Churches for gays (grace, translation, prophet, Jerusalem)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And all Scripture is God-breathed. Paul was writing the words of God. And Jesus is God. Try to understand what Christianity teaches. 1 Cor and Romans is every bit as much the words of Jesus as any verse in the Gospels.
The words of various villains, including Satan, are written in the scriptures also.
The fact remains that Jesus didn't consider it an important enough topic to remark upon -- or at least, the authors of the gospels didn't consider it important enough to put the words into his mouth.
And all Scripture is God-breathed. Paul was writing the words of God. And Jesus is God. Try to understand what Christianity teaches. 1 Cor and Romans is every bit as much the words of Jesus as any verse in the Gospels.
Here we go again. Or should that be 'yet'? Apparently, the Bible ^ IS God/Jesus. And so, we are to worship the Bible as though IT is the actual physical representative of God/Jesus. Paul is also, apparently, the equivalent of God/Jesus. The words that Paul said (wrote) are to be as revered as if they came from God/Jesus themselves.
Is there something not seriously amiss with this ^ description?
The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible anyway - i.e., a book containing print - NEVER address homosexuality as has already been pointed out. Therefore, the anti-gay brigade has no other alternative but than to turn to Paul who DID allude to male/male sex practices a couple of times. Moreover, in those couple of places Paul is addressing the pagan worship practices in certain temples where male shrine prostitutes were active and is not addressing 'homosexuality' per se. You see, 'homosexuality' as we today define and understand the term as being a 'normal sexual orientation for some' - and this REALLY DOES need to sink in! - would have been unknown in Paul's world. To any thinking person this fact would be glaringly obvious.
One need not be a Bible scholar to apply God-given logic or/and to read between the lines when reading the Bible. For instance, when 1 Corinthians and Romans 1 are raised in a casual manner with which to condemn 'homosexuality', we who have a need to obtain the facts will delve deeper and find out WHAT, precisely, Paul is addressing here. If not, we are putting our own words into Paul's mouth. We also have to understand that Paul is/was a mere mortal and that his words are no more divine than are yours and mine.
Bottom line, in the areas of Paul's letters where he references male/male sex practices, he is referencing pagan temple prostitution, a practice connected with the worship of idols. You see, God ALONE is to be worshiped and it's THIS fact that rankled Paul. Idolatry is an abomination. *
* To those millions of celebrity worshipers of today ...take note!
I realize that this thread is not intended as a platform for debating 'Homosexuality and the Bible' - we already have a thread for that topic - but it IS a fact that the churches who oppose the alleged 'gay lifestyle' DO get this notion from scripture. So, it is relative.
I have already mentioned that, as much as my knowledge on scripture takes me, all references to male/male sexual practices in the Bible reference pagan temple prostitution and not 'homosexuality per se' since any such definition was not known to the ancient Bible writers. Is there anyone who can prove me wrong on this interpretation of the Bible references to male/male sex ...that it solely refers to idolatry and nothing other? I can hardly resurrect the other thread just to ask this question.
I realize that this thread is not intended as a platform for debating 'Homosexuality and the Bible' - we already have a thread for that topic - but it IS a fact that the churches who oppose the alleged 'gay lifestyle' DO get this notion from scripture. So, it is relative.
I have already mentioned that, as much as my knowledge on scripture takes me, all references to male/male sexual practices in the Bible reference pagan temple prostitution and not 'homosexuality per se' since any such definition was not known to the ancient Bible writers. Is there anyone who can prove me wrong on this interpretation of the Bible references to male/male sex ...that it solely refers to idolatry and nothing other? I can hardly resurrect the other thread just to ask this question.
Whether or not the churches have a scriptural basis for their objection to male-om-male sex IS a relevant aspect of the topic of church acceptance of gays. However, the simple and inescapable truth of the matter is that a majority of people consider male-on-male sex "icky" and it makes them uncomfortable. That tends to be the elephant in the room concerning this issue. I don't know if female-on-female sex is viewed the same but I suspect not.
Whether or not the churches have a scriptural basis for their objection to male-om-male sex IS a relevant aspect of the topic of church acceptance of gays. However, the simple and inescapable truth of the matter is that a majority of people consider male-on-male sex "icky" and it makes them uncomfortable. That tends to be the elephant in the room concerning this issue. I don't know if female-on-female sex is viewed the same but I suspect not.
In fairness, many gay males find the notion of male-on-female sex just as icky as heterosexual men find male-on male sex, from what I've heard. So there's that. I suppose that some lesbians feel that way too.
