Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[brightmorningstar]

http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/3558

Colin Coward: I think that this distinction is not now and never has been tenable. It brings in a dualism which is unacceptable to heterosexual people and is equally unacceptable for lesbian and gay people. We need to integrate our orientation with out behaviour, with ouir desire to love and to be in relationship, and the church has got to change its teaching, that is the only possible outcome that is going to resolve this.

It is at odds with Lambeth 1.10 which distinguishes between the two, and it is an indication that the minority wish the majority to abandon the faith once delivered, and at odds with the Biblical testimony.

The likes of these gay pressure groups within the church are much more a threat to the gospel and the historic apostolic Christian faith than atheism and secualrism.

There is no concept of heterosexual and lesbian and gay people in God's Biblical testimony. God created male and female and it was for this reason a man shall... be united with his wife. Because of so much sexual immorality each man and woman should have their own husband or wife.
Men who have sex with men and who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men are described in the Bible as those who supress the truth with their wickedness.

People in these pressure groups are entitled to their views, but they are not Christ's teaching and thus not Christian. The whole gay and lesbian approach to the Bible is from the standpoint of what the Bible is actually saying is a lie.

 

[HisHomeMaker]

...they are not Christ's teaching and thus not Christian.

Many things that Christians do are not Christ's teaching. I am a sinner. Being a sinner is not my excuse to continue sinning without conscience or repentance. I do strive to follow Jesus. Am I not a Christian? At what point on the spectrum of sin will I become or stop being worthy of the name Christian?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

This is an obsession.

Most Anglicans just get on with the job of being Christian. God has given is plenty to do.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Naomi is correct, however there those in the Church who have made Decided that the Church of Christ must change from what has been the church's traditional understanding of homosexuality (which conforms to the teaching of Scripture) -- to one that lines up with the views of the secular left on this issue.

Homosexuality is one of many sexual sins. We should seek to ordain anyone with a sexual lifestyle that is outside the norms allowed by the Word of God.

This is an issue because ther are people in the Church who want to make an exception for homosexual sin when it comes to ordaining ministers of the Gospel.

No one advocating a "swinger" lifestyle should be considered for the priesthood. No married man who lives an adulterous lifestyle should be a minister.

Adultery and fornication are sexual sins -- no one openly living in such a lifestyle should be told, well "that was then, this is now -- so your ok."

The Bible (Old and New testaments) are clear in saying that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sin. I am only willing to discuss this issue, because of the attempt to make an exception for homasexual lifestyles.

Kenith

 

[ebia]

This is an obsession.

Most Anglicans just get on with the job of being Christian. God has given is plenty to do.

QFT

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I readily admit that this subject may be an obsession for some people (on both aides of the issue). Still it is an important issue because the different positions taken show that people have very different understandings on what the Church is and what it should be.

There are radical difference not on how to interpret the Bible, but on what the Bible really is. Is it "God breathed as St. Paul wrote or is it just a book with someoving stories that help us to find god in ourselves? A third option is it is just a bunch of ancient myths and silly stories and we do need it (in fact to taken seriously it is dangerous and promotes anti-modern bigotry).

Of course there are other variations of how we can understand the Church and the Bible.

This issue only reveals more fundamental differences about how we understand Christ, the Church and the Bible.

Kenith

 

[ebia]

Yes and no. We are all inclined to work with a "canon within the canon", and while some onone side may tend to dismiss or explain away certain passages it's often because of their conviction of the implications of another, while some the other side are really doing no more than using selected passages to support what they already think they know.

Few are really open to having the bible challenge what we think.

 

[Phenbert]

For me, The Bible is an attempt by man to understand the will of God-- not divine law transcribed word for word. And so I don’t hold with a literal interpretation of the Bible concerning this matter.
I think it all comes down to whether or not you consider homosexuality a sin. I would define a sin as anything that goes against the natural laws as laid down by God. It has been found that various animal species engage in homosexual activity. Animals are not subject to sin. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that homosexual activity although rare is not completely unnatural. Why would God allow such activity in animals if he wasn’t in some way comfortable with the idea?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Yes and no. We are all inclined to work with a "canon within the canon", and while some onone side may tend to dismiss or explain away certain passages it's often because of their conviction of the implications of another, while some the other side are really doing no more than using selected passages to support what they already think they know.

Few are really open to having the bible challenge what we think.

What you say is correct at times for some, and all to often, for others.

I stand by what was posted above but I would add that a bit more to clarify somethings.

There are items that the whole Church has agreed upon up until the last century. The understanding of the topic of this thread is one of those items. It is a subject not mentioned often in Scripture, but when mentioned it says what was mentioned above. The Early Church Fathers also do not mention this subject often, but when they do, they strongly condemn the practice.

It is only in VERY recent times that this subjects traditional/biblical view has been challenged. Unless we believe in an evolving morality (which is another item the whole Church has consistently denied) then we should stick with the Scriptures and the tradition of the whole church.

The pressure to change the tradition on this issue came from secularism and there are very serious attempts to baptize the new view into the Church.

I find it incredible to believe the WHOLE church got this matter wrong for 1900 years. I also believe that this issue is only an outward manifestation of far greater differences in how we see Christ, His Church and His Scriptures.

There is one certainty in this discussion and that is somebody in this discussion is flat out, absolutely wrong in some fundamental aspects about the Christian Faith.

One or the other position is certainly leading away from the faith. In the end we will stand before the Lord and we will then know the truth with absolute certainty.

Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

For me, The Bible is an attempt by man to understand the will of God-- not divine law transcribed word for word. And so I don’t hold with a literal interpretation of the Bible concerning this matter.
I think it all comes down to whether or not you consider homosexuality a sin. I would define a sin as anything that goes against the natural laws as laid down by God. It has been found that various animal species engage in homosexual activity. Animals are not subject to sin. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that homosexual activity although rare is not completely unnatural. Why would God allow such activity in animals if he wasn’t in some way comfortable with the idea?

Phenbert, some animals also eat their young, but I still believe it would be a sin to follow their example. If a male lion takes over a pride, he will kill all the young that were fathered by the previous head of that pride, but I do not believe it is OK to murder stepchildren.

Nature is (according to Scripture) fallen, or to use C.S. Lewis' phrase from his space trilogy, our world is "bent" because of sin.

The Bible was not written by God (except for the stone tablets of the Law) and it was not dictated, still Paul says it is "God breathed" and of Course Peter affirms that Paul was writing "Scripture" and in what he wrote about the sexual matter in question.

As to the rest of your post, I think my above comments apply.

Kenith

 

[MKJ]

It isn't the root of the argument, it's a rather shriveled fruit.

 

[ebia]

It isn't the root of the argument, it's a rather shriveled fruit.

Very well put.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Thanks for the responses.

I thank Cajun Huguenot, for posting views in response that are shared by many in the church

however there those in the Church who have made Decided that the Church of Christ must change from what has been the church's traditional understanding of homosexuality (which conforms to the teaching of Scripture) -- to one that lines up with the views of the secular left on this issue.

The Bible (Old and New testaments) are clear in saying that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sin. I am only willing to discuss this issue, because of the attempt to make an exception for homasexual lifestyles.

The NT warns of false teaching being introduced. This is a classic example as highlighted in the OP. God created male and female to be union, so homosexual acts are not only contrary to God’s purposes but also anatomically obviously dysfunctional.

This is also a classic example of how many will not put up with sound doctrine but get their ears tickled by fine sounding arguments.

It is also a classic example of how deception and the father of lies operates, people get used to constantly hearing ‘gay christian’ and get fed up with people challenging it.. so it gets accepted.

It is also a classic example of the ridiculous. There is no scripture that can possibly support countenancing same sex relations, listening to people say why they don’t agree with what a string of scriptures throughout the Bible says without having any to support their view means they aren’t even in the debate, they don’t have anything to debate with except their unbelief. Comments such as “really open to having the bible challenge what we think.” are obviously therefore hopelessly wrong.

With comments such as “Most Anglicans just get on with the job of being Christian. God has given is plenty to do. “is the least true with the ones who continually call themselves ‘gay christians’ promoting the faulty ‘sexuality’ concept rather than getting on with the job of being Christian. Yet this is often levelled at those who challenge the deception rather than those who propose it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

We also see the same arguments repeated over. As well as some animals indulging in attempts at same sex acts, some also eat their young as Cajun Huguenot pointed out. The claim of homosexuality in animals is frequently used, the response is never addressed. It’s a wearing down tactic.

 

[ebia]

We also see the same arguments repeated over. As well as some animals indulging in attempts at same sex acts, some also eat their young as Cajun Huguenot pointed out. The claim of homosexuality in animals is frequently used, the response is never addressed. It's a wearing down tactic.

That applies equally both ways. The arguments have been rehearsed over and over. The conclusions will remain ever different because the axioms to which those arguments are being applied are different and the priorities are different.

 

[brightmorningstar]

MKJ and ebia,

It isn't the root of the argument, it's a rather shriveled fruit.

I am happy to debate the issue. Your response doesn’t addresses the question, it merely gives your opinion on it.
So show me where the concept of gay and straight, or heterosexual and homosexual is supported in the Bible? Otherwise your response is shrivelled fruit.

Its important that Christians are able to debate this without being tossed about on the wind of false teaching and by the cunning crafty deception employed.

Let me elaborate further. Someone who is called heterosexual means they have an attraction for the opposite sex. That means nothing for a Christian or in terms of God's purposes. A heterosexual may engage in adultery and all kinds of fornication, or may indulge in opposite sex paedophilia or may be faithfully married. Only one of those heterosexual actions is God's purpose, the others are error. So what does heterosexual mean? Its meaningless in God's purposes and is only any use to distinguish between opposite sex and same sex attraction and behaviour which is also against God's purpose.
So as soon as one debates in terms of heterosexual and homosexual, the sexual desire, instead of male and female, what God has anatomically created for purposes, one is using a faulty concept. When one is identifying themselves gay, or their beliefs 'gay christian' then they have already missed the truth.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

That applies equally both ways. The arguments have been rehearsed over and over. The conclusions will remain ever different because the axioms to which those arguments are being applied are different and the priorities are different.

Again, like which ones exactly. Again you have given your opinion but no examples or evidence to support it.
If we are to follow animals it would be for some of us to eat our young as well as display homosexuality.
What examples equally as illogical can be applied to the other way?

Nor have you addressed the above post which is a continuation of the OP, which is the topic.

 

[ebia]

You haven't understood MKJs comment.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
Again, like which ones exactly. Again you have given your opinion but no examples or evidence to support it.
If we are to follow animals it would be for some of us to eat our young as well as display homosexuality.
What examples equally as illogical can be applied to the other way?

Exactly your own argument-from-anatomy, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

Exactly your own argument-from-anatomy, for exactly the same reasons.

No idea what you are talking about. In what way anatomically?
Anatomically two animals or humans of the same sex cant have sexual intercourse. All they can do is intercourse with various parts of the body.
What exactly are you thinking of here?