Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[GodIsLove1]

Wow. People aren't kidding when they say that Anglicans are utterly obsessed with sex. I guess they ARE kidding when they say that we care about Scripture and Tradition, since the liberals ignore them or make up bogus interpretations of them when they don't suit the liberal agenda.

Hi Drax,

Please note the Banner at the top of the page, under which this "community" chooses to post includes: "..., Reason - ..."

Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican & Old Catholic The forum for Anglican, Anglo-Catholic and Episcopal churches.

We need not leave our minds at the door. How have I "ignored" the scripture or tradition when my "reasoning" is based on scripture and calls tradition (tacitly, I admit) into question?

How is my interpretation "bogus" (as bogus refers to "counterfeit") which would mean I'm trying my hardest to make a "perfect copy" of an accepted interpretation. I'm just reading words which have been translated into English. My interpretation is my reasonable understanding of the meaning of those words.

And, um,... "liberal"? I don't nearly fit in that pigeonhole.

Peace.

 

[brightmorningstar]

SBVD

Romans is attributed to Paul; though that is not to be seen as a challenge to the inspiration of Romans.

Paul received what he preached from the risen Lord, not men, see Galatians 1. The gospel writers wrote what they heard and saw Jesus do and say, or from second hand accounts.

Ultimately every sin is a form of idolatry, of idolatry to the self or the creatures, as it diverts the soul from God. Yet again, the text as it is written, seems to say that at least in the case of the pagans, the homosexual activity are the consequence of worshiping other things rather than God.

All the things listed are, it says they turned away from the truth and worshipped the creature, then it says God gave them over to same sex relations, and then it says God gave them over to every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. All sin is pagan as opposed to Godly. What’s the problem?

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodIslove,
Sadly for you I have heard these arguments from gay activists over and over again. The point being its male and female to be united, no homosexual/heterosexual sexuality concepts please. If you want to know God’s revelation address what His word actually says and you will see the human concepts you use are contrary to God’s word.

Secondly as there is no Jew, Greek etc (Galatiians 3:28) in Christ, there is no such thing as ‘gay Christian’.

And finally, what has been pointed out to you is that throughout the Bible man/woman is the only countenanced union because it is affirmed throughout as God’s creation purpose, it just so happens that specific deviations such as prostitution, incest, bestiality, same sex relations are also condemned.

These passages are most definitely NOT about "relationships"

Now you have departed form reality again. That’s exactly they are, men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men is a relationship.

To your point about Romans 1, be aware that once their thinking had become futile and their foolish hearts darkened, they suppressed the truth with their wickedness. So all they did that follows is a consequence of that. What God gave them over to do which is suppressing the truth and foolish, worshipping the creature and not the creator, was same-sex sexual relations, and then all kinds of evil such as murder, deceit and envy. Sure one can see, murder, as in sacrifices, and same sex sexual relations in many cultures, as acknowledged in Leviticus and of course the Greek and Roman societies of the NT, but one cant infer these wicked acts of same-sex sexual relations and murder are only wrong when done in a worship context as LGB arguments try to. The LGB arguments you are putting forward are still the result of suppressing the truth and wickedness. God created male and female to be in union, Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, or celibacy Matt 19, 1 Cor 7. God is the creator.
To suggest same sex sexual relations are ok, is worshipping the creature, not the creator, supressing the truth with wickedness and thhe reslut of foolish and darkened hearts. Thats reason!

Your argument is the result of the root casue of the error. It claims an interpretation that cant be supported even from the passage in question, let alone the other condemnations throughout the Bible, and of all those things described in Romans 1, and against the context of God's creation purpose for man and woman affirmed exclusively throughout the Bible.

 

[GodIsLove1]

Hi bms,

Were you the sole arbiter of reality, I'd gladly "depart." As it is you are quite simply the most convinced of your own understanding of English syntax. It colors forever, it seems, whatever interchange there might be.

I'm not making pronouncements (except about the plainness of any given translations' ability to "speak the truth"). I've got no "dog in this hunt," as the saying goes. The Lord has merely put many gay and transgender people in my path, and expected me to live by His commandment to 'Love" the hell out of them.

I find that the Hell in them is No Different than the Hell in you or me. It's certainly not a "gay Hell" It's the Hell of Not Knowing while Needing to Know that there is a Loving Father who gives Himself completely, in Love, to their lost and aching hearts.

When they receive that Love, their Hell is as gone as is yours and mine. Argue with God, as the prodigal's older brother argued with his father, if you wish. I'm only an adopted son.

