Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[Shane Roach]

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.)

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or with extortioners, or with idolators; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Then what does it address? At the very least you ought to be able to admit openly that it looks like it's saying certain unrepentant sinners need to be put out of the church, since it says, "Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person." I am at a loss how it is that you all continually find such anger or supposed judgemtnalism in me. All I'm doing is reading the Bible here. What does this mean, then, Christi, since it has nothing to do with putting people out of the church due to continual open sin? What exactly is it about? How am I going wrong?

As an aside, you approve of PastorFreud and Chalice's behavior of declaring to one another their superior spirituality? It's strange to me which side of this you landed on despite saying you are not on one side or another, given that at the very least all sides seem to be human, and to have some of their emotional baggage vested in this discussion.

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 have looked at mentions of my own sin struggles that many try to argue are not sins, and it is the same sorts of arguments as being presented here. There isn't any room for doubt on these scriptures. Go ahead and present one if you like, rather than just painting me as someone who is not doing something you think I ought to be doing.

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."

I think that if you mean not to imply something about me, the best way to not do that is to not imply it. This entire paragraph is a personal attack without any evidence. If you have some evidence, show it not just to me, but to everyone, and stop judging people based on your understanding and instead discuss the situation based on scripture.

I think it's incredible that despite the fact that not one of the people that present homosexuality as something that needs to be accepted or delcared unsinfull can seem to do it without calling the person who disagrees with you's character into question, you continue to portray yourselves as peaceful, loving people who are really just trying to be more loving. If it's ok to treat me like this, then it should be ok to treat the homosexual like that as well.

In fact, all people really have no choice but to judge things in life in the light of what they have seen and how they understand. If you could present your ideas, rather than just continually insisting on dragging personal opinions about who is more or less judgemental into it, then that would be about as good as it gets.

 

[Shane Roach]

And unless it gets lost in the pile of new posts, I have already said that I do not believe I know whether a homosexual is saved, and that if one struggles with their homosexuality that is understandable. That's not at all what I am talking about. Nevertheless, it seems very plain that some people are to be put out based on continual refusal to deal with their sin. I find no other way to read this and several other scriptures dealing with church discipline.

If you think I am a sorry person, mean, bad writer, fine. But you ought at least to address the issues I put foreward as well, alongside you're judgements of me.

 

[PastorFreud]

It's not superior spirituality, Shane. I can see why you might interpret it this way, but I wouldn't call it that. You cannot reason with someone who rejects your basic assumptions. You take the bible literally at face value. You reject scholarly hermeneutics. So we will never be able to reason with each other. We are different. No need for a pecking order.

 

[Shane Roach]

It's not superior spirituality, Shane. I can see why you might interpret it this way, but I wouldn't call it that. You cannot reason with someone who rejects your basic assumptions. You take the bible literally at face value. You reject scholarly hermeneutics. So we will never be able to reason with each other. We are different. No need for a pecking order.

I never rejected scholarly hermeneutics. You presented weak arguments on that front, inasmuch as you bothered to present any at all. You in fact, or someone else on this thread, said that part of the reason homosexual marriage might not have been addressed specifically in the OT was that it didn't exist, and it turns out now I am finding that it did, or supposedly, in Egypt and Rome. So this makes the complete lack of any mention of an acceptable homosexual marriage in the entire Bible even more of an obvious mark against your arguments. As for the "translation" problems of homosexuality as "temple prostitution", those phrases are carefully picked out to describe a behavior. If they had meant not to do it as part of an idolatrous ritual, it would have been simplicity itself to just say so. In point of fact, I think it is enought to just say, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." That pretty much takes in all of temple prositution, sacrifices, and anything else that has to do with idolatry. It would not make sense to have something like this repeatedly spelled out for no apparent reason out of the blue. "Don't worship other Gods. Also, don't worship other Gods by prositution. Also, don't worship other Gods by male prositution." About the only situation I see where that seems to be done is in mention of passing of seed through the fire to Molech, and sure enough, it mentions the idolatry directly, not leaving it to someone's imagination to dream up a few thousand years later.

As for superior spirituality, the two of you trading religious sounding pats on the back with each other is what I am referring to. "I bless and release you." "You are growing in wisdom and stature with God and man." This is not fitting.

 

[Fideist]

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

Indeed!

 

[Fideist]

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 think this is very wise.

 

[Christi]

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.

Shane, this is what 1 Cor 9:5-13 says: (KJV)

5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of a flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Though shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?
Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the alter?


That's why I said your scripture references had nothing to do with the subject. Maybe you transposed some numbers or something?

