Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[Shane Roach]

Hmm, I accidentally hit the quick post button and made a blank post! So this is what I m making instead.... They really should have a feature for removing posts within some period of time....

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I don't see anything about it in Acts 15:19-20.

And niether do I see anything against murder. Furthermore, I see that three out of the four prohibitions were later dropped by Christianity. This list is not a definitive list of Christian morality.

 

[Shane Roach]

No it's not, but it includes the one you mentioned. I thought that was your question, what exactly was it you were wanting?

 

[BobKat]

Perhaps we should all just agree to disagree. There is nothing about the bible that seems logical to me, as there is nothing about my beliefs and the beliefs of many others that seem logical to born-again christians.
sincerely,
BobKat

 

[transientlife]

Good idea, Bobkat.

 

[BobKat]

Amen,
Transientlife;
I don't know either.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

No it's not, but it includes the one you mentioned. I thought that was your question, what exactly was it you were wanting?

It could include cooking a goat kid in its mother's milk if was part of some pagan ritual, but then it would only include only those that were actually part of the ritual. It doesn't address the humane interpretation except to possibly put it into the realm of prudential judgement.

The reason I brought these passages up was I felt it would be a good way to evaluate the methods of determining whether an Old Testament prohibition is still applicable to Christians. Since no one here cooks goat kids in their mothers' milk (I think) and no one is adamantly opposed to the practice, the exercise would not be as emotionally charged as discussions about homosexuality. If we determined that a method of interpretation created bad conclusions on this issue, it would hopefully make it easier for a person using it to admit that it is flawed.

 

[Shane Roach]

It could include cooking a goat kid in its mother's milk if was part of some pagan ritual, but then it would only include only those that were actually part of the ritual. It doesn't address the humane interpretation except to possibly put it into the realm of prudential judgement.

The reason I brought these passages up was I felt it would be a good way to evaluate the methods of determining whether an Old Testament prohibition is still applicable to Christians. Since no one here cooks goat kids in their mothers' milk (I think) and no one is adamantly opposed to the practice, the exercise would not be as emotionally charged as discussions about homosexuality. If we determined that a method of interpretation created bad conclusions on this issue, it would hopefully make it easier for a person using it to admit that it is flawed.

I am still not following you. In Acts 15:19-20 we are talking about a group of people who know absolutely nothing about the law, the Gentiles, being told not to worry with it except to abstain from 4 specific things, fornications again being one of those four. It is a total exclusion of the entire OT Law for Gentiles, with 4 exceptions. That includes everything, even cooking practices. Three other things being excluded later as unecessary burdens on the Gentiles only means that cooking practices are still in the large set of things not to worry with. Furthermore, the Jews were encouraged finally to go ahead and keep their practices, which would include the cooking practice, without describing a set to keep and a set to lose based on any new revelations about what is ok and what is not, so the cooking practice would, for them, still be a prohibition, though not associated with salvation. There are, as you may know, still a set of promises to the Jews in particular that keeping their special coventant with God relates to.

At this point my knowledge more or less is cut off. I don't know much about the history of Messianic Judaism in ancient times, and it may well be that the line between Jew and Gentile Christians dissapeared over the centuries until it was revived by Zionism coupled with the strong influence of a now powerfull Christian church, and certain Jews who were unwilling to let go of their culture nevertheless embracing Christ.

There is a huge section of Romans, really the whole book just about, that goes into deep detail about liberty, sin, responsability towards the weaker believer, responsability of the weaker believer not to be so demanding that they cause strife. A lot of things. But at no point is it even hinted at that sexual sins fit into that discussion. Indeed, one of your least favorite verses is in precisely the book that seems to go into the most detail about the very subject you seem to be trying to explore.

Please understand, I alreay know that from your perspective the homosexual love affair is not a sin, not a "fornication" as it were. But that's the subject I'm trying to clear up in my understanding, how you come to that conclusion. That subject would need to be cleared up by talking about something besides a rule like the ideas behind the cooking prohibition you bring up, though. There just isn't any parallel. I'm really not aware of any parallel at all, which is just one more reason why I find your thoughts on the subject so inxplicable and dangerous.