Peace.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodIslove,
I have no influence on changing reality at all. Who do you think can? If no-one why make that suggestion about me.

As it is you are simply the most convinced of your own understanding of English syntax.

Interesting, I will remember that the next time you quote from the Bible. Do you really want to go down that route? The Bible says what it says, and millions of Christians understand it the same when it comes to this issue. You have been presented with the Bible references, how much of the Bible do you not believe?

The Lord has merely put many gay and transgender people in my path, and expected me to live by His commandment to 'Love" the hell out of them.

Ok, the Lord has also put people with same sex attraction in my path, I have friends who are in same sex partnerships, but the topic is about the root problems with the wrong thinking that leads these people astray. Thats what the thread is about and what you need to address on topic.
There is no concept of gay and transgender people in the Bible, you are referring to what they call themselves and the identity you have given them, and not how God has created them and sees them.

As an aside, you might like to ask yourself why when people with gender dysphoria seek to have a sex change, people who have same sex attraction don’t. I think you are doing people with gender dysphoria a great disservice by including them with people who have same sex attraction. Go to other sections on this site and hear that from some themselves with gender dysphoria.

Basically we are called to love people as God loves; not their sin which is a barrier to the Kingdom, one cant love another by condoning their sin.

 

[GodIsLove1]

Really bms?

I have no influence on changing reality at all. Who do you think can? If no-one why make that suggestion about me.

Seriously. If you can't or won't see that I was specifically referencing your post, directly above mine (especially when I used quotation marks), I'm finding it hard to imagine that we'll get very far in our discussion unless I'm willing to diagram the sentences exactly out of scripture and get your assent to each line, before we move on to the next. "Arbiter" has Nothing to do with "changing reality."

I'll say this though, you are looking for an argument from me (as if I could brilliantly whittle upon your prose, to sharpen it into the stake you'd then sink into my heart), and I don't WANT to argue. And I certainly refuse to grow old, dying young (how's That for a mixed metaphor, wrapped in a non sequitur?)

If you don't by now see what I'm saying, I'm fairly sure you won't ever, and I'm amenable to that. I'm not one to "judge the servant of another" (Rom 14). And I hope you're equally aware that you won't change me, and as you know "the Lord is able to make [me] stand," you, too, can just let it go at this.

Peace. May we part company on THIS thread as Paul and Barnabas did, to meet later in another thread as brothers, once more.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodIsLove,
We wont get very far in our discussion if you cant understand basic English or reality and merely resort to accusing me of it. Arbiter is irrelevant, the position of the Christian church, according to what the Bible holistically says on the matter, summed up for the Anglican Communion by Lambeth 1.10 is clear, has been examined and found solid and not for negotiation by a few gay activist revisionists.

I'm not one to "judge the servant of another" (Rom 14).

To use the same argument back to you, you are not arbiter of what Romans 14 means.

Peace. May we part company on THIS thread as Paul and Barnabas did, to meet later in another thread as brothers, once more.

Paul and Barnabas disagreed who they should take with them, they didn’t disagree over scripture and the faith, the argued together even in sharp dispute with non-believers.

 

[mark46]

SInce we agree that sexual intercource outside of marriage is unacceptable, then it seems that the root of the argument is whether marriage is restricted to being between a man and a woman.

It will be interesting to see the Church's position as more and more countries and states allow samed sex marriage. After all, when was the last time that the Church did not consider those married by a cicil judge as being actually married. Church communities generally consider those married to be "married" whether the ceremoiny is performed in the Church or not.

 

[GodIsLove1]

Quoting brightmorningstar:

GodIsLove,
We wont get very far in our discussion if you cant understand basic English or reality and merely resort to accusing me of it. Arbiter is irrelevant, the position of the Christian church, according to what the Bible holistically says on the matter, summed up for the Anglican Communion by Lambeth 1.10 is clear, has been examined and found solid and not for negotiation by a few gay activist revisionists.

?I'm not one to "judge the servant of another" (Rom 14).""
​

To use the same argument back to you, you are not arbiter of what Romans 14 means.

"Peace. May we part company on THIS thread as Paul and Barnabas did, to meet later in another thread as brothers, once more.:
​

Paul and Barnabas disagreed who they should take with them, they didn’t disagree over scripture and the faith, the argued together even in sharp dispute with non-believers.

Wow. Just, Wow.



(And I pray this LAST from me in this thread, advances the discussion, as well as anything else I've written here. Please don't bother responding, bms -- at least not for MY benefit -- as I'll not be returning to even look here until the page count reaches over 50, which I believe hardly likely.)

