How dare Evangelicals talk about nixing homosexual marriage?

[SoliDeoGloria]

Over times, people have strayed further and further from the bible. Things that used to be unthinkable, such as divorce, are now readily accepted.

Over time, regardless of what the Bible says or not, gay marraige will become accepted.

Are we criticizing those "mean ole" Christians for making unfounded statements and then doing the same? You may want to study history a little harder. Take for instance, There is a reason why there is a period of time in western Europe history that has been dubbed the "Dark Ages". You'd be suprised to find out how much of today's folklore comes from that era and how commonplace paganism and pedophilia were. For example, the story of the Pied Piper is a tale to explain why a pedophile was kidnapping children and killing them in the forest. But my favorite statement from this post has to do with divorce. I have a question for you. If divorce had not been been "readily accepted" until now then where did the need to address the issue in Malachi 2:13-17 come from? Here's one of my favorite vereses Ecc.1:9 "That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun."

LMAO. Um, they are cherry-picking their bibles to ignore everything but the "gay parts," you know all both of them. What about this verse:1 Corinthians 5:12-13 : "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you'." They are already cherry-picking. If they do stop cherry-picking, then I think we will be able to look back at this like we did with civil rights.

Are gay marriages not happening in churches?! Or would you like me to post Church website URL's that promote gay marriages even in Iowa?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[linwood]

Are gay marriages not happening in churches?! Or would you like me to post Church website URL's that promote gay marriages even in Iowa?

Are they happening in your church?

 

[Pah]

Are we criticizing those "mean ole" Christians for making unfounded statements and then doing the same? You may want to study history a little harder. Take for instance, There is a reason why there is a period of time in western Europe history that has been dubbed the "Dark Ages". You'd be suprised to find out how much of today's folklore comes from that era and how commonplace paganism and pedophilia were. For example, the story of the Pied Piper is a tale to explain why a pedophile was kidnapping children and killing them in the forest.

It would be well to get facts straight when you reference history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
The phrase the Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is most commonly known in relation to the European Early Middle Ages (from about A.D. 476 to about 1000)

http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jonas/piedpiper.html In 1284, the town of Hamelin is suffering from a terrible plague of rats. The town council tries everything to get rid of them -- without success. At last, the Mayor promises 1000 florins to the one who can put an end to the plague.

A stranger dressed in bright red and yellow clothes shows up and says he can rid Hamelin of the rats. At night, the stranger starts to play a soft tune on a flute, luring all the rats out of the houses and barns towards the river Weser, where they drown.

The Mayor refuses to pay the piper: "Playing a tune on a flute is not worth 1000 florins. Get out of Hamelin!"

But the piper returns on a Sunday morning, when all the grown-ups are at church. Again he starts to play a tune on his flute. This time, all the children follow him, as he walks out of the gate to the mountains. Suddenly, a cave opens in the mountain. The piper walks into the mountain, still followed by the children, and the cave closes again.

The children were never seen again in Hamelin.

You've got the date wrong for the Dark Ages and your telling of the motivation for the story is certianly suspect (which wasn't from the Dark Ages), You might be interested in a writing that, though officially disowned by the Early Church many years after it was written, had wide influence in formaulating opinion of where homosexuality originated. Source for the article anf this comment is John Boswell's Christianity,Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

 

[Jaymes]

I am not in any church, nor do I wish to be. Nor are many gay couples and their marriages. If you want to go on about the dirty icky gays ruining marriage in churches, have fun, but by that logic you've no place to speak if someone of a different religion gets married in a courthouse.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Or would you like me to post Church website URL's that promote gay marriages even in Iowa?

Please do! It would give me a place that I'd love to attend! Until then, I'll simply say that I thought trying to equate paganism and pedophilia was not the most appropriate thing to do.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Are they happening in your church?

No but I don't need to go far to find one and wasn't Paul criticising churches that were not the ones he was currently attending?

You've got the date wrong for the Dark Ages and your telling of the motivation for the story is certianly suspect (which wasn't from the Dark Ages), You might be interested in a writing that, though officially disowned by the Early Church many years after it was written, had wide influence in formaulating opinion of where homosexuality originated. Source for the article anf this comment is John Boswell's Christianity,Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

Are we going to start comparing conflicting historical sources? Can I start with "A History of Christianity" By Kenneth Scott Latourette, A Yale Professor of missions and oriental history or "Back to the Dark Ages" an article that was published as a synopsis for a book by the same name. How convenient that people are changing history to fit their beliefs although it is no suprise, the U.S.S.R. did the same thing.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[painted wolf]

if evangelicals don't want to marry homosexual couples fine... don't do it.

