Christian Churches Supporting Homosexuals

[Charlotteman]

OK this is one I just LOVE to pounce on!!! heehee

Rome fell because it was a land-grabbing, aggressive, inhumane, militaristic DICTATORSHIP.

How simple is that to figure out? Tell me one single dictatorship in history that has been a successful, long lasting nation (??????)

Homosexuality wasn't as overt in Roman times as it is today........if that inane theory of Rome's fall is true, then that must mean the entire West is destined to fall like Rome. Sooooooooooo unlikely!

I guess that means the Middle East will ultimately triumph in these "homos brought down Rome" people's minds. How could we in the West prevail since we don't stone homos and prostitutes, and whore mongers and disobiedient wives...

[Cadeho]

Tell me one single dictatorship in history that has been a successful, long lasting nation (??????)

Some could say Cuba.

I thought Romans had sex with anyone.. or was that the ancient Greeks?

[Charlotteman]

Yes Cuba's dictatorship has been around for over 40 years, but would you actually call it a "successful" country? People live in mass poverty, have no basic freedoms, drive cars that are from the 1950s..some people are so desperate they risk their lives trying to leave.

My point of Rome being a dictatorship is that no dictatorship can possibly last. Its people will be in misery, and eventually the dictatorship crashes under it's own corruption.

Rome didn't crash because of homos~~

[krazeeboi]

1. The Bible barely mentions homosexuality. Its mentioned about 5-6 times throughout the whole Bible and guess who never mentions it??? JESUS!!!! As Christians, we are supposed to be fololowers of who? JESUS, and if he never mentions homosexuality... well... something just rings a bell in my brain!!! You know what he explicitly mentions? DIVORCE!!! Churches dont condemn those "dirty" divorcers!

I understand your overall point, but I don't find this argument to be particularly strong, since Jesus never mentioned rape, child molestation, or unconstitutional wiretapping either.

[Gusterfell]

I understand your overall point, but I don't find this argument to be particularly strong, since Jesus never mentioned rape, child molestation, or unconstitutional wiretapping either.

...And fundamentalist Christians don't go out of their way to protest those artocities. Not like they do homosexuality.

Not to go off topic, but in keeping with Carlotteman's point, abortion is only hinted at twice in the Bible. Both instances, in the Old Testament, can be construed as pro-abortion. One is a passage advising priests to give unmarried women a potion to end their pregnancy, while the other is a law regarding assault on a pregnant woman. If she dies, the charge is murder, but if her pregnancy miscarries the charge is merely assault (the fetus was not considered a person). Nowhere in the Bible does it say abortion is murder, or is sinful in any way.

[waccamatt]

I understand your overall point, but I don't find this argument to be particularly strong, since Jesus never mentioned rape, child molestation, or unconstitutional wiretapping either.

Of course, did any of those things exist back in those days? They probably did, like in the 1950's U.S., but nobody talked about them so they assumed they didn't exist. I think the 1950's were the height of delusional thinking.

[Randy@Tacoma]

Im sure rape was mentioned by Jesus.... you wait a inute and let me find that one out.... And, for the fact, all of those that you mentioned... are potentially harmful to people and done without someone's consent. Homosexuality is a consented act, unless of course its homosexual rape.... but then again, we have the topic of rape.... but Im not going down your throat, you didnt go down mine. I respect yours... but I would like to say that Jesus did mention divorce.... thats what leads me to believe that he would make a reference to rape somewhere in that old dusty Bible... Anyway, I said Ill look.... :-)

[Pillsbury]

Too many people try to interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. They simply don't understand that it is a book that is both human and divine (if you're a Christian and you believe anyway). Jesus Christ was an event, with waves moving from that event. The Bible is part of the waves coming from that event, but should not be confused with the event itself. I think Jesus' lessons of love and charity far outweigh any condemnations of homosexuality by Leviticus or Paul (and if I may also add, Leviticus also forbids you to wear a cotton shirt mixed with like polyester or something like that).

