CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

not sure why the gay adjective is needed. ALL clergy must stay celibate or get out.

Pope says gay clergy must stay celibate or get out

 

[Ziggidy]

not sure why the gay adjective is needed. ALL clergy must stay celibate or get out.

That's not always enforced....

 

[JettaKnight]

Point of order

Catholic Church = Orthodox

 

[JettaKnight]

That's not always enforced....

Is that like a South American thing?

Perhaps T.Lex should jump in.


Plus, celibacy isn't the heart of the issue - does the gay priest believe it's a sin?

Follow me: a straight priest can/should be celibate, but still celebrates the institution of (straight) marriage. So, any gay priest that is celibate could potentially likewise celebrate the institution of marriage in any form. This would be just as sinful as if the priest was not celibate.

Over the last year, I've realized there's a lot of "gay Christians" that identify that way the same as repentant, chronic drunk might identify as an "alcoholic". It's an indication of their struggle, their sinful self, not their lifestyle (well, it means they like showtunes and hair gel). In other words, a faithful gay Christian is one that values the tradition Biblical view of marriage (i.e. one man, one woman, together till death).

 

[Ziggidy]

Plus, celibacy isn't the heart of the issue - does the gay priest believe it's a sin?

Follow me: a straight priest can/should be celibate, but still celebrates the institution of (straight) marriage. So, any gay priest that is celibate could potentially likewise celebrate the institution of marriage in any form. This would be just as sinful as if the priest was not celibate.

Over the last year, I've realized there's a lot of "gay Christians" that identify that way the same as repentant, chronic drunk might identify as an "alcoholic". It's an indication of their struggle, their sinful self, not their lifestyle (well, it means they like showtunes and hair gel). In other words, a faithful gay Christian is one that values the tradition Biblical view of marriage (i.e. one man, one woman, together till death).

I agree. Temptation is not a sin. The thought that I struggle with is can someone have a gay lifestyle be celibate? Can a recovering alcoholic be a bartender? Can someone who is struggling with porn work in an adult store? Can any of these individuals be in a leadership role within a church?

The argument is "we all sin", I get that; but would you allow recovering sex addict to work in your children ministry? Where is the line drawn?

I am not saying I know the answer. It goes back to the gay clergy who must be celibate. I have known gay christians who were celibate; they never talked about it or gave reference to it. One you would have never know it and the other started a men's ministry to help others with the temptation. One was married and one was never married.

I know churches that do background checks on people who work with children. Is that ok?

I don't know the answers but would believe that many times it must be based on an individual bases rather than a broad sweep of the brush.

One thing I do believe. If one is openly living in sin, living out their temptations - no leadership role for them. (another topic of discussion)

 

[T.Lex]

Is that like a South American thing?

Perhaps T.Lex should jump in.

Not sure what I'm jumping into. Or in to. Or in, too.

I believe supervision of parish priests falls to the bishops for purposes of discipline (and advancement). Across time and geography, that supervision has ranged from good to tragedy-inducing.

If the point of contention is that some bishops have done a terrible job supervising/disciplining individual priests, then I have no counterargument. I mean, I could probably come up with one, but it wouldn't be very compelling.

 

[2A_Tom]

I know churches that do background checks on people who work with children. Is that ok?

One thing I do believe. If one is openly living in sin, living out their temptations - no leadership role for them. (another topic of discussion)

Yes background checks are fine.

 

[HoughMade]

...Plus, celibacy isn't the heart of the issue - does the gay priest believe it's a sin?...

Let's make this simple and keep extra-biblical commands out of this. It really is simple.

1. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
2. Biblical marriage includes only a marriage between a man and a woman.
Therefore,
3. Homosexual sex is always a sin.
Therefore,
If you have same sex attraction, you must remain celibate to be without sin in this regard.

I'll let the Catholics handle the "Priests must be celibate except in certain places and if you were an Episcopal and already married" stuff.

 

[JettaKnight]

Let's make this simple and keep extra-biblical commands out of this. It really is simple.

1. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
2. Biblical marriage includes only a marriage between a man and a woman.
Therefore,
3. Homosexual sex is always a sin.
Therefore,
If you have same sex attraction, you must remain celibate to be without sin in this regard.

I'll let the Catholics handle the "Priests must be celibate except in certain places and if you were an Episcopal and already married" stuff.

