Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[razzelflabben]

No, but that is what the poster I was responding to was addressing

How in what way did the poster ask if homosexuality was a sin, I must have read something wrong.

 

[Outspoken]

How in what way did the poster ask if homosexuality was a sin, I must have read something wrong.

Check the posts I responded to.

 

[katherinethegreat]

why can't a person be homosexual and a christian? i mean murders become christians and we have no quams about it but why is it wrong that homosexuals be christians? who are we to tell them they cannot pratice theri faith because they believe in differnt laws then we do..

 

[Schism]

Perhaps it is better to look at the angle of who does harm to the community.

Do gay people hurt us? I believe not. Therefore it is better to shift attention to the people in the community who need help. I personally like to focus on serving charities for the needy and giving time in church rather than arguing sexuality preference.

 

[Outspoken]

Perhaps it is better to look at the angle of who does harm to the community.

Do gay people hurt us? I believe not. Therefore it is better to shift attention to the people in the community who need help. I personally like to focus on serving charities for the needy and giving time in church rather than arguing sexuality preference.

Does it hurt anyone is not a valid objeciton according to biblical morality. It always hurts God

 

[mpshiel]

Isn't God big enough to forgive the guard who was sticking a spear into his side to kill him? And does God say nothing can seperate those who are Christian from his love, that whether time or space, life or death He will always be there.

What I read in the bible is that God loves people, not that he is hurt by them. The Samaritan woman had five husbands. Everyone else shunned her but Christ came to her. Can you show his being hurt in that scenerio?

Maybe you are just thinking God is hurt? Maybe you are mistaken?

 

[Fideist]

"Nope. It is not an all or nothing proposition."

sure it is. If you disqualify one piece of information based ONLY on the fact that its religous (the only criteria you gave) then all religious works must be put aside.

Nope. You claimed that Acts supports your position. (LOL, yea, it did Acts chapter 2. Check out verse 47) located here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=2691573&postcount=379

I stated that Acts is a religious text, not a history text and that if you were going to use it, you need to show that the section you are using is historical rather than religious. You have not done so; instead you have asserted that it is my responsibility to disprove your claim. Said assertion constitutes a logical fallacy. It is up to the person making the claim to support it. It is not up to the person questioning the claim to disprove it. You made the claim, so either support it or withdraw it.

"All I need to show is that Acts was written 25-30 years after Paul’s first letter (1 Thess). "



No, you're conclusion is flawed.

No, my conclusion is not flawed. What is flawed is your concept of presenting arguments by assertion and then failing to support them with any sort of evidence or logic.

It is pretty clear the events of Acts could not have been written down as they were happening,

This is not the matter in question. The question at hand is whether to go with Paul's information or with the Acts narrative that was written much later.

thus your conclusion the written date is the same as the event date is wrong.

Your evidence to support this is? And my conclusion is not what you indicate above. My conclusion is that the narrative in Acts is a retrojection of what happened later in an attempt to gain or keep control away from the so-called “Jewish Christians.”

"I say Acts contains an apologetic "

Unproven opinion and thus holds no weight.

It is not unproven. It is well supported. Lets go through, again, what you have utterly failed to address in the past. Jesus and his immediate followers were Jews, not Christians. Hegesippus confirms this in his description of the head of the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, who is Jesus’ brother James. It should be very obvious to anyone that Jews, especially those who pray in the Temple as James the Just is portrayed as doing, have no need for a church either in the form of a building or in the form of a community. The Temple is building enough, and the Jerusalem community of Jesus' followers which in turn, was part of the larger Jewish community was in no need of yet another community. So, it is quite evident that there was no need for a building at this time, nor was there any need to form a separate and distinct community away from the Jewish community, as the terms "bishop" or "overseer" would indicate, because they are not Jewish terms, but rather Christian terms that were in use well after Galatians was written.

