How Can A Church Endorse Homosexual Marriage

[Dos Equis]

Continued from a discussion I was having with Straw Man on the Political Board.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=144837.75

This is something that continues to baffle me.  The Bible is very clear about homosexuality:

1.  The men of Sodom were described as "exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord."  Gen. 13:13.  This "wickedness" and "sinfulness" was homosexuality. 

2.  There was an "outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah . . . because their sin is very grievous."  Gen. 18:20.

3.  When angels came to get Lot and his family out of Sodom, before it was destroyed, the men of Sodom tried to rape them:  "And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."  Gen. 19:5. 

4.  Sodom was eventually destroyed because of homosexuality:  "For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it."  Gen. 19:13.

5.  Later, ceremonial laws, rules, etc. were given to the Jews.  You can argue, as I believe, these ceremonial laws, rules, etc. do not apply to us today, but there is a clear admonition against homosexuality:  "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.  They shall surely be put to death.  Their blood shall be upon them."  Lev. 20:13.

6.  The New Testament condemns homosexuality.  In Romans, when talking about people dishonoring their bodies, Paul says:  "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."  Rom. 1:26-27. 

7.  In the second to the last book of the Bible, there is a reminder that Sodom and Gomorrah, and other cities, were destroyed because of homosexuality:  "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."  Jude 1:7. 

This seems pretty clear to me.  I do not understand how a church can endorse homosexual marriage in light of these verses.     

[Debussey]

Because they're not judgemental fucks like you 

[Mr. Intenseone]

Because they're not judgemental fucks like you 

Stop with your idiocy........how is it judgemental if scripture makes it clear?

[Tre]

Sky pixie freaks, unite!

[24KT]

Perhaps the sinfulness spoken of in Sodom and Gomorrah was rape, and not homosexuality?

[Straw Man]

Perhaps the sinfulness spoken of in Sodom and Gomorrah was rape, and not homosexuality?

perhaps but then why did Lot offer his  two virgin daughters to the crowd instead? 

"Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.  Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Interesting morality on the part of Lot eh?

BTW - can anyone conceive of any city, ancient or modern where all the townsmen both young and old, swarm their neighbors house demanding to sodomize their guests.   This story is preposterous and I can't believe that any adult with normal brain function would take it seriously

[OzmO]

perhaps but then why did Lot offer his  two virgin daughters to the crowd instead? 

"Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.  Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Interesting morality on the part of Lot eh?

BTW - can anyone conceive of any city, ancient or modern where all the townsmen both young and old, swarm their neighbors house demanding to sodomize their guests.   This story is preposterous and I can't believe that any adult with normal brain function would take it seriously

i agree, and outrageous stories like this one are repeated other times in the Bible.

[Dos Equis]

Perhaps the sinfulness spoken of in Sodom and Gomorrah was rape, and not homosexuality?

Nah. 

7.  In the second to the last book of the Bible, there is a reminder that Sodom and Gomorrah, and other cities, were destroyed because of homosexuality:  "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."  Jude 1:7. 

[Dos Equis]

i agree, and outrageous stories like this one are repeated other times in the Bible.

What are your thoughts on a church endorsing homosexual marriage? 

[OzmO]

What are your thoughts on a church endorsing homosexual marriage? 

Well, it depends on the Church's view of whether or not they believe that "every" word printed in the bible is the 100% word of God.  If they belive that it is then they are being hypocrites. 

If they believe the Bible is a book of stories that contain lessons from god and the overall message is salvation through accepting Christ and that the sin of homosexuality is a cultural thing woven in the many historical accounts and doctrine, then i see no problem with it.

[Dos Equis]

Well, it depends on the Church's view of whether or not they believe that "every" word printed in the bible is the 100% word of God.  If they belive that it is then they are being hypocrites. 

If they believe the Bible is a book of stories that contain lessons from god and the overall message is salvation through accepting Christ and that the sin of homosexuality is a cultural thing woven in the many historical accounts and doctrine, then i see no problem with it.

