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

Good responses HB, better than what I said. I honestly can understand the points of what BV is saying. I am a Christian and have left/run off from some churches because I don't agree with certain beliefs that they have and how they have treated others.

As a Christian it is by no means what we say most of the time, but what we do that is even worse or have the most impact on others.

I recall one church I went to when I was younger and they said that women should not wear pants, period because the Bible said so. I asked one of the teachers if they could point out the versus to me that said women could no wear pants. They couldn't do so, the versus said a woman should not look/dress like a man.

It's things like this above that I can totally understand why people would be turned off by the church and we aren't even talking about the big things in life.

 

They do to some people, trust me.

 

Totally agree.

 

I totally agree, and that approach to a non-christian is just plain wrong. Christians shouldn't imo tell others what they are doing is wrong, let the Bible, Holy Spirit, etc. do that. When talking with others I usually talk about Jesus and how my life was changed and the things that I did/do wrong.

It's just never a good idea to point fingers at a person in that situation, all you will do is drive them farther way. If somebody ask me specifically about a certain thing, I am not going to lie and will tell them how I feel about it and try to use scripture to back it up.

You also have to look at the situation a person has been through in their life. Some have had it easier and others have had it a lot worse. I can totally understand why some are completely turned off to Christians because some of the things that some of them have done.

 

Just a guess, but women can admit to being 'curious' without losing any of their femininity. Men, however are generally viewed as less than masculine if they're 'curious'. I'm not saying that's the reality, I'm just saying that might be the perception and the cause behind the double standard.

 

sort of. the only problem i have with it is the notion that we (my wife and i) are pledging to raise him as a christian. now, i have no problem with my wife doing so and i support her fully. but i'd be lying if i said i was going to take him to church and teach him that jesus is the lord and savior.

 

That's not at all what I meant to communicate, and I apologize up front if I did. Lemme explain.

Using the simplest definition of sin -- abandonment or rejection of God -- loses none of its potency, and at the same time becomes even more inclusive than running down a specific checklist. Any and all unrighteous (for a lack of a better term) behaviors are rooted in this core concept. It gives a little better foundation to the doctrine of "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). It detracts from the focus of "which sin is worse", and redirects attention to the idea that all sin is bad.

 

Herein lies the problem. God's morality is absolute, but we live in a country that is flexible, and welcoming of all ideas from all cultures. The only answer I have is from the Bible -- for Christians to focus their energy on living out their faith to the best of their ability and let God handle the rest.

 

double standard? i dunno. as a heterosexual male i have to say i've never been intrigued with the idea of having sex with another man. perhaps there are two standards because we're talking about two distinct groups (me and women).

i don't know why women would be more open to homosexual encounters -- perhaps it's the differing roles in intercourse or a general dissatisfaction with male partners.

interestingly, fred's comment sort of hints at the gay version of the biblethumper telling people they're sinners. namely, that straight men have all fantasized about gay sex. both notions come from a sense of moral superiority that rubs me the wrong way (no pun intended). there's a sense of "the truth will set you free" to both cases -- either acknowledging jesus will save you from hell, or acknowledging latent homosexual feelings will make you a happier person. don't get me wrong, i believe there are probably some folks out there who are gay and don't want to come to grips with it (again, no pun intended), but such a generalizations don't do it for it me.

(note, i'm not saying this is what fred was saying, just that it sort of left the topic hanging out there.)

 

Regarding weddings, yes, it can be just a business transaction. Or, to be more cynical, a revenue enhancing tool. In that circumstance the church becomes little more than a pretty place to hold a wedding.

Baptism, on the other hand, is a very different affair. Particularly with an infant (without getting into a debate about doctrine) it becomes more of a dedication than anything else. And very likely the clergy will be asking for a commitment from the parents to raise the child in a Christian home and support his spiritual development. I'm just letting you know so you're not in for any ugly surprises.


Edit: Sorry, Nut. You already knew about the 'raising the child as a Christian' thing.