Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[Cajun Huguenot]

No. The Bible only condemns homosexual sex - that's if the translations and interpretations of the various words are indeed as traditionally understood. That's the strongest case you can possibly make. And yet you insist that it condemns homosexuality, that homosexuality is a sin.

Do you not understand the difference between homosexuality and homosexual sex?

It's the same as the difference between heterosexuality and heterosexual sex.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are just ways of describing who people who physically and sexually attracted to - they're nothing to do with sexual activity. In other words, just as one can be a heterosexual without engaging in heterosexual sex, so one can be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual sex.

And since the however few verses it is in the Bible that are seen as referring to homosexuality (eight, I think, out of the whole Bible; there is such a thing as seeing things in perspective...why is homosexuality such a big issue for so many people?) in fact only refer to homosexual sex (that's assuming the Sodom and Gomorrah material isn't referring to lack of hospitality, and assuming the Leviticus material isn't referring to male temple prostitutes, and that's before we get onto exactly what Paul meant by arsenokoites...), someone who is homosexual isn't necessarily contravening the Biblical instructions on the subject.

Does that make sense?

David.

Hello again David,

If you look back in the thread I already posted the death verse that called for the death penalty for adultery. And thanks for making our point for us.

You see all the things you quote above we agree is STILL sin. Cursing ones parents is sin; adultery is sin, etc...

The Church, under the new Covenant dos not have anyone put to death for these things, but it still (rightly) views everyone of them as still sin, including homosexuality.

The relationship between Church and state are different under the New Covenant, which I am sure you already know to be the case. Much changed between the Old and New Covenants, but sin is still sin. Sin did not change, this is why beastiality is still sin even though it is not addressed in the New Testament Scriptures. Homosexual sin is addressed again in the New Testament Scriptures as are heterosexual sins. They are still sins.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[David Brider]

Hello David,

Thanks for the reply to my earlier post.

All homosexual sex is sin. All homosexual lust is sin and heterosexual lust is also sin.

Where do you draw the line between sexual attraction and sexual lust? I'm fairly sure that the former is acceptable - most, probably all, marriages start with some sort of physical attraction (as well, hopefully, as spiritual, emotional and mental attraction), so where is the line between that, and lust? And if there's a line in heterosexuality between attraction and lust, then how can we be sure that there's no equivalent line between accepable homosexual attraction and unacceptable lust?

If your read my posts on this thread you will find that I have tried to stress sexual sin.

Do you feel that sexual sins are more important than any other? Don't get me wrong - I agree that it looks as if the Bible does seem to say that sexual activity, outside of a loving marriage between a man and a woman, is sinful (albeit with the caveat that there are different interpretations of the verses in question such that I wouldn't want to impose that belief on others as being necessarily universal). But there are so many other things that the Bible describes as sinful, and with the world in the state that it's in I can't help feeling that majoring on sexual sin, and especially homosexual sin, to the apparent exclusion of all else, ultimately helps nobody - it means that we, as the body of Christ, aren't getting out there and feeding the starving, healing the sick, caring for the orphans and widows, and sharing the gospel in positive ways ("This is what life with Christ is like!") instead of negative ways ("Your way of life is wrong - turn from it or else!").

David.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Where do you draw the line between sexual attraction and sexual lust? I'm fairly sure that the former is acceptable - most, probably all, marriages start with some sort of physical attraction (as well, hopefully, as spiritual, emotional and mental attraction), so where is the line between that, and lust? And if there's a line in heterosexuality between attraction and lust, then how can we be sure that there's no equivalent line between accepable homosexual attraction and unacceptable lust?



Do you feel that sexual sins are more important than any other? Don't get me wrong - I agree that it looks as if the Bible does seem to say that sexual activity, outside of a loving marriage between a man and a woman, is sinful (albeit with the caveat that there are different interpretations of the verses in question such that I wouldn't want to impose that belief on others as being necessarily universal). But there are so many other things that the Bible describes as sinful, and with the world in the state that it's in I can't help feeling that majoring on sexual sin, and especially homosexual sin, to the apparent exclusion of all else, ultimately helps nobody - it means that we, as the body of Christ, aren't getting out there and feeding the starving, healing the sick, caring for the orphans and widows, and sharing the gospel in positive ways ("This is what life with Christ is like!") instead of negative ways ("Your way of life is wrong - turn from it or else!").

