religious leaders and sermons and LGBT topics

a reply to: windword

Just in case some don't know...Here are some of the biblical scriptures that anti-LGBT preachers should avoid.

Indeed because the quotes which you point have absolute nothing to do with Homosexuality or LGBT.


Daniel 1:8-9 in Greek :

8 καὶ ἐνεθυμήθη Δανιηλ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὅπως μὴ ἀλισγηθῇ ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἐν ᾧ πίνει οἴνῳ καὶ ἠξίωσε τὸν ἀρχιευνοῦχον ἵνα μὴ συμμολυνθῇ
9καὶ ἔδωκε κύριος τῷ Δανιηλ τιμὴν καὶ χάριν ἐναντίον τοῦ ἀρχιευνούχου

Translation :

But Daniel decided in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s delicacies, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.Now God caused Daniel to find kindness and compassion in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs.

Not even remotely what you are suggesting, unless of course every person in world who finds kindness and compassion to other person is consider homosexual by your standard.



1st Samuel is a story of Narrative History and includes a great deal of Drama. Its about a beautiful friendship that gets destroyed by Jealousy at the end. It has nothing to do with Homosexuality. Here is the Summary.

^^^^The above oath is still used in wedding ceremonies to this day, but it was first spoken on behalf of same sex love.

BS. Actually it is a story of "agapi", and its purpose was to demonstrate the kind of love, and faithfulness that God desires for us which is why is used in wedding ceremonies. Further, it shows the difference between what happens when a nation does not follow in obedience to the covenant of God (Judges), and when God’s people follow in faithfulness within the covenant (Ruth).

Ruth consists of 4 chapters. Here is the Summary of Ruth :

In chapter 1, Ruth remains loyal to her mother-in-law Naomi after the death of her husband and in-laws. Naomi decides to return to her home land of Bethlehem alone, however, Ruth insists on staying with her and adopting Naomi’s God as her own. “But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” (1:16).

• Chapter 2 we see Ruth gleaning in the fields of Naomi’s relative Boaz. Boaz out of compassion and obedience to the law allows Ruth to glean but also leaves extra grain for her purposely.

• In chapter 3, Naomi encourages Ruth to seek marriage with Boaz as a kinsman redeemer. Ruth obeys Naomi and asks for her rights and Boaz agrees but mentions that he must first be sure there are no others with first rights.

• Chapter 4 Boaz and Ruth are married and Ruth conceives a son named Obed, the grandfather of the great King David, in the lineage of Christ our Messiah.

As you can see has nothing to do with Homosexuality.

Yeah! Why did they wait to arrest Jesus until he and the disciples were communing with a naked young man? Hmmmm

43While Jesus was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived, accompanied by a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, scribes, and elders.

44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The One I kiss is the man; arrest Him and lead Him away securely.” 45Going directly to Jesus, he said, “Rabbi!” and kissed Him.

46Then the men seized Jesus and arrested Him. 47And one of the bystanders drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48Jesus asked the crowd, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would an outlaw? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest Me. But this has happened that the Scriptures would be fulfilled.”

50Then all His disciples deserted Him and fled. 51One young man who had been following Jesus was wearing a linen cloth around his body. They caught hold of him, 52but he pulled free of the linen cloth and ran away naked.

You can twist it all you want but it does not allure to Homosexuality or that Jesus and His disciples were communing with a naked young man.

Peace

I'm Catholic and it goes like this;

The Bible is read according to a set calendar and sermons are based on the scripture of the day.

Sermons are based on the New Testament though, so it comes up very rarely. Divorce is also condemned by Catholicism so that comes up too.

At the end of the day every person sitting in church is a sinner. Being a true Christian is not about pretending one is perfect or better than others, it's about trying to become a better person and learning to love and forgiveness toward each other and our creator

a reply to: Seed76

Ah, denial, the refreshing river in Egypt!! LOL

Why is so hard for the bible to say what you guys know it's supposed to say? Why didn't the guys who wrote and translated the Bible know as much as you? Why can't Christians admit what the Bible says when the words are right there on the page?

