Posted on 08/24/2014 12:21:56 PM PDT by ReformationFan
By now, we’ve all heard the refrain that U.S. churches need liberalize their teachings on sexuality and homosexuality or rapidly decline. The logic behind the argument is simple: more and more Americans are embracing homosexuality and same-sex marriage, including growing numbers of religious Millennials. So long as churches remain the face of opposition to gay marriage, those churches will shrink into irrelevancy when gay marriage (inevitably, we are told) becomes a settled political issue.
These arguments often see church acceptance of homosexuality as a carrot as well as a stick. It isn’t so much that denouncing homosexuality will drive people away from church, but that embracing it will also lead people into church. LGBT individuals and their supporters, many of whom hold a dim view of religion after a decades-long culture war, will reconsider church if denominations remove their restrictions on gay marriage and ordination.
But a number of Christian denominations have already taken significant steps towards liberalizing their stances on homosexuality and marriage, and the evidence so far seems to indicate that affirming homosexuality is hardly a cure for membership woes. On the contrary, every major American church that has taken steps towards liberalization of sexual issues has seen a steep decline in membership.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaquilareport.com ...
since people who are promiscuous or active homosexuals rarely enter the inner space of any respectable church, I fail to see how liberalizing the rules of morality will cause them to suddenly come back to church.
Wouldn’t be Methodist, would it?
No, Southern Baptist...
Very well put.
In most denominations, I believe, preaching is on scripture. In my church most every Sunday it is the Gospel reading. The sermon is supposed to be a bridge explaining how scripture written more or less 2000 years ago can be applied to life today. The Gospels which are the biographies of Jesus don’t easily go into social issues - but in living a righteous life. It speaks to me.
we already saw the stats that showed Chrstians accepting “gay marriage” end up acceping abortion, pornography and every other deviancy.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There are churches that stream online even in this smallish town. The past sermons are also available on the first 3 I checked around here.
Oakwood Baptist
http://oakwoodnb.com/attend/sermons
First Baptist New Braunfels
Freedom Fellowship (whatever that is)
http://www.freedomnb.org/scmedia.php?type=recent&loc=www.freedomnb.org/media/media/recent.php&;
Some Episcopalian churches have done so. Saw it with my own eyes.
Legislation against Sodomites is a Judeo-Christian value, values which our nation was founded upon (and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in one of its more reasonable decisions, the decision of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892)). It would be one thing if only a small subset of historical Christendom advocated for such legislation, but that's simply not the case. The Bible and the majority of Christendom has long advocated for capital punishment against Sodomites; the recent Christian trend against doing so is due to rejection of Christian values in favor of libertine values.
The rejection of Christian norms (i.e. rejection of classroom prayer, the establishment of the Lemon Test, the so-called "sexual revolution", etc.) is directly responsible for and directly coincides with the rise of the entitlement mentality and the empowerment of regulators in the 1960s. If we allow secularism and its values (i.e. sodomy) to flourish, society shall surely collapse.
The parable you cite does not apply to the moral law so clearly laid out in the OT (of course, the NT rendered the civil law and ceremonial law moot, and the parable Christ gives seems to reference this). Sodomy clearly falls under the same category as the 10 commandments. If we simply take the parable at face value without considering the rest of Scripture, we would be forced to do away with pedophilia laws as well.
I understand what you're saying.
There are only .5% - 1.5% of the population who claim to be homosexual, so that sin would be rare. The MORE ordinary sin would be fornication and adultery.
There aren't many heroin users so THAT sin is kind of rare. The more ordinary sin is over-eating, drinking too much and such.
I did hear a sermon about our bodies being the "temple of God" and thus must treat it as such.
The OTHER more common sins, mean spirits, lying, cheating, malicious gossip...are addressed. MOSTLY I get Jesus as the example in the New Testament.
It's all good stuff.
The story about the men on their way to stone an adulteress was so good. "You without sin, cast the first stone." And to the woman: "Go and sin no more."
