This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

By Tnobes
Posts
#593444
stokesjokes wrote: January 8th, 2020, 1:46 am
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:33 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
The disclaimer here is that this isn’t necessarily what I believe, but the typical argument is this:

Paul is providing examples of behavior borne out of excessive passions. He’s speaking of heterosexuals becoming so lustful that they give themselves over to sex with men. Sexual orientation wasn’t a defined concept until 200 years ago, so the concept of a monogamous same sex relationship wouldn’t even have occurred to Paul to speak against it. Homosexual sex was closely tied to pagan worship practices, prostitution, and orgies, so those things are also contextually at play here.

As far as other passages where Paul seemingly condemns homosexual acts (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the term used is a word that Paul made up, so we can’t really be sure what it means. Does it mean gay sex? I think probably, yeah. But that’s not enough to make it a hill for me to die on. Now, if we’re talking about clear and plain readings of scripture, it would have been nice of Paul to use any of the common words from back then for gay sex, but he didn’t and we have to ask both: why he didn’t and what he really means by his made up word.

Now, that’s gray enough for me to be ok with the uncertainty. If I’m honest, I lean side B, but I’ll defend side A because I’m open to being wrong on a debatable matter. And, really, I don’t think any of us has it completely right anyway.
Except that God defined marriage as one man and one woman and he created sex for within the marriage relationship. Therefore it is impossible to have a same sex relationship that is holy since same sex marriage is pretend in God's eyes. We don't need to look any further than Genesis when talking about homosexuality, although the rest of the Bible condemned it also
#593447
And you may be right. As I’ve said, I lean side B anyway. I’m not trying to convince you to be 100% affirming, I’m trying to show that an earnest, Bible-believing Christian can come to an affirming position, and that’s ok. This business of declaring people who take a different stance on a non-gospel issue as not Christians or unsaved or destined for hell, however you want to spin it is not edifying for the body.

Think of it this way: some Christians are charismatic, some are cessationists. Should a cessationist say that a charismatic is hell bound for speaking in tongues? Should a charismatic say that a cessationist isn’t a Christian because they haven’t been “baptized in the spirit?” It’s unnecessarily divisive and exclusionary. If a person follows Jesus to the best of their convictions, knowledge, and ability, that’s good enough.

I appreciate the discussion, guys, and hope it’s been productive, I’m going to call it a day from my end.
ATrain liked this
By LUDad
Posts
#593449
stokesjokes wrote: January 8th, 2020, 1:46 am
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:33 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
The disclaimer here is that this isn’t necessarily what I believe, but the typical argument is this:

Paul is providing examples of behavior borne out of excessive passions. He’s speaking of heterosexuals becoming so lustful that they give themselves over to sex with men. Sexual orientation wasn’t a defined concept until 200 years ago, so the concept of a monogamous same sex relationship wouldn’t even have occurred to Paul to speak against it. Homosexual sex was closely tied to pagan worship practices, prostitution, and orgies, so those things are also contextually at play here.

As far as other passages where Paul seemingly condemns homosexual acts (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the term used is a word that Paul made up, so we can’t really be sure what it means. Does it mean gay sex? I think probably, yeah. But that’s not enough to make it a hill for me to die on. Now, if we’re talking about clear and plain readings of scripture, it would have been nice of Paul to use any of the common words from back then for gay sex, but he didn’t and we have to ask both: why he didn’t and what he really means by his made up word.

Now, that’s gray enough for me to be ok with the uncertainty. If I’m honest, I lean side B, but I’ll defend side A because I’m open to being wrong on a debatable matter. And, really, I don’t think any of us has it completely right anyway.
That arguement does not fly. There is no "gay" gene. Every man is heterosexual until they commit to their lustful desires. Naturally there are tendencies, predisposes and such that run in family lines that would make someone more susceptible to particular hurtful habits and sins but if they are never overcome with lusts or desires to act that first time they cannot be, in this particular case, homosexual. If alcoholism runs in a family line you still cannot become an alcoholic until you are tempted to take that first drink.
By Tnobes
Posts
#593470
LUDad wrote: January 8th, 2020, 2:06 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 8th, 2020, 1:46 am
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:33 pm

