When Are Christians Going To Realize . . .

[morningstar2651]

When are Christians going to realize...

Tuesday.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm trying to find adequate words to further explain my views, and hope that I am able to do so without offense.

I DO believe that acting on homosexual attractions is a sin, just as it would be sin for me to act upon every impulse I might have if it occurs outside of marriage. I do believe that the Bible condemns sexual relationships between same-sex partners, just as it condems sexual relationships between unmarried persons of the opposite sex.

Actually, there appears to be an exception to that rule.

[BIBLE]Deuteronomy 22:28-29[/BIBLE]In this example, premarital sex is permissible, but requires that the couple marry if they're caught.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having an ethical objection to homosexuality. I think that the thread is more a comment on the undue importance placed upon homosexuality.

This subfolder has 71,930 posts...that's about 13 times as many posts in the abortion subfolder. That's 30.5% of the posts in Christian Philosophy and Ethics folder and all of its subfolders combined, and it's 22 times as many posts as in congregation specific ethics.

This subfolder has more posts than you can find in christian apologetics, christian current affairs, christian history, denomination-specific theology, and the ecclesiology folder.

This subfolder rivals the size of the Christian Scriptures folder -- it's 92.0433025% its size.

 

[OllieFranz]

Because, unlike other sinners, the gays on this forum think their sins are above repentance.

Most gay Christians I know do not think their sins are "above repentance." They confess and repent of all their known sins. It's just that they sincerely believe that the Bible does not condemn gay relationships as long as they follow the same Biblical guidelines set forth for straight relationships. All teachings and all examples in the Bible of sinful same-sex activity are actions that would be equally sinful of they involved people of both sexes: rape, orgiastic pagan religious practices, prostitution, and hedonistic practices leading to addiction. Can you show even one instance where all same-sex relations are condemned simply because they are same-sex?

Unlike "gay Christians" many Christians believe that no sin is "above" this scriptural requirement. In effect their claim demerits scriptural authority and many Christians are rightfully offended when the Bible is discredited to justify gay sex and call it righteous conduct.

And yet, there are persons right here on this forum who ignore commands that are more clearly stated. They acknowledge the commands, and agree with them in theory, but claim that what they do is not what the command forbids. This is hypocritical. In the case of one set of commands, there is double hypocrisy involved. Let me quote two of the passages involving this set of commands, and I'll explain what I mean.

Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
​

People on this forum have claimed that this passage does not apply to them because they have removed the beam from their own eye. And yet we are told that no one can acheive salvation on their own merits; that it is only the grace of God that saves us. Even Paul called himself of all sinners, the chief. He was not strictly talking about his past life, he used the present tense. Nor was this a case of false modesty. The Holy Spirit would not have allowed falsehood to creep into a letter that He inspired and that He preserved as Holy Scripture.

Romans 14:4-13 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
​

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
​

They get around this one by claiming that the gay Christian is not their brother. That he cannot be a Christian because he has not repented of his homosexuality. And they forget their own conversion. When they asked Jesus into their hearts, they repented of all of their past misdeeds that they acknowledged to be sins. But as they grew in grace they discovered that they were still keeping some sins close to their hearts. Sins that they did not want to identify as sins. One by one they named each sin for what it was and gave mastery of it to the Lord. If they had had to wait until they were ready to give up these "hidden" sins before coming to Christ, they would never have been saved.

And yet they insist that gays do just that before they accept that their conversion was real. They do not believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to convict them of this sin (if it truly is a sin) as a part of the renewing of the spirit that is part of their ongoing Redemption.

--The Bible says ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Bible does not say all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God EXCEPT gay sex offenders.
--The Bible says REPENT to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not say REPRNT unless you are gay.

You are assuming here that gay Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful in itself and are lying about it. But they truly believe that it is not so claimed in the Bible. If they are wrong, trust the Holy Spirit to convict them. In the meantime worry about your own unclaimed sins. If Paul still had some when he wrote 1 Timothy 1:15, you and I can be sure that we still have them, too.

