Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[Outspoken]

Thje church did not exist until after Paul became involved. Up until then Jesus and his followers were sectarian Jews. Jesus never excommunicated anyone from his group.

Nooo, the church existed long before Paul was there.

 

[Outspoken]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Shane Roach

This is a very good example of what is wrong with your set of priorities. Christ was not around to excommunicate anyone from the Christian church.

Well, first off, Jesus NEVER set an example of exclusion, but of inclusion. Therefore he would never excommunicate anyone, for any reason. I mean, he ate his last meal WITH his betrayer.

Second - and back to the original post: I am trying to say this with all the charity in my heart I can muster...so please EVERYONE listen with your hearts. There are many of us on this board who spend our lives striving to live a godly life, who love Jesus with a deep and everlasting love, who also are gay. YES, you can indeed be Christian and Gay...that's all there is to it. It can't be up for argument, because it just IS.

1. (addressing your first off point) No, Jesus did tell the pharisees they were definatly left out. He made it clear certain people would be. The church did not exist when he was on this earth, so Shane is quite correct in his statements.

2."YES, you can indeed be Christian and Gay" I agree, just as you can be a liar and be a christian, a murder and be a christian, a gutton and be a christian, etc...There is only one unpardonable sin.

 

[Shane Roach]

I didn't "simply declare" anything. The life I lead speaks for itself. Since you are the one who is proposing the Gays can't be Christian - it is up to YOU to support your misguided argument. So come to my church and meet me and inspect my life and see whether or not I am what I say I am.

I also NEVER accused anyone of foul motives - I made no attacks. (Or if I did, I surely did not intend that.) I simply answered your attacks.

Since you claim to be homosexual, and claim it is not a sin, I can already see that the fruit of the Spirit, which is the only thing I have to go by, is lacking. For you to just state that you are gay and you are Christian is to state something without support.

I don't know if you will eventually repent, but I know the behavior is inconsistent with scripture, and that it is therefore possible you are not a "Christian" per se. For you to simply proclaim that it is irrelevant though is to state something without support.

 

[Fideist]

Nooo, the church existed long before Paul was there.

Nooo it didn't.

 

[Christi]

Since you claim to be homosexual, and claim it is not a sin, I can already see that the fruit of the Spirit, which is the only thing I have to go by, is lacking. For you to just state that you are gay and you are Christian is to state something without support.

I don't know if you will eventually repent, but I know the behavior is inconsistent with scripture, and that it is therefore possible you are not a "Christian" per se. For you to simply proclaim that it is irrelevant though is to state something without support.

Your post is biblically incorrect, and you cannot judge someone's Christianity by their sin or lack of it, and say that you can see "fruit of the Spirit is lacking"; anymore than I could say you are not a Christian due to my imaging that the fruit of the Spirit is lacking in your life. You have no idea what the Spirit is doing in his life, and neither do I, but for anyone to say he has no fruit because he has sin, condemns us all.

 

[Shane Roach]

Your post is biblically incorrect, and you cannot judge someone's Christianity by their sin or lack of it, and say that you can see "fruit of the Spirit is lacking"; anymore than I could say you are not a Christian due to my imaging that the fruit of the Spirit is lacking in your life. You have no idea what the Spirit is doing in his life, and neither do I, but for anyone to say he has no fruit because he has sin, condemns us all.

I can't judge whether or not they are saved or will be saved. I can judge that the fruit of the spirit is lacking. The clearest scripture I have found so far for that is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. The question, "Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?" then boils down to semantics. If "Christian" means a follower of Christ's teachings, then no. If it means someone who is or will be saved, the answer is God knows.

 

[mpshiel]

The question, "Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?" then boils down to semantics. If "Christian" means a follower of Christ's teachings, then no. If it means someone who is or will be saved, the answer is God knows.

If the question is, Can a follower of Christ be doing something that the entire organized church thinks is a sin and still be following Christ? The answer is yes and double yes. That is pretty much the middle part of the book of acts. Giving the holy word to the gentiles. Sin. Gentiles saying they are children of God without being circumcised. Sin. Gentiles not keeping the law of moses. Sin. Jews eating and being with Gentiles. Unclean. Jews being with Gentiles without cleaning rituals. Sin. Jews eating unclean foods. Sin.

It was time and the evidence that these groups of people were infused with the spirit of God along with the convictions of Peter and Paul which eventually turned the opinion of the early Church.

As it points out in Romans, if it is a sin for a brother, then don't push them toward that. So homosexual relations if a sin for you Shane, I don't recommend you enter into one. But as Jesus said a) It is not what enters the body which makes one unclean, but the heart and b) who are you to judge another man's servant, it is to his own master he rises or falls.

I am not judging you. I am not making fun of you. I am not accusing you. I am just pointing out that as far as I can see, once I have made my peace in my relationship with God, no further need for "proof" is necessary.

 

[Shane Roach]

If the question is, Can a follower of Christ be doing something that the entire organized church thinks is a sin and still be following Christ? The answer is yes and double yes. That is pretty much the middle part of the book of acts. Giving the holy word to the gentiles. Sin. Gentiles saying they are children of God without being circumcised. Sin. Gentiles not keeping the law of moses. Sin. Jews eating and being with Gentiles. Unclean. Jews being with Gentiles without cleaning rituals. Sin. Jews eating unclean foods. Sin.

It was time and the evidence that these groups of people were infused with the spirit of God along with the convictions of Peter and Paul which eventually turned the opinion of the early Church.

As it points out in Romans, if it is a sin for a brother, then don't push them toward that. So homosexual relations if a sin for you Shane, I don't recommend you enter into one. But as Jesus said a) It is not what enters the body which makes one unclean, but the heart and b) who are you to judge another man's servant, it is to his own master he rises or falls.

I am not judging you. I am not making fun of you. I am not accusing you. I am just pointing out that as far as I can see, once I have made my peace in my relationship with God, no further need for "proof" is necessary.

The church is the judge of who is and is not a member. 1 Cor 5:9-13 and several others I have mentioned. The very debate in Acts that you are calling on as an example is the one where the universal call to still reject sexual sin comes from. The church needs proof, else the wolves are cut loose in the stables of God's sheep. Your personal opinion is not the measure for church practice, nor mine for that matter. Christians have an obligation though to follow after sound doctrine and withdraw from those who teach or behave otherwise.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Since you claim to be homosexual, and claim it is not a sin, I can already see that the fruit of the Spirit, which is the only thing I have to go by, is lacking. For you to just state that you are gay and you are Christian is to state something without support.

I don't know if you will eventually repent, but I know the behavior is inconsistent with scripture, and that it is therefore possible you are not a "Christian" per se. For you to simply proclaim that it is irrelevant though is to state something without support.

I am glad that you are not judge - you are arrogantly proclaiming that, since you see no fruit, I have no fruit.

Thank God I am firmly rooted in Christ. Somebody with a less strong faith might be turned away from Him altogether by your words.

You are also getting dangerously close to saying that I am not a Christian, which is against forum rules.

You and I are still brothers in Christ - but right now, given your tone against me, THAT fruit tastes a little bitter.

 

[Christi]

I can't judge whether or not they are saved or will be saved. I can judge that the fruit of the spirit is lacking. The clearest scripture I have found so far for that is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. The question, "Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?" then boils down to semantics. If "Christian" means a follower of Christ's teachings, then no. If it means someone who is or will be saved, the answer is God knows.

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying about the semantics as far as Christian meaning follower of Christ or saved.

But you said you can judge that the fruit of the Spirit is lacking in someone else. Galations 5:22,23 NASB
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

If you want to argue that homosexuality is a sin or a "deed of the flesh", fine.....but I don't see how you can credibly argue that you can judge that the fruit of the Spirit is lacking in his life.

Just from reading his posts, I know he exhibits more of those fruits than I usually do, and I'm not gay and DO believe it's biblically a sin.

 

[Shane Roach]

I am glad that you are not judge - you are arrogantly proclaiming that, since you see no fruit, I have no fruit.

Thank God I am firmly rooted in Christ. Somebody with a less strong faith might be turned away from Him altogether by your words.

You are also getting dangerously close to saying that I am not a Christian, which is against forum rules.

You and I are still brothers in Christ - but right now, given your tone against me, THAT fruit tastes a little bitter.

I am not getting dangerously close to saying you're not a Christian. I am, however, saying point blank that your behavior as a practicing homosexual places you in direct violation of Biblical teaching, which ought to have some sort of effect on you, but it doesn't. Since it doesn't, the Bible says point blank you should be put out of the church unless or untill you repent. It doesn't matter how nice you are to people, or how many friends you have. It matters that you fly in the face of authority that has been given for all our benefit for the sake of peace and harmony in the church and to establish sound doctrine. You may be very polite about it, but being politely unfaithful is still being unfaithful. And I direct that comment to Christi as well. Christianity is not some popularity contest, and Jesus and the apostles said much harsher things than I have in this thread about these sorts of practices.

 

[Shane Roach]

And more, I'm sorry but I don't see how your continual attempts to cast me as judging you are some sort of sign of how loving and patient you are. You have complettely abandoned discussing the issue and, again, resorted to attempts to attack me personally. So from my perspective you are not even as nice and loving as you and Christi seem to be making you out to be.

 

[Christi]

You may be very polite about it, but being politely unfaithful is still being unfaithful. And I direct that comment to Christi as well. Christianity is not some popularity contest, and Jesus and the apostles said much harsher things than I have in this thread about these sorts of practices.

