Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[fejao]

My question is: can we talk about the subject of homosexuality in the context of Christianity without automatically being termed a bigot and homophobe. I have not been hateful or spiteful in any of my comments, and I obviously don't think I have any right to hate gays because of their acts, wrong or right. I have enough sins of my own. I am talking about the act of homosexuality, which we as Christians and members of society should have a position on. I don't understand why this discussion keeps getting shoved off into "you're hate/i have a right to" conversation. I think discussions like those are worse than worthless.

My friend I did not call you a bigot or homophobe, it was yourself that labelled yourself with these terms. What I was trying to get at was we are all "B*astard's" we are all B*astard children, having no legitimate right to be children of God, and therefore we have no legitimate right to condemn other children of God saying that they don’t have a right to call God "Abba". Our salvation and our identity as children of God was given to us as a free gift, all we must do is accept it and come into fellowship with the father. A good example of this is the prodigal son, here is my take on the story. The Older son is like the Pharisees, who works for the father religiously and tries to please the father through works and as the bible says he will get his reward in full. The son on the hand is the rebellious child, he asks for his inheritance and basically through this act says he would rather have his father dead and basically rejected the father. He goes and spends all his inheritance on sin and does this lavishly, if he had spend meagrely he would never come back to the father. When the son realises he loves the father (Lord) and how much his father enriched his life, he comes back however when the son was far off (still in sin) the father (Jesus) ran to the son (went to where he was, and in Jewish times Kings and rich people did not run as it was seen as undignifyed, this shows how much the father loves us, he becomes undignifyed and comes to us where we are). Even though the son recognised he was still in sin and was far from perfect (far off) the father made him a son again (robe and ring symbols of sonship). Again I say it, homosexuals are Christians, the Lord loves homosexuals and had made them children in the kingdom of God. My challenge to you, is not to change your theological stand point, cause that is totally irrelevant as Jesus showed many times in the bible in defying the laws….whats more important, healing the sick on the Sabbath or observing the Sabbath? Whats more important, accepting homosexuals into the church and showing grace or observing the law? Whats more important being a religious Pharisee or being like Jesus? I know many here will reject what I am saying, calling them to a higher calling as Jesus did, but so did many in the days of Jesus, they were the ones that killed him….the ones that on the outside who had it sorted and were “Holy”, these were the people who he called a brood of vipers, fools, snakes, hypocrites and blind guides ! It was the dejected, seemingly unholy people that caused our world to be changed forever. So people here is the challenge, are you going put aside your religious ideas and legalism and show love and mercy to the homosexuals among you, are you going to show the attitude of Jesus and love the vagrants or are you going to reject them and kill them spiritually like the Pharisees and criticise me comparing you to Pharisees, to do this would miss the point? Are you going to avoid the grace that was poured out and lavish in your legalism or are you going to accept the homosexuals and show love even though you think they are wrong and in sin, are you going go to the homosexuals even though they are (far off, as you are yourself) are you going to identify with them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and that actually the church is just a place of sinners, desperate for God admitting that we are all sinners, but because of Christ we are sanctifyed? The call is yours !


Fejao x x

 

[cabrown]

Okay, I give up. Obviously you can't have this kind of conversation without people throwing up all the same cliches and arguements. I should have called this thread something else. Having the old love the sinner conversation is pointless, and if everyone just wants to keep talking about that, I'll leave you to it.

 

[transientlife]

Oh come on, be strong!

 

[PastorFreud]

Nah, not my cup of tea, brougham.

I didn't mean YOU personally. Sorry. I meant, maybe it is not immoral for people to do this and I am all washed up.

 

[PastorFreud]

That was not my argument in the slightest. Obviously the new gospel of Christ usurps the law of Moses. But many of the laws of Moses are redundant in the gospel of Christ, such as murder and lying. So I was saying you can't necessarily say just because it's in the OT that it is irrelevent to us today. Please don't try to assigning me positions that I don't have, just so you can argue the other side.