David.

Hello David,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Lust and attraction are different things. One is sin and the other is not.

I remember a anti-alcohol/"drinking is a sin" friend of mine asked me how much beer can I drink before it is a sin (being drunk). The hones answer is there is no hard fast rule. The line between drunk and tipsy is dynamic line with a number of variables. We no when we crossed them once we've done it, but we can step over that line before we know it. THis is why I stay a good distance from the line.

I am married and I am attracted to pretty women. I can look at a pretty women and say "she looks nice." But I try to avoid being placed in temptation. If a pretty women is dressed in a manner that I find sexy, then I know that I should avoid looking at her. IF I know women dress ways that will tempt me at a certain place than I avoid that place.

I hope that answers your question. There is know hard fast line, but God knows our heart and your and my secret sins. We sin more when we act on and yeild to temptations.

All sin is sin. Sexual sin involved capital punishment in the Old Covenant economy and many other sins (heterosexual and homosexual) did not. I think capital crimes were more dangerous to the culture and that is why the punishment was so severe.

Some sins will be judged more harshly than others on the last day.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Be11e]

Jesus still pointed out the woman's sin, though, and told her to go and sin no more. He wasn't saying "Go and sin some more" there. We're throwing stones? You realize those weren't analogous stones that Jesus was referring to, right? He was literally saying "You who are without sin, throw stones at this woman until she's dead.". I don't think there are any fatalities on a discussion board, much less punishment exacted in any way. What you will see, I'm sure, are people rejecting an idea that Christianity doesn't require repentance.

I see the stones that were thrown on the literal level, and the deeper level. The stones represent the judgement and harsh words of the onlookers...that's why i feel stones are being thrown on this forum at homosexuals. There are 'fatalities' on a discussion board...the Christians who have lost faith because of these threads (and there are definately a few). I haven't denied that homosexuality is a sin...i know it is, the bible makes it very clear, and i agree completely that all sins need repentance. I just hate seeing the lack of love and all the judgement on these threads.

 

[hillbillypreacher]

If we question what the Word of God says, how can we know any truth at all, except what is right in your own heart. God said in his Word that homosexuality is sin. That means that the blood of Jesus was shed on Calvary to atone for it. There is forgivness in Christ. God will forgive even this sin if those involved will just cry out to him. The price has already been paid, PRAISE GOD!!!

When a person is truly sold out for God, the question is not is this a sin or not, rather it is how can I best please God? If we look at many issues that we are facing in today's world, they can be solved by asking this question.

 

[ReformedChapin]

All I will say is this.

Two Christian persons who are married by a minister needn't fear for their salvation on account of their love for one another.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God,
1 John 4:7

Anyone who is interested in an open and affirming Protestant church, check out www.ucc.org

Or

[wiki] United Church of Christ [/wiki]

Here's a short rundown of some of the spirit-driven 'firsts' of the UCC

Distinctive Beliefs and Doctrines

The UCC is firmly committed to ecumenism and congregationalism. The motto of the church is Jesus' prayer from the book of John "That they may all be one". This prayer expresses a spirit of unity which desires to heal the divisions within Christ's church.
The UCC also believes that "there is yet more light and truth to break forth from God's holy word". This expresses the belief that biblical interpretation is not defined by the past but instead that the bible has truths that speak specifically to our present conditions. The UCC is deeply committed to the inclusion of all people. This commitment is long standing and has manifested itself in several "firsts".

-In 1700 the first anti-slavery pamphlet published in America, The Selling of Joseph, was written by Rev. Samuel Sewall.

Samuel Sewall

-In 1785 Lemuel Haynes is ordained. He is the first African American ordained by an established Protestant church.

Lemuel Haynes

-In 1846 the first mixed-race anti slavery society is formed by Congregationalists who helped defend the Amistad prisoners.

