"Gay" baby blessing

[lazarus]

How would you feel if your pastor performed a baby blessing for a Lesbian couple? It was performed in a private setting but with the full knowledge that both "parents" were gay.

[olger]

You did this?

[olger]

I would not recommend doing a ceremony for a lesbian couple. I would offer to pray for the child - tell them that at 6 pm on Tuesday night (or some such date) you and your wife will pray for the child. What to pray for?

First, that the poor child will be able to break free from the moral error that it will grow up with, and second, that the "parents" repent and separate and give that child a proper home with both mother and father.

That's what I would do.

`oG

[Stan]

I remember when unmarried couple had to sneak over to another Church or Priest, to commit their children.

What a shammed that to be.

Yeah, ,<tic> we only to the blessings for the worthy. </tic>

[lazarus]

You did this?

LOL.

[CoAspen]

Bless the child! Bring Gods blessings on it! At the place of choosing....I don't think being near the parents is going to 'contaminate' anyone!

I wonder if Christ checked out the parents before saying 'let the children come unto me'?

[olger]

HEY ALL

Like the Bible says like the days of Noah and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah

dgrimm60

True, man!!

[blackdiamond]

The tone of this thread seems to be more judgmental than it needs to be. While I would never advocate for the church accepting the act of living together as a gay couple to be acceptable it's wildly hypocritical to exclude them from being welcome in our churches as non-members just like any of the rest of us that are guilty of sin.

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to have a service for this child an pray for the child to grow up to love and serve God and also that the parents to grow in their relationship with God so that they can provide support and guidance for the child. If the two mom's want their child to be blessed they obviously have, or want, a connection with God and pushing them away is certainly not going to reach them.

The Gospel is about love. One of the biggest shortcomings in the world today (both in and out of the church) is that make a directly link between association and agreement. We don't have to agree with or even approve of the way someone behaves to accept them into our church family and do everything we can to lead them to a better understanding of Christ. They don't have to be on-the-books members.

Sadly, if something like this were to happen in almost every church, it would be a significantly smaller church starting the next week. It might, however, be a more healthy church...

[phkrause]

The tone of this thread seems to be more judgmental than it needs to be. While I would never advocate for the church accepting the act of living together as a gay couple to be acceptable it's wildly hypocritical to exclude them from being welcome in our churches as non-members just like any of the rest of us that are guilty of sin.

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to have a service for this child an pray for the child to grow up to love and serve God and also that the parents to grow in their relationship with God so that they can provide support and guidance for the child. If the two mom's want their child to be blessed they obviously have, or want, a connection with God and pushing them away is certainly not going to reach them.

The Gospel is about love. One of the biggest shortcomings in the world today (both in and out of the church) is that make a directly link between association and agreement. We don't have to agree with or even approve of the way someone behaves to accept them into our church family and do everything we can to lead them to a better understanding of Christ. They don't have to be on-the-books members.

Sadly, if something like this were to happen in almost every church, it would be a significantly smaller church starting the next week. It might, however, be a more healthy church...

Exactly

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: blackdiamond

The tone of this thread seems to be more judgmental than it needs to be. While I would never advocate for the church accepting the act of living together as a gay couple to be acceptable it's wildly hypocritical to exclude them from being welcome in our churches as non-members just like any of the rest of us that are guilty of sin.

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to have a service for this child an pray for the child to grow up to love and serve God and also that the parents to grow in their relationship with God so that they can provide support and guidance for the child. If the two mom's want their child to be blessed they obviously have, or want, a connection with God and pushing them away is certainly not going to reach them.

The Gospel is about love. One of the biggest shortcomings in the world today (both in and out of the church) is that make a directly link between association and agreement. We don't have to agree with or even approve of the way someone behaves to accept them into our church family and do everything we can to lead them to a better understanding of Christ. They don't have to be on-the-books members.

Sadly, if something like this were to happen in almost every church, it would be a significantly smaller church starting the next week. It might, however, be a more healthy church...

Exactly

Amen. We have to remember while we have the key texts and we have to above all be fair to the Bible, there are debates out there among scholars about the context of these key texts or translation and there is a chance that our popular applications of these texts may be a misapplication.

[pegleg bates]

The Bible condemns sex between a man and a man. A female lesbian couple is more or less acceptable.

[Green Cochoa]

The Bible condemns sex between a man and a man. A female lesbian couple is more or less acceptable.

[pegleg bates]

On the contrary, the women get the first attention in the following passage for such unnatural acts.

Originally Posted By: The Bible

Romans

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Indignus,

There are multiple other passages which address this, perhaps most clearly in Moses' books. Here's an example, lest you continue to believe that only Paul addresses homosexuality.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Leviticus 18:22-23)

Clearly, homosexual acts are an abomination to God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[pegleg bates]

Indignus,

There are multiple other passages which address this, perhaps most clearly in Moses' books. Here's an example, lest you continue to believe that only Paul addresses homosexuality.

Originally Posted By: The Bible

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Leviticus 18:22-23)

Clearly, homosexual acts are an abomination to God.

Green Cochoa, thanks for the passage! However, please note that this text explicitly addresses man-with-man sexuality, man-with-beast sexuality, and woman-with-beast sexuality. Woman-with-woman sexuality is not addressed, so we shouldn't assume that it is an abomination.

