CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JettaKnight]

Same church, same racist pastor.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Pope Francis tells gay man: 'God made you like this'

A survivor of clerical sexual abuse has said Pope Francis told him that God had made him gay and loved him, in arguably the most strikingly accepting comments about homosexuality to be uttered by the leader of the Roman Catholic church.

"He told me, 'Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don't care. The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are,'" Cruz told Spanish newspaper El País.

Austen Ivereigh, who has written a biography of the pope, said Francis had likely made similar comments in private in the past, when he served as a spiritual director to gay people in Buenos Aires, but that Cruz's public discussion of his conversation with Francis represented the most "Forceful" remarks on the subject since 2013.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pope Francis tells gay man: 'God made you like this'

God loves the alcoholic, the thief, the adulterer, the prostitutes, the compulsive liar and cheat too.

 

[2A_Tom]

And me too, but He has some rules and He did not make me break the ones that I do.

He did offer me free salvation, thru the blood of His blessed Son Jesus.

Which I accepted November 11, 1978 and have striven over the years to please Him, but alas the sin nature within me fights every day to hinder my walk with Him.

He loves me in spite of my failures, and lifts me up out of the miry clay and sets my feet on the solid Rock.

1 John 1:9 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[JettaKnight]

So... all this depends on how you define "gay" in this context. Is it as simple as same sex attraction? Is it how you define yourself? Is it your actions?


If we use the easy analogy, the alcoholic, we say the alcoholic has an attraction to drinking, but that alone isn't sinful - the drunkenness is. The reason for this is both common sense and Biblical. We don't ever tell the alcoholic to stop wanting to drink, but tell him to not drink.

Likewise, our message to a "gay Christian" should not be, "don't be gay!", but to avoid lust and the associated actions. (the same advice I'd offer to any Christian)



Unfortunately, our very loud and clear message (at least until the last 20 years) has been, "being gay is a sin!". Which, yeah, is true, but let's talk about what that means. I heard one modern theologian make that claim that the conservative church played a very large part in making the LGBT movement what is by driving Christians struggling with same sex attraction out of the church.

And I'm not sure why we've created this one issue such a lightning rod. There's far more condemnations about greed, lying, etc. But what is it about this? Is it leftover Victorian era sensibilities? Is that we find homosexuality cringe-worthy and disgusting? Why are we quicker to condemn the one struggling with attraction than the women teaching the Sunday School class false doctrine such as the reason sex is for procreation and scripture twisting the story of Onan or pretending the Song of Solomon is about God and Israel?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Many churches allow gay pastors as long as they are celibate

 

[JettaKnight]

Many churches allow gay pastors as long as they are celibate

Any of them Southern Baptist?

 

[rvb]

So... all this depends on how you define "gay" in this context. Is it as simple as same sex attraction? Is it how you define yourself? Is it your actions?


If we use the easy analogy, the alcoholic, we say the alcoholic has an attraction to drinking, but that alone isn't sinful - the drunkenness is. The reason for this is both common sense and Biblical. We don't ever tell the alcoholic to stop wanting to drink, but tell him to not drink.

Likewise, our message to a "gay Christian" should not be, "don't be gay!", but to avoid lust and the associated actions. (the same advice I'd offer to any Christian)



Unfortunately, our very loud and clear message (at least until the last 20 years) has been, "being gay is a sin!". Which, yeah, is true, but let's talk about what that means. I heard one modern theologian make that claim that the conservative church played a very large part in making the LGBT movement what is by driving Christians struggling with same sex attraction out of the church.

And I'm not sure why we've created this one issue such a lightning rod. There's far more condemnations about greed, lying, etc. But what is it about this? Is it leftover Victorian era sensibilities? Is that we find homosexuality cringe-worthy and disgusting? Why are we quicker to condemn the one struggling with attraction than the women teaching the Sunday School class false doctrine such as the reason sex is for procreation and scripture twisting the story of Onan or pretending the Song of Solomon is about God and Israel?

wonderful!
Yes, there is a difference between temptation and sin. Being tempted is not sin. And that is true regardless of the sin.

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

I suspect the reason it's become such a lightning rod is the normalization. The other sins you mentioned, like greed, lying, etc don't have authority figures (both in the church and secular) saying that giving into the temptation is normal/acceptable; churches don't have to define their belief system on greed, lying, adultery, etc. because there's not a debate about it.

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

wonderful!
Yes, there is a difference between temptation and sin. Being tempted is not sin. And that is true regardless of the sin.

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

I suspect the reason it's become such a lightning rod is the normalization. The other sins you mentioned, like greed, lying, etc don't have authority figures (both in the church and secular) saying that giving into the temptation is normal/acceptable; churches don't have to define their belief system on greed, lying, adultery, etc. because there's not a debate about it.

-rvb

Good point - the church has almost been backed into a corner and forced to take a side and defend it vigorously. It's pretty much become a litmus test for which church hold to the Bible and which churches are influenced by the Bible. Even when I look at a new church, that's one of things I look to find out - where do they stand on this?

But there's certainly a baby and the bathwater issue that parallels the Puritans of old - who is in the church? Sinclair Ferguson was giving a lecture on Renewing Your Mind about the Puritans and struggle - one leader (name forgotten by me) was admit that better that ten falsely be omitted than one impostor be included... Are some churches at that point with this issue? Are we so opposed to homosexuality (as we should be) that we want to sweep out those that struggle with temptation from our midst?

I don't know that any blanket statement can be made. I mean sure I know where the First Baptist Church of Hammond would come down on this, and let's exclude any "open and affirming church" as we'd both agree that completely un-Biblical, but I can't help but wonder where my church is on this...


As far as marriage is concerned, I've moved from arguing against same-sex marriage to arguing for a historical view of marriage (i.e. man & woman). I think there's far more scripture to explain why marriage is one man and one woman, and I don't have the same counter made against me, "well if their monogamous, gay marriage is OK".

Now that may sound like a subtle difference, but do the homework for yourself - study what God says about marriage and what the significance is; doing so will unlock so much much meaning to you in your own life.

 

[JettaKnight]

I suspect the reason it's become such a lightning rod is the normalization. The other sins you mentioned, like greed, lying, etc don't have authority figures (both in the church and secular) saying that giving into the temptation is normal/acceptable; churches don't have to define their belief system on greed, lying, adultery, etc. because there's not a debate about it.

-rvb

Greed, lying, adultery are not considered OK in our culture? Come on, Ryan, evangelical leaders have helped put a man whose based his life on those things into the oval office.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Any of them Southern Baptist?

No idea. My point is being gay would not exclude someone from being a minister in my opinion. Living an openly gay lifestyle and promoting it is a different story.

I went to a church where a worship pastor was married to anothrr staff member. He cheated on her and divorced her to Marry the other woman. IMO he should have been fired. If you are not setting a proper example you should not be leading

 

[JettaKnight]

No idea. My point is being gay would not exclude someone from being a minister in my opinion. Living an openly gay lifestyle and promoting it is a different story.

I went to a church where a worship pastor was married to anothrr staff member. He cheated on her and divorced her to Marry the other woman. IMO he should have been fired. If you are not setting a proper example you should not be leading

He wasn't?!

 

[rvb]

Ha!

Greed, lying, adultery are not considered OK in our culture? Come on, Ryan, evangelical leaders have helped put a man whose based his life on those things into the oval office.

That there are examples of those things is different than people standing at the pulpit or on their stage saying "it's ok to lie." Or "the Bible is outdated on theft." Yet I've seen pastors on TV even in town here at rallies supporting gay marriage.

-rvb

 

[hoosierdoc]

He wasn't?!

Nope

 

[T.Lex]

The gay "marriage" issue is tricky. (Yeah, Mr. Obvious comment there, right?)

I can see - from a religious point of view - taking the position that the civil rights/obligations/privileges that traditional married couples receive be extended to gay people. At least, I can't think of a non-religious, principled view for depriving them of those things. This goes back to the "we're all sinners" thing and an examination of conscience about why those rights/obligations/privileges exist.

However, the religious tradition of marriage is defined by the religion at issue. No church should be compelled to "marry" people who that church does not believe should be married. That includes inter-faith couples, too. Or heck, intra-faith couples that don't meet certain criteria.

That's separate (again IMHO) from the larger issue of gayness and religion. I generally align more with Pope Francis on that. (In the immortal words of the great American philospher, Gomer Pyle, "Well suhprize, suhprize, suhprize.")

 

[rvb]

Good point - the church has almost been backed into a corner and forced to take a side and defend it vigorously. It's pretty much become a litmus test for which church hold to the Bible and which churches are influenced by the Bible. Even when I look at a new church, that's one of things I look to find out - where do they stand on this?

But there's certainly a baby and the bathwater issue that parallels the Puritans of old - who is in the church? Sinclair Ferguson was giving a lecture on Renewing Your Mind about the Puritans and struggle - one leader (name forgotten by me) was admit that better that ten falsely be omitted than one impostor be included... Are some churches at that point with this issue? Are we so opposed to homosexuality (as we should be) that we want to sweep out those that struggle with temptation from our midst?

I don't know that any blanket statement can be made. I mean sure I know where the First Baptist Church of Hammond would come down on this, and let's exclude any "open and affirming church" as we'd both agree that completely un-Biblical, but I can't help but wonder where my church is on this...


As far as marriage is concerned, I've moved from arguing against same-sex marriage to arguing for a historical view of marriage (i.e. man & woman). I think there's far more scripture to explain why marriage is one man and one woman, and I don't have the same counter made against me, "well if their monogamous, gay marriage is OK".

Similarly, my church has as one of its statements of beliefs that marriage = one man + one woman and we wont perform same-sex marriages. But we try to make it a point that ANYONE is welcome. A church that has a belief like the puritan you mention above is not striving to be Christ-like (who needs a doctor, the sick or the healthy?). We're all sinners and one sin is not greater than the others.

Similarly, my view on pastors is that to be openly gay is to say the sin is acceptable, and they shouldn't be in that position. Similarly, if a pastor did something like mentioned above with the adultery, I wouldn't want them trying to say it was acceptable behavior. If so, they should be fired. However, if they have a repentant heart, acknowledge the struggle with sin, then, well... to err is human and pastors are human and I could see allowing them to stay in that position.

my 2c

Now that may sound like a subtle difference, but do the homework for yourself - study what God says about marriage and what the significance is; doing so will unlock so much much meaning to you in your own life.

My wife and I participated for several years in a "Young Married" small group in our church that was geared towards younger married couples. We studied why marriage exists and what it represents, what the implications for us were as husbands/wives/parents, etc and you're right, much meaning unlocked!

-rvb

 

[rvb]

I can see - from a religious point of view - taking the position that the civil rights/obligations/privileges that traditional married couples receive be extended to gay people. At least, I can't think of a non-religious, principled view for depriving them of those things.

I've been ok with the idea of a generic "civil union." Someone that you can identify to receive the same legal/financial status as a "spouse" so that 1) tax implications and 2) benefit/insurance/inheritance implications are equal. I would be ok with this applying universally..... so that instead of a "marriage license" you do some other generic union process through the state. (I really think marriage should just be removed from the tax code).

"Marriages" can then be a religious ceremony performed through the church that has nothing to do with the state. Not much difference from a couple today going down to the courthouse to get "married" if they aren't religious. But from the view of rights/privileges, it could be available to anyone.

Heck, I've known people who got married at the courthouse because they needed to be married for some deadline (iirc it was something to do with military benefits) then had the wedding/ceremony a couple weeks later. They consider the church wedding date to be their anniversary, even if "officially" it was sooner.

This allows churches to be free to decide their criteria for performing a religious ceremony, and takes the term "marriage" out of the state's authority, which is where most of the contention comes from...

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

Pope Francis tells gay man: 'God made you like this'

Pope Admits He's Making Up Pretty Much Everything As He Goes

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Looks like the Daily Caller is going to be one of those fringe outlets that rely on clickbait.

I used to link to them when they broke news, but I find it hard to take them seriously these days.

Man Claims Pope Said God Made Him Gay | The Daily Caller

 

[JettaKnight]

Looks like the Daily Caller is going to be one of those fringe outlets that rely on clickbait.

I used to link to them when they broke news, but I find it hard to take them seriously these days.

Man Claims Pope Said God Made Him Gay | The Daily Caller

Even as a critic of Frank the Hippie Pope, I don't think this is such a big deal.

If the pope said to me, "God made you with an intense craving for coney dogs." would anyone care?


For whatever reason, he stopped short of condoning the behavior.