I shouldnt be suprised at this point...

[JennyMominRI]

I can't begin to express the feeling of gratitude that swept over me as I looked over that site. Having seen so many other religious organizations arrayed against me, finding one that's solidly, vocally, lovingly supportive is an astonishing thing. I find myself genuinely moved.

Here is one for you

BACKGROUND:
Consistent with our Jewish commitment to the fundamental principle that we are all created in the divine image, the Reform Movement has "been in the vanguard of the support for the full recognition of equality for lesbians and gays in society." In 1977, the CCAR adopted a resolution encouraging legislation which decriminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults, and prohibits discrimination against them as persons, followed by its adoption in 1990 of a substantial position paper on homosexuality and the rabbinate. Then, in 1993, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations observed that "committed lesbian and gay couples are denied the benefits routinely accorded to married heterosexual couples." The UAHC resolved that full equality under the law for lesbian and gay people requires legal recognition of lesbian and gay relationships.

In light of this background, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Central Conference of American Rabbis support the right of gay and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil marriage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CCAR oppose governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a matter of civil law, and is separate from the question of rabbinic officiation at such marriages.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples
Adopted by the General Assembly Union of American Hebrew Congregations
October 29-November 2, 1997 Dallas


BACKGROUND
In 1987, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC) reaffirmed its commitment to welcoming gay and lesbian Jews into its congregations and encouraging their participation in all aspects of synagogue and communal life. In 1993, Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, President of the UAHC, called upon the Reform Movement to support the right of gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, to file joint income-tax returns, and to share in health and death benefits provided to heterosexual couples by federal, state, and local governments and by both large and small corporations. Following Rabbi Schindler's call, the UAHC, in 1993, resolved that full equality under the law for gay men and lesbians requires legal recognition of monogamous domestic gay and lesbian relationships.

In 1990, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) adopted a position paper encouraging rabbis and congregations to treat with respect and to integrate fully all Jews into the life of the community regardless of sexual orientation and acknowledging the need for continuing discussion regarding the religious status of monogamous domestic relationships between gay men or lesbians and the creation of special ceremonies. In April 1996, the CCAR adopted a resolution supporting the right of gay and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the benefits of civil marriage.

In addition, the Canadian Council for Reform Judaism (CCRJ) has supported the extension of spousal benefits to same-sex partners in relationships which would be deemed "common law" marriages if the partners were heterosexual. The CCRJ also supported the 1996 amendments to the Canada Human Rights Act to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

In the years since first the UAHC and subsequently the CCAR gave their support for full equality for gay men and lesbians in congregational life, gay men and lesbians have increasingly come forward to participate in the life of Reform Judaism on national, regional, and local levels. No less than heterosexual couples, gay men or lesbians living in monogamous domestic relationships have demonstrated, like their counterparts, love for one another, compassion for the sick, and grief for the dead.

The UAHC has for decades provided moral leadership to the Jewish community and to our nation, recognizing our differences and diversity, but acknowledging that we are but one family, equal before God. In this spirit, the UAHC must now move more forcefully to support the monogamous domestic relationships of gay men and lesbians.

Legal recognition of monogamous domestic gay and lesbian relationships and congregational honoring of these couples will together provide these men and women and their families with dignity and self esteem.
In 1993, the UAHC General Assembly resolution called for recognition for Lesbian and Gay relationships: A) by governmental legislation as to participation in health plans and survivor benefits, as to fitness to raise children, and as to legal acknowledgment of the relationship; and B) by congregations and institutions of the Reform Movement to extend benefits to partners of staff members and employees.

A separate secular movement is proceeding to recognize these monogamous domestic relationships judicially and statutorily and to grant to gay and lesbian couples nondiscriminatory economic, legal, and social rights equal to those under law enjoyed by monogamous heterosexual couples.

