The real fatal blow to the family

[revolutionist90]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet but I think one reason for the uproar with homosexuality is that the gay "marriage" would actually have a change in terms of the religious stance and definition of marriage. So homosexuality does pose a threat to marriage because there are actual legal proceedings trying to chance the definition of marriage to include homosexuality. Adulterers cannot change marriage nor can they change the fact that they cheated so I think it is easier for people to defend homosexuality (even pastors of some church sects) than with adultery. In homosexuality the claim is that no one is hurt but in adultery a party is always hurt through cheating. Since there is more plausible/worldly defense of homosexuality than adultery (at least from a church/religious perspective IMO) homosexuality can be pushed more and thus cause more uproar. It might also be a given that adultery during the relationship is wrong no matter what and many pastors might not feel the need to talk about it since it might be obvious in their thoughts. It is also easier to spot a homosexual rather than a cheater. For some they are proud to be gay but very few people are proud to be cheaters. Adultery and divorce are really more scorned upon than homosexuality because of the implied hurt ( glamorized by Hollywood that goes along with divorce but homosexuality has been glamorized as being safe, normal and a victim of a harsh society so it is easier to pull people's heartstrings.

[wingnut-]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet but I think one reason for the uproar with homosexuality is that the gay "marriage" would actually have a change in terms of the religious stance and definition of marriage. So homosexuality does pose a threat to marriage because there are actual legal proceedings trying to chance the definition of marriage to include homosexuality. Adulterers cannot change marriage nor can they change the fact that they cheated so I think it is easier for people to defend homosexuality (even pastors of some church sects) than with adultery. In homosexuality the claim is that no one is hurt but in adultery a party is always hurt through cheating. Since there is more plausible/worldly defense of homosexuality than adultery (at least from a church/religious perspective IMO) homosexuality can be pushed more and thus cause more uproar. It might also be a given that adultery during the relationship is wrong no matter what and many pastors might not feel the need to talk about it since it might be obvious in their thoughts. It is also easier to spot a homosexual rather than a cheater. For some they are proud to be gay but very few people are proud to be cheaters. Adultery and divorce are really more scorned upon than homosexuality because of the implied hurt ( glamorized by Hollywood that goes along with divorce but homosexuality has been glamorized as being safe, normal and a victim of a harsh society so it is easier to pull people's heartstrings.

I agree that homosexuality poses a threat, my contention in the thread is that this threat only exists because the institution was already weakened by heterosexuals. I don't agree that the church has dealt with the divorce issue, even in light of the rate of divorce within believers. I can't remember the last time I heard the subject in a sermon, and when it comes to remarriage for the divorced no questions are asked.

[revolutionist90]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet but I think one reason for the uproar with homosexuality is that the gay "marriage" would actually have a change in terms of the religious stance and definition of marriage. So homosexuality does pose a threat to marriage because there are actual legal proceedings trying to chance the definition of marriage to include homosexuality. Adulterers cannot change marriage nor can they change the fact that they cheated so I think it is easier for people to defend homosexuality (even pastors of some church sects) than with adultery. In homosexuality the claim is that no one is hurt but in adultery a party is always hurt through cheating. Since there is more plausible/worldly defense of homosexuality than adultery (at least from a church/religious perspective IMO) homosexuality can be pushed more and thus cause more uproar. It might also be a given that adultery during the relationship is wrong no matter what and many pastors might not feel the need to talk about it since it might be obvious in their thoughts. It is also easier to spot a homosexual rather than a cheater. For some they are proud to be gay but very few people are proud to be cheaters. Adultery and divorce are really more scorned upon than homosexuality because of the implied hurt ( glamorized by Hollywood that goes along with divorce but homosexuality has been glamorized as being safe, normal and a victim of a harsh society so it is easier to pull people's heartstrings.

