Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[PastorFreud]

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

The EXACT reason would have to do with the amount of blood loss and difficulty breathing. Of course, there may have been something more tragic, as evidenced by the sweating drops of blood and the blood and water that flowed from his side. Not being an MD, I am not 100% certain, and I have never witnessed a crucifixion.

The Romans did kill Christ, apparently seeing him as a political threat. Of course, Christ was threat to the Romans, but not in the way they supposed. So the exact reason there would be a rigged trial perhaps.

 

[PastorFreud]

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

Still waiting for that one.

 

[Shane Roach]

I am at a loss as to why Outspoken, Chapter 2, and myself are continually called on the carpet in this thread for a belief none of us has espoused. It is not that homosexuality is a specially unforgivable sin, it is that we are told to live our lives of liberty without using it as a liscense, and that there are certain minimums of behavior set forth in the Bible. Again, it all boils down to how you define "homosexual" and "Christian." With the exception of the handfull trying to argue that homosexuality is not a sin at all, most of us are on the same page. Why then this continual accusation that one or all three of us believe homosexuality is somehow special in relation to all other sexual sins?

I have yet to see that fundamental point addressed. Only continual accusations that someone is somehow singling out homosexuals. What is actually happeneing here is several of you are saying there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, which is against what the Bible teaches, not the other way around.

 

[Shane Roach]

Fideist, are you trying to say you believe the four gospels but you think the story of the day of Pentacost was a hoax, or what exactly is your point? My point was rather simple. The church as we know it today did not exist till Christ left this earth, therefore saying Christ never did this or that in relation to church discipline is something of a non-issue. Christ did say He had to leave so that the Spirit could come. He also made it very clear that he left His work in the hands of His apostles, so on what basis you decline to have any faith on the rest of the books in the NT when the very books you claim you do believe support them is lost on me.

Again, in the Gospels, Christ affirms the teachings of the OT, which do include mandates to force people out of the covenant, and is by no means universally accepting of everyone's behavior. So even using your own unique set of prerequisites your statement falls short of proving that Christ would not approve of church discipline as spelled out in the NT.

One advantage Christ had over us is that He could read the mind and heart, and also was able to be the final arbitrator of who he accepted into his circle to begin with. Really, comparing His abilities with ours is fruitless on dozens of levels. He even went so far as to more or less scare off followers by spelling out in detail what He expected. We don't have that option. We have to accept all who profress Him at first, and then wait and see how things go. Those who cause disruption with false teachings or continual immoral behavior we are instructed to separate ourselves from.

Someone somewhere has said, "What about people who sin but keep it quiet." If they keep it quiet, then they are not disrupting, are they? How is it possible to "discipline" someone for whom there is no proof of wrongdoing? Bear in mind, none of us has said it is a matter of knowing salvation or not. These rules are set out specifically to keep order in the Church so that it can function as it ought, and not be overwhelmed by false teachings or behavior unbecoming of Christ's followers. Even for anyone who continues to sin but will at least repent of it, it seems the command is clear, to forgive and accept however many times. What is not allowed for though is continual, rebellious, flagrant sin without repentance, and teaching that sin is not indeed sin, or trying to teach that our liberty in Christ is to be used for liscense.

That's all anyone is trying to say, as far as I can tell. If there is a problem with church discipline as it is taught in the scripture, I would expect some here to be presenting ideas about those texts, not trying to play one clear teaching of the Bible against another clear teaching in the Bible. We are to be both forgiving and patient, and yet also wise and discerning. We don't really have an either or choice. Both are necessary.

 

[chalice_thunder]

There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual.

Wrong - thank you for playing.

 

[PastorFreud]

Shane, are you saying that Jesus had omniscience and used this capacity prior to his death and resurrection? If so, at what point did Jesus know he was God? Did he know at birth? Age 2? Was he able to speak right out of the womb?

 

[missiondocsda]

PastorFreud, I am not trying to be rude, but I see no point of asking a question as such to Shane, that how could vedicate the divine logic out of the human limitation in understanding things beyond eyes and imagination but rather trust and obey?

