What is the proper Christian response to a homosexual?

[ChristianCenturion]

Nothing about abominations


Hmmm…so it is morally wrong to go against ones nature…

If the nature is to follow the flesh's desire and satisfy self over God, then yes. That would be sin.
If the nature was to follow the Spirit, then no. The Spirit cannot sin.

Romans 7-8 answer that.

so this would mean that ex-gay ministries is not acceptable to God…wonder if ex-gay ministries are an abomination

I showed the error in the use of 'nature' above.
The rest here being based on the false premise is simply spin or mistaken.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

My Christian teachings have continually told me, and as is also stated in the Bible..."Believe in me and you shall have the Kingdom of God". Also, please don't tell me what does and does not get me into heaven. Unless you've been there and asked and are now coming back to share the message...you're a human being like the rest of us.

Newsflash - Jesus Christ already covered what does and doesn't lead to heaven. Basing an entire theology on a proof text while ignoring all the rest would not be the right one.

And objecting when someone repeats what Christ taught might be your choice, but far from correct.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Jesus Christ already covered what does and doesn't lead to heaven.

Quite so. And did so without once condemning homosexuality

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Can you please cite the verse(s) in Leviticus where it differentiates its various laws as civil, ceremonial and moral?

Maybe if you follow up on what I already submitted, these requests for repeating wouldn't be necessary.
But considering that I've had this discussion with you before, I don't suspect this to be a sincere request in the firt place.
Just a tactic to busy the opposition.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Quite so. And did so without once condemning homosexuality

Still waiting for you to prove your negative assertions...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Still waiting for you to prove your negative assertions...

Huh?

 

[savedandhappy1]

What about Jesus' silence on these issues?

I keep seeing post saying how Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality, so it is not a sin.

Well there are many sexual behaviors that He did not address (incest, rape, bestiality). That doesn't mean they are permissible. Jesus always upheld the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17-19), which strictly condemned homosexual acts. And He affirmed celibacy as the only legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage (Matt. 19:12).

Matt. 5:17-19

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 19:10-12
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Idolatry is worshipping someone or something other than God. So...no. Not guilty.

Close enough and it would include many things, including sex, sexuality, etc.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.


And it would be your concerned about your guilt, I was addressing your statement.

Those who don't repent of any sins don't enter heaven! Why single out those related to sex? Is it just because you've never engaged in any of them?

Please refrain from arguing against what I haven't said.
Or please feel free to show where I stated where sexual sins only applied.

No, I'm not using "consenting" to make it righteous. I'm using consenting to show that it's, quite frankly, no business of yours, mine or anybody else's if a homosexual couple are sexually active. It's between them and God. Given that the half dozen or so verses on the subject can be interpreted in such a way as to not condemn sexual activity between two people of the same gender in a loving, committed relationship (as opposed to the shrine prostitutes of Deuteronomy or the very vague "homosexual offenders" of 2 Corinthians), frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if a Christian homosexual couple believe that, with a clear conscience, they can be sexually active, then that's up to them. And if a non-Christian homosexual couple are sexually active, then heck, I'd rather they hear the full gospel (including the bit about salvation through Jesus Christ) instead of the distorted finger-pointing condemnation that they so often receive.

With that flawed theology, I imagine the command to preach repentance and forgiveness is likewise easily dismissed. It sounds like an easy religion free of any accountablity, but it wouldn't be found in Christendom - Pagan perhaps.

No - I think He'd be petty if he started judging by the wills of those who would condemn homosexuals just because of who they're attracted to.

David.

Um, only God can condemn.
If you wish to call His Judgment on the issue petty, then that would be your issue. I plea repentance be sought though.

Matthew 12:35-37
35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

 

[UberLutheran]

David -- speaking from my own experience with this kind of interaction, you may be being set up for an infraction. My suggestion is that you proceed with caution.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Close enough and it would include many things, including sex, sexuality, etc.

"Close enough"???

Gee, I wish I got to just make rules up like that!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

"Close enough"???

Gee, I wish I got to just make rules up like that!

I wouldn't suggest making things more difficult or complicated than necessary by reading something into what is posted.
It wasn't a rule.
Close enough was an acknowledgement that I agree to an extent on what the poster said.
It helps in communications to express where there is agreement or disagreement.

