Can a bisexual be in the ministry?

[FleshNBones]

If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

I don't care.

If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 22:22

This has more to do with the issue or inheritance. I really don't care.

Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. Mark 10:1-12

Divorce is allowed, but remarriage is not. Paul has some exceptions regarding marriage between believers and unbelievers.

The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.Leviticus 18:19

I don't care.

If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. Mark 12:18-27

This is so completely out of context that it is almost obnoxious. It is about brothers dying, in sequence, without leaving an heir. The question was, at the time of resurrection, who would be her husband?

If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. Deuteronomy 25:11-12

I don't care.

[Eve]

two of those quotes are from mark, which is a NT book. i'm sure if i put my mind to it i'd find some more that we no longer uphold, because they are outdated and impossible to honor. check out a.j. jacob's book about the year he tried to follow as many biblical imperatives as he could, OT and NT. http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp he found some of them QUITE difficult.

 

Sorry, I dont get what you mean.. in many ways the one quote given from Mark supports my initial thoughts.

 

18Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection[a] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"

24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

 

Ah well, looks like you will have to go bother those who follow Judaism now. Bet you 5p that you dont.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Eve]

Oops, there were two quotes..

 

1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

 

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

 

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

 

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

 

This is the part of Scripture which refers to the male/female bond within marraige which comes under so much fire nowadays. One interpretation I heard was that at that time a man would divorce his wife in a worldly sense but not give her the official papers to free her from him... because he did not have to. The point of what God has joined is the key part for me. If a person does not believe in God then their union obviously has nothing to do with God. Fair enough. If so and they divorce, it is adultery because they could have resolved the issue via faith. I dont mean Jerry Springer type things, this should not be present, more towards the pressures of life etc.

 

Thats what that passage means to me within my marraige, which I do believe is God Blessed.

 

.. Thats my personal, faith based answer anyway.

 

Just curious, have you ever read the Bible Dob? Not being a bitch or anything. Just wondering.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[dobler33]

Sorry, I dont get what you mean.. in many ways the one quote given from Mark supports my initial thoughts.

 

18Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection[a] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"

24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

 

Ah well, looks like you will have to go bother those who follow Judaism now. Bet you 5p that you dont.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

 

i'm hoping there's less bother and more a lively and intelligent debate. i do sincerely appologize if i have offended you. i'm just one of those people who asks a lot of questions about stuff that doesn't make sense to me. if it's upsetting you, then please don't read further. i actually mean that with all compassion and sincerity. it is not my desire to bum people out.

 

what i mean by my above argument is that there is plenty of picking and choosing that goes on already - someone (was it you? i can't remember) had said that christians who accept out and active homosexuals as valid members of the church are picking and choosing. my point is that if you don't pick and choose, you will end up doing all kinds of bizarre stuff, some of which is not in fact legal here in 2009. so, why hang onto one thing and not another? who gets to say what gets kept and what doesn't? what gives them the say-so? the first and second councils of nicea (325 CE and 787 CE respectively) picked and chose from thousands of gospels and traditions, picked and chose what would be in the bible and would be rejected. were they particularly holy? were they thinking along the same lines as the average person is today? these are the questions that a lot of people (of ALL faiths, not just atheists) are asking when it comes to the persecution and rejection of LGBTQ folks from church positions, and in a lot of cases even church attendance. so far i have not seen a rebuttal that answers any of these questions. i would be very interested in hearing one. i'll restate: if the bible is the reason for rejecting homosexuality, why don't we follow all the rest of the rules? and if we don't follow all the rules, then why that one? and if that isn't picking and choosing, then what is?

[dobler33]

Oops, there were two quotes..

 

1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

 

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

 

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

 

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

 

This is the part of Scripture which refers to the male/female bond within marraige which comes under so much fire nowadays. One interpretation I heard was that at that time a man would divorce his wife in a worldly sense but not give her the official papers to free her from him... because he did not have to. The point of what God has joined is the key part for me. If a person does not believe in God then their union obviously has nothing to do with God. Fair enough. If so and they divorce, it is adultery because they could have resolved the issue via faith. I dont mean Jerry Springer type things, this should not be present, more towards the pressures of life etc.

 

Thats what that passage means to me within my marraige, which I do believe is God Blessed.

 

.. Thats my personal, faith based answer anyway.

 

Just curious, have you ever read the Bible Dob? Not being a bitch or anything. Just wondering.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

 

you don't sound like a bitch at all. and yes, i have read the bible. i was raised in a christian faith. i can't do it anymore but i used to be able to recite all the books by heart.

