Where do I go from here?

[cool_name123]

Alright, So I posted this in a different sub forum before realizing there was an entire area specifically dedicated to this topic... So I'm re-posting it here (with some edits as I noticed I made some late night connections that I didn't go into enough detail on in my other post).



So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this (obviously I diverge when needed, but these four are the points I always try to flesh out the most because I think they are the most important to understanding the issue). I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed that's what people want (yet again) or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love Ethic than it does a Sexual Ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. The sexual practices accepted and looked down on are constantly evolving throughout scripture right up to today (I'm fairly sure that the majority of Conservative Christians would not be cool with the idea of Levirate Marriage). I mean it seems to enforce a Love Ethic right down to how Jesus engages with Scripture and makes a point of constantly stressing the importance of the character of ones being as opposed to the strict rules they think everyone should follow (The Pharisees anyone?). Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not that leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used by speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus tell us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is very likely not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely temple supported male prostitution (I mean he even used the term 'ἀκαθα�σία' not two chapters earlier hearkening back to the Septuagint/Old Testament speaking out against shrine prostitution putting the image square in the readers mind).

And in his other mentions of the topic, like those in Timothy or Corinthians, The word Paul uses here (ἀ�σενοκοίτης) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of (some people even think Paul just straight up made up his own word here, it's that uncommon guys)... The general consensus is that what Paul is referring to are acts of Pederasty or once again shrine prostitution... Again not the same sex consensual adult relationships we've seen develop more recently (in fact the term homosexual didn't even exist in the bible until I think 1949 with the RSV Translation. But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (to the point of potentially making up his own word) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed this one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know why because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then have to go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by cool_name123]

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.

I was simply saying that your claim that the church's approach has been detrimental was unevidenced. Now come to think of it I doubt you and I both agree on the concept of unconditional love either. Then I made a stab in the dark about where you might be coming from and you confirmed my suspicions.

It's just that the church and sin have to part ways. It isn't as if all those empty pews are because the congregation was all homosexual. There are many sins which see people leave the church. The inside of church activities are probably not the best place for them, the external church outreach probably is. I agree with you to the extent that we are responsible, so when you say 'no one but me can take responsibility for it.' I think it is a spiritual truth that we are individually responsible no matter who we would like to blame things on.

Actually I found your point 2 quite insulting and probably wrote my second sentence in response to it. The more I learn about church history the less evil it becomes, the more practical I find it. It is currently to me abject nonsense to think of the church as anything other than a positive moral force on the society it is in.

It is probably that unwavering standard that has people leave it.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 9 by cool_name123]

There are many sins which see people leave the church.

But given recent trends that about it, I think it was somewhere around a third in a poll put out by PRC leave for that reason and about 70%, according to the most recent from PRRI, in my demographic deem the church's treatment to be "alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues." (and you'll notice that statement made no mention of the orientation of those leaving/being alienated by the church, not everyone leaving because of this issue are of a homosexual orientation) I don't think it's two hard to connect how big of a factor it is in how people perceive the church. I know there are Church's out there doing their darnedest to make everyone feel welcome and loved. But just the fact that they have to try so hard to create this safe space I think speaks volumes to how the church has acted in the past. I'll admit, it may not be the largest factor, but with a third of former Christians listing it as a reason for their departure, it is certainly in the top 3.

Oh, and here's the surveys just in case you wanted to make sure I wasn't skewing anything.

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-conte ... REPORT.pdf
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/10/N ... e-full.pdf

[Replying to post 9 by cool_name123]

The more I learn about church history the less evil it becomes, the more practical I find it.

I'm sorry, What? You'll have to go a bit deeper into this one as my church history is intertwined with martyrdom and murder (not by us mind you, but rather towards us). From torture to Forcing a confession of 'correct' faith under threat of death, and then going ahead and killing us anyways before we could recant our newly found spirituality. I'm not sure if I see the practicality behind burning people at the stake with tongue screws in their mouths so they can't say anything to anyone while being burned alive. So forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical as to where this practicality comes from.