Anyway, I"m not sure I understand what an open church is. In Augusta there are churches that minister to the gay and lesbian community (I actually work down the street from one). Those churches are almost exclusively gay and lesbian. As far as mainline churches go, the Episcopal churches are an even split, with about half going the conservative way, and the others maintaining their acceptance of homesexuality. Not sure about the Presbyterians, but I'm sure there are some open ones as well within the UMC churches. I don't think you'll find any Baptist churches that are open, like you would at say Myers Park in Charlotte or Virginia-Highlands in Atlanta. I'm not gay, so I'm really not sure how it is for a gay and lesbian people to attend these churches--if it's comfortable or uncomfortable. I used to go to mass at an Episcopal church and there were gay and lesbian couples present.

[FromCityToRural]

I like that passage by Randy. God created diversity, he loves not hates. The Bible, I would agree, is not a work to be taken so literally; though things in there often have a basis in real history, it is as a whole to be taken as a metaphor, not a verbatim rulebook.

As for what Matt said...I have to say I agree and differ at the same time. I am in love with the 50's, and make it something of a study. My bike was (before it got stolen) a '56 Schwinn, my dream car is a '58 Cadillac, and I am seldom happier than when I have some Fats Domino or or Carl Perkins spinning at 33-1/3rpm. There are parts of the culture which I adore, and absolutely love the fashion (it's basically how I dress), but I have to agree that certain feelings such as those over homosexuality, among others, were completely misguided. All I can say is that that is definitely a stain on the era, but is by no means its defining value.

- James, the 50's rockabilly rebel, born in 40 years too late

[waccamatt]

I like that passage by Randy. God created diversity, he loves not hates. The Bible, I would agree, is not a work to be taken so literally; though things in there often have a basis in real history, it is as a whole to be taken as a metaphor, not a verbatim rulebook.

As for what Matt said...I have to say I agree and differ at the same time. I am in love with the 50's, and make it something of a study. My bike was (before it got stolen) a '56 Schwinn, my dream car is a '58 Cadillac, and I am seldom happier than when I have some Fats Domino or or Carl Perkins spinning at 33-1/3rpm. There are parts of the culture which I adore, and absolutely love the fashion (it's basically how I dress), but I have to agree that certain feelings such as those over homosexuality, among others, were completely misguided. All I can say is that that is definitely a stain on the era, but is by no means its defining value.

- James, the 50's rockabilly rebel, born in 40 years too late

LOL, there are some things about the 50's I like, too. I live in a 1954 ranch and my dining rooms is a 50's diner/discotheque.

[krazeeboi]

I wish I grew up during the 70's myself.

[waccamatt]

I wish I grew up during the 70's myself.

That works out about right. I was born in the 60's and like 50's furniture; you were probably born in the 80's and like the 70's. Of course I love 70's disco.

[krazeeboi]

I was almost an 80's baby; I was born in December of 1979.

[Chtimi]

OK this is one I just LOVE to pounce on!!! heehee

Rome fell because it was a land-grabbing, aggressive, inhumane, militaristic DICTATORSHIP.

How simple is that to figure out? Tell me one single dictatorship in history that has been a successful, long lasting nation (??????)

Homosexuality wasn't as overt in Roman times as it is today........if that inane theory of Rome's fall is true, then that must mean the entire West is destined to fall like Rome. Sooooooooooo unlikely!

I guess that means the Middle East will ultimately triumph in these "homos brought down Rome" people's minds. How could we in the West prevail since we don't stone homos and prostitutes, and whore mongers and disobiedient wives...

Yes, Rome didn't fall really, it has just changed. The "fall" is rather a date : the deposition of Romulus Augustule.

The homosexual marriages existed during the 1st century, 3 centuries before the end of Rome. The Roman aristocrats were bisexuals untill the second century. During the two next centuries, the political corruption undermined the progress, by contrast, people looked for new moral values hence the interest for all sorts of oriental religions, the Empire militarized, divided and the western part disappeared with the last emperor.

Non-acceptance later because of the fanatics and ignoramuses who assimilated homosexuality with depravity - and depravity was everything but impregnate a wife in the dark. There is no depravity without prudishness. Alas some people are afraid by love and pleasure. They are reassured by the technics : a mechanical sexual relation and a financial marriage. It's the age-old battle opposing the knowledge and the fear, the trangression and the immobilism. However there is nothing contradictory that the Christian Churches support love - and pleasure, this year the Vatican admitted the possibility of pleasure for married couples, it would be not too sinful. And realize it's just recently we can plan our life (almost) freely.