no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

« Holding Out Hope
The Multi-failure of Mathew Vine's 40 questions.

by aflame @ Saturday, 11. Jul, 2015 – 11:16:16

In the light of the decision of the US Supreme Court, a decision that has legal holes running through it like Swiss cheese (not least that two of the judges who gave ruling should not have been involved due to pre-judgement statements) Evangelical pastor Kevin DeYoung has posted 40 Questions for pro-gay marriage advocates. These questions are:
1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?
2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?
3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?
4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?
5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?
6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?
7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?
8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?
9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?
10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?
11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?
12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?
13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?
14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?
15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?
16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?
17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?
18. How would you define marriage?
19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?
20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?
21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?
22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?
23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?
24. If not, why not?
25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?
26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?
27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?
28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?
29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?
30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?
31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?
32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?
33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?
34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?
35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?
36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?
37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?
38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?
39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?
40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?
(http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/07/01/40-questions-for-christians-now-waving-rainbow-flags/)

Doing an internet search I can find no proper answers to these questions. Instead, Matthew Vines - who claims to be an "evangelical" but advocates gay marriage - has responded by posing his own 40 questions. The best response to these that I have found is here from Dr Michael Brown http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/50477-dr-michael-brown-has-40-answers-and-2-questions-for-gay-christian-matthew-vines so I will not waste time by answering them. Instead I wish to point out failures in Vines' understanding of theology, psychology and history.

Firstly Vines continuously refers through out his questions to gay Christians. If you read Vines's website and book it is clear that this refers to people who identify themselves as gay first and Christian second. The centre of their identity is their homosexuality. As Paul wrote to the Phillipians this worldview is wrong - the centre of our identity is not our sexuality, it is not our denomination, it is not our ethnicity, it is Christ! Vines and those like him, including groups like Changing Attitudes, Accepting Evangelicals, the Marin Project, Gay Christian Network and Thinking Anglicans, and even more "orthodox" writers like Wes Hill, fail to witness Biblical truth by allowing their identity to revolve around their sexual identity.

Secondly Vines suggests gay marriage is OK, without giving any verses to support this. He asks the question "What do you think the result would be if we told all straight teenagers in the church that if they ever dated someone they liked, held someone's hand, kissed someone, or got married, they would be rebelling against God?" The problem is, as Vines has shown by his silence on Bible verses on gay marriage, this is a false question. The Bible is clear that marriage is between male and female. Churches provide pre-marriage courses and counselling to help those who are engaged or who want to enter heterosexual marriage to do so. Part of this is making sure that the person they are married to is the right person. So Vines is being dishonest by asking this question. There are no theological grounds to tell teenagers wanting to enter into heterosexual marriage not to do so, quite unlike homosexuality where there is no Biblical grounds for gay marriage.

To make matters worse Vines appeared on television and admitted that there are no Biblical grounds for gay marriage and that the Bible teaches that gay relationships are sinful. See him doing so here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvquvbAApo So, despite his questions Vines admits that the Bible does not support his position.

In the interview Vines speaks of teenagers being kicked out onto the streets when they "come out" as gay. In his questions he asks whether people are aware of the higher attempted suicide rate amongst teens not supported by their parents when they come out. But Vines ignore the fact that those who identify as homosexual are four times as likely to suffer from mental health conditions than heterosexuals while those who are in gay marriages are around 8 times as likely to have mental health problems than heterosexuals. Vines does not differentiate between those who "come out" whose parents accept them and help them accept and embrace their sexuality, those whose parents accept their decision but do not accept their lifestyle choosing instead to walk with them through the following years thereby keeping the door open for change of heart and possibly sexual orientation, and those whose parents are truly homophobic. As such Vines fails to be honest about the situation, trying to use statistics to shame his opponents.

On the shaming of opponents tack Vines then, in a number of questions, attempts to liken homosexual rights to the battle against slavery. It is not a coincidence that while Vines was posting his questions South Carolina was debating the removal of the Confederate flag with all its reminders of the salve trade. But this is a false association. There is no evidence that people are born gay, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the World Health Organisation, and the American Psychological Association, have all recognised. Also we see a major difference between slavery and homosexuality in the Bible. From Genesis to Revelation homosexual behaviour is seen as sin, sin so great it can exclude people from heaven, sin so great it does against God's created order - from before the Fall sex was only to be between male and female. With slavery we see an evolution in human rights, just as we do with the rights of females even ending up with female Apostles such as Junia. In the books of the Law (Exodus to Deuteronomy) we see restrictions put on how slaves can be punished, how people can be enslaved with the release of slaves at set times unless they become bond servants. We see that slaves and servants can also inherit the estates of their masters. In the New Testament the Apostle Paul writes to Philemon concerning liberation from slavery as an ultimate goal. The slavery of recent US and European history was often based on the misrepresentation of one verse from the story of Noah where the descendents of Ham were cursed, that because of this curse those tribes that come from Ham were somehow less worthy than those that come from Shem and Japheth. This was compounded by the theory of evolution that saw white males, and more specifically white upper class males, as more evolved than Africans. (This is the root of the IQ test that was developed by Galton to prove that working class men and women were not "evolved" enough to have the vote, and is the root of the cartoon leprechaun which appeared in anti-Irish Home Rule posters and is based on the ape suggesting that the Irish were not evolved enough to rule themselves.) As part of this we must also mention the issue of bestiality which Vine challenges people over what is worse, homosexuality or bestiality. Again this is a false question, though we are now seeing efforts to legalise bestiality - or zoophilia as practitioners call it - in the US and elsewhere. Bestiality is sin, is condemned, as it goes against God's created order as man was made for sexual relationships with females. The creation story tells us that God had all the animals pass before Adam who named them but that there was no mate there for Adam. This is the context of the phrase "it is not good for man to be alone". The same story tells us that God created a mate by making Eve, so that man and woman would become "one flesh". What Vines and others who promote homosexual marriage do not realise, or do not want to realise, is that by rejecting the Biblical mandate of sexual relationship between male and female as shown in the Creation story they are also rejecting the Biblical mandate of the creation story of animals not being suitable partners for humans. Why? Because we are stating that God was wrong in seeing only opposite human sexes as suitable partners for the other.

