Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[UberLutheran]

*chuckles* I love how you rip things out of context. Great job..well not really, more of a very very poor job! Now, when you want to actually talk about christianity, let me know.

I present the Scripture to fundamentalist exactly the same way they present Scripture to others.

I just happen to choose Scriptures that fundamentalists don't like having applied to them.

 

[razzelflabben]

I present the Scripture to fundamentalist exactly the same way they present Scripture to others.

I just happen to choose Scriptures that fundamentalists don't like having applied to them.

Back for a fleeting moment, I like your approach to unreasonable people but I have two questions for you.

1. How do the fundamentalists react?

2. Do you know from a scriptural standpoint, why these scriptures no longer apply to us today and how to know which do apply and which do not?

 

[Shane Roach]

Back for a fleeting moment, I like your approach to unreasonable people but I have two questions for you.

Speaks volumes. Outright mockery: "i like your approach to unreasonable people." Presenting the truth of scripture with patience but resolve: "By the way, Where I disagree with your teaching is in the lack of love it portrays, which is the central theme to the whole book."


I am now quite firmly convinced that you do not represent someone who is concerned with love and tone, razz. The tone of his post is far, far beyond anything either I or Outspoken have done, and bears no resemblance to the effort both of us have made to keep our posts on topic and draw from related texts and related ideas. And yet you praise him.


Yet another thread on homosexuality dies in a flame of personal attacks from so called "liberals", lacking any substantive arguments to add to the discussion.

 

[UberLutheran]

Speaks volumes. Outright mockery: "i like your approach to unreasonable people." Presenting the truth of scripture with patience but resolve: "By the way, Where I disagree with your teaching is in the lack of love it portrays, which is the central theme to the whole book."
[/size][/font]

I am now quite firmly convinced that you do not represent someone who is concerned with love and tone, razz. The tone of his post is far, far beyond anything either I or Outspoken have done, and bears no resemblance to the effort both of us have made to keep our posts on topic and draw from related texts and related ideas. And yet you praise him.


Yet another thread on homosexuality dies in a flame of personal attacks from so called "liberals", lacking any substantive arguments to add to the discussion.

Fundamentalists pick out one section of the Genesis 19 story regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, make the assumption that the story must be about "homosexuality" -- without taking into account the culture of the area, why hospitality is more than just "having nice manners" and it is actually about life and death in a desert environment, without bothering to look at the original meanings of the Scriptures -- but since a homosexual interpretation fits into fundamentalists' virulently conservative social agendas, why not go with that interpretation - even if it is the wrong interpretation, even if that interpretation completely misses the entire point of the story?

And how is it that fundamentalists manage to quote Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as part of their favorite set of proof-texts against gays (of course, taking the passages out of context) without thinking that in condemning a group of people using two verses of the Law, fundamentalists have made the entire Law binding on themselves? You don't believe me? Galatians 2:21: " I don't make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!" Are we receiving the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing of faith? Far too many fundamentalists preach justification by faith, but in actuality practice justification by law. (Galatians 3:2).

So then: are we redeemed by works of the Law, or are we redeemed by faith in Christ? "As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who doesn't continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not of faith, but, "The man who does them will live by them."

Jesus Christ emphatically did NOT say, "Come to me, all you who are righteous enough, rich enough, who go to the right church in the right denomination, observe the right doctrines, pay the right tithes, hold the right social and political views, belong to the right political party and vote for the right candidates." Given that -- and the fact that we are justified by grace, through faith (and absolutely NOT by observing "the right doctrines" or following the "right social agenda"), we can toss out this Pharisaiacal (and completely un-Christian) notion of "God loves us more than He loves those AWFUL [fill in the groups you best love to hate] because under the Law which convicts every single one of us, the most "righteous Christian" is every bit as much a sinner as Saddam Hussein.

Speaking of taking things out of context: fundamentalists take Romans 1:26-32 completely and absolutely and utterly out of context as an indictment against "homosexuals" -- neatly forgetting that the very first verse of the very next chapter is pointing the finger at fundamentalists for doing the very same thing they're judging others for doing!