Makes sense.  I think most Protestant religions do accept the Bible as the word of God.  I don't think this homosexual issue should even be debated in those churches. 

What they do need to address is how they treat homosexuals. 

[Straw Man]

Makes sense.  I think most Protestant religions do accept the Bible as the word of God.  I don't think this homosexual issue should even be debated in those churches. 

What they do need to address is how they treat homosexuals. 

just wondering who "they" is?

seriously though, do you have any "treatment" ideas ?

forget that

back on point, haven't I already conceded that there are quotes from the bible that condemn homosexuality?

You seem to know exactly what stuff to agree with and what is DUMB

I have to be honest, I have a harder time understanding this than you do

Can you please explain it to me?

Example, why did you choose the story of Lot?

You must have read it so what should we make of the part where  Lot offers his virgin daughters to the mob of sex crazed gay guys (apparently the entire town - how did Lot not know this before?) if only they not would rape his guests (who just happened to be angels). 

What was God trying to tell me when he wrote this story or when he "inspired" some guy to write this story

Honestly, it sounds like some kind of gay sex fantasy but I know that's not the point. 

Why does Lot value these angel guys more than his own daughters?
 
I'm not kidding

I don't get it

Seriously

[Dos Equis]

I wasn't talking about curing homosexuality.  I was talking about how Christians treat homosexuals as persons and fellow Christians.  I think in many cases there is a failure to separate the act from the person, which Christians are supposed to do.  I don't view a homosexual any differently from any other person from a Christian perspective.  Their "sin" is just more open than some others.  Everyone has issues. 

I can generally tell when someone, like you, is disingenuous.  That's what makes a question about my daughter being stoned a dumb question. 

Sorry, but I don't understand your question about not getting it.  I didn't choose the story of Lot.  I quoted most, if not all, of the Biblical references to homosexuality.  I think if you read them and consider them all together they convey a very clear message about homosexuality.   

[Straw Man]

I wasn't talking about curing homosexuality.  I was talking about how Christians treat homosexuals as persons and fellow Christians.  I think in many cases there is a failure to separate the act from the person, which Christians are supposed to do.  I don't view a homosexual any differently from any other person from a Christian perspective.  Their "sin" is just more open than some others.  Everyone has issues. 

I can generally tell when someone, like you, is disingenuous.  That's what makes a question about my daughter being stoned a dumb question. 

Sorry, but I don't understand your question about not getting it.  I didn't choose the story of Lot.  I quoted most, if not all, of the Biblical references to homosexuality.  I think if you read them and consider them all together they convey a very clear message about homosexuality.   

B-Bum - I think you and I are on the same page

somewhere

somehow

I know you've read the bible

many times
 
have you ever read the bhagavad gita or the heart sutra?

[vikingpower]

the bible also said the sun was created on the 4th day ... kinda hard to get to day 4 with no sun on days 1-3

oh wait, god created light on the first day

so now light doesnt come from the sun

.

we are all descended from adam and eve who had 3 sons followed by 800 years of more kids...

if you believe in the bible you believe you are the product of incest ...

of course the bible specifically rejects incest  ... leviticus 18:6-18 ... in particular leviticus 18:9 'do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.'

.

fools will bend over backwards trying to make this fit reason but its nothing more than cognitive dissonance ... the bible is clearly the amalgamation of thousands of years of oral and written mythical tradition ... a good read but nothing more unless you have the IQ of a peanut

[Dos Equis]

B-Bum - I think you and I are on the same page

somewhere

somehow

I know you've read the bible

many times
 
have you ever read the bhagavad gita or the heart sutra?

I've read the Bhagavad Gita.  It's on my office shelf, along with The Analects of Confucius, a book on Taoism, and a book about ancient Hawaiian mythology.  Why?   