We must now look at the failure of Vines concerning the history of homosexuality. While homosexuality and lesbianism are modern, Victorian, ideas and terms the idea of same-sex love is not. In his Symposium Plato (written 385-370BC) quotes Aristophanies who sees male-male love as the most noble form of love - especially when it ends in sexual union and the relationship lasting over life. (Plato also speaks against homosexual relationships in other works). Paul, who was able to quote Greek scholars and uses philosophy in his theology, would have been aware of this work and philosophical idea yet still wrote the condemnation of homosexual and lesbian practice in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:10). There is also the Pseudo-Lucian "Affairs of the Heart" where the Athenian Callicratidas argues for homosexual love as "ordained by divine laws" (that is from Greek gods such as Zeus and Apollo who both had male lovers). Lucian wrote after Paul, between AD 125-180. Against these writings the Church actually stood against homosexual relationships. Ptolemy of Alexandria (2nd century AD) wrote about women born under a certain star sign who - contrary to nature - engaged in sexual relationships with women (Tetrabiblos 3) and the Church Father Clement of Alexandria wrote at around the same time about women who married women and how this was contrary to nature (Paidogogos). Ptolemy's view is interesting as he argues a "nature" argument - that some women are "lesbian" because of their star sign. While the most common form of homosexual behaviour in Greek culture was the paedestry relationship, though this was only amongst males not females, the early Church was aware of the "born gay" and loving gay arguments and opposed them. (This though does not contradict the concept of homosexuality and lesbianism being modern philosophical concepts as the terms did not exist before the Victorian era, and also the arguments of Aristophanies and Callicradites are more religious based than the scientific arguments used today being more inline with the theology of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and other pro-gay bodies than the "science" of Kinsey, the APA and others as their philosophy and the science that came with it were born out of religion rather than from a rejecting of religion.)

Finally we must look at the issue of change and celibacy. The Bible is clear that sexual relationship are between a man and woman within marriage - anything else is sin. As such those who identify as homosexuals are in the same situation as heterosexuals who are not married - they are expected to be celibate. To do anything else is to sin. Change though is not easy, but contrary to Vines and other anti-change voices, it is no harder than dealing with an eating disorder, loosing weight or dealing with a serious addiction. Neither is attempting to change any more harmful than dealing with these issues and it is falsehood to claim otherwise. The problem is, to quote the Pentecostal minister F S Boswell, people are missing the healings that occur because they are looking for miracles. People expect massive change rather than a journey to wholeness.

I agree though with Vines that to speak of celibacy as the only option, as some groups within the ex-gay movement do, is dangerous. I recently received an email from a friend from one such group announcing his engagement to a male. When I contacted him to ask why he told me that he had lost hope through being told all he could do was be celibate. God calls us not to be celibate but to holiness, whatever our struggles. He also calls us to wholeness, and change will often happen to a greater or lesser extent (but people need to learn to walk in the testimony of their healing). Celebrating brokenness through gay marriage does not pursue either holiness or wholeness. This is the message of the ex-gay movement, through groups like Restored Hope Network and Hope for Wholeness as well as Exodus Global Alliance and Live In Christ, and the failure of the gay Christian movement in all its hues.

That is the choice to pursue holiness and wholeness or celebrate brokenness. Vines has chosen to do the later. I hope those who read this will join me in doing the former.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yes, holiness and wholeness at all costs.

"Put on the whole armor of God . . . . . "

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

All the Ministers and Preachers that claim to be gay, and function in a church leadership capacity, need to do two things; 1st) stop claiming to be gay, because in Christ there is no male nor female, no Jew nor gentile, but all are one in Christ. And 2nd) stop expressing "PRIDE" in sinful activity.

The entire church is "married to Christ." There is no gender specific activity between Christ and His bride, other than the family of God coming together in worship and thanksgiving.

ColdDrink

Cut and pasted from a blog by Susan Cottrel.

“If I get the choice between Pie Heaven and Regular Heaven, I will choose Pie Heaven. It may be a trick, but if not, mmmm, pie!!” – Deep Thoughts with Jack Handy, SNL

Many people saw a post that appeared on The Gospel Coalition asking us 40 questions about LGBTQ and gay marriage. One of those people was a family member who sent it to me asking me to answer.

I imagine a lot of you have had questions like this posed to you – so I thought it would be a great idea to share my answers here.

I want to stop and say that if you are a Christian parent of a gay child, please take a moment to read this important post that was written especially for you. Just click here.

