However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners. “Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can't help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice. :roflmao:
You really should not give credence to the writings of paul; ancient christians never did. the church only adopted the writings of paul (a man who is pro slavery while being anti-slavery, at the same time that he is indifferent to slavery; he cant make up his mind on if enslavement of your fellow man is a good thing or not) because it was a way to cement power in a way jesus himself rejected. Paul was antagonistic, never actually gave proof he lived by the teachings of christ, and instead was obsessed with he old testiment laws jesus himself was breaking.
"When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it." -- Oscar Wilde And .... I'm in on the horcrux mission! Just name the time and place!
Can you provide some links on your view of Paul? I'd really appreciate it. I've heard a lot about ancient Christians ignoring Paul but I've yet to find any reliable links on the topic
People love to stereotype gays and lesbians as beings of carnal pleasures. Can they not realise that it's not just about physical attraction?
I dont have specific links, my knowledge on the subject is based mostly in books and documentaries, but Paul did not become significant in christanity until the council of nicea (or however you spell it, i probably got it wrong) began to take the various and disconnected christian texts, and decide which ones they, the early catholic church, wanted to keep, and which they dropped. Before the forming of a canoncal new testiment, Paul was disregarded by most christians at the time as being more of a fringe radical voice in the burgoening christian movement, and being originally a roman, as it was the adoption of christanity by the failing roman empire that ultimately led to him being elevated, simply because of the story of his conversation echoing the conversion of the roman emperor Constantine. As christanity cemented itself furter into the running of the Roman Empire, which in essence transitioned and consolidated its power under the name of the Roman Catholic Church, as the rest of the empire disentigrated around it, the church being the last bastilon of its power, the church itself continued to pursue paul as an important voice. now, most scholars agree that he was likely not a single person; the inconsistancies and contradictions in the writings attributed to him make people think the writings are from three different people. but the church denies this, glossing over the fact that his writings dont agree with each other. when you get down to it, he has extremely little to say about the life of christ, and christ's actual teachings, and simply attributes earlier old testiment teachings to christ, which is why the only mentions of condemnations of homosexuality in the new testiment come in the writings attributed to paul, and never from christ, whoses message was the exact opposate.
I once heard it said that "Modern Christianity is really just Paulianity." The church uses Paul because he's a much better way to concentrate their power than the man they named their religion after.
Well said! And I would go further in stating that it is those who have most fully accepted themselves as LGBT that are more interested in the relationship aspect of their orientations.