Ditto on NinjaPoodle....:D

Honestly, I agree with alot you have to say.

Doggystyle, you come off as VERY self-righteous in your post. You accuse people of minimizing the "sin" of homosexuality, yet, who is to determine what sin is worse? That was my point about heterosexual pre-marital sex vs. homosexuality. Believe that the ONLY difference between the two is the gender of your sexual partner. DESIRE to have sex with someone does not make you hetero- or homosexual.

The fact is that I findarguments concerning religion will always end up unresolved, because the Bible/Koran/whatever is really about interpretation. Why do you think there are radicals out there killing people in the name of religion? I mean, the KKK is reading the same Bible that we are, y'all.

Glad ya' feel me on that.http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmili.../xyxthumbs.gif

A very good point you bring up. And until the world comes to an end (regardless of how it happens) The arguement will go on. It's a US vs Them mentality with religion. Has been and will always be.

You bring up an excellent point. Would this church have been expelled if it had baptized an openly gay virgin? Probably not. When most people talk about the abomination of homosexuality, they refer to the lifestyle, or the desire, and not the act. When someone yells an insult and tells a gay man that he is going to burn in hell, that person is assuming that the gay man in question is sexually active. And, there is absolutely no basis for that.

Too often, Christians are quick to condemn others for sins based on their assumed sins. Who is to say that a person may have a desire to sin, but gotten on their knees and prayed to God for the strength to resist temptation? We commend alcoholics, thieves, and gamblers for not giving in to their sinful desires but condemn a gay person to hell for even looking at a member of the same sex.

The scripture that I have read that condemns homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22. This verse condemns the act of homosexuality and not the desire. This entire chapter details many sexual relationship that are forbidden. Interestingly enough, no mention of sex between two women is mentioned. Would this organization of churches have taken the same stance if it had been a lesbian couple to be baptized

Mathematical theory states that you cannot prove a negative with a negative. To keep dragging in the KKK into debates is irrational and deflects from the issue at hand. The article was not about the validity of the Bible, nor about what fringe nuts DELIBERATELY REDEFINE the BIBLE as.

You claim me to be "self-righteous" which is far from what my posts state. The TRUTH of what I state is that I am a sinner just like a homosexual, not better or worse. Don't even say that I am a better person. That would be self righteous. What I don't do is ignore the TRUTH nor let my politics nor sentiments nor liberal feelings rebel against the TRUTH.

I am a sinner who is saved by GRACE of my LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST because I believe HIS WORD to be the ULTIMATE TRUTH. Not mine, not my political beliefs, not the whimsy of the local populace or not by meeting some really great and upstanding people who happen to be gay. Those of you like NinjaPoodle who have no use for religion or the others of you that question the validity of the Bible, your opinions are fine and I have no problem with them, however, you can't have it both ways. The CHURCH that professes JESUS should adhere to HIS WORD. HIS WORD is the BIBLE. Not what you think, nor what I think. We can't discard verses and doctrines when they don't benefit our sensibilities. There are a lot of things that I would like to feel less guilty about. But you know what, I freely accepted JESUS and vowed to accept his precepts and commandments. Are they hard to live with sometimes, yeah. Do I find myself being inconsistent sometimes, yeah...Can I be a weak and carnal Christian at times, yeah. But the essence of FAITH is believing in something greater than yourself and having a model and blueprint for RIGHTEOUS living. A CHURCH cannot BAPTIZE an ABOMINATION. BAPTISM is the ceremonial cleansing of sins from a past life for the BORN AGAIN BELIEVER to live in Christ. If you are going to keep celebrating and living a homosexual life (or other sinful life) it is obvious that no rebirth has taken place. Yes, murderers, theives, adulterers, liars, are all in the church, the key being that they have been born again and renounced that lifestyle in order to be Baptized (of course people backslide). Yet, if they fall or fail, that doesn't excuse anyone else's sin.

If man is greater than God, have it your way. If God is greater than man, then those of us who profess him have to abide by HIS words. To denounce the inspired word of God as simply being "written by men" is our attempt to be our own God. It is the pride of man and lack of humility that brings us out of harmony with HIM.

There won't be any Amens to my posts but thats okay.

Doggy, As what some folks would call a conservative Christian (but not quite Republican, but that's a nother story!) I agree with a lot of what you said, but here's my issue.

