Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[seebs]

For people who are curious how anyone could understand scripture as not identifying homosexuality as sin:

http://www.reluctantjourney.co.uk/

Bible study on the topic, and overall a pretty good look at things. It's not totally "unbiased" - but it's clearly written, and shows one man's journey on this particular topic. Worth reading in the hopes of reaching understanding of where other people are coming from.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

I am aware death and hell are different things. It doesn't make any difference. When someone tells you you will have a greater punishment of some sort, whether it be temperary or permanent, due to the severity of your misdeeds, the meaning is that there is such a thing as a difference in the severity of misdeeds and the corresponding punishment. You make it sound as if the distinction between stealing a tea bag and killing someone is lost on God, whereas all the punishments range in severity in the Law and this verse and others indicate some degrees of punishment after death as well.

 

[Shane Roach]

For people who are curious how anyone could understand scripture as not identifying homosexuality as sin:

http://www.reluctantjourney.co.uk/

Bible study on the topic, and overall a pretty good look at things. It's not totally "unbiased" - but it's clearly written, and shows one man's journey on this particular topic. Worth reading in the hopes of reaching understanding of where other people are coming from.

This has been repeatedly referenced on these boards, and it does not adequately answer any of the facts. There are no gay marriages in the Old or New testament. Marriage is described as between a man and woman exclusively. Marriage is described as the only situation where God sanctions sexual activity. The reason it doesn't answer these questions is because there is no answer to them at all.

The silence of every single one of you who support this new interpretation on these simple facts and the repeated attempts to get lost in possible alternate interpretations, which this site even indicates fully are based on personal oppinions about the nature of homosexuality and choice to begin with, are a clear indication you have no ground on which to stand.

 

[seebs]

I merely offer it as an explanation of how people understand the verses normally cited. I'm not planning to get into an extended debate; just to point out that the verses in the Bible which are on the topic can be understood in different ways. You may think that understanding is incorrect, but that's not the question; the question is "how are people understanding these".

There is no answer to "there are no gay marriages in the Bible" much as there's no answer to "there are no computers in the Bible". The Bible doesn't describe everything. The question I'm answering is not "how much support does this position enjoy from other sources or analysis", but "what is the position being held". The reluctantjourney site describes one way in which Christians have understood the widely-cited passages under discussion. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a complete and comprehensive proof of a position; it's just a starting point for people who wish to understand the point of view the "other side" is advancing.

I am not particularly pleased by the fairly confrontational and hostile tone you're taking here. It seems to me that your tone does not show a great deal of respect for fellow posters.

 

[Shane Roach]

I merely offer it as an explanation of how people understand the verses normally cited. I'm not planning to get into an extended debate; just to point out that the verses in the Bible which are on the topic can be understood in different ways. You may think that understanding is incorrect, but that's not the question; the question is "how are people understanding these".

There is no answer to "there are no gay marriages in the Bible" much as there's no answer to "there are no computers in the Bible". The Bible doesn't describe everything. The question I'm answering is not "how much support does this position enjoy from other sources or analysis", but "what is the position being held". The reluctantjourney site describes one way in which Christians have understood the widely-cited passages under discussion. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a complete and comprehensive proof of a position; it's just a starting point for people who wish to understand the point of view the "other side" is advancing.

I am not particularly pleased by the fairly confrontational and hostile tone you're taking here. It seems to me that your tone does not show a great deal of respect for fellow posters.

The problem with your computer analogy is that marriage is discussed thoroughly in the Bible. In fact, your analogy is probably more 'hostile and confrontational' than anything I've said yet, and also has absolutely no Biblical support to back it up as any sort of rule of thumb for discussing what is or is not in the Bible.

 

[Matt Never Existed]

This has been repeatedly referenced on these boards, and it does not adequately answer any of the facts. There are no gay marriages in the Old or New testament. Marriage is described as between a man and woman exclusively. Marriage is described as the only situation where God sanctions sexual activity. The reason it doesn't answer these questions is because there is no answer to them at all.

If I may, what about the non-christians who get married? Is their sexual activity not 'sanctioned' ?

Marriage is not exclusively a christian 'right'. Many other cultures and religions have been marrying people in one way or another for ages and ages, even before Christ walked the earth. Some of these cultures even had same-sex marriages, if my understanding is correct.

The silence of every single one of you who support this new interpretation on these simple facts and the repeated attempts to get lost in possible alternate interpretations, which this site even indicates fully are based on personal oppinions about the nature of homosexuality and choice to begin with, are a clear indication you have no ground on which to stand.

Silence does not mean anything is wrong. The bible is silent on Cell Phones, on cars, on planes, etc. Does that mean that because you can't produce any scripture on them, that they are wrong? Not at all. The bible discribes things that were around at the time of each book being written. People fail to remember that these books or letters written at the time were taken in the context of the times, and we should be using that same context they were using then.

 

[Shane Roach]

There is no doubt about it. If the treatment of homosexuality as unsinfull is continually pressed in the churches it -will- create a split. There is no convincing evidence that homosexuality is entirely out of the control of the majority of people who practice it, nor that a person who suffers from homosexual attraction all their life cannot simply bear that cross as other Christians bear theirs such as alchoholism or temptations towards other sexual sins. Love is not the issue. Sex is. The position that can save the church from yet another debilitating schism is to accept homosexuals but reject homosexuality. This allows for people with a heart for the plight of the homosexual to minister, while at the same time avoiding doing violence to the clear teaching of the Bible. Accusing people who hold strongly to the traditional view of being somehow hostile or disresepctfull is a personal attack and, last I checked, against the rules of the forums in addition to being bad argumetation.

 

[Shane Roach]

If I may, what about the non-christians who get married? Is their sexual activity not 'sanctioned' ?

Marriage is not exclusively a christian 'right'. Many other cultures and religions have been marrying people in one way or another for ages and ages, even before Christ walked the earth. Some of these cultures even had same-sex marriages, if my understanding is correct.

Silence does not mean anything is wrong. The bible is silent on Cell Phones, on cars, on planes, etc. Does that mean that because you can't produce any scripture on them, that they are wrong? Not at all. The bible discribes things that were around at the time of each book being written. People fail to remember that these books or letters written at the time were taken in the context of the times, and we should be using that same context they were using then.

Homosexuality and marriage were both around and referenced clearly at the time of writing. The point is that the so called silence simply does not exist. Marriages made before conversion are clearly still in force according to the Bible.

 

[TScott]

Not to be trite I think you can answer the question posted by this thread by another question. Are those that sin to be excluded from being Christian? If the answer is "yes" then instead of being the largest reliogion in the world it would be the smallest.

The only Christians I have ever known who claimed they did not sin were liars.

 

[Shane Roach]

Not to be trite I think you can answer the question posted by this thread by another question. Are those that sin to be excluded from being Christian? If the answer is "yes" then instead of being the largest reliogion in the world it would be the smallest.

The only Christians I have ever known who claimed they did not sin were liars.

With the caveat that it might depend on what you mean by homosexual, what you have stated seems to be the consensus view of both sides here. The problem is that some do not see it as sin at all. Shocking how much noise and fire and smoke from a subject with so narrow a focus on one small difference, but some simply refuse to believe it is a sin at all, and that is the crux of the matter.

 

[TScott]

With the caveat that it might depend on what you mean by homosexual, what you have stated seems to be the consensus view of both sides here. The problem is that some do not see it as sin at all. Shocking how much noise and fire and smoke from a subject with so narrow a focus on one small difference, but some simply refuse to believe it is a sin at all, and that is the crux of the matter.

The crux to you maybe, but the question posed by the thread is is there any such thing as a Christian homosexual? Whether homosexuality is a sin or not seems to be a dead horse in these here parts.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Okay. We need step back and take a look at the big picture.

Each side is approaching the issue from two different methods of analysis.

The side that believes that homosexual sexual relationships can be moral tend to approach the issue by looking for anything that would impede homosexuals from participating in relationship equivalent to marriage with the assumption that it is permissible unless shown otherwise.

The side that believes that homosexual acts are always immoral tend to start from the traditional concept of marriage and look at whether there is a reason to include homosexuals.

