Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

That OP is one that you have written expressing your beliefs and not simply another cut & paste job. For that I would like to thank you.The issue of homosexuality is one that our current culture needs to deal with.While many Christians may see it as a sin, there are also many Christians that see it as no more a sin than eating shrimp, cutting your hair, wearing WoolRich clothes or working on the Sabbath. There is little support in the Bible, the most often cited examples being the Pauline passages. But they are ambiguous at best and many Christians acknowledge that Paul was being hypocritical when he spoke on homosexuality.The origin of the Biblical proscription on homosexuality is in the same set of laws that Paul fought to have overturned. Paul was anxious to expand the church and so he willingly took the stand that Laws such as circumcision, dietary restrictions and dress should be set aside as null and void. He was more than willing to resort to most any subtrifuge, such as the classic example of the unnamed God, if they helped build his communities.But regardless of whether or not homosexuality is considered a sin or not, the current social contract needs to be changed.If homosexuality is a sin, then it is between the individual and God.Proscribing the social contract relating to homosexuality should not be based on whether or not it is a sin, but on our duty to Love our Neighbor as Ourselves. As Christians we should be working to remove those portions of the social contract that adversly affect homosexuals. We should be opposing the Defence in Marriage Act, limitations on access to health care, inheritance rules, rights of adoption, safety and protection, and seeing that homosexual couples recieve all the societal benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual couples.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They are, as I said, among the Pauline documents. Many Christians interpret those as other than consecual homosexuality.But the point is, regardless, whether or not they are a sin, it is between the individual and GOD. If you believe it a sin, then don't do it. If you believe that wearing WoolRich clothes or eating shrimp are a sin, then don't do it.But denying someone the rights and responsibilities afforded others IS contrary to Love thy neighbor as you love yourself.People such as Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart, Dobson and Phelps are radical clerics because they seek to impose their personal beliefs by force on others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's pretty much a recent phenomenon. Our Christian culture (actually I should include the European Christian culture) from around the 1400's right through to the 20^th. Century was far more violent than any Islamic culture no matter how fanatical. We committed horrendous and horrid acts that exceed anything even imagined in the most fundamental misinterpretation of the Koranic war verses.We are perhaps 50 years, actually less, from a time when Christian violence was common and very much like what we see in the Islamic world today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In the case of opposition to same sex marriage the bigotry is based on an ideology; their version of Club Christian.

Bullshit Phat.Traditional marriage was an economic contract.Not only haven't you read the Bible, learned any history, it seems you haven't even watched Fiddler on the Roof.Traditional marriage had almost nothing to do with love and almost everything to do with power, wealth, property.In fact as recently as the 60s in some US states women had to relinquish their dower rights by signing the application for a marriage license.Marriage was a secular contract to bind families together, acquire land or cattle or sheep, to end feuds, to establish business arrangements, to determine ownership, as political trump cards ...

You said that traditional marriage was a sacrament. That is simply a false statement. Traditional marriage was a secular contract.And who the head of my church is is totally irrelevant to the topic of marriage.

I'm not defining what is and is not relevant, simply pointing out the obvious FACT that my church is irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage.Marriage is broader than the position of any Chapter of Club Christian. By now I would have thought you would understand that there is no such thing as "The Bible".The Bible (whichever bible that the Committee of Canon for that Chapter of Club Christian chooses) should be one base for bylaws but hopefully not the only one.There are only two "Sacraments" mandated in the Bible and marriage ain't one of them.As usual, there is not one position on marriage found in any of the various bibles but rather many and many of them are mutually exclusive.John is not the Bible, nor is Paul. They only express there opinion as it existed in their time, era, milieu, mythos.In the Book of Common Prayer, something that predates even the Authorized (politically correct) King James Bible, there is no sacrament of marriage. There is a marriage service which is a celebration and blessing of a marriage. The marriage though is separate from the church or the service and it is totally secular.In the US, churches are an excepted and privileged group. If they should choose not to sanction a marriage, admit people of color, our take any other such stance within their communion, they are within their legal rights.
But that does not mean that the rest of society shouldn't look at and label their behavior as bigoted and exclusionary. In the US there is no means of forcing a church to perform same-sex marriages other than public opinion.

HUH?Did you actually read all of what you quoted?The Biblical proscription for homosexuality is among the same set of proscriptions as not eating shellfish, not working on the Sabbath, not cutting your sideburns, not wearing WoolRich clothes. It is certainly less Biblical than the prescription that all males must be circumcised. The latter was a direct contract with God, yet Paul taught that that obligation could be set aside.Jesus never taught that.No where in the Bible does it say that God said circumcision wasn't necessary; only the religion that Paul was creating said that.But again, even all that is irrelevant. Of course Paul had an agenda; to create Paul's religion. Whether or not it was a sin is also irrelevant. Sins are only relevant to what we do as individuals and how God will judge those behaviors.There is NEVER any reason for anyone to worry about whether or not someone other than themselves behavior is a sin.

No, you don't get it. It's not Christianity that is the enemy of the world, just the version of Christianity you try to sell.I doubt anyone here thinks you are evil, but the ideas you try to market are certainly vile, not Christ like, bigoted, exclusionary, pretty much worthless.

That depends. Should it include boundless tolerance of other folks sins? Yup. None of your business.

You keep writing word salad that just conflates words and nonsense.I doubt you have ever heard me use word salad like "the Body of Christ" or conflate such nonsense with the parable of the Sheep and Goats. So let's create false dichotomies and utter nonsense. Why are there only two options? How does someone know they are in communion with that One Holy Spirit? Why should anyone care?

Again, look at your quote; it's just more unsupported assertions by the authors of John and Matthew and they do not answer the questions I asked.Why is there only two choices?How does someone know they are in communion with that "One Holy Spirit?"You also are still taking stuff out of context. You said... but Matthew 12:30-32 actually says:

quote:

---

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

​

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

​

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

---

In addition maybe you should go back and read ALL of Matthew 12 so you can see the full quote mine in context.

So once again, instead of dealing with the questi0ons I asked you pull a Gish Gallop and change the subject.Look at what is in the message to which you are replying.

quote:

---

Again, look at your quote; it's just more unsupported assertions by the authors of John and Matthew and they do not answer the questions I asked.

​

Why is there only two choices?

​

How does someone know they are in communion with that "One Holy Spirit?"

​

You also are still taking stuff out of context. You said...

​

Phat writes:

​

Matt 12:30-32-- "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

​

but Matthew 12:30-32 actually says:

​

quote:

---

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

​

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

​

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

---

​

In addition maybe you should go back and read ALL of Matthew 12 so you can see the full quote mine in context.

---

Why are there only two choices?How does someone know they are in communion with that "One Holy Spirit"?Of course your latest quote mine is just another unsupported assertion, filled with shades of grey and pretty much just a either a tautology or trivially true.

From our personal experiences and empathy. No church needed. From our parents, friends, lovers; our experiences and empathy. No church needed. No one hates a church for what it does to its congregation. People may rightly ridicule some behaviors but no church is significant enough to be worth of hate for its internal practices.But when some church decides that it should mandate the behavior of those who are NOT members of that particular Chapter of Club Christian, then sanctioning that church is not just reasonable but appropriate.

You are responsible for providing answers BUT so is everyone else. Even a parent has no rights to be the only source of answers, of not having their answers challenged or of forcing a child to accept the parent's answers.