 

so, it sounds like you don't believe in divorce. there are a few sects of christianity that don't. but the majority do, which begs the question - are they not as faithful?

[Eve]

i'm hoping there's less bother and more a lively and intelligent debate.

 

if the bible is the reason for rejecting homosexuality, why don't we follow all the rest of the rules? and if we don't follow all the rules, then why that one? and if that isn't picking and choosing, then what is?

 

I am not remotely offended by the way.

 

I think it is more a question that you want to hear only what you want to hear, more than anything else. I did answer you but evidently I was not intelligent enough! Ah well..

 

All the best,

Take care,

Eve xx

[D-Lish]

In short, regarding the OT stuff. I thought that only Jewish people follow all those old school laws because they dont believe in Christ? Christians dont have to follow them because they believe that Christ died for them.

 

I have been thinking about why it is that I just follow the ten commandments. I know that the Laws are now written on my heart because I received the Holy Spirit - but I am not so sure of the emphasis on Moses and the 10 commandments bit. Aside form the fact that they make sense there must be a particular Scriptural emphasis.

 

Hence I dont get the liberal stance... Seems more about people pleasing than anything else.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

 

You can't have a new Testament without an Old Testament.

As a Christian- your Bible includes the old and new Testament, right?

 

Do you pick and choose what you like from the OT?

 

OT is the foundation on which the NT is based.

[dobler33]

I am not remotely offended by the way.

 

I think it is more a question that you want to hear only what you want to hear, more than anything else. I did answer you but evidently I was not intelligent enough! Ah well..

 

All the best,

Take care,

Eve xx

 

 

oh my, i certainly didn't mean to imply you weren't intelligent. i was interested in the conversation because you clearly are intelligent!

 

perhaps i did not understand. i'm not sure how your quotes answer the questions about picking and choosing. maybe you can try me again?

[Eve]

You can't have a new Testament without an Old Testament.

As a Christian- your Bible includes the old and new Testament, right?

 

Do you pick and choose what you like from the OT?

 

OT is the foundation on which the NT is based.

 

No, I dont pick and choose from either the OT, nor the NT. Rather I have read both sections of the Bible with reverence, diligence and faith. The OT sets in place the foundation for a nation, the NT the consecration of the heart. As much as I dont understand all that which is meant in the Bible I undertstand enough to note that the point is to look to God and not the actions of people firstly.

 

Why do you ask?

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Eve]

oh my, i certainly didn't mean to imply you weren't intelligent. i was interested in the conversation because you clearly are intelligent!

 

perhaps i did not understand. i'm not sure how your quotes answer the questions about picking and choosing. maybe you can try me again?

 

No, I am not that intelligent. Just persistent.

 

I will offer a parallel. DSM IV has been borne out of previous manuals. What was written in the first was amended. From what I have seen in and around this site, to me, this is your Bible. DSM IV can be amended as people research stuff and add to the manual. Presently, we are nearly due another installment.

 

The Bible I speak off does have an OT and NT and chronicles time itself. Most of the subject matters (homosexuality, divorce, slavery) are still alive today in one way or another. Nowadays moreso in political means, which we are warned off within Scripture. Many do not believe this and well, fair enough. I do not worship The Bible but I look to it to guide me and actuate my thoughts and my prayers.

 

The two distinctions I have come across with the gay issue is that either people think that Gods Grace is enough to accept them as they are because we all sin anyway or that there must be a consecration of the heart, whereby the person is made anew. This issue is the same with all subject matters really. The latter resonates as true to me. In essence, no matter how dressed up, I do not agree with someone who has not mastered themselves trying to aid others within the mastery of themselves. To me this is the blind leading the blind.

 

Why do I care?

 

During my journey it has come to me (in ways I will not disclose) that the worst sins I could commit would be to lead someone astray from the faith or act as though I were Christ. Latently and deliberately this is what many people do without a second thought and is what I protect myself and (where possible) others from also.

 

Thats it really. I see it as at worst, patronising and a denial of the Will of God to agree with people just to be 'nice'.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[FleshNBones]

perhaps i did not understand. i'm not sure how your quotes answer the questions about picking and choosing. maybe you can try me again?

The picking and choosing is largely Paul's influence, and his mission to the Gentiles.

 

You must understand that the bible and the books contained in there came out of the church. Think of it as a writing contest where the most influential, and most accurate writings became the finalists.

[dobler33]

No, I am not that intelligent. Just persistent.

 

I will offer a parallel. DSM IV has been borne out of previous manuals. What was written in the first was amended. From what I have seen in and around this site, to me, this is your Bible. DSM IV can be amended as people research stuff and add to the manual. Presently, we are nearly due another installment.