But please keep your lives out of my and my religions bedrooms... its not your place.

frankly I find people who obsess over what thier neighbors do in the privacy of thier bedrooms at night more than a little creepy.

wa:do

 

[ChrisP]

I'd say that the scripture quoted by Sol (1 Cor 5), is not about allowing gay people under the roof of the Church, but more as allowing them as members. This does not mean that Gay people do not have the right to marry, if they feel they should. Love is Love, irrespective of gender.

 

[linwood]

No but I don't need to go far to find one and wasn't Paul criticising churches that were not the ones he was currently attending?

Why do you care what is happening in a church that has nothing to do with you?
Can you not allow people their own beliefs?
MYOB

 

[Searcher of Light]

What is so wrong with the idea of a person changing? Scripture demands a person to change in order to be a christian. This change is continual and lifelong. I agree that no Christian has the right to judge another outside the church as Paul writes. However, Paul also writes that homosexuality is one of those things that must be changed. Just as any type of sexual immorality or lust needs to be changed. This includes pornography and other sexually charged practices.
People have a right to their own beliefs. But they have the responsibility to face the consequences of those beliefs should the consequences come around.

 

[Jaymes]

Searcher of Light: Could you please go here so that we can discuss that further? I don't want to drag this thread offtopic.

 

[painted wolf]

whats so wrong about letting other faiths decide that for thier own members?

Why does the christian viewpoint diserve a constitutional changing law to enforce its particualr point of view and make the view of many non-christian groups Illegal?

Scripture may demand change... but the founding laws of the USA demand that those demands remain out of the govermental laws.

wa:do

 

[ChrisP]

What is so wrong with the idea of a person changing? Scripture demands a person to change in order to be a christian. This change is continual and lifelong. I agree that no Christian has the right to judge another outside the church as Paul writes. However, Paul also writes that homosexuality is one of those things that must be changed. Just as any type of sexual immorality or lust needs to be changed. This includes pornography and other sexually charged practices.
People have a right to their own beliefs. But they have the responsibility to face the consequences of those beliefs should the consequences come around.

That's right, so if Satan really is God, I guess most Christians are in a lot of trouble .

But seriously, how can we (heteros) sit and judge homosexuals, when we have never been there, probably never understood loving another of the same sex.

If you were to go to your family to try and explain that you were gay, can you imagine how much shhhhhhugar... would hit the fan?

Life's hard enough for ANYBODY, why do we have to make it harder for each other?

PEACE!!!:jam:

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I am not in any church, nor do I wish to be. Nor are many gay couples and their marriages. If you want to go on about the dirty icky gays ruining marriage in churches, have fun, but by that logic you've no place to speak if someone of a different religion gets married in a courthouse.

But you have all the right in the world to criticise any religious viewpoint you want right? Nice convenient double standard.

Please do! It would give me a place that I'd love to attend! Until then, I'll simply say that I thought trying to equate paganism and pedophilia was not the most appropriate thing to do.

http://www.lordoflifeames.org (don't say I never did anything for you.)
Now, If I state that today in Iowa farmers are harvesting crops and a band called slipnot is practicing their music, the only equation is that two things happened in the same area and time period, no more. With that being noted, I will simply say that inserting meaning into my post was not the most appropiate thing to do.

if evangelicals don't want to marry homosexual couples fine... don't do it.

But please keep your lives out of my and my religions bedrooms... its not your place.

frankly I find people who obsess over what thier neighbors do in the privacy of thier bedrooms at night more than a little creepy.

But it's ok for people to parade their sexuality around right? For example, I have started 3 posts that have had to do with sexual relations and not all of them had to do with homosexuality which is a small percentage of the total threads that just have to do with homosexuality in this website so who is really obsessing here? On top of that, this particular thread was a criticism of Christianity and I am trying to defend a Christian viewpoint. Here's a novel idea, if you don't want your bedroom criticised, then keep it in your bedroom.

I'd say that the scripture quoted by Sol (1 Cor 5), is not about allowing gay people under the roof of the Church, but more as allowing them as members. This does not mean that Gay people do not have the right to marry, if they feel they should. Love is Love, irrespective of gender.

I can't love another man without having to have sex with him? The issue comes down to sexuality, no more. That is why it is called homoSEXUALITY and hetroSEXUALITY.

Why do you care what is happening in a church that has nothing to do with you?
Can you not allow people their own beliefs?
MYOB

Why don't you ask the Apostle Paul the same question. Should I care if another church is killing people in the name of Jesus Christ or preaching that christians should "hate gays"? Do you even understand the concept behind the word "church"? Here, let me help you out. When a Church does something that claims to believe in the same God I claim to believe in, it directly affects not only my own personal reputation but Christianity's reputation as a whole. The title of this thread should make that point plainly obvious. Pah didn't make this about the single evangelical Christian he was quoting, but about "evangelicals". To further illustrate my point, people that belong to this website have made assumptions of my race, how much money I make, etc. solely based on the fact that I claim to be a Christian so when I speak on these issues I AM minding my own business.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[linwood]

But you have all the right in the world to criticise any religious viewpoint you want right? Nice convenient double standard.