[Straw Man]

I wasn't talking about curing homosexuality.  I was talking about how Christians treat homosexuals as persons and fellow Christians.  I think in many cases there is a failure to separate the act from the person, which Christians are supposed to do.  I don't view a homosexual any differently from any other person from a Christian perspective.  Their "sin" is just more open than some others.  Everyone has issues. 

I can generally tell when someone, like you, is disingenuous.  That's what makes a question about my daughter being stoned a dumb question. 
Sorry, but I don't understand your question about not getting it.  I didn't choose the story of Lot.  I quoted most, if not all, of the Biblical references to homosexuality.  I think if you read them and consider them all together they convey a very clear message about homosexuality.   

Bum - somehow I missed this from you.

What's your problem with my question about stoning your daughter.   Why do you get to choose that some parts of the bible (such as your various quotes condeming homosexuality) as "very clear" yet other parts of the same book that condemn other things as dumb and disingenous.   I assure you that my questions in this matter are completely sincere and I've tried to make them as clear as possible.   How many times now have I've asked you this same question only to have you ignore it or disregard.   Personally, I think you feign this indignation because you have no good answer.  The only thing even close to a response is this statement from you where you claim (rather you believe)that some ceremonial laws just don't apply to us today.   This is pretty convenient.  Would you care to show me where in the Bible these laws were revoked.  Is stoning your unchaste daughter on her wedding night considered a ceremony of some kind.   I'm going to need more than just "you believe" as proof that these condemnations and their associated punishments no longer apply.  If not then what prevents another person (or another church for that matter) just "believing" that other things such as the condemnation of homosexuality (or ploughing with an ox and an ass together) no longer apply.   Your belief vs. their belief - What's the difference?

Continued from a discussion I was having with Straw Man on the Political Board.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=144837.75

5.  Later, ceremonial laws, rules, etc. were given to the Jews.  You can argue, as I believe, these ceremonial laws, rules, etc. do not apply to us today, but there is a clear admonition against homosexuality:  "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.  They shall surely be put to death.  Their blood shall be upon them."  Lev. 20:13.

Secondly, YOU CHOSE the story of Lot for it's bizarre lesson against homosexuality.    In the very next paragragh after the one you posted Lot offers his virgin daughters to the town of sex crazed men if only they won't rape his angel friends.   Why won't you comment on this.  How can you parse a few lines out of a story and then ignore the rest of it.  Do you seriously expect anyone to look at one quote out of the entire story but then not question the rest of the story.  Are you saying we should just disregard the rest of the story.   Doesn't it seem horrible to you that Lot would offer up his virgin daughters to this crowd  Seriously, you don't have any thoughts about that??  I'm asking you in all sincerity. 

[Dos Equis]

Bum - somehow I missed this from you.

What's your problem with my question about stoning your daughter.   Why do you get to choose that some parts of the bible (such as your various quotes condeming homosexuality) as "very clear" yet other parts of the same book that condemn other things as dumb and disingenous.   I assure you that my questions in this matter are completely sincere and I've tried to make them as clear as possible.   How many times now have I've asked you this same question only to have you ignore it or disregard.   Personally, I think you feign this indignation because you have no good answer.  The only thing even close to a response is this statement from you where you claim (rather you believe)that some ceremonial laws just don't apply to us today.   This is pretty convenient.  Would you care to show me where in the Bible these laws were revoked.  Is stoning your unchaste daughter on her wedding night considered a ceremony of some kind.   I'm going to need more than just "you believe" as proof that these condemnations and their associated punishments no longer apply.  If not then what prevents another person (or another church for that matter) just "believing" that other things such as the condemnation of homosexuality (or ploughing with an ox and an ass together) no longer apply.   Your belief vs. their belief - What's the difference?

