Christanity - Gay Priests

[angelwaters]

Salam All

My question is, where does Christanity stand on Gay Priests?

Peace to all

[nr]

Do you mean a practicing homosexual or one who has chosen to be celibrate? The general consensus is that neither should be priests. The Catholic Church defines the homosexual act to be mortally sinful but there's no reason to assume that homosexuals who have given up the lifestyle, and no longer has same-sex-attraction, wouldn't make good priests. Very few protestant sects have priest. I'm not sure what church you are refering to.

[mule]

As a noncatholic born again Christian I believe that the gay lifestyle is sin.

If a gay man or woman repents of this sin it is fine that become a pastor. But they must not do this sin again. Jesus payed for their sin and they would be clean.

If a man still practices the gay lifestyle they are sinning and it is a very serious sin and they should not be allowed to be a pastor. In the bible there is a thing called church disapline and if they were sinning they should be disaplined.

mule

[JCFan]

Christ doesn't wish for his spokespeople to be 'openly' sexual in any way. How can any man be a proper man of God, while he's the sins-of-the-flesh poster boy?

The recent decision within the Episcopal church, in the light of Biblical teaching, is an abomination before God.

Gay priests? Personal issue, needs to be worked out.
A Church supporting gay priests? That's a church in trouble! They've caved to the pressure of celibrating man's sinful condition, rather than elevating it.

[Exioce]

technically, Christ does not want women to speak in church or enter without headscarves. i'm fairly certain your churches flaunt this prohibition and are similar abominations before god, no?

[nr]

technically, Christ does not want women to speak in church or enter without headscarves.
And you "pretend" to know what Christ wants? Paul said this but he does not divinely proclaim it. It's his own recomendation to the church in order to maintain order. I'm not sure of the exact cause of it but I'm sure he had his reasons. The Corintheans were notorious for prostitution and perhaps he did not want the women to distract the gathering during prayer.

i'm fairly certain your churches flaunt this prohibition and are similar abominations before god, no?
It was not a prohibition persay. It is a disciplin Paul in his guidance imposed on the Church. Similarly, we impose disciplins such as celebracy for the priesthood. These are not formally part of the doctrin and may be removed if the cause warrants it.

[JCFan]

Exioce...
technically, Christ does not want women to speak in church or enter without headscarves.
That sounds like a possibility. Please point me to scripture which supports it.

i'm fairly certain your churches flaunt this prohibition and are similar abominations before god, no?
Yes, it's not right. But your arguement seems to come from the classic position that committing murder is an equal sin to having an unclean thought.

The question here isn't about loud mouthed women in the congregation, it is about church leadership accepting homosexuality in the pulpit.

Yeah, ain't none of it right, but to pretend it's all the same is intellectually dishonest.

[Exioce]

nr,

And you "pretend" to know what Christ wants? Paul said this but he does not divinely proclaim it. It's his own recomendation to the church in order to maintain order. I'm not sure of the exact cause of it but I'm sure he had his reasons. The Corintheans were notorious for prostitution and perhaps he did not want the women to distract the gathering during prayer.

so, where exactly does Jesus condemn homosexuality? ;)

i only find it in the book that is attributed to Moses. but given that book is actually not from Moses, it must be an opinion much like Pauls and no divine proclamation.

proof of the above statement will be provded as soon as you ask for it :)

[Exioce]

JC Fan,

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved." (I Corinthians 11:5)

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Yes, it's not right. But your arguement seems to come from the classic position that committing murder is an equal sin to having an unclean thought.

The question here isn't about loud mouthed women in the congregation, it is about church leadership accepting homosexuality in the pulpit.

Yeah, ain't none of it right, but to pretend it's all the same is intellectually dishonest.

but sin is sin, is it not? true, one sin may be 'worse' than another but if a person accepts or shrugs off one type of sin then it is ethically dishonest to condemn so strongly another type of sin. i would be a hypocrite for condeming you on heroin whilst i was doing opium.

and in religious terms it's all the same.

"Whosoever therefore <u>shall break one of these least commandments</u>, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19-20)

[nr]

so, where exactly does Jesus condemn homosexuality? ;)
Jesus does not condemn homosexuals or any sinners. Jesus, however,
says that homosexuality is wrong by reiterating the Genesis view that
man and women come together and become one in marriage. The short teachings of the twelve apostles contained in the Didache, also forbids homosexuality. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Liturgical/didache.html


i only find it in the book that is attributed to Moses. but given that book is actually not from Moses, it must be an opinion much like Pauls and no divine proclamation.
I'm well aware that the books that tell how Moses died are probably not written completely by him. But there's no reason to assume that Moses did not write substantial parts of Law. In fact, Jesus attributes the author to be Moses.


but sin is sin, is it not? true, one sin may be 'worse' than another but if a person accepts or shrugs off one type of sin then it is ethically dishonest to condemn so strongly another type of sin. i would be a hypocrite for condeming you on heroin whilst i was doing opium.
The Guidlines that Paul imposed on the Church were not on what is sinful. Churches can have specific dress codes in order to maintain order. In fact the Church is allowed to do this, "Truly I say to you, [whoever] you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and [whoever] you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18)"

[JCFan]

I would be a hypocrite for condeming...
Yet that is what you are doing here. Are you without sin?

but sin is sin, is it not?
Do you turn your back as the murder does his work, or do you you call out, 'This man has commited murder'? Again, are you without sin of your own?