 

[MercyBurst]

I think that the thread is more a comment on the undue importance placed upon homosexuality..

Gay-sex affirmation is a real church splitter and membership killer. That's what I don't like about it. Gays are going to have their gay sex, but can't they leave it out of church doctrine?

Check out this link:

"This article is about the damage caused by the Gay Christian Movement to several mainline church denominations including the ECUSA, UCC, Presbyterian Church USA, and Evangelical Lutherans. It's an eye-opener to the magnitude of this problem in Christendom, where this issue is perhaps the greatest church-splitter since the Protestant Reformation."

Dig these excerpts from the blog link:

"Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday. "

"Yet many conservative Presbyterians believe that passage of the so-called Fidelity and Chastity Amendment will end more than two decades of division over homosexuality. Describing the ordaining of gays as a "direct challenge of the scriptures," the Rev. Jack Harderer, a supporter of the amendment, said, "It has boiled down to the real watershed issue: (do) we believe in the authority of the scripture or do we not?"


"three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

"The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "re-imagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion. "

"Katherine Schori, leader for the Episcopal Church denomination, calls homosexuality a gift rather than sin as Gene Robinson is ordinated."

"The Anglican Communion is made up mostly of Bible-believing conservatives, while the majority of Episcopal parishes are characterized as liberal. The Episcopal Church has lost thousands of members over the years. Once 4 million strong, the church now has 870,000 parishioners, Schofield said."

-----

By the way your avatar, Dee Snyder, is a republican.

 

[OllieFranz]

Gay-sex affirmation is a real church splitter and membership killer. That's what I don't like about it. Gays are going to have their gay sex, but can't they leave it out of church doctrine?

And just why is it such a church-splitter? Could it be that too many people are minding their neighbors' business rather than their own?

Paul tells us in several letters what to do if there is a disagreement among sincere church members as to whether a given action is a sin. The most complete version of his advice can be found in Romans 14.

If Christians were only to take this advice to heart, there would not be a controversy.

 

[katautumn]

Forgive me for isolating one thing you've said, but if it's silly why are you here in the forum called Debates on Homosexuality?

THAT is silly.

Because I am sympathetic to the discrimination, marginalization and general mistreatment of gays and lesbians. As long as there are people on this forum and in society who want to call them "pervs", "sodomites" "an abomination" and use their prejudices in their fight to have them discriminated against in society I will debate it. I have gay family members, so this is an issue that is very personal to me.

 

[katautumn]

Tuesday.

So it coincides with Cocktail Day on The Gay Agenda?

 

[AmericanCatholic]

It's a two-way street in which communication from both sides fails. Not all Christians "realize" what is stated in the original post -- nor do all gays "realize" that not everyone who opposes their ideas are bigots intent on burning gays at the stake.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

Most gay Christians I know do not think their sins are "above repentance." They confess and repent of all their known sins. It's just that they sincerely believe that the Bible does not condemn gay relationships as long as they follow the same Biblical guidelines set forth for straight relationships. All teachings and all examples in the Bible of sinful same-sex activity are actions that would be equally sinful of they involved people of both sexes: rape, orgiastic pagan religious practices, prostitution, and hedonistic practices leading to addiction. Can you show even one instance where all same-sex relations are condemned simply because they are same-sex?



And yet, there are persons right here on this forum who ignore commands that are more clearly stated. They acknowledge the commands, and agree with them in theory, but claim that what they do is not what the command forbids. This is hypocritical. In the case of one set of commands, there is double hypocrisy involved. Let me quote two of the passages involving this set of commands, and I'll explain what I mean.

Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
​

People on this forum have claimed that this passage does not apply to them because they have removed the beam from their own eye. And yet we are told that no one can acheive salvation on their own merits; that it is only the grace of God that saves us. Even Paul called himself of all sinners, the chief. He was not strictly talking about his past life, he used the present tense. Nor was this a case of false modesty. The Holy Spirit would not have allowed falsehood to creep into a letter that He inspired and that He preserved as Holy Scripture.

Romans 14:4-13 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
​

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
​

They get around this one by claiming that the gay Christian is not their brother. That he cannot be a Christian because he has not repented of his homosexuality. And they forget their own conversion. When they asked Jesus into their hearts, they repented of all of their past misdeeds that they acknowledged to be sins. But as they grew in grace they discovered that they were still keeping some sins close to their hearts. Sins that they did not want to identify as sins. One by one they named each sin for what it was and gave mastery of it to the Lord. If they had had to wait until they were ready to give up these "hidden" sins before coming to Christ, they would never have been saved.

And yet they insist that gays do just that before they accept that their conversion was real. They do not believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to convict them of this sin (if it truly is a sin) as a part of the renewing of the spirit that is part of their ongoing Redemption.



You are assuming here that gay Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful in itself and are lying about it. But they truly believe that it is not so claimed in the Bible. If they are wrong, trust the Holy Spirit to convict them. In the meantime worry about your own unclaimed sins. If Paul still had some when he wrote 1 Timothy 1:15, you and I can be sure that we still have them, too.

I can give a hearty "Amen!" to all of this except the first paragraph, about which I have a question.

How can it be believed that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships so long as they follow the scriptural requirements for opposite-sex marriage? That confuses me greatly. There are specific instructions regarding marriage which refer only to husband and wife. I don't see how that can be twisted to fit same-sex relationships. How do you determine in a same-sex relationship which partner fits which role? Is it God-ordained? How do gay Christians address this?

It seems to me that if gay marriage were "okay" biblically, there would also be some scriptures which gave definitive guidelines for how the partners were to treat each other within the marriage. Therefore I am perplexed at how the scriptures, as they stand, can be used to justify saying that same-sex relationships are not sinful.

I DO agree that it is the job of the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives and hearts to bring them to realization of their sins. I think that we all have a tendency to want to make scripture fit our lives as we are living them, rather than the other way around. I know that I can look back over some of my rationalizations and see them more clearly now.

I also think that a RESPECTFUL discussion of the scriptures and their application can bring illumination to those who might be interpreting scripture only through the lens of their own desires that it fit their own lives. In my own experience, listening to others' teachings has certainly helped me stop some of the self-serving interpretation I had going on for a while.

 

[MercyBurst]

I can give a hearty "Amen!" to all of this except the first paragraph, about which I have a question.

How can it be believed that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships so long as they follow the scriptural requirements for opposite-sex marriage? That confuses me greatly. There are specific instructions regarding marriage which refer only to husband and wife. I don't see how that can be twisted to fit same-sex relationships. How do you determine in a same-sex relationship which partner fits which role? Is it God-ordained? How do gay Christians address this?

Flibber... I give you a great big hint -- the bible has no authority anyway according to you know who. It's just a bunch of bogus stuff made up by grumpy old men so they say...

Gay marriage it is real confusing, just like you say (like who is the bride and who is the groom???). God isn't the author of confusion by the way, but we know who is.

And just for the record, I have never EVEN ONCE heard a gay Christian admit that gay sex is sin -- no never -- as much as they've said about it. You are welcome to peruse every post in this forum to find this out for yourself, but I'll save you the trouble. So this talk of their repentance is an empty promise -- you can count on it.

 

[morningstar2651]

Gay-sex affirmation is a real church splitter and membership killer. That's what I don't like about it. Gays are going to have their gay sex, but can't they leave it out of church doctrine?

Check out this link:

"This article is about the damage caused by the Gay Christian Movement to several mainline church denominations including the ECUSA, UCC, Presbyterian Church USA, and Evangelical Lutherans. It's an eye-opener to the magnitude of this problem in Christendom, where this issue is perhaps the greatest church-splitter since the Protestant Reformation."