 

The Bible I speak off does have an OT and NT and chronicles time itself. Most of the subject matters (homosexuality, divorce, slavery) are still alive today in one way or another. Nowadays moreso in political means, which we are warned off within Scripture. Many do not believe this and well, fair enough. I do not worship The Bible but I look to it to guide me and actuate my thoughts and my prayers.

 

The two distinctions I have come across with the gay issue is that either people think that Gods Grace is enough to accept them as they are because we all sin anyway or that there must be a consecration of the heart, whereby the person is made anew. This issue is the same with all subject matters really. The latter resonates as true to me. In essence, no matter how dressed up, I do not agree with someone who has not mastered themselves trying to aid others within the mastery of themselves. To me this is the blind leading the blind.

 

Why do I care?

 

During my journey it has come to me (in ways I will not disclose) that the worst sins I could commit would be to lead someone astray from the faith or act as though I were Christ. Latently and deliberately this is what many people do without a second thought and is what I protect myself and (where possible) others from also.

 

Thats it really. I see it as at worst, patronising and a denial of the Will of God to agree with people just to be 'nice'.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

 

thank you so much for your reasoned post! i may not agree with you, but i really do appreciate someone who will continue talking to me about this.

 

it's funny that you mention this because i just ripped the DSM a new one in a post on another thread. by no means do i take it as a bible. i eagerly await the new one, in the hopes that some of the truly egregious BS in the fourth edition might be improved upon. which is kind of my point, and i'm actually really glad that you bring it up. the DSM alters and changes over time, attempts to synthesize the information that has been collected since the last one, strives to keep up with civil rights and social compassion as they progress to include more and more experiences. 100 years ago it was thought by the field of psychology that women who wanted to have sex AT ALL, including with their husbands if they were too enthusiastic, were disordered and diseased, and many suffered disfiguring surgeries and caustic substances in their you-know-what due to this diagnosis. thank goodness we've evolved past this, right? as we move forward we try to keep the basic spirit of the DSM - a system by which we can at least begin to get a sense of what's going with the person sitting across from us - while at the same time fighting for the kind of flexibility that does not exclude, oppress, injure or downright mess up the people we work with. for instance, as i mentioned before, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1983, because it was recognized that it was not in fact a deviant expression of sexuality. there are still some diagnoses in the psychosexual disorders that i deeply disagree with, and you couldn't pay me to saddle someone with them. i continue to hope that understanding, inclusion, compassion, acceptance, justice and humanity will prevail as we move into the DSM V and beyond, and beyond.....it is absolutely a fluid document, and i'd be a plumber if it wasn't.

 

the bible condoned slavery, just not for the jews, if i remember correctly.

 

"Nowadays moreso in political means, which we are warned off within Scripture." - this actually makes me curious about what sect of christianity you follow. because the most vocal and visible sect of christianity today in terms of media coverage are the charismatic evangelicals, who are very political indeed. i saw a very interesting documentary about how reagan's campaign team made strong connections with these churches and sort of busted the political silence there, to create a vastly powerful political body that has controlled a big part of our legislative and judicial systems for quite some time now. i will only bother you with specifics about this if you are interested, cause there are a lot of examples and it gets tedious. so i'm interested in your take on these sects, since you seem to be non-political, as you interpret the bible.

 

i want to say again that i am very grateful for your patience in talking to me. this kind of conversation so frequently devolves into knee-jerk silliness. as you know i work and sing with a church community, one that pledges its blood sweat and tears to absolutely unconditional love and acceptance. and though i don't believe in an external source of this the way many in this organization do, i have empirically and intimately witnessed the power of unconditional love in my work as a therapist, and therefore it does not conflict with my atheist rational positivism. the fact that no one in this christian community rejects me because of my different beliefs has HUGELY altered my dialogues with people of faith. i am not proud to say that i have, in the past, been one of those militant atheist that look more like pitbulls than intellectuals. i still believe in what i believe just as fiercely as before. but i realize now that my anger in argument had a LOT to do with the fact that i felt totally disenfranchised, oppressed and violated by a presidential administration that utterly rejected the separation of church and state. it was defensive, because i so often felt that my rights were being eroded, eaten away by a "faith" that was in polar opposition to what i believed, and i had been made powerless to stop it. now that these pressures are beginning to ease up with the new administration, now that i have had the experience of a christian community that does not condemn what seems like basic humanity to me, i am much more ready willing and able to hear - still question, but really HEAR - what others are saying.

 

and there you have the psychoanalysis of my militant atheism. if i ever stop questioning my own damn self i give you permission to put me out of my misery.

