Tim-the-Hermit wrote:Anyway, I thought Jesus barely said a word on the subject he seems so bothered with?
NH Baritone wrote:If gay folks did not exist, straight folks would apparently find a way to invent us.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Or you could put all the gays and lesbians in the same coral with a few turkey basters and let nature take its course.
Brad wrote:But wouldn't a very great many Christians, even rather conservative ones, find this fellow's remarks a blight on their faith and un-Christian to put it extremely mildly? And if so, have there been any open and public denunciations of Worley's words by other pastors or lay Christians or Christian institutional authorities? If not, why not?
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
Corinthians 1 6:9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
Timothy 1 1:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"
ScottBarger wrote:Just because we have no record of Jesus teaching something, doesn't mean he didn't. You have greatly over simplified a LOT of biblical theology here, and it would take a lot more effort than I care to use up to deal with it all, but l will address the following issues because I think they are central.
.The Gospels do contain what the early church seems to have thought most critical of his teachings, not everything, of course, but the most critical stuff. It is obvious that one of the (if not THE most) central virtues of Jesus' teachings was that of loving our neighbors. Throughout the Gospels and, contrary to your assertion, a good bit of the rest of the NT, this virtue is repeated, explained and applied. We are taught to love. And we are taught this over and over again
So when it comes to issues that seem critically important to us, but are strangely absent from the text, it is likely not an evaluative discrepancy (Jesus and his culture were off target when it comes to social concerns, we and our culture are on target when it comes to these concerns) it is more likely a cultural discrepancy. For example, it is not that Jesus was ignoring the "sin" of slavery in favor of attacking some lessor social concern like sabbath laws. He was teaching core spiritual virtues (namely, justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love) that ought to have informed all aspects of life and then applying those virtues to issues that were contextually important to those who were listening. So what did Jesus say about slavery? Well he said we are to love and forgive people, and treat them how we would want to be treated. Does this apply to the master/slave relationship? Paul thought so. Does it apply to homosexuality? I think so.
But this pastor Worley goes quite a bit past even the customary homophobia, to be quite mild about it.
So my larger questions, which were really intended for the Christian cohort here, are these:
If the words of Jesus (Paul or no Paul) are the true essence of Christianity does any believer here think pastor Worley's words or attitudes reflect His message? Why or why not?
If not, then I'd imagine at least some Christians would find Worley's diatribe, especially now that it has come to prominence, almost as obscene as we non-believers, but those Christians would find it of even greater concern because it reflects on the set of ideas that is supposed to be most dear to them.
And if that is the case, then have any Christians, prominent or not, spoken out in public against Worley's speech?
And if not, why not?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], StillSearching and 1 guest