How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
The disclaimer here is that this isn’t necessarily what I believe, but the typical argument is this:

Paul is providing examples of behavior borne out of excessive passions. He’s speaking of heterosexuals becoming so lustful that they give themselves over to sex with men. Sexual orientation wasn’t a defined concept until 200 years ago, so the concept of a monogamous same sex relationship wouldn’t even have occurred to Paul to speak against it. Homosexual sex was closely tied to pagan worship practices, prostitution, and orgies, so those things are also contextually at play here.

As far as other passages where Paul seemingly condemns homosexual acts (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the term used is a word that Paul made up, so we can’t really be sure what it means. Does it mean gay sex? I think probably, yeah. But that’s not enough to make it a hill for me to die on. Now, if we’re talking about clear and plain readings of scripture, it would have been nice of Paul to use any of the common words from back then for gay sex, but he didn’t and we have to ask both: why he didn’t and what he really means by his made up word.

Now, that’s gray enough for me to be ok with the uncertainty. If I’m honest, I lean side B, but I’ll defend side A because I’m open to being wrong on a debatable matter. And, really, I don’t think any of us has it completely right anyway.
That arguement does not fly. There is no "gay" gene. Every man is heterosexual until they commit to their lustful desires. Naturally there are tendencies, predisposes and such that run in family lines that would make someone more susceptible to particular hurtful habits and sins but if they are never overcome with lusts or desires to act that first time they cannot be, in this particular case, homosexual. If alcoholism runs in a family line you still cannot become an alcoholic until you are tempted to take that first drink.
I completely agree with this.
#593471
LUDad wrote: January 8th, 2020, 2:06 pm
That arguement does not fly. There is no "gay" gene. Every man is heterosexual until they commit to their lustful desires. Naturally there are tendencies, predisposes and such that run in family lines that would make someone more susceptible to particular hurtful habits and sins but if they are never overcome with lusts or desires to act that first time they cannot be, in this particular case, homosexual. If alcoholism runs in a family line you still cannot become an alcoholic until you are tempted to take that first drink.
I want to be clear I'm disagreeing with this thinking and not attacking you.

This line of thinking is pretty disingenuous. How can you say that every person is heterosexual but immediately after say there are predispositions? Those are contrary statements.

I really recommend you sit down and listen to the testimony of SSA but celibate Christians. Don't try to shoehorn your thinking on them. They're the ones tempted by this, they know what and how the Devil works in that arena better than any hetero person out there.
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#593477
The Methodist Church topic got way off topic and so this will be the home for the discussion on Gay marriage. Please keep it respectful.
rtb72 liked this
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
Posts
#593479
thepostman wrote: January 9th, 2020, 10:14 am The Methodist Church topic got way off topic and so this will be the home for the discussion on Gay marriage. Please keep it respectful.
I still think it's pretty on topic,the church is splitting because of issues surrounding SSA, marriage, clergy, and sin.
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#593480
Yes but I think it deserves it's own topic because it is certainly an issue being debated among many denominations. It is an important issue to discuss but hopefully in a respectful way.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#593505
ballcoach15 wrote: January 9th, 2020, 6:33 pm Gay marriage will send many people to hell. It's wrong and should never be tolerated in any situation..
Yes, your opinion on this issue has been read and acknowledged many times
Purple Haize, adam42381 liked this
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#593506
Thanks @ATrain , I knew it had been discussed previously so I appreciate you pointing us in that direction.

