Homosexuality: ethical methods of outreach?

[CShephard53]

Given that this forum, least whilst I was around, was heavily involved in debates about homosexuality, I have wondered if there is a method we should be using in trying to reach homosexuals that will work best. That is, are there approaches that do not work as well and do work, and might they be considered moral and immoral?

 

[b.hopeful]

If by "reaching" them you mean informing them that there is something wrong with being homosexual or that homosexuality is sinful and immoral....I would say that "christians" have done a great job of that.

If by "reaching" you mean telling them how much God loves them(with an everlasting love) and how much we, as Christians, love them and that they are our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ ...then I would suggest the golden rule....and my belief that actions speak louder than words.

 

[elephunky]

If by "reaching" them you mean informing them that there is something wrong with being homosexual or that homosexuality is sinful and immoral....I would say that "christians" have done a great job of that.

If by "reaching" you mean telling them how much God loves them(with an everlasting love) and how much we, as Christians, love them and that they are our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ ...then I would suggest the golden rule....and my belief that actions speak louder than words.

Very well said, couldnt of said it better myself!

 

[BlackSabb]

Given that this forum, least whilst I was around, was heavily involved in debates about homosexuality, I have wondered if there is a method we should be using in trying to reach homosexuals that will work best. That is, are there approaches that do not work as well and do work, and might they be considered moral and immoral?

You know what I say? "What's the point?" (No offense ladies) but look at the 2 posts above this one. Even amongst Christians, homosexuality is accepted as normal. Just go to the so called "ethics and morality" section of CF, and the amount of professing Christians defending homosexuality is ridiculous.

So why bother reaching out? Apparently homosexuality isn't an aberration of God's purposes for males and females. Apparently it's just a normal variant. Like how some people prefer sports whilst others prefer reading books.

"What's the point?" The lie that homosexuality is acceptable before God is reaching Christians. In 50yrs time, it'll be mainstream in Christian circles.

How sad.

 

[b.hopeful]

Progress is sad? I disagree.

At one time it was understood that the Bible...the Word of God....declared that women had a specific role that did not include higher education, politics and certainly not voting. Just read your Bible...the notion that women deserve equal rights as men is wholly anti-Christian. There were warnings that allowing women to vote would ruin the foundation of this country...the Christian family. Of course, the Unitarians were by and large for suffrage...but c'mon, those hippy dippy anything goes Unitarians...heck, they were abolitionists too!

I for one believe the biggest threat to Christianity is the Christian bigot...in all forms. Nothing contradicts the message of Christ like bigotry. So I see the embrace of our homosexual brethren as a shining example of what Christ commands....love God with all our heart soul and mind and love our neighbor as ourselves.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, I don't normally respond to threads on homosexuality. It doesn't affect me, personally (being celibate), and the only thing that irks is the injustice of the traditional response. If homosexuals are born to be homosexual, as seems to be the case, let them get on with it, and let us celebrate love however it is found, say I.

But outreach? To a segment of the population you have defined as automatically sinful? To people you want to give up a core component of the being, their very sexual attraction to the sex they find desirable? I don't think so. It is condescending at best, through patronising, to bigoted, as has already been pointed out.

If we really want to outreach, let us outreach to those who cause demonstrable harm to others and to society. I have in mind arms-dealers, paedophiles, criminals of all persuasions, warlords, drug-smugglers, human traffickers, those with an excessive carbon footprint, tobacco company directors and investors, torturers, and the peddlers of vicarious violence that is called Hollywood.

It concerns me that conservative Christianity is misdirected; while the motivation to save souls can only be good, it's desire to protect it's considerable affluence by focussing on the issue of homosexuality to the exclusion of tangible wrongs just proves that a slight inclination towards vice is all that is required to be 100% opposed to the spirit of the faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[CShephard53]

If by "reaching" them you mean informing them that there is something wrong with being homosexual or that homosexuality is sinful and immoral....I would say that "christians" have done a great job of that.

No, I mean befriending and sharing our lives with them.

If by "reaching" you mean telling them how much God loves them(with an everlasting love) and how much we, as Christians, love them and that they are our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ ...then I would suggest the golden rule....and my belief that actions speak louder than words.

Point taken.

 

[CShephard53]

Progress is sad? I disagree.