THEREFORE, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations resolves to:

Support secular efforts to promote legislation which would provide through civil marriage equal opportunity for gay men and lesbians;

Encourage its constituent congregations to honor monogamous domestic relationships formed by gay men or lesbians; and

Support the efforts of the CCAR in its ongoing work as it studies the appropriateness of religious ceremonies for use in a celebration of commitment recognizing a monogamous domestic relationship between two Jewish gay men or two Jewish lesbians.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution on Same Gender Officiation

Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, March 2000

BACKGROUND
Over the years, the Central Conference of American Rabbis has adopted a number of positions on the rights of homosexuals, on homosexuality in the rabbinate, and advocating changes in civil law pertaining to same-gender relationships.

In 1977, the CCAR adopted a resolution calling for legislation decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults, and calling for an end to discrimination against gays and lesbians. The resolution called on Reform Jewish organizations to develop programs to implement this stand.

In 1990, the CCAR endorsed the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homosexuality and the Rabbinate. This position paper urged that "all rabbis, regardless of sexual orientation, be accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation that they have chosen." The committee endorsed the view that "all Jews are religiously equal regardless of their sexual orientation." The committee expressed its agreement with changes in the admissions policies of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, which stated that the "sexual orientation of an applicant [be considered] only within the context of a candidate’s overall suitability for the rabbinate," and reaffirmed that all rabbinic graduates of the HUC-JIR would be admitted into CCAR membership upon application. The report described differing views within the committee as to the nature of kiddushin, and deferred the matter of rabbinic officiation.

A 1996 resolution resolved that the CCAR "support the right of gay and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil marriage," and voiced opposition to governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriages.

In addition to these resolutions, two CCAR committees have addressed the question of same-gender officiation. The CCAR Committee on Responsa addressed the question of whether homosexual relationships can qualify as kiddushin (which it defined as "Jewish marriage"). By a committee majority of 7 to 2, the committee concluded that "homosexual relationships, however exclusive and committed they may be, do not fit within this legal category; they cannot be called kiddushin. We do not understand Jewish marriage apart from the concept of kiddushin." The committee acknowledged its lack of consensus on this question.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Human Sexuality issued a report in 1998 which included its conclusion, by a committee majority of 11 with 1 abstention, that "kedushah may be present in committed same gender relationships between two Jews and that these relationships can serve as the foundation of stable Jewish families, thus adding strength to the Jewish community." The report called upon the CCAR to support all colleagues in their choices in this matter, and to develop educational programs.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS justice and human dignity are cherished Jewish values, and

WHEREAS, in March of 1999 the Women’s Rabbinic Network passed a resolution urging the Central Conference of American Rabbis to bring the issue of honoring ceremonies between two Jews of the same gender to the floor of the convention plenum, and

WHEREAS, the institutions of Reform Judaism have a long history of support for civil and equal rights for gays and lesbians, and

WHEREAS, North American organizations of the Reform Movement have passed resolutions in support of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, therefore

WE DO HEREBY RESOLVE, that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for same-gender couples, and we support the decision of those who do not, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the CCAR to support all colleagues in their choices in this matter, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that we also call upon the CCAR to develop both educational and liturgical resources in this area.

 

[agnes!]

Jesus himself said that if you break *ANY* of the Ten Commandments then it's as if you broke them ALL, that without Jesus' sacrifice & God's gift of grace, we would all suffer from our sinful ways with no hope of redemption.

So, if I covet *anything* of my neighbor's(mode of transportation, belongings, spouse), or if I *ever* lie, or if I ever have disrespected my parents, I am therefore guilty of sin & without Jesus as my Savior, there would be no hope for me.

As a Christian, I always find it interesting that so many fellow believers seem to focus on being against homosexuality when the Bible has so much more to say on other aspects of our lives. I've met plenty of people who needed to take the mote(log) out of their own eyes before they even started criticising specks in other people's eyes.

agnes!

 

[auntpolly]

Where does ths come from?The Tanakh or OT does not teach a Virgin should be stoned..

