Should the Church stop teaching that homosexuality is a sin?

[Moje ime]

In general, I don't think Orthodox Church definition of marriage (man and woman) should change. It would be funny.

[Vojnik]

Personally I don't care but I think Church should adopt "don't ask don't tell" attitude and if they criticize people's sin they should criticize sexual activities outside of marriage, unappropriate sexual thoughts (not to mention corruption, criminal, selfishness and other sins etc) with the same passion, so we'll see how many "customers" of Church will stay there.

It's nothing new to say that humanity has a sinful and fallen nature. It's what the Church has always believed. It's the reason Jesus came and died and resurrected. Jesus's death on the cross was the atonement for all us sinful humans who have fallen short. No longer do we have to sacrifice the lamb on the alter for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus became the sacrificial lamb.

[Augusto']

1. Fornication is a sin;
2. Homosexual sex can't produce offspring;
3. Therefore homosexual sex is always fornication;
For the church to accept homosexuality they would also have to accept fornication.

[Vojnik]

1. Fornication is a sin;
2. Homosexual sex can't produce offspring;
3. Therefore homosexual sex is always fornication;
For the church to accept homosexuality they would also have to accept fornication.

Is sex in a marriage between a man and a woman considered sin if it's purpose was NOT to produce a child?

[Moje ime]

Is sex in a marriage between a man and a woman considered sin if it's purpose was NOT to produce a child?

No help for Catholics, trust me.

[Ruggery]

No.
I do not care what homosexuals do but the rules of Christianity should not be changed by the simple caprice of modern people as many institutions do.
The rules are respected.

[Ruggery]

Is sex in a marriage between a man and a woman considered sin if it's purpose was NOT to produce a child?

Only the catholic branch thinks that. They also think that priests and bishops should not marry and have sexual contact, however containing sexual desire is very bad because sooner or later they will find some minimum way to escape, that is why there are many sexual abuses to children inside the catholic church.

[Vojnik]

Only the catholic branch thinks that. They also think that priests and bishops should not marry and have sexual contact, however containing sexual desire is very bad because sooner or later they will find some minimum way to escape, that is why there are many sexual abuses to children inside the catholic church.

Now the Catholic doctrine of abstinence for the priest is one thing that we can argue on and say it should be thrown away. Throwing away Catholic priest celibacy will not affect any core Christian doctrine.

[Thordis]

Absolutely not, and the same goes for other controversial topics, such as abortion. Church teaching at the most basic level is contained in the Gospels and the Bible is quite clear in its teaching. In Genesis we learn that God created a biological man (Adam), and a biological woman (Eve), whom together were to reflect His godly plan for marriage and the makeup of a family:

"Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth …" (Genesis 1:26-28).

This relationship is repeated again and again throughout the Bible, and is the only relationship sanctioned and blessed by God.

In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God's destruction of Sodom was its people's homosexual behavior. Yet nowadays some LGBT advocates promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is indeed a sin, it is clearly sodomy that is singled out for specific criticism in the account of their city's destruction. Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Further, an explicit condemnation of homosexual sex is found in the book of Leviticus:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Now some pro-LGBTQ advocates will claim that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time (such as circumcision, or not eating pork) that are no longer binding. While the latter is indeed true, the former is not. God's moral requirements are eternal and never-changing. Others will say that Jesus Himself never taught anything about homosexuality, therefore the church should not condemn it. However, that is not exactly true either. Jesus reaffirmed God's plan for marriage to be between a biological male and a biological female in Matthew 19:4-5:

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

His disciples also identified homosexual behavior as sinful. In Romans 1, Paul uses phrases like "vile passions," "against nature" and "shameful" to describe homosexual activity: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:26-27).