[dobler33]

The picking and choosing is largely Paul's influence, and his mission to the Gentiles.

 

You must understand that the bible and the books contained in there came out of the church. Think of it as a writing contest where the most influential, and most accurate writings became the finalists.

 

 

oh my gosh! i agree with you, FnB! refer to my previous posts on the councils of nicea.

 

so, if the bible is written by anxiously competing authors - and i know a BUNCH of those in the flesh, and i wouldn't base my philosophical precepts on them for a million bucks - then what is to be followed and what is not? and please, please, please someone answer this: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH IS WHICH??????????? who gets to decide? and who gives them the authority? how are these people chosen? i still don't get it. i'm sorry, but i still don't get it.

[hoping2heal]

Here is what I have always found bizarre. Now I myself am an overweight person, so this is not in anyway a frivelous attack against overweight people. I always thought it was strange, how we are suppose to think homosexuality is wrong, but they allow obese ministers? Where I went to church the pastor and his wife were VERY obese, both of them. It was strange, because correct me if I'm wrong. But both lifestyles are by choice right? (I don't actually believe all homosexuality is a choice; but I'm using their logic) So both would be considered living a perpetual life of sin right?

 

I just don't get it.

[taiko]

oh my gosh! i agree with you, FnB! refer to my previous posts on the councils of nicea.

 

so, if the bible is written by anxiously competing authors and i know a BUNCH of those in the flesh, and i wouldn't base my philosophical precepts on them for a million bucks then what is to be followed and what is not? and please, please, please someone answer this: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH IS WHICH??????????? who gets to decide? and who gives them the authority? how are these people chosen? i still don't get it. i'm sorry, but i still don't get it.

 

The short awnser is that Jesus, supernaturally gave the power to Peter and all of those in succession to Peter spiritually retain that power. And when there is disagreement the sucessor in Peter's chair, the Bishop of Rome Pope Benedict, is the one who is always right. For God supernaturally made him infalible in such matters.

[dobler33]

The short awnser is that Jesus, supernaturally gave the power to Peter and all of those in succession to Peter spiritually retain that power. And when there is disagreement the sucessor in Peter's chair, the Bishop of Rome Pope Benedict, is the one who is always right. For God supernaturally made him infalible in such matters.

 

 

ok, thanks! no one else has been able to explain that to me. so it's the pope i need to take this up with, huh?

 

ok, but what about all the sects of christianity that don't fall under the jurisdiction of the pope? the majority of modern sects in the US don't, right? so who authorized those folks? are they the spiritual sucessors of peter, too? that's kind of a LOT of sucessors....

[taiko]

ok, thanks! no one else has been able to explain that to me. so it's the pope i need to take this up with, huh?

 

ok, but what about all the sects of christianity that don't fall under the jurisdiction of the pope? the majority of modern sects in the US don't, right? so who authorized those folks? are they the spiritual sucessors of peter, too? that's kind of a LOT of sucessors....

 

Most cases they will claim to be spiritually part of the apostlic church. The Catholic Church will say only they and the Orthodox are. Most Protestants will claim that the Holy Spirit keeps them on the straight and narrow. They just don't have the doctrine that they are infallable. With the Protestant your debate and historical research skills must be sharp. As you must prove your position for them to change their mind and accept what you attempt to teach.

[taiko]

Adding on. Its not really that hard. If your argument is good enough and you have the charisma and organizational skills you can start your own church. Should other pastors decide you are right and bring their churches in line with yours you have a new denomination. Look at the United Methodist they changed rapidly about 50 years ago to a liberal church with gay pastors. The Pentecostal Churches, one of the world's fastest growing as a group, are only 100 years past the Azusa Street revivals. Its not an imposible task

[NoIDidn't]

again, i really do respect the beliefs of others even when i'm challenging them. but do you adhere to the following?

 

If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 22:22

Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. Mark 10:1-12

The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.Leviticus 18:19

If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. Mark 12:18-27

If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. Deuteronomy 25:11-12

 

No I do not. Those things are specific to that culture. I have already seen where someone attempted to say that the OT and NT have to be taken as a whole, but that's not quite the case. One is a history lesson, the other is prophecy fulfilled and new understanding of the history lesson.

 

picking and chosing seems to be the only way to be a christian in this day and age. many commandments are outdated and no longer applicable in a society that has changed and continues to change. and if that is the case, then the bible is not a static document but a fluid one, subject to interpretation, subject to argument, subject to re-invention. and if THAT is the case, then the commandments against "fornication" (hetero or homo) are due some consideration in this regard.

 

Have you ever read a legal contract that states that one of more of the conditions no longer being valid does not render the remainder of the agreement invalid?

