Gay Christians

[James_Lai]

Seriously? Have you read Romans 1:24-28?

God is the arbiter of sin, not man. Sin is against God.
We have no say is what is sin against God and what is not, anymore than my neighbor has a say in what is personally offensive to me and what is not.

There must be rational substantiation. Otherwise it’s random discrimination. It’s like saying women are more sinful and require salvation through childbearing because Eve sinned first.

 

[Clare73]

There must be rational substantiation.

You'll have to tell that to the Lawgiver.

Who made that rule?
In whose "rational" is the substantiation?

Otherwise it’s random discrimination. It’s like saying women are more sinful and require salvation through childbearing because Eve sinned first.

There is a creation order which God ordained.

The Scriptures cannot be prove to be true or untrue.
It's all a matter of belief and unbelief.
You either believe the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, or you don't.
I do.

 

[Lukaris]

Actually the sin of our own actions is charged to us, not imputed.
Imputation is about effects of that with which we engaged in no performance (works), as in the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham (Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6), as well as the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed (Romans 5:18-19) in justification to those in Christ by faith (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5).

Actually, in context, Romans 5:13 is about no sin being accounted/charged to anyone because there was no law to sin against, as part of a larger demonstration of the imputation of the sin of Adam to all mankind (Romans 5:18).

You'll have to tell that to the Lawgiver.

Who made that rule?
In whose "rational" is the substantiation?

There is a creation order which God ordained.

The Scriptures cannot be prove to be true or untrue.
It's all a matter of belief and unbelief.
You either believe the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, or you don't.
I do.

Just to clarify my post re Romans 5:13, in our Orthodox Study Bible, it states, “Until the law of Moses came, the law of sin was working in the world: from Adam to Moses, people suffered from mortality and committed transgressions, and were accountable to God for their sins under natural law ( Romans 2:14-15). But without the written Law the seriousness of their sin remained clouded. God gave the Mosaic Law to expose the law of sin and death to the world.”

I realize our faith traditions vary on some things and I am not refuting your post. I just wanted to make sure I was not misrepresenting an Orthodox Christian understanding.

If the poster finds your explanations better than mine, great.

 

[hedrick]

Actually the sin of our own actions is charged to us, not imputed.
Imputation is about effects of that with which we engaged in no performance (works), as in the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham (Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6), as well as the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed (Romans 5:18-19) in justification to those in Christ by faith (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5).

Actually, in context, Romans 5:13 is about no sin being accounted/charged to anyone because there was no law to sin against, as part of a larger demonstration of the imputation of the sin of Adam to all mankind (Romans 5:18).

Impute means simply account or charge. In some cases things are accounted to us that we don't merit. But the term can just as well be used for accounting things that we do merit. Or, as often in Romans not imputing things that according to strict justice would be imputed.

 

[returntosender]

I’m heterosexual in orientation, but how being homosexual is a sin? I’m serious. Could you explain why it’s wrong and harmful to sinners themselves and to the society? In which ways do they bring something unwanted by their actions? I truly fail to see anything bad as consequence of this kind of lifestyle.

If you love God you want to please him. You follow his laws and most agree with them. There are many places in his word that speak against man with man and woman with woman. Romans is prominent.
Are you not aware of Aids? It killed off many homosexuals. They intice others to follow their path of destruction. It's insidious in its inticement of youth, when they haven't experienced life yet. I believe they true gays are marked by their flamboyant ways and speech. There are many now that are not true gays but chosen the life for various reasons. They are not righteous. Why don't you Google it and see the results of their choices and the scriptures that speak on it?

 

[JohnPaul88]

There seem to be more and more churches that are willing to see being gay as ok and also offer gay marriage. For example the Methodists in the UK recently voted to support gay marriage.

I know there are two sides in this debate and both have their own way of interpreting scripture and understanding the context of the various Bible passages.

I was talking to a Methodist lay preacher earlier, he is going to stop his preaching and probably join a different church.

My question is.... Are these disagreements going to radically change more and more churches with new churches splitting off into for and against groups. Is Christianity heading into a totally new future?

This is what I’m talking about in my thread, we must fight against this evil and the brainwashing of people into accepting abomination.