Taken in a larger context: Romans 1-3 is NOT about homosexuality AT ALL. Romans 1 deals with Jewish attitudes towards Gentiles -- who, perceiving nature, should realize there is a God but don't -- and so they continue on with various pagan fertility rites designed to get their crops to grow, or the rains to come (which include ritualized sex with young male prostitutes).

The Jews (having the Law) feel righteous -- but Paul correctly points out in Romans 2 that the Jews don't follow all of the Law, and since righteousness before God, in terms of the Law, means that you follow ALL of the Law, the Jews aren't righteous either.

Going later into chapter 2: even those Jews who somehow manage to follow the ENTIRE Law, to the letter -- aren't righteous before God because they are so obsessed with following the Law that they've made it a god unto itself.

Paul nails it when, in chapter 3, he correctly concludes that none of us are righteous before God, in and of anything we do on our own behalf. How are we justified before God? By grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Not by what denomination we belong to. Not by what church we belong to. Not by what political party we belong to, or what social agenda we're following, or by how many Scriptures we think other people should be following (when we're not willing to follow the same Scriptures ourselves).

If ANY of us really believe that "we're better than those awful homosexuals who don't deserve a place in Heaven", then I challenge us to determine which part of "doing those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with those who practice them" really does not apply to US.

A postscript: if any of us are bold enough (and arrogant enough) to say, "Well, we're saved, so we don't sin" -- Scripture has something to say about that, too: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we haven't sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10

Sola fide.

 

[Shane Roach]

The reason I personally don't see the law regarding homosexual behavior as "passed" is because it fits into the scope of fornication. Fornication is specifically not part of the law that Christians are told they are free of. Indeed, fornicators are to be put out of the church until they repent, if they repent. Or to be precise, though we are free of the law, we are instructed still not to give ourselves to fornication.

I'm not convinced that your interpretaion of the Sodom story is correct, as the nature of the so called "hospitality" is homosexual and violent in nature. In any event, homosexuality is condemned as sinful any number of places, so it's rather beside the point.

Since no one here is arguing that homosexuals are unforgiveable, I can't really tell you anything about that except that I agree. Anyone who judges homosexuality as somehow uniquely unforgiveable is wrong.

I think that just in general, you are mistaking as "judgemental" Christians who are attempting to follow after the concept that we should not use our liberty as liscense.

I don't see your interpretaion of Romans 2 as correct either, but since your conclusion on the matter fits with the rest of the scripture, I don't see much point in arguing over it, unless you just feel like clarifying how you come to the conclusion that it addresses even Jews who keep the whole law. I think the idea is that no one ever did keep the whole law.

Now, back to the point, how do you legitimize the unrepentant practice of homosexuality as consistant with what the NT has to say about the proper behavior of Christians, give that we are saved by grace, through faith, and are therefore to exhibit our faith through works? Or do you? I mean, you seem convinced someone wanted a discussion about Christianity in general, but actually what I was referring to was the specific matter being discussed in this thread.

 

[Shane Roach]

Oh, and if you can describe where you get the idea that the fornications and homosexual behavior discussed in Romans 1 is only that which is ritual or idolatrous in nature, that would be helpfull as well. It appears to be more along the lines of describing how people are given over to just general affections which are not acceptable. I'm sure we're all aware idolators engaged in sexual practices in their rituals, but I think it's not outside the realm of reason to expect that if that was what was being spoken of, then that's what would have been said, rather than what actually was said.

