The openly gay bishop at the center of much of the divisions in the Anglican Communion rejected a conservative bishop's call for him to resign in order to restore unity.
"Those calling for my resignation seem to be under the impression that if Gene Robinson went away, that all would go back to being 'like it was,' whatever that was! Does ANYONE think that if I resigned, this issue would go away?!" New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson said Wednesday in his blog.
"We are not going away, as much as some would like us to," Robinson added, referring to gays and lesbians.
On Tuesday, the Archbishop of Sudan, the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul, called for Robinson’s resignation "for the sake of the Church," saying his behavior violated "the norms of the Anglican Communion."
The New Hampshire bishop has lived openly with another man for 20 years and had a civil ceremony in June 2008. The Anglican Communion, meanwhile, rejects homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.
“Three hundred bishops have stayed away from this conference because of Gene Robinson. Shouldn’t Gene Robinson resign to allow the 300 bishops to come back to the house?” the Sudanese archbishop said as he also called for repentance from the American bishops who supported Robinson's consecration in 2003.
Robinson received news of the Sudanese bishop's call just before making an address at the University of Kent's Law School's Centre for the Study of the Law, Gender and Sexuality. He was there as Anglican bishops from around the world were meeting for the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference at the university. Robinson was not invited to attend Lambeth but is in Canterbury on the outskirts of the event.
Although he said in his latest blog that he has decided not to make an official response to the Sudanese archbishop's remark, he reflected on the remark in two long paragraphs.
"Everyone seems to forget that I am not here representing myself, but rather all the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire, with whom it is my privilege to minister in Christ's name," Robinson wrote. "They have called me to minister with them as their Bishop, and suggestions that I resign ignore the vows that I have taken to serve my flock in New Hampshire."
He added that his denied representation at the Lambeth meeting also deprives his entire diocese of "a seat at the table."
The Anglican spiritual head, Dr. Rowan Williams, had withheld invitations from "bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion" when they were sent out last year.
Some U.S. Episcopal bishops are sponsoring "Fringe" events for Anglican bishops and their spouses of the global Communion to meet Robinson during Lambeth. Attendees will hear how he was consecrated and testimonies from bishops who voted for and against his consecration.
Robinson will share his own testimony but he insists the event will not be a "sell job."
"My goal is to talk about my own life and journey in Christ in such a way that those who are listening will perceive that the God I know in my own life is the same God they know in THEIR lives," he said. "Then we can wrestle with the faithful differences we have in interpreting that God's will for us and for God's church."
More than 200 bishops are boycotting the Lambeth Conference mainly in protest of the invitation of bishops who supported Robinson's consecration and the Communion's failure to discipline those who participated in the 2003 event. Conservative bishops contend the U.S. church body along with other is departing from orthodox Christianity on issues of human sexuality, the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
The Sudanese archbishop affirmed Tuesday, "We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within the Episcopal Church of Sudan. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships.”
RSS
Of course heresy won't go away unless we 'crucify' heresy. Judgement Day is coming, those who wish to remain in Sodom will suffer the fate of Sodom.
Our wicked generation is suffering the judgement of heretics being allowed to publicically parade their Sodomy even to the Alter. What a terrible judgement.
It may not change anyones mind but it does allow one to develop their knowledge of Biblical principal. It also allows for the discussion to be posted for people to read. I'm sure that not all the people who read these posts post here themselves.
It works out much like 'Conversations with an Athiest'. It may not change the athiests mind but it does provide food for thought (which is so rare in our society).
A person stuck in their ways will not change. I have found debating gets no-ones mind changed.
That is God's job, and He'd do it if we let Him every once in awhile.
God Be with you all.
Adelz.
Defense of marriage pt II just came out here on CP. It answers many of troyg's questions.
troyg,
Now we agree to disagree, I suppose.
Your inner being is no different than mine. I just think I recognize myself as a sinner to the core, and you aren't there yet. Maybe you never will be, since you identify so closely with it. But I pray you will see the truth someday.
Until then we will each believe the other is wrong and will feel sorry for other's blindness and will pray for each other.
God will sort it out later.
Hey now. I was created the way I am, and I am a sinner. Just as you say, so God's glory may be shown.
troy,
He created you to be gay? That is sick. But all things being equal, then he made the adulterer the way he/she is. He made the child molester the way he/she is. He made the murderer the way he/she is. And how hypocritical it would be of you to expect them to change.
But you could be partly right. Jesus and His disciples came upon a blind man. The disciples asked Jesus if it was because of his sin, or his father's sin that he was blind. Jesus replied that he was thus so that the glory of God could be revealed...and then healed him.
So.....are you going to allow the glory of God to be revealed in you by allowing Him to deliver you and change you? Or are you going to deny His power and make Him in your image?
"I don't believe the Bible condems who I am, or my relationship with my same-sex partner, or the sanctity of our marriage and our family."
The Bible condemns all of us. If not Jesus would not have needed to die in our place now would he? We will be judged based on if we laid down our life and took His life as the Bible says.
The Bible is clear there will be many who think they are OK with God but will find out they are not on judgement day. Whose fault will that be? Is the Bible unclear? Will people blame God or will He say...you should have died to self and lived for Him the way he said?
There is a parable of the wheat and the tares. It is where an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat. Of course, they didn't know about the weeds until they grew up. When the workers asked if they should remove the weeds the owner of the field said no. He didn't want to hurt the wheat in the process. He said it would get sorted out in the end.
If what any of us believe is wrong then we will be sorted out as the weeds. The goal here is to be the wheat BEFORE harvest. Are you wheat or weed? You will know them by their fruit.
Wbmoore:
So you and I interpret Romans very differently.
So now what?
My walk and my witness are still clear. I don't believe the Bible condems who I am, or my relationship with my same-sex partner, or the sanctity of our marriage and our family. I will continue to follow God's call for me: to be a living witness to His inclusive love, and to claim that as his creation, he intentionally created me to be gay, and blesses me everyday as that creation, despite the attempts of some Christians to tell that my very nature, the core of my being is a sin I must turn from. But I, like Gene Robinson and millions like us, must be true to myself, and true to God's calling for me.
igh, Daniel Paul,
"Then i can marry my goat!"
"OK...so what happens if someone "got my goat"? "
I'd probably have to call that sin! :)
But is it thievery, bestiality, incest, same-type, sex before marriage, or adultery? Hmmm. for some, maybe all (Some married person who is a real goat steals his father's wife to be with it, gets divorced and marries the goat)? choices choices....
oh the bad jokes keep coming.... for shame.
Troyg, (5)
â
â
Troyg, (3)
â
Troyg, (2)
â
Troyg,
â
"The religious teachers argued endlessly about what 'some indecency' meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery."
A key word here is "religious". Jesus said it was because ot the wickedness of their hearts that God allowed divorce. Therefore, the point is moot. Wickedness is wickedness.
Romans 1 is no where near word play. Sodomy is sodomy. It is a well defined word and is very clear in it's meaning.
"Then i can marry my goat!"
OK...so what happens if someone "got my goat"?
"none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it is understood today."
Ummm... todays definition still includes sexual interaction between same sex individuals, right? The greek word for unnatural in Romans means "against nature". The word sodomy is used which by definition in Websters is a homosexual act. So, YES, Romans directly addresses the act of homosexual behavior as defined today.
ok troyg , if you cant dazzle em with Brilliance , baffle em with bull cookies.
I never read such phony balogny manipulations in my whole life, and i read alot.
but hey, since the old has passed away as Paul said...
Then i can marry my goat! I know we will be very happy and have many little goatlings, and since Jesus didnt mention it 'specifically' its ok! And if we love each other it cant be spoken against as troyg has said many times.
Woohooo baby, i'm off to the chapel!
"Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians, and his other letters that Godâ??s freely given and all-inclusive love is for every person on earth."
troyg-you proceed from a false assumtion. In English we only have one word for love...'love'. The Greek has 4 words (the 4th is somewhat abstract and rarely used) for love. Paul does not teach "all-inclusive love" in the open context you are stating.
The "all-inclusive love" He which is in the Bible is the word agape which has not sexual context to it. Therefore, it does not apply to homosexuality. The word in I Corinthians 13:4 "Love is..." is the word agape which by definition is benevolence and charity.
Many Americans try to define the Bible from the English it is translated into. Every had a computer geek try to explain the ins and outs of your computer problem? :-) You have to understand the 'language' to understand the meaning....
Troyg,
I will address your dialog on Romans sometime today, there's a lot to address.
Troyg,
If we accept what God has done, then we need only believe - but if we believe, then we must obey.
Christ said in Matthew 22:36-40,
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
And then Scripture also defines Love for God, - to obey God: 1 John 5:2-3
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.
To be a Christian involves following Christ - believing in Him and obeying God.
Christ said in Matthew 7:21-23,
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
John 8:11b "... Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command.
John 14:21
21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
Paul taught the same: Acts 26:20,
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Peter taught the same: Acts 5:29,
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
The author of Hebrew taught the same: Hebrews 5:9,
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
John taught the same: 1 John 3:7-10,
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
We must love GOD more than anything and anyone - including ourselves, and we must obey him.
troyg,
Yes, Romans 1:18-32 is mentioned in the context of idolatrous temple worship; however, this does not preclude Paul from using homosexual behavior as an example of depraved morality. Why does Paul not mention heterosexual temple prostitution here? It certainly is morally wrong as well. And your rationale for 'against nature' or 'unnatural' seems weak considering that the reason the term is used is specifically to contrast heterosexual relations with that of homosexual relations; i.e., even heterosexual relations in the context of temple prostitution is not called unnatural, but homosexual relations are. Even Plato, who approved of homosexual relations, admitted in his 'Laws' that homosexual intercourse was widely recognized as unnatural.
"... one must observe that, when the male body unites for procreation with the female, the pleasure that goes along with this is understood to be in accordance with nature, but that when male joins with male, or female with female, it is outside the bounds of nature." - Plate, Laws
troyg,
"The six Bible passages used against LGBT people are often incorrectly translated and used out of context."
Not at all. Rather, these passages are often incorrectly interpreted to justify the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, many pro-gay scholars readily admit that the Bible condemns homosexual act regardless of orientation; they just consider the Bible wrong in these matters, not the interpretations.
"The Bible in the original language never condems same-sex, romantic love as sin."
Neither does the Bible in the original language ever condemn adulterous, romantic love as sin; it just condemns adulterous behavior - period.
"The Bible gives positive support for same-sex, committed relationships in the stories of Ruth and Naomi in the book of Ruth, and David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18-20 and 2 Sam 1."
This is one of those examples of how biblical passages are often incorrectly interpreted to justify the homosexual lifestyle. For the sake of brevity, here is just one commentary germane to this topic. http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/JonathanandDavid.htm
"Jesus never mentioned homosexuality"
Jesus never mentions homosexuality explicitly, but He does mention it implicitly under the rubric of sexual immorality (porneia). Jesus also never explicitly mentions ephebophelia, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc, so are we, based on your criterion that Jesus does not explicitly mention these, to consider them as morally licit?
"The Bible repeatedly demonstrates God's love, care, and acceptance of all outcast, rejected, misunderstood, and alienated people."
This does not equate to condoning and affirming someone in their sin.
"Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way, and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it is understood today."
Not sure if you are exaggerating to make your percentages better, but there are only a little over 31,000 verses â
troyg,
"Some well meaning Christians have attempted over the years to tell me my gayness is some kind if defect, something to turn from, something to shame (many more have valued the way God created me). Homosexuality is simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity."
Same-sex attraction is a disordered orientation. To say that it is one of numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity does not preclude homosexuality from being a disordered condition.
"Sexual Orientation is not mentioned in the Bible."
No but same-sex behavior is mentioned and not in a favorable light, I might add.
"The original Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no words for 'homosexual', 'sex', or 'romantic love'."
Neither did English have a word for 'homosexual' until recent, so what does that prove? In Hebrew, it was common to use circumlocution to describe something for which a single term did not exist. The Hebrew did not have a word for uncle, so when being specific, rather than using the term for kinsmen, they would say father's brother. Or similarly, they did not have a word for cousin, so when being specific, they would say for example father's brother's son. So this of course did not mean that there was no such thing as a cousin, but merely that there was no single term to specifically declare as such. Similarly, Hebrew did not have a single term for homosexual or homosexual act. Rather, they would use the circumlocution man who lies with a male.
"The Bible nowhere says gay and lesbians can or should change their sexual orientation."
No, but the Bible condemns the behavior.
wbmoore - let's talk about Romans, part III
Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency" and he used I in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paulâ
wbmore - let's talk about Romans - Part II
The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 13 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Gk word for romantic, sexual love, but Eros is never used even once in the NT. "Passions" in Romans 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs, and music.
We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and itâ
wbmoore:
Okay, let's talk about Romans. It's pretty complicated, but I'd like to quote from Turlock's "Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse" on this. I found it pretty helpful.
"The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is , "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe" (RO 1:16). Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus "(Galatians 3:28).
Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the versus.
Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is very vague and indirect.
Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between to people of the same sex who love each other.
Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.
wbmoore- sure. It was a response to believer's earlier comments:
Well, I would turn to Genesis 2:21-25
Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are "unnatural" They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships
that don't lead to having children:
- couples who are unable to have children
- couples who are too old to have children
- couples who choose not to have children
- people who are single (I may need to do a little more studying on the Biblical citations referring to singleness you refer to)
Are these relationships (or lack of relationships)"unnatural" There's nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the same sex have for each other.
But, moreover, I really base my faith on Matt. 26: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: :Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I wish the person who flags something could unflag it.
troyg, sorry.
Troy, I accidently flagged you.
please post again. I thought I was deleting a post of mine that was not saying what I wanted it to say
troyg,
"Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way, and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it is understood today."
There's a lot to cover in what God had to give us for the manual of life. One verse should be sufficient, but if he touches on immoral sex more than once, we need to REALLY pay attention, because its important enough to mention more than once.
While the concept of orientation was not discussed, same-gender sex certainly was.
"I invite all to a more prayerful, thoughtful, and caring understanding of God's diverse humanity."
Brother, I have and do pray concerning this. I love you guys. I've been there. So have my wife. We understand the desire for same-gender folks. We also understand what God's word says. We also know that God can deliver us from such things. Maybe not when we want it, and maybe not when we want it. It might take work. It might take surrender. It might take a better understanding of God's word. Who knows what it will take, as I think we are each different and respond differently. But God knows. An if you continue to seek Him and believe Him, He will give you what you need, and not more than you can handle.
Romans is clear what God thinks about homosexual sex. In Romans 1, God calls sex between men or between women sexual impurity, degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent, and perversion, and something that ought not to be done.
By putting one's desires above Godâ
troyg,
"Sexual Orientation is not mentioned in the Bible. The original Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no words for "homosexual" , "sex", or "romantic love". The Bible nowhere says gay and lesbians can or should change their sexual orientation."
No, but it is clear what is meant when, in Romans 1, God calls sex between men or between women sexual impurity, degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent, and perversion, and something that ought not to be done.
"The six Bible passages used against LGBT people are often incorrectly translated and used out of context."
I suppose it is out of context to say that Paul was not speaking to people's sexual activities when he wrote Romans?
"The Bible in the original language never condems same-sex, romantic love as sin. "
It condemns same-gender sex.
"The Bible gives positive support for same-sex, committed relationships in the stories of Ruth and Naomi in the book of Ruth, and David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18-20 and 2 Sam 1."
Now THERE is reading out of context. These stories are about two men who loved each other like brothers, and the love of a daughter-in-law for her mother-in-law when both had just lost their husbands. They have nothing to do with sex between same-gender folks. They would have been stoned to death if that had been the case, not memorialized in the word of God as something good.
"Jesus never mentioned homosexuality"
He mentioned immoral sex, as defined in the Law, and that includes homosexual sex.
Note that in Romans 3:20, God said we learn what sin is because of the Law. If you recall, Leviticus 18 defines sexual acts God considers sin, which includes homosexual sex. So, since that is part of the Law, and the Law teaches us what sin is, then yes, God still considers those things to be sin.
Romans 3:20
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
"The Bible repeatedly demonstrates God's love, care, and acceptance of all outcast, rejected, misunderstood, and alienated people."
God loves everyone. Even liars and murderers. But they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they continue in their lifestyles of sin. They must repent and believe, and they must leave their sins behind.
troyg,
"Thank you for your thoughtful responses to many comments here."
You're welcome. I hope the homosexuals on this site realize at least a few of the conservative Christians who believe the word of God teaches against homosexual sex really do love you. We want what is best for you. Few of us truly have prejudice against homosexuals. We simply see the rod of God teaching something that homosexual sex flies in the face of. We know that to continue a life of sin is to reject Christ, even if you think otherwise. We do not want you to be wrong about what God calls sin, because it is of extreme importance. This is why we speak out.
"God created me to be gay."
I hear what you're saying, but I think the interpretation is wrong. The reason is, unlike you, I think the Bible is quite clear about what God thinks about homosexuality. To reject it, by saying God created you that way, is to reject Christ.
But even if I am wrong about whether God created you gay, God is quite clear about homosexual sex being wrong, case in point Romans 1. So even if God DID create you gay, you would have the responsibility to not respond to sinful desires. Even if God DID create you gay, you do not know it was so he could not release you from it so He could show His glory through deliverance, case in point the blind man John 9:1-4. Even if God DID create you gay, that is not to say that the sins of the Father are not passed down to the third and fourth generation - it may by that something your ancestors did has caused you to be born gay. Or it may simply be something in infancy or while still in the womb. This does not mean it was God or that it was something desirable (I am NOT saying you are not desirable, simply speaking to the issue of being born gay).
" He and I have walked closely together my entire life."
I pray he does, but I fear if you keep rejecting His word, He will not continue to do so, much like what happened to those in Romans 1.
" Meeting my lifemate, my soulmate, my same-sex partner was a complete miracle and I know it was at God's hands. God blesses John and I with two beautiful children (twins, now 13 monts old and walking). Some well meaning Christians have attempted over the years to tell me my gayness is some kind if defect, something to turn from, something to shame (many more have valued the way God created me). Homosexuality is simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity. "
It sounds like you have had what we consider love in different forms. But this does not necessarily mean they came from God. Even pagans (and I am NOT calling you pagan) find love from mates and children. That is not the test of whether something is from God. The test is whether it lines up with Scripture, and Romans 1 calls it wrong.
mike2685 and troyg, as much as you both say that the Bible does not specifically condemn the homosexual lifestyle or the sexual practices of that lifestyle, still you can find no scripture to support it either and yet marriage of one man to one women along with singleness is spoken to throughout the whole of God's Word and even Christ Himself spoke to the heterosexual concept of marriage. And while you both know I do not see as you perverse and sick people still I find no scripture to support your lifestyle in the Word of God. And we know that these practices were indeed going on during biblical times and yet the scriptures are silent. If this lifestyle is a normal lifestyle why do we not find any scripture that endorses or condones it? And that being the case how do you from a biblical perspective justify the sexual practices of the homosexual lifestyle?
The human rights court has whatever power that the people bestow upon it, whether good or bad, or right or wrong. The Scriptures have whatever power God places on it, whether man accepts it or not...for man will accept it in the end.
igh-
I only speak my truth as God has revealed Himself to me.
hmmmm someone gave my questions a thumbs up
troyg and mike2685, do you support human rights courts to have the authority to edit, and suppress this type of discussion, and even to fine and imprison anyone who would debate and discuss at this level gays acceptance by God in commited loving marriages to say its wrong? Would you force re-interpretation on all verses in the Bible to reflect your interpretations in all Churchs in USA or be brought under the Authority of a Human Rights Court for Trial?
"Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way, and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it is understood today.
"
Homosexual behaviour is homosexual behaviour it does not change
"Sexual Orientation is not mentioned in the Bible"
does not need to use sexual orientation...he made man a helper which was female because it was not good for man to be alone..tells us not to lay with a man as with a woman. and many more scripture refering to marriage as a man and woman relaationship
"The Bible gives positive support for same-sex, committed relationships in the stories of Ruth and Naomi in the book of Ruth, and David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18-20 and 2 Sam 1."
these were not gay relationships.. one is brotherly Love while the other is affection for a mother in law to which her husband just died.