This seems to be the core of the impasse.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

With the caveat that it might depend on what you mean by homosexual, what you have stated seems to be the consensus view of both sides here. The problem is that some do not see it as sin at all. Shocking how much noise and fire and smoke from a subject with so narrow a focus on one small difference, but some simply refuse to believe it is a sin at all, and that is the crux of the matter.

Please be charitable. The crux of the matter is that some see it as a sin and some do not.

 

[servantmsn]

there are no homosexual christians well i guess there can because once you are saved ayou are always saved but that is a sin that needs to be dealt with quickly so as much as i could say no homosexualk christians well iu cant really say b/c i am not God but i can anouce that those that are homosexual and say they are chriationas need to read the Bible a little more closely and see what
God has to say abou that act of sin.

 

[servantmsn]

no

 

[servantmsn]

not sure

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

 

[Matt Never Existed]

there are no homosexual christians well i guess there can because once you are saved ayou are always saved but that is a sin that needs to be dealt with quickly so as much as i could say no homosexualk christians well iu cant really say b/c i am not God but i can anouce that those that are homosexual and say they are chriationas need to read the Bible a little more closely and see what
God has to say abou that act of sin.

I shall address everything in bold in order..

1. "There are no homosexual christians" - You equate homosexuality with homosexual sex, when infact it is actually just an attraction to the same sex. You are not defined as a heterosexual because you have sex with the opposite sex, you are a heterosexual because you are attracted to the opposite sex. If sexuality was defined by who you sleep with, then virgins are Asexual.

2. "but that is a sin that needs to be dealt with quickly " Please, how should one 'deal' with their sexuality? Should they abuse themselves mentally into being attracted to a person that they are not naturally attracted to? Should they replace one lust with another? Either way, you're not getting rid of the problem, you're just replacing it with another. You can't 'deal' with your sexuality. No one should have to 'deal' with who they are unless they are personally uncomfortable with it and wish to change it. Even then, its a very hard and painful process.

3. " i am not God" - You're right, you're not. But you are human, and so am I. I deserve the same respect as everyone else does, dispite what you believe my actions to be. I should not be forced to live according to your beliefs, just as you should not have to live according to mine. Notice the word 'live'. You are free to believe whatever you want, and live your life however you want. I have those same rights.

4. "those that are homosexual and say they are christian need to read the Bible" - No offense, but I'm pretty sure anyone who is part of the christian religion and is gay has read every verse in the bible that mentions homosexuality. In all honesty, I have read them all myself, and I was not convinced that homosexuality is a sin. If you look around on the web, you'll notice a very big problem with the greek/hebrew words used in each passage talking about homosexuality. So if your like me and don't want to get into all that, you look to what Jesus has to say about it. Which, if you've read Matt, Mark, Luke, and John, you'll notice that he is silent on the issue. Though, he does say 2 very important things. 1. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" and 2. "Love your neighbor as yourself."

5."see what God has to say about that act of sin." - Again, there is a HUGE debate going on about what certain words paul used mean, and what he was trying to say. Heck, even the OT word is being debated. I prefer to say out of all that, so I live by these rules. 1. God is God and I am not. 2. Jesus is God's son, who's blood was shead for my sins. 3. Only through Jesus will I be forgiven, and all my faith is in Him. 4. My neighbors are my brothers and sisters, and I am called to love them as Christ loves me.

 

[watcher16]

I see no principal difference between hetero- and homosexuality. The cultural aspect defines one as normal and the other as awkward. This is changing nowadays.

The christian question is: are there cultural aspects on this issue in the Bible or is it an essential part of 'Gods will'.

I myself cannot imagine this is important for any other aspect of christian life. So let us concentrate on what is important , and accept the changing views.

Like many things are viewed different now than in the 2000 years behind.

 

[razzelflabben]

For people who are curious how anyone could understand scripture as not identifying homosexuality as sin:

http://www.reluctantjourney.co.uk/

Bible study on the topic, and overall a pretty good look at things. It's not totally "unbiased" - but it's clearly written, and shows one man's journey on this particular topic. Worth reading in the hopes of reaching understanding of where other people are coming from.

Thanks, I'm a bit short on time right now but I will try to get to it later today.