Inclusion of LGBT Christians

Who are you excluding here? Do you really believe I'm evil?

I don't believe you understand what you're quoting me. Those words are a self reflection. To those who consider themselves pure, no matter what they themselves do, they will always see themselves pure. Which is why you must look externally and avoid self assessment.

I have no desire to focus upon the sinfulness of someone while ignoring my own. Don't misunderstand me. We all justify our own problems. However, we can't lose sight of where the anchor exists. We lie to ourselves. We are our own worst enemy. We need God help to know ourselves.
Hint: I will boast of my weaknesses so Christ's power can rest on me.

Are we creating an environment where people can boast of their weaknesses and have Christ's power rest on them?

It may be even a little difficult to confess.
 
I think that's part of the point here.

People are insisting that we give a concession for human sin for divorcees, but not homosexuals.

The other direction is available also.

But consistency is important.

Nothing riles God up like hypocrisy.
To use your logic, if there are concessions for one, then there should logically be some concessions for all of God’s commands! But then, what is the concession for adultery, or lying or being dishonorable to your parents?

Jesus grants a very limited concession for divorce for only one reason, and doesn’t extend his argument to what the innocent party may or may not do.

All sexual immorality, as defined by scripture, is wrong without exception. There are no exceptions or concessions that create loopholes through which one may behave immorally sexually.

That Jesus gives an out for an innocent spouse whose partner has committed sexual adultery with another individual to allow divorce, despite God’s hatred of it, enforces the fact that all sexual immorality is wrong, and that without exception, but it also allows the freedom of the innocent spouse to be freed from the harm that too often occurs because of being sinned against. Grace is generous to those who are innocent and allows for the freedom to enjoy the benefits of human relationships in marriage.

Again, Paul allows for a believing spouse to be divorced from an unbeliever, if the unbeliever desires to leave the believing partner. In such a case, “…the brother or sister is not enslaved” and leaves the door open to marrying another.

There is no biblical justification for any such concession for sexual sin, including homosexual behavior.

The hardness of the heart is the reason divorce is permitted, but this is not for the benefit of the adulterous spouse, but for the sake of the innocent party. There is no such concession for any sexual sin, including same sex relations.


Doug
 
Hint: I will boast of my weaknesses so Christ's power can rest on me.

Are we creating an environment where people can boast of their weaknesses and have Christ's power rest on them?

It may be even a little difficult to confess.
Paul's weakness wasn't homosexuality. How does your particular appeal to weakness point to Christ's power. Please explain.
 
Paul's weakness wasn't homosexuality. How does your particular appeal to weakness point to Christ's power. Please explain.
Church atmosphere in general, this short thread discussion with multiple participants illustrates why LGBT Christians need their own spaces to worship God separate from general prejudice.
 
That was actually a "past tense" concession followed with a "but I say to you"
It was a concession made in the historical past, the misinterpreted of which by some branches of Jewish rabbinical tradition, was Jesus’s target in his teachings at this particular point of reference. Jesus’s “but I say to you” merely affirmed the other rabbinical tradition held, that divorce was only permitted in the case of an adulterous spouse.

Jesus is not saying there is no exception to the concession of divorce, but merely clarifying what that exception is in no uncertain terms. So what was true in the past is still true today.


Doug
 
It was a concession made in the historical past, the misinterpreted of which by some branches of Jewish rabbinical tradition, was Jesus’s target in his teachings at this particular point of reference. Jesus’s “but I say to you” merely affirmed the other rabbinical tradition held, that divorce was only permitted in the case of an adulterous spouse.

Jesus is not saying there is no exception to the concession of divorce, but merely clarifying what that exception is in no uncertain terms. So what was true in the past is still true today.


Doug
You seem to be ignoring the momentum of "does not apply today" illustrated in the passages.

The double standard is apparent.
 
You seem to be ignoring the momentum of "does not apply today" illustrated in the passages.

The double standard is apparent.
The point, whether a double standard or not, is that homosexuality is strictly forbidden in scripture. If there is a double standard regarding divorce, that doesn’t mean that our view of homosexuality is wrong.