 

[PastorFreud]

I never rejected scholarly hermeneutics. You presented weak arguments on that front, inasmuch as you bothered to present any at all. You in fact, or someone else on this thread, said that part of the reason homosexual marriage might not have been addressed specifically in the OT was that it didn't exist, and it turns out now I am finding that it did, or supposedly, in Egypt and Rome. So this makes the complete lack of any mention of an acceptable homosexual marriage in the entire Bible even more of an obvious mark against your arguments. As for the "translation" problems of homosexuality as "temple prostitution", those phrases are carefully picked out to describe a behavior. If they had meant not to do it as part of an idolatrous ritual, it would have been simplicity itself to just say so. In point of fact, I think it is enought to just say, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." That pretty much takes in all of temple prositution, sacrifices, and anything else that has to do with idolatry. It would not make sense to have something like this repeatedly spelled out for no apparent reason out of the blue. "Don't worship other Gods. Also, don't worship other Gods by prositution. Also, don't worship other Gods by male prositution." About the only situation I see where that seems to be done is in mention of passing of seed through the fire to Molech, and sure enough, it mentions the idolatry directly, not leaving it to someone's imagination to dream up a few thousand years later.

As for superior spirituality, the two of you trading religious sounding pats on the back with each other is what I am referring to. "I bless and release you." "You are growing in wisdom and stature with God and man." This is not fitting.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never proclaimed to know anything about homosexual marriage in Egypt.

As for hermeneutics, we disagree on the basic assumptions underlying the process. I will trust the process to reveal truth. Others will assume the literal truth and distrust the process when it yields contrary results.

I agree that "I bless and release you" sounds a bit Barney-esque, but I was simply commending ChaliceThunder for recognizing he was getting nowhere and dropping it. Are you now the judge of what is fitting? You may prefer feedback in PM, but that is your preference.

 

[PastorFreud]

Oh, and if you can describe where you get the idea that the fornications and homosexual behavior discussed in Romans 1 is only that which is ritual or idolatrous in nature, that would be helpfull as well. It appears to be more along the lines of describing how people are given over to just general affections which are not acceptable. I'm sure we're all aware idolators engaged in sexual practices in their rituals, but I think it's not outside the realm of reason to expect that if that was what was being spoken of, then that's what would have been said, rather than what actually was said.

Oh, and I don't intend to try when you have already decided the issue. You operate from a standpoint that the what the words appear to say is what they mean. I take the cultural context into account, and see a vivid description of paganism. If you reject the cultural context, then there is no point in attempting to understand the text as the original audience might have. You know, we do assume quite a bit when we are communicating to a contemporary audience, and these things are easily lost when a communication is removed from its context. "Obvious" references for the Roman Christians take a little effort on our part. Pagan temple worship is now extinct and was at the time the KJV translators translated the text, using mostly the Latin Vulgate. No wonder there was confusion.

 

[Fideist]

LOL, yea, it did Acts chapter 2. Check out verse 47

I don't see anything there about a church. I also don't think the Bible is a history text. History tells us that the first generation of Jesus’ followers, referred to by Paul as Pillars, were sectarian Jews led by James the Just also known as James the brother of Jesus. Some scholars refer to these people as Jewish Christians, but that can be a misnomer because their view of the Christ meant exactly what it said – the anointed. Almost all of these people were wiped out by the Romans between 60 and 70 CE. There is some speculation that their religious decedents were called Ebionites by later Pauline Christians, some think maybe the decendents were those that had been designated Nazarenes. In either case there is not enough evidence to be certain. But what is certain is that the immediate followers of Jesus were Jews. Hegesippus, one of the few sources available says that James the Just constantly prayed in the Temple where he spent so much time; he had hard calloused knees like those of a camel.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never proclaimed to know anything about homosexual marriage in Egypt.

As for hermeneutics, we disagree on the basic assumptions underlying the process. I will trust the process to reveal truth. Others will assume the literal truth and distrust the process when it yields contrary results.

I agree that "I bless and release you" sounds a bit Barney-esque, but I was simply commending ChaliceThunder for recognizing he was getting nowhere and dropping it. Are you now the judge of what is fitting? You may prefer feedback in PM, but that is your preference.

PF - you never cease to provide me with a chuckle

My "barney-esque bless/release" statement was indeed as you said. I learned it some years ago in a 12 step meeting dealing with letting go of somebody for whom you care - because they make their own choices. It is a respectful way (for both parties) to disengage and move on...which is what I have done.