 

[Clare73]

Just to clarify my post re Romans 5:13, in our Orthodox Study Bible, it states, “Until the law of Moses came, the law of sin was working in the world: from Adam to Moses,
people suffered from mortality and committed transgressions,

Thanks.

Sin is transgression of the (Mosaic) law (1 John 3:4).
Where there is no (Mosaic) law, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15).
There was no (Mosaic) law between Adam and Moses (Romans 5:13).
Therefore, no one sinned between Adam and Moses (Romans 5:14).
Yet all died of sin between Adam and Moses, even those who did not sin (Romans 5:14).

So what sin was in the world (Romans 5:12) which caused the death of all mankind when there was no law to sin against?
That sin was the sin of Adam. . .imputed (accounted to when there is no performance in) to all those of Adam (Romans 5:18). . .

JUST AS (in the same way) the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed in justification (accounted to when there is no performance in) to all those of Christ (Romans 5:17-19), and

just as the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22) was imputed to Abraham (accounted to when there was no performance in) because of faith, apart from faith's works
(Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:1-3, Romans 4:5).

and were accountable to God for their sins under natural law ( Romans 2:14-15).

Romans 2 is treating the principles of God's judgment employed at the judgment of all mankind; i.e., either the law of conscious or the law of Moses, while

Romans 5 is treating imputation, both of sin and righteousness.
They do not correspond in any way. . .Romans 2:14-15 is not related to Romans 5:13.

But without the written Law the seriousness of their sin remained clouded. God gave the Mosaic Law to expose the law of sin and death to the world.”

God gave the Levitical laws to reveal the nature of sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7)--spiritual defilement, and sin's remedy--the blood of sacrifice.

I realize our faith traditions vary on some things and I am not refuting your post. I just wanted to make sure I was not misrepresenting an Orthodox Christian understanding.

If the poster finds your explanations better than mine, great.

Understood. . .thanks.

 

[Clare73]

Impute means simply account or charge. In some cases things are accounted to us that we don't merit. But the term can just as well be used for accounting things that we do merit. Or, as often in Romans not imputing things that according to strict justice would be imputed.

However, in Romans, it has a specific use, and does not refer to things that we merit.
As Paul uses "spiritual" to mean only one thing, so he uses "impute" to mean only one thing.

 

[hedrick]

However, in Romans, it has a specific use, and does not refer to things that we merit.
As Paul uses "spiritual" to mean only one thing, so he uses "impute" to mean only one thing.

I was thinking of Rom 4:8

"blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (impute in KJV)

Because of his grace he doesn't do it, but it speaks of counting the sin as we merit. That's why I said "Or, as often in Romans not imputing things that according to strict justice would be imputed." Also Rom 5:13.

 

[Clare73]

I was thinking of Rom 4:8

"blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (impute in KJV)

Because of his grace he doesn't do it, but it speaks of counting the sin as we merit.

Thanks.

The KJV would better translate that as count, than reckon.
"Count" is merited, "account (assign), reckon (credit)" are unmerited.
And the word logizomai means both "count" and "reckon (credit), account".
Go figure.

The RV never translates logizomai as "impute," but as "reckon."
The NIV uses "count" in Romans 4:8, and "credited (imputed) in Romans 4:3 of Abraham's righteousness from God, as well as in Romans 4:4, 5, 9, 23; Galatians 3:6; Philippians 4:17; James 2:23. . .where "credit" (reckon) means a gift and not what is due, owed.

So Abraham's case makes clear the meaning is righteousness "reckoned without cause" in Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6,
and Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-19 makes clear the meaning is righteousness and sin both "reckoned without cause" in the contrasting parallels of righteousness and sin in Romans 5:18-19.

If both righteousness and sin are not "reckoned without cause" in Romans 5:18-19, then Paul's parallels of "just as, so also" or "as, so in the same way" or "as, so also" are destroyed.

 

[returntosender]

"Take away correction and humans readily return to their own vomit".
Gay debauchery society has welcomed back from times of old. We have sunken low in most areas which just breeds more of lowly living.

 

[returntosender]

Merry Christmas every one!