[Green Cochoa]

Green Cochoa, thanks for the passage! However, please note that this text explicitly addresses man-with-man sexuality, man-with-beast sexuality, and woman-with-beast sexuality. Woman-with-woman sexuality is not addressed, so we shouldn't assume that it is an abomination.

Indignus,

So, do you feel it's okay for a woman to have two husbands since the Bible does not directly address this form of polygamy (polyandry)? Is it alright for a woman to covet her neighbor's husband, since the Ten Commandments do not reverse the genders on that command for us? Is it acceptable for a woman to see anyone's nakedness, regardless, since the Bible does not address it from the woman's perspective? And what happens to the poor man who is raped by a woman outside the city?

If women are not equal to men in these things, including even in the Ten Commandments, this opens up a huge can of worms.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[pegleg bates]

Indignus,

So, do you feel it's okay for a woman to have two husbands since the Bible does not directly address this form of polygamy (polyandry)? Is it alright for a woman to covet her neighbor's husband, since the Ten Commandments do not reverse the genders on that command for us? Is it acceptable for a woman to see anyone's nakedness, regardless, since the Bible does not address it from the woman's perspective? And what happens to the poor man who is raped by a woman outside the city?

If women are not equal to men in these things, including even in the Ten Commandments, this opens up a huge can of worms.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I believe you are over-thinking this subject

A woman cannot have multiple husbands, because any man in that relationship would be directly violating the 10th commandment. A woman typically cannot rape a man due to lack of physical strength and the inevitable willingness of the man to comply, but if she did succeed it would be a sin simply due to the violence. The same would apply to any forceful act.

I hope I am being clear on this subject, please let me know if not.

[Kevin H]

I will be responding to the above discussion between Indignus and Green Cochoa: It looks like only Green's comments are quoted and I don't want my ideas to get confused with Indignus so my comments will be under the *** line below:

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

On the contrary, the women get the first attention in the following passage for such unnatural acts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well, technically, this is not only the first but also the last attention given to this subject in the Bible. And it was written by Paul, who had never met Jesus and had some pretty wacky ideas regarding women. Let us not forget Corinthians:

Quote:

1 Corinthians 14

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 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']

I hope this helps!

***************************************************

My comments to add to the above discussion are:

Actually Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. And as a rich young ruler could have very well have been one of the Pharisees who was trying to check out what Jesus was saying, so may have seen quite a bit of Jesus.

But also his "Wacky" comments towards women make a lot of sense as you look at the literary and historical context. They are only "wacky" when we do what we do, pull them out of context and misapply the words willie nillie. It is the same thing with the texts that we are applying to homosexuality. We have the words, and we need to be fair to the words. But are we applying the words correctly or are we misapplying them and taking them out of context in the same way that Satan did when he quoted scripture to try to get Jesus to jump?

[pegleg bates]

But also his "Wacky" comments towards women make a lot of sense as you look at the literary and historical context.

With all due respect, Kevin H, I think the lovely ladies on this forum would take offense to your comment.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

what about a baby dedication for a child whose mother is Adventist and whose father is not? you know, "unequally yoked" and all that... Should that child also not be dedicated? What about a child whose parents are divorced? or what if one parent is in prison? or what if one parent smokes? or... or... or...

c'mon people. The dedication is of the CHILD, NOT THE PARENTS!!! What about taking the high road of believing parents, even gay parents, would want the best for their children, including a dedication to God? Is it really so hard to do that?

I may be wrong, but I don't think gay parents would look upon the dedication of their child as "condoning" their unbiblical lifestyle. They're smart enough to know what the Christian stance is...

[nuff sed]

The dedication may be for the child/children BUT there is always the implication(sometimes an outright challenge) that the parents (and members of the church) will do all in their power to bring them up in accordance with the dedication. Nuff Sed

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The dedication may be for the child/children BUT there is always the implication(sometimes an outright challenge) that the parents (and members of the church) will do all in their power to bring them up in accordance with the dedication. Nuff Sed

that's right..

[blackdiamond]

Originally Posted By: 'nuff sed

The dedication may be for the child/children BUT there is always the implication(sometimes an outright challenge) that the parents (and members of the church) will do all in their power to bring them up in accordance with the dedication. Nuff Sed

that's right..

And it's not our place to pass judgement. If they baby is dedicated there is the possibility that it will make a real impact on the mom's and they may possibly feel welcome in the church and as a result gain a better understanding of God. If the baby isn't dedicated, the mom's simply see a judgmental church that is a poor reflection on Christ.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

And it's not our place to pass judgement.

yes...that was my whole point :)

[Green Cochoa]

Keep in mind, folks, that there is no Biblical precedent for, nor requirement for a baby dedication. Perhaps the nearest we come in the Bible is the birthright blessing, but this was often bestowed when the "child" was fully mature. Hannah's gift of her son Samuel to serve in the temple is a similar concept, she dedicating her son to the Lord, but it was not the priest who "dedicated" the child. A baby's circumcision on the eighth day is another near-equivalent, but a rather distinct ceremony from what we would call a "dedication."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.