Yours is an antiquated argument, built on a flimsy base.

EDIT:
A little clarifiction which the Spirit has brought to me...

Yes! All sin is equal in the eyes of the Father.

That is why the Son, Jesus, walked the earth as a man, and was tempted, in person, by Satan, and then suffered for the sins of all men. So that he would be worthy to judge men, and forgive them of their sins.

No man may stand before God until he is cleansed.

Jesus knows some sins are minor, and difficult to avoid. He also knows others are huge. He knows what was going through a mans mind when he commited the sin, and he knows what the man has done to rectify the situation. By Christ's nature he can judge fairly, and provide absolution accordingly.

God is absolute and unchanging and GLORIOUS! Christ is our brother. He understands our condition.

Edited by - JCFan on 11/16/2003 06:36:51

[Exioce]

nr,

"Jesus does not condemn homosexuals or any sinners. Jesus, however, says that homosexuality is wrong by reiterating the Genesis view that man and women come together and become one in marriage. The short teachings of the twelve apostles contained in the Didache, also forbids homosexuality."

so Jesus does not directly mention homosexuality anywhere. by Jesus' view that marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing you have INFERRED homosexuality is a bad thing. this is not necessarily the case. if i say "apples are good" you cannot infer from that statement "oranges are bad". and besides, is not love more everlasting to Jesus than the physical form? if it is true love, would Jesus care whether it was two men or two women?

i will consider the Didache as you consider Corinthians. it's the first time i've heard of it. and in any case, i do not find a prohibition against homosexuality in there (only fornication). it is possible for two people of the same gender to be married now in many parts of the world.

"I'm well aware that the books that tell how Moses died are <u>probably</u> not written completely by him. But there's no reason to assume that Moses did not write substantial parts of Law. In fact, Jesus attributes the author to be Moses.

i'm curious why you use the word "probably" - surely "obviously" is a more rational conclusion. and you say there's no reason to assume Moses did not write substantial parts of the Law, but the opposite is also true - there's no reason to assume he did. you say Jesus attributes it to Moses and given your faith it is proof enough. this is understandable. but from an objective standpoint that does not constitute proof.

perhaps - as with Paul, the Corinthians and prostitution - someone saw much homosexuality in society and having a personal dislike of the "havoc" it was causing included the prohibition in the Law (see link below)?

while we're on the subject - the actual Hebrew condemns only a 'man laying with a man' - never a woman laying with a woman. and what is translated as "abomination" or "enormous sin" is more accurately "ritually unclean".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Edited by - Exioce on 11/16/2003 15:45:09

[Exioce]

JCFan,

I would be a hypocrite for condemning...

"Yet that is what you are doing here. Are you without sin?"

"Christ doesn't wish for his spokespeople to be 'openly' sexual in any way. <u>How can any man be a proper man of God, while he's the sins-of-the-flesh poster boy?</u>"

pot. kettle. black.

checkmate ;)

Edited by - Exioce on 11/16/2003 15:45:41

[nr]

so Jesus does not directly mention homosexuality anywhere. by Jesus' view that marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing you have INFERRED homosexuality is a bad thing. this is not necessarily the case. if i say "apples are good" you cannot infer from that statement "oranges are bad". and besides, is not love more everlasting to Jesus than the physical form? if it is true love, would Jesus care whether it was two men or two women?

Jesus' view on divorce was pretty strict for most Jews. Furthermore, the abstance of men becoming on with eath other is explicitly left out. When God created Adam, he created Eve after Adam. I'd rather you be more precise on your terminolgy. It is true that the bible does not say anything about homosexuality because that is not action but a state of being attracted to the other sex. It does, however, say that homosexual acts are wrong.


i will consider the Didache as you consider Corinthians. it's the first time i've heard of it. and in any case, i do not find a prohibition against homosexuality in there (only fornication). it is possible for two people of the same gender to be married now in many parts of the world.
I think it's the translation I gave you. One translation I had used the word "pedastry", which is translation in the one I gave you as "corrupting young boys". But this must be understood in context. In Roman empire there were boy prostitutes and this probably refers to them. Peter accepted Paul's gospel so I'm sure the statement that homosexual acts were wrong does not contradict the faith.


i'm curious why you use the word "probably" - surely "obviously" is a more rational conclusion. and you say there's no reason to assume Moses did not write substantial parts of the Law, but the opposite is also true - there's no reason to assume he did. you say Jesus attributes it to Moses and given your faith it is proof enough. this is understandable. but from an objective standpoint that does not constitute proof.
Due to the higher percentage of egyptian words in the exodus accounts, the Law probably comes from an early source in Egypt. Furthermore, the ten commandments are similar to an egyptian ten commandments found elsewhere. My own belief is that Moses wrote the Law and then and perhaps the headers and trailers were added by some of the priests.