Typical Christians, if you don't like the words, change them in your argument, and blame the translators, who were supposedly moved by "God and the Holy Spirit" to write what they wrote, The Word of God, that they failed to get just right!

The churches are the last institution allowed to discriminate against gays and not get sued.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Pisses you off that same sex relationships are recorded positively in the Bible. does it?

Let me ask you this....."If Ruth's love was merely sisterly love, why is her oath used in marriage ceremonies?

There's more, but don't bite off more than you can chew!

Same sex marriages are not recorded in the bible, does that upset you
Do you know the story of Ruth, obviously not, you havnt a clue what it is about so to suggest it's about two women marrying is an indication of how naive you are on the subject

Seriously, to suggest Ruth married her mothe in law... To even... You think
If anyone wants to know the story of Ruth, I am sure there is a YouTube version

Watch the story and see why poor windy has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about, see why windys fanciful remarks are just that, fanciful remarks

Why is the oath used in a ceremony
Windy, go read the stor of Ruth, the story the whole story, don't just read one single sentence windy
Go read the story of Ruth and her mother in law Naomi, the story of the Kinsman Redeemer, I am ashamed for you, ashamed that you can think and say what you have, think you have found a sentence that is a story, turned a sentence into a story within a story about the complete opposite thing

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seed76
Why is so hard for the bible to say what you guys know it's supposed to say?

More power to them if it means no rock throwings and burnings right?

I'd like to think of it as progress.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The Bible does most certainly share stories that involve same sex and homosexual relationships. I could expound on each of the examples that I gave you as well as add a few more, as to why the scripture makes sure to include certain wording and clues that makes this fact irrefutable to anyone who has mild understanding the history of the area in regards to marriage contracts, sexual orientation and taboos.

But, that's another thread. I merely shared the scriptures that homophobic preachers should avoid in their sermons.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

The Bible does most certainly share stories that involve same sex and homosexual relationships.

What like Ruth
Clearly you havnt read any more than the one single sentence you quoted
Go read the whole book of Ruth

I need a big Facepalm gif

Really you can go and watch a youtube story about the book of Ruth, its free


watch this one, it should be simple enough for you
www.youtube.com...

Then bring the next one

a reply to: Raggedyman

Tell me this smart guy. Why do they still use Ruth's vows to Naomi in wedding ceremonies if we're only talking about sisterly love?

Why did the writer chose to use the word "cleave", i]but Ruth clave unto her, and as in Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Tell me this smart guy. Why do they still use Ruth's vows to Naomi in wedding ceremonies if we're only talking about sisterly love?

Tell me smarter guy...why dont you read the story for yourself, why dont you actually study the story, the meaning behind it, the hermeneutics, the theology, the prophecy behind the story

I need a facepalm gif, really big, something like Dawkins saying life was seeded by aliens

My problem windy is you are either
A) to lazy
B) not interested
C) lacking intelligence
D) recalcitrant
So effectively explaining anything is a waste of my time and yours

I have linked below a few resources for you to study and I know you wont read any of them, because I think there is no one abc or d issue, its all of them

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com...

discovertheword.org...

www.ntchurchsource.com...

Why not link where you ripped your opinion off of, that might give us an indication of their agenda, what no, why not? Hiding stuff like that seems fishy

What bothers me most windy is you see a pledge as a sexual contract between two people, you cant differentiate between a pledge of love and a pledge of marriage. You cant discern the difference between love and sex it seems.
That indicates more about your understanding of love and commitment

Finally an few alternative christian response to the comments you are preaching at christians

carm.org...

www.christiananswers.net...

www.crcna.org...


Why are you preaching at christians anyway windy?
Believe what you want, have the courtesy to allow me the same

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Tell me this smart guy. Why do they still use Ruth's vows to Naomi in wedding ceremonies if we're only talking about sisterly love?

