Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[razzelflabben]

, of leading new Christians to be encouraged to sin, which is a most unloving thing to do.

This sounds uncomfortably similar to the popular social idea of no responsibility for self. There is a big difference between leading someone astray and someone using your human flaws as an excuse for sinful behavior.

 

[missiondocsda]

In Mattew 19:12, Jesus mentioned about the castrated born and genetically and structurally, and the whole conversation is linking to marriage. That we also know that marriage is made also for sex. Without sex, there should be better having no marriage at all.

let's keep in mind about two kinds of people with testicular feminization and turner's syndrome, these people can't help to change their nature.

Another thing, why do many go into "astray" while, talking about marriage here, husbands have high tendecy of affair outside marriage, and wives may find satisfaction in artificial devices in term of sex(when we come to gays and lesbians, sex can't run away). Sexually unfulfilled. And there are so many factors of the contribution, but they are very simple little things we might have overlooked, and often times we reason religiously.

Homosexuality is a kind of perversion. If it is not by nature, but rather choices, may be there are some personal reasons to have fear of the opposite sex, it is definitely making choice and rage/rebel before the eyes of the Lord. To be together in sexual fulfillment, in what way? Perversion. To rebel against God that Eve should be male or female if Adam was a female. Okay, if adoption is the solution for having child, but how these 2 same sex stay together as they are not made to be as such. Perversion is not the nature of the kingdom to come.

If they are born in such nature as I mentioned, or mentioned in medical books, we leave this issue to God, as we don't play the role of God. This incidents occur not only as the cause of God, that sin creeped into this world, we also have some portion of responsibility as a part of the entire human races. I have witnessed the change of gays back to normal human life and verse vice, we need to pour plenty of compassion and love. And we need to ask them to leave their choice with God, for God will do the best for them if they do so.

The Spirit is working still before He ceases to work right before the second coming of Jesus, everyone does have another chance, hope.

God bless.

 

[Shane Roach]

This sounds uncomfortably similar to the popular social idea of no responsibility for self. There is a big difference between leading someone astray and someone using your human flaws as an excuse for sinful behavior.

And yet we are instructed not to let our liberty become a stumbling block. How much more so to allow unrepentant sinners to teach or make an example of their life and excuses for sin within the church when the the apostles taught otherwise?

 

[Shane Roach]

When we apply this process to the passages on homosexuality, it becomes clear that the authors are writing against something other than the kinds of committed relationships we see between same sex couples today.

Another point that must be understood, however, is that God's intentions are not the same for everyone. We can find more than adequate evidence that demonstrates women are to be the property of men. But we can also see that Jesus showed us a better way regarding the place of women. Slavery was acceptable at one point in Hebrew history, but no longer. Perhaps it would be better to say that as humans were able to understand the revelation of God more clearly, they saw that slavery is not acceptable. The writings of early generations must be read in light of the fuller revelation that came later. For Christians, this revelation is Christ, and there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free, in Christ.

I am aware of what hermeneutics are. The question is whether or not your statement is true that it becomes apparent after full study that it doesn't apply to all homosexuality, relatioship or not.

You can throw around difficult passages that are unrelated to this subject all you like. I have looked into them, and I think I understand them differently than you as well. For instance, you claim the human race has evolved past slavery, yet the US benefis from the low cost wages of third world laborers. All we have really done is move the labor away so that people aren't offended by the poverty. The treatment of women is not substantially better now either. We have perhaps "freed" them, but in the process also ceased to protect their interests where child bearing is concerned, and likewise the interests of honest men where their money is concerned. We have not made some sort of moral leap foreward as you seem to be indicating.

 

[Shane Roach]

I never accused you of this. I merely was stating that I come across a good many others who do appear to submit more to legalism than love...that's all.

As for discerning false doctrine and false teachers - you have the Holy Spirit to guide you, just as I do. But this is one of the areas where we differ. People who make it their business to point out the sin of others come dangerously close (in my book) to becoming false teachers. Upon whose authority are they proclaiming their interpretation (opinion) of scripture?


The way in which I read the Bible, there are not prohibitions against homosexuality per se - but against idolators, temple prostitution and the like. There is not one passage in the bible that condemns loving, monogamous gay relationships...you may contend there are - but I will contend that there are none - and thus we will be at an impasse.
And so I bless you and release you to God's merciful care.

Well, so far you haven't "contended" anything, merely stated an opinion without explaining to me how you came to it. I don't know how either of us can contend anything until you explain your position.

 

[razzelflabben]

I wonder what God would say if each of us would bow before him, close our mouths, open our hearts and minds and listen.

From the beginning of this thread I have said that all sin is an issue between God and the sinner not person to person. If we listen, really listen to the Holy Spirit, if we are willing to be transformed into His likeness, His word will become clear and there will be not room for questions. In God's time, all things are made, beautiful, even this discussion. Ecc. 3:9-14 especially vs. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end. When will man give up trying to convict and save people and allow the Holy Spirit to do the work.

 

[Shane Roach]

[/font][/size]



Yes, I understand the reputed logic, I just don't agree with it.







Because I have studied history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, textual issues, language, language usage and other disciplines in addition to reading the Bible itself. Since I do not assume that I am capable of opening the Bible and not projecting my own thoughts, wishes, desires, prejudices, and time in history into the text, I try to retain as much objectivity as possible by reading commentary by professional exegetes from across the spectrum. I also read Biblical scholars who focus on historical-critical method. Thus, I have some idea which teachings are original to Jesus and which came later. Those teachings that came later are of lesser importance than those that are original to Jesus. If a later teaching is in any way in conflict with what Jesus taught, I go with what Jesus taught. If Jesus was silent on the subject, I do not assume that another human has better judgment than I do until after I study the issue and the various points of view and am able to make an educated decision.







Excommunication does? That was what I meant I disagreed with the practice of.







The person with the authority to decide what is to the point in a thread and what is not happens to be the moderator. I'm not going to assume that I can speak or think for the moderator. I’m not going to assume that I have the authority to take a thread off topic. There is nothing difficult about beginning another thread to discuss excommunication, so the way I see it, I might as well remain as much as possible with the thread topic. My personal disagreement with the practice of excommunication has very little to do with whether or not homosexual persons are Christian.







I think there might be two erroneous assumptions in the above statement. First, I'm not self-conscious. Second, the issue for another thread was excommunication.







If we are going to discuss anything at all, then the focus on me and my motivation(s) or lack of motivation(s) and so on is going to need to vanish. One of the primary reasons that discussions become heated is due to not discussing the other person’s statement, but rather, discussing the other person, and/or speculating on that person’s motivation(s).

Yes, excommunication impinges on this topic because part of the argument of those who are teaching that homosexual relationships are ok is that there is room for doubt, therefore we should err on the side of the homosexual because to do otherwise is lacking in Christian love. The fact is that far from it, we are instructed to resist false teachings and to judge teachings in accordance with the Old Testament and the teachings of the apostles, or the New Testament.

You go into a long and drawn out explanation of how you came to your opinion that is long on your qualifications and short on specifics. There's no reason for me to believe that you have any deeper knowledge on any of these things than I, and certainly not deeper than many professional pastors who disagree with you as well.

If you don't want to talk about the aspects related to church discipline, that's fine, but every time one of your fellow advocates for homosexuality fires off the accusation that anyone who disagrees with them is being un-Christian and judgemental, it will continue to come up.

 

[Shane Roach]

I agree, there seems to be some miscommunication on this issue and it would be best left at least for the time. To correct you however, I never said that therefore no one should ever be put out of the church, but rather that before such harsh measures are taken, one must be careful to exercise commpassion, patience, church discipline, biblical teaching, councel from the Holy Spirit, etc. Your posts have made it sound like these things have already been done by the verses you stated. I purpose to you that because we are talking about spiritual matters, there is no such thing as one size fits all, for we cannot know what is in the heart, that is left for God alone.

Well, I've several times pointed out that this part of my argument is aimed at the continued accusation that any Christian who argues against the acceptance of homosexuality is exercising judgement on the homosexual in an un-Christian fashion, which forces me to defend myself by pointing out that far from that, we are actively instructed to protect ourselves and the church against false doctrine, which can be carried even as far as excluding someone from the church if the disruption and sin continue.

 

[Shane Roach]

I wonder what God would say if each of us would bow before him, close our mouths, open our hearts and minds and listen.

From the beginning of this thread I have said that all sin is an issue between God and the sinner not person to person. If we listen, really listen to the Holy Spirit, if we are willing to be transformed into His likeness, His word will become clear and there will be not room for questions. In God's time, all things are made, beautiful, even this discussion. Ecc. 3:9-14 especially vs. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end. When will man give up trying to convict and save people and allow the Holy Spirit to do the work.

Heh, and here is an example of the same accusation, or at least it appears to be. So that's why I keep bringing up issues of church discipline.

Specifically, since the Bible tells me that there will be false teachers, it seems likely then that your statement, "If we listen, really listen to the Holy Spirit, if we are willing to be transformed into His likeness, His word will become clear and there will be not room for questions," while perhaps true, is irrelevant, since we know false teachers are never going to do any such thing.

I can't wave a magic wand and know who is a false teacher. The only standard I have been given is to listen to and judge their arguments, or their behavior. That's all I have, and yet that's what I must to do according to the Bible.

 

[Outspoken]

I believe that many of the laws of the Old Testament were intended to promote the survival of the Chosen People. For exmaple, many of the Kosher laws protect people from disease. Part of the survival of the Hebrews depended on producing plenty of progeny to help them survive against the many powerful enemies that surrounded them. The context of the levitical prohibitions against homosexuality appears to be directed at directing all sexuality to the creation of legitimate children. Christianity does not have this concern, as evidenced by the way it views celibacy as honorable rather than shameful.

Onto Romans, which I like despite what you may think. What I don't like is when people pull one verse out of an arguement without looking at the whole of the arguement. First, it should be noted that Paul is not setting out to condemn homosexuality or define what is sinful in Romans 1. The mention of homosexual acts is an analogy that is part of a larger arguement. Paul discusses the pagans rejecting their natural worship of God in exchange for idols. This causes wickedness in their lives. Part of this wickedness paralleled their rejection of God. Men (women) reject their internal disposition to women (men) and exchange it for lustful relations with men (women). This is not a universal condemnation of homosexual acts for the following reasons: 1) the acts described are motivated out of lust. Any lustful action is sinful. 2) the participants are heterosexual. They have a "use" for the opposite sex but they exchange it for what is against their nature. Homosexuals have no natural use for the opposite sex and would find heterosexual acts contrary to their nature. Paul's analogy also would break down if the participants were homosexual. Homosexuals have no natural inclination to the opposite sex, which would correspond to pagans having no natural inclination to worship God. This would remove their guilt for not worshipping God.

Homosexuality is merely the method of the sin in Genesis 19 in the same way that using a computer is merely the method of internet fraud.

I am not sure how to interpret 1 Cor 6:9, largely because Paul coined the word there. It's meaning is not clear from its context and using the meaning of its root words to determine its meaning is dangerous since words have meanings seperate from their components.

It is simple to understand the references to male-female relations makes sense when one considers that these relationships are overwhelmingly more frequent.

"many of the Kosher laws protect people from disease. "

Talked about in romans, so your conclusion here is not correct.

"The context of the levitical prohibitions against homosexuality appears to be directed at directing all sexuality to the creation of legitimate children."

This is also incorrect. You are inserting your thoughts onto scripture. The prohitibions against homosexuality is because its a sin. Its that simple.

"it should be noted that Paul is not setting out to condemn homosexuality or define what is sinful in Romans "

Exactly, he causally says its a sin because that was common knowledge.

"This causes wickedness in their lives."