You say thing like "yeah, I fornicate, but I am a sinner saved by grace." How is that any different from someone "struggling" with homosexuality?

You also say, "If you are going to keep celebrating and living a homosexual life (or other sinful life) it is obvious that no rebirth has taken place. " Couldn't someone say the same thing about someone who is unmarried and "celebrating and living" and actively heterosexual life (i.e. fornicating?) Are you celebrating sin when you come on here and post things about the "OWT" things that you and your bruhs do? Does that mean that you are not truly born again?

Third point I'm gong to bring up, you say "A CHURCH cannot BAPTIZE an ABOMINATION. BAPTISM is the ceremonial cleansing of sins from a past life for the BORN AGAIN BELIEVER to live in Christ." First of all, I don't believe that people are abominations. The things we do, yes, are, but not the person. Jesus never asked us to get ourselves right before he would save us. He just asked that we admit that we are sinners and that only His blood can wash us clean. Repentace, a profession of faith and belief are needed for salvation. If we, as Christians, get in the business of saying that folks can't give their life to Christ because of their sin, we are in a heap o' trouble! Does this mean that the homeless alcoholic who had a drink last night can get baptized? Does this mean that the gang banger who was out doing what ever on Saturday, smelling like reefer (do they still call it that or am I showing my age?) on Sunday morning can't get baptized?

Now, all of that being said, I am inclined to believe that this church was expelled from the Southern Baptist, not because they baptized these men, but because they do not treat their homosexuality as something that needs to be repented about. There is a church in the Atlanta area (I know you are from here...it's in Virginia Highlands as a point of reference) that was kicked out of this fellowship recently because they had commitment ceremonies for gay couples and allowed openly gay folks to be ordained as deacons and hold other leadership positions. That is just as wrong as having a single woman who is living with a man (or a single man for that matter living with a woman or openly 'tipping') in any of these positions. True repentance happens in the heart, it is not my place to judge if true repentance has happened, only to 'speak the truth in love' and allow that person to work out their own soul salvation.

Here we go!!!!!!
 

Interesting views, But I tend to agree with Doggeystyle on this one. Here's why,


While I do not agree with the bannishment of the church from the baptist denomination, we too have to understand what it means to submit. Christ's core message was love, both God the father and man (check John chapters 15, 16, &17). Part of this love was to live a righteous life, meaning you ascribed to a higher moral law than selfish desire. This moral law would be most effectively lived out if you abided in Him (Christ) and His word (ideas, logic, higher moral law) abided in you. After Christ's ascension, He promised a Holy Spirit that would "Lead and guide all disciples into all truth". Stating that a Holy Spirit would ever be present , searing the conscience of the believer and reminding him/her of the true righteousness "apart from the law". This true righteousness, though, would not violate the law, but fulfill the law (i.e. give us a better understanding of the law). With that being said, Christ himself never teaches on homosexuality, but this doesn't logically correlate to a condonement of the lifestyle. At best we can assume that Christ viewed homosexuality as the rest of the law viewed it. Now here's where it gets stickey, because there are many ways to see the Bible's stance on this issue.


Abomination-highest wickedness (Levitical law as well as Pauline) The very act of and desire for ("as a man thinks in his heart, so is he") homosexuality is the utmost of sin, because God sees this as an ultimate perversion of the divine unity of matrimonial; procreative sexual intimacy (Gen 2:24), which strikes at our core as beings "created in the image of God". To assert that same sex couples can unite in that "image" of maleness and femaleness comming together in love with the ultimate "2 becomming 1 flesh" union with the possibility of creating new life ulitimately insults the very image of God, who created human kind, in the very likeness of God, both Male and female (Gen. 1:26)


Liberal view- that the prohibitions of homosexuality in the Old Testament were prescribed for nation building. The Children of Israel were new in the land and needed offspring to carry on the nation and make it strong. Homosexual relationships can yeild no children to carry on the name and birthright of the Jews. The prohibition is not doctrinal , but practical for the Jews at the time (similar arguments are made about the Levitical calls for dietary restraints and interaction with women on their menstruation cycles, which Christians today for the most part, see as only temporal prohibitions). In the New testament, the word for the lust of men lying with men and such in Romans 1 is orexis, the lust that could be good or bad, depending on context. This lying with same sex peoples is called unnatural because, some suggest, people were doing it out of idolatrous lust and temple prostitution, which was common in the Roman occupied territories at that time. These people were heterosexuals performing homosexual acts:confused: . Therefore, homosexuality as we know it today, with the questions about whether sexuality is innate or a choice, is not understood by Paul in those days, in which heterosexual people (if you accept that sexuality is innate) were performing homosexual acts out of idolatry (worshiping wanton sexuality).



