Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

What's mainstream? There are so many different denominations and within those there are divisions (with this very issue tearing the worldwide Anglican communion apart). I know that if you'd been approached by a street team from my church your "I'm gay" response wouldn't have made a difference. A lost person is a lost person. Not a "lost cause"As to gay rights, the view down my way would be that it is not for the church to interfere with the secular authorities decision to assign rights (or not) to gays. If it is decided that gays be allowed a marriage-like union, then fine. If they want to call it marriage then fine too. That gays would not be permitted to marry in the church (or have a secular union recognised as marriage under God) wouldn't be a denial of rights anymore than would the refusal to permit a man and his mother marry... be a denial of rights.It's not that anyone here is at war with gays or has trouble accepting them as people. Sinful behaviour is sinful behaviour however, whether homo sex or any other kind of sin pattern the church finds itself having to deal with.

I'm not a Catholic. I'd go to an independent evangelical church and this view would be the view I'd expect of other such churches.It's true the Roman Catholic church did exert great influence up until a couple of decades or so ago. The economic transformation of Ireland over the last 15 years has resulted in us embracing secularism with wide open arms. Any slowness to embrace a liberal agenda has probably got to do with objects at rest staying at rest unless acted upon by a sufficiently large force.That there is no great desire to introduce abortion or same sex unions has to do with there not being huge demand for it.. yet. All the infrastructure for abortion - bar the actual operation - is freely available. A quick flight over the water to England has resolved that detail for many a year.

No offence taken. But what if homosexual activity is indeed sinful? You would be suggesting that it is not possible for sinners and God to be reconciled unless God relents on declaring what is sinful. Clearly it is possible for sinners and God to be reconciled in Christianity.I think it depends very much on the people in the church in question, on the individual... and on God. The first thing to remember is that Christianity (assuming for the sake of argument it is true) involves earth-shattering changes in the set up of the persons relationship with God. The churches role is not to stand between the person and God and condemn this that or the other activity. Rather it is the churches role to stand alongside the person as God deals with them directly. If you saw the age profile outside an average Catholic church on a Sunday morning you might think otherwise. The influence is there alright. But as a kind of echo from the past.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry Schraf,I meant demand in the sense of folk lobbying hard for change. There is an "object at rest" and moving it would require folk lobbying sufficiently hard to shift it.Granted, going to England for an abortion is more problematic than having one at home in Ireland (were it the case that it was legalised). But not so problematic that it fills column inches or appears on current affairs programmes - the places where outcry might begin to be generated.Ironically, it could be that the easy availability of abortion services in England leaks pressure that might otherwise build up towards having the status quo here changed.

