burned in their lust one toward another;

This doesn't sound like anyone was 'forced'. If the homosexual nature wasn't an issue, then why even bring it up?

Everyone loves twisting Paul around to their liking, but my reading would be that Paul doesn't consider homosexuality to be a natural state.

Mind you, I'm not agreeing with Paul, but we are talking Christian thought, and while I see nothing in Paul's writing which shows any sort of acceptance of 'natural' homosexuality, he does refer to is as

To me, that doesn't seem like anything BUT condemnation.

If someone wants to argue that Christians not accepting gays is wrong, thats fine, but I would argue that by Christian standards, homosexuality is 'offensive' to god, a sin.

The more amusing thing to me in all this is how many slightly different translations of Paul I found in looking this up. All were basicly the same but none agreed and the language used can make a difference in the meaning.

To me...this is the crux of this entire debate, interpretation. The Bibles themselves are translations of texts that have been changed and re interpreted over the last two thousand years, and in my opinion must be taken as such. Thus any interpretation is based on what a group or individual wishes them to say. If my version of the bible says homosexuality is fine, and someone elses claims it as sin.....who is right? And do I have the obligation to correct the other for what I see as an error in the interpretation?
If indeed I accept my version as truth....then I am virtually forced to see the other version as bigotted, and as a Christian stand up against the Judging nature of those who follow the other book.

Why would any gay person, even a Christian, send their kid to a school that hates gay people and will tell teh kids their parents are evil and twisted, regardless of what religion the school teaches?

This is the part I really, really don't get.

Ugh. Hates gay people?? Where in the article did they say they were kicking her out because they hate gay people? They disapprove of the LIFESTYLE and the RELATIONSHIP, not of the fact that shes gay. Why is this point so hard to understand for people.

I am in no way a practicing christian and dont have much use for organized religion. But I was raised as one. The level of ignorance as to their beleifs and practices displayed by people here is downright rediculous, even while they spew out vitriolous criticism.

But yea, I can see why they would want to send their daughter to a private school. They are widely regarded as better than the alternative in most cases.

Wow, I didn't know there were so many Christians out there without sin. That must give them a great deal of moral leverage.

This WILL NOT turn into a christian bashing thread....Period

Context. You can't pick one phrase out of a series of them and use it out of context. This occurs after God has arrived on the scene and changed their lust into that for the same sex. V. 29 repeats God's intervention.

That's true. Many Christians like to use this as a condemnation of all homosexuality, when at most it condemns homosexual acts committed in a pagan temple. It also condemns heterosexual acts back there in verse 24, before they started the homosexual stuff, so it appears it isn't the homosexuality that is the major problem here, but the pagan idol worshiping orgy.

My reading is that Paul doesn't like pagan idol worshipping orgies, and that homosexual acts are unnatural for heterosexuals.

Neither do I. Nor do I see a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality.

v. 24 happens before the homosexual sex begins. Since "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" in v. 26, the lust and impurity in v. 24 must refer to heterosexual sex. Verses 28 and 29 don't specify heterosexual or homosexual sex, but are a listing of other related sins committed. Oops, I was wrong there. v. 29 does specify "fornication" which is heterosexual sex. Not all heterosexual sex, but one specific kind. I think the passage as a whole does the same for homosexual sex.

Sure, but what is he condemning? Even if I accept your interpretation here, it seems to be a condemnation of a very specific set of circumstances, that of an idol worshiping orgy in pagan temple, not all homosexual acts anywhere.

Not all Christian groups, nor all Christians agree with this. There isn't any one Christian interpretaion of the Bible, or even an agreement on any one translation of the bible.

Can't disagree with that.

Gilda

Sorry, if you're saying you unwilling to educate a child because of who the parents sleep with, there is hate there. Or strong dislike, at any rate, and vigorous, deep disapproval of the parents at the very least. So again, why put your kids through that, to have them taught by "educators" that their parents are wrong/bad/messed up?

