Homosexuality from a christian point of veiw.

[Montalban]

In the 'poll' (site I've referenced in post above) they don't even use the word 'conservative'.

It's interesting though that they themselves admit
Commitment to Christianity Depends On How It Is Measured

Conservative or not, Christians as a whole have an almost identical divorce rate to non-Christians. Which is really the point, as far as I'm concerned. Even Catholics who are 10% less likely don't have a whole lot of room for stone flinging.

ROFL!
That's the whole point. To prove that one form of Christians have a higher or as high divorce rate as other groups, several people have references a survey of a totally different group of Christians.

And I won't name who used the study to bash 'conservative' Christians, but the study makes no use of the category.

Still, I guess all us Christians look the same to you

And this has little to do with the OP, but then a chance to bash Christians who disagree with you is a good enough reason to digress

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Have we moved from the OP?

Yes, it commonly happens and it's called hijacking a thread (rule under trolling). Also known as going on the attack rather than defending the indefensible.

 

[Lanakila]

Do Conservative Christians really have higher divorce rates than non Christians?

Actually according to Christian pollster George Barna, its about a dead heat, or a little higher among those claiming to be born again. (the no true Christian argument just won't work to explain it away) Not that divorce is always a bad thing as an atheist in the middle of an amicable, friendly one at the moment.

 

[Lanakila]

Those Christians believing that homosexuality is a wicked sin and that those committing the acts should be stoned are actually a minority of Christians, but they often try the no true scotsman argument to explain away those with opposing positions even if they use a scriptural foundation.

What's sad is I keep thinking of the song by the Black Eyed Peas called: Where is the love. It's not loving to condemn others for any reason whatsoever. Jesus only did it with the Pharisees, and not with those who he was attempting to minister to.

Who are the Pharisees of today?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Those Christians believing that homosexuality is a wicked sin and that those committing the acts should be stoned are actually a minority of Christians, but they often try the no true scotsman argument to explain away those with opposing positions even if they use a scriptural foundation.

What's sad is I keep thinking of the song by the Black Eyed Peas called: Where is the love. It's not loving to condemn others for any reason whatsoever. Jesus only did it with the Pharisees, and not with those who he was attempting to minister to.

Who are the Pharisees of today?

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Umm... I suppose some people think even Jesus Christ was not PC or ignorant of the facts enough to pretend sinners were not sinners. It's a shame when even love is redefined to something else and "it" only can be called love when it coddles rebellion and spoils the disobedient child.

Proverbs 3:12
because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in.

Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

Hebrews 12:8
If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

Revelation 3:19
Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

But the Good News is that although we deserve a punishment for sin, God made a love offering for us and repentance, acceptance in faith has a promise of forgiveness.

Luke 24:47
and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Those Christians believing that homosexuality is a wicked sin and that those committing the acts should be stoned are actually a minority of Christians, but they often try the no true scotsman argument to explain away those with opposing positions even if they use a scriptural foundation.

What's sad is I keep thinking of the song by the Black Eyed Peas called: Where is the love. It's not loving to condemn others for any reason whatsoever. Jesus only did it with the Pharisees, and not with those who he was attempting to minister to.

Who are the Pharisees of today?

Quite simply, those who think they are righteous, and not sinners.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Quite simply, those who think they are righteous, and not sinners.

Certainly, hypocrisy is to be warned against:

Luke 12:1
[ Warnings and Encouragements ] Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Matthew 7:3-5
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

But there should also be caution against wildly pointing fingers at others, I think there is already an Accuser that makes claims against God's children. And speaking of such, we now enter the arrogance with some of mankind; who has the authority to declare unclean that which God has promised forgiveness?

