Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)

[JivinJeffJones]

Hey! I thought this thread was about gay pastors, not the afterlife!

Sorry, I had to P.



Actually, I was going somewhere with that, but Ivy neatly derailed me with her wily universalism.

 

[Ivy]

Sorry, I had to P.



Actually, I was going somewhere with that, but Ivy neatly derailed me with her wily universalism.

Out of curiosity (and latent P) where were you going with that? Were you making a case for believing that harm will come to those who don't conform to our beliefs, and the justification for stepping in on those grounds?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Out of curiosity (and latent P) where were you going with that? Were you making a case for believing that harm will come to those who don't conform to our beliefs, and the justification for stepping in on those grounds?

Meh. Arguing with a theistic agnostic is no fun. My motivation went Bloop. Sorry.

 

[Ivy]

Meh. Arguing with a theistic agnostic is no fun. My motivation went Bloop. Sorry.

Happy to be of service.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Oh I agree that it doesn't fit with the Church, it's modernism changing religion to suit a new morality, which is ace but if the bible is against homosexuality, and that's your preference, why then would you still want to be a Christian, and follow a god who doesn't want you?

I suppose it depends on the brand of Christianity that you subscribe to. For example one church might say, "If you can follow these rules, then you can be in. If you cannot then you are out."

Another church might say, "No one can follow all of these rules. Therefore if you want to be in, then you're in. If you don't want to be in, then you are out (but we'll be happy to have you if you change your mind)."

 

[cafe]

By my best understanding of the Bible's teaching, which I consider authoritative, active homosexuals shouldn't be pastors.

That doesn't mean I support legal opposition to same sex unions or that I think each church shouldn't be able to make up its own rules about membership and leaders, that's just how I feel about it.

I wish it were otherwise. I know gays I'd rather be pastored by than some of the straight pastor's I've known.

 

[ptgatsby]

Authority has no meaning in this context. A book gives no moral right to any particular act (I hereby declare Godwin in effect; Mein Kampf...?).

The choice is made by an organisation to exclude certain members. Those lines are arbitary, based upon the text that supports them. They could be drawn up across race, sex, height, age, money and eye color. Far as I am concerned, an argument on behalf of any of these factors is an argument for all. I do not believe that to be a moral stance; therefore, I do not believe the concept of eliminating moral upstanding community figures based upon any of the lines that could be created.

And considering the... contribution... of many pastors, I think if a line is going to be drawn, one might want to start with more distinct moral issues.

As far as the transitioning "unbible" to "I didn't say it was not moral", I feel that it must either be claimed the bible is not a moral book and that it exists as an amoral text for this to be valid. Otherwise, it is a moral book, and therefore makes homosexuality immoral. It is either authoritive or it is not; it is either God's word, or it is just another book. If it is just another book, then it, and whole community, is indeed bigoted and cannot hide behind it for excusing their actions or their beliefs. And if it is, then... Well, I would conclude the exact same thing, actually, just including God in their for good measure... but at least under those conditions, one has an excuse for behaviour they would not otherwise accept (as above, simply replace homosexuality with the "card" of the day... like it does every few decades).

 

[Totenkindly]

Moved "Who was Jesus?" posts here.

 

[Avocado]

The option was "such relationships are unBiblical" not "I hate fags"

1 decade later and the numbers are flipped.

 

[great_bay]

I think whenever religious people use the bible as an counterargument, they are just covering up and hiding that they dislike gay people. However, for some reason, they don't outright admit that they dislike gay people which is why they don't support gay marriage. Religious people don't believe in what they're saying whenever the pull up the bible argument. If they were really serious, then people would have to adhere to whatever the bible tells them instead of going by what they like and dislike.

 

[Mole]

The universal image of chriistianity is of christ being tortured to death on the cross by his father.