Doug
 
The point, whether a double standard or not, is that homosexuality is strictly forbidden in scripture. If there is a double standard regarding divorce, that doesn’t mean that our view of homosexuality is wrong.

Doug
It doesn't matter I guess, the church will go into captivity just like Israel and Judah did.

Even if this issue was resolved with consistency, there are a plethora of others.
 
The same churches that apply this teaching against homosexuality "because from the beginning it was not so"

Do not apply the same measures and attitudes towards divorcees, since "from the beginning it was not so."

God allowed polygamy.
God never allowed homosexuality.
God allows divorce but only by His terms written in His law.
God never allowed homosexuality under any law: patriarchal, Mosaical, Christs law.

There is not one Scripture in the entire Bible that God allowed for a period of time or only under certain terms where Homosexuality was acceptable among Gods people.

Gods view has never changed towards homosexuality.
To God homosexuality is without any exception an ABOMINATION.

And those who practise sexual perversion are without hope,
1Corinthians 6:9-11,
- do you not know that they unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, do not be deceived
Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God
And such WERE some of you but you were washed but you were sanctified but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God

If someone wants to claim homosexuals will be saved if they remain unrepentant of this sin.
Then anyone can argue that all these sinners sins listed with homosexuality can also be saved if unrepented of.
If not why not?
 
Last edited:
God allowed polygamy.
God never allowed homosexuality.
God allows divorce but only by His terms written in His law.
God never allowed homosexuality under any law: patriarchal, Mosaical, Christs law.

There is not one Scripture in the entire Bible that God allowed for a period of time or only under certain terms where Homosexuality was acceptable among Gods people.

Gods view has never changed towards homosexuality.
To God homosexuality is without any exception an ABOMINATION.

And those who practise sexual perversion are without hope,
1Corinthians 6:9-11,
- do you not know that they unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, do not be deceived
Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God
And such WERE some of you but you were washed but you were sanctified but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God

If someone wants to claim homosexuals will be saved if they remain unrepentant of this sin.
Then anyone can argue that all these sinners sins listed with homosexuality can also be saved if unrepented of.
If not why not?
For example, Jesus was friends with prostitutes and sinners. They didn't react to Him the way these type of people did to the Religious ruling groups. The point I am making is the "Christian Church" is lacking the capacity to act and be like Christ, regrettably they are acting more like the people who crucified Him.

Do you think such things avoid God's notice?
 
For example, Jesus was friends with prostitutes and sinners. They didn't react to Him the way these type of people did to the Religious ruling groups. The point I am making is the "Christian Church" is lacking the capacity to act and be like Christ, regrettably they are acting more like the people who crucified Him.

Do you think such things avoid God's notice?
Jesus is always going to be better at being “Jesus” than we are! Do you think he would have been any different with divorced people than he was with “prostitutes and sinners”? As with the woman caught in adultery, Jesus condemned her behavior, but not her. He let her live, but would not allow her to continue sinning.

We do not advocate for or applaud divorce anymore than any other sin, but we seek to treat all people the same, regardless of their practices.

As humans, we all have our biases and can be more sensitive about some sins than others. The Bible has no such sensitivity and clearly states in unequivocal terms what is proper behavior in any given situation, especially with regard to sexual behavior.

Divorce is permitted, but only for marital unfaithfulness, as opposed to sexual sin, for which there is no such permissiveness.

Your objections, while valid to some extent, are purely subjective in their foundation. Your sensitivity to this cannot be expressed as a general statement of truth, for it may or may not be true of any particular individual with whom you are dealing.

Finally, and as I have said to you before in other posts, any allowance in one area does not imply that there is allowance in another area. Homosexuality is never allowed or accepted, nor is any other sexual sin.

Doug
 
Finally, and as I have said to you before in other posts, any allowance in one area does not imply that there is allowance in another area. Homosexuality is never allowed or accepted, nor is any other sexual sin.
My appeal was to be consistent. This is an example of consistency.

The attitude towards divorce and remarrying ignores what Jesus said about it though.

Since adultery is never allowed or accepted, neither is remarriage based on what you said.
 
Back
Top Bottom