When the Bible does not promote or condone, then what?

[micatala]

This thread is prompted by the often-made statement.

I have asked you to provide any evidence "from the Bible" (since you have offered that you are a priest), where sodomy/perderasty-homosexuality-Gay, is celebrated, supported, condoned, promoted, or preached as acceptable, anywhere in the New Testament

The implication is that, since the Bible nowhere promotes, condones, or 'celebrates' homosexuality, this is further indication it should be condemned.

Question for debate:

Is this a valid conclusion?

Are there other examples of behaviors, views, etc. that are not promoted, condoned, or celebrated in the Bible, but that Christians typically do not condemn?

[micatala]

It's only in the secular realm that divorce has won the day.

This belies the reality that divorce rates within the church, and even most subgroups of Christians however you would like to define them, are essentially the same as the society at large. This statement seems to be wishful thinking in an attempt to distance the treatment of divorce from the treatment of homosexuality.

I know of no Christian Church that celebrates or condones a divorce?

I would suggest that this is probably the result of a very biased sample of churches or some other data collection anomaly. Divorce is clearly at least condoned by most Christian churches. People who are known to be divorced, and even those who technically are in adultery because they have remarried, fill todays churches with hardly a word said. This cannot be said of homosexuals.

When divorce is preached against, it is nearly always done with sympathy for the people who have undergone divorce, and in an effort to help couples avoid divorce. There are very few churches, I would wager, where you will ever here the type of fire and brimstone speech against divorce that you hear against homosexuality. The same can be said of radio and TV sermons that one can typically hear, including in my very conservative area of the nation.

As "liberals" understand the Bible. Liberals have proven that their idea of Biblical truth is suspect; to say the least.

An easy assertion to make, and nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. Simply labeling an interpretation you don't agree with as 'suspect' or engaging in an ad hominem attack on a position by labeling it liberal does nothing as far as examining the actual validity of the position or reasoning involved. Your arguments often to make what I would say are highly exaggerated claims of proof. Proof requires objectively examining all the evidence, not citing isolated cases that are consistent with a position and ignoring countervaling evidence.

[melikio]

The story of Adam and Eve shows us that from the start of Biblical reports, God does not allow for excuses or rebellion to go unchallenged.

That story, the others and people's individual "interpretations" of them, were put there for many reasons. I seriously doubt that the reason includes giving you or others who want to be the BOSS of the multitudes, fuel for oppressing them (according to your will).

Think about NOT being the BOSS of others; that position beongs to God, if He's really there (and I believe He is).

-Mel-

[melikio]

When divorce is preached against, it is nearly always done with sympathy for the people who have undergone divorce, and in an effort to help couples avoid divorce.

I listened patiently and quietly when I was struggling with my homosexual-orientation a few years back; I was waiting for this to be noticed by Christians-at-large.

I was helpless to CHANGE what I was (sexually), so I would put my life, hopes and dreams on hold (standing like an antenna), waiting to hear something fair/just or encouraging for homosexuals from the pulpit (as I sat, nearly depressed in the pews).

I used to just "dream" of hearing more than a handful of Christian people saying what is quoted above.

But the emphasis seems to go toward making the lives of homosexuals MORE difficult than the rest of "sinners", to FORCE them to "repent" (as if there is something right/just about that at all); seeing the hypocrisy of it all, caused me to question the sociocultural-phenomenon that is "Christianity" (not Jesus' sacrifice).

After I separated myself from the source of the hypocrisy, life made a LOT MORE sense; and there wasn't anything easy about doing that either. Questioning the "Christian" status quo, was the hardest thing I ever had to do in my life. Even so, my sanity was on the line, so I had little to no choice.

-Mel-

[micatala]

I listened patiently and quietly when I was struggling with my homosexual-orientation a few years back; I was waiting for this to be noticed by Christians-at-large.

I can certainly sympathize.

Most of the sermons I have heard that mention homosexuality usually do so in the context of it being 'an evil lifestyle', implying that is always a choice or the result of deception, and that it is to be feared.