He was probably referring to that old letter to "Dr. Laura" -- I saw it on "The West Wing" but don't know if it originated there. I think he just got his "silly things that are in the Bible that no one pays attention to any more" mixed up.

Fundamentalists pick this letter apart and "explain it away", but not in a very convincing way, IMO. IMO, fundamentalists pick and choose what we should take literally.

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other laws in Leviticus and Exodus and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as stated in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's Word is eternal and unchanging.

 

[salmoneous]

Where does ths come from?

To be clear, I don't believe we are supposed to take every verse of the Bible exactly as written. Personally, I don't think anyone does. People want to take some verses, and say we must take *that* verse exactly as written. But others, they are willing to hand-waive away (oh, that verse?, it doesn't mean what it seems to mean, or it only applies to those people, it doesn't apply to us). If anyone thinks there isn't hand-waiving going on, find me a chuch using this as a guideline:

Deuteronomy 22 (New International Version)

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

[JennyMominRI]

He was probably referring to that old letter to "Dr. Laura" -- I saw it on "The West Wing" but don't know if it originated there. I think he just got his "silly things that are in the Bible that no one pays attention to any more" mixed up.

Fundamentalists pick this letter apart and "explain it away", but not in a very convincing way, IMO. IMO, fundamentalists pick and choose what we should take literally.

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other laws in Leviticus and Exodus and how to best follow them.
.

Well I would pick that one apart myself ,because readng any part of Leviticus without readng all of the relevent Talmudic stuff will give you a very innacurate view of Jewish law and how it's applied..

 

[MrVisible]

Here is one for you

WHEREAS the CCAR has developed some loving, rational approaches to dealing with homosexuality in its congregation and its public stance;

WHEREAS it's pretty obvious that this is a religious organization dedicated to the practice of the peaceful and righteous principles it preaches;

WE DO HEREBY RESOLVE that I'm really grateful that there's people and organizations out there like this.

FURTHER RESOLVED that JennyMominRI rocks!


So how's Rhode Island doing these days? I haven't been back there in forever, but I did high school and college there.

 

[amykissangel]

This is a perfect example of how different people can interpret things differently.

Now, I'm not trying to discredit the Bible, here. I am Christian and I believe that it is generally accurate. But common sense tells me there is no real proof of that. That's why it's called faith. That's why I don't preach to those who believe differently, and speak out against those who do. People of other religions (or no religion) have just as much faith in theirs as we do in ours, and their beliefs deserve just as much respect as ours.

I feel exactly the same way. A friend once said to me, "How can you only believe part of the Bible? That's like a teacher giving you a study guide for a test and you only studying 90% of it because you think the teacher won't test you on it!"

I replied, "Well, since the Teacher didn't write the book himself, nor did Jesus, then perhaps a bit of human infallibility snuck in there somewhere...along with stoning brides, eating shellfish, and homosexuality."

And to go completely off topic, ever since my Preist told us that the story of Noah's Ark was just a metaphor, I've been a little crushed. Remember that song??
'The Animals, the animals, they came in by twosies, twosies...Elephants and Kangaroosies Roosies Children of the Lord...'

Ok, if you never knew the song, I promise, it was way fun to sing.

So if that story's just a metaphor, what else is? Are we all supposed to know? Are the passages marked with a little (1), and when you read the footnotes, it says, "Metaphor, do not interpret literally." ? That stinks.

 

[auntpolly]

Well I would pick that one apart myself ,because readng any part of Leviticus without readng all of the relevent Talmudic stuff will give you a very innacurate view of Jewish law and how it's applied..

Well that's sort of the point ; isn't it? There is so much to understand about the all of scripture before we can know what it is there to teach us.

The problem is that too many people find what they want in scripture to promote their own agenda.