Philippians 1:9-11
9And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.
~~~

But then again, we know that some people will take it upon themselves to declare that there is no difference between the repentant sinner saved by Grace and the non-believer that rejects God's Provision. It appears that scriptures speak differently:

2 Corinthians 5:16-21
16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[ahab]

Those Christians believing that homosexuality is a wicked sin and that those committing the acts should be stoned are actually a minority of Christians,

Those Christians who believe that same-sex sex acts are sin are most definitely in a majority.

It's not loving to condemn others for any reason whatsoever.

And most of those who believe same-sex sex is as sin don’t believe that to go and sin no more is a condemnation, the idea of condemnation usually comes from those who think same-sex sex is what God wants.

Jesus only did it with the Pharisees, and not with those who he was attempting to minister to. Who are the Pharisees of today?

Well good question. Both Jesus and the Pharisees knew the sin, John 8, and so almost certainly would the woman. So is anyone carrying out the punishment? Is anyone denying the sin?

Quite simply, those who think they are righteous, and not sinners.

Good because the position of those who think same-sex sex is a sin is that we do the same things. See Rom 2. We who know that malice and greed and men committing indecent acts with one another are sins etc as in Rom 1… are sins we are also guilty of. Form where I am sitting its only those who don’t do the sins like malice and greed and men committing indecent acts with one another who are in the position to judge others.


As to 'where is the love'. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"

peace

 

[loriersea]

I picked "other." While

its ok with me whatever you wanna do God loves you

is somewhat close to what I believe, I felt like there was an implication in that answer that God is somehow unconcerned with our behavior, which I do not think is true. God loves us all no matter what we do, and nothing we do can make God loves us more or less. But, some things we do are more in line with God's will for the world than others.

I do not believe that homosexuality goes against God's will. Was it part of God's original plan? I don't know. I don't know if infertility or disease was part of God's original plan, but they are facts. Homosexuality, too, is a fact. God is revealed in the Bible, but God is also revealed in the world. And, we know from experience and research that people do not choose to be gay, and that sexual orientation can rarely be successfully changed. We know that same-sex sexual behaviors and partnerships occur among other animals. We know that gay and lesbian people make up about 3% of the population, across a wide range of populations and over various times. All in all, we know that a certain minority of people are gay, and that it is not a choice they made.

The question then becomes, what does God want for that group of people? I cannot believe that a loving God would want them to spend their entire lives without the kind of intimate partnership that God created us to thrive in. Just as some straight people choose a celibate life and are fulfilled, so too may some gay people. But, just as most straight people require a lifelong, committed partner, so too do most gay people. Denying that to them, or at least denying recognizing it as a valid relationship, does incredible damage.

The Bible was written by human beings. Nobody denies that. The question is, did they leave their humanity (which includes biases and fallibility) entirely behind as they wrote the Bible? I think the answer must be no. Jesus is the only person who has ever been both fully human and fully God. As human beings, the Biblical authors could not have stopped being fully human. And, even while they were inspired by God, they did not become fully God. The Bible contains a revelation of God. It also contains the evidence of very human biases, prejudices, desires, and doctrines. On an issue like homosexuality, this becomes especially evident.

 

[ahab]

Hi Loriersea,

God loves us all no matter what we do, and nothing we do can make God loves us more or less.

I would say not quite. God so loved the world that He sent His only son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16.
Rom 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
1 john 4 "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
That seems to be past tense. Christ Jesus is alive and reigns but God so loved us that He sent Jesus as an atonment for our sins. So God does care about what we do as He is not still sending Jesus as an atonement for sins we still do.

I do not believe that homosexuality goes against God's will. Was it part of God's original plan?

No more than heterosexuality. Was it part of God's oringinal plan? Lets hear from God Himself "In the beginning he made them male and female" - Jesus.

And, we know from experience and research that people do not choose to be gay, and that sexual orientation can rarely be successfully changed.