-In 1853 Antoinette Brown became the first woman to be ordained a minister. She is perhaps the first woman in human history to lead a Christian congregation.

Antionette Brown

-In 1972 the UCC ordains the Rev. William R Johnson, he is the first openly homosexual man to serve as minister of a mainline protestant denomination.

-In 1976 the UCC's General Synod elected the Rev. Joseph H. Evans president of the UCC. He is the first African American to lead a mixed race mainline denomination.

-In 2005 at the 25th General Synod, the UCC adopted a resolution calling for equal marriage rights regardless of gender. The UCC is the first mainline protestant church to affirm equal marriage rights. However, the Congregationalist organization of the UCC means that this resolution is not binding for individual congregations. It is instead a call for all congregations to prayerfully study and consider adopting a policy of marrying persons regardless of their gender. It is also a call for political support for marriage equality. The following is a press release made after the vote to pass this resolution. This press statement can also be found here.

In support of equal marriage rights for all. (Two proposals merged;passed as amended) Affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and affirms equal access for all persons to the basic rights, institutional protections and quality of life conferred by the recognition of marriage. Also, calls on congregations to prayerfully consider adopting wedding policies that do not discriminate against gay or lesbian couples. Asks all settings of the church to urge legislative support for marriage equality. Asks local congregations to prayerfully discuss and study marriage equality. Recognizes that the UCC is not of one mind on this issue and understands that discussions will be difficult. ​

The full text resolution itself can be found here. A browser capable of reading pdf files is required.

This resolution is in keeping with the UCC’s long standing commitment to inclusion of all peoples and reflects common scriptural interpretation among UCC congregations. The following is a short excerpt from the resolution text; it briefly outlines these interpretations.

In the Gospel we find ground for a definition of marriage and family relationships based on affirmation of the full humanity of each partner, lived out in mutual care and respect for one another…The biblical call to justice and compassion (to love one’s neighbor as one’s self) provides the mandate for marriage equality. Justice as right relationship seeks both personal and communal well being. It is embodied in interpersonal relationships and institutional structures, including marriage. Justice seeks to eliminate marginalization for reasons of race, gender, sexual orientation or economic status. ​

External Links


Official site: United Church of Christ

We can advertise our church here? Especially when their presenting an arguable standing?

 

[ReformedChapin]

If we question what the Word of God says, how can we know any truth at all, except what is right in your own heart. God said in his Word that homosexuality is sin. That means that the blood of Jesus was shed on Calvary to atone for it. There is forgivness in Christ. God will forgive even this sin if those involved will just cry out to him. The price has already been paid, PRAISE GOD!!!

When a person is truly sold out for God, the question is not is this a sin or not, rather it is how can I best please God? If we look at many issues that we are facing in today's world, they can be solved by asking this question.

Unfortountaly brother there is many "christians" in sheeps clothing. It's our job however to stand for God's word and commands.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

We can advertise our church here? Especially when their presenting an arguable standing?

I'm just out here spreading the good news the best way I know how brother.

But if you have a standing that is not argued over by SOME part of Christ's holy living body, I would like to see it. Or maybe I wouldn't, I have a feeling it is kai. Or maybe de.

 

[DivineRAiN]

Cajun: Have your read the ancient Roman historian Suetonius' The Lives of the Caesars? It shows the debauchery and self-indulgent lifestyles of the ruling classes during the time of Christ, the Apostles and the Early Church.

haven't read it, but I can imagine.

What the Scriptures say is what counts. Popular culture does not change the truthfullness of what God says in His Word.

or the opinions of heterosexuals at the time

 

[ReformedChapin]

I'm just out here spreading the good news the best way I know how brother.

But if you have a standing that is not argued over by SOME part of Christ's holy living body, I would like to see it. Or maybe I wouldn't, I have a feeling it is kai. Or maybe de.