Later in this argument, you did make reference to keeping some of the Mosaic laws. If you only keep the ones that are repeated in the Greek Bible, then you can't keep the prohibition against homosexuality. The only texts that you will find condemn homosexuality as a part of pagan worship. I would never suggest that something in the Hebrew bible is irrelevant. I would suggest it must be seen in context. I have been consistent. You have yet to show the criteria that you use to determine what is applied face value to today and what is not.

And what do you do with women being quiet in church and needing to cover their heads? These would be good examples for you to explain how you dismiss or accept them.

Could you explain using water in a communion cup? Is that a cultural adaptation? How can we know what is adaptable and what is not?

 

[Kathy]

nope..not by any means....

 

[PastorFreud]

God, and the Scriptures, are not the exclusive property of affluent, privileged, white, heterosexual North Americans.

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Bravo for saying so!

 

[PastorFreud]

Okay, I give up. Obviously you can't have this kind of conversation without people throwing up all the same cliches and arguements. I should have called this thread something else. Having the old love the sinner conversation is pointless, and if everyone just wants to keep talking about that, I'll leave you to it.

The church has excelled in hating sin. We could use a little more love.

Give up if you like, but if we are missing your point somehow, then please enlighten us. I see that homosexuals can be Christians. Or Buddhists. Or Mormons. Or Jews. I don't see homosexuality as a willfully disobedient act against God's laws. If you do, make your case.

 

[Shane Roach]

The Bible is clear that certain homosexual acts in certain situations are sinful, but making this into a universal prohibition is not clear.

The Bible is very, very clear about the one and only relationship that is within His will regarding sex. There is no, absolultely no wiggle room. Eve was created as the helpmate correct for Adam, and the relationship is established in Genesis, re-affirmed by Jesus (though the context was divorce, not homosexuality), and further developed as a means towards salvation and to avoid sexual sin in other NT writings.

I'm sorry. I don't even really know why this subject calls me out the way it does. If it were more just a thing about the law, it would be different. Gay people marrying doesn't even bother me. But people telling folks that there is some legitimate debate to be had about what God tells us about sex and orientation is just flatly untrue, and it brings out the sense of needing to defend the innocent in me, because I have been in the place where I was ignorant of the Bible and bought into things that ended up hurting me over a period of time, and I can well imagine how someone would feel if they struggled as a Christian with homosexuality, heard it was ok backed up with a lot of convincing technical-seeming arguments wrapped in friendly smiles and comforting nods, gave in to that temptation, only to find out later that it is indeed a serious sin and not only that, but listed among some of the more frighteningly strong denuciation scrpitures in the Bible, and also finding that after all, with discipline, they can control it, and then turning around and having to fight through the guilt that can bring on if that person is then not near some -very- mature Chrstians who can walk them back to where they need to be.

 

[PastorFreud]

The Bible is very, very clear about the one and only relationship that is within His will regarding sex. There is no, absolultely no wiggle room. Eve was created as the helpmate correct for Adam, and the relationship is established in Genesis, re-affirmed by Jesus (though the context was divorce, not homosexuality), and further developed as a means towards salvation and to avoid sexual sin in other NT writings.

I disagree. Homosexuality is rare. It is an exception. Exceptions need not be sinful or wrong. An infertile woman is an exception. A man with mutliple wives is an exception, but this is allowed. Reading the Genesis myth as a pattern for all humanity is problematic. For one, incest is required in order to populate the earth if one takes this story literally. Incest is not part of the pattern that God wanted to establish. I see plenty of "wiggle room," though I would not label it so negatively.

I'm sorry. I don't even really know why this subject calls me out the way it does. If it were more just a thing about the law, it would be different. Gay people marrying doesn't even bother me. But people telling folks that there is some legitimate debate to be had about what God tells us about sex and orientation is just flatly untrue, and it brings out the sense of needing to defend the innocent in me, because I have been in the place where I was ignorant of the Bible and bought into things that ended up hurting me over a period of time, and I can well imagine how someone would feel if they struggled as a Christian with homosexuality, heard it was ok backed up with a lot of convincing technical-seeming arguments wrapped in friendly smiles and comforting nods, gave in to that temptation, only to find out later that it is indeed a serious sin and not only that, but listed among some of the more frighteningly strong denuciation scrpitures in the Bible, and also finding that after all, with discipline, they can control it, and then turning around and having to fight through the guilt that can bring on if that person is then not near some -very- mature Chrstians who can walk them back to where they need to be.

