Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[watcher16]

I would like to state that there will be a lot of gay people sitting nearer to the throne of Christ than me or many other fundamentalists.

This just because they will have lived a more christian life than these. Christian means here 'the way of Jezus' and not 'the way of the Church'.

 

[razzelflabben]

You bring up so many issues here I don't even know where to begin. In some ways you are right, as has been already stated. Hetero's have sin issues too. It greives me that the church finds is necessary to isolate homosexuality but that is a repremand for the church and has been addressed here.

Back from work...Of course, Homosexuals can be christians. As for those of you who adhere to every word of the bible, how do you feel about this?
I'm assuming that you devout christians do not believe in marriage between people of different races-Numbers 25:6-8; Deuteronomy 7:3; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27.

I do not recall any scripture that deals with racial issues in the Bible certain groups were instructed not to intermarry, usually due to the religious backgrounds of the people. In fact, the scripture that deals with unequally yoked is dealing with unbelievers to believers. There are other issues here that I will deal with later but it is always vital to understand scripture from a historical context before making rash judgements.

Or, the marriage of a divorced woman- Matthew 5:32. Oh, and you widows cannot remarry any one but your brother-in-law, Deuteronomy 25:10. You ministers may only marry a virgin-Leviticus 21:13-14. You straight men? You cannot have had any sexual thoughts for any woman other than the one you intend to marry-Matthew 5:28.

This is one in which the church does need to do a better job of teaching on thou again, you are missing some things in the old law that leaves your arguement flawed, the church violates many teachings on divorce and remarriage and a complete study on the issue would be a help when discipling the believer.

I am certain that plenty of you will be posting in seconds to refute me. To those of you I will ask, how can you pick and choose? How is it o.k. for you to be "christian" and marry one of another race, or one who has been divorced, or one who is widowed? How can you marry if you have had lustful thoughts for another other than your intended? I mean, the bible says it's wrong, right? You will say that you are truly penitent, or the bible didn't really mean that YOU couldn't marry someone from a different race, or who was divorced. I am certain that you all have your hormones so in check, you've never lusted after any one you did not intend to marry, right? Plus, we all know it's o.k. to commit incest with your Father if there are no suitable men around. I hope you are all keeping kosher...thou shalt not seethe a calf in it's mother's milk, so no cheeseburgers or pepperoni pizzas for you! No work on saturdays, either. Then, there are those pesky laws about fiber mixing...No cotton-poly blends for this lot.
Yes there are gay christians, whether or not you approve.

realistically,
BobKat

As to the picking a choosing. I refer you to justification posts earlier in this thread. What you are failing to understand however, is that the old gave way to the new. Here is a further explaination. The old testament law, kosher if you will, was a social law put forth for the Children of Isreal it was not intended to be an eternal law for all people. When Christ rose from the dead, everything changed. Even the law. The old law as it is, was replaced by new testament teachings and eternal law for all people. This does not mean that the old law has no purpose, there is a great deal of purpose to it, but it is no longer the law by which we are required to live. It is not the law that saves us, as once was true. Now, it is Christ Jesus that saves us. The old law gave way to the new. Many of the arguements you are making are based on the old testimant laws and are not applicatable today. For your arguement to have marit (part of it does and more could), you would have to understand this difference and base your arguement on such.

 

[razzelflabben]

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God - this does not imply that the sins of everyone are the same or equal.

for the wages of sin is death - sin deadens the body and the spirit, but each sin does not do this equally.

According to the bible, the death brought on by sin is eternal seperation from God. All sin holds this same punishment. For there to be a heirachy of sin, different punishments would be required based on the degree of the sin. Our legal system shows this very well. A misdemeaner does not hold the same punishment as murder because we have a heirachy of crime or "sin against mankind" God does not have this same heirachy.

The first statement was only a precurser, showing that we are all at fault for sinning and therefore not allowing anyone the oppertunity to place mans heiarchy on God's commands. Placed in my post to alleviate future arguements as it were.

