment is more than subtly different than discernment, and it is not ours to do.
 
Boo Radley said:
More that I see the Bible as the begining of the conversation and not the end of it. It has been around a long time, touched by man, who are imperfect. That said, my reading of it has convinced me that it was not intended to be absolute, the end of the search, but instead a beginging that we were to use to sart our search. During Jesus' time, homosexuality was everywhere, yet he speaks to in personally nowhere. I find that odd if it is the sin suggested.
Click to expand...
If the Bible was not meant to be absolutely, then does that mean that we are interpreting a dead bible??!?

I hate having to argue whether something as big and as universal as the bible is absolute or not because, obviously, it covers too many topics to simply say "nah, it doesn't mean this at all!" or w/e. where it is absolute, it is absolute, and where it's not, it's not. Period.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Did he have to? I mean "let not man separate" is pretty clear. No one can redefine or break up a marriage without being involved in sin, period. Homosexuality by it's very nature is a sin as two men cannot be married according to this quote. This means any same sex couple is guilty of fornication at least.



We will, that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Jesus affords divorce in the event of adultery, so yes, the faithfull spouce can be both involved with braking up a marriage and innocent at the same time.
 
Boo Radley said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Catholic? Man, do I have a joke for you......

An altar boy went to confession, and the priest asked if he had any sins to admit. Said the boy, "I had sex with a loose girl in school". The priest said "You are a fine young lad, but you know you have sinned, and must confess who you had sex with, in order to ontain absolution". The boy replied "I can't tell. I am sorry". So the priest, in order to find out who the girl was, began asking him some questions.

"Was it Maria"? "No", the boy replied. "Was it Becky"? "No", the boy replied. "Was it Cindy"? "No", the boy replied. "Was it Valerie"? "No", the boy replied. "Was it Vicky"? "No", the boy replied. At that point the priest said "I respect your silence on naming names, but I must punish you. You are barred from being an altar boy for the next month. Now go say your Hail Marys and Our Fathers".

After the boy got out of the confessional, a friend of his asked "How did it go in there"? The boy replied "It went great. I got a 4 week vacation and 5 leads".
 
Jerry said:
Jesus affords divorce in the event of adultery, so yes, the faithfull spouce can be both involved with braking up a marriage and innocent at the same time.
Click to expand...

Jerry I love you man but... that has nothing to do with my point or anything I have mentioned at all.
 
The fact that he came out and said homosexuality was not unnatural is admirable but regardless, he's spent his life preaching against it. He's a member of a religion that advocates that homosexuality is somehow wrong. I'm not going to pretend like he's doing something he should be absolved of a sin from, pun intended. He came out, he led a double life for years and now is working so as not to destroy the family he has. That's it. People need to stop painting this guy as being braver different from the thousands of kids who are gay and live in the most homophobic of communities in 'Christian' America.
 
Hatuey said:
The fact that he came out and said homosexuality was not unnatural is admirable but regardless, he's spent his life preaching against it. He's a member of a religion that advocates that homosexuality is somehow wrong. I'm not going to pretend like he's doing something he should be absolved of a sin from, pun intended. He came out, he led a double life for years and now is working so as not to destroy the family he has. That's it. People need to stop painting this guy as being braver different from the thousands of kids who are gay and live in the most homophobic of communities in 'Christian' America.
Click to expand...
Yea right, we only WISH homosexuals lived in ghettos :rolleyes:
 
Blackdog said:
Did he have to? I mean "let not man separate" is pretty clear. No one can redefine or break up a marriage without being involved in sin, period. Homosexuality by it's very nature is a sin as two men cannot be married according to this quote. This means any same sex couple is guilty of fornication at least.



We will, that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't buy the redefine part. Not the same as breaking up, and I think the clarity is in the breaking up, and not the defining.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
Well, you are off the hook entirely. We are clearly instructed as Christians not to be in the conviction business, but to have discernment. Conviction, or judgment is more than subtly different than discernment, and it is not ours to do.
Click to expand...

I think far too many do judge, but I mean it in another context. I mean that I'm not ready to concede it is a sin. Especially today. Remember eating pork was once a sin, and there was a very practical reason for it as it could kill you. As we improved our ability to avoid that harm, it no longer was considered sin. In any case, with no clear or unchallenged clarity on this issue in the Bible, I'm not reaady to accept with absolute certainty that it is a sin.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
If the Bible was not meant to be absolutely, then does that mean that we are interpreting a dead bible??!?

I hate having to argue whether something as big and as universal as the bible is absolute or not because, obviously, it covers too many topics to simply say "nah, it doesn't mean this at all!" or w/e. where it is absolute, it is absolute, and where it's not, it's not. Period.
Click to expand...

That that is absolute is dead. Being alive means change.

Many argue with me that the Bible is the final word, unchanging, covering all aspects of life that has ever been and ever will be. I say it is a beginning, something we build on and add too and sometimes take away (the pork thing comes to mind). It is not ridged or unbending, but meant to provide concepts and lead us on our journey.
 
Whovian said:
Why is this anyone's business is a better question.
Click to expand...

Because he is not only the head of the church, but the spiritual leader of said congregation. The moment he made this public, He made it his congregation and religions business.
 
Boo Radley said:
That that is absolute is dead. Being alive means change.

Many argue with me that the Bible is the final word, unchanging, covering all aspects of life that has ever been and ever will be. I say it is a beginning, something we build on and add too and sometimes take away (the pork thing comes to mind). It is not ridged or unbending, but meant to provide concepts and lead us on our journey.
Click to expand...

If the journey leads to a place contrary to God's word, then you arrived at the wrong place.

Matthew 7:13 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

Edit: I look forward to your reply as your views (even if I do not agree) are very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
If the journey leads to a place contrary to God's word, then you arrived at the wrong place.

Matthew 7:13 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but what does that mean? Eating too much will lead me to distruction. Sounds like a warning many could make today. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom