Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[razzelflabben]

While you are completly correct in what you say, many of the gay people who post here do not think that homosexuality is a sin and therefore the sexual contact that they have with their husbands/wives is not a sin either. It could be said what is "homosexual" sex ? If you are refering to any type of sexual contact between the same sex, if the act is not done in love yes it is sin as per the homosexual acts described in the bible, however the same goes for hetrosexual sex contacts that are not done in love. Also yes the Lord can change people, but what he can do and what he does do are two different things. However I agree totally with you that it should not be us that try to change people but the Holy Spirit, he is so much better at speaking to us and working in our lives.


Fejao x

I am reviewing the post to see if there is non justification evidence to say that God does not view homosexual acts as sin but I am still looking for that "proof" So, until I see compeling scripture to the contrays, my discussions will continue to be based on the idea that homosexual acts are sinful. Note this is not to say that homosexuality is sinful. You are right, and support other posts I have made when you say that heterosexuals fall prey to a host of sexual sins that the church often overlooks. This is greivous and I have taken on a few of those discussions as well. You are also right in saying that what the Holy Spirit does is not always in line with what He can do. This is why it is important to understand that it is not the homosexuality that is sinnful but rather the acts of homosexuality. See, if we yeild to God's control over our lives, He gives us the power to abstain from sin, all sin. Why He would choose to allow some to remain tempted by homosexuality I cannot say but He does, others I have heard about, He frees from the temptation, why, again I cannot say those are His decisions alone, but what I can be sure of is that His grace is always sufficient to overcome sin.

I hesitate to post this next comment because I do not want the thread discussion to be shifted but I think we can learn something from this example so please everyone refrain from using this to change the subject of the discussion and focus on the point made.

My husband has been a porn addict for many many years, as our marriage progressed, it became an issue, not because looking at a picture is so terrible but because the Holy Spirit convicted us both that lust (the end result of porn) is a sin and must be dealt with. Now to say that the road to overcoming this addiction has been easy would be a terrible lie and to say that were are no longer struggles would be as big a lie. In fact, there are still times he falls, but the more he practises, the easier it is to abstain from lustful thoughts and behaviors. The end result has been somewhat surprising for me in that I never really considered it a sin before. The result has been a marriage relationship that I thought was great, being greater and closer, and my husbands relationship with God, greater and closer. Kind of like you don't know what you are missing until you have it idea.

Sometimes, it is impossible to understand what God is doing, sometimes it is extremely hard to understand why He says what He says, but when we allow ourselves to be transformed to His (God's) image, we can be sure the result will always be better than what we currently have.

 

[razzelflabben]

While you are completly correct in what you say, many of the gay people who post here do not think that homosexuality is a sin and therefore the sexual contact that they have with their husbands/wives is not a sin either. It could be said what is "homosexual" sex ? If you are refering to any type of sexual contact between the same sex, if the act is not done in love yes it is sin as per the homosexual acts described in the bible, however the same goes for hetrosexual sex contacts that are not done in love. Also yes the Lord can change people, but what he can do and what he does do are two different things. However I agree totally with you that it should not be us that try to change people but the Holy Spirit, he is so much better at speaking to us and working in our lives.


Fejao x

I just had a post failure, at least best as I can tell, so I will try to recreate.

I am still reviewing the link information presented on this thread, but until I see some non justification scriptural evidence to the contrary, all of my posts will be based on homosexual acts are sin. It is important to note here that homosexuality is not the sin, but rather the act of homosexuality. To that end, you are correct, there are many heterosexual sex acts that are sinful and I have found myself involved in many of those discussions, it greives me that the church does not involve itself so greatly into all acts of sin as it does a few that they decide to pick and choose. You are also right, that what the Holy Spirit does and what He can do are not always the same thing. Why, that isn't for me to know,

{I hesitate to post this next comment in that I do not want to shift the focus of this thread, so everyone please stay focused, I do think this example can help to clarify some things.}

My husband has been a porn addict for many many years, as our marriage progressed, it became an issue, not because looking at a picture is so terrible but because the Holy Spirit convicted us both that lust (the end result of porn) is a sin and must be dealt with. Now to say that the road to overcoming this addiction has been easy would be a terrible lie and to say that were are no longer struggles would be as big a lie. In fact, there are still times he falls, but the more he practises, the easier it is to abstain from lustful thoughts and behaviors. The end result has been somewhat surprising for me in that I never really considered it a sin before. The result has been a marriage relationship that I thought was great, being greater and closer, and my husbands relationship with God, greater and closer. Kind of like you don't know what you are missing until you have it idea. God could have simply changed my husband, taken away His desire for porn and lustful thoughts, but instead, He in His wisdom chose to allow my husband to struggle with the temptations and thus strength relationships as well as faith, trust, and obedience to God.

 

[Shane Roach]

Really? This doesn't match with my understanding of what has happened to many televangelists. Some of them refused to repent and they are not only accepted, they continue to lead. Bush has not been excommunicated from the Methodist church even though he lied about WMD's in Iraq and refuses to repent. The church seems much more likely to mete out punishment to homosexuals rather than to adulterers and such.

Goodness. Could you get any more out in left field? Start a new thread for Bush bashing wouldya!

Anyhow, uh. I don't even know what to say. Whatever floats your boat. As to adulterers, they do not have a faction out there claiming it's not a sin is one reason I don't argue that point much. In fact, the reason the church doesn't deal with that much is because of precisely the same social pressure as you are now applying regarding homosexuality. Church leaders are constantly under pressure to enlarge their churches rather than be the sorts of leaders that he Apostles were, strictly watching over their flocks for the sake of the brotherhood of Christians rather than for popular culture trends.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well it doesn't help people understand the position because it doesn't address the point that there are no references to acceptable homosexual relationships in the Bible, several references that it is sin, a full and complete description of what the plan for marriage and sex was from the beggining, reiterated by Jesus, and countered by not one shred of evidence for the last several thousand years. If I'm married, but I love some other women, is it ok to have sex with the other woman since it is in love and not a cult activity? What if my wife actually agrees to it, so no harm no foul?

Whatever excuses can be made up for homosexual sex in order to separate it from the Biblical denunciations can be said for multiple sins, which was already pointed out by Outspoken.

If you want to make progress, whatever you may define as progress, you have to address those shortcomings along with the problem of church discipline, which I have mentioned repeatedly. The only answers I get are things apparently meant to make me fearful to bring it up again. I'm not fearful about that. Sure, excomminucation or whatever you want to call it is a serious step that should not be taken frivolously, but how is this at all frivolous.

You provide no scholarship or literary proof that this newinterpretation, and it is new, is actually a valid one. You merely assert over and over again there is room for doubt. Well, in one sense there is always room for doubt, and I think that's why the Bible makes it clear that with repentance, anyone can come back into the church. But barring that, there doesn't seem to be any room for doubt about the sinfulness of homosexual activity. At least, I have seen nothing in the several years since this has been thrust upon the church that gives me any understanding where that doubt comes from, which, incidentally, is why this subject concerns me so deeply.

I was going to address this issue of church discipline later, to give time to clarify some other issues first but I guess now is as good a time as any. I am assuming you are refering to Matt. 18:15-35 if you are refering to something else, please let me know.

the first thing we must understand about this passage is that it does not say unrepentant sin it says a sin against you. This is something between members of the body, not a member or the body and God. Therefore, homosexuality does not apply to this passage.

Secondly, there are a list of steps that must be followed before the person is "kicked" out of the church. Go privately, if that doesn't work, take a witness, if that doesn't work, go before the church (I'm guessing that in the case of homoexuality, the person would leave the church on there own by this time but let us move on in the passage.) If that doesn't work, verse.17 treat him as you would a heathen or tax collecter.

Now lets take a moment to think about this, if I am to treat him like a heathen that does not mean that I excommunicate him from the church, but rather treat him as though he is a non believer. The people I know and churched I have attended, by in large try to convert a non believer rather than to excommunicate them from fellowship. They invite them to church, carry in dinners, bible studies, etc. for the purpose of introducing the non believer to Christ, big difference that kicking the person from the church.

Don't stop there though, read on, we see a sturn warning in vs. 18 against banning one from church, then teachings on sin and forgiveness, and another stern warning against unforgivness. The passage is not about the unrepentant believer, but rather the hearts and behavior of the believer as is in the body of believers.

 

[Shane Roach]

You obviously haven't seen all the data. I understand. Most Christians get this information second hand through a Christian source. If you have access to ProQuest or Psychlit databases, try doing a search and see what you find. There's a lot more than a few twin studies.

I have seen others, but the most convincing seem to be the twin studies. If you have something specific in mind then that would be another issue. I have a friend who has his Phd in genetics though, who is also a liberal atheist so I doubt he is twisting his views just to suit his beliefs, who tells me in spite of it all that the idea that homosexuality is geneticly determined is not only not accepted but highly unlikely. His support for Gay marriage and the like is purely from the standpoint of civil rights and civil liberties.

I've seen such posts by people in the field even here on these forums, but it doesn't seem to dent the enthusiasm of the typical homosexuality/determinists much.

 

[Fideist]

Well, Jesus and the Apostles all validate the OT, and Jesus selected the Apostles. If I understand you correctly, you are accusing people of idolatry if they believe the Bible instead of you,

No, that's just a position you have invented for me and the introduction of a new idea meant to distract people away from the original point. The subject had to do with a statement about the Bible being God's Word.

or what is your point?

That Jesus, not the Bible, is the Word of God.

The Bible has quite a bit more credibility than a handful of people who claim to be speaking for Jesus, against the Bible, with no proof of their assertions.

It is not the credibility of the Bible that is in question, which of course has absolutely nothing to do with any statement concerning the Bible being the Word of God. It is whether or not people have substituted the Bible for God. Again God's Word is Jesus. The Bible is a book.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's all well and good except it is against what the Bible teaches. The Bible is not terribly clear on what levels of punishment might be, but it does indicate that there are levels and is very clear under what circumstances to eject a person from fellowship. One would not lobby to keep a thief in the church even though he was poor if he refused to confess it as sin and stop stealing, for example.

You post gave me cause to review so let us look at a couple of things. This post is not intended to be comprehensive in that that would change the subject of the thread so we will hit and miss some things.

I reviewed many of the references about a heirarchy of punishment and found some interesting things, first off, each refers to someone who leads many people astray. There are thousands if not millions of people who do this daily (false teachers), that the church embraces. What does that say to the church?

Secondly, James 3:1 used the word judge, or judgement, this is different than punishment in that it is not the punishment that is being handed out but the judgement. Similar to the idea of being harder on my eldest for jumping on the furniture than on my youngest. At 14 I assume my eldest has learned better, at 4 I assume my son is still learning so my repremand to my eldest will be harsher than my youngest.

So, let us then assume that I have it all wrong and that there is a heirarchy of sin in God's eyes and let us see what happens and where it leads us, always striving to see things through God's eyes rather than mans. If there is a heirarchy of sin in God's eyes, the only way we can know what that heirarchy is is through the word of God. The only things we can find in the word (unless I missed something in my review) is those who lead others astray will be judges harsher. Okay, how then is the homosexual leading others away from christ in his behavior? If he is not, then how is his sin any different in God's eyes then the example given of stealing a tea bag? and if neither is repentent, should both be excommunicated (dealt with in another post)? If not, what scirpture backs you claim that one is less of a sin in God's eyes than another or are you basing it off of mans decision? If it is off of man's rules, then what would make it wrong for me to have the heirarchy of sin to be stealing a tea bag worse than homosexuality? I have about a million other questions for you but that is a sufficient start.

You see, God is never oppressive! When the leaders of old used the word of God to oppress the people God sternly repremanded them for misuse of the word and leading others astray, He judged them as it were. God never used the word to oppress or turn people away from Him but rather used it to love them and show them a way to be closer to Him. (again, see earlier post). To teach that God wants us to exercise self control is not oppressive, but rather liberating. To help a person to acheive that control in their lives is loving. To condem a homosexual for a sin non repentive or otherwise, is oppressive and lacks all love for you are asking him/her to do something that is impossible, change who they are. God does not ask us to change who we are, but rather to allow the Holy Spirit to mold us to His image. Big difference. Hell is not our punishment, it is the consequence of our punishment. Our punishments are all the same, seperation from God. God's whole purpose in sending Christ to earth was so that we could be with Him, communicate, fellowship with the living God, to seperate myself from God means that I also seperate myself from His power of resurrection, thus death, our punishment for sin. God wants to resurrect us into life in the temperal as well as the eternal.

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't say it justified the position; I said it explained it.

I'm not expecting it to convince you that this is the One Revealed Truth which all honest men must accept.

However, it has become clear that many people have no idea even what the people who doubt that the Bible condemns "homosexuality" think the Bible says. The site in question does a good job of explaining how some such people understand the Bible.

You're attacking it as not addressing all of your disagreements with it, but that's not the point; the point is that it is a good statement of the position you disagree with. By contrast, many attempts I've seen at describing this position have been very poor, or outright wrong.

Apart from this, I think I've already made it clear that I have absolutely no interest in debating this issue with you. We've gone round and round on it a dozen times or more.

What I was hoping to do was help people who want to know what some of the "pro-gay" people actually believe. In other words, if someone wants to get away from all the rhetorical devices and mud-slinging, and just find out what someone who sees no problem with homosexuality thinks the Bible says... Then that site is a good reference. It isn't a proof that they're right, and I'm not offering it as one. It's not a complete rebuttal of every counter argument - but I'm not offering it as one.

I'm offering it as a statement of what some of these people believe, which addresses the question of how they understand the Bible. That's it. I'm not expecting it to address every possible doubt or concern, nor did I say it would.

In short, you're arguing against something which is not presented as an argument, but merely as a factual description of what some people believe. None of your arguments have the slightest relevance to the observable reality that people do in fact believe these things, whether or not they are correct to do so.

I could probably be persuaded to enter a formal debate on a topic like this, but we've lost the members I would have enjoyed debating with. Maybe I'll try to track one of them down and see if he'd like to have a couple of rounds on it... But this is not the thread in which I'm debating it, just a thread in which I'm trying to address the very observable failure to communicate I see between people on this issue.

Nice post, thanks

 

[Shane Roach]

I was going to address this issue of church discipline later, to give time to clarify some other issues first but I guess now is as good a time as any. I am assuming you are refering to Matt. 18:15-35 if you are refering to something else, please let me know.

the first thing we must understand about this passage is that it does not say unrepentant sin it says a sin against you. This is something between members of the body, not a member or the body and God. Therefore, homosexuality does not apply to this passage.

Secondly, there are a list of steps that must be followed before the person is "kicked" out of the church. Go privately, if that doesn't work, take a witness, if that doesn't work, go before the church (I'm guessing that in the case of homoexuality, the person would leave the church on there own by this time but let us move on in the passage.) If that doesn't work, verse.17 treat him as you would a heathen or tax collecter.

Now lets take a moment to think about this, if I am to treat him like a heathen that does not mean that I excommunicate him from the church, but rather treat him as though he is a non believer. The people I know and churched I have attended, by in large try to convert a non believer rather than to excommunicate them from fellowship. They invite them to church, carry in dinners, bible studies, etc. for the purpose of introducing the non believer to Christ, big difference that kicking the person from the church.