The question "what if homosexual activity is sinful?" was intended rhetorically. The implication I was dealing with was that the church would have to relent on it being a sin in order for peace between church and practicing homosexual. Lest there be confusion, I read homosexual activity is being sinful. Clearly so. Does God within me have any say in what I consider sin or no? Besides, I'm free from the law in the matter of sin. That Galatians passage doesn't refer to me (in terms of going to Hell) whether I sin those sins or not. But that's off topic.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The sinner doesn't need to give up his sins in order to be reconciled to God. The fact that he cannot do so is the reason why the gospel is a gospel of Gods grace - not a gospel of mans effort to make himself right with God. When a sinner is saved, gay or no, all his sins: past, present and future are forgiven. He is reconciled to God forever. According to your definition of morality perhaps. But God is also entitled to a view about what is moral and not. Someone's view counts. Ands it's not yours. Same point as above. Gods definition of right and wrong revolves around whether your actions align God's will or not. If they do not then you are wrong. By definition. You might not agree with the definition. You might not like it. But that doesn't alter the definition You seem to be debating the following system: individual > church > God. As if the issue of a persons orientation is primarily a matter between the church and the individual. The Roman Catholic church typifies such a system, for example.But that is not what I am proposing is the case. A persons homosexual activity (which is, I am assuming for the sake of argument, sinful) is primarily a matter between them and God. Not between them and a church.There is the issue of how a church would deal with any Christians persistant sinful activity: be it homosexual activity or any other sinful activity. This merely from a church order and discipline point of view. And the church should be consistant in it's application of discipline and not pick out homosexual activity for special treatment. The first thing to query is your apparent assumption that homosexual orientation be considered on a par with hetrosexual orientation. That it, like hetrosexuality, belongs to the order set up by God.It may well be that a person is born homosexual but that in itself doesn't alter homosexual orientation being disorientation in fact. Disorientated w.r.t. the order that God set up pre-fall. If a homosexual becomes a Christian (and is thus reconciled to God) then God will deal with ALL the disorientation in that person - sexual disorientation being just one of the myriad of disorientations that need dealing with. We all come to God disorientated to our very core.Does this mean refraining from homosexual activity? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps not yet. All Christians engage in sinful behaviour. All Christians will die whilst still engaging in sinful behaviour. I don't think there is any general statement that can be made about all homosexuals. Can a gay person engage in homosexual activity and enjoy a relationship with God? Insofar as any sinner can continue to engage in sinful behaviour and enjoy a relationship with God I am sure they can - God help us if we could only enjoy a relationship with God once we have refrained from ongoing sin patterns.Now if God happens to turn the wick up on a particular area of sin-to-be-dealt-with then things might alter somewhat. But in principle, yes, God can be enjoyed by Christian gays. Which is a completely undemocratic thing to say. The religious voice is a voice that is entitled to be heard in a democracy. Just like any other voice.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I didn't comment with the expectation of dealing with this issue so let me expand on what I said earlier.God's definition of good actions are those actions that operate within the boundaries he sets. Bad actions are those which operate outside the boundaries he sets. (Naturally, by this definition, all of God's own actions would be good.God cannot operate outside his own boundaries )Thus, if God "likes" an action, he likes it because it is good. And it is good because it occurs within the boundaries he sets (according to the definition of good given above). Rape was not commanded by God in the OT. As far as genocide goes, Gods mass killing of sinners might not be welcomed by the sinners - but it can hardly be said to be unrighteous (or "bad"). Lets face it, God is entitled to take back the life he gives men whenever he wants. As for punishing sinners - there is nothing unrighteous in that either. Wrongdoing can attract punishment in God's realm just like it does in our own. As we have seen. There is no second case. What is good stems from Gods definitions. There is no moral standard outside himself to which he is beholden. At least I can't think of one. People do evil whether there is a Bible around or not. That they would use the Bible to justify their actions doesn't horrify me in the least. Because it doesn't surprise me in the least. It's to be expected. Of course to both questions. Assuming it was God himself. I don't get the switch. My "brand" of Christianity isn't at war with homosexuals. So it is not in a position to have to make peace with them. My branch of Christianity isn't at war with any category of sinner for that matter. What should define good actions if not God. You? A committee? Each to their own - so that good is relative?When you say some action of God's is inherently immoral, against whose moral standard are you measuring him. Your own?To be honest Rahvin, it seems to me like your just not prepared to accept God's sovereign right to instruct you as to the boundaries within which you must live. How any created thing would reject it's creators rights over it...and try to rationalise it in the process would be beyond me where it not that I'm a sinner too. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Talk about an understatement This is what happens when you assume something for the sake of argument. I am assuming for the sake of arguement that homosexual activity is a sin in Gods eyes. If you want to discuss with someone who assumes something else then that's fair enough by me. God intended sex as something between a man and woman under the auspices of convenantal marriage. That folk think up other uses for it means they use it as he didn't intend. That is unethical on our part. Misusing gifts of God. God is sovereign and hasn't given us any right to operate outside his stated boundaries.Perhaps that's the key to things!! People think they have the right to do as they like - when God never gave them that right.God is sovereign. And person who decides to operate outside the boundaries set by a sovereign is called a rebel. Whose morality do you think should hold sway? Yours? A committee of the "wise"? Should it be what's "good in the eye of the beholder"?God sometimes elaborates on the rational as to why something is beneficial or not beneficial. But he is under no obligation to do so. Sovereignty is sovereign after all. You were not created to be free of his sovereignty so he has every justification for demanding that you adhere to his "edicts". Irksome as it may sound, you do belong to him.. True.The issue of church order and discipline is a separate issue. And one that occurs when a person decides that they want to join a particular church. It is imperative that the church gets the balance right between being Christ-like.. and maintaining the biblical model of how church is to be done. Otherwise great harm and hurt can be caused to either side. I think we'll have to assume for the sake of argument that I do know that God exists and what his views are on certain matters. If there is no concrete ground assumed there is no grounds for discussing.(I'll avoid saying that I know God exists in an absolute way. Schraf has a nose for these things and will down here like a rat up an aquaduct with the same old objections. We'd just get sidetracked ) Very few people are interested in hearing argument that assumes them sinners. Fortunately, people are not converted to Christianity by arguments.. but by God.The issue is not whether there is peace and understanding between the church and gay/lesbianism (or any other sexual orientation) at large. The issue is peace between God and the individual. God has no expectation that the church will be at peace with the world. He specifically says it won't be. He doesn't intend it to be. I cannot oblige. Everyone has a moral framework on which they hang their view. You have your's (whatever it is). I have mine: Gods word. Muzzle that and there can be only silence from me. Don't applaud me, applaud God. It's God who doesn't insist we get (and keep) our act together in order for us to have a relationship with him. I'm just reporting that good news.I don't understand why Christian gays are being highlighted anyway. They are sinners with a whole raft of areas in which they sin - just like every other Christian sinner has a whole raft of areas in which they sin. We are a large group. And in many ways very happy. I didn't mean to imply that gays who become Christians will necessarily be re-orientated. I did say perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps not yet...The life-long work of God on any Christian is to re-orient him to increasingly see things Gods way. It is a feature of lost mankind to be completely and utterly disorientated w.r.t. the way God intended things to be for man. In all kinds of areas - including sex.Edited by iano, : tidy