It is very clear that the leaders of the Jerusalem community are referred to as "pillars" not "Bishops" or "Overseers." This can be clearly demonstrated by the use of the term "pillars" in Galatians 2:9 which was written in the mid 50s CE. The term "bishop" does show up in two texts that are considerably later in time and are not universally attributed to Paul, whereas Galatians is. In addition to that, the term "bishop" in these texts is only used in relation to the qualifications that a person should have in order to be a proper Bishop. There is no attempt to tie the term to any particular person. Acts, according to the NRSV employs a term that can be translated as overseer, but it is the only translation to do so. And once again, Acts was written at least 20 years, and quite possibly many more, after Galatians which depicts the leaders of the Jerusalem followers of Jesus as "pillars" not "bishops" or any other term associated with Christianity, as it was known after it became primarily gentile in nature. This would be after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

The above dates should be a distinct clue to most people. Very few, actually almost no Jews escaped the Roman destruction of the Temple. This would include those Jews who had been led by James and who had been the immediate followers of Jesus. Why? Because the Romans had erected a wall around the entire city, and it was very difficult to get through. Only those with a great deal of money or influence were likely to manage it. The rotting corpses of those without money or influence adorning the fence attested to that. So, after the Temple was destroyed there were few, if any, restrictions on the Christian communities that had been founded by Paul. Most of his opponents were dead or in exile. This is the point where the presbyters, etc. take over from the pillars. And BTW, "ecclesia" in Greek means "public gathering" not church.

(LOL then you're not reading at all. Have you ever heard of the greek wordekklesia)

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=2710451&postcount=393

"It’s up to you to support your claim with historical information that corroborates Acts’ narrative"

No, not at all. you're the one throwing out religious works based on the pervious criteria then using other ones that should be excluded on the same critera.

Nope. You based your claim for historicity on the text of Acts, not me. I questioned your claim using evidence and logic. Support your claim or drop it, your choice.

It is your job to prove Paul was converted after the creation of the church, something you have not given a shred of evidience for, thus your claim is unproven.

Nope. You introduced the Acts text as evidence in support of your claim. Better get to proving that what it describes is historically accurate. So far, all I've seen is unsupported assertion and attempts to transfer the burden of proof - which is yours to bear.

 

[razzelflabben]

Isn't God big enough to forgive the guard who was sticking a spear into his side to kill him? And does God say nothing can seperate those who are Christian from his love, that whether time or space, life or death He will always be there.

What I read in the bible is that God loves people, not that he is hurt by them. The Samaritan woman had five husbands. Everyone else shunned her but Christ came to her. Can you show his being hurt in that scenerio?

Maybe you are just thinking God is hurt? Maybe you are mistaken?

And let us not forget how often we are to forgive and how much more forgiving our heavenly father is.

 

[Outspoken]

Isn't God big enough to forgive the guard who was sticking a spear into his side to kill him? And does God say nothing can seperate those who are Christian from his love, that whether time or space, life or death He will always be there.

What I read in the bible is that God loves people, not that he is hurt by them. The Samaritan woman had five husbands. Everyone else shunned her but Christ came to her. Can you show his being hurt in that scenerio?

Maybe you are just thinking God is hurt? Maybe you are mistaken?

Did God every say it was a right action for them to murder him? Did God ever say it was right for that man to piece his side with a spear? No, he did not.

"What I read in the bible is that God loves people, not that he is hurt by them. "

God is clearly hurt by the sin we commit.

 

[Outspoken]

" stated that Acts is a religious text, not a history text and that if you were going to use it"

no, the order of events is clearly not part of the religiousness of the text. If you think it is, prove so conclusviely that the ORDER of the text, not the subject matter, is part of the religiousness.

"Your evidence to support this is? "

So your assert that for recorded even it is ALWAYS at the time it is placed at. This is invalid considering the event had not happened yet, thus it cannot be written down.

As for your proof, there is none. You are placing the dates of the text written, not the dates of the actual events, thus your argument is invalid. If you want to show proof of the order of events, then do so.

"You introduced the Acts text as evidence in support of your claim."

and you have yet to give a valid reason why it can not be used. Your dispute is with the subject matter, which is anothe issue all together. So again, give me evidience for your claim or admit that your objection is invalid.