Dig these excerpts from the blog link:

"Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday. "

"Yet many conservative Presbyterians believe that passage of the so-called Fidelity and Chastity Amendment will end more than two decades of division over homosexuality. Describing the ordaining of gays as a "direct challenge of the scriptures," the Rev. Jack Harderer, a supporter of the amendment, said, "It has boiled down to the real watershed issue: (do) we believe in the authority of the scripture or do we not?"


"three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

"The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "re-imagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion. "

"Katherine Schori, leader for the Episcopal Church denomination, calls homosexuality a gift rather than sin as Gene Robinson is ordinated."

"The Anglican Communion is made up mostly of Bible-believing conservatives, while the majority of Episcopal parishes are characterized as liberal. The Episcopal Church has lost thousands of members over the years. Once 4 million strong, the church now has 870,000 parishioners, Schofield said."

-----

By the way your avatar, Dee Snyder, is a republican.

I think you may have missed the main point of my post...homosexuality is talked about more than abortion, the history of the church, and ecclesiology combined...about three times as much. Almost 1/3 of the ethics discussions are about homosexuality. The Bible talks a lot about ethics and morality, but the bulk of the Bible talks about other topics.

The point is that I think, somewhere along the line, some priorities got messed up.
-----
Also, I know he's a republican. I, too, used to be one as well. I'm no longer loyal to any party -- I judge a candidate based on their words and their actions instead of their party.

 

[LJSGM]

When are Christians going to realize that NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE is there any such zeal aimed at a specific sin as that (the perceived sin of same-sex sex) which MANY CHRISTIANS claim to be 'the sin of sins'? It's true! While there may be scriptures that apply a negative view of same-sex sex it is NEVER singled out as being any 'worse' than the myriad of 'other sins' that the Bible speaks of. In fact, if there IS a greater sin than any other it is the sin of pride. If there IS a greater sin than any other it would involve certain HETEROSEXUAL practices that, by comparison, Christians ignore.

When are Christians going to realize that the repetetive quoting of selective scriptures presented in a self-righteous manner or otherwise are NOT going to make a 'gay' person 'straight'? When are they going to realize that by doing so they are, inadvertantly or not, telling a 'gay' person that they are not only unworthy human beings in their 'present state' but they are also 'demon possessed'? When are they going to realize that people become very defensive when they are continually told that they are basically 'scum'?

To the 'straight' Christian ...how would you feel if you were continually bomarded with scriptures - and there are probably MANY - that negatively 'describe' you? You would, of course, need to take ownership of these scriptures which, I feel, many of you would be reluctant to do. Christianity doesn't seem to work that way. Religion often results in a self-righteous and condemning attitude. Jesus spoke about this and likewise CONDEMNED it. Christians/people in general seem to be all too ready to apply labels to others but what about their OWN particular label? It might be 'hypocrite' (Jesus had MUCH to say about you if you take ownership of this particular 'sin') or it may be 'sanctimomious' (ditto) or it may be something else specific and personal to you.

While I realize that this IS a subforum devoted to the issue of homosexuality, why IS there more Christian zeal behind the condemnation of homosexuality than ANY OTHER 'perceived sin'? If such a subforum existed on Divorce and Remarriage, for instance (an issue spoken and disapproved of by Jesus Himself), I really can't imagine it going the distance. There is certainly something MORE SPECIAL about homosexuality than ANY OTHER issue.

Why?

Because they don't engage in it, nor have any desire for it, so it's easier to condemn others.

They say same sex marriages will destroy true marriage, but I say that porngraphy destroys it all the time and currently right now, not in the future. Why don't they fight against it then as fervently as they do homosexual marriage? I'll tell you why, it's because most of these "christian" men are caught up in it.

It's not even the right way to go about it even if most of them weren't hypocrits in the matter.