 

[razzelflabben]

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God - this does not imply that the sins of everyone are the same or equal.

for the wages of sin is death - sin deadens the body and the spirit, but each sin does not do this equally.

According to the bible, the death brought on by sin is eternal seperation from God. All sin holds this same punishment. For there to be a heirachy of sin, different punishments would be required based on the degree of the sin. Our legal system shows this very well. A misdemeaner does not hold the same punishment as murder because we have a heirachy of crime or "sin against mankind" God does not have this same heirachy. To interprete scripture any other way, would negate the resurrection completely which is central to Biblical teaching. This doesn't even address the independent scriptures explaining this concept.

The first statement was only a precurser, showing that we are all at fault for sinning and therefore not allowing anyone the oppertunity to place mans heiarchy on God's commands. Placed in my post to alleviate future arguements as it were.

 

[razzelflabben]

We have to admit that the effects of stealing a penny from the cash register and murdering 12 people while robbing the bank are different. All of us may have sinned and all sin may lead to death, but to lump everything sends a message that is actually defeating. Take unmarried young people who are taught that thinking about sex is the same as having sex. There comes a point where the young people say, "We are already guilty, we might as well have the sex." The sin of lust and the sin of adultery definitely have a different effect on society.

This arguement is one based on the temperal understanding of sin not the eternal. Man has a heiarchy of sin and I am greatful that they do. I would hate to think that from a society standpoint, my speeding ticket is equal to murder, but those laws are for the function of society. Sin on the other hand is about the eternal. The issue of sin is not for the function of society, but rather for a close relationship with God. The purpose is different and therefore the punishment and view is different. (I do not mean to sound harsh or disrespectful here but I am astonished that you people have never heard this before. I am speachless to say how grieveous my soul is at knowing this is the first time you have heard these things)

Paul already addressed this issue very eloquently I might add. Rom 4-6, especially 6:1-10 If we beleive this, then the resurrection of Christ has no meaning. We die to self, the old man. We cannot be resurrected into Christ unless we live in freedom from the sinnful nature. Oh, Paul says it so much better, I will leave it up to him.

With this is mind, who does the sin of homosexual love and sex in the context of committed relationships really hurt?

According to the Bible, any sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body. It is a hatred of self. It prevents the people involved from being close to God.

Razelflabben, I will find the link for you. The Bible study on all these passages has been done a number of times. Unfortunately, unless the reader is consistent in interpreting and understanding the text, it won't make much of a difference to do the study again.

I will appreciate it and look forward to it. Consistancy is only part of the battle for the remainder is doing away with preconcieved ideas of what we will find. I have studied the subject, which is why I have an opinion as to whether or not it is a sin, but, no one has all the answers so I am open to new information I may not have already considered.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh and please,
no "emotional" responses, just logical ones.
gratefully, BobKat

Emotional responses are fine as long they they are not allowed to cloud the issue, or the truths therein.

 

[Outspoken]

I am not talking about salvation; I am talking about being in the church. In regards to salvation you are correct, but there are certain minimum standards for a person to be a member of the church, and this too is not a matter of interpretation. It is clearly taught throughout the NT writings.

then I might be inclined to agree depending on the congragation. Denying fellowship should always be done as a REDEMPTIVE purpose, not a punitive one though.

 

[Outspoken]

For Freud...The wages of sin is death..I see no, the wages of rape is X and the wages of murder is Y and the wages..etc...This is just one of many supporting verses. All sin is the same in the eyes of God. Now if you want to talk about the physical consequences, thats another story, but you know the difference between those right?

 

[SabreWolf/SS]

Gays cannot be christians. If they want to be christians then they need to start looking at members of the opposite sex.