Nobody has said you can`t critisize anything.
They are saying you cannot deny someone the same rights you hold simply because "YOU" find then worthy of critisism.

 

[Jaymes]

But you have all the right in the world to criticise any religious viewpoint you want right? Nice convenient double standard.

If by criticize you mean 'get pissed off when I'm told I'm subhuman and that God hates me for being in a loving relationship,' then yes. (Not saying anyone on here has said that, but I'm told it often enough.)

But it's ok for people to parade their sexuality around right?

Oh god no, not kissing and holding hands in public! Anything but that! Why must you gays parade that you're gay?!

Here's a novel idea, if you don't want your bedroom criticised, then keep it in your bedroom.

How about keeping your morals in your churches if you don't want them criticized?

 

[michel]

If by criticize you mean 'get pissed off when I'm told I'm subhuman and that God hates me for being in a loving relationship,' then yes. (Not saying anyone on here has said that, but I'm told it often enough.)
Oh god no, not kissing and holding hands in public! Anything but that! Why must you gays parade that you're gay?!
How about keeping your morals in your churches if you don't want them criticized?

When I joined this forum just over a year ago, I honestly was not aware of the flack homosexuals have to go through.

This post of yours makes me feel sick, Jensa - the fact that you are told you are sub-human for having been made 'differently ' from others.

Christianity is about Love, compassion, forgiveness, non -judgementalism.

Who are the people who are more outspoken than the rest about Homosexuality ? - The ones who do not practice what they preach.......

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To answer the original question of the OP, my theory is basically thus:

During the time that Paul was writing his letters (and during the time of his education in Tarsus and Jerusalem), the writings of Plato and Aristotle were undergoing a sort of revival. Aristotle was just as essential to a Greek education as Homer (which was always popular): Homer was introduction to the Greek language and Aristotle is basic grammar, and Plato was part of the application of both. During the first century, the writings of these men were very widely circulated both in written form and orally. If Paul did not have direct access to these writings, they were certainly on the lips of whoever taught him how to write Greek (Homer) and to form his thoughts in to letters (Aristotle, Rhetoric).

In Plato's Republic, he presents what is both on the pen of Paul and on the lips of modern evangelicals. In Plato's mind, a healthy poletia is the result of healthy homes and families. Homosexuality in the first century did not strengthen the family and was not understood as an alternative family structure. Marriage secured inheritance to legitimate children, and homosexuality was enojyed by emporers and people who were married to people of the opposite sex for inheritance reasons. Also in Plato and Aristotle is the three-fold submission of wives, children, and slaves (Eph 5.21-6.10 in Paul) - which held the first century patriarchial society together. Anything that compromises this structure could be seen as a threat, like homosexuality.

Today, evangelicals are holding not only to the Bible, but to the philosophy of Plato which influenced its writers.

Put that in your smipe and poke it.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Nobody has said you can`t critisize anything.
They are saying you cannot deny someone the same rights you hold simply because "YOU" find then worthy of critisism.

I'm not denying anybody anything. I'm an exfelon who can't even vote. Let's stay on topic here please.

Oh god no, not kissing and holding hands in public! Anything but that! Why must you gays parade that you're gay?!

I know that I have seen on television that more goes on than simply kissing and holding of hands at certain parades or would you like me to show you some pictures. How naive are we really supposed to be here?

How about keeping your morals in your churches if you don't want them criticized?

I'm not the one whinning about anything of mine being criticised here. I am just defending my beliefs. I know full well that my morals will be criticised. Even the Bible warns that Christians will be criticised and tells Christians to be prepared. If I was that worried about it I wouldn't even be here. I do however find it ironic that you whine about it after that thread you started some time ago about "whinning".

Christianity is about Love, compassion, forgiveness, non -judgementalism.

Who are the people who are more outspoken than the rest about Homosexuality ? - The ones who do not practice what they preach.......

To a degree I will agree with this statement. The problem I have with it is at face value it states that Christians are supposed to be naive people who are gitty all the time. Maybe you should read the Gospels or book of Acts some time. Jesus or the Apostles were hilariously rude on occassion and called things what they were. If they didn't, there would've been any reason for people to have desired to kill them and go through with it. In 1 Cor 13 which has been dubbed "the love chapter", in verse 6 it states that love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness; but rejoices with the truth". How can one do that without making a judgement of what is unrighteous and truth?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[michel]

SoliDeoGloria,

what does 'Gitty' mean, please ?