At one time it was understood that the Bible...the Word of God....declared that women had a specific role that did not include higher education, politics and certainly not voting. Just read your Bible...the notion that women deserve equal rights as men is wholly anti-Christian. There were warnings that allowing women to vote would ruin the foundation of this country...the Christian family. Of course, the Unitarians were by and large for suffrage...but c'mon, those hippy dippy anything goes Unitarians...heck, they were abolitionists too!

All this from taking single verses out of their context. What kind of proof do you have that Romans 1 does not do this?

I for one believe the biggest threat to Christianity is the Christian bigot...in all forms. Nothing contradicts the message of Christ like bigotry. So I see the embrace of our homosexual brethren as a shining example of what Christ commands....love God with all our heart soul and mind and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Is viewing homosexual sex as a sin bigoted?

 

[nhisname]

I believe that until the homosexual is under the conviction from the Holy Spirit, only then will he understand that his actions are not pleasing to God.

 

[CShephard53]

Well, I don't normally respond to threads on homosexuality. It doesn't affect me, personally (being celibate), and the only thing that irks is the injustice of the traditional response. If homosexuals are born to be homosexual, as seems to be the case, let them get on with it, and let us celebrate love however it is found, say I.

I do not find that it is inborn, nor does any study I have come across.

But outreach? To a segment of the population you have defined as automatically sinful? To people you want to give up a core component of the being, their very sexual attraction to the sex they find desirable? I don't think so. It is condescending at best, through patronising, to bigoted, as has already been pointed out.

The only sin, in my understanding, is the act of sex, not the attraction. If Christians would like to say it is sinful to be attracted, they are doing so quite hypocritically.

If we really want to outreach, let us outreach to those who cause demonstrable harm to others and to society. I have in mind arms-dealers, paedophiles, criminals of all persuasions, warlords, drug-smugglers, human traffickers, those with an excessive carbon footprint, tobacco company directors and investors, torturers, and the peddlers of vicarious violence that is called Hollywood.

Why? And what kind of outreach are you talking about?

It concerns me that conservative Christianity is misdirected; while the motivation to save souls can only be good, it's desire to protect it's considerable affluence by focussing on the issue of homosexuality to the exclusion of tangible wrongs just proves that a slight inclination towards vice is all that is required to be 100% opposed to the spirit of the faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Agreed.

 

[CShephard53]

I believe that until the homosexual is under the conviction from the Holy Spirit, only then will he understand that his actions are not pleasing to God.

But this goes for any sin, no?

 

[2ndRateMind]

I do not find that it is inborn, nor does any study I have come across.

There have been studies of twins, which find that genetically identical twins are far more likely, if one is homosexual, to both to be homosexual, than genetically dissimilar twins. This indicates that there is a strong innate component to homosexuality. I'll dig out the details for you if you want.

The only sin, in my understanding, is the act of sex, not the attraction. If Christians would like to say it is sinful to be attracted, they are doing so quite hypocritically.

So, you are happy with the corporate line, that it is the act that is the sin, not the predisposition to the act? I am not. Seems to me that the concept of sin is less about what one does, than what one is. And I find confirmation of that position in the Church Father's list of the 'seven deadly' sins - lust, gluttony, pride, avarice, sloth, wrath and envy. None of these are acts; they are all 'ways of being'. In truth, I cannot see how a 'way of being' that leads to a sin, is not itself, sinful. I think we need bite the bullet on homosexuality, and forego political compromise - either both way of being and act are sinful, or neither are.

Why? And what kind of outreach are you talking about?

If outreach acts to minimise harm, at the same time as saving souls, then I think we have both temporal and eternal justification for our endeavours. If it is merely to persuade ourselves that we are worthy, and those we outreach to are benighted, we fool ourselves and make a fool of the faith.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[CShephard53]

There have been studies of twins, which find that genetically identical twins are far more likely, if one is homosexual, to both to be homosexual, than genetically dissimilar twins. This indicates that there is a strong innate component to homosexuality. I'll dig out the details for you if you want.

LeVay, if I'm not mistaken. If it was inborn, there would be a direct correlation and the study could be repeated with the same results. Where has this happened? Not in LeVay's study.