 

[hedrick]

It seems like the big changes have already happened. As noted, the Methodists are the mainline denomination that hasn’t changed, and that’s because their weird constitution allows African churches to vote on rules for the US. Beyond that, I think there will be continuing slow changes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I’m heterosexual in orientation, but how being homosexual is a sin? I’m serious. Could you explain why it’s wrong and harmful to sinners themselves and to the society? In which ways do they bring something unwanted by their actions? I truly fail to see anything bad as consequence of this kind of lifestyle.

The difficulty is that you'll find many who don't make any distinction between orientation and action. The two are confused, and so it will make any kind of nuanced conversation either very difficult or even impossible.

Unfortunately this subject simply can't be discussed in any meaningful way here. The TOS only permits a very specific view. As such, it can present an incredibly skewed perspective if only one point of view is allowed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bèlla]

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

If only people would be consistent in their discrimination. They vilify homosexuals and pray for their brother struggling with inappropriate content. Wretched things. Don’t you know both sin against their flesh? Your words convict you.

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

~bella

 

[hedrick]

I agree that the TOS doesn't permit discussion. However the OP asked about the likely development of the Church, which is probably OK.

That probably depends upon ideology, too, though, as most people see acceptance of gays as corruption, while I see it as a good thing. So I'm going to view changes differently.

But I think most people see it increasing in the West. I suspect it's going to be slow, particularly officially. Many individuals in churches that oppose homosexuality individually are OK with it. A good example is the Catholic Church, where a majority of Catholics are accepting, but official doctrine is not. This is a situation I think it going to be fairly widespread.

It's important to remember that the Christian Church isn't just in the US, though. Internationally the Church is certainly not dying. A lot of the growth is in areas with more cultural hostility to gays, which is reflected in the Church. Most of the postings here have ignored the international Church. I think the biggest question for the future is whether current third-world countries can find ways to modernize without becoming dominated by agnosticism. If so, it's hard to predict the effect on attitudes towards gays.

 

[James_Lai]

The difficulty is that you'll find many who don't make any distinction between orientation and action. The two are confused, and so it will make any kind of nuanced conversation either very difficult or even impossible.

Unfortunately this subject simply can't be discussed in any meaningful way here. The TOS only permits a very specific view. As such, it can present an incredibly skewed perspective if only one point of view is allowed.

-CryptoLutheran

Sounds confusing. Orientation leads to action. Jesus says, thoughts are sin as well, not only acting on them.

I see absolutely no harm in having either orientation or so oriented action.

From what I see, stigmatization due to religious condemnation results in alll sorts of problems. That’s the real issue here…

 

[Tellyontellyon]

As a spiritual seeker... the question raised for me reading this thread is about balance.
On one side there seems to be the issue of doctrine, or 'rules'... while, seemingly, on the other side is the issue of forgiveness, acceptance, love, not judging.
There seems to be a tension between these and they appear to conflict somewhat.
Where do you draw the line, or should lines even be drawn...
If Jesus told us that laws could be changed, e.g. eye for an eye to turn the other cheek! So if what God wants us to do can change over time, maybe it can continue to change? Maybe that is part of the reason for sending the Holy Spirit?
A living guide for the conscience? A living Bible?

 

[timf]

From what I see, stigmatization due to religious condemnation results in alll sorts of problems. That’s the real issue here…

In Romans chapter one we are told that the wrath of God comes upon those who hold the truth in unrighteousness. We are then give two examples of this. The first are those who worship the creature more than the creator. The second are those who do not even retain the knowledge of god.

It is the first group who receive the compulsion of homosexuality as a punishment.

 

[James_Lai]

From what I see, stigmatization due to religious condemnation results in alll sorts of problems. That’s the real issue here…

In Romans chapter one we are told that the wrath of God comes upon those who hold the truth in unrighteousness. We are then give two examples of this. The first are those who worship the creature more than the creator. The second are those who do not even retain the knowledge of god.

It is the first group who receive the compulsion of homosexuality as a punishment.

It’s been proven it’s genetic. So this sin is carried over from before being born, karmic sin from a previous life?

Homosexual behaviour has been observed by biologists in many hundreds of animal species, are they also being punished?