 

[brightmorningstar]

Mark 1

SInce we agree that sexual intercource outside of marriage is unacceptable, then it seems that the root of the argument is whether marriage is restricted to being between a man and a woman.

Good point, in God's word it is however man and woman however many humans disagree.

It will be interesting to see the Church's position as more and more countries and states allow samed sex marriage.

Actually more states so far have not gone to same sex relationships as marriage, and even secular France has decided against it.

 

[sbvd]

SBVD
Paul received what he preached from the risen Lord, not men, see Galatians 1. The gospel writers wrote what they heard and saw Jesus do and say, or from second hand accounts.

All the things listed are, it says they turned away from the truth and worshipped the creature, then it says God gave them over to same sex relations, and then it says God gave them over to every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. All sin is pagan as opposed to Godly. What’s the problem?

You are fighting shadows

 

[brightmorningstar]

sbvd,

You are fighting shadows

I know. we can see the arguments to try and justfy same-sex relationships are baseless.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against dark forces.

On homosexuality if believers specifically identify the act of same-sex sexual relations, those influenced by dark forces accuse of attacking the person.

Having created the concept of two different types of people there are loads of studies which show health problems of homosexuals are consistently higher than for heterosexuals, yet they still argue it does no harm. In addition the human papilloma virus is caused by anal penetrations. They have more problems with promiscuity, drug abuse, alcohol and depression and psychological disorders.

Yet all society is interested in is the elimination of any of this criticism under the umbrella of homophobia.

1] Ultrike Boehmer, Xiaopeng Miao, Al Ozonoff, “Cancer survivorship and sexual orientation, Cancer, (May 2011).
[2] “Gay Men And Cancer: Study Shows Homosexual Males Nearly Twice As Likely To Be Cancer Survivors,”
[3] Laura Kann et al, “Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9–12 — Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States, 2001–2009,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report CDC, (June 6, 2011) 60
[4] Perry N. Halkitis Daniel Siconolfi, Megan Fumerton, Kristin Barlup, “Facilitators of Barebacking among Emergent Adult Gay and Bisexual Men: Implications for HIV Prevention” Journal of LGBT Health Research, (January 1, 2008) 4(1): pp. 11–26.
Ron Stall et al., “Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men,” American Journal of Public Health (2003) 93 (6): pp. 941.
[5] CDC, “HIV among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM),” (Sept. 2010).
[6] John Imrie et al, “A cognitive behavioural intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections among gay men: Randomised trial,” “British Medical Journal, (Jun 16, 2001);

So why are people telling our children it is an option if it causes health problems? Why are they forcing us to have people tell our children this dysfunctional and dangerous stuff is a natural choice.

The church needs to stand against this and it is hampered by people in it poncing up and down in vestments supporting it whilst denying the word of God.
Shout back. We don’t do same sex relations, get used to it.

 

[sbvd]

sbvd,
I know. we can see the arguments to try and justfy same-sex relationships are baseless.

Dear Sir,

1. I am not challenging the inspiration of any book of the Bible

2. It is beyond my imagination how my words could be used to justify anything, much less same-sex relationships.

Godspeed

 

[mark46]

All states and countries started with marriage as between a man and a woman. Several countries and states have now allowed same-sex marriages. Each year a few more are added to the list of those that allow same-sex marriage, increasing the total.

Are you suggesting that more states and countries are moving away from samed-sex marriage than to it. Please tell of some states and countries that used to have samed-sex marriage and now have marriage only between a man and a woman. I would think that there are few, if any. Whether we like it or not, the number of countries and states allowing same-sex marriage increases each year.

Actually more states so far have not gone to same sex relationships as marriage, and even secular France has decided against it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Mark 1,
Many of the states have voted on this and not gone with same sex partnerships as marriage. So its not catching on as the LGB claims suggest... though they are deceiving people into thinking it is. The gay lobbies are also at work full time to influence every aspect of life.
What will happen in the future I don’t know, we could see a realisation, even a repentance, and a swing back to morality at any time, or things could get much worse like it did in Sodom. Many people who say the Bible is merely the ramblings of ancient nomadic tribes don’t realise they are acting out the same sort of parts reoccurring throughout the Bible. Ironic.