Your paraphrase misses the element call boundaries. Sloppy . God gives life. It is his to take. I don't give life. It is not mine to take. Such occurs when you try to compare apples and pears. God permits you a time in which to hold onto your philosophy about these things or acknowledge his rights concerning you. After that time comes Judgement. Like I say, you are entitled (with his permission) to your view. And he (without your permission) to his. From what I gather of the environment of Hell, the occupants will agree with God that they are vile and deserve their suffering. I wouldn't be inclined to accept a fictional sovereign either. So I sympathise with your position. God and sinners of all sorts have been making peace since the beginning of the world. Gays included. I see no reason to suppose things will change anytime soon. A persons peace making with God is not for you and your philosophy to decide - thank God. One of the fascinating things about Christianity is that you can pick up a 300 year old sermon and it's as fresh today as it ever was. Whilst the church will always be influenced by its age there is really nothing new under the sun.God's purpose for the church is that it be salt and light. Salt to preserve his truth. Light to shine it out to a needy world. It is not his purpose that the church get along with the world at large - for the world at large hates God's truth.There can be no surer sign of a churches worldliness than it be praised by the world. Approaching the subject in such a clumsy and inaccurate way would indeed cause friction. Sometimes it's good to antagonise things into debate. But it's not a way to discuss and explain and listen.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

"you may eat of any tree..." (God is pro free-will)"except that one..." (God putting limits on the extent of free will)

I would imagine Jerry was issuing forth on the subject of Gods wrath poured out. Not on God's love.Whether he is on the button or not I can't tell. Just thought I'd straighten out that point.

This is one of the best ways I have ever heard demolishing the notion that unsaved men have free will.

quote:

---

Romans6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin” 7 because anyone who has died (been born again) has been freed from sin.

---

What about Christian gays (or former gays) who accept and struggle with homosexual acts being sinful and who attend a church that holds that view? I'll go on line and find one for you - but only if your prepared to concede the point when I do. The above point should make plain that there is no expectation (nor intention) that the church be reconciled to all gays at all time. Nor all sinners (of any hue) at all time.. for that matter.If the only way a sinner can be reconciled is for the church to say they are not sinning then for sure there will be no reconilation. Fair enough, I will. Your morality happens to be your own personal one then. A medly chosen from the menu democracy around your way offers. Your a lilttle like me in fact. It's just that the menu I chose from is different than yours. It's not so much an argument as an explaination from a position. If we were having an argument then you would be packing your assumed position just as much I would mine. You don't seem to comprehend that packing away the position you are arguing from or explaining from... results in silence. This "The Worldwide Gathering of Gay People vs. The Church" red herring has been addressed up top.If you want to paraphrase try this. "Iano believes God says x and for him that trumps anyone else's alternative opinion..". It would begin to take a least a little account of what I do say. As pointed out. I have morals of my own. The ones I chose from the menu I like. Just like you. Another side-track we should avoid. Not at any price. No.

Which is to be expected. It's a minority of every grouping of sinner that will be saved whether adulterer, thief, glutton, murderer, slanderer, bigot, hypocrite, etc., ...and all combinations thereof. Narrow is the way that leads to life. Few find it. You would probably agree that (again) we could find people who once 'supported gay rights' but who now think homosexual activity is sinful (strictly speaking rights/activity are two separate issues). The same minority as above for example. I imagine we could also find people who once thought "never" but who changed their minds.It's not that I don't want peace. It's that peace is not possible between the world-at-large and God. I'm just recognise that fact.Thanks for the conversation.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Perhaps "God's wrath is being poured out upon all the ungodliness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness" does indeed take the form of tsunami's and hurricanes and disease. But attempting to impose Christian values on the lost isn't going to prevent ungodly men being ungodly. That's attempting to pull an elephant along by the tail: a pointless waste of your energy which only serves to piss off the elephant. It's the American democratic system of election utilised by some for a goal. The land of opportunity permits such a thing. It could even be worse.