Ruths vow is a vow of commitment not sexuality, marriage is more than sex
Smart Guy

a reply to: Raggedyman

Okay Captain Obvious, who continually misses the point, since marriage isn't always about sex and sexuality, why can't same sex couples marry again?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Okay Captain Obvious, who continually misses the point, since marriage isn't always about sex and sexuality, why can't same sex couples marry again?

I think you are a bit confused, I dont think this conversation has any validity

Believe what you want, have the courtesy to allow me the same

a reply to: Raggedyman

If you truly believe that this conversation has no validity, why do you continue in a thread entitiled: religious leaders and sermons and LGBT topics, where the OP asked: "do priests never go near verses which don't (sic) condone this stuff" (lgbt stuff)?"

I have merely pointed out which Bible stories homophobic preachers should probably avoid.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you truly believe that this conversation has no validity, why do you continue in a thread entitiled: religious leaders and sermons and LGBT topics, where the OP asked: "do priests never go near verses which don't (sic) condone this stuff" (lgbt stuff)?"

I have merely pointed out which Bible stories homophobic preachers should probably avoid.

It's not worth it, I won't continue it, it's your choice to believe what you want to believe
Don't preach at me anymore please.
I can fathom how you can preach Christianity at Christians with no idea what Christianity teaches.
You read a sentence and build your theology on that sentence
If you want to believe that, others want to believe you then fine

You have merely pointed out your opinion, I would be happy to preach any of those storys in a church

a reply to: windword

They can...many under a Christian God in a Christian place of worship.
If Rag doesn't like it who cares?.
He can bleat and stamp his feet but the fact is Gay Christians can marry.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

It seems you are the one with the issue kd
I am not bleating, you are the one name calling and getting ancy about the issue, attacking me
Got windy who doesn't know and never read the story of Ruth telling me what it's about
Its clear your opinions are based on what you think you know

Preaching Christianity at Christians when you don't have a four

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Of course they can! There's plenty of biblical precedence.

a reply to: odzeandennz

I think preachers should just stick to the gospel, I think like Charles Spurgeon did:

“I believe that those sermons which are fullest of Christ are the most likely to be blessed to the conversion of the hearers. Let your sermons be full of Christ, from beginning to end crammed full of the gospel. As for myself, brethren, I cannot preach anything else but Christ and His cross, for I know nothing else, and long ago, like the apostle Paul, I determined not to know anything else save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. People have often asked me, “What is the secret of your success?” I always answer that I have no other secret but this, that I have preached the gospel,—not about the gospel, but the gospel,—the full, free, glorious gospel of the living Christ who is the incarnation of the good news. Preach Jesus Christ, brethren, always and everywhere; and every time you preach be sure to have much of Jesus Christ in the sermon. You remember the story of the old minister who heard a sermon by a young man, and when he was asked by the preacher what he thought of it he was rather slow to answer, but at last he said, “If I must tell you, I did not like it at all; there was no Christ in your sermon.” “No,” answered the young man, “because I did not see that Christ was in the text.” “Oh!” said the old minister, “but do you not know that from every little town and village and tiny hamlet in England there is a road leading to London? Whenever I get hold of a text, I say to myself, ‘There is a road from here to Jesus Christ, and I mean to keep on His track till I get to Him.'” “Well,” said the young man, “but suppose you are preaching from a text that says nothing about Christ?” “Then I will go over hedge and ditch but what I will get at Him.” So must we do, brethren; we must have Christ in all our discourses, whatever else is in or not in them. There ought to be enough of the gospel in every sermon to save a soul. Take care that it is so when you are called to preach before Her Majesty the Queen, and if you have to preach to charwomen or chairmen, still always take care that there is the real gospel in every sermon.”

C.H. Spurgeon

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you truly believe that this conversation has no validity, why do you continue in a thread entitiled: religious leaders and sermons and LGBT topics, where the OP asked: "do priests never go near verses which don't (sic) condone this stuff" (lgbt stuff)?"

I have merely pointed out which Bible stories homophobic preachers should probably avoid.

Why is the term "homophobic" always used? Can't a preacher in Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism preach based on their internal conviction that they are honoring what they feel God has said? Why does it have to be likened to some type of fear?