yet sadly andy stanley seems to prevaricate on issue of homosexuality
- Thread starter Word based mystic
- Start date
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Only God forgives, it is not the church's job to withhold compassion.
Word based mystic
New member
nor is it the churches job to approve of sin and wickedness.
as far as the church withholding compassion, it is not withholding compassion to see the continued unrepentant sinner to the door.
it is compassion that sees them to the door and prays that they will repent.
affirming one who is unrepentant does damage to children and the babes in Christ. affirming and giving such a one a place of authority or example is encouraging the next generation that sin is acceptable and normal.
with all implied love kiwi. get some insight.
Andy Stanley: Churches Should Be 'Safest Place on the Planet' for Gay Youth
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...net-for-gay-youth-137739/#8Z3U7gE6Ze8k6KwL.99
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...net-for-gay-youth-137739/#8Z3U7gE6Ze8k6KwL.99
Lon
Well-known member
Paul said it was. You have a LOT of love for this world that drives counter to love for God. We are to love God and love our neighbor as our self,
HisServant
New member
Here is my feelings on the Homosexual issue as I see it right now.
1.) Marriage - Marriage in the Old Testament was not part of the religious law and was left to the civil authorities... what constitutes marriage today should also be left to the civil authorities. As long as the civil authorities do not impose their laws on religious institutions (thereby forcing its own type of religion on society), Christians should stay out of this issue.
2.) Sex outside of marriage is a sin... no matter who the participants are.
3.) Homosexuality was viewed as such a grievous sin in the Old Testament not because of the act itself but because it was a violation of the Covenant between Isreal and God. (The penalty was the same as for Onan, who refused to sleep with his brothers widow to produce an heir). Jewish men were required as part of the covenant to produce an heir.. it was their sworn duty. Homosexual relationships (marriages) could not produce an heir, so it was an abomination before God.
4.) Sodom and Gomorrah, the main reason that these cities were destroyed is because they imposed themselves sexually upon each other and visitors... they thought it was their right to violate anyone they chose in any manner sexually.... they did not protect the weak and young.. they had sex with anything that moved and thought it was their right.... that was the reason God destroyed them.
To me, the sin of homosexuality isn't much different from many sins that infect any group of Christians (gossip, obesity, slander, liable, etc.).. if we refuse to deal with our own sins before pointing out the sins of Homosexuals, we are no better than they are.
1.) Marriage - Marriage in the Old Testament was not part of the religious law and was left to the civil authorities... what constitutes marriage today should also be left to the civil authorities. As long as the civil authorities do not impose their laws on religious institutions (thereby forcing its own type of religion on society), Christians should stay out of this issue.
2.) Sex outside of marriage is a sin... no matter who the participants are.
3.) Homosexuality was viewed as such a grievous sin in the Old Testament not because of the act itself but because it was a violation of the Covenant between Isreal and God. (The penalty was the same as for Onan, who refused to sleep with his brothers widow to produce an heir). Jewish men were required as part of the covenant to produce an heir.. it was their sworn duty. Homosexual relationships (marriages) could not produce an heir, so it was an abomination before God.
4.) Sodom and Gomorrah, the main reason that these cities were destroyed is because they imposed themselves sexually upon each other and visitors... they thought it was their right to violate anyone they chose in any manner sexually.... they did not protect the weak and young.. they had sex with anything that moved and thought it was their right.... that was the reason God destroyed them.
To me, the sin of homosexuality isn't much different from many sins that infect any group of Christians (gossip, obesity, slander, liable, etc.).. if we refuse to deal with our own sins before pointing out the sins of Homosexuals, we are no better than they are.
But it is the duty of the assembly to refuse fellowship
HisServant
New member
When you have a BMI scale at the entrance to your assembly and reject obese people, I might take you seriously.
it is the church's job to condemn false teachers
Paul is horrified by all sexual sin, other sins he says are outside the body but sexual sin involves the body. Homosexuality is grevious, you see society gets used to sin and that is a danger for the church.
Our standard must be the bible not what has become tolerable to society.