Considering everyone in this forum is supposed to be christian I fail to see the reason to spread Gospel. Indeed any position in Christs body can be argued, but if you post it here your setting yourself up for a debate.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Cajun: Have your read the ancient Roman historian Suetonius' The Lives of the Caesars? It shows the debauchery and self-indulgent lifestyles of the ruling classes during the time of Christ, the Apostles and the Early Church.

haven't read it, but I can imagine.

What the Scriptures say is what counts. Popular culture does not change the truthfullness of what God says in His Word.

or the opinions of heterosexuals at the time

Hello DR,

I agree that is is the what the Scriptures say that counts. Homosexuality was ok in much of the pagan world. Paedophelia was common between Greek men and boys. Plato said that only barbarians and others opposed to philosophy disaproved of homosexual relationships.

The Scriptures have always opposed homosexual relations. At the same time the Scriptures (1 Corinthians) make clear that this is a forgivable sin in the sight of God.

Our modern popular culture is closer to the pagan Roman and Greek cultures than it is to Biblical/Scriptural ideas of morality. In this day, like then, people can legally have all sorts of immoral relatitionships, but what they can not do is try to impose that same immoral behaviour on the Old and New Covenant Scriptures to justify thier immorality.

If people take exception to items found in the Bible, that is between them, their church and God. They are not, however, free to twist those same Scriptures and make them to say what they do not say and not expect opposition in a Christian forum.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[ebia]

Hello ebia,

Thanks for the comments.

To answer your first question: No, it is still sin, but your questions shows that you missed or have ignored the point being made. There are no Adultery Pride days. Men or Women sinning by cheating on their spouses are not celebrating and/or reveling in thier sins as are many in the homosexual community.

Those who go through a divorce first are. And, indeed, many who don't (eg Shane Warne - Australian Cricketer) are also.

Adultery and homosexuality are both horrible sins. In the old Covenant both were punishable by death. In the New Covenant they are still sin and still just as horrible, and those that practice such things, if they do not repent, will be judged by God in eternity.

That's your intepretation.

Today there are many in the world (and here) who want to excuse what God calls sin. It is a terrible thing to do, because it just speeding people on to condemnation and not throwing them a lifeline (i.e. the Gospel).

God's grace is not dependent on a perfect understanding of what is and is not sinful - which is fortunate as otherwise we would all be toast.

Adultery is not debated here, because not to many "Christians" claim to be "whoremonger Christians" or "**** Christians" (terms used for men and women who like sex outside of marrige) but there are a number of "homosexual Christians."

I know a fair number of Christians who are openly divorced and remarried (ie committing adultery according to Christ), and many churches are happy to explititly encourage that by remarrying people.

Some people may be liberated from the temptation of former sins and others may struggle with them all their lives, but God will know the heart.

Indeed he will, and he will tell whether poeple were making excuses, or genuinely seeking him and his will. You can do neither.

These forums can be cruel. People don't see and speak face to face here and can be more blunt than they would be in person. That is something we all need to avoid, but that is no excuse for others to come along and try to justify what the Word of God (all the way through) calls sin.

No it doesn'. Neither Christ nor the bible even mentions monogomous homosexual relationships, let alone call it sinful.

Homosexual activity is sin, just like adultery and premarital sex.

According to your interpretation. According to my intepretation homosexual activity is sometime sinful, just like hetrosexual activity.

They must be repented of, just like liars and gossips etc... must repent.

Yet no-one is making the same fuss about Christians who gossip or bear false witness - both extremely common in CF Christian only sections.

 

[ebia]

No because your concept of God is subjective ours is biblical.

Your's is subject to your intepretation of the bible and experience, so is mine. You can pretend that your concept of God is somehow more objective, but that doesn't make it true.

No strawman, it's values of the liberal movement, you just proved it yourself.

How so? Please demonstrate how I have said something equivalent to your strawman/not strawman.

I haven't seen one person do that here...<edited SJ>

Your comment is unclear.

If homosexuality was a fact, the scripture would be false and there would be no point in being Christian.

Christians follow Christ, not scripture. Scripture have more holes than a collander and Christ would still be worth following. However, homosexuality is a fact, so I guess your scripture based faith is a falsehood, according to you.