I think you may have read more into my posts than what was there. I was simply pointing out the error of your argument when you said that the fruit of the Spirit was lacking in his life. I don't feel you can argue that credibly. You can credibly argue the sinfulness or not of homosexual acts, although it's been debated on and on, and depends on how literally one interprets the Bible. I don't know where you got all the "popularity contest", and "polite unfaithfulness" comments, unless you were referring to the fruit of the Spirit, which I listed......because you brought it up. I felt comfortable that you would not be offended by what I said, because you were so zealously pointing out the sin of Chalice. I feel that I did offend you, from the tone of your post and I apologize, if I wasn't gentle enough.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think you may have read more into my posts than what was there. I was simply pointing out the error of your argument when you said that the fruit of the Spirit was lacking in his life. I don't feel you can argue that credibly. You can credibly argue the sinfulness or not of homosexual acts, although it's been debated on and on, and depends on how literally one interprets the Bible. I don't know where you got all the "popularity contest", and "polite unfaithfulness" comments, unless you were referring to the fruit of the Spirit, which I listed......because you brought it up. I felt comfortable that you would not be offended by what I said, because you were so zealously pointing out the sin of Chalice. I feel that I did offend you, from the tone of your post and I apologize, if I wasn't gentle enough.

I wasn't offended. I was and am pointing out that the fruit of the spirit has to do with God, doing God's will, and behaving in a manner God dictates, not simply being nice. If a person is living an open life of sin, claiming it not to be sin, far from exhibiting fruit of the Spirit, that person is to be put out of the church. Again, 1 Cor 5:9-13.

And, so far I have not seen a credible argument for homosexuality not being sin.

 

[Shane Roach]

"credible arguments" can be had excusing all sin. There is a thread on this forum right now where people are arguing the Bible doesn't teach extra-marital sex is wrong. Like the argument here that homosexuality is not wrong, it rests on people arguing over the definitions of words and attempting to obscure truth through stubborn refusal to acknowledge truth. Such arguments are specifically denounced in the Bible, through no coincidence, as the Bible also explicitely teaches that false teachings will abound and many will gather for themselves teachers to "tickle their ears".

John 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commandments"

1John 2:3-5 "And hereby we know that we know Him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, 'I know Him,' and keepeth not the commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in Him."

1 Tim5: 3-5 "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

So the question is not who is nice, but who teaches the word. The question is not whose teaching risks emptying the church, or being distastefull to the world, but which follows the truth according to Godliness.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Shane - I bless you and release you.

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane - I bless you and release you.

You don't have any hold on me to begin with, nor do you have any authority from God to release me from anything. I think you are releasing yourself from dealing with this issue, and that's fine, but one shouldn't assume authority they don't have.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I think you may have read more into my posts than what was there. I was simply pointing out the error of your argument when you said that the fruit of the Spirit was lacking in his life. I don't feel you can argue that credibly. You can credibly argue the sinfulness or not of homosexual acts, although it's been debated on and on, and depends on how literally one interprets the Bible. I don't know where you got all the "popularity contest", and "polite unfaithfulness" comments, unless you were referring to the fruit of the Spirit, which I listed......because you brought it up. I felt comfortable that you would not be offended by what I said, because you were so zealously pointing out the sin of Chalice. I feel that I did offend you, from the tone of your post and I apologize, if I wasn't gentle enough.

Thank you - bless you.

 

[PastorFreud]

Shane - I bless you and release you.

Chalice Thunder is growing in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man.

 

[Christi]

QUOTE=Shane Roach]I wasn't offended. I was and am pointing out that the fruit of the spirit has to do with God, doing God's will, and behaving in a manner God dictates, not simply being nice. If a person is living an open life of sin, claiming it not to be sin, far from exhibiting fruit of the Spirit, that person is to be put out of the church. Again, 1 Cor 9:5-13.

So "open sin" is a reason to be put out of the church. (Although your scriptural references have nothing to do with that or the subject at hand, actually.) What about secret sin? What about the sins you can't see, but God can? Anyway. I still believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't have to wait until a Christian is perfected, before He starts producing fruit in their life. I have sin and I have fruit. I think you are probably the same. I think Chalice is probably the same.

And, so far I have not seen a credible argument for homosexuality not being sin.

You'd probably look harder if the gender that you were exclusively attracted to was considered a sin by a literal interpretation, but referring to "temple prostitute" by another. I happen to think that if God is God, He has to power to keep His word as He means it, through the centuries. I may find out some day, I've been wrong about that. If I am going to err, though, I don't want it to be in turning others away, that He loves as much as me. I'd rather err by ignorance, than by lording someone else's sin over them while I have enough of my own. (I'm not referring to you, I haven't read enough of your posts to know whether you do that or not, and I don't know you in "real life". Like judging the fruit of the Spirit, I guess, we don't have enough information. Perhaps that's why there is "only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy" James 5:12 NASB) It just seems that us Christians have two ways of looking at others.....one is looking down at them, the other is looking at them through His eyes. I hope you can read this as from a sister in Christ, and not as "one of them, against you."