I have never heard a sermon making comments that might be addressed 'to' homosexuals, while I have certainly heard many sermons talking 'to' married couples and divorced people. Homosexuals are always talked 'about' as if they are not in the congregation and are only 'out there trying to bring evil into the world.'

How can anyone not see this as a gross hypocrisy?

[melikio]

I have never heard a sermon making comments that might be addressed 'to' homosexuals, while I have certainly heard many sermons talking 'to' married couples and divorced people. Homosexuals are always talked 'about' as if they are not in the congregation and are only 'out there trying to bring evil into the world.'

Yeah, I know.

I used to just cry a lot, and figure that I wasn't 'hating' myself enough (since I KNEW with near-certainty, that I hadn't made some 'choice' to be gay). I was so confused and angry (for nearly 20 years), then I just couldn't stand it anymore; I had to "question" the places in "Christianity" where the mandatory pain would be coming from.

It took me about 5 years to understand (at the heart level) that the source of the pain wasn't God, the Bible or Jesus; but that the certain PEOPLE were. That is, what some DO with the "Gospel", the "Bible" or "religion", made all the difference. I noticed that the Bible read in context (faith, hope and love), wasn't intended to be spiritual-KRYPTONITE for homosexuals (as many try to apply it). LOL, it's like some Christians expect homosexuals to turn away like DRACULA from the clobber-verses (as if we hadn't stared into those words and meaning, long before they encountered us as "people").

It would be refreshing to experience many more Christians who aren't about ignorance, fear and/or hatred of homosexuality (and that doesn't mean they "condone" it either). Homosexual people (chaste or not), have sustained some massive wounds in this society and the world. And it really is ironic that we even have to talk about how they should be treated as HUMAN BEINGS (especially for "Christians").

I think Jesus gave the best example of how those we consider to be sinners and enemies should be "treated". I don't see that the Bible promotes anything but kindness, gentleness, self-control and agape. I don't see where mutual human beings have been given a "calling" to beat (socially, morally or spiritually) the daylights out of homosexuals or anyone else who may be labeled as a "sinner" or "enemy"; it's just not in there (in the most reasonable interpretations). And funny enough, many to most Christians have figured that out about "divorce", "fornication", "adultery", "lying", "hating"...etc., but not about "homosexuality".

I believe it's time to stop giving the BIAS (social/spiritual) against homosexual people so much "weight".

I think the hypocrisy of it all, is causing a slow "backfire" within Christendom, that many aren't objective enough to recognize for what it is. It can't be ignored forever, but I think people are distracted because for now, it seems that "homosexuality" is THE BIG PROBLEM. And while I don't expect all Christians to condone homosexuality, I do see that many have SCAPEGOATED homosexuals or diverted attention to homosexuality, which has given a false impression of how serious or dire that one single issue actually is.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:
It's only in the secular realm that divorce has won the day.

This belies the reality that divorce rates within the church, and even most subgroups of Christians however you would like to define them, are essentially the same as the society at large. This statement seems to be wishful thinking in an attempt to distance the treatment of divorce from the treatment of homosexuality.

There is a different treatment of same-gender sex to divorce "in the Bible." Isn't there. That cannot be avoided. There seems a "line is crossed" like the difference in killing a bad guy and murdering the postman because you don't like him.

What is wishful thinking is the futile attempt at trying to make homosexuality OK by saying "two wrongs make a right." In fact adultery is always wrong. If we take away the reaction we have developed as a culture to the "word" homosexuality, then we can see the behavior as fornication or worse, as it seems tied to pagan idolatry in Biblical treatment of the sex act. That is shown as true to those vainly trying to equate homosexuality to normality in the modern world. Of course the disruption of normality and the unleashing of chaos comes hand in hand with "breaking down" morality as well. Let's not forget reality. In same gender couples, they are seeking their own selfishness in creating a "family." In normality and morality, it is a couple (parants) seeking the child's wellbeing as the means of the "family." They have left the non-creative for the creative.

This was the whole issue with slavery. People wanted to try to justify owning humans as products by altering the conception of what it meant to "be" a slave. War finally resulted to give people back their humanity.

Quote:
I know of no Christian Church that celebrates or condones a divorce?

I would suggest that this is probably the result of a very biased sample of churches or some other data collection anomaly. Divorce is clearly at least condoned by most Christian churches.

Tolerating is as far as it goes. Tolerating has nothing to do with acceptance. Nothing at all in many, many cases. And once the tolerated go to far and demand to be equals to morally sound people, then the decent people react in a much more direct way. Homosexuality has "split" many Churches, and not 50-50, but rather the rabble minority going too far. Christian denominations shows the essence of peacefulness put into practice. I have written many times that creating a new religion is what modern homosexuality actulally has done. Homosexual groups like Mormons and others, should just break away from the Christian community and stand alone. The whole "let God judge" aspect put into reality.

People who are known to be divorced, and even those who technically are in adultery because they have remarried, fill todays churches with hardly a word said. This cannot be said of homosexuals.

I think not holding to repentance is worse than homosexual sex between adults. Notice that homosexuals are demanding that they have no way to avoid their behaviors. An adulterer stops the minute they stop by repenting and not commiting adultery. Forcing the comparison of same-gender sex and adultery is a stretch that will not find support in or from the Bible. It is clear from the Biblical text that adultery (and any sinning) can bring the wrath of God . . . but God refuses to see what pre-repentent sins existed once a person repents. Our sins as it were cats as far as the west is from the east. The Bible contains many passages of God's people "returning" to Him and stopping their practicing abominations of the people's not of God. There is no way to fit the celebration and acceptance of same-gender sex be equated to things that should "still be being done" once a person repents and is forgiven.

This idea that "I was born with an excuse to sin," does not hold up under Biblical treatment. And niether does reclassifying same-gender sex acts as the some birth condition the Church is going to have to change the Bible to accept. That will never happen where God is preached.

When divorce is preached against, it is nearly always done with sympathy for the people who have undergone divorce, and in an effort to help couples avoid divorce.

In Churches maybe, that have changed the Bible for the culture. Not the other way around. The Bible is finished on many, many subjects. That is what seperates the people of God from theose that aren't. That is as Biblical as it gets.

There are very few churches, I would wager, where you will ever here the type of fire and brimstone speech against divorce that you hear against homosexuality.

That's bogus. This whole gay versus a moral society issue, disproves that assertion, is just hopeful splitting of reality in hopes that someone wil buy into it. Many have. Some by ignorance, some by innocence and some by pure evil. Also an accurate Biblical treatment of what has gone on in some Churches.

The same can be said of radio and TV sermons that one can typically hear, including in my very conservative area of the nation.

Let's hear a conservative sermon from King David about guilt and sin and the removal of it:

A Contrite Sinner's Prayer for Pardon. (Psalm 51)

David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.

Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.

Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.

Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.

Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.

Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.

O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.

For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

By Your favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.

Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

Quote:
As "liberals" understand the Bible. Liberals have proven that their idea of Biblical truth is suspect; to say the least.


An easy assertion to make, and nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. Simply labeling an interpretation you don't agree with as 'suspect' or engaging in an ad hominem attack on a position by labeling it liberal does nothing as far as examining the actual validity of the position or reasoning involved.

David's Psalm testifies against your position. I just agree with King David. And "our" God.

Your arguments often to make what I would say are highly exaggerated claims of proof. Proof requires objectively examining all the evidence, not citing isolated cases that are consistent with a position and ignoring countervaling evidence.

There is not one instance "in the Bible" that counters King David's assertions to trust and to seek a forgiving God. My arguments are seen as such because the people that stand in opposition to the positions I have come to agree with (not formulate independantly), do not want to repentant for whatever reasons that they hold to in their hearts and minds. That, and those people, do not, and have not ,changed the truth.

What the Bible promotes is a return to God. It has been written "for the ages" and to those that will hear and follow the will of God. It seems clear when viewing the Old Testament and the New Testament as a continuation of repentance, forgiveness and return, to be a very consistent message from beginning to end. Where:

All who call on the "Name" of the "Lord" will be saved.

I take that to mean "all."

So please, the pettiness of new words to try to redefine what is and what isn't following God as outlined "in" the Bible is as fruitless as looking for love in all the "wrong" places.

How "can" anyone "call on the Name of the Lord" without first repenting and being "returned" to a condition of relationship with God?

What a beautiful and "open" sermon - open to all - belief system that is. In fact it is a promise still being grasped by humans as we write.

David was a man after God's own heart and it is just as clear from the Gospel, so can anyone "be."

A heart seeking children reaching up to picked up.

The consistent message of returning "to" God, has not and cannot ever be changed. Those that choose not to, have another path to tread and another destiny to find. Those that seek the Lord, will find God was always seeking them.

[micatala]

It's only in the secular realm that divorce has won the day.

This belies the reality that divorce rates within the church, and even most subgroups of Christians however you would like to define them, are essentially the same as the society at large. This statement seems to be wishful thinking in an attempt to distance the treatment of divorce from the treatment of homosexuality.

There is a different treatment of same-gender sex to divorce "in the Bible." Isn't there. That cannot be avoided. There seems a "line is crossed" like the difference in killing a bad guy and murdering the postman because you don't like him.

This is changing the subject. You first essentially claimed that Christians do not treat divorce differently than homosexuality. That we as a group condemn both equally, although you cited the Bible and not what actual Christian practice is. I pointed out that this is not the case. Christians are much more accepting of divorce than homosexuality. You asserted this was a 'secular' problem, but the fact is, it is not, as statistics show.

Now you are back to making an assertion based on the bible. This does not address the fact that Christians are much more accepting of divorce than homosexuality.

Still, there is no answer as to why this is.



As far as there being a difference in treatment in the Bible, is this really true? Adulterers, and many divorced Christians today count as adulterers, were to be stoned in the OT. Is this different than the OT response to homosexual acts? Is there any Biblical support to the notion that homosexuality should be dealt with differently than divorce, even if we assume both to be sinful?

I am not sure what your murder analogy has to do with anything. I would argue that if it applies at all, it applies in reverse. In any empirical sense, divorce causes much much more harm to society than homosexuality. Clearly, as far as a 'moral line being crossed', divorced is the much greater evil, at least as measured by its effects on the people involved and the society at large. Two people engaged in a homosexual relationship has no such effect. In standing up for their right not to be abused, persecuted, and oppressed, homosexuals may have an effect on society, but are doing no moral wrong.

What is wishful thinking is the futile attempt at trying to make homosexuality OK by saying "two wrongs make a right."

I would agree that two wrongs do not make a right. I am not saying that because Christians accept divorce, they therefore must also accept homosexuality. I am merely saying that general Christian practice is to do exactly this, and that this is hypocritical. I am asking why Christians engage in this hypocrisy. I am not accusing you of engaging in this hypocrisy, as your stated position is not to accept divorce. Without having evidence to the contrary, I am accepting this position at face value.

Divorce is clearly at least condoned by most Christian churches.

Tolerating is as far as it goes. Tolerating has nothing to do with acceptance. Nothing at all in many, many cases. And once the tolerated go to far and demand to be equals to morally sound people, then the decent people react in a much more direct way.

I would still disagree. I would accept that acceptance might represent more than tolerance. I would say that many Christians not only tolerate divorce, they accept it, in the sense that they do not think badly or even differently about people who are divorced, other than to have sympathy for the emotional trauma that it represents for the couple and their children. Certainly, the attitude people have towards a divorced person are going to vary with their other perceptions of that person. If the person is perceived as 'immoral' in other ways, if they were unfaithful, etc., then there might be more approbation than otherwise.

But, this is exactly what most Christians refuse to do with regard to homosexuals. If one is identified as a homosexual, one is automatically part of an 'evil lifestyle' that deserves strong condemnation. There is no attempt in most cases to consider the other characteristics of the person, as is done for nearly all divorced people.

Again, this is hypocritical, and goes against the teaching that what Jesus is concerned about is the heart of the individual. If Christians did deal with divorced people as they typically do homosexuals, they would all be strongly condemned. There would be no 'ameliorating circumstances.' They wouldn't be sympathetic to the problems the relationship was experiencing, or that the person is happier separated. They have no problem accepting the person's second spouse, should they be remarried.

If the Christian response is to be consistent, it seems to me it should either condemn divorced people in the same way homosexuals are condemned with no regard to any other circumstances, or it should take into account that the single circumstance (divorced or homosexual) is not the be all and end of all of the person's standing in the church or their moral character.

This is clearly not the case in most churches. I again ask, why?



I don't want to get into the 'nature vs. choice' discussion on homosexuality, as that is not the purpose of the thread. Again, I want to focus on examples where the bible does not condone a behavior, but it may not be considered sinful by Christians.


We still have several other examples to consider which Christians are orders of magnitude more accepting of than divorce, including but not limited to:

Sex during menstruation.

If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Mixing cattle breeds, mixed seed sewing and mixed fibers.

You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Wrong length of hair

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

There is also the lending of money for interest, women speaking in church, and not following Paul's strong encouragement for people to remain celibate.

This latter is interesting in that it is sometimes argued that homosexuality is bad because it does not produce offspring. If all Christians 'were as Paul' and remained celibate, we would at least have no Christians offspring. Why is this not a bad thing?

[micatala]

Also, as the subject of repentance has come up again, I will apologize for copying in a post from the Christian Response to Homosexuality thread.

I think this is relevant here because repentance or insistence that others should repent is a common response to behavior that is perceived as sinful. IF the Bible does not promote or condone a behavior, and includes language that might be interpreted to imply the behavior is sinful, should Christians always 'call for repentance'?

The Bible does not condone or promote UN-repentance and certainly not NON-repentance..

The theme of repentance takes up much of this post.

Let's start with an area of agreement. Yes, I think it is certainly fair to say that Jesus calls us to repentance, and that this is also a major theme of the OT. The Israelites were called time and again to repent of their 'hardness of heart.' In the NT, we are asked to follow the law of love as the pre-eminent law. To repent in this sense means to forgo selfishness, pride, etc., to follow the law of love.

Repentance is an act of an individual in relationship to God. It is not something other believers can insist on, although it is something a believer can encourage another to do, if they are acting in love and for the good of the person they are encouraging to repent. I think this is clear from the NT.

However, to require repentance, it seems to me an act must proceed from a lack of love or a lack of faith or both. This means that the same act might sometimes be sinful, and at other times or for another person, not sinful.

Paul speaks of this in Romans chapter 14. One man eats meat, and another eats only vegetables. Each should be convinced
in his own mind that what he is doing is right. It is clearly not up to other believers to decide what is right for a person to eat.

THe measure is whether the person is acting in good conscience, in faith, and also being conscious not to act in a way to harm others.

I think it is very clear that asking all homosexuals to repent, or insisting that they must do so, runs exactly counter to what Paul is writing here. A homosexual act, if done after full examination of one's conscience, and in faith that it is right for the person in their own mind, is not subject to condemnation by other believers. It is a matter between the Lord and the person.

Calling for repentance of others and insisting that it must be done for a person to be considered a Christian or acting morally violates others rights, as outlined in the Bible, to stand in their own relationship to God.

If one wants to question or suggest that repentance might be necessary, for the good of the person, I see no harm in that. But to engage in blanket condemnation, ignoring that it is matters of the heart that God is most concerned about, I believe runs counter to the teachings of Jesus, as well as those of Paul.

[1John2_26]

Micatala, I am close to enjoying our interactions. You are willing to keep it within rational bounds to a point and that is not a bad thing.

Quote:

1John wrote:
It's only in the secular realm that divorce has won the day.

micatala wrote:
This belies the reality that divorce rates within the church, and even most subgroups of Christians however you would like to define them, are essentially the same as the society at large. This statement seems to be wishful thinking in an attempt to distance the treatment of divorce from the treatment of homosexuality.

There is a Biblical differrence in the treatment of the two. I wanted to weave our way to the facts. The Biblical writers, not I, have already debated against your position. I just agree with it and them.

There is a different treatment of same-gender sex to divorce "in the Bible." Isn't there. That cannot be avoided. There seems a "line is crossed" like the difference in killing a bad guy and murdering the postman because you don't like him.

This is changing the subject.

Wrong. It is in keeping with the matter in absolute truth.

You first essentially claimed that Christians do not treat divorce differently than homosexuality.

They don't. They can't. The New Testament and the Old Testement are clear about the repentance to and forgiveness from God. I keep to consistency in the Biblical message. I have to.

That we as a group condemn both equally, although you cited the Bible and not what actual Christian practice is.

Well forgive me if I don't apologize for that. For "that" is one main theme of heresy isn't it?

I pointed out that this is not the case. Christians are much more accepting of divorce than homosexuality.

That is 100% bogus. The "ex-Gay" movement is exclusively Christian. 100% in keeping with the Bible's mesage though.

You asserted this was a 'secular' problem, but the fact is, it is not, as statistics show.

Civli authorities grant divorces. That is just a fact. They must be sought in that realm unless the qualify as Jesus described, "for the Christian."

Now you are back to making an assertion based on the bible.

What thread is this? Hello!

This does not address the fact that Christians are much more accepting of divorce than homosexuality.

In what denominations? Your view is not supported by the fact that unrepentant people have no voice or place within Christian leadership. That also is a fact of the Bible. Peter had to repent. Paul had to repent.

Still, there is no answer as to why this is.

You are asking: "what time is blue?"

As far as there being a difference in treatment in the Bible, is this really true? Adulterers, and many divorced Christians today count as adulterers, were to be stoned in the OT. Is this different than the OT response to homosexual acts? Is there any Biblical support to the notion that homosexuality should be dealt with differently than divorce, even if we assume both to be sinful?

King David is a grueling answer to your query. Psalm 51 sir. The definition of "born-again." Notice Jesus said it was common knowledge in Hebrew religious circles.

I am not sure what your murder analogy has to do with anything. I would argue that if it applies at all, it applies in reverse. In any empirical sense, divorce causes much much more harm to society than homosexuality.

Only by destroying the family. Homosexuality cannot create a family in any other way but altered. I wouldn't continue in this path if I were you.

Clearly, as far as a 'moral line being crossed', divorced is the much greater evil, at least as measured by its effects on the people involved and the society at large. Two people engaged in a homosexual relationship has no such effect.

Honor your father and mother. The Bible is so loud in its condemnation of same-gender sex that it must deafen the supporters of it.

In standing up for their right not to be abused, persecuted, and oppressed, homosexuals may have an effect on society, but are doing no moral wrong.

Mommies; where's my daddy? Daddies; where's my mommy? May God forgive those that support this abomination and detestable thing.

Your view on the "effect" of divorce on society is prophetic in that it has already been prophesied. In Micah before the coming of the Lord, the hearts of fathers will be turned back to their children.

Do the math from there to 2006 and beyond.

Quote:
What is wishful thinking is the futile attempt at trying to make homosexuality OK by saying "two wrongs make a right."

I would agree that two wrongs do not make a right. I am not saying that because Christians accept divorce, they therefore must also accept homosexuality.

That is in truth exactly what you are saying. I may be offensive in rebuttals but please, no one thinks I am truly stupid. Your assertions speak your point.

I am merely saying that general Christian practice is to do exactly this, and that this is hypocritical. I am asking why Christians engage in this hypocrisy. I am not accusing you of engaging in this hypocrisy, as your stated position is not to accept divorce. Without having evidence to the contrary, I am accepting this position at face value.

Sinning happens. Forgiveness of sins can only happen if the sinner repents. "Return" to God. Like God desires over and over and over again . . . "in the Bible." I cannot fight God to make friends.

1John wrote:

micatala wrote:
Divorce is clearly at least condoned by most Christian churches.

Tolerating is as far as it goes. Tolerating has nothing to do with acceptance. Nothing at all in many, many cases. And once the tolerated go to far and demand to be equals to morally sound people, then the decent people react in a much more direct way.

I would still disagree.

Of course you do. You must.

I would accept that acceptance might represent more than tolerance. I would say that many Christians not only tolerate divorce, they accept it, in the sense that they do not think badly or even differently about people who are divorced, other than to have sympathy for the emotional trauma that it represents for the couple and their children.

Having sympathy why? How? For what? Because there is no hiding the sin of divorce? It is reported in the Bible that God desires His people to return and be cleansed. Read the Prophets.

Certainly, the attitude people have towards a divorced person are going to vary with their other perceptions of that person. If the person is perceived as 'immoral' in other ways, if they were unfaithful, etc., then there might be more approbation than otherwise.

Sooner or later a person repeating and repeating their sinfullness will cause a Church body to decide to excommunicate that person from their fellowship. Jesus didn't try to convince the rich young man to come back and reason things out about his not wanting to give up all he had and then follow Jesus. There are other rich peope that Jesus talked to that He accepted without a lot of debate as it were.

Christianty is corporate and individual after all. Jesus "died for our sins" in the exact same way as God in the Old Testament feels about people, in that the sinner must come to God. John 3:16 sums it up well. If you believe in God, I'm wagering, that you'll repent.

But, this is exactly what most Christians refuse to do with regard to homosexuals.

Homosexuals demand to change Christians. They need to go away. That is the nice thing to say.

If one is identified as a homosexual, one is automatically part of an 'evil lifestyle' that deserves strong condemnation.

Queer Culture would prove the evil is inherent in the position. There is no denying that. It's like any other false religion claiming to be good. Mormons are nice people to the extent that they are nice people. They are selling a false Gospel. They are evil.

There is no attempt in most cases to consider the other characteristics of the person, as is done for nearly all divorced people.

That is 100% not true. A person is a person to a Christian viewing the Bible as their guide. Homosexuality is a sex act. And in keeping with this thread, the Bible no where condones same-gender sex, or unions.

Again, this is hypocritical, and goes against the teaching that what Jesus is concerned about is the heart of the individual.

Hate the sin not the sinner. Except that that is considered homophobia and hate speech to evil people.

If Christians did deal with divorced people as they typically do homosexuals, they would all be strongly condemned.

Adulterers must repent of their adultery. They must go . . . and sin no more. The Promise keepers meovement, as are Billy Graham's preaching is as Biblical as it gets. You will never see a Billy Graham or Promisr Keepers movement within Queer Culture. Unless of course it is to call them and it to repentance and to a walk with God.

There would be no 'ameliorating circumstances.' They wouldn't be sympathetic to the problems the relationship was experiencing, or that the person is happier separated. They have no problem accepting the person's second spouse, should they be remarried.

Jesus spoke to the samaritan woman at the well, declared He was the Messiah to her, and did not condemn her non-husband situation. He told the adulterer to go and sin no more. He did not condemn either. Marriage is still valid for both is it not? Is there somewhere in the Bible that says forgiveness means something else?

If the Christian response is to be consistent, it seems to me it should either condemn divorced people in the same way homosexuals are condemned with no regard to any other circumstances, or it should take into account that the single circumstance (divorced or homosexual) is not the be all and end of all of the person's standing in the church or their moral character.

The Bible deals with both situations. Your rebuttal has been written. If you want to hold to an absolutist and totalitarian position on once sinned always a sinner . . . good luck to you. You'll have a very holy Church membership for those that can remain in a righteousness condition. Which, according to the Bible is achievable. Noting of course that John's dad (the Baptist), was a righteous man.

This is clearly not the case in most churches. I again ask, why?

Like the Israelites, the people of God get corrupted by the civilizations the mingle with. It is a very Biblical situation repeated often. NOTE, that still, God in the New Testament desires to call His people "out of" that situation. Just like God does in the Old Testament.

I don't want to get into the 'nature vs. choice' discussion on homosexuality, as that is not the purpose of the thread. Again, I want to focus on examples where the bible does not condone a behavior, but it may not be considered sinful by Christians.

You have yet to present one.

We still have several other examples to consider which Christians are orders of magnitude more accepting of than divorce, including but not limited to:

Do any condone sinning? Celebrate it? Promote it and encourage others to sin? Let us see:

Sex during menstruation.
Leviticus 20 wrote:

If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

I know of no Christian denomination (other than maybe liberal ones) promoting this.

Mixing cattle breeds, mixed seed sewing and mixed fibers.
Levitucus 19 wrote:

Only scientist have created this situation.

You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Yes the Israelites should follow the advice of what Moses heard from. Your point?

Wrong length of hair
Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth wrote:

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Tie this in with effimante and "arsenokotai" (Pauls "homosexuality" word) behavior and you see the condemnation for LGBT and Q behavior is consistent throughout the Bible.

There is also the lending of money for interest, women speaking in church, and not following Paul's strong encouragement for people to remain celibate.

Convoluting subjects may work on the ignorant and support liberalism, but will not work on me and most Christians, I can assure you of that.

This latter is interesting in that it is sometimes argued that homosexuality is bad because it does not produce offspring. If all Christians 'were as Paul' and remained celibate, we would at least have no Christians offspring. Why is this not a bad thing?

Peter has a rebuttal for a position like yours. Paul is not the only opinion in the New Testament, and I would urge anyone grappling with the homosexualization of Christians to read John, Peter, James and Jude along with the Gospel and other books in the New Testament.

But here is Peter on Paul in 2 Peter:

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[melikio]

There are appropriate places to apply secular views and methods, and appropriate places to apply biblical views and methods. The biblical view tends to relegate itself to "faith", and the secular view is more relegated to "reality". Human beings can synthesize the two (harmonize related components together), but the process in each individual is (for better or for worse) "unique". If people don't realize and accept that, then the semi-perpetual religious arguments which plagued the world will always be with us period.

I think it boils down to this:

1. Some people include the Bible in a manner which enhances their understanding of many things in this world. That is, they use "logic" and apply the moral principles (from the Bible) which align with logic.

2. Then there are others who follow the Bible as if it is "logical". When presented with a logical real-world view, they put that same data through their biblical grid, in some effort to enhance the data they've received. That is, they attempt to use the Bible to literally shape the manner in which they should think.

And because PEOPLE/HUMANS aren't perfect (in any way), there are faults from approaching the world using either method or combination thereof. Still, the most reasonable people understand that there are shades of meaning, and shades of truth to gleen from reality, the Bible or anything else they let into their minds.

Some want to paint (everything) in "black/white", while others understand readily that the "shades" of light and hue are all around them, in nearly everything about reality; they realize that things aren't necessarily as simple as they appear, nor do they believe they have cornered THE truth about all things.

And the key to where "religion" and "people" often go wrong, is surely contained in at least some of what I've related above.

1John, there are devout Christans who can and would refute much of what you've said. Yes, those people neither ignore the issues you discuss, nor the will of God (as they understand it). It's just that your more literalistic view and approach doesn't make sense to EVERYONE, and you need to know that... because you cannot change that with your words. Some things are to be left to prayer, faith, God Himself.

No one can be an "Enforcinator" for God. That is, you can try FORCE, but force can also be tried on you in return. So, if God be the final arbiter (which 99% of Christians will agree), then 1John, you have to ask yourself:

"Where am I (possibly) overstepping my authority and autonomy?"

It's called "humility". And we all need it, because NO ONE absolutely gets THEIR WAY or shapes reality to THEIR PERCEPTION of it. So, prayer and leaving something in God's hands, is as far as many people can go... in a world that truly isn't within their span of "control". People can pretend to be God, but they SUCK AT IT, and often cause as much (or more) trouble as good in doing so.

Basic history shows that I'm not out of my mind in saying these things; even so I realize you have your own mind. If you truly understand anything I've said, then the real credit and effort I will ascribe to Him.

-Mel-