Well that is interesting. The research data goes totally against your assertions. Reparative therapy in its many forms has failed. 5 years after such efforts, less than 3% report an exclusively heterosexual orientation. What does increase dramatically is pain and heartache and the suicide rate for people trying to change something that is extremely resistant to change. The damage is clearly on the side of people who are trying to help people get "back to where they need to be" and not those who are open and affirming.

 

[jgarden]

Personally i no longer care what other "christians" think of my sexuality,these people have had far too much power over me for far to long! I gay God know's im gay and God loves me! that's all that matters to me.

If they don't like who i am that's their problem. If they are too small minded to let my sexuality get in the way of friendship that's to bad they could be pushing away the best friend they have ever had!!

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (Matthew 22:15)

Ironically, Christians spend much of their time and effort on a topic that Jesus, himself, remained mysteriously silent. On the other hand, maybe He has already provided us with the necessary direction and priorities.

Second Greatest Commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:39,40)

Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticism not for sinners and non believers, but for those pious "hypocrites" who attempt to "shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces." Unfortunately, there never seems to be a shortage of modern day Pharisees whose priority is the Law and not "love of neighbor," irrespective of race, religion or sexual orientation.

 

[transientlife]

Good points jgarden

 

[Shane Roach]

Pastor Freud declares without support that since homosexuality is rare, it is an exception. He also states, without support, that just because a certain set of people rarely if ever repent of a specific sin that it is therefore beyond their power to do so.

I would like to point out that science is a human activity, and has been demonstrated to be just as fraught with personal aspirations and political tensions as any other. Russian genetics, for example, was set back several years due to party intereference with research due to the perception by Stalin and others that one view was more amenable to Marxism than others. The question of whether reparative therapy is a disaster or not rests on a lot of complex issues, one of which is the rather difficult question of whether people have free will at all. There are many reasons why reparative therapy may be ineffective that nevertheless would not mean that people are incapable of changing. Indeed, just one person responding to the therapy would indicate that it is at least possible.

Using science to inform decisions is a good thing, but using data in sloppy ways only serves to confuse the issue. What the Bible says though is extremely clear, and I have yet to see even one example within the Bible itself to contradict the assertions of Genesis that marriage is the only relationship that allows for sexual intercourse, and that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman.

Again, though science can sometimes be confused as hazy evidence it sifted through to find the truth, the Bible is clear on this subject. That's my concern.

 

[Shane Roach]

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (Matthew 22:15)

Ironically, Christians spend much of their time and effort on a topic that Jesus, himself, remained mysteriously silent. On the other hand, maybe He has already provided us with the necessary direction and priorities.

Second Greatest Commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:39,40)

Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticism not for sinners and non believers, but for those pious "hypocrites" who attempt to "shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces." Unfortunately, there never seems to be a shortage of modern day Pharisees whose priority is the Law and not "love of neighbor," irrespective of race, religion or sexual orientation.

This is unfortunate, that you seem to think it necessary to attack people rather than make an argument. There are plenty of examples of Jesus denouncing sin, and all sorts of writing in the New Testament about church discipline that explain in detail why loving one's neighbor does not translate into accepting sinful activity within the church.

 

[Polycarp1]

Pastor Freud declares without support that since homosexuality is rare, it is an exception. He also states, without support, that just because a certain set of people rarely if ever repent of a specific sin that it is therefore beyond their power to do so.

I would like to point out that science is a human activity, and has been demonstrated to be just as fraught with personal aspirations and political tensions as any other. Russian genetics, for example, was set back several years due to party intereference with research due to the perception by Stalin and others that one view was more amenable to Marxism than others. The question of whether reparative therapy is a disaster or not rests on a lot of complex issues, one of which is the rather difficult question of whether people have free will at all. There are many reasons why reparative therapy may be ineffective that nevertheless would not mean that people are incapable of changing. Indeed, just one person responding to the therapy would indicate that it is at least possible.