 

[MercyBurst]

I think you may have missed the main point of my post...homosexuality is talked about more than abortion, the history of the church, and ecclesiology combined...about three times as much. Almost 1/3 of the ethics discussions are about homosexuality. The Bible talks a lot about ethics and morality, but the bulk of the Bible talks about other topics.

The point is that I think, somewhere along the line, some priorities got messed up.
.

and when millions of church members leave their churches over this issue, where hundreds of churches have folded, and four denominations are splitting over it, with one gay-sex-affirming denomination on the verge of bankruptcy -- this is no big deal... ok.... Gotta keep things in perspective --- like when to build the next church gymnaseum or something more important like that.

 

[marksman315]

While I realize that this IS a subforum devoted to the issue of homosexuality, why IS there more Christian zeal behind the condemnation of homosexuality than ANY OTHER 'perceived sin'? If such a subforum existed on Divorce and Remarriage, for instance (an issue spoken and disapproved of by Jesus Himself), I really can't imagine it going the distance. There is certainly something MORE SPECIAL about homosexuality than ANY OTHER issue.

Why?

I believe this zeal comes from defending our faiths. It is extremely disheartening when I hear of homosexual pastors preaching false doctrine to others. This subject is being attacked because people are being led astray and it is causing rifts in the church.

 

[katautumn]

I believe this zeal comes from defending our faiths. It is extremely disheartening when I hear of homosexual pastors preaching false doctrine to others. This subject is being attacked because people are being led astray and it is causing rifts in the church.

.

Let's say that a heterosexual person attends a church where a gay or lesbian person is acting as pastor. Let's say the pastor never preaches either for or against homosexuality. Further, let's say that the heterosexual member truly believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins and is their Lord and Savior. Is it really that big of an issue what the sexual orientation of their pastor is? How many Protestants are under the spiritual authority and leadership of a straight, seemingly happily married preacher who commits adultery, looks at pornography or is up to their eyeballs in debt because they have a spending addiction?

 

[KCKID]

.

Let's say that a heterosexual person attends a church where a gay or lesbian person is acting as pastor. Let's say the pastor never preaches either for or against homosexuality. Further, let's say that the heterosexual member truly believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins and is their Lord and Savior. Is it really that big of an issue what the sexual orientation of their pastor is? How many Protestants are under the spiritual authority and leadership of a straight, seemingly happily married preacher who commits adultery, looks at pornography or is up to their eyeballs in debt because they have a spending addiction?

Precisely. When I listen to a sermon it never enters my head as to who the pastor will be sleeping with that night. If it did I'd quickly try to get rid of the thought anyway. Brrr . . .

 

[MercyBurst]

I think you may have missed the main point of my post...homosexuality is talked about more than abortion, the history of the church, and ecclesiology combined...about three times as much. Almost 1/3 of the ethics discussions are about homosexuality. The Bible talks a lot about ethics and morality, but the bulk of the Bible talks about other topics.

The point is that I think, somewhere along the line, some priorities got messed up..

You know what... you're right. This forum consumes far too much band-width. The powers to be should realize this, get smart, and shut down this spiritually-destructive, Bible-discrediting, abyss of a forum.

 

[OllieFranz]

Flibber... I give you a great big hint -- the bible has no authority anyway according to you know who. It's just a bunch of bogus stuff made up by grumpy old men so they say...

That may be true of gay athiests and agnostics, just as it often is for straight athiests and agnostics, but in general it is not true of gay Christians. Most of them accept the Bible as God-inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Gay marriage it is real confusing, just like you say (like who is the bride and who is the groom???). God isn't the author of confusion by the way, but we know who is.