Don't stop there though, read on, we see a sturn warning in vs. 18 against banning one from church, then teachings on sin and forgiveness, and another stern warning against unforgivness. The passage is not about the unrepentant believer, but rather the hearts and behavior of the believer as is in the body of believers.

No. Though, that verse is very applicable as you say to the process of determining whether one should be treated that way. Here are some verses.

1 Cor 5:9-13
1 Tim 4:1-5
1 Tim 6:3-5
2 Tim 3:1-17
2 Peter 2
1 John 1:10-11

One of specific application to this thread is 2 Peter 2:8, where Lot is described as a righteous man "vexed ... day to day with their unrighteous deeds." Here is a clear example of a man supposedly "judging" others deeds, and yet being described as "righteous". There is a difference between judging and discerning that is being systematically blurred by those who continually preach that the church accept more and more that is not taught reliably through scripture for the purposes of expanding the church in numbers for political and economic gain. The church is not a political or economic institution. It exists for the purposes of seeking and saving the lost sheep of Christ, who know His voice of their own accord and will come in due time, of which none at all will be lost, but towards whom we owe the utmost in patience and love in calling them home. It is not for trying to convert every single person.

So to sum up, by all means we are to be carefull about rejecting someone from church, and always be willing to accept those back who come to repentance, but the necessity to watch out for false teachings and exercise discernment in who we listen to is, far from being forbidden as judging others, specifically commanded for the sake of protecting the church from the spirit of anti-Christ which works against the church since Christ's resurrection.

 

[Shane Roach]

No, that's just a position you have invented for me and the introduction of a new idea meant to distract people away from the original point. The subject had to do with a statement about the Bible being God's Word.


That Jesus, not the Bible, is the Word of God.


It is not the credibility of the Bible that is in question, which of course has absolutely nothing to do with any statement concerning the Bible being the Word of God. It is whether or not people have substituted the Bible for God. Again God's Word is Jesus. The Bible is a book.

So if I understand you now, you are just reiterating from the Gospel of John that Jesus is the word made flesh? Fine. I'm sorry, I just don't see that as proving that people who are disagreeing with you are somehow using the scriptures wrongly.

 

[Shane Roach]

You post gave me cause to review so let us look at a couple of things. This post is not intended to be comprehensive in that that would change the subject of the thread so we will hit and miss some things.

I reviewed many of the references about a heirarchy of punishment and found some interesting things, first off, each refers to someone who leads many people astray. There are thousands if not millions of people who do this daily (false teachers), that the church embraces. What does that say to the church?

Secondly, James 3:1 used the word judge, or judgement, this is different than punishment in that it is not the punishment that is being handed out but the judgement. Similar to the idea of being harder on my eldest for jumping on the furniture than on my youngest. At 14 I assume my eldest has learned better, at 4 I assume my son is still learning so my repremand to my eldest will be harsher than my youngest.

So, let us then assume that I have it all wrong and that there is a heirarchy of sin in God's eyes and let us see what happens and where it leads us, always striving to see things through God's eyes rather than mans. If there is a heirarchy of sin in God's eyes, the only way we can know what that heirarchy is is through the word of God. The only things we can find in the word (unless I missed something in my review) is those who lead others astray will be judges harsher. Okay, how then is the homosexual leading others away from christ in his behavior? If he is not, then how is his sin any different in God's eyes then the example given of stealing a tea bag? and if neither is repentent, should both be excommunicated (dealt with in another post)? If not, what scirpture backs you claim that one is less of a sin in God's eyes than another or are you basing it off of mans decision? If it is off of man's rules, then what would make it wrong for me to have the heirarchy of sin to be stealing a tea bag worse than homosexuality? I have about a million other questions for you but that is a sufficient start.

