<p>"Did I even mention imposing anything on anyone? I posted my firm belief and didn't say that anyone should think the same as me. No one is being forced to believe anything."</p>
<p>Would you support a ban on homosexual relationships/marriages?</p>
<p>Wow, how have no other born-again Christians responded to this thread? I guess that I could respond to the original poster by agreeing with him that hating homosexuals is not Christian. Other than that, there are like a billion things that I would like to address from this huge 10 page thread, but obviously I cannot do that.</p>
<p>I would like to say that I have no problem with a diversity of opinions, my opinions are only as legitimate as Stuck's or Fides's. HOWEVER, I see this issue as problematic for the Christian (and Muslim, but that's a whole 'nother bag of flour altogether) community. Progression of humanity is inevitable, but the Christian church seems to ignore this...as a defense mechanism most likely. The Catholic church has experienced the same thing, resulting in a major decline in power of the Catholic Church. I am pointing out that it might be beneficial for the next generation for Christians to examine the possibility of homosexuals being accepted and embraced within the church, w/o regard to sexual affiliation.</p>
<p>Protestant Christian Churches are embracing the gay agenda -- in droves. Mainline Protestant denominations are watering down their theologies concerning homosexuality and are blessing gay weddings at an astounding rate today. Yet, they aren't experiencing a rise in worship attendance because of it at all. On the contrary, they are actually experiencing a greater decline than ever before.</p>
<p>Something similar has been happening in Catholic diocesan seminaries and religious orders all over North America and Europe since the 1970s. In an attempt to attract more vocations, countless diocesan seminaries and orders have liberalized and secularized themselves to an almost shocking degree. However, all that has come from it is a startling decline in applications from young people wanting to be priests and nuns! </p>
<p>The approach is clearly not working. Study after study that I have seen has shown that the healthiest Christian Churches today in terms of worship attendance are the ones that are holding fast to tradition and religious orthodoxy; likewise, the diocesan seminaries and religious orders that are the most conservative/orthodox in terms of theology are receiving the most number of applicants by FAR.</p>
<p>maybe the decline is happening because have realized the truth about church, that it is just trying to control their lives</p>
<p>How original, Pyar. Be sure to contribute again when the next tired anti-religious cliche comes to mind.</p>
<p>Fides- </p>
<p>The Christian churches/members/clergies that are accepting homosexuals as equal beings under God are EXCEPTIONS. I would love to see statistics for this "astounding rate" you're talking about. So, on the contrary, the mainstream church has not really made an effort to change. As for the <em>C</em>hurch, well, sometimes I wonder if the pope realize it's the 21st century, really. OK, I'm joking, BUT, the Church has been slow to budge on stem cell research, abortion, or homosexuality. </p>
<p>If there has been a decline, I believe it's purely political. Everybody's sick of the religious right dictating their beliefs like it's the apocalypse or something, and running their agenda above the Constitution. Let's not even TALK about Iraq and God's foreign policy. </p>
<p>Oh well.</p>
<p>"As for the <em>C</em>hurch, well, sometimes I wonder if the pope realize it's the 21st century, really. OK, I'm joking, BUT, the Church has been slow to budge on stem cell research, abortion, or homosexuality."</p>
<p>Slow to budge? Haha. News flash: you're dreaming. The Catholic Church will NEVER, ever, budge a single inch in its stances on these issues, not in a million years. The Church does not look at itself and wonder how it can fit in more with secular culture; the Church looks at secular culture and ponders how it can fit in more with the Church.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way. As a Catholic Christian, on a second's notice, I would gleefully suffer the worst death imaginable rather than support the idea that the Church needs to change its teaching on stem-cell research, abortion, or homosexuality. There are tens of millions of Catholics, in all walks of life, and especially in the Church heirarchy, just like me.</p>
<p>"If there has been a decline, I believe it's purely political. Everybody's sick of the religious right dictating their beliefs like it's the apocalypse or something, and running their agenda above the Constitution. Let's not even TALK about Iraq and God's foreign policy."</p>
<p>Just to add, the Pope -- both John Paul II and Benedict XVI -- has officially opposed the Iraq War and America's current foreign policy. I personally part ways with them on this (their judgements on this are in no way infallible), but there it is.</p>
<p>I would have to respectfully disagree, bendrumfront about the denominations accepting homosexuality. Those that have accepted homosexuals are in fact what most consider the "mainline Protestant groups." Take for example:</p>
<p>The Episcopal Church
Presbyterian Church (USA)
United Church of Christ
Lutheran churches (not Missouri Synod)
Methodist churches
many Reformed or independent, non-denominational churches</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, in the effort to "water down" theology, to quote Fides et Ratio I think, the memberhsips in these churches have declined astronomically. The Episcopal church by almost 40 percent recently for example. </p>
<p>Those that are still Biblically based have increased in membership, astronomically at that. Some by even triple digit percents in recent years. Examples being Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominational, Biblically based churches et cetera. </p>
<p>I guess that it's difficult to decide what a "mainstream" church is really. I mean I would consider a mainstream church a Biblically-based one. But anyhow, most people consider those churches that have allowed homosexuals to marry, be ordained, et cetera, "mainline Protestant denominations."</p>