 

Well, this is one such case. People's picking and choosing or the outdatedness of some of the law doesn't invalidate the rest of the Biblical contract.

 

I am all for bisexuals in ministry at a church that will allow them. I will be free not to attend that church. I think people have a right to not want their pastor to be bisexual. And I think people that want and welcome a bisexual pastor should have one if that's what they want.

 

But the issue that most Christians have with bisexuals and homosexuals in ministry is that of fornication. And the one where if that vice is tolerated, what else will become accepted? You might not agree, but as a psychotherapist, I'm sure you've seen this principle in action. Years ago gambling was illegal. Now the lottery is practically in every state (not all, but most). Alcohol used to be prohibitted, now many states run access to it. See where I am going with this?

 

I am not saying that they are right, but I can see where they are getting their logic. Again, they can always start their own church than try to force one that doesn't want them to have them.

[RA1]

The thing is the ministry is bound up with dogma, and the dogma may exclude certain people. Like a private club, they can keep people out if they want. I don't give a damn about any person's sexual orientation - I welcome diversity - but sad to say there are many people more narrow minded who seem to think that these things do matter. But, in my opinion, all the rules in these clubs called churches are arbitrary and man-made and owe nothing to divine inspiration. My 2 cents.

[FleshNBones]

The thing is the ministry is bound up with dogma, and the dogma may exclude certain people. Like a private club, they can keep people out if they want. I don't give a damn about any person's sexual orientation - I welcome diversity - but sad to say there are many people more narrow minded who seem to think that these things do matter. But, in my opinion, all the rules in these clubs called churches are arbitrary and man-made and owe nothing to divine inspiration. My 2 cents.

It is a matter of priorities. If God is his priority, and he is dedicated to his service then it is okay. People dedicated to self-service, or are seeking a position of authority have no business being there.

[calizagg]

 

There is no cure for homosexuality. There is also no cure for heterosexuality. The chances of a man getting cured of his attraction for a woman is less than 0.000000001%. The same goes for gay people.

 

Is attraction really a choice?

 

B.S.

 

So let me get this straight.

 

If a man has sex with a man, he is gay. or bi in the free world. This cannot be changed.

 

However men in prison choose to have sex with men who never considered this before. Were they "born that way" or is it the environment, and a choice?

 

If you want to reach a higher level of spirituality you cannot be clouded by addictions.

[Lovelybird]

I am not sure they can. Nor I can trust such a person to be a leader, if they didn't sort out their lifestyle yet, how can they lead me? First they have to sort this out first with God. With God there is no confusion. being bisexual is clear a sign that this person has some deep issues, not good for the flocks and himself.

 

When God anoints a leader to lead His flocks, HE usually uses someone who is very obediant to God, who lives a holy life, who can be a good example for the flocks. Such as Moses, Daniel....and they tried their very best to be obediant to God, to live in God's way, not their own ways.

[RA1]

I am not sure they can. Nor I can trust such a person to be a leader, if they didn't sort out their lifestyle yet, how can they lead me? First they have to sort this out first with God. With God there is no confusion. being bisexual is clear a sign that this person has some deep issues, not good for the flocks and himself.

LB. You state that a bisexual has not yet sorted out their lifestyle, and has deep issues. Yet, I see us all as somewhere on a continuous spectrum from gay to straight. It seems to me one can be anywhere on the spectrum and there is not necessarily any deep issue or confusion involved inside that person. It seems to me that the confusion is more usually on the part of others (such as your good self). You say with God there is no confusion -- I am sure God would agree with me that he, she, or it created a spectrum of sexualities. You seem to be assuming that God created only straight people and that queer or bisexual is a human aberration -- seems to me that if God exists, that God created the entire spectrum of sexualities or at least set in motion the evolutionary process that created the spectrum.

 

When God anoints a leader to lead His flocks, HE usually uses someone who is very obediant to God, who lives a holy life, who can be a good example for the flocks. Such as Moses, Daniel....and they tried their very best to be obediant to God, to live in God's way, not their own ways.

LB, what constitutes obedience to God is constantly being reinterpreted. Pope John XXII formalized the persecution of witchcraft in 1320 when he authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcerors (see wikipedia). In most parts of the world, persecuting witches is no longer considered obedience to God. I feel sure in my own mind that it is only a matter of time before all people of faith come to believe sexual identity is irrelevant to obedience.

[FleshNBones]

I feel sure in my own mind that it is only a matter of time before all people of faith come to believe sexual identity is irrelevant to obedience.

We are concerned with Christian identity, and ethics.

We don't want sexuality, or political correctness in the pulpit.