And I was raised Catholic.

Certainly no more than it has turned into a gay-bashing thread.

From reading the school's website it is apparent that they wish to have the parents very involved in the (religious) education process and by requiring them to be practicing Christians, they want them to be good examples.

I guess in their mind people engaged in homosexual activity are sinning and if they refuse to ask their Christian God for forgiveness and continue to sin then they are not practicing Christians and their children are not eligible for enrollment in their school.

I don't think they are necessarily bigoted as the OP suggests, they simply think that people engaged in sinful conduct and refuse to change are not practicing Christians and do not want their students to see this as an acceptable example of Christian living. I imagine many of the parents who send their children to the school feel the same way.

Many of us who are critical of their policy wonder why they don't open up their hearts to people with alternative lifestyles but to them it is sin, pure and simple. I imagine to the Christians making the school rules it is no different than someone who is a murderer and intends to continue murdering.

To me, it seems more a thread about tolerance and intolerance. It also seems a bit hypocritical to be intolerant of a religous group's intolerance.

So, we are supposed to accept intolerance, because being intolerant of intolerance is hypocritical? I'd imagine that sort of argument being used by some southerners in the 50's and 60's.

Actually it doesn't even seem to be that anymore. Its about demanding one group (Christians) to change their mind on 2000(5000+ if you count pre-Christian Jews) years of thought based on the sensibilities of the 1970's onward.

The "being intolerant against intolerance is intolerant" is becoming an argument of semantics. It is clouding the issue. It might help to think of it this way: How much intolerance is there in general and how can we minimize it?

This situation can be improved by reducing the overall level of intolerance...not by pitting one intolerance against another.

Besides, and I'll enter into this ridiculousness for a second, if we are tolerant of intolerance then the intolerance remains. How does condoning intolerance make us tolerant!!!????

So please stop saying it.

Christians have put aside many rules that were important (and so have many non-orthodox Jews). Why is this rule so important?

The only reason it is important is because it suits their needs in the here and now.

It is the doctrine of the school's Christians to be intolerant of sinners who refuse to ask their Christian God for forgiveness and intend to continue sinning. Even if they changed their doctrine to be tolerant of homosexuals there are probably many other human activities that they consider sinful that many of us do not.

Certainly we can tolerate the idea that they get to determine the rules to live by in their religion and run their school accordingly as long as they are not breaking the law. Their rules against homosexuality seem no more bigotted to me than similar rules against sex outside of marriage, coveting thy neighbor's ass, and the many other activities they may consider sinful.

Why is it so important to you that they change it because it suits your need in the here and now?

There are lots of things I do not like about Christianity, first and formost being that it turned the Western World into a death cult, with the focus on the afterlife rather than the present, but I don't expect them to change that anytime soon either.

I asked you first... :p

Besides it was a rhetorical question. I don't expect them to change. I just see it as convenient that they can choose to ignore some rules while embracing others... I don't think most Christians see this.

No, it's not. It's about recognizing intolerance for what it is. I'm all for Christians having the right to believe homosexuality is the mother of all sins (even murderers are ministered to, in prison). But, I also see nothing wrong with people outside that stream of thought recognizing the intolerance for what it is, and revealing it, and condemning it as such.

By your view then, we are all "intolerant" of murders, pedophiles, rapists, and thieves, correct? Because apparently, finding certain behaviors or lifestyles wrong and/or sinful is being "intolerant".

They have chose to set their level for what behavior is and is not sinful at a different point than you. It's not about being intolerant of "intolerance", you're (and many others) are being intolerant of another's belief system, which has deemed homosexuality a sin. So I hope you don't mind when people outside your stream of thought recognize your intolerance and hypocracy, reveal it, and condemn it as such.

You're way off base with your analogy. Who do homosexuals harm? No one.

