Do we really want marrige to be as defined in the Bible?

[Michael Larson]

Openly "gay" Christian?

An oxymoron for sure.

How to "christian homosexuals" explain this away?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (English Standard Version)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceivedA) neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[b] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Footnotes:

(a) 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or wrongdoers

(b) 1 Corinthians 6:9 The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

How to "christian homosexuals" explain this away?

Hermeneutic discourse is above my pay grade, you will have to figure it out for yourself. The good news is it shouldn't be that hard since the way has already been illuminated by many others who have gone on before you. Many denominations are ordaining openly gay priests & bishops already, no doubt changes will begin to move swiftly throughout all organized religions. To help you on your journey I have listed some areas for you to study but in the end it is something you will have to deal with on your own.

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

The "Clobber" Passages

Prejudice in the Church

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Hermetical discourse is above my pay grade, you will have to figure it out for yourself. The good news is it shouldn't be that hard since the way has already been illuminated by many others who have gone on before you. Many denominations are ordaining openly gay priests & bishops already, no doubt changes will begin to move swiftly throughout all organized religions. To help you on your journey I have listed some areas for you to study but in the end it is something you will have to deal with on your own.

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

The "Clobber" Passages

Prejudice in the Church

That only proves that you can attempt to make the bible say whatever you want if you try hard enough.

All your links coming form gaychurch.org are unassailable, right?

You have to ignore a lot of rules of context and pretend your presuppositional bias has no effect on your "interpretation" to come up with that chicanery.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mlarson

How to "christian homosexuals" explain this away?

They don't have to. As Brian clearly explained, Christians get to go against the Bible and do whatever they want anyway. Also, you're forgetting the great factor......tithing. Once the church realizes that there are indeed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of gay people, they'll smell that green coming like Catholic priests smell little boy's underwear.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mlarson

That only proves that you can attempt to make the bible say whatever you want if you try hard enough.

Christians have been doing it for centuries, what's the difference?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kpierce

They don't have to. As Brian clearly explained, Christians get to go against the Bible and do whatever they want anyway. Also, you're forgetting the great factor......tithing. Once the church realizes that there are indeed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of gay people, they'll smell that green coming like Catholic priests smell little boy's underwear.

I think your screws are loose.

Do you need me to send you a screwdriver?

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I think your screws are loose.

Do you need me to send you a screwdriver?

Too early for Vodka.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

That only proves that you can attempt to make the bible say whatever you want if you try hard enough.

All your links coming form gaychurch.org are unassailable, right?

You have to ignore a lot of rules of context and pretend your presuppositional bias has no effect on your "interpretation" to come up with that chicanery. (my bold)

Mike,

It must be a full moon but I couldn't agree more with your assessment and the logic you used to come to your decision.

Everyone is faced with the same challenge, the question really comes down to what is more important in your life the static written word of the Bible or the living word written on your heart?

I contend that those religious folks who look past sexual orientation do so because they are following the dictates of the living word that springs fresh daily and not the letter of the law which serves only to condemn. Moreover these same open minded Christians are following the example of Christ's life and not the interpretation of Jewish law by the Apostle Paul, how else could such a movement have taken hold and flourished within Christianity?


Peace.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

I contend that those religious folks who look past sexual orientation do so because they are following the dictates of the living word that springs fresh daily and not the letter of the law which serves only to condemn. Moreover these same open minded Christians are following the example of Christ's life and not the interpretation of Jewish law by the Apostle Paul, how else could such a movement have taken hold and flourished within Christianity?


Peace.

You want to treat the"living word" in a similar manner as those who promote a "living constitution".

Both error in that they chose to ignore the original authors intent of writing the document in the first place.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You want to treat the"living word" in a similar manner as those who promote a "living constitution".

Both error in that they chose to ignore the original authors intent of writing the document in the first place.

I've said it all on this thread, unless there is a significant change, then on that note we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

I've said it all on this thread, unless there is a significant change, then on that note we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As have I.

Some want the bible and the bible and constitution to as pliable as play dough.

Others want to actually understand the authors intent and live accordingly.

They are not likely to be both correct.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Others want to actually understand the authors intent and live accordingly.

Feel free.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You want to treat the"living word" in a similar manner as those who promote a "living constitution".

Both error in that they chose to ignore the original authors intent of writing the document in the first place.

The authors no longer live here, and no longer get a say in the matter.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

The authors no longer live here, and no longer get a say in the matter.

Not relevant.

For the constitution, use the proscribed method for changing it.

For the bible, get real, If one believes it's God's words to humanity how can we change it without making ourselves higher than He.

[William J. Decker]

Herein lies the crux of my arguement, well made for me by others.

If a country does not live by its founding document, then it is not living up to its defining principles and sefl-definition.

When people state that they are "Christians" or "Jews" (i.e., religious Jews, remember Jew is also an ethnicity) or Muslims, yet act, openly and in defiance of their "founding document", then they are not living up to their founding document and are just kidding themselves that they are.

Words represent things and have definitions. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, by definition, two men or two women cannot be married.

They can, and are, joined in a civil contract, recorded by various states, and recieving many, if not all as is the case in California, "benefits" that the state chooses to bestow on them in accordance with that civil contract. This is fine and is within the descretion and authority of the state.

But Marriage is a different thing and has already been long defined and was not instituted or created by the state. The state does not have the authority to marry, only the authority to record a marriage (or a civil union, which is the thing the state does).

As you can see, the only gripes that homosexuals have are:

1) That they cannot get the people to accept them as normal (which, by definition, they are not). They have had to get selective courts, bending and stretching logic and reason and law out of all sembelance of reality, to tell some states to record their civil unions and call the marriage.

2) Since, in many states, they already have all the benefits that the state can bestow on them through civil unions, in those states, they already have equal rights. But, for them, that is not good enough. They demand to be equal.

Here is an on point analogy:

Women and men already have equal rights in front of the law. (Yeah, I know that some feminists claim otherwise, but at least the laws are written that way).

Lets say that some men want to bear children. Now, by definition, this is impossible. But these men consider this discrimination. They do not have the "equal right" that women enjoy to have a baby. They besiege government to right this wrong. Legislatures do not do this and the people understand that it is just plain crazy, but simpithetic courts rule that men can have babies, just like women.

But that does not, in any way, make it so.

It is beyond the power or authority of govrnment to do this.

Same with homosexual marriage.

Theree is a profound difference between men ane women. And it is NOT just the "plumbing". Anyone who is married or has had sisters or brothers know this.

So, the relationship between a man and a woman (i.e., Marriage) is NOT and can never be the same as the relationship between two men or two women. And all the laws and coutr rulings cannot change this.

Case closed No religious arguement.

Homosexual marriage, just cant be done.