Plenty of people like to ask “innocent” questions as a rhetorical device to stump the one they’re asking. Religious leaders did this to Jesus, always certain they had found just the unanswerable question that would corner him. Jesus not only identified the trick questions a mile away but disarmed the questioners with his answers.

The Jesus in me smells a trick from a mile away, but the Jack Handy in me says, “It may be a trick, but if not, mmmm, an opportunity to take a probing look at the Christian response to Marriage Equality.”

Here we go…

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

Ever since I looked at what being LGBTQ meant to people who are LGBTQ, and the inadequate choices offered them by the church. “Reorientation,” lifelong celibacy or excommunication? None of those work by any stretch, and I realized then that those could not be God’s choices for LGBTQ people.

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

1 Corinthians 8, when they discuss what to do when good Christ-followers disagree on what is sinful and Paul says in verses 2-3, “Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.” People should be loved and celebrated. Also, the Golden Rule, and Jesus great command to “love God and love others.” And not a word about not celebrating. Not to celebrate, or to reject, has a huge burden of proof, and it’s not in there.

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

Jesus put love above all else, he told us not to judge each other, and he did not condemn homosexual union. Neither can we. To deny anyone real and meaningful human companionship is a huge decision that goes against everything in the Bible. We can’t do that.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

Isaiah 54:5, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:25, and many others that depict Christ as the groom and the church as the bride. Half Christ’s bride is male. Even though it’s figurative, it is present.

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

Yes. He blew the doors off all our preconceived notions, always in the favor of love and inclusion, and against judgment.

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

Jesus reasserted the definition of marriage in Matthew 19:3 because he was talking to a group of leaders who not only set out to trap him (v. 3) but who had the practice of marrying a women and then divorcing her for trivial reasons. He was saying, “Don’t be so cruel as to cast your wife into the street!” [Read Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers.] Jesus is telling them, “Don’t you use your slippery fanagaling to be spiteful of others. You see, Jesus always defends the powerless one against the powerful, a lesson for all of us to heed.

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

Interesting question because it implies that we have a place in the judgment seat. He certainly was not talking about gay sex but straight sex; he was addressing straight people. Peter said, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” Romans 2:1. But if were to say, it would be any inappropriate thought about sex, because that’s what Jesus said… and he said it to keep us from categorizing sin into the terrible ones (which don’t tempt us) and the not-so-bad ones (which we do commit). Jesus said, “Uh, no.”

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

It was a Paul’s rhetorical device to get them to condemn certain actions before lowering the boom in Romans 2:1: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

Of course not! If our sins could get us kicked off the invite list, who would make it? Paul is saying not to fight amongst each other (with their internal lawsuits and defrauding, Christians against Christians). But even as badly behaved as they were, Paul says (v. 11): “You are sanctified by Jesus and by the Holy Spirit!” He’s actually saying the opposite. Thank God!

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

Paul was talking about all the extreme things going on right in their community in their temples—rape, temple prostitution, coercive sex (of master to slave). None of it means consensual, loving sex among equal adults.

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

These men were all privileged, straight males. Their insight into women, children, non-white, and LGBTQ people is necessarily limited. They all condoned slavery, for instance. Better to take the good they offered and move on to the new light in which we see things today.

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

Surely you are aware that the understanding of homosexuality of Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America is culturally conditioned by American (missionary) Christians??

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

I really can’t speak for them, and I don’t look to them for what to think about my role as a Christian.

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

It depends on the mother and the father. Don’t you agree? Good grief! I know some amazingly loving single parents, and I know some incredibly loving, thoughtful gay parents. I wish you knew Pam and Sabina and the gentle and loving home they have for their two adopted, biracial kids. On the other hand, I know some horrifying, straight-couple parents. Courtney and her three siblings could have had more oppressive and dysfunctional parents, though they are the “traditional, Christian mother and father.” Which children do best? Those in a loving situation or those in an abusive situation. Really, it’s a silly and quite offensive question.

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

The life of Christ does not come in response to research. Jesus always deals with real life situations in support of the oppressed, period. He did not use research to support his overabundant love and compassion. Your question #14 is outrageously offensive to hard-working single parents, both divorced and widowed, and reveals your insufficient experience—and compassion—to address this question responsibly. I grieve at the implications of your mindset for those poor children at the losing end of your “best”-case scenario.

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

Frankly, I’ve had enough of the type of privileging you suggest, which binds broken marriages together with duct tape “for the sake of the children,” trapping them in brutal and dysfunctional families. I’ve counseled them as adults, and you are really out of your depth here with the question.

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

Really? Is it all about sex for you?! You don’t really think people have fought for Marriage Equality for sexual fulfillment. You know that single people have sex, right? If it were all about sex, wouldn’t they stay single for sexual fulfillment, so in case the sex runs cold, they will be free to just move on? What we seek marriage for is something much, much bigger than sex. It’s only a part of it. And frankly, I just do see how the ends and purposes have anything to do with the gender of those involved.

18. How would you define marriage?

Hm… good question. I am going to refer to the biblical definition or marriage. Listen closely. Monogamy (Titus 1:6). Rape victims forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). A man obligated to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4).

Oh dear…I don’t think is going the direction you hoped.

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

No. Although, from what I know, this exists in patriarchal environments where, because the environment is so controlled, consent is not possible.