But this is nothing new to the church. The church has been well aware and constant in its teaching for the past few millennia. Yet nowadays fewer pastors address these topics from a biblical perspective. Some don't talk about them at all, while others go even further and claim that it's possible to reconcile homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, etc. with Christianity. The times have changed, they say, so the church needs a "thorough reappraisal" of its teachings in order to be up to date and appease those groups. In other words, the church should become politically correct. This view, while seemingly sensible to many is however incompatible with traditional Christian teaching. The issue with political correctness is that there are no absolutes. Everything is said to be relative dependent on the person and the circumstance. The line between right and wrong, good and evil, etc. is gradually being blurred. What is wrong for one person may be right for another. Society in general is expected to tolerate and accept most anything that is sincerely believed or practiced at the moment. Christianity, on the other hand is a faith of absolutes. There are no grey areas. There is good and there is evil, there is obedience and disobedience, there is godly behavior and there is sin. And again the Gospel as well as traditional church teaching has unambiguously defined defined these principles for millennia. Those churches that jump on the PC bandwagon are abandoning those absolutes taught in the Bible. The problem with that is not only that people become ignorant to sin, but that sinful and ungodly behavior is becoming accepted and eventually sanctioned within their ranks. The result is not only a perpetuation of that particular behavior, but a propensity towards changing other teachings as well. And therein lies the biggest danger. If the gospel's position on homosexuality/abortion etc. can be changed, then its truth is no longer infallible. And if Christian teaching should adapt to the times, then what speaks against eventually changing its fundamental message? Then we no longer turn to God's word, but to whatever ideology is trendy at the time.

Or, the church is supposed to be "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and hold up the foundational truths of the Bible. It should be concerned with being biblically correct before being politically correct. Jesus himself was not politically correct in his teachings and he certainly wouldn't be in our day either. He told the Pharisees that they honored him with their lips but their hearts were far from him. Their worship was in vain because they were teaching the commandments of men instead of the commandments of God. His disciples came to him and asked him if he knew that this had offended the Pharisees. Yet Jesus did not apologize for speaking the truth and told them they were like blind guides leading the blind and both would fall into a pit (Matt.15:8-9, 12-14). On another occasion he told the scribes and the Pharisees that they were serpents, a generation of vipers and asked them how they thought they would escape the judgment of hell. He did not take the politically correct approach and dance around it, as politically correct pastors do today.

On the other hand, those who preach on the sins of homosexuality, abortion and the like are often labeled as not being compassionate or accepting enough. This is totally untrue. On the contrary, only someone who loves and cares enough for his brethren, only someone who is concerned for their salvation and eternal destiny would teach them God's word. The worst thing one can do for their fellow Christians is to sugarcoat around the consequences of sinful behavior, or even worse, condone it. While this might appease people and make them feel more accepted for the short run, in the long run it could irrevocably affect their salvation. Those who choose not to follow God's commandments may appear happy and fulfilled, but in the end it's an illusion. There are countless those who have lived in secret misery, brokenness and guilt over choosing Satan's temptations. Some even end their lives. As long as preachers continue to conform to PC standards and avoid the elephant in the room, they are going to be responsible for people making sinful decisions and not even knowing it. Compassion requires that we do not withhold God's warnings about moral issues:

"I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:1-2).

There is a big difference between condemning sin and the sinner. Just like God can perfectly hate sin while also perfectly loving sinners and desiring their repentance, so can - and should - His children and disciples. We love people by treating them with dignity as well as by caring enough about them to share the truth of Christ. And while we are not to judge others in the condemnatory sense, we are called to be discerning and have a responsibility to distinguish good from evil and light from darkness (Isaiah 5:20).

Churches need to preach and teach "Thus saith the Lord" and forget about what man thinks is politically correct. God's word spans the bridge of time and gives solutions to our as well as society's problems.

[Zeus]

I don't see how they could just randomly declare that homosexuality is not sinful without losing a massive amount of credibility, but if they don't change their view they're going to lose a lot of popular support because very few people are homophobic today and a lot of people leave christianity because of sexism and homophobia in church doctrines