I can admit there have been times where the church has been a force of great good, but trying to forget about or excuse the great evils it has also been a part of isn't helpful. It's borderline ignorant.


And I'm not sure how far back you're thinking in regards to church history on this matter, but this is a relatively recent thing.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 10 by cool_name123]

But I'm of the opinion that we are called to be one body under Christ.

If that were true, christians are in a world of hurt seeing how many different sects exists today.

...maybe that does not mean a single denomination so much as a common sense of respect, but it's still something that I believe is important and hence something that comes across in the language I choose to use...

Important yes. However, it seems there are too many differences for that to happen.

...I'll take the baby steps I can get even though I would love if we could move things along much quicker.

An honorable approach

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by cool_name123]

My analysis is that the trends you are seeing correlate with similar trends in defacto rates and divorce rates. People are trying to normalise societal breakdowns and wanting government (god) to support their decisions. This call for govt support is evidence that the decisions were unwise.

It also reflects the desire to not be hypocritical. You can hardly say x is immoral if what you are doing is also immoral. Of course hypocrisy abounds regardless.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 10 by cool_name123]

But I'm of the opinion that we are called to be one body under Christ.

If that were true, christians are in a world of hurt seeing how many different sects exists today.

...maybe that does not mean a single denomination so much as a common sense of respect, but it's still something that I believe is important and hence something that comes across in the language I choose to use...

Important yes. However, it seems there are too many differences for that to happen.

One of my favourite quotes about this (though I forget by whom) using some beautiful imagery from Revelations goes something along the lines of;

"Christ is coming back, and when he does he's coming for a Bride, not a Harem!"

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]

I thought the direction was more or less clear (though not necessarily as a debate topic). The question being why my discussions tend to break down where they do?

I'm basically trying to figure out how to continue the conversation beyond when I've been given the cold shoulder (so to speak) and figured perhaps some insight to why I constantly get said cold shoulder could be useful.

Well, I can assure you that you won't get the cold shoulder from me. I'll debate your positions with commitment.

Romans 2 would not be about Temple prostitution. And, to say that Paul and every other Christian in the first century would be denouncing JUST Temple LGBTQ-NESS (additional letters et al) is a theological stretch that would make Marvel's Mr. Fantastic 2000-miles long.

"Christian Marriage" (and therefor appropriate sex acts) are in a marriage which is immutably throughout the Bible . . . man and woman/husband and wife. And there is no indication prophetic or just wishful thinking, or demand from homosexuals worldwide, nor is there any reason to assert that sexual behavior would be redefined as a same gender issue.

Now, you are welcomed to invent a new religion based on a new ad campaign for converts all you wish. That's a right of man. But you cannot justify the homosexualization of The Church, Christianity and Christian life with absolutely no scriptural support and utterly no theological support for redefining marriage as well without those that hold to the consistent position of what is appropriate sexually for Christians to stand up and stand against a wholesale invention of a new religion calling itself the faith delivered only once to the saints and replacing the one delivered by Jesus and the Apostles.

In simple terms: Show one place in scripture that clearly predicts, supports, condones and celebrates gay behavior "as we know it today" anywhere in the Bible?

Repentance is not a hate crime, it is the foundation of a Christian life:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

- Romans 2

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 5 by cool_name123]

Maybe it's just me, but I do think this is an important issue for the church to discuss and deal with. Curse my christian morals wanting to see the church be an example of love for the world. And you don't really get there when you simply 'agree to disagree'.

How can The Church be and show "love" for the world (and its ways), if it becomes the world (and its ways)? Jesus clearly delineates "the world" from The Church:

“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

“I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

- Gospel of John 17

Where did Gay pride come from? When? Certainly not from The Church and certainly not anywhere in scripture. In fact, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Isn't that how the gay pride mantra goes?:

Homosexual men and women were given voice in 1897 with the founding of the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee; WhK) in Berlin

- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... s-movement

This timeline provides information about the gay rights movement in the United States from 1924 to the present: including the Stonewall riots; the contributions of Harvey Milk; the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; the first civil unions; the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York; and more.

