Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[Outspoken]

No you didn't.

Sure I did, yet you have yet to prove your assertion. Do you have any evidience that paul was converted before the church came into existance. make sure the evidience is not religious in nature now. Until then this will be my last post to you as you are not offereing any evidience, only saying, "no you didn't" which is your opinon that is not based on fact.

 

[Fideist]

Sure I did,

Nope. You have asserted that the church existed before Paul came along and used the narrative in Acts to support your claim. But you have not shown Acts to be a reliable source for the history you claim. I submit that Jesus' immediate followers were Temple Jews who followed the law. That can and has been supported by both historical elements in the religious literature itself, such as Jesus being Jewish, and such sources as Hegesippus. He describes sectarian Jews, not the members of a Christian church as decribed in Acts. Josephus also mentions James the Just. Unless you can show Acts to be a reliable historical source in support of your position, your attempt at refutation is merely unsupported assertion.

 

[UberLutheran]

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.

Fundamentalists DO pick and choose which Scriptures are applicable; and which Scriptures MUST be followed in order to obtain righteousness before God -- which negates the entire doctrine of justification by grace, through faith.

And yes, fundamentalists DO take Romans 1 out of context. Romans is one of those those books (like Galatians, and Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians) which HAS to be read in the context of the entire letter or serious doctrinal errors -- such as the blanket condemnation of gays, or refusing to allow women to teach or preach in churches -- WILL occur.

Romans 1 is NOT about homosexuality. Romans 1 is about non-Jews who should be able to figure out that there is a Supreme Being -- and don't.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

All of Romans 1, obviously, is not about homosexuality, but address the homosexuality in terms of fornication, ad address it in terms of not being mentioned in the context of idolatry alone.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

No, we practice what is taught about not using liberty as liscense, inasmuch as "we" all who disagree with you should be classified as fundamentalists. It seems you use the label rather freely.

 

[UberLutheran]

As "we" all who disagree with you should be classified as fundamentalists. It seems you use the label rather freely.

It's called "discernment".

I realize the fundamentalist-PC term for this is "conservative Christian."

 

[Outspoken]

Nope. You have asserted that the church existed before Paul came along and used the narrative in Acts to support your claim. But you have not shown Acts to be a reliable source for the history you claim. I submit that Jesus' immediate followers were Temple Jews who followed the law. That can and has been supported by both historical elements in the religious literature itself, such as Jesus being Jewish, and such sources as Hegesippus. He describes sectarian Jews, not the members of a Christian church as decribed in Acts. Josephus also mentions James the Just. Unless you can show Acts to be a reliable historical source in support of your position, your attempt at refutation is merely unsupported assertion.

Umm..the documents you prepose are religious in nature and therefore by your critera are invalid. I'm still waiting for you to prove Paul converted before the church was formed. The church says he was not, if you disagree, then prove it.

 

[Outspoken]

Fundamentalists DO pick and choose which Scriptures are applicable; and which Scriptures MUST be followed in order to obtain righteousness before God -- which negates the entire doctrine of justification by grace, through faith.

And yes, fundamentalists DO take Romans 1 out of context. Romans is one of those those books (like Galatians, and Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians) which HAS to be read in the context of the entire letter or serious doctrinal errors -- such as the blanket condemnation of gays, or refusing to allow women to teach or preach in churches -- WILL occur.

Romans 1 is NOT about homosexuality. Romans 1 is about non-Jews who should be able to figure out that there is a Supreme Being -- and don't.

1. No, fundimentalists do not pick and choose.
2.No, fundamentalists do not take romans 1 out of context.
3. I agree romans 1 is not about homosexuality, but in the main topic, it lists sins, and homosexuality is listed, thus ending the debate on weather it is a sin or not, thus my citation of it in those debates. your last statement is correct. The result of them not following God when plainly thus they are given over to sin, one of which is homosexuality. this is a minor point in the passage but does show that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Shane Roach]

It's called "discernment".

I realize the fundamentalist-PC term for this is "conservative Christian."

If we were to apply labels in accordance to their definitions, I am far from the conservative wing. I simply do not agree with your assertion that homosexuality is not a sin, if that is indeed what you are saying, and I do believe that discipline plays a role in the church, as does every major denomination.

I haven't seen you even so much as actually address the issue being discussed here.

 

[razzelflabben]

What have we become, can any of us say that we have never fallen prey to the following

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deciet, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Althought they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of these who pactice them.

