U.S. church excluded over gay stance

Gandhi

Gandhi

New Member
I was reading this article and found it interesting how close the vote was.
At a meeting in Nottingham, the North American churches refused to back down, leading the Anglican Consultative Council to vote by 30 to 28 to call upon the churches to voluntarily withdraw from its meetings for three years.
Click to expand...

It was 30 to 28 which shows more support than I thought there would be for the acceptance of gays in the church.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?fe...-1-20050623-08393700-bc-britain-anglicans.xml
 
The Anglican church was also (IIRC) the first Christian denomination to allow women priests, and the U.S. Anglican church actually has an openly gay bishop, which has spawned this schism. I have a feeling that the two factions may actually formally split as a result of this, forming an American Anglican denomination and the traditional Anglican church.

I think that it's interesting to note that Britain is actually more conservative than the U.S. on something for once.
 
Well u would think bishops in the anglican church have read the bible, and probobly have a better understanding of it than we do. After all its their job. So saying the administration might except it but the bible doesn't wouldn't doesn't make sence. Their reading the same bible as u, arn't they. Yet they came up with a different conclusion. Remember years ago people were quoting the bible to show how rock and roll and KISS were satanic, u would probobly quote it to show how being gay is a sin. Twenty years from now christians would be laughing at how we thought gay marriages were wrong, just like we're laughing at how people thought rock and roll was satanic (u know how sexy it was when elvis shoke those hips of his).
But I'm guessing we shouldn't start this topic again, since we've gone over it many times in the past.
I just thought it was interesting to see the differencein votes.
 
Just because they "voted" does not make it right. You can vote on anything you want but unless they have Biblical backing then they are wrong. In this case. They are blatantly going AGAINST the Bible.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Click to expand...
 
Gandhi said:
Remember years ago people were quoting the bible to show how rock and roll and KISS were satanic, u would probobly quote it to show how being gay is a sin. Twenty years from now christians would be laughing at how we thought gay marriages were wrong, just like we're laughing at how people thought rock and roll was satanic.
Click to expand...

Poor example Gandhi.

The difference is that the Bible actually encourages us to praise God as loudly as we can, using any instruments we can.

Psalm 150 said:
1 Hallelujah!
Praise God in His sanctuary.
Praise Him in His mighty heavens. 2 Praise Him for His powerful acts;
praise Him for His abundant greatness. 3 Praise Him with trumpet blast;
praise Him with harp and lyre. 4 Praise Him with tambourine and dance;
praise Him with flute and strings. 5 Praise Him with resounding cymbals;
praise Him with clashing cymbals. 6 Let everything that breathes praise the Lord.
Hallelujah!
Click to expand...

The lyre was a stringed instrument that was held and plucked, much like a guitar. Here's a pic: http://www.intcon.net/~songbird/strings/lyre04.gif

As far as KISS... if not "satanic", I'd say that their lyrics and stage shows did nothing to please God, and encouraged sinful behavior. Not because of the style of music they play, but because of their lyrics.

Homosexuality is specifically mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments as a sin. That's why your analogy doesn't hold water, Gandhi.
 
I know it was a poor example, I blame it on my nurse took most of my blood and I haven't eaten anything.

Interesting thing about Leviticus 20:13 is that if a man has sex with another man he should be put to death, so by using it to show how homosexuality is wrong u're also saying that u think gays should be put to death.

"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."
Click to expand...

Also Leviticus goes on to talk about clean and unclean animals, thats y Jewish people don't eat shellfish.

Its kind of interesting the 613 commandments given to moses. It was a interesting read, I found most of them a little weird but what ever floats your boat I guess.
The two interesting ones is the one about tattoos, and having sex with a women having her period.
 
And to eliviate any doubt about the New Testament's stance on homosexuality...
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...

Romans 1:24-32:

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Click to expand...
 
Quick question was there a word for homosexuals back then or did the translator make a judgement call.

Ok my bad I guess there is a word for homosexuals. But most translations use the word effeminate.
But I was reading about the translation and this is what I found.

The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
Click to expand...

Anyways, had alot of fun looking this stuff up. Interesting reading, I guess I'll be in love with google for the rest of my life. :)
 
Last edited:
Let's suppose for a moment that the "anonymous poster" you quoted is correct. Isn't all homosexuality still fornication (any form of sex outside of marriage)? Isn't fornication still a sin?
 
Well by saying that, homosexuals that have gotten married are not commiting a sin.
Also am I the only one on here who doesn't follow the sex before marriage rule. Does anyone still follow that rule anymore.
The test was quoted from the religious tolerance website.
 
Gandhi said:
Well by saying that, homosexuals that have gotten married are not commiting a sin.
Click to expand...
I think reading the historical account of Sodom and Gomorrah should shed light on any doubts!
Also am I the only one on here who doesn't follow the sex before marriage rule. Does anyone still follow that rule anymore.
Click to expand...
Regardless if the vote comes in that we do or do not, the Bible says that this is wrong. There is a verse that tells us not to remove the ancient landmark. Over the years we have done just that morally. Were we to move that landmark back in place, we would see that we have drifted afar from the teachings of God's Word. As it stands, we have let small things slip in and removed the landmark a bit at a time, never seeming all that bad...you are seeing the results of that by the "christian" vote. I have put the word in quotes, for the literal meaning is those who live as Christ did.
The test was quoted from the religious tolerance website.
Click to expand...
Is the landmark anywhere in sight?
 
