The 'gay vs the Bible' debate......

I am not sure if I am what you consider to be a literalist. I do think the bible is inerrant but I also think you have to study and learn doctrine to understand all of it. You can not just take a passage out of context or without knowing the doctrine it is part of and take it at face value. Many of the old testament passages dealt with the time they were written and were valid only for the jews of that day rather than for people living today. It sounds like I am saying I put my own slant on it but it is more complicated than that. I think it is much easier to take the new testament at face value but even so things have to be read in context.

 

Great question. Honestly, I don't think I'd agree they're "just as guilty", but they're definitely part of the problem.

 

Good point. So have I. Several times.

 

Because secretly, deep down inside of all of us 'straight' people...we wonder what it would be like and we hate that we think that.

We can't hate ourselves, so we have to hate people that do it openly?


:1peekdoor

 

I know this is a question you've asked several times of believers, and I just wanted to post a passage from the New Testament, Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth:

 

In general? Of course not. In a Christian church? Yes -- but that's just my opinion.

The answer to that one should be an overwhelming "NO!", but apparently in NC, the answer is "yes".

 

many women will openly admit they've wondered what it would be like.

why do men deny it with a passion?

makes you wonder what they are afraid of.

 

Agreed.

In a way I agree, but in a way I don't. In my experience, a person can convey the reality of sin in all of us without going into specific actions. Sin in its purest form is turning away from, ignoring, or rebelling against God. Deceit, theft, murder, adultery, and the like are natural products of that initial act of ignoring God's authority and will and seizing control of our own lives. From a spiritual point of view, those acts are really secondary concerns.

In other words, I don't believe it's necessary to be presented with an itemized list of infractions in order to be shown the presence and consequences of sin.

 

I think you run a fine line there were you are almost telling a person they can get saved and not repent of their sin. If you make sin a subjective thing where the sinner gets to decide what is and what is not sin then you dilute the message to the point that it almost has no meaning.

 

I understand the negative connotation of the word "lost", but I'd just like to throw out there that it's a Biblical term, not a church, cultural, or 'fundie' term. And Thelt's right in that it was never meant to imply any air of superiority whatsoever. In fact, a strong case could be made for the opposite. Luke 15 is almost entirely comprised of parable after parable illustrating that Jesus is much more motivated toward and focused on the "lost" than on believers. FWIW.