 

[UberLutheran]

Fundamentalists pick out one section of the Genesis 19 story regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, make the assumption that the story must be about "homosexuality" -- without taking into account the culture of the area, why hospitality is more than just "having nice manners" and it is actually about life and death in a desert environment, without bothering to look at the original meanings of the Scriptures -- but since a homosexual interpretation fits into fundamentalists' virulently conservative social agendas, why not go with that interpretation - even if it is the wrong interpretation, even if that interpretation completely misses the entire point of the story?

And how is it that fundamentalists manage to quote Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as part of their favorite set of proof-texts against gays (of course, taking the passages out of context) without thinking that in condemning a group of people using two verses of the Law, fundamentalists have made the entire Law binding on themselves? You don't believe me? Galatians 2:21: " I don't make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!" Are we receiving the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing of faith? Far too many fundamentalists preach justification by faith, but in actuality practice justification by law. (Galatians 3:2).

So then: are we redeemed by works of the Law, or are we redeemed by faith in Christ? "As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who doesn't continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not of faith, but, "The man who does them will live by them."

Jesus Christ emphatically did NOT say, "Come to me, all you who are righteous enough, rich enough, who go to the right church in the right denomination, observe the right doctrines, pay the right tithes, hold the right social and political views, belong to the right political party and vote for the right candidates." Given that -- and the fact that we are justified by grace, through faith (and absolutely NOT by observing "the right doctrines" or following the "right social agenda"), we can toss out this Pharisaiacal (and completely un-Christian) notion of "God loves us more than He loves those AWFUL [fill in the groups you best love to hate] because under the Law which convicts every single one of us, the most "righteous Christian" is every bit as much a sinner as Saddam Hussein.

Speaking of taking things out of context: fundamentalists take Romans 1:26-32 completely and absolutely and utterly out of context as an indictment against "homosexuals" -- neatly forgetting that the very first verse of the very next chapter is pointing the finger at fundamentalists for doing the very same thing they're judging others for doing!

Taken in a larger context: Romans 1-3 is NOT about homosexuality AT ALL. Romans 1 deals with Jewish attitudes towards Gentiles -- who, perceiving nature, should realize there is a God but don't -- and so they continue on with various pagan fertility rites designed to get their crops to grow, or the rains to come (which include ritualized sex with young male prostitutes).

The Jews (having the Law) feel righteous -- but Paul correctly points out in Romans 2 that the Jews don't follow all of the Law, and since righteousness before God, in terms of the Law, means that you follow ALL of the Law, the Jews aren't righteous either.

Going later into chapter 2: even those Jews who somehow manage to follow the ENTIRE Law, to the letter -- aren't righteous before God because they are so obsessed with following the Law that they've made it a god unto itself.

Paul nails it when, in chapter 3, he correctly concludes that none of us are righteous before God, in and of anything we do on our own behalf. How are we justified before God? By grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Not by what denomination we belong to. Not by what church we belong to. Not by what political party we belong to, or what social agenda we're following, or by how many Scriptures we think other people should be following (when we're not willing to follow the same Scriptures ourselves).

If ANY of us really believe that "we're better than those awful homosexuals who don't deserve a place in Heaven", then I challenge us to determine which part of "doing those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with those who practice them" really does not apply to US.

A postscript: if any of us are bold enough (and arrogant enough) to say, "Well, we're saved, so we don't sin" -- Scripture has something to say about that, too: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we haven't sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10

Sola fide.

So thank you for measuring up to my expectations.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't know if this will help the Acts debate any or not for I really don't see where either side is going with the whole issue.

I recently did a study in Acts (for other reasons) and found something really awesome out about Acts. The whole point of Acts, is that after the crusifiction, the whole world as we know it changed, and here is how it changed. Acts is more about how the reserection changed our lives than it is a historical or textual writing. I learned so much from rereading the book of Acts with this understanding and am totally amazed at all the things I missed by reading it from these other perspectives.

Just a thought for what it's worth.

 

[Fideist]

" stated that Acts is a religious text, not a history text and that if you were going to use it"



no, the order of events is clearly not part of the religiousness of the text.