And stop putting words into my mouth, I never said that all facts will only come from scripture.

Then stop asking for everything to be proved from scripture. A demand that one does that can only be reasonable if everything can be proved from scripture.

In accordance to God's will.

God isn't natural (part of nature), so such a definition is counter to reasonable usage.

This isn't according to the Christian God, again you are practacing subjectivism.. <edited SJ>

When Christ said "all the law and the prophets follow from these" he was lying?

Nope, it's what scripture says not what I want it to say.

It's your interpretation. An interpretation that can never be independent of the baggage that you bring to it.

This has been a doctronial teaching for more than 2000 years then suddnely you liberals think that holy spirit is learn new things. Remember, God is consistent, we're not.

Exactly - we are quite capable of getting things wrong - misinterpreting God - for hundreds or even thousands of years, just as we did over race and any number of other issues.

Sorry, but either the whole bible is true cover to cover or it's all false.

That simply does not follow.

You can't pick and choose what you like, this is further part of subjectivism.

That's ok, because that's not what I am doing.

 

[ebia]

Yeah, the anti-interrecial marrige "Christains" did that. They are about as Godly as the liberal christains who support Gay marrige.

In other words, your intepretation is infallible, but everyone who disagrees with it is bringing their prejudices to bear. Sorry, that doesn't wash - your interpretation is as fallible as anyone else's.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello ebia,

Thanks again for you comments. He differ a good bit, but I do appreciate what you say.

I wrote "Adultery and homosexuality are both horrible sins. In the old Covenant both were punishable by death. In the New Covenant they are still sin and still just as horrible, and those that practice such things, if they do not repent, will be judged by God in eternity."

You responded this way "That's your intepretation." On that point you are wrong. That is over 3000 years of interpretation of God's covenant people. Ancient Israel and the all Christian Church up untill very recently all agreed on this point (as I ahve said many times before on this thread). Yours is the "interpretation" that is new. And your is an enterpritation that is following the thinking of secularist thought. Liberal Churches tend to follow secular liberalism. On this issue liberal Christians have tended to either ignore the teachings of the Bible and the Church for millennia or they invent exegetical tap dances to get around the clear teaching of the Bible on this issue.

It was clear for almost 2000 years, why is it now not so clear after the secular world thinkers said it was ok?

I do agree with you when you say that GOd's grace is not dependent of perfect understanding. If it were we would all be doomed, but God does require repentence from sin, and homosexual activity is sin. Unrepented and continued practice of this sin, like continued unrepented practice of adultery and countless other unrepentented sins will bring judgement from God.

I don't disagree with you, that the churches often turn a blind eye to ungodly divorce and remarriage. This is a great sin on our part.

We need to work to correct that sin, but it does not follow that we must now sin further and allow another sinful practice winked at as well. We need to correct our error, not add to it by justifying homosexual sin too.

If you read my post you will see that I have consistantly put both heterosexual sin and homosexual sin on an equal footing. Both are capitol crimes in the Old Covenant and reaffirmed as sin in the New Covenant.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[ebia]

If people take exception to items found in the Bible, that is between them, their church and God. They are not, however, free to twist those same Scriptures and make them to say what they do not say and not expect opposition in a Christian forum.

In other words is an irregular verb:
"I arrive at a scriptural understanding"
"You intepret scripture"
"He twists God's word".

Sorry, but you don't get the final say as to who is correctly interpreting the bible and who is twisting it.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

In other words is an irregular verb:
"I arrive at a scriptural understanding"
"You intepret scripture"
"He twists God's word".

Sorry, but you don't get the final say as to who is correctly interpreting the bible and who is twisting it.

Hello ebia,

You are correct I don't get the final say. I don't get a say at all. I've read it and studied it. I read Church History and the Chruch Fathers and leaders in the Church since the Fathers.

Those that came before you and me (until very recently) have been very consistent and spoken with one voice on this issue. It is the modern, more liberal Christians that are out of accord with the consistent teaching of the New Covenant Church and with teachers in Old Covenant Israel.

I have never claimed to speak on my own authority. I am but a theological and exegetical dwarf, but I am a dwarf who is standing on the shoulders of theological/Christian giants.

Their interpretation is solid. I would not trust my own "interpretation" either if it was indisagreement with so many who had come before me. I am amazed at how some people so flippantly dismiss the consistent teachings of all who have come before us. To do so would scare me to death.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[ebia]

Hello ebia,

You are correct I don't get the final say. I don't get a say at all. I've read it and studied it.

It?

I read Church History and the Chruch Fathers and leaders in the Church since the Fathers.

Ok, so we are agreed on the need to look beyond scripture itself.

Those that came before you and me (until very recently) have been very consistent and spoken with one voice on this issue. It is the modern, more liberal Christians that are out of accord with the consistent teaching of the New Covenant Church and with teachers in Old Covenant Israel.

Now, while I respect the interpretation of the bible, and the theology, of those who have gone before I don't accept it's infallibility. God hasn't suddenly stopped correcting all the mistakes we made.

I have never claimed to speak on my own authority. I am but a theological and exegetical dwarf, but I am a dwarf who is standing on the shoulders of theological/Christian giants.

Their interpretation is solid. I would not trust my own "interpretation" either if it was indisagreement with so many who had come before me.

That argument, IMO, puts those who have gone before ahead of God. If they did make a mistake (and they have made many that have already been corrected), then God is no longer allowed to correct us. In your model, we are permanently stuck with in any understanding simply becaue that's what has been held to before. What they have to say (and why) is worth investigating, but in the end, like anything else, it has to stand (or fall) on it's own merits.

I am amazed at how some people so flippantly dismiss the consistent teachings of all who have come before us. To do so would scare me to death.

I don't disagree with them lightly, but even the views of those with the most impressive credentials must be challenged to see if it holds up.

Thanks again for you comments. He differ a good bit, but I do appreciate what you say.

I wrote "Adultery and homosexuality are both horrible sins. In the old Covenant both were punishable by death. In the New Covenant they are still sin and still just as horrible, and those that practice such things, if they do not repent, will be judged by God in eternity."

You responded this way "That's your intepretation." On that point you are wrong. That is over 3000 years of interpretation of God's covenant people.

My statement was incomplete rather than wrong - it is your interpretation AND the interpretation of many past and present. The point is that it is an interpretation, and the one that you accept. In that sense it is yours.

Yours is the "interpretation" that is new.

Perhaps. But new isn't always wrong (or right). It has to stand or fall in the long run on its own merits, not its age.

And your is an enterpritation that is following the thinking of secularist thought. Liberal Churches tend to follow secular liberalism.

That's one view. Naturally not one I entirely share.

On this issue liberal Christians have tended to either ignore the teachings of the Bible and the Church for millennia or they invent exegetical tap dances to get around the clear teaching of the Bible on this issue.

I'm certainly not ignoring the bible, neither am I being led by a vested interest in a new interpretation, nor am I primarily informed by secular thinking. My view is honestly held, arrived at by prayerful reflection on scripture and the call and actions of God in my life and those I observe around me. I'll thank you not to (directly or indirectly) ascribe motives to me that are based on untrue supposition.

 

[Catherineanne]

When you provide scripture that God made gays

If I were to 'provide' Scripture, that would make me God.

Use the Scripture you have already, and try and find for yourself where it says that mankind is two species. The Bible I have says that mankind is made in the image of God, both male and female. That means everyone, without exception.

 

[Catherineanne]

My favorite is the "everyone is a sinner so we should accept homosexuals as they are." That implies that we should accept all sin in the church, that means an unrepentant murder can lead the church like any other or an unbeliever.

You distort this position. Everyone is a sinner, and therefore we are to look to our own sins, and sort them out, before condemning those around us.

For the simple reason, that if you convict a gay person of their 'sin', and they repent and then die and go to heaven, and at the same time you die in your sin, then you do not go to heaven. No prizes for saving other people's souls, if you are in a state of sin. But only when you yourself are without sin.

Anyone want Scripture on this one?