 

[UberLutheran]

The "nice" response:

Well, we hate their chosen lifestyle, but as Christians we love the sinner.
​

The "real" response:

Homosexuals are vile, they're filthy, they're an abomination and God has given them up to their vile and perverse lifestyles. They're definitely not like us; they're certainly not Christian and we're not really sure if they're even truly "people" -- and on top of everything else, why do they have to come to this messageboard?
​

 

[BAFRIEND]

The "nice" response:

Well, we hate their chosen lifestyle, but as Christians we love the sinner.
​

The "real" response:

Homosexuals are vile, they're filthy, they're an abomination and God has given them up to their vile and perverse lifestyles. They're definitely not like us; they're certainly not Christian and we're not really sure if they're even truly "people" -- and on top of everything else, why do they have to come to this messageboard?
​

Maybe some of them have to come here in order to confirm our opinions.

PS- not necessarily the percived ones you portray.

 

[MyHeart07]

What about Jesus' silence on these issues?

I keep seeing post saying how Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality, so it is not a sin.

Well there are many sexual behaviors that He did not address (incest, rape, beastiality). That doesn't mean they are permissible. Jesus always upheld the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17-19), which strictly condemned homosexual acts. And He affirmed celibacy as the only legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage (Matt. 19:12).

Anyone? He never said anything about that. So that makes it permissible???

 

[UnitedInChrist]

The "nice" response:

Well, we hate their chosen lifestyle, but as Christians we love the sinner.​

The "real" response:

Homosexuals are vile, they're filthy, they're an abomination and God has given them up to their vile and perverse lifestyles. They're definitely not like us; they're certainly not Christian and we're not really sure if they're even truly "people" -- and on top of everything else, why do they have to come to this messageboard?​

....said while their alcoholic husbands are cheating on them and their pregnant daughter is in her room crying because her parents can't love an abomination of God.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

The "nice" response:

Well, we hate their chosen lifestyle, but as Christians we love the sinner.​

The "real" response:

Homosexuals are vile, they're filthy, they're an abomination and God has given them up to their vile and perverse lifestyles. They're definitely not like us; they're certainly not Christian and we're not really sure if they're even truly "people" -- and on top of everything else, why do they have to come to this messageboard?​

[/quote

Clearly there is a thread for Theology, and under that issues regarding Homosexuality. Why is it that most of these threads are visited by those that have no understanding of it, won't listen to what anyone has to say, will not try to hear others interpretations while they push their interpretation, etc? What is the reason behind these people doing this? The latest thread about "gay christians" and has gone on to say the most vile things possible, and condemns all that believe ex-gay ministries are faithbased fakes? What would be his point for starting a thread, in a homosexual debate room, about ministers playing with the gay mind, and think we would all support him with his sarchasim? Can someone help me out here? My human mind can't quite get around that one. Thanks people.

 

[PinkTulip]

Again, this was spoken through the Holy Spirit as defined below.

Acts 15 19-21

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."


19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.


So it is obvious (except some people will disagree with me), that sexual immorality was referring to the Law as defined by the OT. Levitical Law (the Holy laws). if you do not agree with me, what other sexual sin laws were they referring to? Homosexuality is not about the temple! Here is a link to the 613 and some other Jewish FAQ.

Book 5 I include in it the commandments on forbidden sexual relations and commandments on forbidden foods--for in these two matters the Omnipresent sanctified us and separated us from the nations, in forbidden sexual relations and forbidden foods, and of both it is written "and I have set you apart from the peoples" (Leviticus 20,26), "who have set you apart from the peoples" (Leviticus 20,24). I have called this book The Book of Holiness.


http://www.bethhamashiach.com/PoorMitzvoh.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm List of the 613

I have yet to find a jewish website that states that homosexuality was a forbidden temple practice.


I am now done with this forum.

 

[ArcticFox]

Homosexual behavior is a sin. As such, we should give the standard response to a brother or sister who engages in sin: loving encouragement to rise out of that sin through the strength that Christ imparts to us, with an air of disappointment at those who may continually fail, but maintaining always hope that the struggle against sin is not in vain.

