Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[razzelflabben]

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.

What it really says to (in this discussion) the homosexual, is that the homosexuals sin is no worse that the heterosexuals sin, the sin of homosexuality is not greater than any other sin, for both keep one from God, same punishment. Sin is not against man, it is against God. It is a message for the church and those who consider homosexuality worse than thier own sins, as well as a message to the homosexual. The bible says that we should take the plank out of our own eye before we worry about the splinter in someone elses, why, because all sin whether great or small in our eyes is seperating us from the greatest gift of all time, fellowship with God. It is also why excomunication from the church must be exercised with care and only after appropriate measure, as instructed in the bible, are carried out, for sin is not a respector of persons. If you are worried about the possibility of degrees of hell, then maybe the answer is to avoid hell altogether.

 

[razzelflabben]

It just struck me that one of the things missing on this thread is God's plan for a changed life. God never asks us to change to come to Him. We are to come as you are so to speak. After we come, we are to continueally crusify self (old man) and selfish desires, giving control over to the Holy Spirit, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to do what we cannot, transform our lives into the likeness and image of Christ.

Translation, the Holy Spirit is the one who changes us in His time and will, as we yeild control to Him, not the other way around. For someone to say to a homosexual that they must change because homosexuallity is wrong is way off base, because it is asking the person to change who they are to come to Christ. To ask them to refrain from sexual sin is an act of obedience and an exercise in yeilding control to the Holy Spirit (acceptable to ask for practise in self dicipline is taught) Like it or not, there is evidence that homosexual sex is sinful, (I am still waiting to see proof to the contrary) but so is lust (an issue my husband is battleing), premarital sex, etc. To say change is nonsense and agianst biblical teaching, to say control your selfish desires, is biblical on all levels, to say yeild control to the Holy Spirit, is biblical and should be taught, to say allow the HS to transform you life is biblical and should be taught.

 

[fejao]

It just struck me that one of the things missing on this thread is God's plan for a changed life. God never asks us to change to come to Him. We are to come as you are so to speak. After we come, we are to continueally crusify self (old man) and selfish desires, giving control over to the Holy Spirit, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to do what we cannot, transform our lives into the likeness and image of Christ.

Translation, the Holy Spirit is the one who changes us in His time and will, as we yeild control to Him, not the other way around. For someone to say to a homosexual that they must change because homosexuallity is wrong is way off base, because it is asking the person to change who they are to come to Christ. To ask them to refrain from sexual sin is an act of obedience and an exercise in yeilding control to the Holy Spirit (acceptable to ask for practise in self dicipline is taught) Like it or not, there is evidence that homosexual sex is sinful, (I am still waiting to see proof to the contrary) but so is lust (an issue my husband is battleing), premarital sex, etc. To say change is nonsense and agianst biblical teaching, to say control your selfish desires, is biblical on all levels, to say yeild control to the Holy Spirit, is biblical and should be taught, to say allow the HS to transform you life is biblical and should be taught.

While you are completly correct in what you say, many of the gay people who post here do not think that homosexuality is a sin and therefore the sexual contact that they have with their husbands/wives is not a sin either. It could be said what is "homosexual" sex ? If you are refering to any type of sexual contact between the same sex, if the act is not done in love yes it is sin as per the homosexual acts described in the bible, however the same goes for hetrosexual sex contacts that are not done in love. Also yes the Lord can change people, but what he can do and what he does do are two different things. However I agree totally with you that it should not be us that try to change people but the Holy Spirit, he is so much better at speaking to us and working in our lives.


Fejao x

 

[TScott]

It seems to me that whether or not homosexuality is a sin or not is moot to the question as to whether or not a homosexual can be a Christian or not. Moot because if you take the worse case; that homosexuality is a sin, then what you are asking is if a sinner can be a Christian or not. It is really an issue between the individual and God, is it not?

 

[Outspoken]

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.

I'm gonna agree with shane here, this book totally fails when it comes to interpreation, especially of the romans 1 passage. the author takes the usual, it was a cult practice thing, so its okay outside of the cult, but FAILS to address that if that is okay outside of a cult then so is murder, malice and all types of evil. He is also makes the flawed assumption that it is not talking about all homosexuals. I see nothing in the text that excludes any type of homosexual or not. Its the "its a different kind of sin now" argument and that just does't hold water or nuclear war, chemical war, current sexual preversions, etc..would be okay as well since, "its a different kind of sin now." According to the bible, homosexuality is sin and no amount of rationalization can change that.

 

[evolisamyth]

Now, there is one remaining argument. One could (and many do) also argue that there is a grand pattern of only male/female sexual relationships that is present throughout the Bible and from this alone we should come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong.