 

[Shane Roach]

According to the bible, the death brought on by sin is eternal seperation from God. All sin holds this same punishment. For there to be a heirachy of sin, different punishments would be required based on the degree of the sin. Our legal system shows this very well. A misdemeaner does not hold the same punishment as murder because we have a heirachy of crime or "sin against mankind" God does not have this same heirachy.

The first statement was only a precurser, showing that we are all at fault for sinning and therefore not allowing anyone the oppertunity to place mans heiarchy on God's commands. Placed in my post to alleviate future arguements as it were.

Matthew 23:14
Woe unto you scribes and pharisees, ... therefore ye shall recieve the greater damnation.

All the scriptures regarding degrees of disobedience and exclusion from the church don't really have anything to do with sin and damnation, but I thought I'd point out that the very common belief that all sin is just alike is one that is not supported scripturally. There are others, but if you have a concordance you can study it up yourself and that way I won't strain my eyebulbs doing it for ya!

 

[Miss Shelby]

Gays cannot be christians.

Wrong.

If they want to be christians then they need to start looking at members of the opposite sex.

Why, so they can fall into sin with a member of the opposite sex?

Michelle

 

[SabreWolf/SS]

Wrong.

Why, so they can fall into sin with a member of the opposite sex?

Are you having fun making a hemorrhoid out of yourself?

Michelle

That is just what you think. If they want to be a christian then they must make the choice to quite being gay and lead a normal life.

 

[TScott]

Gays cannot be christians. If they want to be christians then they need to start looking at members of the opposite sex.

What? You mean instead of looking at you? Is that what you are afraid of?

 

[Shane Roach]

The 'victimless crime' argument as it pertains to homosexuality is in error, in my oppinion, for one simple reason. Sin is not synonymous with crime. Many, many things that are sin are not crime. Furthermore, when I began to study the Bible in detail I found several interesting things about sin that rarely get mentioned.

For one, avoiding sin at all costs is not even taught in the Old Testament, supposedly the stern and implacable face of God. Ecclesiastes 7:16 "Be not righteous overmuch..."

Secondly, the law is not to prevent sin, which makes sense since it could neither cure death nor remake man, but rather was for the benefit of teaching us all the difference between right and wrong, clean and dirty, good and evil. Romans 3:20 "...for by the law is the knowledge of sin." or Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, had not the law said, "Thou shalt not covet."

So the point of the law was never to justify or be a strict way to salvation. Even the law itself made allowance for sin in various offerings. The point is to learn something about what is good and what is bad. In that sense, it is written, none of the law passes away, but is fulfilled instead. This is important even for those who have no need to worry with the details of the law, because the clear implication is that there is nothing wrong with it, either then or now. So when someone comes and tries to make this or that part of the law seem rediculous, I would just like to say that it is disheartening to me that Christians often run for the hills. What if it would be a good idea for women to be covered in church? What if they really shouldn't be leaders or ministers of certain types? So what? The point of being a church is not to cater to those who don't even care about God or believe in Him in the first place. The church is a place for believers to strengthen one another.

It's also important to remember that we as Christians are not going to foul things up for God. God has known since before the foundations of the earth who were His and not. So if the Bible offends someone and they choose not to be a Christian because of that, it is not the fault of either the Bible, or the Christian who stands by what the Bible says, but of the person who judges God and rejects him in favor of their own judgements. And we are even warned that people will mock God, so it should come as no surprise to anyone.

To return then to the subject of homosexuality, so far we have several vague references to one possible couple, David and Jonathan, which are if looked at closesly clearly not married or having sex. We have multiple references to homosexuality, often in conjunction with idolatry. We have a reference to homosexuality in the new Testament naming it as a consequence in some of being given wholeheartedly over to sin because they refuse to maintain God in their thoughts. We have a very clear definition of the one acceptable sexual relationship, referred to time and time again as man and wife or husband and wife, words which have clear gender specific meanings. And we have a commandment in the New Testament that keeping clear of sexual sin is still a must for those who would follow God.