- http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0761909.html

Read more: The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0761909. ... z37XQ7Aq5f

[connermt]

[Replying to post 16 by 99percentatheism]

Isn't that how the gay pride mantra goes?:

Can you provide us all with this mantra? I, for one, would be instersted in seeing as I've never seen nor heard such a thing.

Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

Then the debate's over! No legitimate need for people to complain and fear

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]

I thought the direction was more or less clear (though not necessarily as a debate topic). The question being why my discussions tend to break down where they do?

I'm basically trying to figure out how to continue the conversation beyond when I've been given the cold shoulder (so to speak) and figured perhaps some insight to why I constantly get said cold shoulder could be useful.

Well, I can assure you that you won't get the cold shoulder from me. I'll debate your positions with commitment.

Not really what I asked for, But ok... I guess we'll do this now.

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]

Romans 2 would not be about Temple prostitution. And, to say that Paul and every other Christian in the first century would be denouncing JUST Temple LGBTQ-NESS (additional letters et al) is a theological stretch that would make Marvel's Mr. Fantastic 2000-miles long.

First... Temple LGBTQ-ness? Now that is a stretch to apply that entire acronym to what Paul is referencing

Second... What makes it such a stretch? You can't just say things with no rational and expect me to be all "Good point, I guess it is a stretch, I mean he wouldn't have said it was a stretch if it wasn't" I mean I'm not a sheep, you gotta back your stuff up if you want any sort of a real discussion with me because, as I already mentioned, This thread was not initially a debate in the way you're trying to make it and while I'm willing to discuss I'm not just going to take what you say as authoritative in any way unless you can back it up.

Also... Romans 2 is not about prostitution at all (at least not directly)... That comes up in Romans 1. Romans 2 is about not casting judgement on anyone for all that 'nasty' stuff recently mentioned in Romans 1... And just because I'm a stickler for good translations I'm going to use the NRSV which in my opinion is about as close a translation as we got to the original Greek. Also I'm going to quote a little beyond where you stopped because I think it gives some important context to the verse that you may have skipped over in your rush to condemn.

1 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 You say,a “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.� 3 Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

So that is what Romans 2 actually says about judgement in it's entirety... You'll notice a number of things here, firstly that in no place does this verse give you permission to cast judgement. It's just begging the question of why one would choose to judge when they themselves are not free of judgement. Second, that those whom are being all judgemental are referred to as despising the riches of God's kindness and patience. Third that what God seems to be concerned about is the character of ones being, speaking highly of those who do good and negatively of those consumed by wickedness... And before you think being a Christian is clearly the one doing good, Nope! God will take the Jew or the Gentile, as long as they've got a rocking character fueling their good deeds.

So ya, you could read Romans 2 the way you have if you'd like... But you're doing a great disservice to such a wonderful text. And you also need to keep in mind that each of these letters were written to different congregations going through different issues and trying to understand it outside of said historical context just winds up twisting Paul's words even further. This church was likely finding it hard not to succumb to the temptations of the luxuries of the Roman Empire, and as such the letter reflects this saying 'You're all guilty of something, so why not leave the judgement up to that guy we worship who is guilty of nothing.'

I mean it's not like this is the only biblical reference to go on in regards to judgement so assuming that it's ok, in this instance and this instance only, to be judgemental of others when it seems as though the overall consensus of Christs message was not to do that, is essentially removing the text from the social context of the early church. That's two different contexts you've effectively removed this from reading through your lense.

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]
In simple terms: Show one place in scripture that clearly predicts, supports, condones and celebrates gay behavior "as we know it today" anywhere in the Bible?

I'll admit that I cannot 'clearly' do that as we are so far removed from the textual and social context it was written in that no one can really do that (one way or another). And just so you don't count that statement as a win... I don't think you can do the reverse of that challenge either for exactly the reasons I just mentioned. I do think I can make my side of the case just as clearly, if not more so, than you can yours (but I get the sense you were asking for the impossible challenge, not the reasonable one).