To our understanding according to the scripture, I am not sure you are a real pastor or what, but it is said that Jesus spontaneously began the ministry without the assistance of the office of roman empire and the family support.

To the very point of aggression, we shall not come to where theology can't even answer as well. Did Jesus know He was born to die in what cause? How did prophesy occurred in His case? And why and why not? I believe at birth and at age 2 he trusted and obeyed, and no point to go beyond that, or what Shane can give you? Even I don't know Shane, but if somebody asks me this manner, what is the brotherhood of the same faith to all the "irrrelevant non-believers"?

Good care.

 

[Fideist]

One advantage Christ had over us is that He could read the mind and heart, and also was able to be the final arbitrator of who he accepted into his circle to begin with.

And there is only one of him. All of those who have come after him were completely human, completely fallible and just as likely to give his or her own interpretation and preach his or her own personal message as you and I are; maybe more so because there was no democracy and virtually no safeguard to prevent such a thing. The people who wrote and copied what you and others cite in complete faith, as being virtually infallible, were humans with all the weaknesses and temptations that all humans possess. This fact alone, tells me that the likelihood of the text you place such faith in as being an infallible history and rule book, is nil. It is a book written by men about Jesus. Men get things wrong without meaning to and give in to the sin of pride all too often. IMO, anyone who thinks that the people who wrote about Jesus were more than human, simply has his or her head in the clouds.



Now, unless somebody with a professional, lilywhite reputation, and not some disingenuous amateur with a personal interest in the subject, can demonstrate beyond doubt that the account written in Acts is 100 % reliable as concerns the history of the church, then I have no choice but to go with the very best biblical scholars, who are held in the highest regard, who say unequivocally that it is not. Quite the opposite, sober and serious scholarship is unequivocally convinced that the book is a-historical and only reliable as a guide for religious instruction. That is not to say that there are no historical elements present. It is to say that a reader cannot simply open the text, read it for history, and accept the history given with absolute confidence.

Moreover, many of the manuscripts that were used for certain translations of the Acts, were in fact, corrupted by those who copied them for the sole purpose of imposing their ideas on all who came after. Unless or until, as I said before, somebody with an incredibly sterling reputation certifies Acts to be an accurate history, then I will continue to be convinced that the parts of it that seem to be anachronistic apologetic devices designed to garner authority for the leaders of Pauline influenced Christianity and are a-historical, are in fact, anachronistic apologetic devices designed to garner authority for the leaders of Pauline influenced Christianity and are a-historical. Further, unless the aforementioned evidence is placed in the record, this is my last correspondence on the matter.


I sincerely hope I have made myself entirely clear.

 

[Outspoken]

The EXACT reason would have to do with the amount of blood loss and difficulty breathing. Of course, there may have been something more tragic, as evidenced by the sweating drops of blood and the blood and water that flowed from his side. Not being an MD, I am not 100% certain, and I have never witnessed a crucifixion.

The Romans did kill Christ, apparently seeing him as a political threat. Of course, Christ was threat to the Romans, but not in the way they supposed. So the exact reason there would be a rigged trial perhaps.

no, its quite clear the MOTIVIATION (ie why) he died. He did so for our sins. Thought I can see you love to rationalize things like this to support your philiophy (sp?) rather then let the bible speak for itself.

 

[Outspoken]

Still waiting for that one.

Gave it to you a page or so back

 

[Outspoken]

Fidest--so you're conceeding?

 

[Angelajt]

And there is only one of him. All of those who have come after him were completely human, completely fallible and just as likely to give his or her own interpretation and preach his or her own personal message as you and I are; maybe more so because there was no democracy and virtually no safeguard to prevent such a thing. The people who wrote and copied what you and others cite in complete faith, as being virtually infallible, were humans with all the weaknesses and temptations that all humans possess. This fact alone, tells me that the likelihood of the text you place such faith in as being an infallible history and rule book, is nil. It is a book written by men about Jesus. Men get things wrong without meaning to and give in to the sin of pride all too often. IMO, anyone who thinks that the people who wrote about Jesus were more than human, simply has his or her head in the clouds.