I agree that homosexuality poses a threat, my contention in the thread is that this threat only exists because the institution was already weakened by heterosexuals. I don't agree that the church has dealt with the divorce issue, even in light of the rate of divorce within believers. I can't remember the last time I heard the subject in a sermon, and when it comes to remarriage for the divorced no questions are asked.

But that is the problem though. There are non-religious heterosexuals and there are religious heterosexuals. Could it be that both are taken into the pot of divorce? The american divorce rate is around 50% but of which group? Is it the agnostic/atheist group, the liberal Christian group, Methodist/Episcopal, Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?There are also many variations of Christianity (catholic, protestant, baptist) so could it be that one has greater divorce rates than the other? Another problem is that there are many churches so it is strange when people prefer to all Christian sects as "The Church" especially when they bring up points that are not in any church that I have gone too. There are also different agreements between religious groups (think of actual liberal Christians who do not hold the Bible to be the truth). I'm sorry you have not heard a sermon on divorce and maybe you should bring that up with your pastor but I have heard sermons on divorce before so it is weird when there is a statement that the church isn't doing x,y and z because my church might be doing it. I don't believe we can state "the church" as being a single or group like statement especially since the church can be divided into racial/cultural/regional sects. I think I could call catholicism as "the church" because there is one leader but for protestant we have pastors. I think maybe the wrong people are shown in the media and making it seem like the church does not care about these things and since there is a group label for "the church" there is a belief that there is a single mind in all of this when there is not. There are pastors who talk about tattoos, adultery and divorce within the church but there are others who don't. There might be a particular group with a higher divorce rate but then there might be a group with a lower divorce rate and it really depends on how close to following the Bible that one particular group really is IMO. I think the threat only exist because people look at Christianity itself as a single unity (easier to attack) so every pastor that says a non-biblical comment is cast as speaking for the whole lot and their is ignorance of if that pastor was reprimanded by his peers or lost congregational members. I hope I have made sense lol.

[ibldcars4u]

I hear this come up a lot on this forum, in daily life, and inside church walls. Everyone seems to have a finger pointed at who is to blame, but are they truly pointed in the right direction? The most common direction to point in recent times is at the homosexual agenda. I think we can all agree that homosexuality is a sin, as has been so often pointed out scripture is crystal clear in regards to this, it's not even debatable. But does that equate guilt in the destruction of the family unit? I think not.

Homosexuality is a modern movement, back in the eighties it was still frowned upon and shunned, even today it is still unaccepted by the majority, despite the medias best efforts to convince people otherwise. Considering this is a new issue, to point the finger at homosexuals is the same as saying marriage was in good shape prior to this movement. Anyone who claims that is not being intellectually honest.

Heterosexuals are to blame for the destruction of the family unit, make no mistake about that. Divorce has dealt the crippling blow to the family, and more specifically, the church itself. Why the church? That's easy, divorce within the church has surpassed divorce outside of it. Where are the vast majority of wedding ceremonies held? That's right, within a church.

The bible addresses this issue as well, Jesus Himself spoke directly on the matter (Matthew 19:1-12, Mark 10:2-12). In those verses Jesus does not call divorce itself a sin (although it is clearly discouraged throughout scripture), but what follows divorce is where things go astray. Except for instances of adultery, remarriage is not permitted, period. There is no fine print, there are no other exemptions, there are no excuses. To say otherwise is to imply that Jesus was unaware of other possibilities that might compel someone to seek divorce, and that is no different than claiming He is not the Alpha and Omega.

Yet the church continues to marry people within its walls that choose to violate their covenant, in spite of our Savior's words. Why? Where is the outrage? Where was the outrage for the family when this became acceptable? I think it is easy to point a finger of blame at a sin we do not personally struggle with and say, "See, it's all your fault!" It may be convenient, but it doesn't make it right or true. Look around your congregation, more than likely half of the married couples are living in sin, products of a church generation that embraced and endorsed it. When you point at homosexual sin, four fingers are pointed back at you, and statistically that is probably an accurate ratio.