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]
"Christian Marriage" (and therefor appropriate sex acts) are in a marriage which is immutably throughout the Bible . . . man and woman/husband and wife. And there is no indication prophetic or just wishful thinking, or demand from homosexuals worldwide, nor is there any reason to assert that sexual behavior would be redefined as a same gender issue.

'Christian Marriage'... As in that thing created in, what was it? Like 400AD that we now know as marriage? Marriage in biblical times was much more akin to what we would call Common Law, it was a much more of a private affair and certainly not the extravagant celebration it has become in our social context. But that's not the point you were trying to make, so let's keep going.

So I assume your whole understanding of biblical marriage comes from all those 'One flesh' verses... But this is what I meant above, even that whole 'one flesh' thing is open to interpretation. The way Jesus uses it in Matthew and Mark has infinitely more to do with equality than it does re-enforcing hetero-normative sexual identities. I mean he uses it when talking out against the prevalent notion at the time that a man could divorce his wife for whatever reason he could come up with but a woman would need one heck of a reason to do the same and Jesus is all 'no no guys... You were created as equals from the same flesh. When you become one unit, you are still equal and you have no more of a right to divorce them than they you.' Which was not met kindly to say the least with shouts of 'then why even bother getting married at all! WE WANT ALL THE POWER! GRRR' To which I can only imagine an exhausted Jesus being like 'man you have missed the point so hard... Why not just listen to this parable, maybe something will click as I keep talking about this revolutionary community of love.'

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]
Now, you are welcomed to invent a new religion based on a new ad campaign for converts all you wish. That's a right of man. But you cannot justify the homosexualization of The Church, Christianity and Christian life with absolutely no scriptural support and utterly no theological support for redefining marriage as well without those that hold to the consistent position of what is appropriate sexually for Christians to stand up and stand against a wholesale invention of a new religion calling itself the faith delivered only once to the saints and replacing the one delivered by Jesus and the Apostles.

Ya, I'm pretty sure if Christ wasn't so against violence he'd just straight up slap you for that one as he never once cast anyone out. And saying 'You go do your thing over there, I don't care for it and you're not welcome here' sounds like nothing Christ would ever dream of even entertaining the idea of.

Personally I think the bible is pretty clear that all are welcome, the social outcasts, the prostitutes, the sick, and those whom are different... If you want to hear this message of love and forgiveness then come on in. LGBTQ* is a very recent idea so if you want a perfect analogy it doesn't exist, but there were people back then that did not fit the traditional idea of sexuality whom were cast out and not welcome (or on the very rare occasion that they were welcome it was in very specific conditions) and the church of Christ essentially says 'Come on in! If you want what we're giving we'd love to have you... And while we're on the topic, there's gotta be a better word for what you are cause you are awesome! Even 'sons' and 'daughters' ain't good enough for you!' Isaiah 56:3-5

[Replying to post 5 by cool_name123]

Maybe it's just me, but I do think this is an important issue for the church to discuss and deal with. Curse my christian morals wanting to see the church be an example of love for the world. And you don't really get there when you simply 'agree to disagree'.

How can The Church be and show "love" for the world (and its ways), if it becomes the world (and its ways)? Jesus clearly delineates "the world" from The Church

You don't have to become something to show your love for it. I don't need to be of a homosexual orientation in order to show love and compassion to someone who is. Can you really not see the difference between that of love and compassion and that of assimilation?

[Replying to post 5 by cool_name123]

Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

And you are again right in that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality... How that is a win for your interpretation I can't quite see as if everything Jesus never mentioned is evil this whole internet thing is going to be our undoing.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 18 by cool_name123]

cool_name123

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]

I thought the direction was more or less clear (though not necessarily as a debate topic). The question being why my discussions tend to break down where they do?

