What is the proper Christian response to a homosexual?

[David Brider]

But the Bible is unambiguous, and it is God's Word.

It is? Where does it say that?

David.

 

[PinkTulip]

It's not about whether we choose to be with someone - it's about whether we choose to be attracted to someone. If people choose to be attracted to people of the same gender as themselves, then that means homosexuality is a choice; if they don't, then it isn't. My experience as a heterosexual is that attraction isn't something I choose - I am generally attracted to females, and specifically attracted to certain females. I've no reason to doubt that it's different for homosexuals.

Whether people, homosexual or heterosexual, choose to act on their attraction is another matter entirely - which is why there's a distinction between homosexuality (attraction) and homosexual sex (action). The former is not mentioned in the Bible. The latter might be, depending on your interpretation of a handful of verses, but the former definitely isn't.



People who believe that homosexuality is a choice? I'm sure there are some. But whether there are any homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) who believe that they have a choice about who they're attracted to? I've yet to come across any.



Does she believe that she chose her sexuality? If so, I suspect she's in a very tiny minority.

David.

Have you ever studied feminist theories? To say that our qualities as humans (attractions, like/dislikes emotions, etc) can be defined in biology is to say that gender (not sex) is biological. Yikes, a feminist would skin you alive for saying that. Re My sex is female (breasts, wide hips, ability to carry a child, etc) - However, my role is a woman. I have taken on qualities that are expected of me as a good Christian woman in Western society hehe. I am married to a man, I cook, clean, work, garden, knit, etc. I can be dependent on my husband, and I like to wear cute clothes and makeup, etc etc. I have all the emotions and qualities are expected of me as a woman in this society. This is social construction 101. Now sexual theories – A feminist (maybe not all) would say that society has consistently dictated that men and women should be together because it places women and men in their proper role and to leave that role would be a deviance (i.e., transgender persons)

Do you see the problem with homosexual biology theories in feminist thought? To say that sexual preference is biological would mean that our preferences and qualities of gender (not sex) is biological (which it is not).

 

[BereanTodd]

It is? Where does it say that?

David.

Before I respond, please clarify for me, are you questioning where the Bible is unambiguous about the sinfullness of homosexuality, or where it claims to be the Word of God?

 

[David Brider]

Have you ever studied feminist theories? To say that our qualities as humans (attractions, like/dislikes emotions, etc) can be defined in biology is to say that gender (not sex) is biological. Yikes, a feminist would skin you alive for saying that. Re My sex is female (breasts, wide hips, ability to carry a child, etc) - However, my role is a woman. I have taken on qualities that are expected of me as a good Christian woman in Western society hehe. I am married to a man, I cook, clean, work, garden, knit, etc. I can be dependent on my husband, and I like to wear cute clothes and makeup, etc etc. I have all the emotions and qualities are expected of me as a woman in this society. This is social construction 101. Now sexual theories – A feminist (maybe not all) would say that society has consistently dictated that men and women should be together because it places women and men in their proper role and to leave that role would be a deviance (i.e., transgender persons)

Do you see the problem with homosexual biology theories in feminist thought? To say that sexual preference is biological would mean that our preferences and qualities of gender (not sex) is biological (which it is not).

I'm sorry, but you've totally lost me with all of this. If it helps you any: no, I've never studied feminist theory (unless reading a couple of Jeanette Winterson books counts?). And no, neither am I saying that sexual preference is necessarily biological - just that I'm not convinced that sexual attraction, either in general or in specifics, is something we choose. If you don't mind me asking, did you choose to be attracted to your husband?

David.

 

[David Brider]

Before I respond, please clarify for me, are you questioning where the Bible is unambiguous about the sinfullness of homosexuality, or where it claims to be the Word of God?

Chiefly the latter.

David.

 

[BereanTodd]

How about:

"All Scripture is theopneustos *, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

According to that passage all of Scripture is literally God-breathed. Theopeustos, breathed out of the mouth of God. Peter elsewhere wrote that no man wrote any Scripture on his own, but that the Holy Spirit moved them about. Literally the word picture in Peter is that the authors were like a sailboat upon a body of water, being pushed wherever the Spirit would have them go.

Jesus Himself often made points which turned on the very grammar and specifics of OT passages as the Word of God, He clearly held a high view of Scripture. Why should our view of Scripture be any lower than that of our Master's view?

 

[MyHeart07]

Before I respond, please clarify for me, are you questioning where the Bible is unambiguous about the sinfullness of homosexuality, or where it claims to be the Word of God?

How about:

"All Scripture is theopneustos *, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

According to that passage all of Scripture is literally God-breathed. Theopeustos, breathed out of the mouth of God. Peter elsewhere wrote that no man wrote any Scripture on his own, but that the Holy Spirit moved them about. Literally the word picture in Peter is that the authors were like a sailboat upon a body of water, being pushed wherever the Spirit would have them go.

Jesus Himself often made points which turned on the very grammar and specifics of OT passages as the Word of God, He clearly held a high view of Scripture. Why should our view of Scripture be any lower than that of our Master's view?