Let us be slow to judge by remembering how God views such things

'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment" But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject ot judgment. Again anyone who says to his brother, "Raca" is answerable to the Sanhedrin, But anyone who says, "You fool" will be in danger of the fire of hell.

"you have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery" But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Should we not always excersice caution in judging others?

"If any one of you is without sin let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

 

[Outspoken]

Should we not always excersice caution in judging others?[/QUOTE]

Pointing out something is sin is not judgement.

 

[Fideist]

Umm..the documents you prepose are religious in nature and therefore by your critera are invalid.

Nope. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Religious documents don’t intend, for the most part, to impart history. But that does not mean they contain NO historical elements. The problem is often discovering which are, which are not and which can’t be determined one way or the other. This is determined through a combination of internal evidence, which you are apparently attempting to use exclusively, external evidence such as the text by Hegesippus, texts by Josephus and others that relate information that corroborates or contests. Then there are other texts of approximately the same time period that impart information that may not deal directly with the elements but may confirm or contradict. An example would be comparing an external text with Acts 15:



“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”



The above sort of agrees with the Noahide laws or the Seven Laws of Noah as distilled by Jewish people from the book of Genesis and recorded in Mishna Talmud. They are:

Do not murder.

Do not steal.

Do not worship false gods.

Do not be sexually immoral.

Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed.

Do not curse God.

Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.



The two separate pieces of information come from separate sources that were in force at approximately the same time (within about ten years give or take). So that even though it is a bit strange, we can fairly deduce that the statement in Acts 15:29 is reasonably accurate.



So, the criteria for determining historical evidence is as follows:. Internal evidence, or the Biblical stories themselves as well as other Biblical stories written by other authors that we can compare and contrast. External evidence such as confirming texts or contradictory texts, external evidence such as texts that contain similar evidence, and finally critical examination in combination with deductive reasoning.

I'm still waiting for you to prove

Paul converted before the church was formed.

I don’t need to prove any such thing. All I need to show is that Acts was written 25-30 years after Paul’s first letter (1 Thess). Most scholars of all persuasions agree that 1 Thess was written around 50 CE and that Acts was written around 75-80 CE. So, I have no trouble at all demonstrating this. But you say that the narrative in Acts describes accurately what took place before Paul converted, and you do so without any supporting evidence that this is so. Your argument boils down to this: the church was in place at the time of Paul because the church, through the narrative in Acts, says it was. Or to put it simpler terms yet: the Bible is correct because the Bible says so. This is a circular argument that I don’t need to respond to, but for anyone lurking, I will anyway.



I say it is not that simple. I say Acts contains an apologetic for Pauline Christianity and at the same time, a polemic against Jewish Christians. I think the claim that the apostolic church was in place, is a retrojection by the Early church, in an effort to thwart any claim to legitimacy by so called “Jewish Christians”, while at the same time claiming legitimacy for itself. And the fact remains. Acts came on the scene 25-30 years after Paul wrote his first letter. I strongly suggest the information in Acts has more to do with politics than history.

The church says he was not, if you disagree, then prove it.

I already demonstrated that the church’s claim through the text in Acts wasn’t even written until 25-30 years after Paul wrote his first letter. Simple deduction tells us his conversion took place before he wrote the letter. You say the church is accurate by virtue of the narrative in Acts. Yet all your claim amounts to is an unsupported assertion combined with circular logic. It is your claim that Acts is an accurate source despite all the other information I’ve provided in support of my claim. It’s up to you to support your claim with historical information that corroborates Acts’ narrative.

 

[razzelflabben]

Should we not always excersice caution in judging others?[/QUOTE]

Pointing out something is sin is not judgement.

And yet the Original Post says nothing about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

 

[chalice_thunder]

And yet the Original Post says nothing about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

Excellent observation. Thanks!

 

[PastorFreud]

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

Egads! This is not a fitting post!

But thanks.

 

[PastorFreud]

*sigh* nooo..taking the bible literally is embracing scholarly hermeneutics.

*sigh* nooo..it is not.

 

[PastorFreud]

*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.

So in context the verse didn't mean to stone your disobedient child?

stone
v. To hurl or throw stones at, especially to kill with stones.

disobedient
adj. Neglecting or refusing to obey; omitting to do what is commanded, or doing what is prohibited; refractory; not observant of duty or rules prescribed by authority; -- applied to persons and acts.

child
n. A person between birth and puberty.