I'm basically trying to figure out how to continue the conversation beyond when I've been given the cold shoulder (so to speak) and figured perhaps some insight to why I constantly get said cold shoulder could be useful.

Well, I can assure you that you won't get the cold shoulder from me. I'll debate your positions with commitment.

Not really what I asked for, But ok... I guess we'll do this now.

I'm just a humble Christian doing what should be done. Ignoring heresy and false teachings just makes heresy and false teachings seem correct. I just follow the good examples set forth by Jesus and His Apostles.

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]

Romans 2 would not be about Temple prostitution. And, to say that Paul and every other Christian in the first century would be denouncing JUST Temple LGBTQ-NESS (additional letters et al) is a theological stretch that would make Marvel's Mr. Fantastic 2000-miles long.

First... Temple LGBTQ-ness? Now that is a stretch to apply that entire acronym to what Paul is referencing

I'm just using the advice to think of things in terms of today. That works out well for defending the faith too.

Second... What makes it such a stretch? You can't just say things with no rational and expect me to be all "Good point, I guess it is a stretch, I mean he wouldn't have said it was a stretch if it wasn't" I mean I'm not a sheep, you gotta back your stuff up if you want any sort of a real discussion with me because, as I already mentioned, This thread was not initially a debate in the way you're trying to make it and while I'm willing to discuss I'm not just going to take what you say as authoritative in any way unless you can back it up.

Man that's a long sentence. And I use scripture and perspective to back up my points. I am a Christian. And no matter the date on the calendar, reality and truth doesn't change.

Also... Romans 2 is not about prostitution at all (at least not directly)... That comes up in Romans 1.

In separate and separated categories right? Still the proscription to gay sex is obvious. In fact, both boy and girl kind. If that is, I may be allowed to use the words "boy" and "Girl" kind without being charged with heterosexism.

Romans 2 is about not casting judgement on anyone for all that 'nasty' stuff recently mentioned in Romans 1... And just because I'm a stickler for good translations I'm going to use the NRSV which in my opinion is about as close a translation as we got to the original Greek. Also I'm going to quote a little beyond where you stopped because I think it gives some important context to the verse that you may have skipped over in your rush to condemn.

Oh please. be my guest to always use more scriptures.

1 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

2 You say,a “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.�

3 Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?

Well now, context jumps right out at us. Those that do not "do" the nasty stuff can by all means judge those that do. In fact, those that repent of doing the nasty stuff are no longer "doing" them.

Just as Jesus taught about judging. The "law and the Prophets all in a row to the Christian Church.

4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

What was that again?

R E P E N T A N C E

? ? ?

And without judging a persons "sins" there is no "repentance" to be highlighted and mentioned.

5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

Hard-heartedness leads to NOT repenting. Doesn't it?

6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Pride goeth before the fall. Haughtiness is another word for pride. Now how do we point out a sinners "deeds" if there is no judgment anywhere on earth? Ambiguity does not make for a great society.

9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

God shows no partiality for what? Or rather for whom?

Sin and sinning.

So that is what Romans 2 actually says about judgement in it's entirety... You'll notice a number of things here, firstly that in no place does this verse give you permission to cast judgement.

Well I think I have countered your opinion here.

It's just begging the question of why one would choose to judge when they themselves are not free of judgement.

Read Psalm 51. Also Jesus taught: "In the same way you judge, you will be judged."

Feel free to use any translation you want to and see if that changes meanings.

Second, that those whom are being all judgemental are referred to as despising the riches of God's kindness and patience.

Really? By how? Ignoring scriptures or by teaching them to sinners? The consistent theme in the Bible about sin and sinning is that someone has to "judge" sins and sinners for how they are sinners sinning.

Jesus, nor John the Baptist walked around saying "Hey, everyone . . . ah never mind." And the lessons taught to the Apostles and Disciples were not vague and ambiguous either.

Third that what God seems to be concerned about is the character of ones being, speaking highly of those who do good and negatively of those consumed by wickedness... And before you think being a Christian is clearly the one doing good, Nope! God will take the Jew or the Gentile, as long as they've got a rocking character fueling their good deeds.