Now I just have to stop looking in the mirror and seeing a purple dinosaur
Thanks again for your support

 

[Outspoken]

I present the Scripture to fundamentalist exactly the same way they present Scripture to others.

I just happen to choose Scriptures that fundamentalists don't like having applied to them.

ahh this is a flaw in your thinking then, or you have an incorrect stereotype of fundamentalists.

1. fundimentalists always look at the WHOLE book, not just one part (christian ones anyway).
2. Those verses are ripped out of context, thus I have no problem applying them to me if taken in context.

 

[Outspoken]

I tell Jews that their father is the Devil (John 8:44) and they seem to object. A few even suggested that I was anti-semitic! Can you imagine THAT?

I tell blacks that they should "be obedient to those who according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ; not in the way of service only when eyes are on you, as men-pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord," and they give me some cockamamie bull about "The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution" -- and when I tell them that the Word of God supercedes the U.S. Constitution, and that they should be happy in their station in life, they have the gall to tell me I'm a RACIST!

I tell women that because they are DIRECTLY responsible for bringing sin into the world that they are to be punished for all time by the pain of childbirth (Genesis 3) and that the only way they can be saved is through the raising of children (1 Timothy 2:11-15). Do they listen to me? No.

I told the male members of my congregation (as though there could possibly be any female members!) that I would be conducting an examination of each male to make sure he was fit enter the church -- and, according to Leviticus 21:18-22 that would include examinations for any blemishes, deformities, scars, scabs, previous broken bones, nose jobs, blindness, deafness, dwarfism, or evidence of vasectomy or genital injury -- and the heathen actually had the gall to tell me to go mind my own business (and three of them actually called me a PERVERT)!

I suspected my wife of infidelity, and informed her that she was to submit to ritual poisoning by our minister according to the specific instructions given by God in Numbers 5. In turn, she filed for divorce and then had me arrested for attempted murder! Can you believe THAT?

I present the plain, unadulterated Scripture to people; and for that I am persecuted daily. Yet, I know this is all for good. God has given me the keys of knowledge of the Scriptures, and because I know my interpretation is correct, I suffer my persecution gladly!

*sigh* again taking verses out of context. If you want to have a serious discussion on these verses let me know.

 

[Outspoken]

I don't see anything there about a church. I also don't think the Bible is a history text. History tells us that the first generation of Jesus’ followers, referred to by Paul as Pillars, were sectarian Jews led by James the Just also known as James the brother of Jesus. Some scholars refer to these people as Jewish Christians, but that can be a misnomer because their view of the Christ meant exactly what it said – the anointed. Almost all of these people were wiped out by the Romans between 60 and 70 CE. There is some speculation that their religious decedents were called Ebionites by later Pauline Christians, some think maybe the decendents were those that had been designated Nazarenes. In either case there is not enough evidence to be certain. But what is certain is that the immediate followers of Jesus were Jews. Hegesippus, one of the few sources available says that James the Just constantly prayed in the Temple where he spent so much time; he had hard calloused knees like those of a camel.

LOL then you're not reading at all. Have you ever heard of the greek wordekklesia. This word is usually translated as church. I'm guesses you haven't read this is Acts chapter 2. Notice this is BEFORE Paul was converted.

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

 

[UberLutheran]

*sigh* again taking verses out of context. If you want to have a serious discussion on these verses let me know.

I am quoting verses in exactly the same context as fundamentalists do with Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:3-4, and Galatians 5:19-20.

It appears that fundamentalists don't like having Scriptures thrown at them which challenge their own "lifestyle". Why do fundamentalists reject these parts of the Scripture which THEY don't like, but gleefully (and pridefully) proof-text Scripture out of context against people whom they claim to love, but whose "sin they hate"? Do fundamentalists really feel justified in using Scripture as a weapon against other people, when fundamentalists are doing the very same things they judge others for doing (Romans 2:1-4, alluding to Romans 1:29-32)?