 

[razzelflabben]

Concerning "uniquely far from God" or razzelflabben's problem's with why homosexuality might be considered particularly sinful in comparison to other sins, it is in regards to the extreme sense that it is always treated at every mention of the behavior. Once more, razz, I pointed out to you a specific verse that talks of levels of punishmet. There is an OT verse in Ecclesiastes that exhorts people to be neither overly wicked nor overly righteous. There are references to some of the most righteous, such as the most righteous king, or Enoch who was taken, and so forth.

This is why I object to the idea of all sin being equal. All sin leads to death, but just as a shotgun shell to the head will get you there more quickly that starvation, so too there are degrees of sin and degrees of effect it will have on your life and afterlife.

I am to a certain extent getting weary of being asked for more and more verses that are getting to the point where I am quoting verses seamingly just to define basic words in english that shouldn't need Bible quotes to back them up, such as this whole sordid thing about degrees of sin. We have precisely one verse that says "the wages if sin is death," being used to introduce an entirely different meaning to the very words good, better, best or bad, worse, worst. This is important and why I brought it up to begin with, and I can see now it is having an even more serious effect on some people than I ever thought. Of course there are some sins that are worse than others. There is after all only one that is unforgiveable.

It's all rather plain. One does not have to have a heirarchy-of-sin graph to see the different levels of discipline mentioned in the OT law, for example, or just plain every day usage and thought on the concept of good and bad things. Degree is just a commonly understood concept. Razz, you have even said repeatedly you don't want to talk about it anymore, then you continually bring the concept back up. I suppose as many times as you challenge it I will be forced to repeat the explanation, but...

blergh.

I do not know how you view me and my opinions, nor to I think you understand what I am saying or asking. I have some serious concerns from a totality of scripture, the idea of heirarchy that you present. It is a discussion that I think would be challenging and enlightening yet I do not think this thread is the place for this debate. Nevertheless, I have accepted to view things on this thread from your assertion that there is a hierarchy of sin and save the debate for later. What I have asked you however is where the scripture is that says that homosexuality is one of the worst sins. This is directly about this thread. I may be missing the post where you gave us the scriptureal referrence, and if you would direct me to the scripture, we can move on but scripture is my authority and without something from scripture to back us this claim, I cannot accept it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Last evening my husband and I were talking and praying and later I was praying alone. During that time, something struck me I am still struggleing with how to put this into words, but I will give it a shot.

In scripture when we are told to "excommunicate" as it were, false teachers from our midst, it is because they can turn us away from Christ by their teachings and place of authority. To clarify, the false teacher can be known by their words and also by their behavior. The bottom line, is that they can convince us to turn away from God.

Contrast this to an "unrepentant" believer. Christ never shyed away from the sinner, always showing compassion. Why did HE tell the disciples to share with these people? Because they are not likely to turn one away from Christ by their sin. I think many intolerant christians are afraid that an unrepented sin is going rub off on them, like a plague being passed around by associate. The problem is, homosexuality is not a plague that can be caught and passed from one to another. And for the believer living in the power of the Holy Spirit, nothing can harm him, Luke 10:19, not even the unrepentant believer. If we could see the hearts of man, then we would know how very empty our churches would be if everyone who had an "unrepented" sin was "excommunicated" from the church. The church would be in an equally sad position if we accepted everything that man wanted to justify as okay.

I have seen churches on both sides of the issue and grieve terribly at the condition of those churches. God is compassionate if He were not, we would all be terribly lost. God calls us to be a compassionate family. A group of people who help each other and care for each other and treat each other with compassion and Love (reading acts with the kids morning school, relates back to the early church) As believers, we are members of a family. Not members of a church group, of society, individuals, or even clans, but one big family. Now when I talk to my children about family we talk about how they are always there for each other, always love no matter what they do, always there to support you and help you to remain on the Godly track. Willing to correct if necessary, but never willing to condem or judge. Sometimes families instigate and stir things up a bit but they alway forgive, and never grow weary of who you are as a person. They never fear you and even when you are (unclean) sick, they nurse you and pray for your healing fearing niether you or being close to you and your disease. They cry with you and laugh with you and share all they have with you. When you have a family, you will never be hungry or naked, never alone, you will always have a safe haven to turn too. You will learn things and teach things, hate things and love things about each other, but you will never be turned away, or be ignored, always valued, always loved, always protected. etc. etc. etc.