I acknowledge that argument.......I just see it as FAR from conclusive, because chaste, monogamous homosexual relationships probably were simply NOT MENTIONED because they were rare and also........similar to today......people shy away from discussing them at all.......out of weakness and fear.

"...out of weakness and fear."? Is God weak? Who does God have to fear?
Remember that the bible is God's Word. If it's not mentioned, it's not because of weakness and fear. People might shy away from discussing them, but NOT God. God gives us many examples of what a proper relationship is and NONE of them include man/man or woman/woman situations.

 

[Fideist]

Remember that the bible is God's Word.

Only to bibliolaters. For most Christians God’s Word is Jesus. And as one wise person said: God validates the Bible, the Bible doesn’t validate God.

 

[seebs]

I think a lot of passages get treated with special hermeneutics. Judges 19 is never interpreted as a general condemnation of sex, not just because there's other passages on the topic, but simply because it's abundantly clear in context what is, or is not, being condemned. Some passages, however, are subjected to a much broader reading where an action which would be reprehensible for one reason (it's a kind of rape) is asserted to actually be reprehensible for totally different reasons, even though only the one circumstance is examined.

Anyway, as I've said before, my purpose in posting that link wasn't to convince everyone to immediately adopt the position advanced by the author, but to try to build better understanding of how different people are understanding these passages. To reiterate over and over that you don't agree with their understanding adds very little to the discussion; the question is whether or not people correctly understand each other's positions, because without mutual understanding, there is very little hope for productive discussion.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think a lot of passages get treated with special hermeneutics. Judges 19 is never interpreted as a general condemnation of sex, not just because there's other passages on the topic, but simply because it's abundantly clear in context what is, or is not, being condemned. Some passages, however, are subjected to a much broader reading where an action which would be reprehensible for one reason (it's a kind of rape) is asserted to actually be reprehensible for totally different reasons, even though only the one circumstance is examined.

Anyway, as I've said before, my purpose in posting that link wasn't to convince everyone to immediately adopt the position advanced by the author, but to try to build better understanding of how different people are understanding these passages. To reiterate over and over that you don't agree with their understanding adds very little to the discussion; the question is whether or not people correctly understand each other's positions, because without mutual understanding, there is very little hope for productive discussion.

Well it doesn't help people understand the position because it doesn't address the point that there are no references to acceptable homosexual relationships in the Bible, several references that it is sin, a full and complete description of what the plan for marriage and sex was from the beggining, reiterated by Jesus, and countered by not one shred of evidence for the last several thousand years. If I'm married, but I love some other women, is it ok to have sex with the other woman since it is in love and not a cult activity? What if my wife actually agrees to it, so no harm no foul?

Whatever excuses can be made up for homosexual sex in order to separate it from the Biblical denunciations can be said for multiple sins, which was already pointed out by Outspoken.

If you want to make progress, whatever you may define as progress, you have to address those shortcomings along with the problem of church discipline, which I have mentioned repeatedly. The only answers I get are things apparently meant to make me fearful to bring it up again. I'm not fearful about that. Sure, excomminucation or whatever you want to call it is a serious step that should not be taken frivolously, but how is this at all frivolous.

You provide no scholarship or literary proof that this newinterpretation, and it is new, is actually a valid one. You merely assert over and over again there is room for doubt. Well, in one sense there is always room for doubt, and I think that's why the Bible makes it clear that with repentance, anyone can come back into the church. But barring that, there doesn't seem to be any room for doubt about the sinfulness of homosexual activity. At least, I have seen nothing in the several years since this has been thrust upon the church that gives me any understanding where that doubt comes from, which, incidentally, is why this subject concerns me so deeply.

 

[Shane Roach]

Only to bibliolaters. For most Christians God’s Word is Jesus. And as one wise person said: God validates the Bible, the Bible doesn’t validate God.

Well, Jesus and the Apostles all validate the OT, and Jesus selected the Apostles. If I understand you correctly, you are accusing people of idolatry if they believe the Bible instead of you, or what is your point?

The Bible has quite a bit more credibility than a handful of people who claim to be speaking for Jesus, against the Bible, with no proof of their assertions.

 

[Shane Roach]

What it really says to (in this discussion) the homosexual, is that the homosexuals sin is no worse that the heterosexuals sin, the sin of homosexuality is not greater than any other sin, for both keep one from God, same punishment. Sin is not against man, it is against God. It is a message for the church and those who consider homosexuality worse than thier own sins, as well as a message to the homosexual. The bible says that we should take the plank out of our own eye before we worry about the splinter in someone elses, why, because all sin whether great or small in our eyes is seperating us from the greatest gift of all time, fellowship with God. It is also why excomunication from the church must be exercised with care and only after appropriate measure, as instructed in the bible, are carried out, for sin is not a respector of persons. If you are worried about the possibility of degrees of hell, then maybe the answer is to avoid hell altogether.