 

[Outspoken]

[/font][/size][/font]



Nope. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Religious documents don’t intend, for the most part, to impart history. But that does not mean they contain NO historical elements. The problem is often discovering which are, which are not and which can’t be determined one way or the other. This is determined through a combination of internal evidence, which you are apparently attempting to use exclusively, external evidence such as the text by Hegesippus, texts by Josephus and others that relate information that corroborates or contests. Then there are other texts of approximately the same time period that impart information that may not deal directly with the elements but may confirm or contradict. An example would be comparing an external text with Acts 15:



“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”



The above sort of agrees with the Noahide laws or the Seven Laws of Noah as distilled by Jewish people from the book of Genesis and recorded in Mishna Talmud. They are:

Do not murder.

Do not steal.

Do not worship false gods.

Do not be sexually immoral.

Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed.

Do not curse God.

Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.



The two separate pieces of information come from separate sources that were in force at approximately the same time (within about ten years give or take). So that even though it is a bit strange, we can fairly deduce that the statement in Acts 15:29 is reasonably accurate.



So, the criteria for determining historical evidence is as follows:. Internal evidence, or the Biblical stories themselves as well as other Biblical stories written by other authors that we can compare and contrast. External evidence such as confirming texts or contradictory texts, external evidence such as texts that contain similar evidence, and finally critical examination in combination with deductive reasoning.







I don’t need to prove any such thing. All I need to show is that Acts was written 25-30 years after Paul’s first letter (1 Thess). Most scholars of all persuasions agree that 1 Thess was written around 50 CE and that Acts was written around 75-80 CE. So, I have no trouble at all demonstrating this. But you say that the narrative in Acts describes accurately what took place before Paul converted, and you do so without any supporting evidence that this is so. Your argument boils down to this: the church was in place at the time of Paul because the church, through the narrative in Acts, says it was. Or to put it simpler terms yet: the Bible is correct because the Bible says so. This is a circular argument that I don’t need to respond to, but for anyone lurking, I will anyway.



I say it is not that simple. I say Acts contains an apologetic for Pauline Christianity and at the same time, a polemic against Jewish Christians. I think the claim that the apostolic church was in place, is a retrojection by the Early church, in an effort to thwart any claim to legitimacy by so called “Jewish Christians”, while at the same time claiming legitimacy for itself. And the fact remains. Acts came on the scene 25-30 years after Paul wrote his first letter. I strongly suggest the information in Acts has more to do with politics than history.







I already demonstrated that the church’s claim through the text in Acts wasn’t even written until 25-30 years after Paul wrote his first letter. Simple deduction tells us his conversion took place before he wrote the letter. You say the church is accurate by virtue of the narrative in Acts. Yet all your claim amounts to is an unsupported assertion combined with circular logic. It is your claim that Acts is an accurate source despite all the other information I’ve provided in support of my claim. It’s up to you to support your claim with historical information that corroborates Acts’ narrative.

"Nope. It is not an all or nothing proposition."

sure it is. If you disqualify one piece of information based ONLY on the fact that its religous (the only criteria you gave) then all religious works must be put aside.

"All I need to show is that Acts was written 25-30 years after Paul’s first letter (1 Thess). "

No, you're conclusion is flawed. It is pretty clear the events of Acts could not have been written down as they were happening, thus your conclusion the written date is the same as the event date is wrong.

"I say Acts contains an apologetic "

Unproven opinion and thus holds no weight.

"It’s up to you to support your claim with historical information that corroborates Acts’ narrative"

No, not at all. you're the one throwing out religious works based on the pervious criteria then using other ones that should be excluded on the same critera. It is your job to prove Paul was converted after the creation of the church, something you have not given a shred of evidience for, thus your claim is unproven.

 

[Outspoken]

And yet the Original Post says nothing about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

No, but that is what the poster I was responding to was addressing

 

[Outspoken]

*sigh* nooo..it is not.


So in context the verse didn't mean to stone your disobedient child?

stone
v. To hurl or throw stones at, especially to kill with stones.

disobedient
adj. Neglecting or refusing to obey; omitting to do what is commanded, or doing what is prohibited; refractory; not observant of duty or rules prescribed by authority; -- applied to persons and acts.

child
n. A person between birth and puberty.

"*sigh* nooo..it is not."

Yes, it is

"So in context the verse didn't mean to stone your disobedient child?"

Here you seem to purposefully leave out the context in which the poster used the verse for. Now if I didn't know you better it would seem you were intentionally ripping this out of context. He poster said this should currently be done, which then you must put in the context of the bible, which clearly shows this law has been refocused by Christ. Please do not continue to rip things out of context.