You can turn my words around if you like, but it doesn't invalidate my point. I am not intolerant of Christian thought on this. They are certainly free to think in whatever way they want. I am not advocating sending Christians to prison for thinking homosexuality is a sin. I'm not even advocating that they be excluded from certain groups, though, I would have a hard time agreeing to giving them federal tax dollars. I am simply saying, as free as Christians are to call homosexuality a sin, others are free to call this way of thinking intolerant. I think there are plenty of Christians who would readily agree with that assessment, and in fact, would find no shame in being intolerant of homosexuality.

Actually, our society is much more tolerant of most of those people, while there is a misplaced zeal to co-locate the term "homosexual" with "pedophile". I've also heard preachers who profess to follow the Christian faith claim that homosexuality was the same as having sex with pets and dead people.

Take Jerry Falwell... He sincerely lobbied then Governor Bush to commute Karla Faye Tucker's death sentence. Conversely, he claims that AIDS is a God sent remedy for "the Gay problem". I went through Stephen ministery training three years ago and was amazed at how eager some of us were to counsel convicts, but nobody seemed to want to spend time in the hospital with the terminally ill.

We welcome these people who have, in many cases, left indelible marks on people and families, wounds that will never heal into a faith that is supposed to be loving and caring. We hold up the stop sign and disallow those who follow their natural instinct in their partner choices.

So, kill somebody? Yes, it's one of the big ten no-no's, but you can still be a Christian minister in almost any (if not all) denominations. Queer? NOT one of the big ten, but no. This club is now exclusive and private.

You know what, I'm disappointed in this thread.

I was really hoping for something positive from "What a beautiful world"

Strange how religion and love and difference, three things I tend to find somewhat beautiful in purest states, have clashed to form this ugly scenario.

People here don't seem to know, or maybe just don't seem to grasp this fact. Being gay doesn't eliminate you from the kingdom of God. Some sects are tolerant of homosexuals. The catch is you don't act on it. Fact in point is the Catholic Church, the foundation of which is life, which revolves around a nuclear family, a father and a mother. Since God made it so men and women create life, not man and man, it is a natural step to marry and enter into that special sacrament with God. The issue is a matter of sex and abstaining. It's a sin for man and woman have sex outside of marriage in the church, marriage is centered around procreation and family; gays cannot procreate therefore no room for marriage.

Plus letting murders become preachers riff is tired and lame, one of christianitys focal points is the idea of forgiveness, what's wrong with forgiving someone who is truly sorry for their sins? If you don't believe they are sincere, that's on you, judgement is ultimately reserved for God. And besides Jesus didn't come for the righteous, he came for the sinners.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I'm assuming you mean my post, in which I say, way to take it out of context.

Do I believe we should allow a murderer to become a pastor? Yes. If a convict is truly reformed and truly enters a ministry to do good works, great.

Rapists are a bit more dodgy because they plant a bomb that can blow up on somebody 3 years from now (AIDS). But if they make restitution with society and most of all, their victim, then yes.

let me point out one thing you post: <I>Some sects are tolerant of homosexuals. The catch is you don't act on it.</i> As a straight male, I used to believe this, when I was in high school. In fact, when people would throw around the the term, "you fag!" I would think that was stupid because I thought, "NOBODY is actually gay!" Then I went into the world as a naive pup and learned a few things.

Honestly, and I say this as a person who was educated by a Methodist college, who takes his walk seriously and recognizes he will always be a sinner, until recently I felt that homosexuality was a God given burden to people just like Job's frequent tests. I felt that homosexuals had to rise above it and conquer it. But then, there's love. Aside from attraction, there's love. Imagine stormtroopers coming into your house and taking that which you hold most dear. Is that right? Would an omniscient and omnipresent God who bases all decisions in LOVE do that? No.

Gay people are as natural as straight. I know this down to the very core of my being. And you absolutely can't command love as the trinity does, and then deny you the love of another. Even when God commanded a man to sacrifice his son, he recognized the love and provided a ram nearby to take the fall.

Sorry for the long winded response. Messing with love gets me all grrrrr.