So, you are happy with the corporate line, that it is the act that is the sin, not the predisposition to the act? I am not. Seems to me that the concept of sin is less about what one does, than what one is. And I find confirmation of that position in the Church Father's list of the 'seven deadly' sins - lust, gluttony, pride, avarice, sloth, wrath and envy. None of these are acts; they are all 'ways of being'. In truth, I cannot see how a 'way of being' that leads to a sin, is not itself, sinful. I think we need bite the bullet on homosexuality, and forego political compromise - either both way of being and act are sinful, or neither are.

This is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. The Bible does not condemn attraction, ever. Why should that be different with homosexuality?

 

[b.hopeful]

Isn't lust a feeling? Are we told that merely lusting is the same as cheating(the act)?

2nd Rate makes a 1st rate point.

 

[2ndRateMind]

LeVay, if I'm not mistaken. If it was inborn, there would be a direct correlation and the study could be repeated with the same results. Where has this happened? Not in LeVay's study.

I think by direct correlation, you mean 100% correlation. That is not the way genetics works. No-one denies that environment also plays a part in the development of sexuality.

This is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. The Bible does not condemn attraction, ever. Why should that be different with homosexuality?

And this is a non sequitur. What is the fallacy, the falsity of the alternatives? How is it that an act can be sinful, and the predisposition to the act - and it is the 'way of being' that separates us from God - is not? It seems to me that it is the emphasis on self that is the common thread in the seven deadly sins I quoted, and that focusses our attention away from the divine. I do not see how, in this regard, homosexual predispositions and acts are any different than heterosexual predispositions and acts.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[CShephard53]

Isn't lust a feeling? Are we told that merely lusting is the same as cheating(the act)?

2nd Rate makes a 1st rate point.

Lust is not a feeling, no. If lust was merely a feeling, then husbands are guilty of feeling for their wives. Lust is similar to coveting, which requires that one intend to act. Such is not merely feeling at that point, but obsession and fixation.

 

[CShephard53]

I think by direct correlation, you mean 100% correlation. That is not the way genetics works. No-one denies that environment also plays a part in the development of sexuality.

If two people with the same set of DNA do not always become homosexual, it cannot possibly be inborn, as you assume.

And this is a non sequitur. What is the fallacy, the falsity of the alternatives? How is it that an act can be sinful, and the predisposition to the act - and it is the 'way of being' that separates us from God - is not?

What does not follow is your insistence that the act of homosexuality is different from any other sin in regard to where it comes from. You insist that the disposition to like other members of the same gender is also a sin, I ask how you can possibly come to that conclusion and not apply that conclusion in other sins.
When you claim that the disposition is what makes homosexual sex sinful, you also claim that there cannot be one without the other, and this is clearly wrong. Many who deal with homosexual attractions lead celibate lives.

It seems to me that it is the emphasis on self that is the common thread in the seven deadly sins I quoted, and that focusses our attention away from the divine. I do not see how, in this regard, homosexual predispositions and acts are any different than heterosexual predispositions and acts.

Best wishes, 2RM

Homosexual sex is different from heterosexual sex because it puts a body part in an area in which it is not designed to go into, involving other fixations that are not healthy and not what God intended for mankind. It is against the nature God intended. Also, it requires a romantic interest that eliminates what God intended male and female differences to be. The attraction and the identity, if you will, of homosexuals, is not what is sinful. Acting on it is. Thus, the action is the sin, and not the 'disposition', as you put it.

 

[Zebra1552]

My, another thread about homosexuality, and with a nice Christlike-Great-Commission twist. About time.

Perhaps the best way is to stop being so in their face about it being a sin and actually listen to them, befriend them, and get to know them. I suggest this approach with any sin, not just homosexuality. You win more friends with honey than with vinegar, as my mother always said.

 

[CShephard53]

My, another thread about homosexuality, and with a nice Christlike-Great-Commission twist. About time.

Perhaps the best way is to stop being so in their face about it being a sin and actually listen to them, befriend them, and get to know them. I suggest this approach with any sin, not just homosexuality. You win more friends with honey than with vinegar, as my mother always said.

Fair point. Should you ever bring up that it is sin, or let the topic come up if it does?

 

[Zebra1552]

Fair point. Should you ever bring up that it is sin, or let the topic come up if it does?

Probably let it come up if it does. They'll probably figure out you're a Christian and ask sometime...