 

[JennyMominRI]

To be clear, I don't believe we are supposed to take every verse of the Bible exactly as written. Personally, I don't think anyone does. People want to take some verses, and say we must take *that* verse exactly as written. But others, they are willing to hand-waive away (oh, that verse?, it doesn't mean what it seems to mean, or it only applies to those people, it doesn't apply to us). If anyone thinks there isn't hand-waiving going on, find me a chuch using this as a guideline:

Deuteronomy 22 (New International Version)

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

And yet it's not lsted as forbidden by Jewish law

Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest (Lev. 18:6) (CCN110).
Not to commit incest with one's mother (Lev. 18:7) (CCN112). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit sodomy with one's father (Lev. 18:7) (CCN111).
Not to commit incest with one's father's wife (Lev. 18:8) (CCN113). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's sister (Lev. 18:9) (CCN127). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's father's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:11) (CCN128). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's son's daughter (Lev. 18:10) (CCN119) (Note: CC treats this and the next as one commandment; however, Rambam treats them as two). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's daughter's daughter (Lev. 18:10) (CCN119) (Note: CC treats this and the previous as one commandment; however, Rambam treats them as two). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's daughter (this is not explicitly in the Torah but is inferred from other explicit commands that would include it) (CCN120). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's fathers sister (Lev. 18:12) (CCN129). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's mother's sister (Lev. 18:13) (CCN130). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's father's brothers wife (Lev. 18:14) (CCN125). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit sodomy with one's father's brother (Lev. 18:14) (CCN114).
Not to commit incest with one's son's wife (Lev. 18:15) (CCN115). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's brother's wife (Lev. 18:16) (CCN126). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17) (CCN121). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's son (Lev. 18:17) (CCN122). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17) (CCN123). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to commit incest with one's wife's sister (Lev. 18:18) (CCN131). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period (Lev. 18:19) (CCN132).
Not to have intercourse with another man's wife (Lev. 18:20) (CCN124).
Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116).
Not to have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23) (CCN117).
That a woman shall not have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23) (CCN118).
Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22:24) (CCN143).

 

[JennyMominRI]

WHEREAS the CCAR has developed some loving, rational approaches to dealing with homosexuality in its congregation and its public stance;

WHEREAS it's pretty obvious that this is a religious organization dedicated to the practice of the peaceful and righteous principles it preaches;

WE DO HEREBY RESOLVE that I'm really grateful that there's people and organizations out there like this.

FURTHER RESOLVED that JennyMominRI rocks!


So how's Rhode Island doing these days? I haven't been back there in forever, but I did high school and college there.

It's wet,lol

 

[jimmiej]

Am I just talking to myself? Do all the more conservative Christians have me on their ignore list?

How do you choose homosexuality and not divorce to make a big deal out of? You fight for legislation that suits your anti-gay (pro-family, so you say) agenda; why aren't you fighting for legislation that would make divorce illegal?

Keeping in mind, I don't think that should be done. But how do you make that distinction. You want the government involved in some things, but something Jesus specifically said -- you don't think that's important?

This thread is about homosexuality-that's why we're discussing it. You want to talk divorce? There's a thread about here:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1146534&highlight=divorce

I posted my thoughts about it on post #16. The short version: I wish divorce was more difficult to secure in our country. I'm a school teacher & I see daily "screwed-up" children due to divorce. I understand sometimes it's best, but some people give up too easy.

Here's what Jesus said:

Matthew 5

Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[auntpolly]

I wish divorce was more difficult to secure in our country. I'm a school teacher & I see daily "screwed-up" children due to divorce. I understand sometimes it's best, but some people give up too easy.

Here's what Jesus said:

Matthew 5

Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

You wish?? I think, since this is something Jesus was very clear about, that you'd be speaking against it a little more strongly than that. I won't put words in your mouth, but can you explain why fundamentalists want to legislate what a homosexual can and can't do (when Jesus said nothing about it) and why they just "wish" people wouldn't get divorced.

I wish alot of things -- I wish people wouldn't get abortions, but I don't want it legislated. Explain why I'm wrong in thinking that fundamentalists don't want to legislate divorces because they want to be able to get them for themselves.

