Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[PastorFreud]

Does it hurt anyone is not a valid objeciton according to biblical morality. It always hurts God

This is an amazing doctrine. Someone who is attracted to the same sex and acts on this attraction is hurting God? Is God so small that he can be so easily hurt?

Hurt

1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.
2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
3. To cause physical damage to; harm:
4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair:

Homosexuals are powerful, indeed, if they can hurt God.

 

[PastorFreud]

I don't know if this will help the Acts debate any or not for I really don't see where either side is going with the whole issue.

I recently did a study in Acts (for other reasons) and found something really awesome out about Acts. The whole point of Acts, is that after the crusifiction, the whole world as we know it changed, and here is how it changed. Acts is more about how the reserection changed our lives than it is a historical or textual writing. I learned so much from rereading the book of Acts with this understanding and am totally amazed at all the things I missed by reading it from these other perspectives.

Just a thought for what it's worth.

Good point. Acts 1:8 is like the thesis of the whole text. The text neatly divides into the gospel spreading from one region, to another, to another, until the "whole world" was reached. Luke was a pretty good writer.

 

[PastorFreud]

Like I said, if you want to address one of those we can, I'm not going to spend hours on here catering to every person that brings up the same tired issues over and over again. I don't have the time, my appologies for that. If you want to PM, then do so.

This "tired issue" is the crux of the problem with disagreements. How one reads the text leads to these other conclusions. If there are multiple holes in a barrel, the water will drain to the lowest hole. The faulty way that literalists use the text underlies every doctrine that is created by them. Even when the doctrine happens to be accurate, it is not usually for the reasons cited. So this does come up time and time again because this issue is central to everything else.

 

[Shane Roach]

So thank you for measuring up to my expectations.

I answered it the very post after you posted it:

"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]

The accusation comes up continually that one has to be a literalist to believe the various scriptures that mention homosexuality are not referring mysteriously to cult practices that don't show up in the text. There were Hebrew words for prostitute, temple, and idolatry, and if that was what was being spoken of, they would not have gone to the trouble of saying, "Do not lie with a man as you would lie with a woman."

There is a somewhat stronger argument to be made that the scriptures are all specific to sodomy in its most narrow sense, that is to say, anal sex. But that would be inconvenient to the political cause of the homosexual agenda, so it is not brought up. In fact, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but you will not find a law in the OT forbiding lesbianism, for example.

The model for marriage is well known as Genesis. The overall context of both the times and the fact that no mention of homosexual unions of any type makes its way into the entire Bible despite the fact that those sorts of relationships apparently did happen in those times makes it more than clear that the hermenuetical argument is flawed to insist that something has somehow changed, or that homosexuality just in general was not what the OT writers had in mind.

If one wants to just toss out whatever sections of the Bible they don't like as Fideist does, really there's nothing that can be done about that. Let anyone who has a concern about that sort of behavior regard Fideist's arguments carefully, and consider.

I'm out of town, so you are free of my hovering and mass posting for a while. Enjoy.

 

[Shane Roach]

This is an amazing doctrine. Someone who is attracted to the same sex and acts on this attraction is hurting God? Is God so small that he can be so easily hurt?

Hurt

1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.
2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
3. To cause physical damage to; harm:
4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair:

Homosexuals are powerful, indeed, if they can hurt God.

Many Christians are sympathetic to the view that God is upset when people sin. "If you love Me, keep My commandments." That sort of thing. Apparently you find such sentiments worthy of mockery. So be it.

 

[PastorFreud]

Many Christians are sympathetic to the view that God is upset when people sin. "If you love Me, keep My commandments." That sort of thing. Apparently you find such sentiments worthy of mockery. So be it.

God being upset and God being hurt are quite different. In my work as a headshrinker, I get tired of people using this word, hurt, because it is usually an over-reaction or a way of saying they were annoyed. So if you're going to say something about my response, at least get it right.

 

[coyoteBR]

I also fail to see where Christ explicitly condoned the eating of shrimp.

But, on the other hand... "Do not worry with what enters your mouth, but with what leaves it".

Just to say, PastorFreud, I enjoy reading your pondered posts and opinions, specially on this thread

 

[Fideist]

If it is clear, show how. Your reference to Acts 2:47 says nothing about a church and if it did, it would be yet another anachronism. ."




This makes it clear you have never done a word study on the greek word I presented to you or else you would know that's exactly what its talking about. The church did indeed exist I do find it funny that you want to exclude the history the church itself says applies.

Baloney. Here’s Acts 2:47 translated literally:



“Praising the God and having favor toward entire the people The but Master set to the ones being delivered by day on the same.” Translated from the Nestle Aland 26.



2:46 might bolster you argument a bit if it didn’t clearly say “in the temple.”

The church did indeed exist I do find it funny that you want to exclude the history the church itself says applies.

What history? Where is your evidence that confirms Acts was even intended a a history? All I’ve seen so far is the assurance of Outspoken that Acts conveys pure history and that it also says “church” in Acts 2:47. I don’t see any evidence of either being the case.

"The above makes no sense."

It makes perfect sence. You are excluding the book because of the subject matter (you say it is a support or Pauline blah blah blah...) though that is another debate. I am refering tot he timeline presented.

You made the claim that Acts is accurate as a history book. I have yet to see you support the claim. When are you going to offer something besides assertion, Outspoken?

"It was never intended as a history."

you have yet to present any evidience to this claim, therefore i choose to disbelieve you

Again, you made a claim. I disputed your claim. The attempt at shifting the burden of proof notwithstanding, it is up to YOU to support YOUR claim.