"The original Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no words for "homosexual" , "sex", or "romantic love"."
Again there may not be a direct translation but the meaning is the same.. If God wanted to make an exception he would have done so, he is not to small to not think of it.
Mike2685,
"Oh, yes Irenaeus, after I'm done using and abusing my boyfriend's soul, I'm going to move onto my stepmother, that Paul really knew what he was talking about, thank goodness I have you to keep me on the "straight" and narrow."
My goodness... Calm down! Let's be coherent in this. Are you saying that Paul should not have admonished this person?
Wbmoore-
Thank you for your thoughtful responses to many comments here. You said:
"I became a Christian. All of these things have caused people to find reasons to be prejudiced against me. But that does not make me buckle under to people who are wanting to purposefully blind themselves to the truth, when to allow them to do so without saying something would make me culpable before God."
Let me share a little of my witness to you. God created me to be gay. He and I have walked closely together my entire life. Meeting my lifemate, my soulmate, my same-sex partner was a complete miracle and I know it was at God's hands. God blesses John and I with two beautiful children (twins, now 13 monts old and walking). Some well meaning Christians have attempted over the years to tell me my gayness is some kind if defect, something to turn from, something to shame (many more have valued the way God created me). Homosexuality is simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity.
To be sure:
Sexual Orientation is not mentioned in the Bible.
The original Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no words for "homosexual" , "sex", or "romantic love".
The Bible nowhere says gay and lesbians can or should change their sexual orientation.
The six Bible passages used against LGBT people are often incorrectly translated and used out of context.
The Bible in the original language never condems same-sex, romantic love as sin.
The Bible gives positive support for same-sex, committed relationships in the stories of Ruth and Naomi in the book of Ruth, and David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18-20 and 2 Sam 1.
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality
The Bible repeatedly demonstrates God's love, care, and acceptance of all outcast, rejected, misunderstood, and alienated people.
Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way, and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it is understood today.
I invite all to a more prayerful, thoughtful, and caring understanding of God's diverse humanity.
Oh, yes Irenaeus, after I'm done using and abusing my boyfriend's soul, I'm going to move onto my stepmother, that Paul really knew what he was talking about, thank goodness I have you to keep me on the "straight" and narrow.
Mike2685, "I know plenty of straight people who moved in together before six months." And that could be the reason that over 75% of people who marry after cohabitating wind up getting divorced. I don't think anyone is questioning your love for your partner only that after only six months you're just beginning to find out who each other truly is and that a real relationship based on either phileo or agape love takes several years to develop. My wife and I have been married for over 33 years and in the past 10 years we've learned things about each other we never knew or shared before. All that some are saying to you is there are some answers to issues in life and relationships that because of your age and the limited time of your relationship you don't have the answer to. It's like your sharing answers to issues in the way you hope they will be or the way you hope you will respond when you come face to face with these issues as opposed to having really dealt with these issues. But your responses are no different than I get from a lot of young adults who I have counseled with both as individuals and couples.
Mike2685,
"shut up, again, you don't know anything about my relationship"
I'm sure similar was said by a certain member of the Church in Corinth when Paul admonished him for his inappropriate relationship with his stepmother.
thepenitent, shut up, again, you don't know anything abot my relationship, and I know plenty of straight people who have moved in together before 6 months. There isn't a set amount of time before you fall in love with someone, and you really are speaking from the depths of your own mind, not with any sort of authority. Im sure you'd like everyone on here to bow down to you and agree that you're so smart, but its not going to happen so long as you pretend to know about other people than they do.
"Interesting how gays are unable to discern the difference between love and lust. And unless they repent they never will."
OK...how does that separate gays from straight? If you've been around here any length of time you know I don't agree with the gay lifestyle to put it mildly. Still, we must look at things objectively. Don't the straight people have the same issue?
Mikey, 6 months may be considered a long term relationship in gayville but in the real world it's closer to a one night stand. Certainly not long enough to get past eros to agape.
thepenitent, interesting how you feel yourself so superior to everyone else you don't even know that you can make judgment calls about the kind of people they are. I know the difference between love and lust just fine, thanks.