I think we already went over sodom and gomorrah a long time ago. If a bunch of homosexuals come to your door asking for men to sleep with, would u offer your two daughters. If they were gay Lot would know it and not even bother to offer a girl. It doesn't make sence.

The thing with the BIble is everyone's got their own interpertation of it. Have u ever thought that we would have a better understanding of the bible and the context of the text now more so than before. So maybe the landmarkwas in the wrong place to begin with.
 
The city and Lots wife were destroyed because of sodomy, that is obvious. Lot was aware that the city was to be destroyed. I don't think he wanted sodomy happening right there. Offering his daughters doesn't make sense. Living in the midst of those things had to have some bearing on Lot. Would he offer his pure daughters? He did for reasons I can only guess at.
I think God's Word is perfectly clear, we simply want to do things our own way. The Landmark of God's Word in unchanging, the deeper in sin we insist on getting, the harder our hearts become, and the further we get from God's principles.
 
How is that obvious, it could of been destroyed bcause they didn't show any respect towards gods messengers.
What I don't get is if the city was full of gay men, where would the women and kids come in. I don't know about u, I don't see any openly gay men having wifes and kids.
Lot offered his daughters because the men wern't gay, u don't offer girls to gay men.
Also maybe they wern't going to rape the messengers, maybe they moved away from god and were going to hurt them. The king James version doesn't say bring them out here so we can have sex with them, it says bring them out here so we can get to know them. Would it make more sence if the came to hurt the angels and lot offered his daughters to amuse them instead.
We can probobly come up with many interpertations of the text, and we could be wrong with all of them.
 
Gandhi said:
How is that obvious, it could of been destroyed bcause they didn't show any respect towards gods messengers.
What I don't get is if the city was full of gay men, where would the women and kids come in. I don't know about u, I don't see any openly gay men having wifes and kids.
Click to expand...
They were very proud of what they did there in Sodom, the name of the city says it all.
When the gays started "coming out" you no longer saw them with wives and children. Yet as late as the 60's, it was a well known fact that many led double lives, witness some account of actors in Hollywood. Their lifestyle was not accepted, we were closer to the landmark!
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28
The king James version doesn't say bring them out here so we can have sex with them, it says bring them out here so we can get to know them.
Click to expand...
In the King James Version, to know was how it was described, a pure, precious, blissful blessing, the way God created it to be.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Genesis 4:1

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Genesis 4:17

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. Genesis 4:25

www.crosswalk.com
Matthew 1
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
 
They were very proud of what they did there in Sodom, the name of the city says it all.
Click to expand...
Sodomy wasn't used as another word or anal sex until the 60's or 70's I think. It got the name because of peoples interpertation of the bible.
I know there are many men that wern't comfortable and lead double lives. But if this city was full of openly gay men, I don't see y they would lead double lives. If they were still in the closet, and leading a double life, they wouldn't be out in the open asking for men to sodomise (is that a word). Also if all the men of the city were out side the house and they were gay, would that include the 2 daughters future husbands.
Also I think there was a article I read a while ago which talked about men joining the priesthood because they didn't want to marry a women. Actually I think a few weeks ago on the news they were talking about how the pope but together a comission to find gay men in the church, and weed them out.
 
Gandhi said:
Sodomy wasn't used as another word or anal sex until the 60's or 70's I think. It got the name because of peoples interpertation of the bible.
I know there are many men that wern't comfortable and lead double lives. But if this city was full of openly gay men, I don't see y they would lead double lives. If they were still in the closet, and leading a double life, they wouldn't be out in the open asking for men to sodomise (is that a word). Also if all the men of the city were out side the house and they were gay, would that include the 2 daughters future husbands.
Click to expand...
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/3/257/frameset.html
This is a 1913 dictionary you will find the word there. I must relent, they must have been very open about it during that time. In verse 4 of Genesis 19 we are given the impression that there was quite a multitude at that door. I don't think it tells us how old the daughters were, but after that night, there were no future husbands in Sodom. I have always gathered from this account, since Lot tried to persuade God to save the city, that there was not one there that cared to follow God.
Ditto what Gandhi said above, you're putting the cart before the horse here.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you are right...or is it the chicken before the egg dilemma? YAY!!! Giddy-up!
 
Been here done this...

You can argue otherwise til your blue in the face and use the divided christian card all you like. But as you know (but perhaps won't admit) the Bible leaves no room for doubt when it comes to God's stance on homosexuality. If you don't know then I suggest you read it (in context).

FINALLY! The worldwide anglican church stood up to the liberal American branch. Heresy is heresy and must be addressed by the Church.

The sad and scary part is that the vote was so close:mad:
 
This is a 1913 dictionary you will find the word there. I must relent, they must have been very open about it during that time. In verse 4 of Genesis 19 we are given the impression that there was quite a multitude at that door. I don't think it tells us how old the daughters were, but after that night, there were no future husbands in Sodom. .
Click to expand...

I checked the link and couldn't find the word, but I think u were right in the link below I was reading and it says the word sodomy meaning homosexual sex started with the King James Bible. I still need to do more reading about it but its past midnight, and I'm tired.

I have always gathered from this account, since Lot tried to persuade God to save the city, that there was not one there that cared to follow God
Click to expand...

Well maybe that was y god destroyed the city, because no one there cared about him. The angels were there to find 10 good men, to find a reason to save the city.
Also what I don't undersand is yu would kill the children of the city. If they did perform in unnatural sexual acts was it really their fault.

Sodomy in the bible
I know a weird site but a well written article.

Also I guess we are going in circles with this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top