Exactly, this is why my reply is that to think homosexuality is not sin, then you must ALSO SAY murder, malice, and all types of evil are not sin as well. This is easy to refute biblically thus the conclusion is homosexuality is sin, regardless of circumstance.

"the acts described are motivated out of lust."

Untrue. The acts described are motivated out of the desire of their heart.

 

[razzelflabben]

And yet we are instructed not to let our liberty become a stumbling block. How much more so to allow unrepentant sinners to teach or make an example of their life and excuses for sin within the church when the the apostles taught otherwise?

I am more confused now, is the issue that the homosexual is teaching in our church or that they are fellowshipping with the body? If they are teachers of the word, you definately have grounds for your assursions. If however, they are joining in fellowship, then I take a different stand. God says that teachers will be judged harsher (notice judged not punished) This idea is carried through in the scriptures you referenced, that teachers, whose teachings are false are to be judged by the body as dangerous. I was not aware that every homosexual in the church was teaching. The first church my husband pastored, had many problems which I will not go into in this post, however, some of the children of one deacon, did not know why they couldn't just tell people that if they were good they would go to Heaven and if they were bad they would go to hell. If this is what is being taught, we have a very large problem in the body. However, if they are asking questions, seeking to know the truth, whether or not they currently accept that truth paints a totally different picture of the "un repentant" sinner. Go back to my husbands porn abuse. For many years, he denied it was a sin. For him to be convicted, required teaching, and time. In each, the Holy Spirit convicted and healing could take place.

So is this dicussion then, the homosexual who is teaching in our churches that homosexuality is Godly or is the issue the homosexual that is fellowshipping in our churches? Clarifying this question might get us somewhere.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am aware of what hermeneutics are. The question is whether or not your statement is true that it becomes apparent after full study that it doesn't apply to all homosexuality, relatioship or not.

You can throw around difficult passages that are unrelated to this subject all you like. I have looked into them, and I think I understand them differently than you as well. For instance, you claim the human race has evolved past slavery, yet the US benefis from the low cost wages of third world laborers. All we have really done is move the labor away so that people aren't offended by the poverty. The treatment of women is not substantially better now either. We have perhaps "freed" them, but in the process also ceased to protect their interests where child bearing is concerned, and likewise the interests of honest men where their money is concerned. We have not made some sort of moral leap foreward as you seem to be indicating.

I know this is off topic but, low cost wages are not reserved for the third world laborers, they abound here in the US as well. Many Americans work for less than minimum wage and people turn their heads, close there eyes and say that it is only in the third world countries, wrong. Sorry for that little soap box moment.

I think you are both right here. The world has changed, accept it or not, and thus, understanding the bible has to be taken in light of how our world has changed. But what is missing is the heart of God's teaching. You would be hard pressed to find teachings that promote slavery. Instead we find teachings on how a slave should be treated. so what then is the point of the teaching? That slavery is okay or that men should be treated fairly no matter their position in life? I'm asserting the later.

 

[razzelflabben]

Heh, and here is an example of the same accusation, or at least it appears to be. So that's why I keep bringing up issues of church discipline.

Specifically, since the Bible tells me that there will be false teachers, it seems likely then that your statement, "If we listen, really listen to the Holy Spirit, if we are willing to be transformed into His likeness, His word will become clear and there will be not room for questions," while perhaps true, is irrelevant, since we know false teachers are never going to do any such thing.

I can't wave a magic wand and know who is a false teacher. The only standard I have been given is to listen to and judge their arguments, or their behavior. That's all I have, and yet that's what I must to do according to the Bible.

I do not understand how this is taken as accusation but then I am often amazed at what causes problems on this forum.

How do we know a false teacher? First, they must be a teacher, secondly, their teaching and lives don't measure up to what the bible says. How do we know if they line up, first we read and study the word for ourselves, on another thread, I was totally taken back by the idea that we question the teacher by asking them to prove it in the word or God rather than study it for ourselves. This opens us up to the false teacher. Secondly, the bible says that we will know them by their love we are further given scriptures of the fruits of the spirit. Thirdly, a teacher is to be called by God not man or the church. A teacher who is called by man or the church is quite likely to be a false teacher though not always.