Citations please.!! We know that same-sex sex desires can be changed see Canadian ex-gays submission to the Eames Commission and see http://www.exodus.to/, http://narth.com/, http://www.loveinaction.org/, We know that same-sex sex is unhealthy http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

The question then becomes, what does God want for that group of people?

the same as He wants for all His creation, Jesus.

I cannot believe that a loving God would want them to spend their entire lives without the kind of intimate partnership that God created us to thrive in.

But, just as most straight people require a lifelong, committed partner, so too do most gay people. Denying that to them, or at least denying recognizing it as a valid relationship, does incredible damage.

Then you havent been able to separate sex from love.

The Bible was written by human beings. Nobody denies that. The question is, did they leave their humanity (which includes biases and fallibility) entirely behind as they wrote the Bible? I think the answer must be no. Jesus is the only person who has ever been both fully human and fully God.

But that idea comes from what the humans recored Jesus as teaching them. If you believe He was fully God and fully man then could He fully put the human part fully behind Him?

It also contains the evidence of very human biases, prejudices, desires, and doctrines. On an issue like homosexuality, this becomes especially evident.

Rubbish I think thats pie in the sky cookoo cloud land dreamings without any scriptural credibility. No citations ! Name one piece of Jesus teaching that countenances any sex or relationship other than faithful man and woman. Gen 2, Matt 19, 15, Mark 10, 7, 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim, Heb 13, Eph 5, etc etc.

peace

 

[wiggsfly]

It is no more wrong to be homosexual then it is to be blond. As a homosexual God has called you to be chaste and therefore it is going against the word of God to act on these urges.

 

[ahab]

It is no more wrong to be homosexual then it is to be blond. As a homosexual God has called you to be chaste and therefore it is going against the word of God to act on these urges.

 

[Caylin]

It is no more wrong to be homosexual then it is to be blond. As a homosexual God has called you to be chaste and therefore it is going against the word of God to act on these urges.

Watch me.

 

[loriersea]

Re: citation on the issue of "changeability"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

I am very confused by the view that homosexuality is innate, like being blond, and yet acting on that innate characteristic is immoral. That's kind of like saying it's okay to be blond, as long as you always keep your head entirely shaved, or your hair dyed brown. It's okay to be blond, but you must never let your blond hair show.

If homosexuality is innate, then it is natural. And yet same-sex acts in the Bible are presented as unnatural, particularly in the New Testament. Paul speaks, in Romans, about men who gave up "natural intercourse with women." And yet, if homosexuality is innate, then intercourse with women would *not* be natural for homosexual men. There is simply nothing in the Bible that can be interpreted as saying that homosexual acts are natural. And, you can't have it both ways. Either homosexuality is unnatural, is not innate, and God deplores not just the act of having sex with someone of the same sex but even the desire to do so, or the Bible is not God's complete and final revelation on the issue of homosexuality. I don't see how you can bring in modern psychology and science to argue that homosexuality is innate (a conclusion I very much agree with), and then say that homosexual acts must only be judged in accordance with the views of the biblical authors.

I just don't see how it can be argued that homosexuality is natural, but all homosexuals are called to be celibate. Just like not all straight people are called to be celibate--in fact the vast majority are not--so too not all gay people are called to be celibate.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Re: citation on the issue of "changeability"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

I am very confused by the view that homosexuality is innate, like being blond, and yet acting on that innate characteristic is immoral. That's kind of like saying it's okay to be blond, as long as you always keep your head entirely shaved, or your hair dyed brown. It's okay to be blond, but you must never let your blond hair show.

If homosexuality is innate, then it is natural. And yet same-sex acts in the Bible are presented as unnatural, particularly in the New Testament. Paul speaks, in Romans, about men who gave up "natural intercourse with women." And yet, if homosexuality is innate, then intercourse with women would *not* be natural for homosexual men. There is simply nothing in the Bible that can be interpreted as saying that homosexual acts are natural. And, you can't have it both ways. Either homosexuality is unnatural, is not innate, and God deplores not just the act of having sex with someone of the same sex but even the desire to do so, or the Bible is not God's complete and final revelation on the issue of homosexuality. I don't see how you can bring in modern psychology and science to argue that homosexuality is innate (a conclusion I very much agree with), and then say that homosexual acts must only be judged in accordance with the views of the biblical authors.