Word based mystic
New member
angel4truth has a good summary in post 5
Levolor
New member
Great overall post, but I am only showing one part of it that I think needs to be addressed.
Gluttony is the sin; not obesity.
There are people who are obese for reasons other than the sin of gluttony.
.
He doesn't come out directly and state what he believes about it. He has in the past stated that he differs from his fathers stance from the time he was younger and saw the methodist church welcoming gays at a gay parade to come to their church and serving them at the parade.
I would surmise from that and the op article and most recent article about andy stanley that he supports it - since his issue was not with the gay men being gay but with them being together outside of marriage - could you surmise other based on the op and the article i linked to, in post #5?
From the article in the op:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...mosexuality-stance-74262/#y7bAjBLf7u77Fbu1.99
If the gay men in question could be in service in his church outside of adultery, then he would have to be ok with homosexuality to allow them a position in the church. (which is also weird, because andy thought his father should step down when his father and mother got a divorce, since a long SBC position held that divorce disallowed a pastor to serve)
jsjohnnt
New member
A conclusion forced upon thinking Christians, in view of the fact that none of us can say, at any time, that we are without sin (I Jo 1:7-9. We condemn the sin, but not the sinner. If a homosexual is excluded, in spite of the fact that he confesses Christ as his savior, or is one searching for the truth of Christ, then we must withdraw from the obese if gluttons, the lazy, from those who do not habitually refuse to care for the needy and those in prison, any who continually sass their parents, and on and on.
Last edited:
SBC pastors can do what they want and step back up to teach more arminian bull. I think if you have a choice, heterosexual marriage is the norm as the PCUSA now state in the book of order. However I think there are people for whom that isn’t going to work, and that they would be better off in a same-gender relationship that is as close as possible to the ideal. For them I don’t think it’s a sin.
Because there’s no reason not to, and it’s better to give people a committed relationship than to leave them to try (and probably fail) to be celibate. As Paul says, it’s better to marry than to burn, unless you have the gift of celibacy. I see no reason to believe that gays automatically have that gift. Crazy how SBC are going to ask members what they do in their bedroom. Absolutely nutso.
I take an intermediate position. It’s obvious that heterosexual marriage is the norm. But there are people for whom that’s not possible or at least not a good situation. I’d rather see gays married than to put them in a situation where they’ll almost certainly be worse off morally. There’s no reason gay marriage can’t reflect Christ as much as heterosexual marriage.
I have some personal experience. My cousin was married to someone who we later found out had sexual identity problems. It wasn’t a good situation. She died in what was officially an accident, though there are suspicions. Her husband ended up changing his gender to female. He was from an evangelical background, and was trying hard to pass as heterosexual, as he had been taught. He, and particularly my cousin, would have been better off in gay relationship that was as close as he could have managed to the norm.
Paul simply had no reason to look at this question. I don’t have any doubt that he thought homosexuality was wrong, and was only conceivable among pagans. But I think if you moved him to the 21st Cent, with what we know now, and the alternatives currently available, he wouldn’t have any problem with gay marriage. He was busy worrying about relationships between Gentile and Jewish Christians, expectations of the second coming, and all kinds of other issues. I doubt that there were any Christian gays asking him for support. Why in the world would he have thought about that issue?
Can I try to make the argument that Paul didn't condemn homosexuality in the modern sense because he probably never thought about the question of gay Christians? Maybe. But still, the argument that he only condemned homosexuality because it abused slaves and kids is not tenable. After all, conventional Jewish practice abused slaves and kids, and there's no sign that he objected to that. Or even examined it as an ethical issue.
Yes, I support ordination of gays. Again, there’s no reason not to. We should judge their skills and characters as a whole. Even if being gay is in some sense a disability (because they find it nearly impossible to have what I think really is the norm), few pastors or Church officers are perfect. I’d rather see gay pastors and officers married if they are sexually active, for obvious reasons.
This is false, the SBC removes membership from churches that stray too far outside of its tenets of beliefs.
Unbelievable.
Word based mystic
New member
really..??? your more critical of arminian thought than outright sin and encouragement of leaders for the same??