Secondly, YOU CHOSE the story of Lot for it's bizarre lesson against homosexuality.    In the very next paragragh after the one you posted Lot offers his virgin daughters to the town of sex crazed men if only they won't rape his angel friends.   Why won't you comment on this.  How can you parse a few lines out of a story and then ignore the rest of it.  Do you seriously expect anyone to look at one quote out of the entire story but then not question the rest of the story.  Are you saying we should just disregard the rest of the story.   Doesn't it seem horrible to you that Lot would offer up his virgin daughters to this crowd  Seriously, you don't have any thoughts about that??  I'm asking you in all sincerity. 

1.  The passages that talk about stoning daughters were part of laws, rules, etc. given to the Jews that don't apply to us today.  I think you only ask these questions to try and justify your hostility towards Christianity.

2.  I didn't choose the story.  I quoted ALL (I think) of the Biblical references to homosexuality.  It is telling that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is referenced in the second to the last book of the Bible (Jude).   

3.  What exactly are you asking me about Lot?  Whether it was appropriate for him to offer his daughters instead of the angels?  Who the heck cares . . . besides you?  I think sending his daughters out to be raped was horrible and giving up angels to be raped would be horrible.  So was a mob of homosexual men trying to rape two strangers.  Maybe he offered his daughters because he knew the men wouldn't want them.  I have no idea.  And I don't really care.

Regarding "clear" versus "gray" areas of the Bible, this is really a matter of common sense, study, and daily living.  Christians disagree on various parts of the Bible.  Even my wife and I disagree over how to interpret seemingly "clear" parts of the Bible.  I have debates all the time with fellow Christians on various religious issues. 

But there are some things that are crystal clear, like homosexuality.  The only way to find ambiguity in the Biblical discussions of homosexuality is to check your common sense at the door. 

[Straw Man]

1.  The passages that talk about stoning daughters were part of laws, rules, etc. given to the Jews that don't apply to us today.  I think you only ask these questions to try and justify your hostility towards Christianity.

2.  I didn't choose the story.  I quoted ALL (I think) of the Biblical references to homosexuality.  It is telling that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is referenced in the second to the last book of the Bible (Jude).   

3.  What exactly are you asking me about Lot?  Whether it was appropriate for him to offer his daughters instead of the angels?  Who the heck cares . . . besides you?  I think sending his daughters out to be raped was horrible and giving up angels to be raped would be horrible.  So was a mob of homosexual men trying to rape two strangers.  Maybe he offered his daughters because he knew the men wouldn't want them.  I have no idea.  And I don't really care.

Regarding "clear" versus "gray" areas of the Bible, this is really a matter of common sense, study, and daily living.  Christians disagree on various parts of the Bible.  Even my wife and I disagree over how to interpret seemingly "clear" parts of the Bible.  I have debates all the time with fellow Christians on various religious issues. 

But there are some things that are crystal clear, like homosexuality.  The only way to find ambiguity in the Biblical discussions of homosexuality is to check your common sense at the door. 

1.  Who says these rules don't apply today - YOU??  Is that all you've got to go on?  BTW - I'm not Jewish so does that mean that I can ignore all of these rules.  What about Chinese or Eskimos? Can they ignore them too. 

2.  Why do you continue this nonsense - of course YOU CHOSE this story - Did someone else write your post.   It's hiliarous (or insane) that you pick one part of the story out of context but then just discount the rest of it as garbage.   I do find it interesting that you say you don't care about the fate of Lot's daughters.   What kind of father would do that to his children? How can you say you don't care about that?    It really does seem that you simply choose to believe as "crystal clear" only those things which fit your pre-existing prejudice while just ignoring everything else.   From everything you've written it seems that the only source or proof you can provide are words taken out of context and your own infallable common sense

3.  Have you ever paused to consider that since your wife and your other christian friends also argue with you and have a problem seeing what is so obvious and crystal clear to you that maybe you're the one that might be deluded. Your arguments are bereft of logic and "proof" seems to always come down to something along the line of "well it's obvious to me".    Do you find it a burden that god blessed you with this ability to see things so clearly when many others (even a presumably sympathetic person such as your wife or friends) can't "see it" ?  Personally, I find it amazing that you can so confidently dissect a story down to the sentence and know exactly what stuff to follow and what stuff to simply ignore.     