So if I take your theology to action, then I never do anything to "preach the word" in season or out because that's judgmentalism to do and that can never be implemented?

Seriously, that seems to be the core of your premise here.

So ya, you could read Romans 2 the way you have if you'd like... But you're doing a great disservice to such a wonderful text.

Oh really? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where "do as thou wilt though and you will somehow figure out all on your own what sins and sinning is? I mean, I just can't find that in the dozens and dozens of translations at my disposal.

And you also need to keep in mind that each of these letters were written to different congregations going through different issues and trying to understand it outside of said historical context just winds up twisting Paul's words even further.

Than you are demanding chaos to order? Nothing means anything 'cuz Paul wasn't talking to people in Denver Colorado 2014?

Now of course, you have that right to form any kind of religious movement you so desire, but to imply or demand that there isn't solid Christian reality of truth is simply holding that there is no such thing as Christian truth.

"Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever?"

Or not.

This church was likely finding it hard not to succumb to the temptations of the luxuries of the Roman Empire, and as such the letter reflects this saying 'You're all guilty of something, so why not leave the judgement up to that guy we worship who is guilty of nothing.'

Doesn't work that way. IF, the statement "leave it up to the guy upstairs" means anything at all, a "judgment" as to what that guy upstairs means has to be defined. It appears you are holding the position that anarchy is what Jesus preached and of course "God in the beginning" as well.

I mean it's not like this is the only biblical reference to go on in regards to judgement so assuming that it's ok, in this instance and this instance only, to be judgemental of others when it seems as though the overall consensus of Christs message was not to do that, is essentially removing the text from the social context of the early church. That's two different contexts you've effectively removed this from reading through your lense.

The "social context" of the early Church and the future Church connected until the end of the age . . . was to "JUDGE" what is and what isn't Christian truth and who is and isn't following it. How on earth can there be anything defined if what defines what is definable is not judged correctly?

"Don't judge."

What?

Than how does a rational human being no what's right and what's wrong ON anything!??

Jesus is the Savior.

Or not.

Because it is judgmentalism to say He is.

Chaos never brings order. In the lab or in theology.

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]
In simple terms: Show one place in scripture that clearly predicts, supports, condones and celebrates gay behavior "as we know it today" anywhere in the Bible?

I'll admit that I cannot 'clearly' do that as we are so far removed from the textual and social context it was written in that no one can really do that (one way or another).

Isn't that judgmental of you to assert that?

So you are positing that Jesus empowered "His Church" to do whatever is popular culture of whatever age comes along?

Then everything in the Dark Ages was holy, righteous and beautiful right? That's how theology was "interpreted" in those days. If Christian truth can be edited and changed for any pop culture, then how can it be connected to Jesus and to the reality of scripture that lists a connection all the way back to "God, in the beginning?"

Or not.

And just so you don't count that statement as a win... I don't think you can do the reverse of that challenge either for exactly the reasons I just mentioned. I do think I can make my side of the case just as clearly, if not more so, than you can yours (but I get the sense you were asking for the impossible challenge, not the reasonable one).

I just ask to judge what is and what isn't truth.

There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. There is not one word of support for the gay agenda "as we know it today" anywhere in the Bible. Whether in its pages or in the pages of other history. Christianity doesn't happen in a small cave on Easter Island. It happens in history. Now, if you or anyone else wants to build a gay religion based on what Jesus and "God" throughout the Bible never said . . . wellll, have at it. I have never stood in the way of new religions being invented. Unless of course they demand to be defined as Christian truth. Then of course that "judgmental" declaration must be judged as well. A gay theology doesn't have any support from scripture OTHER THAN complete silence. It may be safer to build a house on sand than nothing. But of course only for a little while. I notice a total dearth of gay preaching on calling the lost to the Cross of Christ. But I do hear a lot of calling people to support and celebrate gay sex. My only actions here should be to defend the faith. Not become part (again) of the world and its ways.