I don't go around interviewing women about it, but if my wife is at all a representative heterosexual female, she is mostly just confused by same-sex sex. How would one even go about it? To each their own, is her thought. And then she moves on. It is better than the level of obsession or revulsion so many have, that makes them controlling of others or causes them to see differentness as some sort of existential threat. What if we were that way about, say, ethnic food or hair styles? Well I suppose some folks managed to have a stroke about those things too, but it's way less of a problem for most of us. What someone does in bed, or at table, or what they ask their stylist for is their business, not anyone else's.
In fairness, many gay males find the notion of male-on-female sex just as icky as heterosexual men find male-on male sex, from what I've heard. So there's that. I suppose that some lesbians feel that way too.
I don't go around interviewing women about it, but if my wife is at all a representative heterosexual female, she is mostly just confused by same-sex sex. How would one even go about it? To each their own, is her thought. And then she moves on. It is better than the level of obsession or revulsion so many have, that makes them controlling of others or causes them to see differentness as some sort of existential threat. What if we were that way about, say, ethnic food or hair styles? Well I suppose some folks managed to have a stroke about those things too, but it's way less of a problem for most of us. What someone does in bed, or at table, or what they ask their stylist for is their business, not anyone else's.
I did say the majority of people, especially among those who are fundamentalist believers. Your spiritual maturity allowed you to escape from that mindset but that makes your new more accepting view a minority view. The elephant is still in the room, IMO.
It IS true that homosexuality IS singled out and highlighted by many Christians who DO NOT single out and highlight the much more common act of adultery within society. This includes divorce and remarriage (scriptural adultery) which are pretty much an accepted part of society. We all know that 'God' commanded the death penalty for anyone (any woman?) caught in the act of adultery ...although I don't believe there are any references recorded in scripture where this penalty was actually carried out. Anyone?
I do know that some middle eastern countries do - or they did anyway - carry the death penalty for adultery on their books. To be forewarned, the following video contains images that are disturbing:
Remember this video ^ when you single out the gay community for condemnation that it was 'God' who commanded this penalty for those very same scriptural adulterers who sit comfortably every week in the pews of thousands of churches throughout the world. It kind of makes the 'gay thing in general' and 'gay marriage specifically' seem quite a petty issue, don't you think?
And all Scripture is God-breathed. Paul was writing the words of God. And Jesus is God. Try to understand what Christianity teaches. 1 Cor and Romans is every bit as much the words of Jesus as any verse in the Gospels.
Maybe you should try to understand what the word "quote" means?
The words of various villains, including Satan, are written in the scriptures also.
The fact remains that Jesus didn't consider it an important enough topic to remark upon -- or at least, the authors of the gospels didn't consider it important enough to put the words into his mouth.
They are quoted, yes -- because God chose to include them.
And yes, Jesus DID comment on marriage, he affirmed it as Genesis 2 portrays it. He also is God, and he inspired the rest of Scripture. So 1 Cor 6 and Romans 1 are his words.
Here we go again. Or should that be 'yet'? Apparently, the Bible ^ IS God/Jesus. And so, we are to worship the Bible as though IT is the actual physical representative of God/Jesus. Paul is also, apparently, the equivalent of God/Jesus. The words that Paul said (wrote) are to be as revered as if they came from God/Jesus themselves.
I've never suggested anything close to that. Why do you try to insert these strawman arguments?
Quote:
Is there something not seriously amiss with this ^ description?
The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible anyway - i.e., a book containing print - NEVER address homosexuality as has already been pointed out. Therefore, the anti-gay brigade has no other alternative but than to turn to Paul who DID allude to male/male sex practices a couple of times. Moreover, in those couple of places Paul is addressing the pagan worship practices in certain temples where male shrine prostitutes were active and is not addressing 'homosexuality' per se. You see, 'homosexuality' as we today define and understand the term as being a 'normal sexual orientation for some' - and this REALLY DOES need to sink in! - would have been unknown in Paul's world. To any thinking person this fact would be glaringly obvious.
One need not be a Bible scholar to apply God-given logic or/and to read between the lines when reading the Bible. For instance, when 1 Corinthians and Romans 1 are raised in a casual manner with which to condemn 'homosexuality', we who have a need to obtain the facts will delve deeper and find out WHAT, precisely, Paul is addressing here. If not, we are putting our own words into Paul's mouth. We also have to understand that Paul is/was a mere mortal and that his words are no more divine than are yours and mine.
Bottom line, in the areas of Paul's letters where he references male/male sex practices, he is referencing pagan temple prostitution, a practice connected with the worship of idols. You see, God ALONE is to be worshiped and it's THIS fact that rankled Paul. Idolatry is an abomination. *
* To those millions of celebrity worshipers of today ...take note!
Quote:
The question is why do you consider the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as better than those of Paul?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