[Dos Equis]

1.  Who says these rules don't apply today - YOU??  Is that all you've got to go on?  BTW - I'm not Jewish so does that mean that I can ignore all of these rules.  What about Chinese or Eskimos? Can they ignore them too. 

2.  Why do you continue this nonsense - of course YOU CHOSE this story - Did someone else write your post.   It's hiliarous (or insane) that you pick one part of the story out of context but then just discount the rest of it as garbage.   I do find it interesting that you say you don't care about the fate of Lot's daughters.   What kind of father would do that to his children? How can you say you don't care about that?    It really does seem that you simply choose to believe as "crystal clear" only those things which fit your pre-existing prejudice while just ignoring everything else.   From everything you've written it seems that the only source or proof you can provide are words taken out of context and your own infallable common sense

3.  Have you ever paused to consider that since your wife and your other christian friends also argue with you and have a problem seeing what is so obvious and crystal clear to you that maybe you're the one that might be deluded. Your arguments are bereft of logic and "proof" seems to always come down to something along the line of "well it's obvious to me".    Do you find it a burden that god blessed you with this ability to see things so clearly when many others (even a presumably sympathetic person such as your wife or friends) can't "see it" ?  Personally, I find it amazing that you can so confidently dissect a story down to the sentence and know exactly what stuff to follow and what stuff to simply ignore.     

Dialog with you can be difficult, because you ask 25 questions that are all over the place, then complain when you don't get an answer to each one. 

1.  My lifetime of study, and common sense, tells me so.  That's why I don't have to kill a lamb when I confess my sins.     

2.   

3.  No. 

[Straw Man]

Dialog with you can be difficult, because you ask 25 questions that are all over the place, then complain when you don't get an answer to each one. 

1.  My lifetime of study, and common sense, tells me so.  That's why I don't have to kill a lamb when I confess my sins.     

2.   

3.  No. 

Bum - I write these post in the middle of my work day while watching the market and doing various other work related things.  It might seem like I'm asking 25 different questions but I'm usually just repeating the same questions over and over because you refuse to answer them with anything other than your usual gibberish  of "common sense" "crystal clear" etc..

Your refusal to actually look at an entire story and it's meaning (or lack thereof) and instead to pull out just the parts that support your prejudice is a joke but I won't waste my time repeating the reasons (obvious to many except you) . If you haven't understood it by now then you are most likely never going to get it.

The idea that you would never consider your point of view to be anything less than flawless, in spite of your admission that your christian friends and  your wife have disagreed, is kind of weird/crazy (for real).   Why do you think your point of view (being "obvious" and "common sense") is so hard for anyone other than you to understand?   What's their problem?   Have you tried pointing out that it's obvious and crystal clear to you?   Maybe they find your circular logic as lame as I do

[Dos Equis]

Bum - I write these post in the middle of my work day while watching the market and doing various other work related things.  It might seem like I'm asking 25 different questions but I'm usually just repeating the same questions over and over because you refuse to answer them with anything other than your usual gibberish  of "common sense" "crystal clear" etc..

Your refusal to actually look at an entire story and it's meaning (or lack thereof) and instead to pull out just the parts that support your prejudice is a joke but I won't waste my time repeating the reasons (obvious to many except you) . If you haven't understood it by now then you are most likely never going to get it.

The idea that you would never consider your point of view to be anything less than flawless, in spite of your admission that your christian friends and  your wife have disagreed, is kind of weird/crazy (for real).   Why do you think your point of view (being "obvious" and "common sense") is so hard for anyone other than you to understand?   What's their problem?   Have you tried pointing out that it's obvious and crystal clear to you?   Maybe they find your circular logic as lame as I do

You are the only person posting here who has a full-time job.   