<p>With regard to your comment about the Catholic Church, (no offense to Catholics here but) I would say that some times I feel that it is hypocritical. For example, it doesn't believe in the literal millenial reign of Christ during the end times, but, say, condemns homosexuality. I agree with many on this board when they say that it isn't right to "pick and choose" from the Bible with only what suits you. Also, you mentioned the decline in the power of the Catholic Church; I think that this is the result of a majority of Christians coming back to the Bible (or for the first time) and rejecting the Catholic Church because many of its beliefs aren't exactly Biblical. That said, there are many hypocrisies within Christianity, and the Catholic Church is not the only entity as such.</p>
<p>Finally, in reference to your comment about progress, I could not agree more on the importance of it. It is what sustains us. However I would say that with our progressive thinking need not come a subscription to moral relativism, a changing of the basic fundamental moral principles of man, such as the negative impact of lying and stealing, for example, and yes the acceptance of certain sexual lifestyles as commonplace. I implied before that I do not "hate" homosexuals, becuase to hate is not to follow Christ. One of my really close friends is actually of this persuasion, and he's actually part of the Episcopal Church (which ordains and marries homosexuals). Given that, I don't think that being against gay marriage, for example, has to be considered a backward notion and against progress. We can agree to disagree on homosexual behavior, obviously. I follow a certian set of principles, and so do you and the next guy. But I just don't think that being against homosexuality is a "backward" notion. It's just a different way of thinking, stemming from a core belief system.</p>
<p>"-- both John Paul II and Benedict XVI -- has officially opposed the Iraq War and America's current foreign policy."</p>
<p>Hurray for them!</p>
<p>" I personally part ways with them on this "</p>
<p>huh?? Why, if I may ask?</p>
<p>"With regard to your comment about the Catholic Church, (no offense to Catholics here but) I would say that some times I feel that it is hypocritical. For example, it doesn't believe in the literal millenial reign of Christ during the end times, but, say, condemns homosexuality. I agree with many on this board when they say that it isn't right to "pick and choose" from the Bible with only what suits you. Also, you mentioned the decline in the power of the Catholic Church; I think that this is the result of a majority of Christians coming back to the Bible (or for the first time) and rejecting the Catholic Church because many of its beliefs aren't exactly Biblical."</p>
<p>Like most Protestants, you misunderstand Catholicism. For one thing, Catholics do believe in the millenial reign of Christ during the end times; we just don't subscribe to fundamentalist "Rapture theology," which stems from kindergarden-like interpretations of the Book of Revelation. </p>
<p>As for the Catholic Church not being "exactly Biblical," you need to look at history. The Catholic Church existed a long time before the New Testament books were even written (by members of the early Catholic Church, BTW), and longer still before they were formalized into any sort of canon (also by the Catholic Church, in the 4th century). As the original Christian Church, the Catholic Church predates the Christian Scriptures as we know them by a good 350 years. Draw your conclusions from that.</p>
<p>And take a look at the state of Protestantism today while you're at it. There are currently over 30,000 Protestant denominations worldwide, all teaching different things about Christ and Salvation, and a great many teaching that the other 29,999 are unequivocally hellbound. If Protestant Churches are so much more Biblically-based, as you seem to think, then why is Protestantism so terribly divided?</p>
<p>I knew that I would offend you and I'm sorry. However, although I may not know as much as you about the Catholic Church admittedly, I really do not misunderstand Catholicism. Doesn't it NOT subscribe to the idea that Christ will literally reign on earth for 1000 years? That's what I have come to understand from reading, but perhaps I'm wrong. And as for a "kindergarten-like interpretation" of the Book of Revelation, I would disagree and simply say that this is a literal interpretation.</p>
<p>As far as Catholic history, I believe that there was not even a reference to a Catholic Church until the 1st century, well after the first books of the New Testament were written (even Revelation, the last), and those that wrote it had already passed away. If you mean that the Catholic Church stemmed from the early Church, and that much of the Church essentially became the Catholic Church then yes I agree. I just think that they added many things later that are not found in the Bible. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to be offensive, I was just responding to some of the posts on this thread, since had just found it. I don't mean to call you "wrong" or anything or turn this into some sort of anti-Catholic church thing, I was just responding to someone's reference to Catholicism.</p>
<p>Actually, the Catholic Church historically has NOT been biblical based. Why? </p>
<p>1.) Because, as you pointed out, Catholicism was the original Christianity and at the beginning incorporated a lot of the pre-Christian Pagan beliefs (Easter, Christmas all fall on and are derived from Pagan holiday traditions, a lot of Christian art in Catholic Cathedrals from the third and fourth centuries was pagan in nature)</p>
<p>2.) The common man was not literate and definitely could not speak/read Latin. Even the scribes who copied the Bibles for the Church were not literate, thus, it is entirely possible that things/ideas were lost in translation. Furthermore, the common man often took whatever his parish priest told him to be the word of God, however there was widespread corruption within the Church at this time, and some clergy may not have even been literate themselves. </p>