However, there is something unique about interacting with an individual who considers himself "homosexual." A man and a woman together as a couple, if they are unmarried, is not unholy; sexual union between the two without a commitment before God is unholy. However, the mere presence of the two together does not necessarily suggest sinful behavior.

On the other hand, the mere presence of two professing "homosexual" individuals together does signify an unholy union; even if there is no sexual activity prior to a concept of "marriage," it is still an unholy union. As such, our response is slightly different. Our response to the man and the woman would be benignly neutral in general, unless we were made aware of sexual sin. In the case of the "homosexual" couple, we would immediately be aware of the sinful behavior. Even without the presence of sex, the couple is still engaging in an unholy movement towards an unholy union.

So, what is our response? The Scriptures do make some things clear, but others are not. First, how do we deal with being sinned against? Jesus speaks of this in Matthew 18. Does this apply to sins that aren't directly against you? I believe it does, based on 1 Corinthians 5.

Let's look at 1 Corinthians 5:1-7

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.*
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

This is some strong language. If we didn't know about Paul's loving command to welcome this man back into the congregation (2 Corinthians 2:6-7), we might fear that everyone would be kicked out for good! Paul makes it clear that such behavior, if not addressed, will be harmful to the holiness of the whole congregation. Paul is not merely worried about this one man and the woman he is having this illicit affair with, but he is worried about the whole congregation being perverted away from the pure lifestyle that befits a saint!

This approach flies in the face of many societies that have a "live and let live" mentality. However, we cannot miss the key point here: this is within the church (the people of God). Paul gives no such instruction to "cast out" such sinners from our "secular" workplaces or schools. However, we are instructed that when we gather in the name of Christ, we are instructed to do this.

What is also striking is that Paul not only reprimands them for failure to grieve over this sin being committed among them, but he has to reprimand them for being "puffed up" about it! Imagine, not only are they tolerating and failing to address sin, they are proud of it! What did they "boast" (1 Cor 5:6) about? We could speculate that they boasted about being a "free church," or they boasted about being an especially "loving church" that "accepts anyone and everyone," etc. We simply don't know, however; we don't have any evidence to say. Regardless, we know that they somehow boasted in regards to this sinful behavior.

So what is Paul's answer to how they should respond? Deliver him up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh! Whew! I could not imagine a more extreme command; I think it'd be better to simply kill his body rather than expose his soul to such evil! But, Paul is inspired, and knows what he's talking about. Why do this? I believe that Paul gives this instruction because an unrepentant heart must be cast out into the world so that they may see the error of their ways (after experiencing the sorrow/pain/anguish of such a punishment). This is what Jesus speaks of in Matthew 18 (ostracism).

Furthermore, see what he says in verse 9:

I wrote you in my letter, not to associated with sexually immoral people;

However, the next verse he clarifies that this does not apply to unbelievers, because if you were to do that, you would have to leave the world! Paul then goes on in verse 11 that we should not even eat dinner with such professing believers who perform such behavior. Our understanding of this must be qualified by other Scriptures which speak of forgiveness and repentance, and so a good interpretation would seem to be those who engage in such behavior unrelentingly. That is, they do not repent of such behavior, and perhaps even defend it.

-----------------

So, how should we respond? Two ways. (1) If the person is a believer, we have an easier time deciding what to do: we have commands for it. We must approach him or her numerous times and plead with them to repent and relent of this behavior, and do a complete turn around as best they can. If we are constantly met with stubbornness, we must bring it before the respective assembly of God's people (hoping that there is one connected to this professing believer). If even then they refuse, after we plead and pray with them and pray for them, we must cast them out to be delivered unto Satan, for their own good.

If the person is an unbeliever (2), we have much more Scripture to study and evaluate. One good section of Scripture is Romans 12:1-2, which calls us to be enlightened so much by God's Word that changes our whole paradigm of how we live and how we think. If we do that, we can make good personal decisions about how to respond in various situations.

God didn't give us an encyclopedia set of how to respond in all situations because he gave us intelligence instead. Now, our intelligence is all out of whack with sin and corruption, and we need to constantly renew it to fight the ways of this world.