That's all well and good except it is against what the Bible teaches. The Bible is not terribly clear on what levels of punishment might be, but it does indicate that there are levels and is very clear under what circumstances to eject a person from fellowship. One would not lobby to keep a thief in the church even though he was poor if he refused to confess it as sin and stop stealing, for example.

 

[Shane Roach]

It just struck me that one of the things missing on this thread is God's plan for a changed life. God never asks us to change to come to Him. We are to come as you are so to speak. After we come, we are to continueally crusify self (old man) and selfish desires, giving control over to the Holy Spirit, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to do what we cannot, transform our lives into the likeness and image of Christ.

Translation, the Holy Spirit is the one who changes us in His time and will, as we yeild control to Him, not the other way around. For someone to say to a homosexual that they must change because homosexuallity is wrong is way off base, because it is asking the person to change who they are to come to Christ. To ask them to refrain from sexual sin is an act of obedience and an exercise in yeilding control to the Holy Spirit (acceptable to ask for practise in self dicipline is taught) Like it or not, there is evidence that homosexual sex is sinful, (I am still waiting to see proof to the contrary) but so is lust (an issue my husband is battleing), premarital sex, etc. To say change is nonsense and agianst biblical teaching, to say control your selfish desires, is biblical on all levels, to say yeild control to the Holy Spirit, is biblical and should be taught, to say allow the HS to transform you life is biblical and should be taught.

Yes, see this I understand and agree with, but how does any of this change the fact that there are degrees of sin or that there are circumstances under which people are to be ejected from the church in order to maintain order and discipline?

 

[mpshiel]

At least, I have seen nothing in the several years since this has been thrust upon the church that gives me any understanding where that doubt comes from, which, incidentally, is why this subject concerns me so deeply.

Acting from the best of our understanding with a firm conviction is I think all anyone can ask. I have no problem with that.

I am sure that you would hold to your convictions regardless of the external pressure or opinion.

If you want to make progress, whatever you may define as progress, you have to address those shortcomings along with the problem of church discipline, which I have mentioned repeatedly. Sure, excomminucation or whatever you want to call it is a serious step that should not be taken frivolously, but how is this at all frivolous.

Just like you are bound by your conviction, so those who understand differently are bound to act and believe, regardless of the possible pressure or outcome. Would you really want to follow a spiritual leader who believed in thier heart that something was truth but preached the opposite because they were afraid or concerned with "discipline"?

But that doesn't mean that we are happy when it feels as if we are "punished" due to our convictions.

 

[pentecostal]

As far as I have learned, all sins are equal, therefore homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other. So if homosexuals can't be considered Christians, I don't know who else would be either since we are all not without sin! Homosexuals have the unfortunate stigma to bear since their sin is a bit more obvious (most times) than many others, I think. It is sad that a lot of people (not exclusively Christian either) can't seem to see the person for the sin, ya know?

Your right homosexuality is a sin and we have all sinned. But once you are a christian and is baptized in jesus name and have recieved the Holy Ghost you have the power to overcome sin. So i feel like you cant be saved and be gay.

 

[Shane Roach]

Acting from the best of our understanding with a firm conviction is I think all anyone can ask. I have no problem with that.

I am sure that you would hold to your convictions regardless of the external pressure or opinion.



Just like you are bound by your conviction, so those who understand differently are bound to act and believe, regardless of the possible pressure or outcome. Would you really want to follow a spiritual leader who believed in thier heart that something was truth but preached the opposite because they were afraid or concerned with "discipline"?

But that doesn't mean that we are happy when it feels as if we are "punished" due to our convictions.

Well, let me be clear. It is this new teaching that is being presented, and in such a way that it seems impossible to resolve. There simply is no argument against "well there is some wiggle room for doubt," when combined with a seeming total unwillingness or inability to explain where exactly that doubt comes from. Far from you being punished, if you will notice, the fellow who started this thread was run off of it within a few posts of it popping up due to no answers being forthcoming to his questions, and despite some commentary to the contrary, most the denunciations have come from those supporting the idea of homosexuality being ok accusing anyone who doesn't agree of being at some level judgemental. In fact, my whole reason for having to fall back on the concept of church discipline to begin with was because that was basically the root of the sinless-homosexuality view's argument. Basically, a: there is room for doubt, therefore b: you are being judgemental in refusing to see that this view is ok since we have doubts. So I have to point out that, no, lacking any clear explanation for how something that is sin is now to be looked at as not only not sin, but raised to the level of the institution of marriage, it is not being un-Christian and judgemental in the sense of phariseeism, legalism, or anything else to point out that according to the Bible, we are actually required to be discerning about new teachings and policing what is and is not affirmed or allowed within the church.