Using science to inform decisions is a good thing, but using data in sloppy ways only serves to confuse the issue. What the Bible says though is extremely clear, and I have yet to see even one example within the Bible itself to contradict the assertions of Genesis that marriage is the only relationship that allows for sexual intercourse, and that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman.

Again, though science can sometimes be confused as hazy evidence it sifted through to find the truth, the Bible is clear on this subject. That's my concern.

Useful points. However, there are some strong arguments in the opposite direction, which I'll try to summarize.

First, let's define "homosexual." As the term is used by the people who are homosexual themselves, it refers to the inner orientation of finding some persons of the same sex as themselves to be sexually and romantically desirable, as the exclusive or predominant category of person dsired. It does not ipso facto mean "engaging in gay sexual practices," much less "promiscuously having sex with other men/women whenever opportunity presents itself."

I think we can conclude from this that a celibate homosexual person is no more or less welcome in a church than anyone else who struggles with a desire considered as leading to sin, whether it be heterosexual promiscuity, adultery, alcoholism, a tendency to lose one's temper, or even a tendency to judgmentalism.

Now, the virtually unanimous testimony of gay people is that they did not choose to be gay, and that being gay, in this sense, is something that they are incapable of changing by their own power. I concur that there have been people who have testified to having been changed by a combination of personal will power and divine intervention -- we have two or three members here on this board who have said so.

But careful examination of accounts of success and failures at "ex-gay deliverance ministries" indicates that there is no real correlation save one between any given criterion and success or failure. It's not a question of what methodology is used by the ministry, of the intensity of desire to change, of the duration of effort put into it, or anything else. The one defining difference is God acting in the lives of the success stories. And people with similar stories who were not so delivered may have put as much effort, undergone as much and even identical therapies, etc.

My conclusion is that God's plan for some people is that they be equipped to "come out of homosexuality" -- because it's not right, is sinful, for them. And that His intent for others is that they find peace in being who they are, knowing His love and committed to following Him as the people they are.

I agree that the Bible is extremely clear on condemning certain behaviors -- but it's human interpretation that what Moses or Paul or Jude is describing is what Joe Gayman and Leslie Lesbian are experiencing in their own lives. There are thread after thread of discussions of the language and context of the half dozen or so verses dealing with homosexuality in Scripture on these boards, and I'm not going to reiterate what they say. (For a quick example, consider Romans 1 -- that is condemning quite clearly the hedonistic possessions-and-pleasure-focused lifestyle of some First Century Romans, including the turning to gay sex in search of new kicks. That does not match the sincere belief in God and eschewing of things of this world that characterizes gay Christians, and to use it to condemn them is a violation of both proper Biblical exegesis and our Lord's call to minister to our brothers and sisters in Christ with love and compassion.

And it is out of no desire to condone sin or to change the Gospel to suit political correctness that liberal Christians embrace and welcome gay people, and refuse to sit in condemnation over them, but rather the explicit command of Christ as to how we are supposed to treat all our fellow men and women, gay people included. And what He said is most important, for me at least, ranks waaaaay above anyone's interpretation of how we are supposed to address the issue of supposed sin in our midst.

 

[transientlife]

<<And it is out of no desire to condone sin or to change the Gospel to suit political correctness that liberal Christians embrace and welcome gay people, and refuse to sit in condemnation over them, but rather the explicit command of Christ as to how we are supposed to treat all our fellow men and women, gay people included. And what He said is most important, for me at least, ranks waaaaay above anyone's interpretation of how we are supposed to address the issue of supposed sin in our midst.>>

Very eloquently put and very true, Polycarp.

 

[fejao]

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (Matthew 22:15)

Ironically, Christians spend much of their time and effort on a topic that Jesus, himself, remained mysteriously silent. On the other hand, maybe He has already provided us with the necessary direction and priorities.

Second Greatest Commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:39,40)

Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticism not for sinners and non believers, but for those pious "hypocrites" who attempt to "shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces." Unfortunately, there never seems to be a shortage of modern day Pharisees whose priority is the Law and not "love of neighbor," irrespective of race, religion or sexual orientation.