What "order of events"? Do you mean whether or not the church was present prior to Paul? If it is clear, show how. Your reference to Acts 2:47 says nothing about a church and if it did, it would be yet another anachronism. .

If you think it is, prove so conclusviely that the ORDER of the text, not the subject matter, is part of the religiousness.

The above makes no sense.

"Your evidence to support this is? "



So your assert that for recorded even it is ALWAYS at the time it is placed at.

No. That is another straw man. I've said that the Acts narrative is a retrojection. Something that happened at a later time than depicted. I say that based on the historical cues in the text. Acts is tradition. It was never intended as a history. People didn't even know what history was back then, and didn't care. The whole idea of history doesn't really begin until Gibbons, and maybe even what he did, shouldn't be considered history. What passed for history was commissioned by the wealthy and the powerful. Those histories were written to make the person who was being written about look good.

This is invalid considering the event had not happened yet, thus it cannot be written down.

Your attempt at logic makes no sense. The events took place, but not at the time specified. They took place closer to the time of the writing than the time depicted. This is apparent because of the use of terms and ideas that are completely out of place in the Jewish community in Jerusalem.

As for your proof, there is none.

There is plenty. And since you keep giving me the chance, I'll go ahead and introduce a bit more.



Jews are not Christians. The community in Jerusalem that followed Jesus was comprised of all Jews. Jews do not use the term "church.” Jews use the term "synagogue" when appropriate, but there is little evidence to suggest the even synagogues existed prior to the destruction of the Temple. Moreover, the text does not attempt to use a native term, but a foreign one. Jesus was not a Christian, James was not a Christian, Peter was not a Christian. They were all Jews. They all honored the law, with the exception of one possible lapse by Peter that he thought the better of, when confronted by one of James' people. They used the Temple. They had their own community of followers who thought that the "anointed one" had come. They did not abolish the law. They did not take on gentile ways. They did not give Paul permission to do these things, yet he did them anyway. As a result, there was a dramatic and forceful schism between the immediate followers of Jesus who were Jews, and Paul. A person who had decided not to follow the law and to become the "apostle to the gentiles."



The Jerusalem community was JEWISH. The earliest community, being the Jerusalem community was Jewish and fought to stay that way. They did not take on gentile concepts of any kind. The language in Acts that says they did, is obviously anachronistic. There was no "church" prior to Paul. There was a sectarian community of Jews, headed by James, who were the immediate followers of Jesus. Jews, not Christians. Jews do not form churches. Have I said it enough ways?

You are placing the dates of the text written, not the dates of the actual events, thus your argument is invalid.

The text was written after the event, but not by much. It is in conflict with a text that was written much earlier that has no reason to misreport. I am stating that the earlier text has historical elements that can be located to the time, whereas the later text does not.

If you want to show proof of the order of events, then do so.

I have. There was no “church" in Judaism, there still isn't. Any "church" that came into existence did so after the Jewish pillars of the Jerusalem community who were Jesus' immediate Jewish followers couldn't stop it from happening anymore because they were either dead or in exile.

"You introduced the Acts text as evidence in support of your claim."



and you have yet to give a valid reason why it can not be used.

Yes I have.

Your dispute is with the subject matter, which is anothe issue all together.

My dispute is with your use of Acts as proof that a church existed prior to Paul.

So again, give me evidience for your claim or admit that your objection is invalid.

It is your claim, based on the text in Acts, that the church existed prior to Paul. Go ahead and support it if you can.

 

[Fideist]

Acts is more about how the reserection changed our lives than it is a historical or textual writing.

Prezactly!

Just a thought for what it's worth.

It is worth quite a bit, if you ask me, because the point of the text is not to convey history. It is a tradition and a valuable one.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Isn't God big enough to forgive the guard who was sticking a spear into his side to kill him? And does God say nothing can seperate those who are Christian from his love, that whether time or space, life or death He will always be there.

What I read in the bible is that God loves people, not that he is hurt by them. The Samaritan woman had five husbands. Everyone else shunned her but Christ came to her. Can you show his being hurt in that scenerio?