@ballcoach15 For the sake of avoiding going off the rails please provide reasoning (scripture). This is a heated topic and flippant comments will not add to the discussion.
By Tnobes
Posts
#593512
Purple Haize wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:01 pm
ballcoach15 wrote: January 9th, 2020, 6:33 pm Gay marriage will send many people to hell. It's wrong and should never be tolerated in any situation..
So will
Pride
Gluttony
Wrath
Envy
Sloth
Lust
Greed
Only difference is that absolutely nobody says pride, gluttony, wrath, envy, sloth, lust, or greed are good things to be celebrated. Someone once said that the church hasn't been as tough on divorce as they have been on Homosexuality, however in a divorce everyone acknowledges that it's a sad situation and nobody celebrates it, affirming churches are celebrating homosexuality and that is the important difference in the argument.
sstaedtler liked this
User avatar
By chris leedlelee
Posts
#593514
Purple Haize wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:01 pm
ballcoach15 wrote: January 9th, 2020, 6:33 pm Gay marriage will send many people to hell. It's wrong and should never be tolerated in any situation..
So will
Pride
Gluttony
Wrath
Envy
Sloth
Lust
Greed
I think that the church places so much emphasis on the sin of homosexuality for a few reasons:
1) Homosexuality is pushed so heavily in our society, with a magnitude truly unlike any sin in our modern American culture.
2) Homosexuality is acknowledged in Romans 1 as a deeper progression of sexual sin, therefore warrants a greater warning.
3) By endorsing homosexuality, a church is either denying the inerrancy of Scripture or blatantly ignoring Scripture, both fatal flaws.
4) There are still some in the church who emphasize homosexuality over other sins because this is not what he/she has ever struggled with. This has been a common thread in the church for various sins throughout history. This is why it is always important Christian reproof and counsel be always made out of love to avoid this.
Rubicon, sstaedtler liked this
User avatar
By adam42381
Registration Days Posts
#593519
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:53 pm
ATrain wrote: January 9th, 2020, 6:12 pm The theology of it has been hashed out before on this board: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12942
I was so scared 2009 me was going to say something stupid in that thread.
I was mad that 2009 me didn’t say anything. Finally found a short comment on page 4.
ATrain liked this
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#593521
Tnobes wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:26 pm
Purple Haize wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:01 pm
ballcoach15 wrote: January 9th, 2020, 6:33 pm Gay marriage will send many people to hell. It's wrong and should never be tolerated in any situation..
So will
Pride
Gluttony
Wrath
Envy
Sloth
Lust
Greed
Only difference is that absolutely nobody says pride, gluttony, wrath, envy, sloth, lust, or greed are good things to be celebrated. Someone once said that the church hasn't been as tough on divorce as they have been on Homosexuality, however in a divorce everyone acknowledges that it's a sad situation and nobody celebrates it, affirming churches are celebrating homosexuality and that is the important difference in the argument.
Have you seen some of the church buildings? Salaries of Pastors? Greed and Pride are certainly celebrated
Sloth ? Try getting someone to start or help with a Ministry
Gluttony? One of my favorite lines from Sr was “You’ll hear me speak out on homosexuality, but you won’t hear me speak out much on Gluttony” as he rubbed his belly. Made me laugh. Loved that guy
Wrath? Seems a lot of people are ready to condemn people to Hell at the drop of a hat

Then lets have fun with your body being the Temple of God and how you interpret that. So without knowing it, lots of churches are affirming some of those Seven and not even realizing it
ATrain, Class of 20Something, rtb72 and 1 others liked this
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#593522
adam42381 wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:56 pm
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:53 pm
ATrain wrote: January 9th, 2020, 6:12 pm The theology of it has been hashed out before on this board: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12942
I was so scared 2009 me was going to say something stupid in that thread.
I was mad that 2009 me didn’t say anything. Finally found a short comment on page 4.
Its all good my friend!
adam42381 liked this
User avatar
By chris leedlelee
Posts
#593526
Purple Haize wrote: January 9th, 2020, 9:23 pm Have you seen some of the church buildings?
Off-topic thought that is completely unrelated to this thread... One thing that Protestants could learn from Catholics is that a church building should elicit reverence and awe, such that the members understand the gravity of approaching the Lord in worship. I believe this could be done without forgoing any essential aspects of ministry if certain things that modern churches invest in weren't seen as essential, such as fancy lighting, sound equipment, large numbers of moderately talented singers in skinny jeans on payroll, celebrity pastor salaries, etc...