I wonder who we would be if the church understood and treated each other as if we were a family. I know my life and ideas would be drastically different.

May we each find the family of God in our neighborhoods and in our own hearts.

 

[Fideist]

If we could see the hearts of man, then we would know how very empty our churches would be if everyone who had an "unrepented" sin was "excommunicated" from the church. The church would be in an equally sad position if we accepted everything that man wanted to justify as okay.

Just a note. I agree with most of what you say and have said. I do not think that loving monogamous relationships are condemned, though. Be that as it may, I’m writing this to add a point of information.



Excommunication, in its original form and among the apostolic churches of today, did not and does not mean kicking a person out of the community. It meant withholding communion from a person until that person had confessed their sins, made restitution if needed and showed all the other signs of a full repentance.

Do I agree with the practice? No. But that's another thread.

 

[Shane Roach]

I do not know how you view me and my opinions, nor to I think you understand what I am saying or asking. I have some serious concerns from a totality of scripture, the idea of heirarchy that you present. It is a discussion that I think would be challenging and enlightening yet I do not think this thread is the place for this debate. Nevertheless, I have accepted to view things on this thread from your assertion that there is a hierarchy of sin and save the debate for later. What I have asked you however is where the scripture is that says that homosexuality is one of the worst sins. This is directly about this thread. I may be missing the post where you gave us the scriptureal referrence, and if you would direct me to the scripture, we can move on but scripture is my authority and without something from scripture to back us this claim, I cannot accept it.

The answer is in the very post you quoted...

Concerning "uniquely far from God" or razzelflabben's problem's with why homosexuality might be considered particularly sinful in comparison to other sins, it is in regards to the extreme sense that it is always treated at every mention of the behavior.

 

[SonofYah]

 

[Shane Roach]

Last evening my husband and I were talking and praying and later I was praying alone. During that time, something struck me I am still struggleing with how to put this into words, but I will give it a shot.

In scripture when we are told to "excommunicate" as it were, false teachers from our midst, it is because they can turn us away from Christ by their teachings and place of authority. To clarify, the false teacher can be known by their words and also by their behavior. The bottom line, is that they can convince us to turn away from God.

Contrast this to an "unrepentant" believer. Christ never shyed away from the sinner, always showing compassion. Why did HE tell the disciples to share with these people? Because they are not likely to turn one away from Christ by their sin. I think many intolerant christians are afraid that an unrepented sin is going rub off on them, like a plague being passed around by associate. The problem is, homosexuality is not a plague that can be caught and passed from one to another. And for the believer living in the power of the Holy Spirit, nothing can harm him, Luke 10:19, not even the unrepentant believer. If we could see the hearts of man, then we would know how very empty our churches would be if everyone who had an "unrepented" sin was "excommunicated" from the church. The church would be in an equally sad position if we accepted everything that man wanted to justify as okay.

I have seen churches on both sides of the issue and grieve terribly at the condition of those churches. God is compassionate if He were not, we would all be terribly lost. God calls us to be a compassionate family. A group of people who help each other and care for each other and treat each other with compassion and Love (reading acts with the kids morning school, relates back to the early church) As believers, we are members of a family. Not members of a church group, of society, individuals, or even clans, but one big family. Now when I talk to my children about family we talk about how they are always there for each other, always love no matter what they do, always there to support you and help you to remain on the Godly track. Willing to correct if necessary, but never willing to condem or judge. Sometimes families instigate and stir things up a bit but they alway forgive, and never grow weary of who you are as a person. They never fear you and even when you are (unclean) sick, they nurse you and pray for your healing fearing niether you or being close to you and your disease. They cry with you and laugh with you and share all they have with you. When you have a family, you will never be hungry or naked, never alone, you will always have a safe haven to turn too. You will learn things and teach things, hate things and love things about each other, but you will never be turned away, or be ignored, always valued, always loved, always protected. etc. etc. etc.

I wonder who we would be if the church understood and treated each other as if we were a family. I know my life and ideas would be drastically different.

May we each find the family of God in our neighborhoods and in our own hearts.