As far as your last post directed to me, you are taking things far too personally. I did not attack you, call you judgemental, "side" with anyone at all. You are all my brothers in Christ here. I simply pointed out that you could not say that the fruit of the Spirit is lacking in his life, by the very nature of what the definition of the fruit of the Spirit is. I've even agreed with your stance about the core issue. Since you can't discuss this, without feeling persecuted and ganged up on, I'm bowing out of this thread. I have gone back and re-read every post since I first posted to this thread, and I feel assured that I haven't said anything out of line, nor have I implied anything at all about you. But it's time to go in peace.

 

[Christi]

I think this is very wise.

Thank you.

 

[Outspoken]

Nooo it didn't.

Yes it did..who do you think he was murdering? "

 

[Outspoken]

It's not superior spirituality, Shane. I can see why you might interpret it this way, but I wouldn't call it that. You cannot reason with someone who rejects your basic assumptions. You take the bible literally at face value. You reject scholarly hermeneutics. So we will never be able to reason with each other. We are different. No need for a pecking order.

*sigh* nooo..taking the bible literally is embracing scholarly hermeneutics.

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane, this is what 1 Cor 9:5-13 says: (KJV)

5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of a flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Though shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?
Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the alter?


That's why I said your scripture references had nothing to do with the subject. Maybe you transposed some numbers or something?

As far as your last post directed to me, you are taking things far too personally. I did not attack you, call you judgemental, "side" with anyone at all. You are all my brothers in Christ here. I simply pointed out that you could not say that the fruit of the Spirit is lacking in his life, by the very nature of what the definition of the fruit of the Spirit is. I've even agreed with your stance about the core issue. Since you can't discuss this, without feeling persecuted and ganged up on, I'm bowing out of this thread. I have gone back and re-read every post since I first posted to this thread, and I feel assured that I haven't said anything out of line, nor have I implied anything at all about you. But it's time to go in peace.

Since I posted the entire scripture anyhow, your decision to leave the thread is rather perplexing. Yes, I transposed the numbers 5 and 9. Bye.

 

[Shane Roach]

John 6:35-40

"And Jesus said unto them, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that you have seen me, and believeth not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (emphasis added by me)

Romans 8:29 "For whome He did foreknow, He also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many."

Far from drivinga brother away, confronting a brother with their sin is encouraged as well.

James 5:19-20 "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him: let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

I see no reason to fear the discussing the truth then, in love, regarding sin. I reiterate, I have not once suggested that homosexuality is some unforgiveable sin, or that people should shun contact with a homosexual entirely just because that is their sin.

It is however advised that one be carefull in helping those who seem caught up in sin to a deep degree.

Jude 23 "And on some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

So, to close, don't ever let someone try to scare you from confronting someone with sin. Be carefull how you do it. Always do it in love. But don't lose your vigilence and discernment, or else how can you help the erring brother at all?

That's what real love is all about: helping people, REALLY helping.

 

[Outspoken]

Shane, confronting a brother/sister with their sin is also talked about in 2nd timothy.

 

[Fideist]

Yes it did..

No, it didn't.

 

[Outspoken]

No, it didn't.

Sure it did, the church was persecuted by paul himself, thus showing it was around before he converted.

 

[UberLutheran]

*sigh* nooo..taking the bible literally is embracing scholarly hermeneutics.

you and your neighbors are to kill your disobedient son; (Deuteronomy 21:18)

you may not eat any four-legged insects; (Leviticus 11:23)

the only way women can be saved is through the raising of children; (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

if you have sex with a woman who is having her period, you must be banished for all time; (Leviticus 20:18-20),

what the Bible means is that you are to kill your disobedient son, preferably by stoning; you may not eat any four-legged insects (which is a good thing, considering that insects have six legs); any woman who has not had children, and raised them, CANNOT be saved no matter how "good" or "devout" a Christian she is; and having sex with a woman who is having her period means you MUST be banished.

Sounds like good, scholarly work to me.

 

[Outspoken]

you and your neighbors are to kill your disobedient son; (Deuteronomy 21:18)

you may not eat any four-legged insects; (Leviticus 11:23)

the only way women can be saved is through the raising of children; (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

if you have sex with a woman who is having her period, you must be banished for all time; (Leviticus 20:18-20),

what the Bible means is that you are to kill your disobedient son, preferably by stoning; you may not eat any four-legged insects (which is a good thing, considering that insects have six legs); any woman who has not had children, and raised them, CANNOT be saved no matter how "good" or "devout" a Christian she is; and having sex with a woman who is having her period means you MUST be banished.

Sounds like good, scholarly work to me.