So true ! Great to see someone, walking in the spirit of Jesus ! Blessings!!!!!

Fejao x

 

[PastorFreud]

Pastor Freud declares without support that since homosexuality is rare, it is an exception. He also states, without support, that just because a certain set of people rarely if ever repent of a specific sin that it is therefore beyond their power to do so.

If this is what you think I am declaring, I have not made myself clear. Homosexuality is rare. Infertility is rare. Both of these are exceptions to the norm of marriage. We don't consider infertility to be a sin. Why homosexuality? You cannot declare something sinful because it is does not meet the ideal model. Something more is required than just being different.

I would like to point out that science is a human activity, and has been demonstrated to be just as fraught with personal aspirations and political tensions as any other. Russian genetics, for example, was set back several years due to party intereference with research due to the perception by Stalin and others that one view was more amenable to Marxism than others.

I would like to point out that all truth is God's truth. We should use the capacities God gave us to learn and understand the world around us. Being a human activity means it has its potential abuses, but science is not evil.

I would like to point out that theology is a human activity and has been demonstrated to be just as fraught with personal aspirations and political tensions as any other.

The question of whether reparative therapy is a disaster or not rests on a lot of complex issues, one of which is the rather difficult question of whether people have free will at all. There are many reasons why reparative therapy may be ineffective that nevertheless would not mean that people are incapable of changing. Indeed, just one person responding to the therapy would indicate that it is at least possible.

I am glad you realize that the issue is complex. There are no simple answers. However, we would expect some response just as a matter of random chance. The placebo effect alone can bring about quite a bit of change for depressed clients. One person who responds to therapy does not justify the many more who are harmed by it.

Using science to inform decisions is a good thing, but using data in sloppy ways only serves to confuse the issue.

I agree. For examples of sloppy data use, see NARTH.

What the Bible says though is extremely clear, and I have yet to see even one example within the Bible itself to contradict the assertions of Genesis that marriage is the only relationship that allows for sexual intercourse, and that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman.

You have repeated your assertion, but you haven't demonstrated how clear the issue is. The Bible is very confused on sexuality. Women were the sexual property of men in the Hebrew culture at this time period and you must see the rules about sexuality as property rules. Read the 10th commandment about not coveting your neighbor's wife. Or his donkey, or his slaves, or anything else that, like his wife, belong to him. The supposed sexual prohibitions in some passages are property rules and had to do with being a worthy neighbor. Other sexual prohibitions are specifically linked to pagan worship. If you want to build a sexual ethic using the Bible, you have to go beyond the specific expression of God's principles to a barbaric culture and understand the priciples themselves.

And I have shown with examples of David, Solomon, and so forth that it was permissible to have more than one wife. Abraham slept with Hagar. God did not punish Abraham for sexual misconduct, in fact she was his slave and sex with her was his privilege in that culture, but God punishes him for disbelief in God's promise.

Genesis is laying out an ideal model. It never covers the exception of infertility, never addresses divorce, never explains about incest, and doesn't discuss homosexuality. To say that Genesis condemns homosexuality is a large stretch and may have more to do with personal aspirations and political tensions.

Again, though science can sometimes be confused as hazy evidence it sifted through to find the truth, the Bible is clear on this subject. That's my concern.

If it is so clear, why don't more Christians agree? Can you spend some time making it clear to us rather than repeating this assertion as though we all see the clarity but are choosing to ignore it?

 

[fejao]

And it is out of no desire to condone sin or to change the Gospel to suit political correctness that liberal Christians embrace and welcome gay people, and refuse to sit in condemnation over them, but rather the explicit command of Christ as to how we are supposed to treat all our fellow men and women, gay people included. And what He said is most important, for me at least, ranks waaaaay above anyone's interpretation of how we are supposed to address the issue of supposed sin in our midst.

I think that it is also sad that people who accept gay people/Christians are considered "liberal"...should they not be considered Christ like, showing more of the attitude of Christ.

Fejao x x

 

[Ruthiefan]

I think that it is also sad that people who accept gay people/Christians are considered "liberal"...should they not be considered Christ like, showing more of the attitude of Christ.

Fejao x x