If I understand you correctly, I agree with all except your continuing assertion that it is only people who actually teach the false doctrine that the Bible teaces to be carefull off. I pointed out already that some of the verses that talk about discipline within the church do not speak specifically just to those who teach a false doctrine.

What I mean by unrepentant is that their sin is pointed out and after every effort has been made, they still refuse to even so much as admit that the behavior is wrong, or else it seems plain after a long period of time that they are only paying lip service to the idea of "repentance". I don't think the churches would be emptied at all, to be honest, but even if they were, it's not for the church to try to make itself more obliging to sin just to keep members.

You claim Christ ministered to unrepentant sinners, but the picture I see is of Christ reaching out to people that had been prejudged as not worth reaching out to, and they responded with repentance. It is a very different picture than the one you seem to be painting. "Go, and sin no more," is the parting phrase that sticks in my mind, not anything about ignoring continuing sin.

 

[Shane Roach]

Excommunication, in its original form and among the apostolic churches of today, did not and does not mean kicking a person out of the community. It meant withholding communion from a person until that person had confessed their sins, made restitution if needed and showed all the other signs of a full repentance.

Do I agree with the practice? No. But that's another thread.

Exactly. I have said before, but it bears repeating I suppose, that forgiveness and acceptance is always available. On can be taken back into communion any number of times. We're not talking here about human beings making permanent judgement about the soul, which only God can rightly judge. Rather, we are told to use some discernment so that people who actually have no faith don't cause discord and chaos within the church at will with no recourse to some sort of corrective measure.

I wonder why you disagree with that teaching? Indeed, I wonder why people keep bringing things up within the context of this thread but then decide it is necessary to make an entire new thread to discuss it. It bears directly on what has been discussed here.

I mean, if you just flat don't want to talk about it, fine, but there's no rule against letting a conversation cover all the various subjects that are germain to the issue. Indeed, what I have often been dissapointed about on threads considering the subject of homosexuality is that they often get closed due to people getting more into personal attacks than discussion. This thread has actually got a pretty good track record on that front, all things considered. We all get upset, but we all have fought our way back from being upset to present ideas in as polite a fashion as possible.

I don't see any reason for you to feel self conscious about discussing this issue in the context of how it relates to the subject at hand. Again, though, don't mistake this as some sort of attempt to force an issue on you that you just don't want to discuss or are uncofortable discussing in this context.

 

[SonofYah]

This question is actually cut and dry, insofar as Scripture is concerned, but because sin, and hypnotic sin is herein being dealt with, most often, simply quoting Scripture isn't enought. Therefore, rather than bringing the Scriptural condemnations forth from torah, and Romans 1, it will be easier seen, if you hear Jesus words spoken in Matthew:

" Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5: 27, 28). Now, personally - I am heterosexual, and unmarried as well! Now, I can do almost anything short of tearing the page of Matthew 5 from every Bible throughout the world, so that I will not be convicted of my lasciviousness [I speak as a carnal man now, to make a point], but the Creator God also has His Representative on the earth, Who speaks to every heart, asking all men, to allow that He comes in, and dwells within them. That One [Holy Spirit], will convict of the sinfulness of my lasciviousness, even though I don't have, and have never had, the Scriptures. when I was very promiscuous, after that woman left my home, I knew I had done wrong. That was the Holy Spirit speaking to me.

If I as a heterosexual man, will be sinning, if I but think lustfully about a woman, then I must, by the grace of God, begin to allow the Spirit to change my character, so that this lust is finally overcome, or else, I am not ready to enter the Kingdom of God. This is also the same for a homosexual. Being homosexual doesn't mean that it's alright to be actively so, for I am heterosexual, and the same applies to me and all heterosexuals and homosexuals - if we are to please God, and live with Him forever!

Many homosexuals cry "Foul! God is against us!" God is also against the hetero, who practises his desires. That one who knows he is gay, must put all of that passion into the hands of God, and ask that He change his desires, for he is fully unable to do this for him/herself. When Father answers this plea [and He will, for it is according to His word], then the sinner can change his/her behavior! This is the Way of the Creator!

 

[razzelflabben]

Just a note. I agree with most of what you say and have said. I do not think that loving monogamous relationships are condemned, though. Be that as it may, I’m writing this to add a point of information.