*chuckles* I love how you rip things out of context. Great job..well not really, more of a very very poor job! Now, when you want to actually talk about christianity, let me know.

 

[Fideist]

Sure it did,

No, it didn't.

 

[Outspoken]

No, it didn't.

LOL, yea, it did Acts chapter 2. Check out verse 47

 

[UberLutheran]

Shane, confronting a brother/sister with their sin is also talked about in 2nd timothy.

I was asked to edit this, so I translated it into German (well -- as best I could, considering I'm still learning the language in preparation for a month-long vacation in Germany and Switzerland to celebrate my 50th birthday!). ÜL

----------==========**********O**********==========----------
Ich erkläre Juden, daß ihr Vater der Teufel ist (Johannes 8:44) und scheinen sie einzuwenden. Einige Juden schlugen sogar vor, daß ich anti-semitische war! Können Sie das sich vorstellen?

Ich erkläre Schwarze daß sie, wenn "zu denen ergeben seien Sie, die Ihre Meister sind, mit Furcht und Hingabe zu Christ; nicht in der Methode des Services nur wenn sie denken, überwacht jemand sie, aber als Bedienstete von Christ, Tun des Willens des Gottes, weil sie zu wünschen; wmit einer guten Haltung," und sie sprechen Verfassungsänderungen an -- und wenn ich ihnen daß Wort Gottes supercedes die VEREINIGTE STAATEN Beschaffenheit erkläre, und sie sollten in ihrer Station im Leben glücklich sein, sie haben die Abschürfung, zum zu erklären mir, daß ich ein Rassist bin!

Ich erkläre Frauen, daß sie während aller Zeit für das Holen von Sünde in die Welt bestraft werden sollen (Genesis 3) und daß die einzige Methode sie gesichert werden kann, ist durch das Anheben der Kinder. (1 Timothy 2:11-15). Hören sie auf mich? Ach, nein.

Ich erklärte den männlichen Bauteilen meiner Kirche, daß ich sie überprüfen würde, um sicherzustellen, daß ihnen genug gepaßt wurden, zum der Kirche zu betreten (Frauen können nicht Bauteile der Kirchen sein) Entsprechend dem Buch von Leviticus (21:18-22) daß Prüfung Verunstaltungen, Mißbildungen, Narben, Krusten, gebrochene Knochen, nasale Resektion, übermäßige Kürze, Blindheit, Taubheit, oder Verletzungen zu den Genitals einschließt -- und sie baten mich, zur Hölle zu gehen! Drei von ihnen sagten wirklich, daß ich ein Pervert war!

Ich dachte, daß meine Frau eine Angelegenheit hatte, so bat ich sie, von unserem Minister entsprechend den Anweisungen vergiftet zu werden, die von Gott in Numbers 5 erteilt wurden. Sie archivierte für Scheidung, dann gehabt mir hielt für versuchten Mord fest! Können Sie dem glauben?

Ich stelle das normale die Bibel dar, während sie sind, und ich werde für so tun verfolgt. Ich kümmere mich nicht, so zu tun. Gott erklärte mir die Bedeutung zur Bibel, und ich weiß, daß ich korrekt bin!

----------==========**********O**********==========----------
COMMENTARY

This was intended to instruct (not necessarily in German, even though for us Lutherans German is the "mother tongue"!).

I used the same tactics used by fundamentalists, and those who believe the Scriptures are to be absolutely literally with no attempt to delve into the actual meanings of words or phrases, of four sets of Scripture in context.

No one in their right mind is going to argue that we really should stone disobedient children, or that women are saved only by raising children, or that having sex with a women during her period means that couple should be banished, or that slavery is an honerable institution even though that's precisely what Scriptures says, in context.

Yet people have no problem proof-texting Scripture against groups they don't like -- in this case, homosexuals.

I find it interesting that the same people who quote Leviticus and Deuteronomy against gays and lesbians insist that the other passages in Deuteronomy somehow don't apply to the people judging gays and lesbians -- even though St. Paul says exactly the OPPOSITE in Galatians.

I find it interesting that the same people who quote Romans 1:26-32 against gays and lesbians are the same folks who say that Romans 2:1-4 doesn't apply to the people who are doing the judging.

I find it also interesting that the same people who quote Galatians, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians to say that "God condemns gays" are also some of the same people who have been married two, three, four and even five times; and the ones who say that God's gift of grace, through faith is extended to all even though Paul very plainly teaches that women are saved ONLY by rearing children. I can't imagine anybody in any church actually teaching that "women are saved only by rearing children" -- even if St. Paul did say that in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

We are saved by grace, through faith; or we are saved by the Law -- but not both.