Why do so many fundamentalists preach "justification by grace, through faith" and PRACTICE "justification by the law"?

This is, in fact, a VERY serious conversation.

 

[Fideist]

LOL then you're not reading at all. Have you ever heard of the greek wordekklesia. This word is usually translated as church. I'm guesses you haven't read this is Acts chapter 2. Notice this is BEFORE Paul was converted.

Nope. Acts was written well after the time Paul was converted. Paul converted sometime around 45-50 CE. Acts was written around 75-80 and is not a history book. It is a religious text with a lot of preaching in it and very few facts. If you want to know history, read history, not religion.

 

[Outspoken]

Nope. Acts was written well after the time Paul was converted. Paul converted sometime around 45-50 CE. Acts was written around 75-80 and is not a history book. It is a religious text with a lot of preaching in it and very few facts. If you want to know history, read history, not religion.

nooo...again you're wrong, the event recorded in Acts happened before the conversion of paul.

 

[Outspoken]

I am quoting verses in exactly the same context as fundamentalists do with Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:3-4, and Galatians 5:19-20.

It appears that fundamentalists don't like having Scriptures thrown at them which challenge their own "lifestyle". Why do fundamentalists reject these parts of the Scripture which THEY don't like, but gleefully (and pridefully) proof-text Scripture out of context against people whom they claim to love, but whose "sin they hate"? Do fundamentalists really feel justified in using Scripture as a weapon against other people, when fundamentalists are doing the very same things they judge others for doing (Romans 2:1-4, alluding to Romans 1:29-32)?

Why do so many fundamentalists preach "justification by grace, through faith" and PRACTICE "justification by the law"?

This is, in fact, a VERY serious conversation.

Ahh, no you're not. this is the problem. If you look later in the text (ie the whole bible) you see the laws you are talking about. If you want to pick out one specific one, then we can and I'll show you how you are ripping it out of context. As far as the romans 1 passage, its not taken out of context, for no passage in the bible says homosexuality is an okay practice nor refers to it being okay to do.

 

[Fideist]

nooo...again you're wrong, the event recorded in Acts happened before the conversion of paul.

Would you care to prove your contention that the Bible is an accurate record of history? Here’s another section from Acts:



“When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. 11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”



Where did Jesus go? Why would these two men in white robes speak of Jesus as "this Jesus" instead of some other more familiar term? Is heaven somewhere in the sky? Who were the “they” in the first sentence? “Men of Galilee” isn’t very descriptive for a history text. How many of them were there? What were their names? Where does it tell us that? By what means was Jesus lifted up? Who were the men in white robes and why don’t they have names, since they're obviously in charge at the moment? History texts don’t expect people to believe that an indefinite number of people with no names and very little else to identify them, were present at one of the most important moments in history. Religious texts, OTOH are not interested in history, they teach theology and tradition.



Acts is a religious text. You’re welcome to believe the story or stories happened the way the text has it, but don’t expect other people to. Especially those who are well aware that Acts also contains an apologetic in favor of Pauline Christianity and polemic elements against the “pillars” who were sectarian Jews. Acts is a text designed to make Paul look as good as possible while making his opponents that he describes in Galatians, look as bad as possible.



And even if you are correct, which you are not, that this retrojection as written in Acts actually happened before Paul came along, the Christian church as you know it, didn’t. The only people who could be considered Jesus’ immediate followers were practicing Jews who were hungry for the law. Even Acts, which is a polemic against what scholars call “Jewish Christians” admits this (ch 21). These immediate followers of Jesus, headed by James were not Christians as you think of Christians. They were Jews who believed that the Messiah (in the Jewish, not Christian, sense) had come, but who still went to Temple and were zealous for the law.

 

[Outspoken]

I disproved your assertion that the church did not exist before Paul, by the way, you admit paul exists, yet you have offered no nonbiblical references? How about you prove, using non-religious texts, that paul was converted before the church was created. Thanks.

 

[Fideist]

I disproved your assertion that the church did not exist before Paul,

No you didn't.