How can any true Christian not accept a gay Bishop?

[Pegg]

so you're dismissing the great preponderance of the NT message of including the outcast, lifting up the downtrodden and hospitality to the stranger; you're glossing over the entire gospel of Matthew, who insists that we are to make outsiders, insiders -- and all because you're hanging up over, literally, two passages from Paul???

so you think there are only 2 passages in the NT about keeping morally clean?

1 Thess 4:2 "For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is what God wills, the sanctifying of YOU, that YOU abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of YOU should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in covetous sexual appetite"

Ephesisan 5:3 "Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU, just as it befits holy people"

Colossians 3:5-6 "Deaden, therefore, YOUR body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming."

1 Cor 6:18 "Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body"

1 Cor 5:11 "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

Ephesians 5:5 "For YOU know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person—which means being an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God."

romans 1:27 "and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error"

Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowards and those without faith and ... fornicators ...their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death."


My question to you is, if a priests role is to guide people to a clean standing before God so that they are approved by God....how could a Priest who himself is not practicing moral cleanness according to Gods standard be able to preach to his church members to be practicing moral cleanness?

How could he honestly stand before the church and tell them what Gods standards regarding sexual conduct is, but ignore that he is not living up to Gods standards himself?

thats why anyone 'practicing' sexual immorality should not be a priest.

 

[Autodidact]

so you think there are only 2 passages in the NT about keeping morally clean?

1 Thess 4:2 "For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is what God wills, the sanctifying of YOU, that YOU abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of YOU should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in covetous sexual appetite"

Ephesisan 5:3 "Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU, just as it befits holy people"

Colossians 3:5-6 "Deaden, therefore, YOUR body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming."

1 Cor 6:18 "Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body"

1 Cor 5:11 "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

Ephesians 5:5 "For YOU know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person—which means being an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God."

romans 1:27 "and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error"

Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowards and those without faith and ... fornicators ...their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death."


My question to you is, if a priests role is to guide people to a clean standing before God so that they are approved by God....how could a Priest who himself is not practicing moral cleanness according to Gods standard be able to preach to his church members to be practicing moral cleanness?

How could he honestly stand before the church and tell them what Gods standards regarding sexual conduct is, but ignore that he is not living up to Gods standards himself?

thats why anyone 'practicing' sexual immorality should not be a priest.

Of course, nothing whatsoever about homosexuality in there. Funny they didn't think it merited mention, especially your savior.

 

[Pegg]

Of course, nothing whatsoever about homosexuality in there. Funny they didn't think it merited mention, especially your savior.

didnt get a mention hey?

ah well, i guess thats how they justify it then

 

[Autodidact]

didnt get a mention hey?

ah well, i guess thats how they justify it then

What on earth makes you think I need to justify my life to you? How do you justify yours to me?

 

[sojourner]

so you think there are only 2 passages in the NT about keeping morally clean?

That's not what I said, was it. There are the Romans and the I Cor. passages that deal with homosexuality. The passages you show don't mention homosexuality. At all.

My question to you is, if a priests role is to guide people to a clean standing before God so that they are approved by God

That's not the priest's role. The priest may guide folks to a standing of having been forgiven, but definitely not to a standing of being clean.

How could he honestly stand before the church and tell them what Gods standards regarding sexual conduct is, but ignore that he is not living up to Gods standards himself?

A gay bishop doesn't pretend that God's standards include a ban on homosexuality. Clergy don't pretend that they are "better" than anyone else. If you don't understand the role and essence of the priesthood, you don't really have any business condemning those who are called to the clerical offices. If you don't understand the priesthood (and, by extension, the bishopric), why are you even commenting in this thread?

 

[ChristineES]

Why don't we think about this verse?:

Matthew 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." (ESV)

Can you give your idea of what this verse means?

 

[luvuyesua]

Of course, nothing whatsoever about homosexuality in there. Funny they didn't think it merited mention, especially your savior.

wouldnt that be something if God decided to have it be described as wrong, because of it not being part of nature, and he only gave his feeling, which is it is abhoring to him, (he didnt even give it a name)
I love the Abraham quote, good wisdom, it reflects what the bible says, and he was a bible reader.

 

[sojourner]

wouldnt that be something if God decided to have it be described as wrong, because of it not being part of nature, and he only gave his feeling, which is it is abhoring to him, (he didnt even give it a name)
I love the Abraham quote, good wisdom, it reflects what the bible says, and he was a bible reader.

This post makes no sense. What is "it" that you think God is describing as "wrong?" What was "the Abraham quote?" Who was "a Bible reader?"

 

[Autodidact]

wouldnt that be something if God decided to have it be described as wrong, because of it not being part of nature, and he only gave his feeling, which is it is abhoring to him, (he didnt even give it a name)
I love the Abraham quote, good wisdom, it reflects what the bible says, and he was a bible reader.

Sorry, I don't know if you're a native speaker, but I didn't quite get what you're saying here. Could you try again? Thanks.

 

[luvuyesua]

sorry , I thought it would be connected to the post I was reading,
I was referring to the post that tlks about the bible not having a name for homosexuality.
an it was Abraham Lincon quote that he posted that I liked.

be blessed

 

[luvuyesua]

The scriptures refers to the feeling of God to the act of homosexuality as abhorring,
he didnt give it a name, but only the description. (like it says for one not to have relations with ones mother (description) but did he call it incest?)
and I was saying maybe he didnt give it a name because it isnt coming from nature, just a thought

 

[sojourner]

The scriptures refers to the feeling of God to the act of homosexuality as abhorring,
he didnt give it a name, but only the description. (like it says for one not to have relations with ones mother (description) but did he call it incest?)
and I was saying maybe he didnt give it a name because it isnt coming from nature, just a thought

Well, obviously, that's what the writers thought. But you need to realize that they were also writing through the lens of their own cultural understanding. Just as we happily wear clothing of "mixed cloth" these days, we can also embrace responsible and loving homosexuality, since the injunctions against both of those things are part of the holiness code that Christians are not constrained to follow.