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]
"Christian Marriage" (and therefor appropriate sex acts) are in a marriage which is immutably throughout the Bible . . . man and woman/husband and wife. And there is no indication prophetic or just wishful thinking, or demand from homosexuals worldwide, nor is there any reason to assert that sexual behavior would be redefined as a same gender issue.

'Christian Marriage'... As in that thing created in, what was it? Like 400AD that we now know as marriage? Marriage in biblical times was much more akin to what we would call Common Law, it was a much more of a private affair and certainly not the extravagant celebration it has become in our social context. But that's not the point you were trying to make, so let's keep going.

Jesus went to a marriage in Cana. Long before 400AD. You can try that tactic all you want to, but what is clearly defined as "Christian marriage" IN the New Testament, can never be "equated" to homosexual definition. Neither in 400AD or 2014.

So I assume your whole understanding of biblical marriage comes from all those 'One flesh' verses... But this is what I meant above, even that whole 'one flesh' thing is open to interpretation.

Not even close. Unless of course you are asserting that Christian spouses should now be free to "join" with a prostitute anytime they "feel" the "orientation" to do so.

The interpretation is not open for reinvention. Or, if it is, then how is choas not what you are preaching?

The way Jesus uses it in Matthew and Mark has infinitely more to do with equality than it does re-enforcing hetero-normative sexual identities.

Hetero-normative? Are you kidding? Gay neologism in a theological debate? Propaganda is not going to force Christian truth to alter truth for a pop culture display. Christians have been through this for 2000-thousand plus years. If the Romans, The French (revolution) and the Americans (secular govermmental authority) have not wiped away Christian life as it is defined in the New Testament, gay pride isn't going to do any more than take a segment of a society into whatever any other licentious age has embraced.

Hetero-normative? Puhleeeaaaasssseee.

I mean he uses it when talking out against the prevalent notion at the time that a man could divorce his wife for whatever reason he could come up with but a woman would need one heck of a reason to do the same and Jesus is all 'no no guys... You were created as equals from the same flesh. When you become one unit, you are still equal and you have no more of a right to divorce them than they you.' Which was not met kindly to say the least with shouts of 'then why even bother getting married at all! WE WANT ALL THE POWER! GRRR' To which I can only imagine an exhausted Jesus being like 'man you have missed the point so hard... Why not just listen to this parable, maybe something will click as I keep talking about this revolutionary community of love.'

One hardly finds love in lying. Or as the Bible refers to it as "bearing false witness."

Jesus REAFFIRMED marriage as man and woman/husband and wife. There is no such thing as same gender "marriage."

Or not.

So basically, to work out your premise as far as I can tell, if anyone at any age feels that the Bible doesn't just doesn't fit the pop culture, then the Bible must be REinvented to fit the current fads?

And even that takes judgmentalism by the way. And even a form of fundamentalism.

[Replying to post 4 by cool_name123]
Now, you are welcomed to invent a new religion based on a new ad campaign for converts all you wish. That's a right of man. But you cannot justify the homosexualization of The Church, Christianity and Christian life with absolutely no scriptural support and utterly no theological support for redefining marriage as well without those that hold to the consistent position of what is appropriate sexually for Christians to stand up and stand against a wholesale invention of a new religion calling itself the faith delivered only once to the saints and replacing the one delivered by Jesus and the Apostles.

Ya, I'm pretty sure if Christ wasn't so against violence he'd just straight up slap you for that one as he never once cast anyone out. And saying 'You go do your thing over there, I don't care for it and you're not welcome here' sounds like nothing Christ would ever dream of even entertaining the idea of.

You've never read the Gospels? Jesus not only preaches an us versus them reality (which got him killed by the way) He taught it directly to the Apostles as well. Which of course goth them killed, by the way. And the Apostles were not all killed by fellow Israelites. Some were killed by those in the pop culture (Roman, secular) living their pop culture and decidedly anti Christian lifestyles. They didn't like to be "judged" by Jesus and his followers that preached a definitive Christian truth.