 

[3Rivers]

I personally can see both sides of this argument and think that this issue is between a person and Christ. Please read, before discounting

As for the "animals" argument: I think its clear that human beings are different from animals. Very different. I never want to be compared to the beasts of the field, as Nebuchadnezzar and Nero (in history at least, and scripture if you see him as "666") both were. You're gonna need a better argument. We're made in God's image, dolphins, dogs, or any other animal that engages in this behavior is not.

As far as the "redefining scripture" argument goes: It seems to me, we're trying to do our best to interpret documents written almost 2000 years ago, to their cultures, and we need to be gracious to both sides of the arguments to get anywhere in this. I don't want to assume the worst of my adversary (or their intentions, as only God knows that) in any debate, as that quickly degenerates into ad hominem arguments. For this BOTH of us would need better arguments.

I personally can see how the passages dealing with homosexuality could be interpreted as dealing with the sexual sin inherently involved in idolatry (such as fertility cults). The question, in my mind is, "do the homosexual acts today, IF the practitioner is not practicing idolatry, still fall under the umbrella of the passages in question?"

Are there passages that one may find that the context of it does not seem to speak of Pagan idolatry, either as a warning to the Jews entering the lands of these people, or to new Gentile converts coming to Christ?

All this aside- the issue that remains is a hypothetical one. The Spirit will lead us to all righteousness, and His role is conviction- believer and the world. Homosexuals, IF Christ does indeed view your activities as sin, WOULD you stop it, or at least desire to stop it, your fellow Christians understanding the difficulties all of us face in besetting sin? I have personally found that when I am in a sin I wish to remain in, I will justify it to the point of dodging this issue, or simply retorting with "Yes, but it's not!"

If homosexuality is a sin, Christ bled just as much for it as He did for my sins. I for one will welcome anyone into my church, but they need to be warned that if the Spirit convicts them of sin in their life they are personally responsible for repenting. In short- we should welcome them into our church, but we cannot offer anyone any unconditional guarantee Christ will welcome them into His, as HE, not us, knows the heart.

 

[brightmorningstar]

3Rivers,
Great to have your contribution.
But ..

It seems to me, we're trying to do our best to interpret documents written almost 2000 years ago, to their cultures, and we need to be gracious to both sides of the arguments to get anywhere in this.

The Bible wasn’t really written to anyone’s cultures at all, it was mostly written to the people of God advising them against the cultural practices. Nor is it gracious to cultures. The wonderful testimony of Christianity is that it has people who come from every culture.

I personally can see how the passages dealing with homosexuality could be interpreted as dealing with the sexual sin inherently involved in idolatry (such as fertility cults).

On what grounds? Leviticus 18 & 20 conclude the people of God must not do these things that the pagans do, but Romans 1 says men who abandon the natural use of women have already been given over by God to error and that it is a suppression of the truth. In what way is men with men instead of the natural with women any different today than then? They are still men and women.

Are there passages that one may find that the context of it does not seem to speak of Pagan idolatry, either as a warning to the Jews entering the lands of these people, or to new Gentile converts coming to Christ?

That’s a straw man. We know the practices condemned in the Bible were done by pagans, but the text indicates that is itself idolatry error and what the people of God must not do.

All this aside- the issue that remains is a hypothetical one.

On the contrary it isnt at all for the above reasons.

The Holy Spirit will lead us to all righteousness, and His role is conviction- believer and the world.

It has lead us to know that same-sex sexual relations are error, the Holy Spirit reminds people of what Christ taught, as cited.

If homosexuality is a sin,

It is a sin. Let me ask you whether you think murder is a sin? Murder is one of the things in Romans 1 God also gave them over to? He gave them over to men abandoning natural relations with women and He gave them over to murder.

I for one will welcome anyone into my church, but they need to be warned that if the Spirit convicts them of sin in their life they are personally responsible for repenting.

Well if the Spirit doesn’t convict them of sin are they believers? Certainly one must question how they can possibly have the Spirit when they don’t recognise the sin.

In short- we should welcome them into our church, but we cannot offer anyone any unconditional guarantee Christ will welcome them into His, as HE, not us, knows the heart.

that’s quite a good point except why would they be bothered if its just their guess against ours?

 

[mark46]

Let us give you ALL your arguments with regard to EVERY passage forbidding homosexual behavior. Let us for a moment agree that all of these verese were meant for the cultures to which they were written and are often misunderstand by us, and used for our purposes.
===========
We are still left with sexual intercourse outside of marriage which is clearly forbidden.