Now, unless somebody with a professional, lilywhite reputation, and not some disingenuous amateur with a personal interest in the subject, can demonstrate beyond doubt that the account written in Acts is 100 % reliable as concerns the history of the church, then I have no choice but to go with the very best biblical scholars, who are held in the highest regard, who say unequivocally that it is not. Quite the opposite, sober and serious scholarship is unequivocally convinced that the book is a-historical and only reliable as a guide for religious instruction.That is not to say that there are no historical elements present. It is to say that a reader cannot simply open the text, read it for history, and accept the history given with absolute confidence.

Moreover, many of the manuscripts that were used for certain translations of the Acts, were in fact, corrupted by those who copied them for the sole purpose of imposing their ideas on all who came after. Unless or until, as I said before, somebody with an incredibly sterling reputation certifies Acts to be an accurate history, then I will continue to be convinced that the parts of it that seem to be anachronistic apologetic devices designed to garner authority for the leaders of Pauline influenced Christianity and are a-historical, are in fact, anachronistic apologetic devices designed to garner authority for the leaders of Pauline influenced Christianity and are a-historical. Further, unless the aforementioned evidence is placed in the record, this is my last correspondence on the matter.


I sincerely hope I have made myself entirely clear.

Sorry to but in on your converstation, but I love Acts. I am definiely no scholar but I have experienced what I would call a pentecost.

I read about the things that the Apostles did and I studied for months. I had books that people wrote that claimed to have experienced the same things the disciples did that day...then I had the church I was going to that told me that was devil stuff. I then gave up on studying and just prayed...God if this is you...I want it. I prayed that a few times and one night while listening to a tape I begin to speak in funny sounds.....it surprised me even though I had asked for it. I did it for a long time and there was something on the inside of me that changed....What I don't know...I just know it was Good.

Of course when I told my teacher at the time who had been a christian longer than I had been alive....I was rideculed.and called of the devil..I could not accept her teaching because I had the experince she said was wrong. I soon left the church....it wasn't until many years later that I realized I sometimes knew what people were thinking. I also have prayed for people and they have been healed. I have had other supernatual things as well....that is why I am 100% sure of acts.

I have also just spoken simple words to people about Jesus and all of a sudden they believe and have faith. And I definitely know it wasn't my eloquent words.

Also, just a little testimony. I have a lady that I have done her hair for years and one day I prayed for her back and God healed her. The next thing I know she believes in Jesus. It wasn't the words I spoke all those years, those were seeds. It was the power of God that healed her. anyway, just a couple of weeks ago she was having a crises(sp). in her job...I talked to her and then I begin to pray and declare that God had a better job for her and he was going to close some doors here and open other doors. In the middle of the prayer I stoped and had an impression that she would possibley be moving to Virginia/Maryland.

And with this new job she was going to begin to walk in her destiny and purpose in God. Well yesterday she called and told me that a friend of hers had put in her resume with a really big company that was good. The friend had called her yesterday and told her she had found out the company was based in Reston, VA....My friend then called me and said...I had to call you. What else has God told you about me....We then looked up Reston, VA and found that it was about 10 mins from Maryland.
She then told me she felt this was a word from God.

I had faith that God would speak to her through me and he did. I know alot of people would say it would have happened any way...but I believe God spoke to her. And because I ask God to use me to give people encounters with him..I get to do stuff like this alot. They think I'm psycic(sp)

Sorry so long. I just get excited.

 

[Fideist]

Sorry so long. I just get excited.

‘sokay! You’ve had some sort of epiphany and it’s very hard to hold that inside. I completely understand! It is perfectly understandable you’d want to tell people of your experience and the wonders that have happened since. That, if you ask me, is the whole point of faith.