 

[Shane Roach]

I am more confused now, is the issue that the homosexual is teaching in our church or that they are fellowshipping with the body? If they are teachers of the word, you definately have grounds for your assursions. If however, they are joining in fellowship, then I take a different stand. God says that teachers will be judged harsher (notice judged not punished) This idea is carried through in the scriptures you referenced, that teachers, whose teachings are false are to be judged by the body as dangerous. I was not aware that every homosexual in the church was teaching. The first church my husband pastored, had many problems which I will not go into in this post, however, some of the children of one deacon, did not know why they couldn't just tell people that if they were good they would go to Heaven and if they were bad they would go to hell. If this is what is being taught, we have a very large problem in the body. However, if they are asking questions, seeking to know the truth, whether or not they currently accept that truth paints a totally different picture of the "un repentant" sinner. Go back to my husbands porn abuse. For many years, he denied it was a sin. For him to be convicted, required teaching, and time. In each, the Holy Spirit convicted and healing could take place.

So is this dicussion then, the homosexual who is teaching in our churches that homosexuality is Godly or is the issue the homosexual that is fellowshipping in our churches? Clarifying this question might get us somewhere.

I think just to attend church there is no requirement at all! I am speaking specifically of joining a church. The minute you give someone who is practicing sin and saying, not necessarily going to Sunday school as an official teacher, but saying generally in the church that their sin is not a sin, is the begginings of the grounds to begin looking at whether than person belongs in the church. After that, we have the process you and I have both agreed upon where the person is confronted privately, shown the scripture and so forth, given every chance to repent. Failing that, then they are told they are out of the official church rolls. At this point, as far as I know they could still attend, but all the leaders in the church, Sunday school teachers, elders, and the like, should be told of the present status of this individual so that they can watch to make sure they are not privately trying to assert their doctrine but really are just there still as learners, looking for the path. If they repent, welcome them back to the church. If they never do but nonetheless still cause no disruption, I see no reason to try to keep them from just physically showing up at church. But at some point, if they continue to proclaim their doctrine, and denounce the church leaders claiming they have higher authority, then that person might have to be completely barred from the church at all.

 

[Shane Roach]

I know this is off topic but, low cost wages are not reserved for the third world laborers, they abound here in the US as well. Many Americans work for less than minimum wage and people turn their heads, close there eyes and say that it is only in the third world countries, wrong. Sorry for that little soap box moment.

I think you are both right here. The world has changed, accept it or not, and thus, understanding the bible has to be taken in light of how our world has changed. But what is missing is the heart of God's teaching. You would be hard pressed to find teachings that promote slavery. Instead we find teachings on how a slave should be treated. so what then is the point of the teaching? That slavery is okay or that men should be treated fairly no matter their position in life? I'm asserting the later.

I agree with your interpretation wholeheartedly there.

 

[Shane Roach]

I do not understand how this is taken as accusation but then I am often amazed at what causes problems on this forum.

How do we know a false teacher? First, they must be a teacher, secondly, their teaching and lives don't measure up to what the bible says. How do we know if they line up, first we read and study the word for ourselves, on another thread, I was totally taken back by the idea that we question the teacher by asking them to prove it in the word or God rather than study it for ourselves. This opens us up to the false teacher. Secondly, the bible says that we will know them by their love we are further given scriptures of the fruits of the spirit. Thirdly, a teacher is to be called by God not man or the church. A teacher who is called by man or the church is quite likely to be a false teacher though not always.

Because for someone to have worked their way all the way into the eldership, deaconship, or some official teaching position before coming out with their homosexuality, or any other sexual sin for that matter, is not all that is necessary for them to be a disruptive force within the church. The scriptures I gave you do not say only if they are a teacher. They also include the unrepentant rebel who continues in sin even after instructed otherwise. Even if a person is just a regular Sunday school attender, but constantly raises the issue that their homosexuality is not a sin, and practices it openly while still maintaining they are Christian, makes them an example that goes against how we are taught to behave.