You could get married. (to the opposite sex, of course)

There are plenty of "gay Christians" who are married, and living a faithful life.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

... Seeing things listed like this just makes it all seem so silly. For something as vast and important as a religion encompassing life beyond death, etc... seeing such insignificant things enumerated makes it hard(er) to follow as a serious thing.

Feels like a lot of these sins were created far after-the-fact by people that weren't around, and didn't write the rules.

 

[HoughMade]

You could get married. (to the opposite sex, of course)

There are plenty of "gay Christians" who are married, and living a faithful life.

If they are able to deal with their same sex attraction well enough to make such a marriage work, good for them and their wives or husbands. Would not be easy. You are 100% correct.

 

[2A_Tom]

Let's make this simple and keep extra-biblical commands out of this. It really is simple.

1. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
2. Biblical marriage includes only a marriage between a man and a woman.
Therefore,
3. Homosexual sex is always a sin.
Therefore,
If you have same sex attraction, you must remain celibate to be without sin in this regard.

Agreed.

Celibacy is nearly impossible for a man. That is why G-d commands that Pastors and Deacons, the only two Biblical offices in the Church, be the husband of one wife.

Requiring celibacy interferes with the natural order.

1 Timothy 4:3 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
Forbidding to marry, ..., which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 

[2A_Tom]

... Seeing things listed like this just makes it all seem so silly. For something as vast and important as a religion encompassing life beyond death, etc... seeing such insignificant things enumerated makes it hard(er) to follow as a serious thing.

Feels like a lot of these sins were created far after-the-fact by people that weren't around, and didn't write the rules.

Genesis 2:24 | View whole chapter | See verse in contextTherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31 | View whole chapter | See verse in contextFor this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Matthew 19:5 | View whole chapter | See verse in contextAnd said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

 

[JettaKnight]

One thing I do believe. If one is openly living in sin, living out their temptations - no leadership role for them. (another topic of discussion)

That's the very least that should happen. Biblically speaking, and elder should be addressing the issue.

 

[JettaKnight]

If they are able to deal with their same sex attraction well enough to make such a marriage work, good for them and their wives or husbands. Would not be easy. You are 100% correct.

My wife would say that having that as the issue would be a refreshing change.

 

[JettaKnight]

... Seeing things listed like this just makes it all seem so silly. For something as vast and important as a religion encompassing life beyond death, etc... seeing such insignificant things enumerated makes it hard(er) to follow as a serious thing.

Feels like a lot of these sins were created far after-the-fact by people that weren't around, and didn't write the rules.

It's not so much a rule, as it is an inherent design. Marriage is model that is designed into life. It mirrors Christ and his love for the church (his bride).

I've stopped being anti-gay marriage, and pro-"historical Biblical model" marriage. It really makes a big difference when you change your POV.


A good book on the "progressiveness" of the Bible is Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. It argues that a progressive hermeneutic leads us to: slavery == wrong, women == equals, homosexuality == abhorrent.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It's not so much a rule, as it is an inherent design. Marriage is model that is designed into life. It mirrors Christ and his love for the church (his bride).

I've stopped being anti-gay marriage, and pro-"historical Biblical model" marriage. It really makes a big difference when you change your POV.

Do you think some liberties were taken with regards to interpreting the Biblical model? Like taking some things very literally, and others not-so-much, in order to influence modern policy?

 

[Ziggidy]

I've stopped being anti-gay marriage, and pro-"historical Biblical model" marriage. It really makes a big difference when you change your POV.

What is interesting is that most religions in the world will agree that marriage is between man and woman. Most religions is one heck of allot of people. If that many people agree with that thought, how did we ever get to where we are today? Same sex marriage, pornography, gay, queer, transgender.....and so on. How did this happen?

 

[JettaKnight]

Do you think some liberties were taken with regards to interpreting the Biblical model? Like taking some things very literally, and others not-so-much, in order to influence modern policy?

I think there was a whole lot of baggage added to Bible in regards to race. Not living through those times, I'm unaware of the arguments used.

I am willing to accept that as a nation, we can't force the Biblical view upon non-Believers.


Other than that, it's remarkable that for centuries the Biblical view was the unquestioned correct view, yet within a couple of decades it is being viewed as draconian.

 

[JettaKnight]

What is interesting is that most religions in the world will agree that marriage is between man and woman. Most religions is one heck of allot of people. If that many people agree with that thought, how did we ever get to where we are today? Same sex marriage, pornography, gay, queer, transgender.....and so on. How did this happen?

"enlightenment"

We live in a post-Christian society.