At any rate, regardless of which side of the fence you fall on this issue, the question has to be the mission of the church. I tend to believe that homsexuality is a choice, just as heterosexuality is a choice. To have the desire is one thing, but to affirm the desire and the act as righteous I believe is profane and is similar to what Romans 1 is saying about idolatry. With that being said, everyone who believes, is welcomed in the Kingdom. I trust that the conscience of the true believer will be seared by the same Truth that caused the faith profession of salvation for the believer in this issue. The true believer should not, with a clear conscience, claim homosexuality as righteousness, due to the truth about sexuality in our and God's sacred identity.

Can a person have homosexual desires and perform homosexual acts and be a believer, of course. Can that same person, with a clear conscience, say that homosexuality is righteousness, I think not, but hey, I could be wrong. The church should welcome all who believe, but as disciples, we must submit our will to God's will. A question to all who do not see anything wrong with homosexuality, can you give a higher moral claim to this assertion, other than society's own acceptance of this act or "lifestyle"?
Blackwatch!!!!!!

You put it way more eloquently than I ever could have.

Re: Here we go!!!!!!
 

That's the exact point I was intending to make. Just didn't have time to do it as eloquently as Blackwatch :D

Re: Here we go!!!!!!
 

Why? Does it really matter? I'm not being difficult just wondering why it's so important to know. What if I can't give a "higher moral claim" because I don't find it important enough to worry about? Is it really so bad to accept a person for everything that they are weather or not I agree or disagree with the lifestyle choices this person lives? The content of a person’s character is MORE important than anything else.

I just don't find it productive to subscribe to doctrine (any type) that says to show humility before a deity and be a brother to all but shun others who don't subscribe to its beliefs. It's called being a HYPOCRYTE in my eyes. I believe in being a brother to all and not just a select few.

Since I am a Christian, my answer will be biased, but I will admit that
 

Interesting discussion....

To me, a homosexual lifestyle is just as sinful as an unmarried heterosexual lifestyle, or a murderous lifestyle (serial killers) so therefore it should be treated as such. There is no such thing as a little sin or big sin, or my favorite, because it is popular or cool now, its no longer a sin. :rolleyes:

The church SHOULD be a place open to anyone (sinners, saints, and all ) who wants to come and learn what it is be a member of Christ's family (which would include giving up things of the flesh that are sinful in act and nature). I would think that the church should be encouraging those that don't know Christ, to come and learn about Him and what is required of you as a born again Christian, which includes giving up sinful things that you may have once found pleasure in.

So IMHO, they should not have kicked out the church that baptized gay men. People who have pre-marital sex get baptized every Sunday so I don't understand that the uproar is all about.

Re: Since I am a Christian, my answer will be biased, but I will admit that
 

I agree with this.






As far as I'm concerned, until it is physically proven that God actually came down and picked up a Cross pen, and wrote every single word and phrase of the Bible, Koran (Quoran) etc.., to me it is a book written by man. AND I never said I had no use for religion. I'm simply opposed to the practices of some of the major organized sects.

That was not implied or said in my statement. Those are your words and assumption.


I never denounced anything. Those are also your words.

Well this B'klyn star takes her children to church. And don't get it twisted, I love and am greatful for all of the blessings I receive daily but homosexuality doesn't bother me.

Look, I'm not judging anyone. Nah, ah. That's not what's up!

What good is throwing stones @ others when almost all of us would end up in hell if judgement day were today.

I read all of your very passionate opinions but they're just that. An opinion won't make you, break you or SAVE you. Whether your gay, straight, santified and holy, or athiest, we have all called on the lord at one time or another. I say we all take a break and repent for all the crap we done did last night :rolleyes:

Bottom Line: If you GAY, that don't mean you can't PRAY.

LOL :) I hear ya!