The question, if there is one, is regarding the nature of marriage. I agree that secular entities should make their decisions considering many factors in addition to religious teaching. However, with regard to CHRISTIAN teaching, there was no issue until about 50 years ago. There is NO example of marriage is Scripture between two persons of the same sex, not one. Surely, if marriage is important and homosexual marriage were blessed, then there would be at least one example of a married homosexual couple in Scripture.

To accept homosexual marriage, we would need to reject the Scriptural teachings throughout the OT, NT and the Tradition of the Church with regard to the nature of marriage. This step is much harder than was the case regarding slavery. Here we are not just talking about a few passages. Rather, the nature of the sexual relationship runs through all of Scripture.

I personally can see both sides of this argument and think that this issue is between a person and Christ. Please read, before discounting

As for the "animals" argument: I think its clear that human beings are different from animals. Very different. I never want to be compared to the beasts of the field, as Nebuchadnezzar and Nero (in history at least, and scripture if you see him as "666") both were. You're gonna need a better argument. We're made in God's image, dolphins, dogs, or any other animal that engages in this behavior is not.

As far as the "redefining scripture" argument goes: It seems to me, we're trying to do our best to interpret documents written almost 2000 years ago, to their cultures, and we need to be gracious to both sides of the arguments to get anywhere in this. I don't want to assume the worst of my adversary (or their intentions, as only God knows that) in any debate, as that quickly degenerates into ad hominem arguments. For this BOTH of us would need better arguments.

I personally can see how the passages dealing with homosexuality could be interpreted as dealing with the sexual sin inherently involved in idolatry (such as fertility cults). The question, in my mind is, "do the homosexual acts today, IF the practitioner is not practicing idolatry, still fall under the umbrella of the passages in question?"

Are there passages that one may find that the context of it does not seem to speak of Pagan idolatry, either as a warning to the Jews entering the lands of these people, or to new Gentile converts coming to Christ?

All this aside- the issue that remains is a hypothetical one. The Spirit will lead us to all righteousness, and His role is conviction- believer and the world. Homosexuals, IF Christ does indeed view your activities as sin, WOULD you stop it, or at least desire to stop it, your fellow Christians understanding the difficulties all of us face in besetting sin? I have personally found that when I am in a sin I wish to remain in, I will justify it to the point of dodging this issue, or simply retorting with "Yes, but it's not!"

If homosexuality is a sin, Christ bled just as much for it as He did for my sins. I for one will welcome anyone into my church, but they need to be warned that if the Spirit convicts them of sin in their life they are personally responsible for repenting. In short- we should welcome them into our church, but we cannot offer anyone any unconditional guarantee Christ will welcome them into His, as HE, not us, knows the heart.

 

[3Rivers]

I was merely advocating listening to the other side, for both people. That is the Christian attitude, it seems. Even Arius had a hearing. I can see the points for both sides.
As far as scripture being irrespective of culture: When was the last sermon you heard about not eating meat sacrificed to idols?
Does your church ask the women to cover their heads "on account of the angels?" Culture does seem to matter.
I think the issue is: What laws do Gentiles have to keep to be included in the church? Luckily, Acts 15 answers this:

19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

My point was merely that all these things, taken in context seem to be talking about idolatrous practices- every facet of them. Why weren't "don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse, believe in one God, etc." mentioned? Some things are assumed. I suppose they are asking if homosexuality, as we have it today, was assumed as well.

Again, I see both sides, but I am leery of ever saying God can't or hasn't saved anyone because of a sin in their life, even if the repentance we see is lacking or nil. Romans 1 lists plenty of other sins in that list, and some of them are pretty common, not necessitating being "given over." I would also say that Romans 1:23 seems to speak to idolatry too.
As with any ethic, the situation leads to other questions and so on and so forth. I suppose I would have been better off just keeping my mouth shut, as I was dealing with hypotheticals in a forum of peoples dealing differently with the issue. I should, however, qualify my statements by saying that I:

a) don't agree with redefining the term marriage. Call it a civil union if you want, take the rights given by the state such as insurance, taxes, whatever, but don't say God blesses something it doesn't seem He does. Marriage has a purpose, and kids have a purpose. I also don't agree with people in homosexual relationships adopting. Kids need a mother and a father. Period. That being said, would they be better off left in a foster home? I doubt it. This opens the question of "what is the purpose of sex?" That's sticky...

b) I don't agree with the idea of "gender reassignment."

c) I can't agree with the ordination of any minister we know is in a homosexual relationship UNTIL we can answer any questions about the sinfulness of the activities in the negative.

So, I'm essentially screwed as I'm too liberal for the fundamentalists, but too conservative for the LGBT agenda. lol.