- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Over 25% of Methodist churches abandon denomination as schism grows over LGBTQ+ issues
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:24 pm to L.A.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:24 pm to L.A.
My church voted to stay. It seemed kind of rigged, but most of the members left, especially the money people. Hard to see how it will be sustainable in 10 or 15 years.
0
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:37 pm to Champagne
quote:
Would somebody please explain to me how you can read the Bible and come away with the idea that homosexual sexual relations are not sin?
You can't if you are reading it with any objectivity whatsoever.
But that's not what people who defend it do.
They have gay children or friends or some other family member, so they won't accept what the Bible is very clear about. They twist themselves up like pretzels trying to explain it away. Arguments include:
1. Jesus never said anything about it, so what was said doesn't really count.
2. They say that Romans 1:26 means that the sin is when people go against their own inclinations, not that the sin is when people violate the obvious biological realities of sexuality.
3. They say that passages regarding male homosexuality aren't really referring to male-male relations between equal partners, but to men engaging in sex with temple prostitutes who were often not of age. Therefore (they claim) the actual sin is either pederasty or sexual relations within a power differential.
4. They claim that loving homosexual relationships between equal partners didn't exist back then and there was no language to describe it, so that couldn't be what the Bible was referring to. (They have to say this out of the side of their mouth that they don't use for saying that being gay is normal and healthy and has always existed.)
As far as I know, not a single reputable scholar agrees with any of this.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:06 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:15 pm to Kafka
If "Husband" and "Wife" are offensive, what do they prefer to use when performing marriage ceremonies?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:41 pm to L.A.
Any organization is susceptible to a takeover.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:45 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:Man and Man
If "Husband" and "Wife" are offensive, what do they prefer to use when performing marriage ceremonies?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:52 pm to wackatimesthree
Yours is as cogent an explanation as I've yet read. Thank you.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:09 pm to Kafka
Obviously I disagree with the "Progressives" on this issue.
There has got to be a "Third Way" that's better than what the Progressives want - something along the lines of "Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner."
I would preach to homosexuals that they have an especially heavy burden in life to refrain from what they desire, which is Gay Sex. They can consider themselves to be in a state of a sort of Martyrdom in that they are allowing a part of their nature to die as a sacrifice to Almighty God. God certainly will reward them in the afterlife. MAYBE this line of spiritual thinking can be convincing to them.
I would not shun them out of a congregation, and, I'll bet that most would agree with this.
There has got to be a "Third Way" that's better than what the Progressives want - something along the lines of "Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner."
I would preach to homosexuals that they have an especially heavy burden in life to refrain from what they desire, which is Gay Sex. They can consider themselves to be in a state of a sort of Martyrdom in that they are allowing a part of their nature to die as a sacrifice to Almighty God. God certainly will reward them in the afterlife. MAYBE this line of spiritual thinking can be convincing to them.
I would not shun them out of a congregation, and, I'll bet that most would agree with this.
This post was edited on 12/29/23 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 12/30/23 at 4:36 am to Champagne
This whole debate among Protestants about whether practicing homosexuals are committing Sin brings the spotlight on the Bible Alone aspect of Protestant theology.
As we know from the Westminster Confession, the Bible is perfectly clear with regard to how one gains Salvation. Our resident Reformed pastors have repeated this extensively.
But this debate about homosexuals seems to undercut this statement in the Westminster Confession. How can one Protestant say that a practicing homosexual is actively and unrepentantly engaging in Sinful behavior and is going to Hell, while another says that the behavior is not Sin at all, and is no impediment to being Saved?
Of course, the usual response to this puzzle is to simply declare, "Well, the side that says it is not Sin is clearly wrong", but, isn't that just circular logic? Sort of like saying, "the Bible is perfectly clear on how to gain Salvation, but, THAT guy's opinion on what it means is perfectly wrong on what's perfectly clear. Are we really going to have 500 years of Protestant theology rest on a foundation of Circular Logic? No, of course not.
So this conundrum remains unsolved. Either the Westminster Confession is false or there's a piece of the puzzle that's not been discussed.
Just thinking out loud here.
As we know from the Westminster Confession, the Bible is perfectly clear with regard to how one gains Salvation. Our resident Reformed pastors have repeated this extensively.
But this debate about homosexuals seems to undercut this statement in the Westminster Confession. How can one Protestant say that a practicing homosexual is actively and unrepentantly engaging in Sinful behavior and is going to Hell, while another says that the behavior is not Sin at all, and is no impediment to being Saved?