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

Why are you asking me this when the bible is “perfectly clear” that polygamous marriage is not only affirmed but celebrated as a staple throughout the Old Testament? In fact, it was the compassionate option to provide for thousands of women (several hundred each for the patriarchs!) who would otherwise have been abandoned. God personally gave David his multiple wives (1 Samuel 12:8). I’m saying all this facetiously, because I suspect you’re pointing to the tired “slippery slope” argument.

But yes, I do. As it’s been said, people aren’t born polygamists. And if anything opens the door to polygamy, it’s patriarchy, not homosexuality.

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

This question is part of the “slippery slope” argument, that approval of same-sex marriage leads to approval of incest or polygamy, but they are different. As incest and polygamy have been practiced in the past, they are part of patriarchal structures that lack informed consent, keeping people locked into, usually religious, family structures.

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

Of course.

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

No, it must be between two consenting adults. This precludes marrying a child, marrying your dog, and all the other nonsense people want to compare Marriage Equality with, none of whom can give consent.

24. If not, why not?

Answered above.

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

Yes, my Christian brothers and sisters are perfectly free to refuse to marry someone of the same gender. Or are you talking about some other “religious beliefs”? Let’s be clear: to refuse to serve someone in your public business because you think they are in sin is not a religious freedom, even if you feel very strongly about it. It is outright discrimination – just like it was in the 60’s.

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

How would these things be threatened when they are loving as Christ told them to love? If they are judging, and therefore denying services they otherwise offer the public, then that is not religious freedom. It is discrimination, and kind of just being a jerk. Our freedoms to be a jerk are threatened by Jesus who said don’t be a jerk! Love people you don’t like because of how much I love you! Jesus does not protect our religious freedom to be discriminatory and neither does the state.

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

Of course! I do it every day. I will however defer to Jesus who by example favored the oppressed over the oppressors. You cannot equate the bullying of Christians with the bullying of gays on this issue. 25% of gay homeless youth were kicked to the streets by parents on the day they came out. 40% of all homeless youth are gay. Gay youth are 4-6 times more likely to attempt suicide. Who are true oppressed? Who is the bigger bully?

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

That’s where the evangelical church has gotten this whole thing upside-down. It is consumed with behavior modification, or “sin management,” when it needs to be about loving God and loving others by building real community. Our job is to support each other in loving community and let people work things out with God through Christ. Many churches offer counseling and mentoring for straight couples—they could offer the same to LGBTQ couples. But a focus on “correction” is NOT Jesus’ focus for us, and it reveals a lack of trust in God. What would a church look like that insists on behavior modification? It would look they way it looks right now. Jesus was clear that is not our job. Christ is our mediator. He sent a Helper to lead us in all truth. What better thing do we think we need?

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

I fundamentally mistrust “church discipline.” The idea has been misused to punish those the church disagrees with and to abandon those who are in most need. It’s like an insurance company who finds a loophole so as not to have to pay the claim. Jesus calls the church to help those in need and instead, all too often, they find a loophole so they can abandon that person. Countless women in my large online moms group were abandoned by their longtime churches because they (the moms) simply supported their gay child. (The church leaders called that “church discipline.”)

That being said, if a gay couple decides to be part of a church with rules for behavior and membership, they should be held to the same standards as a heterosexual couple.

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

Christians really like to tell people what their sin is, but that is not our job. Our job is to focus on our own life, and love our neighbor and let God lead them. This is often put out there some sort of litmus test by people who don’t want Marriage Equality, but who really only want to condemn gay sex. This “standard” is not applied equally. I think it is to the church’s advantage to admit their bias.

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

The focus of the church should not be sin but on Christ. Focus on sin does not reduce sin; it increases it. Focus on Christ reduces sin. (especially when you realize that sin really is unbelief.) I think it would be lovely and reflective of Christ if church pastors were transparent about their own sin in a meaningful way, to give permission to the body to likewise be transparent. But the price is high in too many churches to be authentic. Focus on life in Christ and sin naturally goes down.

They will do what Jesus called them to do – Love God, love others, focus on their own life, and leave other people to God. They will focus on relationships.

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

Love is treating others as you want to be treated. (I borrowed that from Jesus and I can think of no better definition.) It includes the idea of showing someone overabundant kindness with no regard or even knowledge of their “sin” or lack thereof. (Think Good Samaritan.)

Perfect love casts out all fear. Love is putting yourself aside for someone else. God is love.

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

Luke 6:13. Luke10:25-37. This is a great primer for those who have confused love with behavior modification or punishment. And likely the same ones that you would: 1 Cor 13, Romans 13, and other.

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

Well, God’s great command was to love, and everything else falls under that, so we learn that by doing! The more we understand how loved we are, the more we love others. The more we love others, the more we understand how loved we are.

Romans 13 says… Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

That might be worth reading again.

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

Well of course! But love supersedes agreement! What a silly idea that love means having to agree on everything. Even sillier to think that love means discontinuing fellowship with someone I disagree with. What the heck is that? Manipulation… punishment… hubris… but not love. <3

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

This is a wonderful question, because everything has changed for me! My understanding of God’s love for all of us, of how simple (not easy but simple) the command is to love and let God handle the rest. I mean, seriously, Jesus said that if you love—God and others—everything else will fit under that! How beautiful and simple is that? I am free to love like a child loves without the ridiculous burden of trying to get other people to follow laws I think they should follow. This whole journey has been an explosion into loving God and loving others. How sweet of God to bring that depth to me in such a surprising way, by giving me two LGBTQ daughters!