Excommunication, in its original form and among the apostolic churches of today, did not and does not mean kicking a person out of the community. It meant withholding communion from a person until that person had confessed their sins, made restitution if needed and showed all the other signs of a full repentance.

Do I agree with the practice? No. But that's another thread.

I would love to believe as you but I simply don't see it in the scirptures, anyway, that is between the individual and God.

The problem with any form of excommunication apart from the false teachers that can lead others astray, is that it does not help the person to be restored in Christ, but rather forces the person to do what is necessary to return to the fold as it were. True repentance is not necessary for this return to occur and thus it is ineffective and against God's command to love as if we were a family.

 

[razzelflabben]

If I understand you correctly, I agree with all except your continuing assertion that it is only people who actually teach the false doctrine that the Bible teaces to be carefull off. I pointed out already that some of the verses that talk about discipline within the church do not speak specifically just to those who teach a false doctrine.

What I mean by unrepentant is that their sin is pointed out and after every effort has been made, they still refuse to even so much as admit that the behavior is wrong, or else it seems plain after a long period of time that they are only paying lip service to the idea of "repentance". I don't think the churches would be emptied at all, to be honest, but even if they were, it's not for the church to try to make itself more obliging to sin just to keep members.

You claim Christ ministered to unrepentant sinners, but the picture I see is of Christ reaching out to people that had been prejudged as not worth reaching out to, and they responded with repentance. It is a very different picture than the one you seem to be painting. "Go, and sin no more," is the parting phrase that sticks in my mind, not anything about ignoring continuing sin.

There is a big difference in ignoring sin and allowing the Holy Spirit to transform a person into His likeness. This process takes longer for some than for others and sometimes, though I myself am uncomfortable with the idea, involves a continuing sin that one must relinquish over to Christ. This does not mean that I am non repentant, only that I have not mastered control over it as yet. The non repentant aspect can only be determined by God and the person involved not by the body.

 

[Christi]

There is a big difference in ignoring sin and allowing the Holy Spirit to transform a person into His likeness. This process takes longer for some than for others and sometimes, though I myself am uncomfortable with the idea, involves a continuing sin that one must relinquish over to Christ. This does not mean that I am non repentant, only that I have not mastered control over it as yet. The non repentant aspect can only be determined by God and the person involved not by the body.

I love this post, though I kind of just stumbled in here.....it really spoke to me, because I am so weary of spending more time on my knees begging forgiveness for the same sins, than doing anything else. It's quite embarrassing to approach the throne of grace over ANY sin, several times a day. But for some of us, we hate it nearly as much as God does. There's no cavelier attitude of "ha ha ha, look what I'm getting away with!" There really can be godly sorrow over a sin, without having achieved victory over it. Thank you for recognizing that, because I needed it today.

edited to add: I just realized I am in a homosexual thread and am probably way off topic. Sorry everyone!

 

[razzelflabben]

The answer is in the very post you quoted...

I must be really dumb, I don't see any scriptural reference indicating that homosexuality is a worse sin. If one would like to classify it is a detestable sin, such as fornication, then we would have to add to the homosexual sin, lust, adultery, and other sexual immorality. Then we come back to square one, who will be left in our churches and how will we know whom is and is not repentant of their sin.

So let's get painfully honest here, I have said before on this thread that my husband has dealt with porn for many years, it was a well hidden sin. Because it was well hidden, did it make it less of a sin? NO Because it was fornication (as traditionally defined) should he have been removed from the church? How would man know to remove him from fellowship? (on any level) How would this help him to overcome his sin of lust? From my experience with helping him to be a Godly man, sound biblical teaching and constant accountability has allowed the spirit to begin a transformation in his life that I am guessing will not be finished until the resurrection. (that is for God to know, not me) It required some hard looks into scripture as well as our own personal lives. It was hard, and sometimes angering, painful, and at times we both wanted to justify what the word of God says on the subject. The bottom line though is that his conviction required two things, one the power of the HS and two, fellowship with believers who spoke the truth in love, stayed right by his side, and supported him while the HS was a work. Oh, let us not forget the length of time involved to get him to the point of relenquishing control over to God completely.