THOSE stories mean more to me than the sad sack homosexuals who DECIMATED themselves with AIDS.
Just a thought, o milqutoast-preaching disliker. :o)
What the Father of our country thought of sodomites. But I guess the Kenyan clown knows better.
Back in 1778, at Valley Forge, however, Gen. George Washington approved the dismissal of a soldier for “attempting to commit sodomy,” with “abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes,” according to Washington’s papers at the Library of Congress.
Washington (1732-1799) was the leader of the Continental Army in America’s revolutionary war against Britain and served as the first president of the United States and thus as its first “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces and the militia, as stipulated in the Constitution. Valley Forge, in eastern Pennsylvania, was the site for the Continental Army’s military camp during the winter of 1777-78.
On Mar. 10, 1778, at Valley Forge, Gen. George Washington approved the dismissal from service of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin for “attempting to commit sodomy” with another soldier.
In the first president’s papers at the Library of Congress is a series of orders with the title, “Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778.” It includes the following entry,
“At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. [Frederick Gotthold] Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy.
“His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.”
Enslin’s dismissal came less than two weeks after another soldier, Ensign Anthony Maxwell, was acquitted of the charge of “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin” on Feb. 27, 1778, according to the transcription of the court martial dated Mar. 3, 1778.
The document reads: “At a Brigade Court Martial whereof Colo. Burr was President (Feby. 27th. 1778,) Ensign Maxwell20 of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin.21 The Court after maturely deliberating upon the Evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the Character of Lieutt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the Charge.”
“His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the aforegoing sentences and orders Ensign Maxwell to be discharged from his Arrest …” the transcription states.
The two following notes are also provide in the document at the Library of Congress.
Ask J.C. Penney’s just how successful you can be catering to the 1.5% and ignoring the 98.5%.
So the woman taken in adultery was not a social issue and the woman at the well also? That was all Yeshua spoke about was how sin broke the person and also the nation. Everything in Torah and spoken by the Master was about today and everyday for two thousand years. If you want to shrink the church step away from there 501c tax break. You can not serve two masters as you will love one and hate the other. Give onto Rome that which is Rome’s and onto G_D that which is G_Ds. Sounds social to me.
“Does a significant number of the population even still go to a church? I stopped going years ago for personal reasons, and it was also rather monotonous/boring anyway. It would be great if one could go and just listen to a message for an hour, but there’s all of the socializing, handshaking, and singing that I don’t care for.”
At least you are honest about wanting to just be entertained at church and not wanting to fellowship with other believers. Just watch Joel Olsteen and everything will be fine.
Imagine the success of the first century had they done their disciple building by not interacting with each other. Or are you possibly not into making new disciples?
“...but there’s all of the socializing, handshaking, and singing that I don’t care for.”
Yea, who would want to socialize with other who believe as them. That’s just crazy!
A cardboard box in Montana awaits you.
Are you willing to advocate capital punishment for everyone who commits any sexual sin, such as looking at pornography ?
It's difficult to prosecute people who look at pornography in their homes without unduly invading their privacy. That being said, people have the right to live in a society without smut being shoved down their throats, and I would heartily endorse prosecution of anyone who publicly produces, distributes, consumes, or promotes such filth. One example of a good position is this one.
A capitalist in order to give to others; the currency belonged to Caesar, the soul belonged to God. It is folly to presume the LORD blessed rebels who killed so many of their countrymen over money, just as it would be folly to presume approval to rebel against the government now.
It's difficult to prosecute people who look at pornography in their homes without unduly invading their privacy. That being said, people have the right to live in a society without smut being shoved down their throats, and I would heartily endorse prosecution of anyone who publicly produces, distributes, consumes, or promotes such filth. One example of a good position is this one.
To be scriptural you must prosecute all the offenders, including the consumers. Death by stoning I presumably, like they do in Iran.
Did you read my whole post or just the quote I took from another FReeper to comment upon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.