You see, God is never oppressive! When the leaders of old used the word of God to oppress the people God sternly repremanded them for misuse of the word and leading others astray, He judged them as it were. God never used the word to oppress or turn people away from Him but rather used it to love them and show them a way to be closer to Him. (again, see earlier post). To teach that God wants us to exercise self control is not oppressive, but rather liberating. To help a person to acheive that control in their lives is loving. To condem a homosexual for a sin non repentive or otherwise, is oppressive and lacks all love for you are asking him/her to do something that is impossible, change who they are. God does not ask us to change who we are, but rather to allow the Holy Spirit to mold us to His image. Big difference. Hell is not our punishment, it is the consequence of our punishment. Our punishments are all the same, seperation from God. God's whole purpose in sending Christ to earth was so that we could be with Him, communicate, fellowship with the living God, to seperate myself from God means that I also seperate myself from His power of resurrection, thus death, our punishment for sin. God wants to resurrect us into life in the temperal as well as the eternal.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I have repeatedly said that I agree with you that homosexuality should not be singled out as the one sin that can't be forgiven or anything, but you stated that there is no heirarchy of sin and I pointed out that that statement simply does not fit what the Bible clearly says. You say the only time that ever is applicable is when large numers of people are misled, yet the Bible makes it clear no one will be Lost to Christ, for whom He foreknew He also predestined.

If there is a heirarchy, then there is a heirarchy. If there is not, there is not. The teachings from the Law to the present day are all indication that there is indeed a heirarchy. I also have already confessed that I don't know if the punishments are different in Hell only, or if they would continue to be heirarchical after the second death. My point is simply that it is not correct to assert that God does not distinguish sin in regards to various degrees. It makes God look rather silly when people run around claiming all sin is equal in God's eyes, and since the Bible doesn't support it I don't know why so many Christians feel duty bound to teach that, as it is not true.

 

[Shane Roach]

Incidentally, there are verses regarding degrees of reward when the new heavens and earth are in their place as well. If my reading is correct, though, the system will be such that everyone will be more than pleased with it, as part of the reward for being great in the kingdom of God is that the greatest will be the servant of all. Still, there is recognition of the good works that we do in the afterlife. So, there are degrees of good as well as evil, and degrees of reward as well as punishment.

 

[Fideist]

Fine. I'm sorry, I just don't see that as proving that people who are disagreeing with you are somehow using the scriptures wrongly.

Who said this? Nobody. Did I mention myself? No. I wish all people who come here would deal with what people actually say rather than making up things to respond to. I stated very clearly that the Word of God is Jesus, not a book. IMO, to refer to the Bible as the Word of God is to confer upon it the status of Jesus. It is also my opinion that people who engage in this sort of transferal of authority are engaging in Bibliolatry.

 

[razzelflabben]

No. Though, that verse is very applicable as you say to the process of determining whether one should be treated that way. Here are some verses.

1 Cor 5:9-13
1 Tim 4:1-5
1 Tim 6:3-5
2 Tim 3:1-17
2 Peter 2
1 John 1:10-11

One of specific application to this thread is 2 Peter 2:8, where Lot is described as a righteous man "vexed ... day to day with their unrighteous deeds." Here is a clear example of a man supposedly "judging" others deeds, and yet being described as "righteous". There is a difference between judging and discerning that is being systematically blurred by those who continually preach that the church accept more and more that is not taught reliably through scripture for the purposes of expanding the church in numbers for political and economic gain. The church is not a political or economic institution. It exists for the purposes of seeking and saving the lost sheep of Christ, who know His voice of their own accord and will come in due time, of which none at all will be lost, but towards whom we owe the utmost in patience and love in calling them home. It is not for trying to convert every single person.

So to sum up, by all means we are to be carefull about rejecting someone from church, and always be willing to accept those back who come to repentance, but the necessity to watch out for false teachings and exercise discernment in who we listen to is, far from being forbidden as judging others, specifically commanded for the sake of protecting the church from the spirit of anti-Christ which works against the church since Christ's resurrection.