Maybe you are just thinking God is hurt? Maybe you are mistaken?

I feel a song coming on:
Nothing seperates us
Nothing seperates, no, no, no
Nothing seperates us from the LOVE OF GOD!

And I kinda think God is more hurt by the way some people "point out sin" in order to divide his Body.

 

[Outspoken]

So thank you for measuring up to my expectations.

Like I said, if you want to address one of those we can, I'm not going to spend hours on here catering to every person that brings up the same tired issues over and over again. I don't have the time, my appologies for that. If you want to PM, then do so.

 

[Outspoken]

"If it is clear, show how. Your reference to Acts 2:47 says nothing about a church and if it did, it would be yet another anachronism. ."

This makes it clear you have never done a word study on the greek word I presented to you or else you would know that's exactly what its talking about. The church did indeed exist I do find it funny that you want to exclude the history the church itself says applies.

"The above makes no sense."

It makes perfect sence. You are excluding the book because of the subject matter (you say it is a support or Pauline blah blah blah...) though that is another debate. I am refering tot he timeline presented.

"It was never intended as a history."

you have yet to present any evidience to this claim, therefore i choose to disbelieve you

"This is apparent because of the use of terms and ideas that are completely out of place in the Jewish community in Jerusalem"

This is incorrect, I agree for the majority these people were jewish, but upon profession of the christian faith they were excluded from the temple for the majority, look at what they did to the leader (christ himself). There for your objection holds no water.

"There was no “church" in Judaism"

Incorrect. There was a church compromised of just jewish people in the beginning.

"It is your claim, based on the text in Acts, that the church existed prior to Paul."

I have given you the book of Acts, which the church itself uses as a history as to when it is founded.

 

[Outspoken]

I feel a song coming on:
Nothing seperates us
Nothing seperates, no, no, no
Nothing seperates us from the LOVE OF GOD!

And I kinda think God is more hurt by the way some people "point out sin" in order to divide his Body.

I totally agree, not even our sin can seperate us from the love of God. Not lying, not homosexuality, not murder, not malice...etc..

 

[UberLutheran]

Like I said, if you want to address one of those we can, I'm not going to spend hours on here catering to every person that brings up the same tired issues over and over again. I don't have the time, my appologies for that. If you want to PM, then do so.

I have discussed the meaning of the Hebrew word "to'evah" until I'm blue in the face; discussed Paul's use of the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokotoi" in their sociological and cultural context, only to have fundies with a set agenda tell me that I'm "twisting the plain meaning of the Scripture" in an effort to support the "homosexual agenda" -- regardless of the fact that I take this approach with EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE I STUDY, in both the Old and New Testaments.

I have done this until I think I'm going to start screaming uncontrollably -- and I finally realized I could be putting my time to better use than arguing with fundies with set agendas.

There are thunderstorms and tornadoes to chase, music to write, airplanes to jump out of from 13,500 feet (with a parachute, of course -- sorry, I didn't want to get anybody's hopes up!), letters to write to politicians -- and frankly, this gives me a LOT more personal enjoyment and satisfaction than saying the same thing, over and over and OVER again to people who simply are not interested in anything I might have to say.

 

[PastorFreud]

"*sigh* nooo..it is not."

Yes, it is

"So in context the verse didn't mean to stone your disobedient child?"

Here you seem to purposefully leave out the context in which the poster used the verse for. Now if I didn't know you better it would seem you were intentionally ripping this out of context. He poster said this should currently be done, which then you must put in the context of the bible, which clearly shows this law has been refocused by Christ. Please do not continue to rip things out of context.

Where did Christ say this law was invalid? I know he told the crowd who caught the woman in adultery that they should only stone her if they were without sin, but he made no mention of disobedient children in that verse.

I also fail to see where Christ explicitly condoned the eating of shrimp.

Please don't accuse me of ripping things out of context. I am asking for the context that I have supposedly ripped things out of, and finding none. If I didn't know better, I would think you are intentionally using emotionally laden language to avoid making a valid argument.