I don't waste my time responding to much of the crap you ask me, because many of your questions don't make any dang sense.  But just to clarify one, I have discussions and debates with people all the time.  I don't approach the discussion/debate with an "I'm right, you're wrong attitude."  I actually think that on issues I call "gray areas" that it is up to the individual to decide whether they are right or wrong. 
 

[Straw Man]

You are the only person posting here who has a full-time job.   

I don't waste my time responding to much of the crap you ask me, because many of your questions don't make any dang sense.  But just to clarify one, I have discussions and debates with people all the time.  I don't approach the discussion/debate with an "I'm right, you're wrong attitude."  I actually think that on issues I call "gray areas" that it is up to the individual to decide whether they are right or wrong.   

Bum

I started this discusion (with you) many pages ago  with the question - WHO DECIDES THE GRAY AREAS? -

and the only answer you've given me is that it's just "obvious".

Clearly many Christian Churches think Homosexuality is a Gray area.   Some even ignore it outright - just like you do with stoning your unchaste daughter, ploughing with an ox and ass, etc.....

Don't tell me it's "just obvious" and don't pull quotes out the bible unless you're able to tell me exactly why one should follow those particular quotes yet ignore others.   Your subjective "belief" that some rules don't apply is unacceptable.  If you're going to use that argument that you have to provide a valid explaination of the process for making those choice or it's nothing more than your subjective opinion.

Can I make it any simplier for you than that???

BTW - if you just want to say that it's your opinion that would be fine too but stop pretending like you've provided some kind of objective proof to support your statement.   

[Dos Equis]

Bum

I started this discusion (with you) many pages ago  with the question - WHO DECIDES THE GRAY AREAS? -

and the only answer you've given me is that it's just "obvious".

Clearly many Christian Churches think Homosexuality is a Gray area.   Some even ignore it outright - just like you do with stoning your unchaste daughter, ploughing with an ox and ass, etc.....

Don't tell me it's "just obvious" and don't pull quotes out the bible unless you're able to tell me exactly why one should follow those particular quotes yet ignore others.   Your subjective "belief" that some rules don't apply is unacceptable.  If you're going to use that argument that you have to provide a valid explaination of the process for making those choice or it's nothing more than your subjective opinion.

Can I make it any simplier for you than that???

BTW - if you just want to say that it's your opinion that would be fine too but stop pretending like you've provided some kind of objective proof to support your statement.   

Actually, the topic of this thread is how a church can endorse homosexual marriage.  I quoted what I believe are all of the passages that address homosexuality at the start of this thread.  I don't know how a church that follows the Bible endorses conduct the Bible clearly condemns.  I say the only way this happens is the church engages in some contorted spin or simple avoidance of what Bible says about homosexuality.  Indeed, you've already conceded that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.  Sounds like "objective" evidence to me.     

On the issue of gray areas, that is obviously my opinion.  Some people believe the entire Bible is clear.  I don't.  Some can read a passage and see A, while I see B.  But there are some issues that are clearly black and white, and that most reasonable people would consider black and white.  This isn't something you need to agree with.  I think the Bible contains commands, prohibitions, recommendations, and advice.  Some of those are patently clear to anyone who knows how to read.  Some isn't. 

I think you're under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince you to agree with me.  I'm not.  You're asking for some kind of justification for my beliefs and you don't like my answers.  That's your problem, not mine.   

[Straw Man]

I think you're under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince you to agree with me.  I'm not.  You're asking for some kind of justification for my beliefs and you don't like my answers.  That's your problem, not mine.   

Bum - I don't expect you to convince me of anything on this subject

The problem isn't that I don't "like" your answers.  The problem is that your answers objectively don't work.

If I ask you what's 2+2 and you say "blue" it's clear you've given me an answer but it's irrelevant

At this point I'm not really sure if you can even understand that

I'm not going to repeat myself again but I do get the feeling this is either a gag on your part or you're (no offense) a box of rocks.