I agree a teacher should be called by God, but the question is how anyone else is to know if they have been or not. These are the qualifications we are given to work with. As I said, we have no magic wand to wave to know the person's soul.

 

[Fideist]

You go into a long and drawn out explanation of how you came to your opinion that is long on your qualifications and short on specifics.

How specific does it need to be? Where did Jesus excommunicate anybody?

There's no reason for me to believe that you have any deeper knowledge on any of these things than I,

Ditto.

and certainly not deeper than many professional pastors who disagree with you as well.

I find that credentialed peer reviewed Biblical scholars are more reliable in these matters than pastors. I find that Jesus is a more reliable teacher than those that came after him.

If you don't want to talk about the aspects related to church discipline, that's fine, but every time one of your fellow advocates for homosexuality fires off the accusation that anyone who disagrees with them is being un-Christian and judgemental, it will continue to come up.

My fellow advocates advocate all sorts of human beings. But I am finished with responding to posts about me. See you around.

 

[Shane Roach]

How specific does it need to be? Where did Jesus excommunicate anybody?

This is a very good example of what is wrong with your set of priorities. Christ was not around to excommunicate anyone from the Christian church. He said specifically that he must go so that the Spirit could come. He did, however, reprimand false teachings and also sin, telling those whom he freed, "sin no more." I could also point out to you verses that indicate he passed His authority on to His followers, and specifically to the apostles and a number that they also approved, and who is or is not to be considered for new leadership positions.

None of my posts were derogatory to you personally. I said it before, if you don't want to talk about church discipline, fine with me. I was only saying I don't see any problem with it. Sorry if you felt somehow personally called out over that.

 

[Shane Roach]

I find that credentialed peer reviewed Biblical scholars are more reliable in these matters than pastors. I find that Jesus is a more reliable teacher than those that came after him.

What you neglect to mention is that in many universities, these people are not Christian at all. You would have to also include Bible scholars from universities that carry on scholarship from within the Christian perspective.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think just to attend church there is no requirement at all! I am speaking specifically of joining a church. The minute you give someone who is practicing sin and saying, not necessarily going to Sunday school as an official teacher, but saying generally in the church that their sin is not a sin, is the begginings of the grounds to begin looking at whether than person belongs in the church. After that, we have the process you and I have both agreed upon where the person is confronted privately, shown the scripture and so forth, given every chance to repent. Failing that, then they are told they are out of the official church rolls. At this point, as far as I know they could still attend, but all the leaders in the church, Sunday school teachers, elders, and the like, should be told of the present status of this individual so that they can watch to make sure they are not privately trying to assert their doctrine but really are just there still as learners, looking for the path. If they repent, welcome them back to the church. If they never do but nonetheless still cause no disruption, I see no reason to try to keep them from just physically showing up at church. But at some point, if they continue to proclaim their doctrine, and denounce the church leaders claiming they have higher authority, then that person might have to be completely barred from the church at all.

This makes much more since than the previous posts as I understood them. I still have a couple of minor problems however, the one big problem I still have is what about the person who hides their sin. They are no less sinning, and proclaiming that sin to be no sin by thier continual practise of that behavior but the church doesn't know about the sin so therefore, does not take the same action. I think this is why some issues are left to the Holy Spirit and why it is vital for the church to act like the body, family of God for in a family, it is extremely dificult though possible, to hide things. It is also imparitive that we have share groups where we are free to share things without FEAR of judgement whether real or percieved. In this way, we know where the person is in thier walk with God and whether or not the "non repentance" is due to lack of maturity, lack of teaching, lack of understanding, lack of caring, justification, or any number of other issues that need addressed before more sever action is taken. If I limp because of a splinter, it is improper to cut off my foot. If the thought process is, the person should be removed from the membership and then we hope he finds the answers to the real problem, we are not acting like a family. If we first act with compassion and love and find out the problem and remove the splinter as it were, then no harsher measures need to be taken. Always remembering that some wounds take longer to heal than others.