In closing I would like to point out one thing that is never brought up in regards to sexual sin, the Ten Commandments. I don't see homosexuality addressed, I do see adultery.

my feeling on this is anyone who does anything that is written as a abomination has to answer it themselves when the time comes. When you look at Leviticus 18 vs 22, Leviticus 20 vs 13 Romans 1 vs 24-27, Galatians 5 vs 19-21, 1st Corinthians 6 vs 9, 1st Timothy 1 vs 9-10 My opinion its hard to say any that are repeated in all these are ok especially when it is written so many times and said these will not inherit the kingdom of God. Again,only the person themselves can answer for any they do agree to comit,so for anyone to judge or treat them differently is wrong. If someone asks if its written you can show them and let it go. Glad we only have 1 judge who is fair,and He can decide when the time comes

[wingnut-]

But that is the problem though. There are non-religious heterosexuals and there are religious heterosexuals. Could it be that both are taken into the pot of divorce? The american divorce rate is around 50% but of which group? Is it the agnostic/atheist group, the liberal Christian group, Methodist/Episcopal, Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?There are also many variations of Christianity (catholic, protestant, baptist) so could it be that one has greater divorce rates than the other? Another problem is that there are many churches so it is strange when people prefer to all Christian sects as "The Church" especially when they bring up points that are not in any church that I have gone too. There are also different agreements between religious groups (think of actual liberal Christians who do not hold the Bible to be the truth). I'm sorry you have not heard a sermon on divorce and maybe you should bring that up with your pastor but I have heard sermons on divorce before so it is weird when there is a statement that the church isn't doing x,y and z because my church might be doing it. I don't believe we can state "the church" as being a single or group like statement especially since the church can be divided into racial/cultural/regional sects. I think I could call catholicism as "the church" because there is one leader but for protestant we have pastors. I think maybe the wrong people are shown in the media and making it seem like the church does not care about these things and since there is a group label for "the church" there is a belief that there is a single mind in all of this when there is not. There are pastors who talk about tattoos, adultery and divorce within the church but there are others who don't. There might be a particular group with a higher divorce rate but then there might be a group with a lower divorce rate and it really depends on how close to following the Bible that one particular group really is IMO. I think the threat only exist because people look at Christianity itself as a single unity (easier to attack) so every pastor that says a non-biblical comment is cast as speaking for the whole lot and their is ignorance of if that pastor was reprimanded by his peers or lost congregational members. I hope I have made sense lol.

According to the statistics, divorce is now higher amongst those claiming to be Christian than those who are not. As far as a denominational breakdown I've never seen anything broken down to that degree, but you could cross catholic off of it, they typically grant annulments which don't even show up under these numbers.

[revolutionist90]

So is the problem amongst those who claim to be christian and follow the doctrine loosely (which unfortunately seems to be a large number)? Hmmm.... then the problem seems to be what to do with Christians who are not following a biblical path that could be destroying marriage?

[wingnut-]

my feeling on this is anyone who does anything that is written as a abomination has to answer it themselves when the time comes. When you look at Leviticus 18 vs 22, Leviticus 20 vs 13 Romans 1 vs 24-27, Galatians 5 vs 19-21, 1st Corinthians 6 vs 9, 1st Timothy 1 vs 9-10 My opinion its hard to say any that are repeated in all these are ok especially when it is written so many times and said these will not inherit the kingdom of God. Again,only the person themselves can answer for any they do agree to comit,so for anyone to judge or treat them differently is wrong. If someone asks if its written you can show them and let it go. Glad we only have 1 judge who is fair,and He can decide when the time comes

I agree that it is clearly sin, as I stated in the first post it isn't even open for debate.

[wingnut-]

So is the problem amongst those who claim to be christian and follow the doctrine loosely (which unfortunately seems to be a large number)? Hmmm.... then the problem seems to be what to do with Christians who are not following a biblical path that could be destroying marriage?

Maybe a good place to start is that churches should not marry them