 

[jimmiej]

Jimmiej,
First, let me just say that I appreciate the way in which you post. Even if I don't always agree with what you say, your spirit of kindness and concern does come through in your posts.

That said, I'll ask you the same question a few others don't want to answer. Do you believe we should stone to death any bride found to not be a virgin? Do you believe that women must be silent in church? Do you believe that women should always have their heads covered?

The Bible clearly speaks on these subjects, and yet the vast majority of Christians, even those who claim to follow the Bible exactly, don't follow what those verses of the bible seem to say. Why?

Well, they look at the Bible and Christian message in total, and find that in totality, the Bible doesn't really require what it seems to require in specific passages. I assume you and your Church do the same things, right?

Christian groups disagree on these subjects. Many believe that you can't get around the biblical requirement for say, woman keeping silent in church. But while those groups disagree with the mainstream churches that find ways around the requirement for women to be silent in church, they accept the fact that other Christian have come - in good faith - to different conclusions.

Can you have that same acceptance? Can you not accept that some other Christian groups can look to the Bible in total and accept homosexuals into the flock, just as you look to the Bible in total and accept things that seem to conflict with the Bible?

Thank you for your kind words.

Some of the things you list are OT laws. We're under grace, not the law. Our church follows NT rules for Christians, including women not allowed to teach or preach in the church service. ETA: Women are allowed to teach children and other women outside of the worship service.

Only one poster on the other side of this issue has offered another explanation for Romans 1 (and other references). I think their point was that it meant pedophilia. I'd love to hear some other explanations.

 

[salmoneous]

Some of the things you list are OT laws. We're under grace, not the law.

What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that none of OT teachings apply - or do you get to pick and choose which ones apply? And why does grace only apply to OT rules - shouldn't "being under grace" mean that all rules are thrown out?

Our church follows NT rules for Christians, including women not allowed to teach or preach in the church service. ETA: Women are allowed to teach children and other women outside of the worship service.

But that's *not* what the NT teaches. Or, to be strict, those aren't the words on the page. Go grab your NT and see if it says woman can't teach or preach during worship services, but are allowed to teach children and other women outside the worship service. But in good faith your church has looked at the totality of scripture and come up with an answer they are comfortable with - even though it conflicts with the words on the page.

As I said, pretty much all churches do this. Take Joe. I popped over to his pastor's website and his pastor believes that Mathew 5 only applies to those people who marry somebody who divorced their spouse specifically to marry them. If they divorced their spouse for some other reason, then you aren't committing adultery when you marry them. Joe and his pastor will tell you their church is based on the Bible and only on the Bible - but they found this loophole that sure isn't on the page.

Maybe when the Bible talks about homosexuality being bad, it's only talking about people who are married having homosexual affairs. Or maybe it's talking about pedophiles. Or maybe this is one of those laws that no longer apply.

I don't know what the loophole is. I don't know the right way to interpret the scripture here. But I do know that interpreting it to mean that there is something wrong with homosexuality per se can't be the right one.

 

[jimmiej]

What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that none of OT teachings apply - or do you get to pick and choose which ones apply? And why does grace only apply to OT rules - shouldn't "being under grace" mean that all rules are thrown out?

Romans 3

Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

While we are not justified by "rules" or works, we obey Scripture to show our faith.

James 2
Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

But that's *not* what the NT teaches. Or, to be strict, those aren't the words on the page. Go grab your NT and see if it says woman can't teach or preach during worship services, but are allowed to teach children and other women outside the worship service. But in good faith your church has looked at the totality of scripture and come up with an answer they are comfortable with - even though it conflicts with the words on the page.

I Timothy 2

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Maybe when the Bible talks about homosexuality being bad, it's only talking about people who are married having homosexual affairs. Or maybe it's talking about pedophiles. Or maybe this is one of those laws that no longer apply.

I don't think you can find Scripture to support ANY homosexual relationship.

I don't know what the loophole is. I don't know the right way to interpret the scripture here. But I do know that interpreting it to mean that there is something wrong with homosexuality per se can't be the right one.