"This is apparent because of the use of terms and ideas that are completely out of place in the Jewish community in Jerusalem"

This is incorrect,

No it isn’t.

I agree for the majority these people were jewish,

You mean you agree that the majority were Jewish? Where is your proof that not all of these people were Jewish?

but upon profession of the christian faith they were excluded from the temple for the majority,

Horse hooey. There might have been Jews who did not think Jesus was the annointed one, and that those who did were a little odd, but sectarian Jews were quite common at the time, and so long as they didn’t violate the orthopraxy (observance of the law, etc.) the Jesus community would still be considered Jewish. And as Hegesippus confirms, these sectarian Jews still used the Temple. In the case of James the brother of Jesus and the head of the community – almost continually. Your claim is nothing more a projection of assumption that the kerygma of Acts is historically correct. It has nothing whatever to do with actual historical evidence.

look at what they did to the leader (christ himself). There for your objection holds no water.

They? Who are they? The Romans who crucified Jesus? What do Romans have to do with the Jerusalem community headed by James the brother of Jesus who was a nazirite Jew?

"There was no “church" in Judaism"

Incorrect. There was a church compromised of just jewish people in the beginning.

The above, as usual, a statement of personal belief, not accepted fact, and is thefore completely lacking as any sort of support.

"It is your claim, based on the text in Acts, that the church existed prior to Paul."

I have given you the book of Acts, which the church itself uses as a history as to when it is founded.

No. You have wrongly assumed that Acts is a history and was intended as one. And you have offered no support whatsoever for your assumption other than your opinion. Acts is written tradition, not a history book. We can derive some wonderful things from Acts if we read it as it was intended. What we cannot do is to force Acts to serve as something it was never intended to be.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I totally agree, not even our sin can seperate us from the love of God. Not lying, not homosexuality, not murder, not malice...etc..

...not judging others.

See ya at the heavenly banquet, bro!

 

[Outspoken]

This is an amazing doctrine. Someone who is attracted to the same sex and acts on this attraction is hurting God? Is God so small that he can be so easily hurt?

Hurt

1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.
2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
3. To cause physical damage to; harm:
4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair:

Homosexuals are powerful, indeed, if they can hurt God.

I guess you don't know the exact reason christ died do you now?

 

[Outspoken]

This "tired issue" is the crux of the problem with disagreements. How one reads the text leads to these other conclusions. If there are multiple holes in a barrel, the water will drain to the lowest hole. The faulty way that literalists use the text underlies every doctrine that is created by them. Even when the doctrine happens to be accurate, it is not usually for the reasons cited. So this does come up time and time again because this issue is central to everything else.

And thus I can dispute the point and show that this stereotype you have is quite flawed and incorrect.

 

[Outspoken]

"Baloney. Here’s Acts 2:47 translated literally:"

That is an incorrect translation. Again, do a greek word study on the word ekklesia.

" I have yet to see you support the claim"

So you're saying the church does not view acts as containing history as far as the chain of events? You have yet to prove this, as it has been taken this way for some time.

 

[Outspoken]

...not judging others.

See ya at the heavenly banquet, bro!

if you're a christian, yes you will, and you will admit it was sin be reconciled with God and we can enjoy eternity with him.

 

[Fideist]

"Baloney. Here’s Acts 2:47 translated literally:"

That is an incorrect translation. Again, do a greek word study on the word ekklesia.

" I have yet to see you support the claim"

So you're saying the church does not view acts as containing history as far as the chain of events? You have yet to prove this, as it has been taken this way for some time.

Outspoken, it is rather clear to me that you have no intention of supporting your argument. BTW, that is a completely accurate translation as anybody who reads Greek will confirm. See ya around.

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken, it is rather clear to me that you have no intention of supporting your argument. BTW, that is a completely accurate translation as anybody who reads Greek will confirm. See ya around.

Nope, that is not an accurate translation, this is why I asked you to do a word study. As for the book of Acts, you tell me, does the church think it is history in terms of chain of events? The answer is yes, thus my point is quite proven

 

[Fideist]

Nope, that is not an accurate translation,

Yes it is, Outspoken. The Nestle Aland is the most accurate version of the Greek NT. What I wrote is a literal translation of what the United Bible Society has determined is the text most faithful to the best MSS available.

this is why I asked you to do a word study.

I did a word study. The word "church" is not in the text. Not in any form. If you don't believe me, try using an NAS or NASB as I somehow doubt you read Greek. Once again, what I am using is the most widely accepted and accurate critical text of the NT Greek available, as certified by the United Bible Society.

Now, if you are going to challenge their determination, you'll need to notify us of your credentials as a textual scholar and your publication(s) that refute(s) point by point the determination of the panel of textual scholars that determined the text I gave the translation for. Understand? Your personal opinion, especially in a technical case such as this, means nothing.

As for the book of Acts, you tell me, does the church think it is history in terms of chain of events? The answer is yes, thus my point is quite proven

You don't have a point because you are unable or unwilling to do more than make bald assertions.

 

[Outspoken]

"Yes it is, Outspoken. "

Nooo, I showed you clearly that the word is in the passage, thus the church grew daily. Your objection is invalid.

"The word "church" is not in the text."

incorrect ekklesia is found in the text and thus the conclusion that this is the church before Paul's conversion is a correct conclusion.

 

[Outspoken]

We can try this from another angle if you would like. what is the defintion of what the church is--christians. they existed long before Paul's conversion.

 

[beatarmy2]

There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual.