Gay Churches Decline / Fundamental Churches Grow

[hug-a-tree]

I don't understand why a homosexual would want to be a preist, or chaplin, etc. because the bible is against homosexuality. Then again none of us our sin free and for us to think so is a sin because that's like saying we are christ.
Then again people sort of believe what they want to believe. Like some churches kind of edit parts of the Bible. Like the king james version.... = /

 

[Woody]

Little children don't hate gay people, and they don't care about the afterlife.

They don't hate anybody, and they always behold the face of God in heaven.

 

[spidergoat]

What about the ones that haven't developed eyes yet? ...or a brain?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I don't understand why a homosexual would want to be a preist, or chaplin, etc. because the bible is against homosexuality. Then again none of us our sin free and for us to think so is a sin because that's like saying we are christ. Then again people sort of believe what they want to believe. Like some churches kind of edit parts of the Bible. Like the king james version.... = /

*************
M*W: Why would a homosexual want to be a priest or a chaplain or a Boy Scout leader or a member of the Armed Forces? Because they become immersed into what they want most -- easy access to the same sex.

If you read my recent post regarding the history of homosexuality, I provided info on the cultural acceptance of homosexual behavior. From the beginning of its history, which cannot be determined by scholarly investigation, homosexuality was accepted in all ancient societies and cultures until the Christian Church arose at about 400 AD. It was at this time when homosexuality started to become a "sin." The ancient cultures did not consider homosexual behavior to be a "sexual offense." Sex was only considered valid if it was between a male and female for the purpose of procreation. Otherwise, it was a legal pastime among the cultures of the Egyptians, Hebrews, Mesopotamians, Greeks and Romans.

That begs the question, why have priests been getting away with molesting young boys for two millenia? Because it was not regarded as a sexual activity but as a normal cultural encounter for tribal bonding. I am NOT saying that this is normal or accepted in today's culture. It certainly is NOT accepted in our society today, but unfortunately priests hold on to the founding traditions of the Church which is male dominated and means men can dominate who and what they please. To dominate a woman was accepted since before Genesis was written. To dominate a boy or other male person was considered an activity of valor and control.

Homosexuality is an invention of the Patriarchy, just as is the Church. Also, homosexuality was condoned by the females of the culture as a playful pastime that was not considered as adultery.

No one knows when homosexuality began, but in the beginning it was probably not due to a genetic trait. It was a social custom. Over time, I suspect it became more fully understood to be the result of a mother's hormonal surge in her fetus. That could be caused by the hormones they put in our food and milk supply. That's why today it seems we have a higher percentage of homosexuals per population. It is culturally based and environmentally driven. So, instead of pointing fingers and blaming the individual for his "bad behavior," I think it is time to recognize that the governmental authorities over our food supply (USDA, for example, in the USA), is the entity that should be blamed for our hormone-tainted food supply.

Mama's don't let your babies grow up drinking cow's milk!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

They don't hate anybody, and they always behold the face of God in heaven.

*************
M*W: Little children have absolutely no concept of the face of god in heaven. Where did you ever get that crap? Oh, I forgot, I'm on ignore -- but not to everyone!

 

[Woody]

What about the ones that haven't developed eyes yet? ...or a brain?

Yes, fetuses are children too. AS for homosexuals, I do not hate them.

I'm talking with several people on the ex-gay forum that you would call "homosexual". I do not call them such unless they act on their same sex attraction (SSA).

They are as nice as anyone you'd want to meet. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not hate them. Many of them are still fighting SSA, but they are doing something about it, or have done something about it -- that's the difference.

So go ahead and mock them like the hippocrits you are around here. You should hear what they have to say about the immutability of homosexual orientation. Some of them over there are laughing about it. They are much more reasonable than this group of liberal bigots on sci-forums.

 

[Woody]

I don't understand why a homosexual would want to be a preist, or chaplin, etc. because the bible is against homosexuality. Then again none of us our sin free and for us to think so is a sin because that's like saying we are christ.
Then again people sort of believe what they want to believe. Like some churches kind of edit parts of the Bible. Like the king james version.... = /

They (homosexuals) obviously aren't called of God to be a preacher. The requirements to be a preacher are spelled out clearly in the bible: a godly man, married, with children.

I think the catholic church has a lot of good people in it, but they have changed the job requirements for a priest vis-a-vis the bible. "For how can one manage the church of God if he can not manage his own family." His family is an indicator for what kind of a preacher he is. Without the family, there is no barometer, hence you get pedophile priests, etc as a result. There is nothing "visible" to keep the problem in check.

 

[spidergoat]

Woody, before you lost your virginity, were you attracted to women? Why?

 

[Giambattista]

They (homosexuals) obviously aren't called of God to be a preacher. The requirements to be a preacher are spelled out clearly in the bible: a godly man, married, with children.

Oh, so those really ARE the requirements to be a preacher, eh??? That must be why Paul said this in Corinthians 7:

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

It is good that they stay single, Paul says, like himself.

I think the catholic church has a lot of good people in it, but they have changed the job requirements for a priest vis-a-vis the bible. "For how can one manage the church of God if he can not manage his own family." His family is an indicator for what kind of a preacher he is.

So Paul wasn't a preacher of any quality?

Jesus, may I remind you, never had a wife or children, either.

I don't know where you're getting these priestly "requirements" from, but I find them to be outright bogus.

Without the family, there is no barometer, hence you get pedophile priests, etc as a result. There is nothing "visible" to keep the problem in check.

What does the visibility of a family do, exactly? There are plenty of "gay" people who have been married to a woman (or man) and even had children, only to leave them later. Having an "official" family doesn't always keep people from being homosexual. Or being pedophiles, or what have you.

 

[Giambattista]

So go ahead and mock them like the hippocrits you are around here. You should hear what they have to say about the immutability of homosexual orientation. Some of them over there are laughing about it. They are much more reasonable than this group of liberal bigots on sci-forums.

And who would these hypocrites be, exactly? I've never denied that people can change their orientation (or whatever).

I am reasonable. And I'm not a bigot, either.

If they're so distraught about being attracted to their own gender, then by all means, let them seek to change themselves. I'm not stopping them, and I'm not denying that some of them do succeed.

But is that really your message? You're accusing people of not acknowledging that people can change their sexual attractions, but is that really what you're getting at?

 

[Giambattista]

But is that really your message? You're accusing people of not acknowledging that people can change their sexual attractions, but is that really what you're getting at?

The way I see it, what you're really getting at is that ALL gay people should feel ashamed of their attractions (SSA as you call it), all of them should feel unfulfilled by same-sex attraction, and all of them should feel compelled to seek change.

You talk so sweetly about allowing people who are unsatisfied with homosexual attractions to change themselves into heterosexuals (and mocking unnamed individuals who apparently are saying that it's impossible), but in reality, you want ALL gay people, whether happy or not, to see things your way, and to see how unhappy they should be.

A good assessment of your motives?

 

[Woody]

Oh, so those really ARE the requirements to be a preacher, eh??? That must be why Paul said this in Corinthians 7:

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

It is good that they stay single, Paul says, like himself.

So Paul wasn't a preacher of any quality?

Jesus, may I remind you, never had a wife or children, either.

I don't know where you're getting these priestly "requirements" from, but I find them to be outright bogus.

Paul didn't have a church, neither did Jesus at the time. Here are the requirements according to the Apostle Paul in 1st Timothy Chapter 3:

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Any catholic bishops meet this requirement?

 

[Giambattista]

Paul didn't have a church, neither did Jesus at the time.

So they are somehow inferior? What they said can be disregarded, because of their status as single?

Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

A bishop is not the same as a priest, or pastor or "preacher". And how do we know that Paul, a single man, whom all these churches in his letters look up to as a leader among leaders (that the leaders of these churches probably looked up to), is actually requiring this bishop to be married? All it says is that he should be the husband of ONE wife. Could it be that Paul is specifying that there should be no polygamy? Why else would he bother to say "one" wife?

Again, Paul exhorted people to remain single and celibate, as he himself was. Why would he then require marriage of a church official, when even he wasn't married? Why then, being single, did he speak with such authority to churches? After all, here he is, telling this particular congregation(s) what a bishop should be, and yet the man with all this authority to decide what constitutes a bishop is not married, and he does not encourage others to marry?

 

[Giambattista]

Paul didn't have a church, neither did Jesus at the time.

I must make this question clear: they DIDN'T??? Jesus, the FOUNDER of Christianity, DIDN'T have a church??? He didn't have THE CHURCH?!?!

Paul, who constantly wrote all these letters to various congregations, and who was apparently taken very seriously, didn't have a church?

 

[Giambattista]

Banned, are you? Such sad injustice.

Sarcasm, of course.

 

[Giambattista]

Better luck next time???

 

[redarmy11]

On the bright side it's only for 3 days.

I miss the little fella too.

 

[General_Paul]

Eh, he's a self-richeous homophobe who can't admit the truth about his religion being a tool of the corporate machine, lol.

 

[spidergoat]

Jesus didn't found Christianity, and he didn't create a church.

 

[Giambattista]

On the bright side it's only for 3 days.

I miss the little fella too.

I wonder if he'll actually care to come back. He seems so content to be over at that glorious ex-gay forum, where people are just as NICE as ANYONE you'll ever meet, I don't know why he would want to waste any time on us hell-bounds. I still don't understand exactly why he kept emphasizing how NICE the ex-gays are. Did someone actually say they weren't? It was like a rebuttal to an argument that didn't exist in the first place.

Did you catch how he said he likes to talk mostly to the ex-lesbians. He mentioned a dating service on this certain forum (I wonder what the address is?). Is he cheating on his wife? Trying to get involved in some polygamy, maybe?