But do you understand why I point out that Acts, according to the very best scholarship, is not a history text? I’ll tell you. It is because some people want to exploit other people. Some people want to gain ascendancy over others. Achieve power. They misuse people’s faith in order to accomplish this. One of those misuses is to appeal to the authority of the Bible, based on a private interpretation of the person or persons attempting the misusing. Some people here are appealing to the Bible as a means of getting us to agree that the “church”, meaning in reality, they who control the “church” have the authority to “discipline” the rest of us, if we don’t behave or think the way they want us to. You gave an example of this, when you said you were ridiculed. You see? According to that person’s interpretation, your experience was not authentic. The person attempted to exercise her (I think you indicated a female) authority over you for whatever reason these people (maybe PastorFreud could enlighten us to why people think they are entitled to these positions) have for doing so. And your reaction was? You left that group. Probably wisely on your part, I might add.



Throughout Christian history, humans have attempted to use God’s authority to gain ascendancy over other humans for whatever psychological reason drives such people. I can point to the Borgias, and Pope Innocent (of the crusades) and Bernard of Clairvaux (who is mainly responsible for the weird sexual obsessions of many Christians) and on and on. All have used Acts as their springboard, claiming that the Apostles and therefore the “church” were given direct authority from Christ himself. That authority, if you believe those who tell the tale, has been passed on from generation to generation until, at this moment in time, the “church” is still as vibrant and viable as it was all those many centuries past. Don’t you believe it! Not for one minute! Christ, who taught people to say “Our Father” did not mean some fallible human somewhere. I want you to remember that at one time, priests, who were the only literate people in many communities, read and wrote letters for the layity. But not for free. They charged people for the service and they used the information they discovered about the person for personal gain.



Other advocates of the “authority” or of “church discipline” are responsible for the murder of Jews during the inquisition. The murder of thousands of purported “witches” and on and on. And what do they use as their foundation for these atrocities? The narrative in Acts, and how they have received the authority from the Apostles who received their authority from Christ himself. Be very wary of the claims of these people. Demand unequivocal proof.



It sounds like you are doing good things for others and you are now content with your life as it is. I would ask for you to please continue! For that is what Christ meant for us to do, I think. I don’t think he meant for us to have “authority” over others because the “church” confers it, giving us the right to “discipline” those whom we don’t approve of. It is God’s approval I seek, not that of some "church.” I hope you feel the same.



Godspeed.

 

[Angelajt]

I agree with you Fideist. An Apostle these days is title given to the people who start a church and try to control it.......A true apostle does not need a title or a church. He has the power of God on the inside of him or her to establish the kingdom through love and the power of God, not ridecule or judgement. The whole acts thing is the "first church"....or beginning of the church....this church should grow to the extent that they have moved past old ways and move in faith to new ways of reaching people with even greater love and power. When a child is a child he thinks as a child, but when he grows up he thinks as an adult.

Acts is supposed to give the church hope. It is a starting point not a finishing point.
Usually when someone trys to control another it is out of selfishness or fear. Freedom is out of love....God is the giver of that freedom through Jesus Christ.



I think that most churches because of their lack of true power, use their earthly position and high regard from other people to make those they consider less suffer if they do not change. But my God works through love and compassion. We are called to come along side those we think less desireable and love them and see them as children of God just as we are....because we too struggle with our own humanity...there is no one sin greater than another...but love stands out and covers a multitude of sins.....not draws it out to embarass or hurt some one... Usuallly that person is already hurting and suffering inside.....the church is to edify and build up...not just itself but to those hurting and in need.

 

[Outspoken]

Fidest--so you're conceeding?

Okay, then I'll just think you conceeded and that the church did exist before Paul was converted

 

[Fideist]

But my God works through love and compassion. We are called to come along side those we think less desireable and love them and see them as children of God just as we are....because we too struggle with our own humanity...there is no one sin greater than another...but love stands out and covers a multitude of sins.....not draws it out to embarass or hurt some one... Usuallly that person is already hurting and suffering inside.....the church is to edify and build up...not just itself but to those hurting and in need.

Well said.

 

[geocajun]

This thread is closed.

geocajun
Liberal Theology Moderator
Team Love