One last word on supposed 'consistent' interpretation. These books are not written in a code. They are not by any means unclear. Pouring through the Bible looking for a loophole of this or that sort is a bad sign, and the Bible makes specific reference to not be taken in by people who constantly argue over words and definitions, or fine points in the law, or whatever. For example, having looked into the concept of feet as genitals, I found that first, the word used for feet in the example given regarding Ruth is not the word that has that connotation, and second that even if it were, the context would make it clear that it was not sexual. Submisive and a bit sensual maybe, if you have a thing for feet, but certainly not sensual. So why was this put foreward? What difference does it make? It is just one more example of exactly what we are told explicitly NOT to do, which is argue around and around about words and definitions. Language is and has always been something of an inexact science, but neither English nor Hebrew are so complex that you can't tell by context what is going on in a given situation.

I have to admit, the feet one was a new one on me. I guess you learn something new every day. But please, read the whole scene and in context. Context should alwas be kept in mind when reading anything in any language.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think that the name calling and trite comments need to stop before the thread gets closed, unless that's what you three (SabreWolf, Tscot, Shelby) have in mind to begin with.

 

[BobKat]

O.K,
Let me see if I have this right...keeping Kosher, not marrying divorced folks, or folks of a different race, widows marrying brother-in-laws, etc. are all "old" laws that don't apply to we modern people. In that case, the laws about homosexuality are old laws. If you can pick and choose, so can I.

sincerely,
BobKat

 

[PastorFreud]

This arguement is one based on the temperal understanding of sin not the eternal. Man has a heiarchy of sin and I am greatful that they do. I would hate to think that from a society standpoint, my speeding ticket is equal to murder, but those laws are for the function of society. Sin on the other hand is about the eternal. The issue of sin is not for the function of society, but rather for a close relationship with God. The purpose is different and therefore the punishment and view is different. (I do not mean to sound harsh or disrespectful here but I am astonished that you people have never heard this before. I am speachless to say how grieveous my soul is at knowing this is the first time you have heard these things)

Paul already addressed this issue very eloquently I might add. Rom 4-6, especially 6:1-10 If we beleive this, then the resurrection of Christ has no meaning. We die to self, the old man. We cannot be resurrected into Christ unless we live in freedom from the sinnful nature. Oh, Paul says it so much better, I will leave it up to him.

The problem we are liking having in this communication is the definition of "sin" and "sins". In my opinion, sin is all the things we do while trying to find meaning and purpose in life outside of connection with God. Specific sins are those actions themselves. For example, if I give money to someone in need so that I will be noticed, then I am trying to find meaning and purpose in my own actions. If I give money to someone in need because I God has made me a giving person who recognizes that I don't need to hold on to every dollar out of fear of my needs not getting met, then the action is a part of faith.

In the Hebrew Bible, sins were definitely listed in a hierarchy. Reparation for sin required an action toward the human who affected by your actions. The spiritual restitution was an offering. Now either God really was satisfied with the smell of burning animal flesh, or else the offering system had some other purposes and benefits. I tend to think the offerings helped people be conscious of their own actions and real consequences. But once a year the blood was poured on the mercy seat. This act covered all of Israel, even those who thought it was silly. It was a symbol of grace.

According to the Bible, any sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body. It is a hatred of self. It prevents the people involved from being close to God.

I would agree. But homosexuality is not sexual immorality, so this does not apply.

I will appreciate it and look forward to it. Consistancy is only part of the battle for the remainder is doing away with preconcieved ideas of what we will find. I have studied the subject, which is why I have an opinion as to whether or not it is a sin, but, no one has all the answers so I am open to new information I may not have already considered.

Next week I'll find the info I was referring to or repost it. This weekend I am too busy participating in live theater. I only stopped to post this while I had a short break between classes.

 

[razzelflabben]

Matthew 23:14
Woe unto you scribes and pharisees, ... therefore ye shall recieve the greater damnation.