The sum up was good but what about the rest. A non repentant homosexual is not a false teacher, but rather someone struggling with sin as you or I would struggle. I read the scriptures you put forth and two things stuck out. One, they are talking prinarily of false teachers there are one or two that could be questioned on this basis but I will get to that in a moment. In I Tim. 4:1-5, we are not told to disassociate from the people, but rather from godless myths and old wives tales. Different picture.

Second thing is that we must always look to the totallity of scirpture as I studied the scirptures you provided, I saw many that talk about being in the world but not of it, how can we share Christ with the world if we never touch anyone in the world?

This topic though interesting is clouding the topic of the thread and I shall cease to post on the issue in this thread if you would like to pick up the discussion on another thread, point the way.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I have repeatedly said that I agree with you that homosexuality should not be singled out as the one sin that can't be forgiven or anything, but you stated that there is no heirarchy of sin and I pointed out that that statement simply does not fit what the Bible clearly says. You say the only time that ever is applicable is when large numers of people are misled, yet the Bible makes it clear no one will be Lost to Christ, for whom He foreknew He also predestined.

If there is a heirarchy, then there is a heirarchy. If there is not, there is not. The teachings from the Law to the present day are all indication that there is indeed a heirarchy. I also have already confessed that I don't know if the punishments are different in Hell only, or if they would continue to be heirarchical after the second death. My point is simply that it is not correct to assert that God does not distinguish sin in regards to various degrees. It makes God look rather silly when people run around claiming all sin is equal in God's eyes, and since the Bible doesn't support it I don't know why so many Christians feel duty bound to teach that, as it is not true.

The point is, that if you understand sin in light of the resurecction, scripture does support the sin is all the same thology. I have studied your thorry and found it lacking in some very inportant scirptural points. A teaching cannot be accurate if it does not fit with the totallity of the scripture which is where I have issue with this teaching. But again that clouds the thread issue so let us talk about it elswhere.

 

[Shane Roach]

The point is, that if you understand sin in light of the resurecction, scripture does support the sin is all the same thology. I have studied your thorry and found it lacking in some very inportant scirptural points. A teaching cannot be accurate if it does not fit with the totallity of the scripture which is where I have issue with this teaching. But again that clouds the thread issue so let us talk about it elswhere.

Insasmuch as you brought it up in relation to this thread, it applies. Homosexuality is actually referred to as among the worst sins. Unrepentant practice of it coupled with expressions of the belief that it is not sin therefore falls directly under the heading of verses that exhort us all to seperate ourselves from those who practice such things, whereas I am not exhorted for example to seperate myself from someone who teaches that the death penalty is immoral despite what I see as equally clear Biblical teaching that it is moral.

 

[Shane Roach]

Regarding verses I have posted about church discipline, false teachers are also characterized by their behavior, not just their teaching, and it is through observing this behavior that we get another clue as to whose company we are to avoid. This, as I mentioned already, is discernment, not judgement, and we are instructed to use this discernment.

My very first example text in 1 Cor in fact does not follow your assertion that it is only regarding what is taught.

 

[PastorFreud]

I have seen others, but the most convincing seem to be the twin studies. If you have something specific in mind then that would be another issue. I have a friend who has his Phd in genetics though, who is also a liberal atheist so I doubt he is twisting his views just to suit his beliefs, who tells me in spite of it all that the idea that homosexuality is geneticly determined is not only not accepted but highly unlikely. His support for Gay marriage and the like is purely from the standpoint of civil rights and civil liberties.

I've seen such posts by people in the field even here on these forums, but it doesn't seem to dent the enthusiasm of the typical homosexuality/determinists much.

