Right, that is quite enough, stop all this nonsense. Jesus supports homosexuals in Scripture.

Jesus hung out with prostitutes. He was ok with everyone, though he did warn people about not being degenerates or they'd have to answer to God. Most of the really hardline stuff comes from Paul or the Old Testament.

a reply to: Blue Shift

We no longer say that women aren't allowed to speak in church. So.... PROGRESS.

The law is tha law, and people are right to state that it needs an explanation. I suppose that realistically, as the Jews were the chosen guardian race for the revelation which prepared the way for the Lord to be born of woman, the standard had to be the Truth, which is that Mankind is fallen from the state of perfection once enjoyed - there is a black hole void of sin tearing at our body, mind & soul & pulling us away from the heights of glory by its mere presence.

Its origin was in paleo-ancient times, and we no longer have a very clear knowledge of what transpired, other than to generalise in ways such as "There was war in Heaven", and "I saw Lucifer fall like lightning" "The serpent was the craftiest creature in the Garden" & so on. There is a power at work in this world which deliberately seeks to obfuscate the Truth by heaping deceptions upon deceptions on top of it, in an attempt to quell the power of the Truth & to disinform the world as to the nature of our predicament.

One of the greatest shames, I believe, is the attitude of the church towards homosexuals. To simply ban a group of non-violent & generally friendly people from a knowledge of the Holy is pretty darn terrible, and if they were to be welcomed in with their partners (rather than a marriage in its formal sense), then just like everyone else they could check their sexuality at the door & come to worship, to learn, and to receive counsel & prayer.

Why on Earth is that a bad idea?!?!?!?!?!!?

a reply to: Woodcarver

You say they embrace sin, but the truth is that they just don’t believe in your god.

Well many do, there are even gay Christian Churches now.

I know a man, when he was younger he was openly gay, he became a Christian and decided the being was there but the action of doing something about it was against his beliefs now. So he eventually married and seems very happy as a straight married guy, his wife knowing the former situation. I don't know if she is also someone who changed from gay to a male female marriage but they made a decision and are living what they believe to be right.

There are people who cannot have sex for various physical reasons and they marry, People can love without sex. When you get really old sex often hurts for many Women even if a guy can keep sailing! Happiness does not revolve around our genitals as the movies would lead to believe.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Why on Earth is that a bad idea?!?!?!?!?!!?

Simply put, because God's very First Commandment to human beings was to "be fruitful and multiply," and that absolutely requires a male and female.

Even forgetting about religion and sticking to basic human nature, anything that contributes to people being able to peacefully procreate is generally seen by most societies as "good." Think about it. We can even go to war and kill other people, but as long as our own people are able to happily and peacefully procreate, it's fine. However, anything that might inhibit breeding, such as homosexuality, is seen as "bad," notwithstanding that homosexuality actually frees up resources within a society so that the offspring of other people can benefit.

And back in the old days with high infant mortality and rampant diseases, it was seen as the "duty" of people to have and raise as many children as possible to build a larger population in whatever country or empire they lived in, to farm the land, build stuff, fight wars, etc. People were a hot commodity, not like now.

That's basically it. That was their world.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

One of the greatest shames, I believe, is the attitude of the church towards homosexuals. To simply ban a group of non-violent & generally friendly people from a knowledge of the Holy is pretty darn terrible, and if they were to be welcomed in with their partners (rather than a marriage in its formal sense), then just like everyone else they could check their sexuality at the door & come to worship, to learn, and to receive counsel & prayer.

Be honest. Is your church "banning" gay people from entering services? I've never seen a Christian church do that. While they might not accept them as members, I don't know a single church that would tell homosexuals that they're not allowed to enter the church and worship with everyone else.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I think the actual sin is sexual promiscuity.

LGBT lifestyles tend to be more promiscuous than the monogamous relationships condoned in scripture.

That's not to say that promiscuous 'straight' lifestyles are any more or less sinful.

Sin is sin.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

There are people who cannot have sex for various physical reasons and they marry, People can love without sex. When you get really old sex often hurts for many Women even if a guy can keep sailing! Happiness does not revolve around our genitals as the movies would lead to believe.

Excellent points to make, thank you. I keep coming back to the 'check your sexual feelings at the door' situation. Straight people don't wilfully think about sex when they're in church, and so why do we say that gay people cannot do the same? Are they ravenous beasts or something? Of course they can be reverent & respectful just like anyone else. I agree with those who say that people who are openly gay but want to be involved in church life should be allowed to participate, though perhaps counselling to help shift some of the dissonance which has been brought on by human attitudes & not by Jesus' example.

a reply to: chr0naut

I fully, 100% agree with you, you literally hit the nail on the head. This is what I've been meaning to say; we learn self-discipline around our sex life whether straight or gay - all are thus reverent & respectful withing the sacred bounds of the church, we check our sexual thoughts & desires at the door.

a reply to: Deetermined

While they might not accept them as members, I don't know a single church that would tell homosexuals that they're not allowed to enter the church and worship with everyone else.