Please fell free to "test" all things I write.

Personally I think the bible is pretty clear that all are welcome, the social outcasts, the prostitutes, the sick, and those whom are different... If you want to hear this message of love and forgiveness then come on in. LGBTQ* is a very recent idea so if you want a perfect analogy it doesn't exist, but there were people back then that did not fit the traditional idea of sexuality whom were cast out and not welcome (or on the very rare occasion that they were welcome it was in very specific conditions) and the church of Christ essentially says 'Come on in! If you want what we're giving we'd love to have you...

I'm sorry? Are you saying that these outcasts came into The Church and never repented of their sins? Your party culture doesn't seem to fit the actual words of the Gospels.

And while we're on the topic, there's gotta be a better word for what you are cause you are awesome! Even 'sons' and 'daughters' ain't good enough for you!' Isaiah 56:3-5

"Daughters and sons?" Seems a rather hetero-normative definition. Or heterosexist? I have a hard time keeping up with the propaganda of LGBT neologism.

Now let's see 56 (NRSV) in whole:

Thus says the Lord:
Maintain justice, and do what is right,
for soon my salvation will come,
and my deliverance be revealed.
2 Happy is the mortal who does this,
the one who holds it fast,
who keeps the sabbath, not profaning it,
and refrains from doing any evil.
3 Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from his people�;
and do not let the eunuch say,
“I am just a dry tree.�
4 For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
8 Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered.[a]
The Corruption of Israel’s Rulers
9 All you wild animals,
all you wild animals in the forest, come to devour!
10 Israel’s sentinels are blind,
they are all without knowledge;
they are all silent dogs
that cannot bark;
dreaming, lying down,
loving to slumber.
11 The dogs have a mighty appetite;
they never have enough.
The shepherds also have no understanding;
they have all turned to their own way,
to their own gain, one and all.
12 “Come,� they say, “let us[c] get wine;
let us fill ourselves with strong drink.
And tomorrow will be like today,
great beyond measure.�

Seems judging to me.

[Replying to post 5 by cool_name123]

Maybe it's just me, but I do think this is an important issue for the church to discuss and deal with. Curse my christian morals wanting to see the church be an example of love for the world. And you don't really get there when you simply 'agree to disagree'.

How can The Church be and show "love" for the world (and its ways), if it becomes the world (and its ways)? Jesus clearly delineates "the world" from The Church

You don't have to become something to show your love for it. I don't need to be of a homosexual orientation in order to show love and compassion to someone who is. Can you really not see the difference between that of love and compassion and that of assimilation?

No absolutely not. The Gay Pride movement is not desiring anything but assimilation of affirmation. Please show me where I am wrong here? Not "Affirming" and celebrating gay behavior is "equaled" to racism and hate. I don't think I am imagining that. I have a Chick-fil-A stuffed toy cow on my desk reminding me of that every single day. And of course the demands of the LGBT (add letters as they come up) community to hear every single day as well.

[Replying to post 5 by cool_name123]

Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

And you are again right in that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality... How that is a win for your interpretation I can't quite see as if everything Jesus never mentioned is evil this whole internet thing is going to be our undoing.

Jesus never said a word about watching porn with a bunch of Frat buddies while sitting in a pew attending a Church service either. See how reading a Hustler magazine works out for anyone willing to try that in a "Bible affirming" Church some place? Pornaphobes? Bigots? hateful anti-freedom fundies?

The whole idea of basing ones theology on things Jesus didn't say is more than just building a house on sand. It is building a house on no foundation at all. And think about this, Jesus mentions Eunuchs in quite some detail. But not "Lesbians" and "Gays and the Bi-Sexuals?"

Eunuchs are still eunuchs "as we know it today." Exactly the way Jesus describes "them" in so-called ancient times.

But we have a consistent and definitive sexual ethos in the New Testament that does not ever "affirm" same gender sex acts in any description or definition. But we have more than enough texts to show the exact opposite.