It's no coincidence that trendy postmodern church buildings often correlate with a watered-down gospel inside the building.
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#593534
chris leedlelee wrote: January 9th, 2020, 9:38 pm

It's no coincidence that trendy postmodern church buildings often correlate with a watered-down gospel inside the building.

I am sure this is the case in some of these churches but this seems to be an overgenralization that is based more on perception and less in reality.

Regardless of style, you will find some that are very grounded in the word and you will find some that are not.

Back to the Gay marriage discussion. I think there is a lot of good things in the thread that @ATrain posted the link to. I have my personal convictions and will keep those to myself but I do not think the government needs to get involved and tell 2 consenting adults that they can not get married. On the flip side of that, the government should not get into the business of telling churches what they must do in regards to marriage ceremonies. That is such a slippery slope and I want nothing to do with that.

Just my 2 cents.
By LUDad
Posts
#593537
Class of 20Something wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:00 am
LUDad wrote: January 8th, 2020, 2:06 pm
That arguement does not fly. There is no "gay" gene. Every man is heterosexual until they commit to their lustful desires. Naturally there are tendencies, predisposes and such that run in family lines that would make someone more susceptible to particular hurtful habits and sins but if they are never overcome with lusts or desires to act that first time they cannot be, in this particular case, homosexual. If alcoholism runs in a family line you still cannot become an alcoholic until you are tempted to take that first drink.
I want to be clear I'm disagreeing with this thinking and not attacking you.

This line of thinking is pretty disingenuous. How can you say that every person is heterosexual but immediately after say there are predispositions? Those are contrary statements.

I really recommend you sit down and listen to the testimony of SSA but celibate Christians. Don't try to shoehorn your thinking on them. They're the ones tempted by this, they know what and how the Devil works in that arena better than any hetero person out there.
No offense taken. I think you can answer your own question by answering my 2nd statement. Can a person be an alcoholic, if he never takes that first drink? Everyone has to answer to the decisions they make.

I get that people struggle with things. I could easily be an alcoholic or a broken gambler. We all have temptations we have to resist. Bottom line, God call's it a sin. I've worked with a number of gays that I liked. I had friend that was gay that needed a place to stay for a while in my single days. We got alone fine. You don't have to be homophobic or uncompassionate to be against that life style. I do, however, an issue with gays who push their agenda.
sstaedtler liked this
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
Posts
#593540
Is an alcoholic not an alcoholic of they've never had a drink? Of course they are. They have no way of knowing, but the predisposition and the temptation can still be there. Implying that every man is hetero until they have a homosexual act then are stuck there is just ignorant(word used for lack of knowledge not as a person incapable of thought). Have you never met someone that is SSA but hasn't ever acted on it?
stokesjokes, rogers3 liked this
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#593541
thepostman wrote: January 9th, 2020, 10:37 pm
chris leedlelee wrote: January 9th, 2020, 9:38 pm

It's no coincidence that trendy postmodern church buildings often correlate with a watered-down gospel inside the building.

I am sure this is the case in some of these churches but this seems to be an overgenralization that is based more on perception and less in reality.

Regardless of style, you will find some that are very grounded in the word and you will find some that are not.

Back to the Gay marriage discussion. I think there is a lot of good things in the thread that @ATrain posted the link to. I have my personal convictions and will keep those to myself but I do not think the government needs to get involved and tell 2 consenting adults that they can not get married. On the flip side of that, the government should not get into the business of telling churches what they must do in regards to marriage ceremonies. That is such a slippery slope and I want nothing to do with that.

Just my 2 cents.
That’s the distinction that gets missed. The difference between the Government role in Marriage and the Church role in Marriage. The Government is the Government for all the people and if they are recognizing marriage between adults they probably should do so for all, whether people agree or not. But Religious facets of marriage are entirely different and by nature exclusionary. The Government should not force itself on the Church. I think there’s a theory out there about that type of separation Study

The board got rid of McFarland and replaced […]

Allen McFarland has been removed from being the […]

UNA Series

I have it now. Really weird. LU is up 7-2 now in t[…]

In maybe possibly positive news, the front page of[…]