[JCFan]

Exioce...
The Lord spoke the law to Moses...
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Moses set forth the law regarding who may be a member of the church...
Deuteronomy 22:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

A vision given to Isaiah regarding sodomy...
Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

I'm sorry that homosexuality is so important to you, but it is not acceptable in God's kingdom. I don't condemn you, I'm merely relating God's message. I'll pray for you!



Edited by - JCFan on 11/16/2003 18:32:05

[Exioce]

JCFan,

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

a very poor translation of the Hebrew. "zimah" = abomination whereas the word actually there "to'ebah" = ritually improper and is used in the context of same-sex religious prostitution.

Deuteronomy 22:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

eh?! Deuteronomy 22:17 actually reads

'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter [was] not a virgin," and yet these [are the evidences of] my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

was the "sin of Sodom" consentual homosexual sex or male-on-male rape?

"I'm sorry that homosexuality is so important to you, but it is not acceptable in God's kingdom. I don't condemn you, I'm merely relating God's message. I'll pray for you!"

so... your God is intolerant?

oh, since we are talking about sin, lemme just note a few Biblical

<u>commandments</u>

* a child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (Leviticus 20:9)
* all persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)
* the daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive until dead (21:9)
* the bride of a priest to be a virgin (21:13) - you can be pretty sure there are a lot of priests out there who have a problem
* a person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)

<u>sins</u>

* heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19)
* harvesting the corners of a field (19:9)
* eating fruit from a young tree (19:23)
* cross-breeding livestock (19:19)
* sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19)
* shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27)
* tattoos (19:28)
* even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18) - intolerant!
* charging of interest on a loan (25:37)
* collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing
* wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester
* eating of non-kosher foods (eg pork)

now, if you're going to be quoting Leviticus to back up your opinions against homosexuality, i sure hope you don't cut your hair or wear polycotton blends, and i sure hope you kill adulterers and children who curse their parents. it would be ethically dishonest to pick the commandments you like and those you don't.

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are "to'ebah" to the LORD your God.

are women allowed to wear pants in your church, i wonder? depending on which translation of "to'ebah" you accept it's either an abomination or ritually improper for them to do so.

don't you see - it's all a product of its time!

Edited by - Exioce on 11/16/2003 21:21:46

[Exioce]

nr,

"Jesus' view on divorce was pretty strict for most Jews. Furthermore, the abstance of men becoming on with eath other is explicitly left out. When God created Adam, he created Eve after Adam. I'd rather you be more precise on your terminolgy. It is true that the bible does not say anything about homosexuality because that is not action but a state of being attracted to the other sex. It does, however, say that homosexual acts are wrong."

not wrong per se - "to'ebah" - which is translated as 'ritually improper' and perhaps a reference to the religious/cultural prostitution of young men that existed in early society. "to'ebah" is used in the context of women wearing mens clothes and many other instances besides. if you consider homosexual sex wrong you must reserve as much venom for women who wear pants, because the texts describe both acts using the same word.

"I think it's the translation I gave you. One translation I had used the word "pedastry", which is translation in the one I gave you as "corrupting young boys". But this must be understood in context. In Roman empire there were boy prostitutes and this probably refers to them. Peter accepted Paul's gospel so I'm sure the statement that homosexual acts were wrong does not contradict the faith."

if Peter accepts Paul's gospel then he no doubt accepts that it is shameful for women to speak in church also, and hence that must not contradict the faith either. ergo, it must be an integral part of the faith. and as for "corrupting young boys" - is it the same-sex act or the prostituting that is the problem here?

"Due to the higher percentage of egyptian words in the exodus accounts, the Law probably comes from an early source in Egypt. Furthermore, the ten commandments are similar to an egyptian ten commandments found elsewhere. My own belief is that Moses wrote the Law and then and perhaps the headers and trailers were added by some of the priests."

an interesting discussion on the Pentateuch books can be found at the link below. rather long, but worth the read.

http://www.cresourcei.org/jedp.html

Edited by - Exioce on 11/16/2003 21:39:52

[mpriest]

salaam

all priests are taught to follow the divine path.all desires to let
the animal nature dominate,is far off the divine path.Priests are
taught to keep the animal desires subdued.There is no way anyone
modern philosophy,or old can justify a priest being gay.

matthew missionary priest

[mule]

Exioce,

The new testament declairs homosexual sex as sin. You also should realize that God has always said any sex outside marrage is sin. Even before he gave the Jews the law sex outside of marrage was evil in his eyes. A gay couple cannot ever be married thus they sin against God.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

You are right that women should not be ministers or pasters. This fact does not mean that it is ok for anyone to have sex outside marrage

A person should also take in account that God does deserve to have a say in what we do. He is the Creator he makes the rules. He has rules for nature and everything else and he has rules for us also. He designed you a certain way and he has the right to tell us what is evil.

Have a nice day,
mule