<p>As an elaboration on the my second point, it was only logical and necessary for the Church to devise alternative means to cultivate religious piety within the Catholic regions other than reading the Bible. Thus, many traditions, some Pagan in nature, were developed and cemented over time. I am not saying this was entirely conscience, but something had to fill the void.</p>
<p>And, in defense of my comment about the Church being "slow to budge:" I am not attacking this, I am only saying that the Church may lose relevancy and legitimacy with the less radical, non-clergy man. </p>
<p>And this could be dangerous.</p>
<p>"And take a look at the state of Protestantism today while you're at it. There are currently over 30,000 Protestant denominations worldwide, all teaching different things about Christ and Salvation, and a great many teaching that the other 29,999 are unequivocally hellbound. If Protestant Churches are so much more Biblically-based, as you seem to think, then why is Protestantism so terribly divided?"</p>
<p>I think that many Protestant churches are not Biblically-based and come up with their own strange interpretations of the Bible. I don't like that many denominations think this way, but I would argue that not all do. </p>
<p>I also don't like that Protestantism is so divided, as you mentioned, and the same with the entire Christian church. I would rather the church be one church, really, with a simple textual base. I believe that there is one interpretation of the Bible. And further, even if someone disagrees on one small theological issue, and starts a new denomination, it is not their right to say that another denomination is hellbound if all that they are disagreeing on is something theological, and not "behavioral" or something. According to the Bible, salvation is through faith and not through interpreting something a certain way.</p>
<p>And, in defense of my comment about the Church being "slow to budge:" I am not attacking this, I am only saying that the Church may lose relevancy and legitimacy with the less radical, non-clergy man.</p>
<p>And, in defense of my comment about the Church being "slow to budge:" I am not attacking this, I am only saying that the Church may lose relevancy and legitimacy with the less radical, non-clergy man. </p>
<p>And this could be dangerous.</p>
<p>Fides-</p>
<p>Although you and I have very different views, I sincerely have to say I have learned something from you. I think I wrote you off at first, and although your arguments are subjective, I really think I started this thread, and prior to starting this thread, with the assumption that my view was clearly the only right one because it was progressive and everybody else's was backwards. This was not conscience, I guess it's just a liberal mind-set. But, I realize now that that view is dangerous because it is, inadvertently, close-minded itself. Although I still firmly believe in what I said and say, I have a new appreciation for the other side of the tracks, if you will and have shaped my views into something genuninely better. I think most importantly I learned from this thread that what I believe (in general) is not necessarily right or wrong, or even more legitimate that what others say, but can only be valuable insofar as it allows for a better, more efficient, way. I still believe homosexuals should be universally accepted within all religions as persons deserving of God's love, and not because people decide homosexuality is not sinful, but because people decide they do not have the right or the ability to decide these things, only God does. Anyway, I think, as a Christian, my duty is to live according to MY principles, and I do NOT believe I have the right to tell somebody else how to live his or her life, who to sleep with, or if he will get to Heaven or not, as I really do not know, and I also know that no other human being, Christian or not, knows what God will ultimately decide... and that, in itself, is tolerance.</p>
<p>On a last note, I am always grateful for people who challenge my opinions and force me to make them clearer and fair-minded. I learned a lot from this thread, I'm glad I started it!</p>
<p>"As the original Christian Church, the Catholic Church predates the Christian Scriptures as we know them by a good 350 years. Draw your conclusions from that.</p>
<p>And take a look at the state of Protestantism today while you're at it. There are currently over 30,000 Protestant denominations worldwide, all teaching different things about Christ and Salvation, and a great many teaching that the other 29,999 are unequivocally hellbound. If Protestant Churches are so much more Biblically-based, as you seem to think, then why is Protestantism so terribly divided?"</p>
<p>Score for Fides!</p>
<p>"realize now that that view is dangerous because it is, inadvertently, close-minded itself. Although I still firmly believe in what I said and say, I have a new appreciation for the other side of the tracks, if you will and have shaped my views into something genuninely better. I think most importantly I learned from this thread that what I believe (in general) is not necessarily right or wrong, or even more legitimate that what others say, but can only be valuable insofar as it allows for a better, more efficient, way. I still believe homosexuals should be universally accepted within all religions as persons deserving of God's love, and not because people decide homosexuality is not sinful, but because people decide they do not have the right or the ability to decide these things, only God does. Anyway, I think, as a Christian, my duty is to live according to MY principles, and I do NOT believe I have the right to tell somebody else how to live his or her life, who to sleep with, or if he will get to Heaven or not, as I really do not know, and I also know that no other human being, Christian or not, knows what God will ultimately decide... and that, in itself, is tolerance."</p>
<p>Score for bendrum! Cool!</p>