[johnb838]

My rector laid out the whole thing at education hour Sunday. He went through the references in the bible and parroted the homosexual rationalizations of them.

For example, you can't accept the proscription on it in Leviticus unless you accept EVERY proscription in Leviticus. To which I say that every rule in that book had a good reason behind it. Some are not relevant today. Some are. I would argue that the law against men lying with men is more relevant today than ever.

Later he said, "Now let us discuss what Jesus had to say about homosexuality", then he turned went and took a long drink of water, then came back to the podium and said "Now on to what Paul said".

It was very upsetting.

[exmarine]

It was very upsetting.

Time for you to find a new church friend. Obviously, your church as rejected the plain reading of scripture, and has ceased to be a church. Just hang ICHABOD on the door, dust off your sandals and get away from this corrupted pastor.

[exmarine]

Tell him to explain Genesis 2:24 - For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his WIFE. What does the word "WIFE" mean?

[thulldud]

It was very upsetting.

You don't say! Paul's position, repeatedly affirmed under extreme pressure, was that he was a representative (apostle) personally called by Christ to speak for Him. Any distinction between the "message of Jesus" and the "message of Paul", implying that they came from different sources, means that at least Paul or Jesus has been made irrelevant.

The idea is to make all Scripture irrelevant. (But you already knew that.)