On the technical point you are correct - but be mutually honest; how many gay people (humble, decent, kind people in this example) would want to walk into a church where they know they'll never be accepted as members, in the knowledge that perhaps 60% of attendees believe they should burn in hell for all eternity?!

It's an implicit ban, but you are correct that it's not stated unequivocally in the literature.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I think the actual sin is sexual promiscuity.

LGBT lifestyles tend to be more promiscuous than the monogamous relationships condoned in scripture.

That's not to say that promiscuous 'straight' lifestyles are any more or less sinful.

Sin is sin.

Exactly. Anyone without sexual sin, go ahead and throw that stone.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

It's called live and let live.

Not everyone around me 100% will approve of everything I ever did, do, or will do. I'm sure I've sat in the pews at church with people who thought I'd burn in hell for some of the things I've done being a gamer. After all, there's a certain segment of Christianity that calls such things glorifying witchcraft as many games have elements of the occult and thou shalt not suffer a witch and all that. But if I spent all my time worrying about seeking the 100% approval of others, I'd never leave my house.

Where gays cross the line is when they forget that tolerance and acceptance are two different things. Tolerance is merely a recognition that people have the right to be and do what they will so long as they aren't bothering you. Gays stop being in the tolerance category when they do things like you're doing and try to bend the beliefs of others to make them feel better about themselves.

Why should you care so much what the personal beliefs of others are? I stopped caring what total strangers think of me long ago.

So some Christians think homosexuality is a sin. If you are bound at determined to believe it's not, go your way on that, but stop trying to shove your morality down everyone else's throat. You asked us where we're at and you got told.

a reply to: ketsuko

Gays stop being in the tolerance category when they do things like you're doing and try to bend the beliefs of others to make them feel better about themselves.

Firstly, that is a remarkably intolerant thing to say about gay people. Of course it is live & let live, but that should extend to being allowed to promote the belief that they should be generally accepted as members of whichever church they feel might accept them.

Secondly, not sure if you're implying that I'm gay & that I'm trying to 'bend people's beliefs', but you're dead wrong on both counts. I'm not gay (married 17 years with two sons), though it wouldn't matter if I was. Additionally, I'm not trying to 'bend people's beliefs' - I'm starting a conversation; a conversation is a tolerant & respectful mental environment in which people of potentially opposing views can get together & discuss the views they hold, to see whether they can reach any more reasonable compromises from the positions of each party. 'Bending people's beliefs' is mind control, and I can assure you that I'm neither proficient nor willing to handle such deceptive & damaging tools of Stasi-type manipulation.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

If you shout down & 'no platform' gay (or straight) people who want to start a conversation about the position of gay people in relationshsip to Protestant Christianity, then you are essentially deploying the tactics of ANTIFA to 'keep them in their boxes'.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Truth is why try and substanciate something like any vice,just by trying to deny the truth does not change fact no matter how snowflaky you try and paint it,be honest with yourself

a reply to: ketsuko

but the law is now that yes a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman.
Render unto Caesar what is Ceasars and render unto God that which is Gods.
In other words the laws of the government count too.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Just out of curiosity, Fly, what prompted you to start this thread? Are you a Methodist speaking your peace based on the current shakeup and division in the church on this issue?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Based on your statement, you understand that there is a separation between church and state, right? The state doesn't have the right to tell a church what to do if it goes against their beliefs either.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I'm sure the citizens of Sodom would strongly disagree.

Oh wait, God killed them.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

A eunuch is almost the exact opposite of popular culture homosexuals. Eunuchs cannot have sex, whereas trend homosexuals are very promiscuous. Sex feels good, they love it, I can't blame them for how they feel.

But using this scripture in the light you did is twisting the hell out of it. I don't believe scripture either, just for the record.

I understand you're trying to reach out and give light towards what is against the grain of most christian morals.. and it's a good effort. But you just fell into the same trap the opposite side does to push against.

Plus Paul explicitly states homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god - and most Christians believe that Jesus is speaking through Paul's words in the New Testament... soo.... sorry ....

1 Cor 6:9-10 :
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


These lines fall snugly into place with the eunuch scripture you provided - which is the opposite of the "sexually immoral"


I'd say - if you are a homosexual, and you are dedicated to one partner, then you are not sexually immoral. BUT if you are promiscuous and you are honest to the other people you are having sex with - that is probably not immoral either as long as you don't go home at night and drink yourself stupid because you're depressed you just bang everyone in the planet... THAT would make you immoral, because you yourself feel it's immoral.

Jesus didn't make his disciples into Fishers of Women.