Additionally, the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, as we do today, so their comments are, by definition, not germane to today's American culture.

 

[Pegg]

The scriptures refers to the feeling of God to the act of homosexuality as abhorring,
he didnt give it a name, but only the description. (like it says for one not to have relations with ones mother (description) but did he call it incest?)
and I was saying maybe he didnt give it a name because it isnt coming from nature, just a thought

that's possible....its also likely that its because the bible is written in ancient hebrew & greek, not modern english and not all languages have equivalent words to match our english, but the description of the act in both the Old and New testament - 'men who lie with men' or 'men who are in lust with one another' or 'men who have left the natural use of the female' describe homosexual activity perfectly well.

Incest was described as a 'father who lies with his daughter' or a 'son who lies with his mother' or a 'brother who lies with his sister'....the act of laying down with someone was the hebrew expression for sexual intercourse. Another expression they used was 'uncovering another persons nakedness'

 

[Autodidact]

that's possible....its also likely that its because the bible is written in ancient hebrew & greek, not modern english and not all languages have equivalent words to match our english, but the description of the act in both the Old and New testament - 'men who lie with men' or 'men who are in lust with one another' or 'men who have left the natural use of the female' describe homosexual activity perfectly well.

Incest was described as a 'father who lies with his daughter' or a 'son who lies with his mother' or a 'brother who lies with his sister'....the act of laying down with someone was the hebrew expression for sexual intercourse. Another expression they used was 'uncovering another persons nakedness'

Nothing about women there.

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

Well, obviously, that's what the writers thought. But you need to realize that they were also writing through the lens of their own cultural understanding. Just as we happily wear clothing of "mixed cloth" these days, we can also embrace responsible and loving homosexuality, since the injunctions against both of those things are part of the holiness code that Christians are not constrained to follow.

Additionally, the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, as we do today, so their comments are, by definition, not germane to today's American culture.

If your going to say that you might as well write off the whole bible because it was written by people long dead from a different time then ours. You cant change what you don't like in the bible. Especially if its the word of god. You CAN disobey it.

 

[LuisDantas]

If your going to say that you might as well write off the whole bible because it was written by people long dead from a different time then ours. You cant change what you don't like in the bible. Especially if its the word of god. You CAN disobey it.

I beg to differ. Just as inheriting real state does not mean one can´t change it, inheriting a religion or scripture does not at all imply no right to improve on it, much less on its interpretation and meaning.

In fact, it seems to me that scripture must be re-evaluated along time, since our capability for complementing and deeming parts of it obsolete is not static anyway.

 

[jonman122]

I beg to differ. Just as inheriting real state does not mean one can´t change it, inheriting a religion or scripture does not at all imply no right to improve on it, much less on its interpretation and meaning.

In fact, it seems to me that scripture must be re-evaluated along time, since our capability for complementing and deeming parts of it obsolete is not static anyway.

that's the problem that we see with religion today, where there are several thousand different denomintations of christinanity, when it originally started off as a sect of jewdaism. People said they had the right to interpret the bible in any way they wanted, and to say which things were metaphors and which were not, and by that logic the entire bible is fallible and none of it can be considered true or even worth using as any kind of evidence in any way, and in fact we've already shown that it can't be used as evidence because it was not written by the disciples or by Jesus christ, it was written by men 60-200 years after the death of Jesus.

The bible was used more as a law-book, and in fact religion was our modern day equivelent to what we would now call "law" and it was interpreted literally, but just to say that that changes over time and that we can now interpret the bible any way we want because times change, implies that we in fact can't use the bible to find any measure of fair ground for homosexuality, or fair ground for anything AT ALL because the bible isn't worth using as proof.

 

[ChristineES]

I think I should repeat that what we call the Bible wasn't put together as a whole volume until long after Jesus and all the books of the Bible were written (or scrolls). The Bible isn't one book but 66 and even more with the Catholic Bible (which uses the Apocrypha as scriptures).

 

[LuisDantas]

that's the problem that we see with religion today, where there are several thousand different denomintations of christinanity, when it originally started off as a sect of jewdaism. People said they had the right to interpret the bible in any way they wanted, and to say which things were metaphors and which were not, and by that logic the entire bible is fallible and none of it can be considered true or even worth using as any kind of evidence in any way, and in fact we've already shown that it can't be used as evidence because it was not written by the disciples or by Jesus christ, it was written by men 60-200 years after the death of Jesus.

Is that a problem? I believe it is more like an opportunity. The trouble is all in expecting scripture to be a source of literal truth, when it was never fit for such a role.

The bible was used more as a law-book, and in fact religion was our modern day equivelent to what we would now call "law" and it was interpreted literally, but just to say that that changes over time and that we can now interpret the bible any way we want because times change,

I would rather say that we must take responsibility for whatever interpretations we choose to support. Not only for the Bible, but for any text.

implies that we in fact can't use the bible to find any measure of fair ground for homosexuality, or fair ground for anything AT ALL because the bible isn't worth using as proof.

That much I agree with. Of course, I don't claim to be Christian, much less a literalist.

 

[luvuyesua]

was written by men 60-200 years after. Jonman

the books that make the bible, as I was tought has one author 33 writers, in a span of 2000 years, theology teaches.
(the word bible means many books) you probably already know
and the Jewish people I think called the followers of Jesus, Christians, but not a sect, where is that said?