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

I have become less committed to believing I have all the answers right or that the church does. Frankly, anyone with one eye open toward church history might likewise say, “Hm… some of the NON-NEGOTIABLES of the past were flat-out wrong. (Flat earth, burning witches, slavery, racism, etc.) We would be wise to exercise great humility in matters where God alone is not subject to stands that end in pratfall buffoonery such as the church has done over the centuries. (Burning the first Protestants at the stake? Really?) The trustworthiness of the Bible in praxis is only as good as our interpretation of it… which has proven over centuries to be pathetic. But my love for Christ, who saved me beyond the shadow of a doubt, has increased exponentially. He is where our faith should be, nowhere else.

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

Based on the details of your question, hopefully, none of them – as that is missing the point and heart of the Gospel. They are being directed to Jesus, the founder and finisher of our faith, and they are learning to love God and love others, the exact thing Jesus asked of us. The rest is all an outworking of that foundation, as led by the Spirit, as Jesus said it would be (“everything else will line up under those two commands).

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

More committed than I have ever been! To the marginalized church as Jesus was. To Jesus himself as the one through whom I love these beautiful marginalized people. To telling the truth about the scriptures and not allowing them to be used as a club. Yes, I am profoundly more committed.

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

Paul writes a beautiful description here of the power of the gospel, the earth-shattering good news of reconciliation between God and humanity through Christ! What a gift! I am more committed to that than ever, and I won’t let this be turned into idolatry on my watch. You see, Paul was entreating this church in Rome, whom he had never met, not to rely on their idols but to turn to the supernatural power of God toward humanity! It is idolatry itself to think we can pick out something we think we see in there and apply it as if he was talking to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters today (the purpose of this question). The height of idolatry! Look at Paul’s thoughts in Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles…”

Romans 8:35,37-39… “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?…For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

=================================
a)It is not the church's function to develop choices as to how to get around prohibitions in scripture.

b) It is not the church's function to offer choices as to how to get around prohibitions in scripture.

c) Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Rom 1:26-27...for even their women did change the "natural use" into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the "natural use" of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...

Scripture plainly states that a male is not to lie with a male as with a female. To rephrase, a man is not to use a man as he would a woman. There is a natural use, between a man and woman [Rom 1:26-27], and men do NOT replace women in that "natural" arrangement ordained by God.

No "Trick" questions; no "Trick answers." Simply a quote from scripture and the application provided by that same source.
====================================

================================
You looked in the wrong place. And Paul did NOT say “Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much." He said "2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know"

The context of your reference verses is about the people who had been worshipping idols in the pagan temples, and converted to Christ, only to later see someone who was hungry, eating meat bought in the market place, but that had been earlier sacrificed to idols, and it caused doubt in the minds of these new converts as to what they were seeing.

1 Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords many, 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Paul deals with Homosexual activity in a different chapter, but deal with it he does, in no uncertain terms. 1 Cor 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet . 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them.
====================================

====================================
FALSE! Jesus knew scripture better than any other Man, and he spoke only those things given to him by the Father to say -
Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: [color]red]whatsoever I speak therefore[/color], even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me;

Jesus therefore did not feel the need to replay the old testament rules and limitations of morality, because he knew the Jews already knew them, and because the Father did not feel the need to repeat them.

And this is what Jesus knew the Father had already established as law among His people:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The woman/wife is "Flesh of his flesh." NO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS WITH "FLESH OF YOUR FLESH." That relationship is reserved for a man and his woman/wife.

The PRONOUNCEMENT BY GOD HIMSELF: Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
==================================


"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called."[Isa 54:5]

The maker of men is God, Jehovah God the Husband of Judah and of Israel; And you see them having a sexual relationship? And you think for God to have sex with males is authorization for Christian males to have sex with Christian males is authorized by this heresy? Where in the world did you study Exegesis of Scripture?

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."[II Cor 11:2]

Here you have an engaged couple, looking forward to their wedding celebration, and you have them having a sexual relationship? The bride of Christ is going to be presented to Christ as a chaste Virgin. Not as a whore. You are so totally wrong I wonder if you even read your reference material, or are you reading someone else's opinion about it?

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"[Eph 5:25]
How can you interject homosexual abomination into a system two thousand years old? They did not practice Homosexual activity in the church, and for you to pretend they did over this absolutely stupid rendering of scripture is criminal, if anyone is listening to you teach them the bible.
====================================


Homosexual activity is NOT "love." It is what God calls "ABOMINATION" and deserving of "Death."

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Rom 1:26-27...for even their women did change the "natural use" into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the "natural use" of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...

Scripture plainly states that a male is not to lie with a male as with a female. To rephrase, a man is not to use a man as he would a woman. There is a natural use, between a man and woman [Rom 1:26-27], and men do NOT replace women in that "natural" arrangement ordained by God.

As for your assertion in response to the question - "Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?" - "Yes. He blew the doors off all our preconceived notions, always in the favor of love and inclusion, and against judgment."

2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people . 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Does "Come ye out from among them and be ye separate" sound like approval to you?
==================================


That fails to address the question.