 

[watcher16]

Your right homosexuality is a sin and we have all sinned. But once you are a christian and is baptized in jesus name and have recieved the Holy Ghost you have the power to overcome sin. So i feel like you cant be saved and be gay.

I don't understand almost everybody is accepting homosexuality as a sin

I followed the subject closely over the years and saw the 'cause' of homosexuality change from behavioral to genetical.
Since more people come out for this and gets more accepted in society, you can see for yourself people just are homosexual in their roots. I must say I speak of men, I personally could not say this for women. There are reasons to believe women are more from nature bisexual. Since this is a Christian forum I understand we should not discuss this last item. That is ok to me .

The next cultural and scientific step could be that the amount of hormones involved defines not a yes or no situation, but 'a degree of' homosexuality.

So are the sin-thinkers like the flat-earth believers?

 

[Shane Roach]

I don't understand almost everybody is accepting homosexuality as a sin

I followed the subject closely over the years and saw the 'cause' of homosexuality change from behavioral to genetical.
Since more people come out for this and gets more accepted in society, you can see for yourself people just are homosexual in their roots. I must say I speak of men, I personally could not say this for women. There are reasons to believe women are more from nature bisexual. Since this is a Christian forum I understand we should not discuss this last item. That is ok to me .

The next cultural and scientific step could be that the amount of hormones involved defines not a yes or no situation, but 'a degree of' homosexuality.

So are the sin-thinkers like the flat-earth believers?

The evidence for homosexuality seems to be largely limited to a series of twin studies that tend to prove both a genetic predisposition and yet not genetic determination with equal certainty.

As an aside, please refrain from accusing me of believing the earth is flat. The subject matter is difficult enough as it is without purposefully inflamatory comments. I'm not angry, just pointing it out to you.

 

[PastorFreud]

The evidence for homosexuality seems to be largely limited to a series of twin studies that tend to prove both a genetic predisposition and yet not genetic determination with equal certainty.

You obviously haven't seen all the data. I understand. Most Christians get this information second hand through a Christian source. If you have access to ProQuest or Psychlit databases, try doing a search and see what you find. There's a lot more than a few twin studies.

 

[PastorFreud]

That's all well and good except it is against what the Bible teaches. The Bible is not terribly clear on what levels of punishment might be, but it does indicate that there are levels and is very clear under what circumstances to eject a person from fellowship. One would not lobby to keep a thief in the church even though he was poor if he refused to confess it as sin and stop stealing, for example.

Really? This doesn't match with my understanding of what has happened to many televangelists. Some of them refused to repent and they are not only accepted, they continue to lead. Bush has not been excommunicated from the Methodist church even though he lied about WMD's in Iraq and refuses to repent. The church seems much more likely to mete out punishment to homosexuals rather than to adulterers and such.

 

[seebs]

Well it doesn't help people understand the position because it doesn't address the point that there are no references to acceptable homosexual relationships in the Bible, several references that it is sin, a full and complete description of what the plan for marriage and sex was from the beggining, reiterated by Jesus, and countered by not one shred of evidence for the last several thousand years.

I didn't say it justified the position; I said it explained it.

I'm not expecting it to convince you that this is the One Revealed Truth which all honest men must accept.

However, it has become clear that many people have no idea even what the people who doubt that the Bible condemns "homosexuality" think the Bible says. The site in question does a good job of explaining how some such people understand the Bible.

You're attacking it as not addressing all of your disagreements with it, but that's not the point; the point is that it is a good statement of the position you disagree with. By contrast, many attempts I've seen at describing this position have been very poor, or outright wrong.

Apart from this, I think I've already made it clear that I have absolutely no interest in debating this issue with you. We've gone round and round on it a dozen times or more.

What I was hoping to do was help people who want to know what some of the "pro-gay" people actually believe. In other words, if someone wants to get away from all the rhetorical devices and mud-slinging, and just find out what someone who sees no problem with homosexuality thinks the Bible says... Then that site is a good reference. It isn't a proof that they're right, and I'm not offering it as one. It's not a complete rebuttal of every counter argument - but I'm not offering it as one.

I'm offering it as a statement of what some of these people believe, which addresses the question of how they understand the Bible. That's it. I'm not expecting it to address every possible doubt or concern, nor did I say it would.

In short, you're arguing against something which is not presented as an argument, but merely as a factual description of what some people believe. None of your arguments have the slightest relevance to the observable reality that people do in fact believe these things, whether or not they are correct to do so.

I could probably be persuaded to enter a formal debate on a topic like this, but we've lost the members I would have enjoyed debating with. Maybe I'll try to track one of them down and see if he'd like to have a couple of rounds on it... But this is not the thread in which I'm debating it, just a thread in which I'm trying to address the very observable failure to communicate I see between people on this issue.