All the scriptures regarding degrees of disobedience and exclusion from the church don't really have anything to do with sin and damnation, but I thought I'd point out that the very common belief that all sin is just alike is one that is not supported scripturally. There are others, but if you have a concordance you can study it up yourself and that way I won't strain my eyebulbs doing it for ya!

There is a belief that there are degrees of hell but this does not negate the facts that all sin leads to the same punishment, death. Hell is a seperate thing from death though they are closely related. How does this translate into degrees of sin, I don't see your connection. First, there is question as to whether or not there are degrees of hell or whether this refers to punishment in the temperal as well as the eternal. Secondly, death is death and no matter how you slice it, you still end up with death. If I die of natural causes, am I any less dead than if I die in an accident? I am still dead. Again, where is the heirarchy? The bottom line, sin seperates us from God. eternal life in Christ being the gift, seperation being the punishment. All sin carries the same punishment therefore, all sin is the same in God's eyes. For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. Punishment and reward, not degrees of punishment.

 

[razzelflabben]

O.K,
Let me see if I have this right...keeping Kosher, not marrying divorced folks, or folks of a different race, widows marrying brother-in-laws, etc. are all "old" laws that don't apply to we modern people. In that case, the laws about homosexuality are old laws. If you can pick and choose, so can I.

sincerely,
BobKat

Taking some liberties with the post again, let me see if I can explain it again. The old law has a purpose, but there are differences in the old law and the new law. Some of the issues you present are carried through in the new law and should be taught and followed today. Others were specific to times, people, and events. It is important to study and learn the difference before assuming things that are not intended for everyone all the time. It is not a matter of picking and choosing anything, it is a matter of studying to know what was intended and for what purpose. By the way, I did say that one teaching that is often overlooked in the church is marriage of divorced people so be careful to lump me into the fundamentalist theology.

 

[razzelflabben]

The problem we are liking having in this communication is the definition of "sin" and "sins". In my opinion, sin is all the things we do while trying to find meaning and purpose in life outside of connection with God. Specific sins are those actions themselves. For example, if I give money to someone in need so that I will be noticed, then I am trying to find meaning and purpose in my own actions. If I give money to someone in need because I God has made me a giving person who recognizes that I don't need to hold on to every dollar out of fear of my needs not getting met, then the action is a part of faith.

According to scripture, sins are the things that seperate us from God. How do we know these things, by studying the word of God and listening to the Holy Spirit.

In the Hebrew Bible, sins were definitely listed in a hierarchy. Reparation for sin required an action toward the human who affected by your actions. The spiritual restitution was an offering. Now either God really was satisfied with the smell of burning animal flesh, or else the offering system had some other purposes and benefits. I tend to think the offerings helped people be conscious of their own actions and real consequences. But once a year the blood was poured on the mercy seat. This act covered all of Israel, even those who thought it was silly. It was a symbol of grace.

What you are talking about here is the social law. This is likened to our laws about speeding, stealing, carrying weapons, etc. These always carry a heirarchy based on the effects these things have on the society. This is very different from the things that are sins in the bible, the things that seperate us from God. Some of these laws overlap, but they are not the same. Laws, social laws, given by God or otherwise, always have a heiarchy of punishment. It is the sins, the things that seperate us from God that have no hierarchy.

I would agree. But homosexuality is not sexual immorality, so this does not apply.

If homosexuality is not sexual immorality, then what is it? It would stand to reason that a sin that is sexual in nature would equal sexual immorality. The study I have done in the scriptures, indicates that homosexuality is a sin, unless otherwise proven in scripture, I must assume that it is a sin. Sin by nature is immoral. Thus, homosexuality is sexual immorality.

Next week I'll find the info I was referring to or repost it. This weekend I am too busy participating in live theater. I only stopped to post this while I had a short break between classes.

I look forward to it, enjoy your theater, sounds like fun.