There are some good resources. John Piper at www.desiringgod.org has some awesome resources on how to respond to these situations. There is no simple canned response that we can give. How do we best glorify our God? How can we best show love to these individuals without compromising our commitment to holiness and purity? Is it OK to welcome your "homosexual" son and his partner to dinner? Would it send the wrong message? Is it better to insist that you do not want to condone or approve of such behavior, and that your son is welcome, but not his partner?

Should you make it a frequent topic of conversation to emphasize your concern? Or, should you give your friend space because you know that she is not a Christian and that insisting on these holy requirements of her might only push her away? Is it unloving to not tell her that it is wickedness before God, because we are dishonoring God by it? Or, is it more loving to make her aware but not to press this issue because it would only cause more pain and lead to dangerous emotional conditions?

We must make individual choices. We cannot voice approval or indifference, nor can we choose to show contempt and hatred. This is where I agree with John Piper in saying that there is no standard response to an unbelieving family member or friend who engages in such behavior.

---------
*NOTE* Why I put "homosexual" in quotations.

I use quotations when I want to call into question the exact definition or meaning of a word. My use of quotations is meant to show that I either don't like the use of the word, or that I don't entirely agree with its usage.

In this case, I don't think labeling someone a "homosexual" is accurate; it makes it seem as if "homosexual" is something that you are and not something that you do, or choose, or live in. We can do sins, we can choose sins, we can live in sins. However, to say that I "am a murderer" implies I have done an action at least once. To say I "am a homosexual" does not imply merely a one-time or several time action, but some sort of "state of being." I disagree with this "state of being" definition.

 

[Brieuse]

Maybe some of them have to come here in order to confirm our opinions.

PS- not necessarily the percived ones you portray.

I'm here to be with other Christians. I'm done with looking for answers.

Maybe you're right for the others.

 

[ArcticFox]

Clearly there is a thread for Theology, and under that issues regarding Homosexuality. Why is it that most of these threads are visited by those that have no understanding of it, won't listen to what anyone has to say, will not try to hear others interpretations while they push their interpretation, etc? What is the reason behind these people doing this? The latest thread by MercyBurst is about "gay christians" and has gone on to say the most vile things possible, and condemns all that believe ex-gay ministries are faithbased fakes? What would be his point for starting a thread, in a homosexual debate room, about ministers playing with the gay mind, and think we would all support him with his sarchasim? Can someone help me out here? My human mind can't quite get around that one. Thanks people.

Sometimes people find it hard to stick to the topic. Even I do at times. However, we cannot forget the entire purpose of this forum: discussing theology. As such, if the discussion is not theological in nature, it does not belong in this forum. There are other forums to discuss other aspects of it.

We are here to discuss theology. Theology is the study of God, and this includes what he has to say (his Word). Therefore, theology is about who God is and what he communicates to people (including how people should respond). Therefore, if we focus on studies, someone's aunt's feelings, or "how it seems to me," we are failing to discuss the theology of the issue.

We can bring in evidence, but we must be careful: do these exhibits we bring forward better clarify and allow us to understand the theology? If not, suffice it to say that we are probably just moving on a tangent or someone's personal hobby horse. Think of it as a court of law: some evidence is admissible, some is inadmissible. Does the evidence I want to bring into exhibit qualify as a valid tool for discussing this theological issue?

As such, arguments that focus merely on "it doesn't seem loving to me" or "it just seems wrong" are not valid arguments for these forums, in my opinion (I am not a moderator or any such authority here). If we give merely our opinions without some theological backing, we are wasting the time of those who have come here for intelligent and worthwhile theological discussion. Although we don't all agree on what qualifies as standards of theology (Scripture alone? the Church institution? which books are Scripture?), we still must use such material and have a rationale for why we use it and why we understand it to be so.

Many people have strong feelings of how we should respond. If those feelings do not have a theological framework to them, they cannot stand as arguments theologically. Therefore, I think it'd be best to benignly ignore such foundation-less arguments for the sake of meaningful discussion. If you are able to ascertain that someone is here not to discuss an issue but to push an issue, perhaps it'd be better to choose not to respond? Or, perhaps respond for the sake of those reading, but be careful not to be trapped into veering off course or committing a sin of arrogance or pride yourself! After all, we can start trying to push our point instead of debate just as easily.