I would also like to add:

The Bible is One Book. Seven great marks attest this unity. 1) from Genesis the Bible bears witness to one God. Wherever He speaks or acts He is consistent with Himself, and with the total revelation concerning Him. 2) The Bible forms one continuous story – the story of humanity in relation to God. 3) the Bible hazards the most unlikely predictions concerning the future and when the centuries have brought forth the appointed time, records their fulfillment (prophecy) 4) The Bible is a progressive unfolding of truth. Nothing is told all at once, and once for all. The law is "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn" . Without the possibility of collusion, often with centuries between, one writer of Scripture takes up an earlier revelation, adds to it, lays down the pen, and in due time, another man moved by the Holy Spirit, and another, and another, adds new details till the whole is complete. 5) From the beginning to end The Bible testifies to one redemption. 6) From beginning to end the Bible has one great theme – the person and work of Christ. 7) and Finally, these writers, some 44 in number, writing through 20 centuries, have produced a perfect harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding. This is, to every candid mind, the unanswerable proof of the Divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

[Der Alte]

Homosexuality? Nonsense.

Theres the Levitical bit, which, as we've covered, can be discounted,

“the Levitical bit . . . can be discounted” And that is exactly what you have done, discounted it. Here is the relevant definition from M-W online, “ to leave out of account : DISREGARD b : to minimize the importance of c (1) : to make allowance for bias or exaggeration in (2) : to view with doubt”

The Word of GOD that you dismiss as “the Levitical bit,” has NEVER been so much as reasonably discussed here, not by you, or anyone else on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions.

The most that is ever said is the same old, same old cut/paste homosexual propaganda, from some GBLT-Я-us website. I have NEVER seen any pro-homosexual, ever post any credible, verifiable historical, lexical, or grammatical evidence.

and then There is Paul's bit, which is talking about specific tiny groups, and not addressing homosexuality in general.

“Paul’s bit,”another automatonic dismissal of scripture. According to the early church, from the time of Paul’s writing, until at least 250 AD, the church unanimously condemned every form of homosexual copulation, whenever, wherever, by whomever, it was never restricted to only in pagan worship.

The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoités variously as, “”sodomy,” “filth of sodomy,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc.

Quoted from; Ignatius, 30-107 AD; Polycarp 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD.

Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years.

Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, "the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God [1 Cor 6:9]. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved.

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven.

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.

And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery."] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God [1 Cor 6:9]. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]​

I mean come on... if we were to take Paul's meanderings at face value, heterosexuality is sinful too

And yet another automatonic rejection of the Word of God. According to Peter, you may remember him he was one of Jesus' disciples, Paul’s writings were considered “scripture.”

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Word of GOD that you dismiss as “the Levitical bit,” has NEVER been so much as reasonably discussed here, not by you, or anyone else on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions.

The most that is ever said is the same old, same old cut/paste homosexual propaganda, from some GBLT-Я-us website. I have NEVER seen any pro-homosexual, ever post any credible, verifiable historical, lexical, or grammatical evidence.

OK... so lets do the Leviticus thing...

First... do YOU follow Levitical law?

 

[UnitedInChrist]

How about:

"All Scripture is theopneustos *, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

According to that passage all of Scripture is literally God-breathed. Theopeustos, breathed out of the mouth of God. Peter elsewhere wrote that no man wrote any Scripture on his own, but that the Holy Spirit moved them about. Literally the word picture in Peter is that the authors were like a sailboat upon a body of water, being pushed wherever the Spirit would have them go.

Jesus Himself often made points which turned on the very grammar and specifics of OT passages as the Word of God, He clearly held a high view of Scripture. Why should our view of Scripture be any lower than that of our Master's view?

...and the Holy Spirit is asking me to share with you...."Believe in Me and ou will be welcomed into the kingdom of God".....

I assume you are a human being. I assume you didn't die and come back to tell us the factual account of what will happen to all of us on judgement day. Given that, you are a human being talk to another human being. Neither one KNOWING what happens after we die. Therefore, given all of that factual information, you know the truth no more than anyone else. For when the day is done, is just as possible as any that you have it all wrong...or perhaps I have it all wrong. That is why no one is wrong. For every scripture you quote there is another one that flies in the face of it. It's all about LOVE my child...LOVE! "Love your brother as I have loved you "... someone's sexuality should be of no importance to you. The way someone lives there life should be of no importance to you. What should be important is you live YOUR life as you see fit for it's your life that God blessed you with.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

OK... so lets do the Leviticus thing...

First... do YOU follow Levitical law?

I love when people jump on the Leviticus rant. The usual "pick and choose" what part of the book I'll uphold. CONDEM the homosexual...but I will wear mixed fiber clothing, I'll eat shell fish, I'll condone slavery, I will subject women to be inferior to me, I will cut my hair, etc...but damn those Homosexuals.....Honestly....