I am not meaning to use the language of genetic determinism in the same sense as your eye color is genetically determined. Some things are genetically influenced and predispose a person to a particular illness, for example, or a preference for the left hand. I am using the language biological factors and influences. Exposure to certain levels of hormones in the womb at critical points of fetal development are correlated with the later development of a homosexual orientation.

Now correlation does not help us understand what the cause may be. A common factor may be responsible for both the hormone level and the development of homosexuality. All we know is that they are strongly related. That's what twin studies show as well. If it were genetic only, then twins developing from separate zygotes should have the same odds of both being gay as two siblings raised in the same home. But we find that the odds are much higher. The odds are even higher for twins developing from the same zygote. They share both genes and prenatal environment. None of this proves causation, because correlation cannot prove causation, ever. But correlation suggests a relationship between factors that has something to do with what they share. Separated identical twins, raised in different homes, still have a much higher correlations. So we can safely assume that what they shared, the genes and the prenatal environment, had a greater effect on the development of sexuality than did what they did not share, the family environment and values.

 

[PastorFreud]

Goodness. Could you get any more out in left field? Start a new thread for Bush bashing wouldya!

Anyhow, uh. I don't even know what to say. Whatever floats your boat. As to adulterers, they do not have a faction out there claiming it's not a sin is one reason I don't argue that point much. In fact, the reason the church doesn't deal with that much is because of precisely the same social pressure as you are now applying regarding homosexuality. Church leaders are constantly under pressure to enlarge their churches rather than be the sorts of leaders that he Apostles were, strictly watching over their flocks for the sake of the brotherhood of Christians rather than for popular culture trends.

Adulterers don't have a faction saying it's not a sin?? I beg to differ!! There is a large group of people who have divorced and remarried. According to Jesus, this is adultery. People just try to get around the clear teaching of scripture on this issue because they want to justify their sinful lifestyles. Jesus said if you divorce your wife you cause her to commit adultery. How much plainer does that need to be? We even ordain as ministers people who have divorced and remarried. We should urge people to stay OUT of the remarriage lifestyle. It leads to a lot of pain and hardship, especially when children are involved. Thank God for Dr. Laura on this one. She is clear about telling people who have had the misfortune of divorce to not marry and not date, at least not until the children are fully grown.

 

[Shane Roach]

I am not meaning to use the language of genetic determinism in the same sense as your eye color is genetically determined. Some things are genetically influenced and predispose a person to a particular illness, for example, or a preference for the left hand. I am using the language biological factors and influences. Exposure to certain levels of hormones in the womb at critical points of fetal development are correlated with the later development of a homosexual orientation.

Now correlation does not help us understand what the cause may be. A common factor may be responsible for both the hormone level and the development of homosexuality. All we know is that they are strongly related. That's what twin studies show as well. If it were genetic only, then twins developing from separate zygotes should have the same odds of both being gay as two siblings raised in the same home. But we find that the odds are much higher. The odds are even higher for twins developing from the same zygote. They share both genes and prenatal environment. None of this proves causation, because correlation cannot prove causation, ever. But correlation suggests a relationship between factors that has something to do with what they share. Separated identical twins, raised in different homes, still have a much higher correlations. So we can safely assume that what they shared, the genes and the prenatal environment, had a greater effect on the development of sexuality than did what they did not share, the family environment and values.

I agree. This is exactly my understanding of the present literature as well, though I am by no means a professional in that discipline. What comes next though is the healing and regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. At this point, it becomes necessary to also make it clear that just because this supposed regenerative power doesn't seem to be particularly useful from the clinical standpoint, it doesn't need to from the spiritual standpoint. The Bible doesn't teach us to accept something simply because a lot of people do it. Quite the opposite, it makes the point that the world will never fully accept Christ or His teachings. So I look to the success stories rather than the failures when it comes to spiritual or church matters. If it comes to pass that society accepts homosexual marriage, so be it. Society accepts a lot of things the Bible still teaches as wrong, which I will get into in response to your next post, but that is no argument for the church to accept it.