I just don't see how it can be argued that homosexuality is natural, but all homosexuals are called to be celibate. Just like not all straight people are called to be celibate--in fact the vast majority are not--so too not all gay people are called to be celibate.

Firstly, the notion that a website that considers all religious beliefs equal compared to a Christian perspective that there is only one Way to the Father is self-evident in there being a conflict of interest.

Secondly and in your "view", do you then believe that homosexuals simply think the opposite gender is too "icky" or so unlovable that all homosexuals have no hope in having a fulfilling relationship with them? If so, that would also seem to be duplicity in assertion... that sexual attraction was allegedly not "limited" to opposite gender, but somehow it is limited to exclude it.

 

[levi501]

It is no more wrong to be homosexual then it is to be blond. As a homosexual God has called you to be chaste and therefore it is going against the word of God to act on these urges.

It's pretty unfair and mean spirited of a God to create someone where the only way they can know romantic love is in a sinful state. That's why so many xians reject it is as a sin. If you believe that homosexual inclinations are genetic then why would a loving God do this to so many people? Why would a loving God deny so many people the ability to know this joy in order to stay true to him? A lot of xians come to the conclusion he wouldn't and the bible on the topic of homosexuality is in error or simply misinterpretted.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It's pretty unfair and mean spirited of a God to create someone ...

God created Satan too... and by that alleged "logic", it's God's fault for what Satan does? Pass.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.



BTW - the OP was "... from a Christian point of view."

 

[levi501]

God created Satan too... and by that alleged "logic", it's God's fault for what Satan does? Pass.

Anything Satan does is absolutely God's fault.
He created him knowing full well what he'd do so if he exists, God is entirely responsible for everything he's done.
I don't expect you to get this though. That would involve mixing logic with religion something I've noticed you're resistant to do.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

My point is that this is a temptation that most cannot bare. So either homsexuals are spiritually inferrior or this isn't a sin and the bible is merely wrong or misinterpretted. This is precisely the reason that fundies have a dog in the fight for discrediting any evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

BTW - the OP was "... from a Christian point of view."

And your point is... that is if you dare to be less vague?

 

[Ledifni]

Umm... I suppose some people think even Jesus Christ was not PC or ignorant of the facts enough to pretend sinners were not sinners. It's a shame when even love is redefined to something else and "it" only can be called love when it coddles rebellion and spoils the disobedient child.

Rebellion and disobedience are evil, then? It is evil to disobey an SS officer if he asks you to show him the Jews? It is evil to rebel against a government that requires you to return an escaped slave to his owner?

Defining love in terms of rebellion and disobedience is useless, because those things are only evil when the authority in question is good -- and vice versa. If "love" only happens when you punish and prevent disobedience and rebellion, CC, then what is it? You have neatly defined "love" as "making other people do what I want them to do." And, unsurprisingly, this is perfectly congruous with your attitude towards homosexuals; you "love" them by bending all your will to the task of making them stop being gay.

Perhaps you're right about love, though if that's love, then I truly do hope nobody ever loves me; that would be equivalent to giving up my right to decide what is good or evil to the person who "loves" me.

In my book, though, love is something completely different. The kind of love I want, and the kind I give, is a genuine desire to make another person happy. That includes respecting their choices; I do not force people I love to do things because I think it would be a better choice. I might persuade, but when I decide to force somebody else to act in what I think is their best interest, I am no longer loving them. That is not my business to do and it accomplishes nothing but make me feel more righteous. In short, I think that if "love" to you is "making everybody do what you want," then your version of "love" sounds remarkably like "manipulation" and "egotism."

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Anything Satan does is absolutely God's fault... {SNIP}

That sentiment alone about sums up the disqualification for the remaining opinion.

2 Peter 2:11
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.