The totallity of the question was twofold: 5-6. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship? If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

I see no basis for your protection of Homosexual activity in your response. You misunderstanding of Jesus' motivation for re-asserting the tenants of the law regarding marriage, had nothing to do with who constituted a proper partner, it had to do with the removal of a proper partner via divorce.
=============================


He was speaking against fornication; i.e., having sex as the fulfillment of lust, with someone to whom she was not married. "Porneia" included out of marriage sexual relations, beastiality, and Homosexuality. It is also the word from which "Pornography" was developed in English.

And Peter never said any such thing as is recorded in Paul's letter to Rome. Paul said it.
===================================


Remember how Homosexuals will address Christians' focus on an issue of Homosexuality? "Yabut what about adultry between Male and Female Christians?" As though they have problems in the congregation over such. The point they attempt to establish is "Our sin is no worse than your sin." And then begins the development of sin-lists with understood numerical values attached to show whose sin is supposed to be the accepted equal. That is not what Jesus nor Paul were doing.

God established the moral standard of "Holiness." "For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy."[Lev 11:44-45]

Peter re-established it when he quoted Lev 11:44-45. "Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."[I Pet 1:16]

But Paul was preaching to Jews who had converted to Christ, and were in a congragation which had also converted Gentiles. Paul is telling those Jews to remember, when they condemn someone for breaking the law of Moses, then broke some other part of the same law, they were themselves law breakers, not law keepers. If you judge someone for adultry, and you stole, you broke the same law. They taught that there are NOT degrees of acceptance for what was perceived to be "lessor sins." "Sin is transgression of the law" says nothing about worse sins, lessor sins.
===================================


You are mistaking what was with what is. Paul said present tense sinful activity will get you lost, but you were washed, sanctified, and made Holy; because of that you cannot remain in a sinning state of activity. Remaining in that category of wilfull sin, puts you right back where you were before you were washed, and sanctified and made holy. Look at the New Testament teaching on recidivism -

What makes you think a Christian can't fall away after being saved?
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."[Heb 6:4-6]

Just because the preachers promise salvation for future sins, doesn't mean God backs their promises with approval; "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"[Heb 10:26-29]

Do you have any idea how much damage you can cause by posting scripture in ignorance of its teaching? Do you have any idea how serious it is for you to depend upon commentaries instead of the Holy Spirit of God? Don't you trust Him? Why would you turn to scholars when the scripture was written by and for ignorant and unlearned men? Those who not only rely on Holy spirit Inspiration for truth, but also love the truth and defend it to the death, to inherit eternal life.
==================================


The Homosexual preachers usually reference Romans 1 when they spew this garbage. That's because their Homosexual preachers are trying to draft more homosexuals into their little company of homosexuals. It has nothing to do with what scripture actually teaches.

Here is what the UF Metropolitan Community Church in southern California published in a debate with me in the early 1990's -


THEO'S RESPONSE: Let us examine the "WHOLE CHAPTER" then, and look for this connection that you stipulate is there. I don't see it in the first seven verses: Rom 1:1-7 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't see it in verses 8 thru 12: Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

Still missing in verses 13 thru 15: Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Paul finally enters a NEW CONTEXT in which he introduces the effect of the power of God, which he calls the Gospel: Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

And he introduces the antithesis to the Gospel, the wrath of God: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So far, Paul forgoes idolatry and its currupting influences to focus on the real problem, EGO: 21 Because that, when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Finally Paul mentions that which RESULTS from the sins of EGO; rather than being the CAUSE, it is the EFFECT. It is Idolatry: 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. And when they continued to pursue their road to depravity, God gave them up: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

This "dishonoring" with their bodies, between "men among men" is NOT cult prostitution. It is SOCIETAL ABOMINATION. This does NOT describe a Worship service gone awry, it describes a society become depraved.

Rom 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (GREEK; MEN AMONG MEN) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who KNOWING THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, NOT ONLY DO THE SAME, but have pleasure in them that do them."

If anyone makes any claim that the scriptures of God teach that homosexuality is "O.K." he is either new to the scriptures, or a liar. I shall challenge him on every front. The word of God condemns homosexuality, lying, stealing, murder, and a whole lot of other things. To deny such is to fail to understand anything at all about God or his teachings.
================================


There was no such reference as "LGBTQ" in the days of those men. So please, refrain from trying to make them a part of today's understanding. The men certainly understood the bible teaching on Homosexual behaviour, and its causes and what was necessary to make it go away. This effort to pretend "I was born this way" is just another lie told to try to justify that which is not justifiable.

And now you try to intefere further by telling us that those men could not effectively teach other men of a different race, with your reference to "non-white," and in an attempt to justify bad bahaviour based upon another race's ignorance of what makes different races function. God never said, "All you whites must bahave this way, but all others can behave that way," differentiating between them based upon race. So please, stop with the nonsense.

As for your remark "They all condoned slavery;" you are talking about an institutional establishment of societal differentiation that was based upon Roman law. What in fact, could those men have done about it? Why didn't YOU change the slavery laws that effected YOUR own geneological roots? Unfair question, right? You were not there; you had no power to legislate; you had no army backing you; you had no poliotical power; etc. Neither did the Christians in the early church. They were mostly men of occupied territories, or under authorities over whom they had no power. To say "they all condoned slavery" is to assume there was even a concept of society with no slaves, available for them to contemplate.
==============================


That totally avoids the question. "What would you use to explain..." is the question. Your response of "cultural conditioning" misses the point entirely.
===================================


Why then do you accept commentaries for instructors? They do just as much damage as politicians.
=================================


It's really a silly and quite offensive response. It does not matter if parents are loving and thoughtful if their lifestyle is an abomination before God to begin with. I can show you dogs that have raised cats, and cats that have raised pigs, but dogs can never teach a kitten how to be a cat; and a Cat will never teach a piglet how to be a hog.