Of course, the usual response to this puzzle is to simply declare, "Well, the side that says it is not Sin is clearly wrong", but, isn't that just circular logic? Sort of like saying, "the Bible is perfectly clear on how to gain Salvation, but, THAT guy's opinion on what it means is perfectly wrong on what's perfectly clear. Are we really going to have 500 years of Protestant theology rest on a foundation of Circular Logic? No, of course not.
So this conundrum remains unsolved. Either the Westminster Confession is false or there's a piece of the puzzle that's not been discussed.
Just thinking out loud here.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 4:37 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 6:20 am to L.A.
Whoever would follow this, deserves their just punishment
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:01 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
They say that passages regarding male homosexuality aren't really referring to male-male relations between equal partners, but to men engaging in sex with temple prostitutes who were often not of age.
I know they like to argue against the translations from Greek, but this translation seems like it would be pretty hard to misinterpret.
quote:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another
And homosexual relations did happen in these times. Paul was aware of this.
Even the progressive historians that wrote my college textbooks say that even some Spartans engaged in homosexuality over a thousand years before Paul’s epistles were written.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:34 am to Champagne
quote:All are welcome at our Church. I worked in healthcare for 40 years and it certainly attracted its share of gay folk. Some of my best friends were gay. I didn't agree with their lifestyle but not for me to judge. Where the Church (United Methodist Church) and we that left disagreed with was practicing gays in leadership roles, teaching and leading our children, performing gay marriages in our church facilities, etc. I'll sit right next to a gay fellow congregant and not bat an eye. Again, don't agree with their lifestyle but judging that person is not in my paygrade.
I would not shun them out of a congregation, and, I'll bet that most would agree with this.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:46 am to Champagne
quote:The belief that the Bible supports homosexuality is a new thing. The Bible is very clear on the subject and no one has disputed that—neither Christian nor Jew prior to Christ—until the last few decades when these “Christians” abandoned the Bible as their rule for faith and life.
So this conundrum remains unsolved. Either the Westminster Confession is false or there's a piece of the puzzle that's not been discussed.
This isn’t an issue of biblical clarity but of sin.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 8:49 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:02 am to Champagne
quote:
Just thinking out loud here.
Brave talk given what is happening with the current Pope.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:21 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
If "Husband" and "Wife" are offensive, what do they prefer to use when performing marriage ceremonies
Holy Mary, birthing person of the gender non-specific Creator Being, blessed are you among other cis-gendered female persons.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:16 am to Deuces
quote:
And homosexual relations did happen in these times. Paul was aware of this.
I am not at all an ancient history scholar, but, if my recollection of my readings is correct, male homosexual behavior was not only happening in ancient Greece and Rome, but, it was rather normalized. That's why the new (at the time) Christian religion was so very radical.
Sex outside of marriage was quite normalized back then. It was Christianity that tried to put a damper on the "orgy culture" of the ancient times in Greece and Rome.
Naturaly, this new damper enraged the homosexuals of the day.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:21 am to the808bass
quote:
Brave talk given what is happening with the current Pope.
We have two threads daily bashing Catholics and bashing the Pope. The RCC has a Catechism and this published work makes it clear that practicing homosexuals are in Mortal Sin and are separated from God. No matter what some Prot sects say about how normal Gay Sex is, and say this based on Scripture, the RCC has an official interpretation of these Bible passages, and, I believe that this interpretation is correct - Gay Sex is Mortal Sin. A practicing homosexual is separated from God, until such time as proper repentance happens.
It's time we addressed this Perspicuity of Scripture and Bible Alone doctrine in the light of this homosexual debate.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:24 am to FooManChoo
quote:
This isn’t an issue of biblical clarity but of sin.
I figured you'd go back to the Circular Logic of "The Bible is perfectly clear but THAT guy is wrong about what that passage clearly states.
In other words, we are back to Protestantism's fundamental flaw - the Bible says whatever any person says that it says. If I say that a passage clearly states "A", then Foo simply comes along and says, no, it clearly states "B". What happens after that? Foo and I have two NEW sects of Protestantism.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:27 am to Champagne
quote:
Foo and I have two NEW sects of Protestantism.
That's why in this small Arkansas town my mawmaw grew up in has like 10 different baptist churches on the same road
always cracks me up
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:36 am to gaetti15
quote:
That's why in this small Arkansas town my mawmaw grew up in has like 10 different baptist churches on the same road
always cracks me up
That is exactly why.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News