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I love when people jump on the Leviticus rant. The usual "pick and choose" what part of the book I'll uphold. CONDEM the homosexual...but I will wear mixed fiber clothing, I'll eat shell fish, I'll condone slavery, I will subject women to be inferior to me, I will cut my hair, etc...but damn those Homosexuals.....Honestly....

Thats pretty much my point. If I ever meet someone who lives in full compliance with Levitical law, well, THEN maybe I'll opay attention to him when he tells me "homosexuality is condemned cos Leviticus SEZ!"

Until that time, however, when anyone arcs up on me bout homosexuality being abomination, my first question in response is always going to be "are your underpants cotton and elastic"?

 

[savedandhappy1]

I love when people jump on the Leviticus rant. The usual "pick and choose" what part of the book I'll uphold. CONDEM the homosexual...but I will wear mixed fiber clothing, I'll eat shell fish, I'll condone slavery, I will subject women to be inferior to me, I will cut my hair, etc...but damn those Homosexuals.....Honestly....

Yeah I love it when people jump on the Leviticus rant, and try to say that the scriptures about homosexuality don't count, because people eat shell fish, etc. They don't bother pointing out how the list of things they throw out are no longer in affect, because like as Jesus stated, all foods are ok/not unclean. Or that the Priest wore the mixed fabric clothings, so others weren't to wear them. Or, Or, Or...............................

Honestly, how can anyone think that those points hold some cancellation affect on the sin of homosexuality. Or that if eating shell fish was still wrong, and eating it would mean that we can't say something else is a sin also.

Just because someone tells a lie doesn't mean that they can't say that murder is a sin and if those that sin (which is everyone) don't confess and repent of their sins they won't go to heaven.

Telling someone that homosexuality is a sin, and showing how the Bible states that murderers, liars, adultery, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of God is just that. It is showing what the word of God tells us we need to know.

So if someone murdered someone, would showing them how what they did was wrong, was a sin, am I condemning them? Or am I trying to save them from a life in hell? If I show them how the Lord considers what they did, and what I have done is a sin while showing them how because of all our sins Jesus died for us to save us....................this is wrong huh? This is condemning them?

Well I guess in one way it is, but it isn't me condemning them. The word of God says what we have to do to take away the condemnation that we deserve, IF NOT FOR THE LORD. PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME!!!!
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yeah I love it when people jump on the Leviticus rant, and try to say that the scriptures about homosexuality don't count, because people eat shell fish, etc. They don't bother pointing out how the list of things they throw out are no longer in affect, because like as Jesus stated, all foods are ok/not unclean. Or that the Priest wore the mixed fabric clothings, so others weren't to wear them. Or, Or, Or...............................

Honestly, how can anyone think that those points hold some cancellation affect on the sin of homosexuality. Or that if eating shell fish was still wrong, and eating it would mean that we can't say something else is a sin also.

Um... well ACTUALLY...

Until such time as someone can explain to me why they are permitted to pick and choose the bits of Leviticus they follow, but its not OK for me to do the same thing, I'm going to label anyone who bases their sexual ethics on Leviticus, yet continues to wear cotton undies with elastic, a hypocrit

 

[goldenrule]

I believe that it is possible for people to have extremely different things in their personality and brains also, which make them who they are. If a person is homosexual it is not my place to judge them. What I would be more interested in, is that people form deep connections with other people; in other words 'deep love'. I feel that people who peruse bars and sleep with many different people without have relationships are actually quite lonely.

 

[BereanTodd]

Um... well ACTUALLY...

Until such time as someone can explain to me why they are permitted to pick and choose the bits of Leviticus they follow, but its not OK for me to do the same thing, I'm going to label anyone who bases their sexual ethics on Leviticus, yet continues to wear cotton undies with elastic, a hypocrit

Well, for starters, how about the NT passages that condemn homosexuality as well?

 

[goldenrule]

I would remind the above poster that Christ himself never mentioned homosexuality!

 

[Polycarp1]

I find it very interesting that, contrary to my request in the OP, this has degenerated into a debate about the morality of homosexuality.

The question was, how should a Christian treat a homosexual person? If possible, give Scriptural evidence for your opinion.

Jesus Christ Himself never addressed the sinfulness of homosexuality, in His earthly teaching. He did, however, give clear and explicit instructions on how to treat others, including homosexuals.

Anybody want to try again?

 

[UnitedInChrist]

I find it very interesting that, contrary to my request in the OP, this has degenerated into a debate about the morality of homosexuality.

The question was, how should a Christian treat a homosexual person? If possible, give Scriptural evidence for your opinion.

Jesus Christ Himself never addressed the sinfulness of homosexuality, in His earthly teaching. He did, however, give clear and explicit instructions on how to treat others, including homosexuals.

Anybody want to try again?

Sure..lets try this again. Homosexuals should be treated exactly the way you would treat anyone else in your life. Why would u ever think you should treat us differently? I dont treat heterosexuals having premarital sex one way and others another...it's all insignificant.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well, for starters, how about the NT passages that condemn homosexuality as well?

You mean Paul's ramblings? he also condemns marriage. Whats your point?