How do you suppose a Homosexual parent can possibly teach a dependant child about the bible condemnation of Homosexual behaviour? It is a travesty. What you are teaching suggests that the Jews who were forced to convert to Catholiocism under Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, should have been happy, in spite of the fact they were converted then killed while they were newly saved. You have no idea of the consequences of what you are suggesting.
====================================


Another attempt to dodge the issue by reflecting to another issue. Question #14 was "Do you think children do best with a Mother and a Father?" YOUR mind immediately went on the defensive to protect a lifestyle not covered by the question. You assumed two Mothers or two Fathers, instead of properly analyzing the question. Children are in fact better off with a Mother and a Father, because it better prepares them for life in the real world. It has nothing to do with those families in which one parent or the other dies or is killed. THAT becomes a whole other issue.

But question #14 is now paired with question #15; Do you think children do best with a mother and a father? If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

"IF NOT..." kinda makes your response even worse. All you needed to do was go on to the next question, to which you also fail to respond.



The questioner is not out of his depth. YOU are out of His depth. The church has as much authority as the parent allows it insofar as teaching morality is concerned. The state has a role in protecting the offspring of any family, and more so if there has been a death in the Parental aspect.
=============================


Gender has everything to do with properly applying marriage between two persons.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
===================================


Marriage laws were spoken long before problems within marriage ever developed. For you to now pretend that abberations and exceptions were what marriage law was all about is totally fabricated dishonesty. It is pretended care about anything scriptural. You only hope to obfuscate truth by inserting faults found within a society, rather than addressing the issue of "How would you define marriage?

The law of raising seed to a deceased brother was part of the law of inheritance, applied only to the Hebrew nation. It has nothing to do with marriage in the rest of the world.
===================================


Adam married his own Rib. How much closer can one get than that?
====================================


Totally false! Abraham married Sarah, and after she died, he married Keturah. That is "several hundred" short of your understanding.

Isaac married Rebeccah; no "hundreds of wives."
Jacob married Leah and Rachel; no "hundreds of wives."
There is no record of the wives of the twelve sons of Jacob by name, but by scriptural equivalency we get Abraham and his wife; Isaac and Rebeccah; Jacob and his wives Leah and Rachel and their handmaids and the wives of the twelve patriarchs, each so far as is recorded, had one wife. There is no record of the Patriarchs having "hundreds of wives" until you come to Solomon, who was never listed among the Patriarchs. The last of the named Patriarchs is "David."

As for David, he was given the wives of King Saul, which was two, not "hundreds."

2 Samuel 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Neither Saul nor David had "Hundreds" of wives.

David's son solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. He is the ONLY king of Israel who had "Hundreds" of wives. And he was not listed among the Patriarchs of Israel.

One of the Judges "Gideon" by name, had many wives, but no such number as "Hundreds" which you claim
====================================


Name one Patriarch of whom you can demonstrate incest and polygamy were part of the marriage structures. It just is not so.
====================================


It is for the protection of youth.
===============================


It also precludes marrying another of the same gender.
===================================

====================================


"Discrimination" has always been a part of God's instructions to His people. It is required. It ios written into the laws.

"Do NOT keep company with" is discrimination - "PUT AWAY from among yourselves"
1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

"Do NOT keep company with" is discrimination - "come out from among them, and be ye separate"
2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Who says "Discrimination" is not taught in the scriptures? the one who wants approval in his sin.
====================================


Totally bogus argument. We are never told to worship with the sinner. We are told to put the sinner out from among our number, if the sinner is in the minority.

We are told to "get you out from among them" if the sinners are in the majority.

We are told to convert the sinner from the error of his ways.

1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.


2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Acts 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
====================================


•20% of homeless youth are LGBT. [1/2 as much as claimed]
•LGBT homeless youth commit suicide at higher rates (62%) than heterosexual homeless youth (29%)
[actually twice as much,not 4-6 times as much as claimed]

SOURCE: http://nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/lgbtq.html
===================================


So you would make Jesus complicent in making the church a haven for homosexuals who have not repented and been converted! THAT IS CONTRARY to both Christianity and God's instruction to His people in two covenants. Don't you realize "Repent and believe" are both behaviour modifications?
====================================
[quote]29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?



That was not the question.

The question was "Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?"

The answer requires definition. What is meant by "Open relationship?

What is defined by the term "Gay couple?"



If "those who are most in need" will hear the gospel of Christ, repent of their sins, and come to God through christ, as newborn babes, to learn the fundamentals of Christian life, they will not be turned away. If they return to their "Gay" lifestyle, that is not repenting of their sin. It is continuing in sin while claiming to obey God. They have no claim on Christ if they do not claim Christ. Claiming Christ, is equivalent ot gold miners who staked a claim in order to work it and develop a gold strike. If we claim Christ, we are equivalently "staking a claim" on the promise of much mopre than gold, and a promise more precious than diamonds. We are attempting to make a strike of perfection, which makes no allowance for bringing in mud on our shoes, to the throne of God.



Then why was your above remarks even posted as part of your "sharing' activity?
=============================


The Christians "JOB" is to help the sinning Christian to recognize the danger he places himself in, and do everything in his power to help him overcome the sin, not overcome the bias against it.

1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

The sin "not unto death" is that unrighteous activity which taunts us, tempts us, drives us to the point we no longer want to get away from it, but want rather to express ourselves in its embrace. If a brother in Christ joins us in prayer, admonishing us to leave the temptation, abandon the attempt to embrace our lusts, and return to God in repentance, we have then been saved from a sin, and returned to the throne of God in anticipation of the rewards of promise that brought us to Him in the first place.

That statement "Our job is to focus on our own life, and love our neighbor and let God lead them" is as misleading as it can get, because it pretends to care about the soul of others, while practicing the selfishness of "Me." Any Christian who thinks he is NOT to help his neighbor overcome temptation, does not know what Christianity is about. God sends us for that specific purpose. We are "vessels of clay" sent to preach the gospel to those who are in sin, not so we can help them cover it up, but so we can help them overcome the temptation that leads them back into its expression through sin.
==================================


That totally misses the mission of a Christian. Christians are the priests of the spirit in a world of the flesh. "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"[I Pet 2:9]

Our function in a sinfilled world it to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, which is our service,
Christ being our highpriest, who made the greatest living sacrifice by becoming a dying sacrifice.
=====================================


No man can claim to love his brother and not warn him of the danger he is in by continuing in sin. That is the purpose of God sending us each other in the first place. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."[Gal 6"1-2]

"Bear ye one another's burdens" is not an invitation to join each other in sinful activity.
===================================


It is YOU who have confused love with wrapping the wound without first cleaning it. You cannot just take a man who has been beaten and robbed, and wrap a covering over what is wrong with him, hwen he needs medical attention. He can die of infection becuase you have just covered his problems over instead of curing them.

Look at what the man did and consider whether he cleansed the man before wrapping the wounds -

Luke 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

He applied that which heals, then wrapped. You cannot hide what is wrong, and give an appearance of giving aid. If the man is a sinner and you are knowing of it, you must first attempt to cleanse the man before attempting to hide what is wrong by the appearance of clean wrapping. Otherwise, don't waste your time claiming you love him.
===============================


"You shall not commit adultery" is in the same category of "You shall not have unlawful sex with your brother." Teaching your brother of the evils of his practice is how you demonstrate that love which is from God. Otherwise you are just another man of this world who cares less about his spiritual well being. You cannot think you oove him with Godly love if you try to hide his sins by pretending ignorance when you know full well what is going on.
====================================


Empty argument. "agreement" is too open-ended in your analysis. "Agreement about what? You want him to go to heaven, and he wants to go to heall, but you disagree with him, and love him anyway? And to make it worse, you consider trying to educate him to be "manipulation" to be avoided?

If you are married and teaching your daughter to drive, and she steers toward a car destroying pot hole, would you consider helping her to steer clear of the danger to be "Manipulating her driving experience?" Would you just let her go ahead and drive into the pot hole and break the axel?

If your daughter is blind, would you allow her her "freedom" to the extent you would not try to guide her out of danger she cannot even acknowledge because she cannot see it? Would that be considered by you, to be "manipulation?"

Why then would you let a friend, or even a stranger, walk this path in a life of danger, without trying to steer him clear of dangers you can perceive to be in his path, that in his ignorance, he cannot possibly perceive? And you think "Manipulation" would be more destructive to his walk?
===================================


How does that compare with Paul's advice to Timothy? "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."[II Tim 2:2]

Why didn't Paul just tell him, "o.k. go your way, and don;'t tell anyone what you have learned, because you might hurt their feelings if you tell them they are wrong." And when Timothy responds "But I don't want them to go to Hell for disobeying God's commandments." Are you then going to tell him "That's none of your business. What I have taught you is for you alone; it is secret; it is not to be shared." Doesn't sound like what the church is supposed to be teaching, to me.
====================================


Now you have confused false science with false gospel. It was not the church that taught "flat earth, slavery, racism." And while the church (some of it) were involved in burning witches, it was not all Christians, and should not be so applied. You are taking superstitious belief developed in one era of history and applying it as an excuse for wilfull ignorance in another era of history.

"Burning witches in Salem in the 16th century" does not excuse committing abominations before God in the 21st century. It is a false argument.
====================================


So you don't like sharing the good news about the saving eficacy of repentence? That which is the point and heart of the gospel! You think keeping silent about the activities that will condemn them to a darkness of Hell is an expression of Love?

WoW!
=====================================


Scripture never told you to get yourself "marginalized" so you could teach the marginalized people. do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
=====================================


But that is precisely what you ARE doing. You are exchanging the wonderful gospel of God for the idol of self-worship, when you allow each person to follow along by his own understanding.



It is precisely the LGBTQ practitioners who cause those divisions and creat those obstacles, by their appeal of "Love me for who I am in the way I am; don't ask me to change?" The church cannot aloow such behaviour in its midst. And it cannot allow those who teach such error, a podium from which to spread it.



Homosexual activity is not a creature, it is a behaviour, which WILL separate us from the love of God, because it is a behaviour of our own choice. Not Angels, Not persecutions,not perils, not powers, not anything other than our personal choices, can separate us from the love of God, with one possible other exception, i.e., a false teacher that teaches sinners they are all right, and that the church has no right to try to tell them of their lost condition.