Why? What makes you think that?

 

[salmoneous]

While we are not justified by "rules" or works, we obey Scripture to show our faith.

OK - that part of "grace not laws" I understand. But you used the grace concept to explain why your church doesn't believe in stoning non-virgin brides. That's the part I'm not getting. Why does grace mean we don't have listen to the parts of the Bible that tell us to stone non-virgin brides, but we do have to listen to the parts of the bible saying homosexuality is wrong?

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

You can add to this 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. [/quote]
The words on the page are pretty clear. Right? Women should be silent period. There is no exception on the page for teaching women and children outside the worship service, or even for asking questions during bible study. But your church has found an exception.

Can't you accept that others have found an exception for homosexuality?

Why? What makes you think that?

The rules that God expects us to obey aren't just wacky things requested for the heck of it. They are things that would be a good idea even if there were no God. Why would God make somebody gay, create homosexual relationships that bring stability and joy, and do no harm, and then forbid people from those relationships? It is inconceivable to me that God's plan for somebody is to be alone, wanting and yearning to be part of a partnership - a partnerships that does no harm and is good for society in general - but forbidden from entering into that partnership.

 

[crcormier]

So why is it those other laws don't apply anymore, but this one does? Who makes that decision?

 

[jimmiej]

You wish?? I think, since this is something Jesus was very clear about, that you'd be speaking against it a little more strongly than that. I won't put words in your mouth, but can you explain why fundamentalists want to legislate what a homosexual can and can't do (when Jesus said nothing about it) and why they just "wish" people wouldn't get divorced.

I wish alot of things -- I wish people wouldn't get abortions, but I don't want it legislated. Explain why I'm wrong in thinking that fundamentalists don't want to legislate divorces because they want to be able to get them for themselves.

I have no problem with the govt. making divorce more difficult to do. I have no desire nor intent to divorce. I plan to abide by my vows.

 

[jimmiej]

OK - that part of "grace not laws" I understand. But you used the grace concept to explain why your church doesn't believe in stoning non-virgin brides. That's the part I'm not getting. Why does grace mean we don't have listen to the parts of the Bible that tell us to stone non-virgin brides, but we do have to listen to the parts of the bible saying homosexuality is wrong?

That's OT law. It is no longer in effect for salvation after Jesus came. See the scripture I posted before. That being said, our church won't marry anyone already living together unless they separate immediately (and get married at a later date) or agree to get married immediately.

You can add to this 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
The words on the page are pretty clear. Right? Women should be silent period. There is no exception on the page for teaching women and children outside the worship service, or even for asking questions during bible study. But your church has found an exception.

There is the implication that teaching women & children would be OK since it says only men. This scripture would seem to back that up:

Titus 2
What Must Be Taught to Various Groups
1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children.

OK, you've got me on the silent part. Our women aren't silent in every room of the building.

Can't you accept that others have found an exception for homosexuality?

No, because even if we "bend" the rule, it doesn't make it right. God doesn't wink at us. Look here:

1 Corinthians 6

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The rules that God expects us to obey aren't just wacky things requested for the heck of it. They are things that would be a good idea even if there were no God. Why would God make somebody gay, create homosexual relationships that bring stability and joy, and do no harm, and then forbid people from those relationships? It is inconceivable to me that God's plan for somebody is to be alone, wanting and yearning to be part of a partnership - a partnerships that does no harm and is good for society in general - but forbidden from entering into that partnership.

You make good points, and I struggle with saying homosexuality is a choice. But I will always defer to God's Word. Remember, God's ways are not our ways.

 

[Thizz]

But I will always defer to God's Word.

You sir, have become a sheep to religion. You blindly believe in a book, that was written hundreds of years after the death of your savior. To say god dictated the scriptures to people, is almost as ludicrous of the idea of a mere mortal walking on water. Which presents anotherquestion, do you believe this book to the extent of believing a man walked on water?