Why would it be confusing. Two people covenant together and their souls are knit together. If they take on "roles," it is by their preference, not by societal decree. The Bible does not really give different instructions to wives and to husbands. In Ephesians 5:22, wives are told to submit to their husbands, while in verse 25, husbands are merely told to love their wives. However, the description of that submission and that love are both descriptions of placing your spouse's needs above yor own, and in verse 21, both are called to submit one to the other. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 is even more even-handed:

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

​

And just for the record, I have never EVEN ONCE heard a gay Christian admit that gay sex is sin -- no never -- as much as they've said about it. You are welcome to peruse every post in this forum to find this out for yourself, but I'll save you the trouble. So this talk of their repentance is an empty promise -- you can count on it.

I have heard plenty of gay Christians speak of their struggles with same-sex attractions, and call gay sex sin. For them to go against what they believe would be sin. I've known many of them to struggle to live a celibate life. A few of them succeed, but most of them fall and repent and begin the struggle anew. I have known one or two rare cases of God granting their request to be free. (But this is never the result of anything the person or the members of his church group have done, and it certainly does not happen in an "ex-gay" program -- it is a clear act of God.) If someone is in this position, we are to follow the rules that Paul gives us in Romans 14, and not place a stumbling-block before them.

On the other hand, if after diligent study of the scripture, a person sincerely believes that it does not condemn their actions, of course they will not "admit" that those actions are sin. Just as I have never heard any Christian "admit" that sex with his or her spouse is sin, not even during her niddah.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

That may be true of gay athiests and agnostics, just as it often is for straight athiests and agnostics, but in general it is not true of gay Christians. Most of them accept the Bible as God-inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."



Why would it be confusing. Two people covenant together and their souls are knit together. If they take on "roles," it is by their preference, not by societal decree. The Bible does not really give different instructions to wives and to husbands. In Ephesians 5:22, wives are told to submit to their husbands, while in verse 25, husbands are merely told to love their wives. However, the description of that submission and that love are both descriptions of placing your spouse's needs above yor own, and in verse 21, both are called to submit one to the other. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 is even more even-handed:

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

​

I have heard plenty of gay Christians speak of their struggles with same-sex attractions, and call gay sex sin. For them to go against what they believe would be sin. I've known many of them to struggle to live a celibate life. A few of them succeed, but most of them fall and repent and begin the struggle anew. I have known one or two rare cases of God granting their request to be free. (But this is never the result of anything the person or the members of his church group have done, and it certainly does not happen in an "ex-gay" program -- it is a clear act of God.) If someone is in this position, we are to follow the rules that Paul gives us in Romans 14, and not place a stumbling-block before them.

On the other hand, if after diligent study of the scripture, a person sincerely believes that it does not condemn their actions, of course they will not "admit" that those actions are sin. Just as I have never heard any Christian "admit" that sex with his or her spouse is sin, not even during her niddah.

It IS confusing because, biblically speaking, whether one is a husband or a wife is not defined by society but by gender. And if you make the argument that the rules have changed because now society has changed, it seems to me that you completely refute the inerrancy of scripture. (generic you, not you Ollie ) IMO this holds true across the board - to say that because women now have more rights and freedoms does not negate the teachings of the Bible and to say that they are now free to preach because of societal change is also a twisting of scripture to meet desires, rather than our desires changing in line with scripture. I say this as a very independent woman, mind you, and while I may not like it or agree with it I am also convinced that God knows better than I, even when I don't see it that way.

I have no questions whatsoever about those Christians who have same-sex attractions but also see gay sex as sinful. I have plenty of struggles with sin in my own life, and would not expect that to be any different for another person. Whether someone struggles with sin and sometimes falls to it is not the issue. My issue is only with how persons can search the scriptures and come away with the interpretation that it is not sinful. It really does confuse me - I'm not condemning anyone for doing so, that's not my job. But I do have questions about how they come to such a conclusion, just as I have questions about how some straight Christians have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable to vilify and denigrate others in a clearly unloving manner. Both, imo, have twisted scripture to suit their own desires.

And, by the way, I can think of several circumstances under which sex with your spouse could be sinful.

 

[bsd13]

.

Let's say that a heterosexual person attends a church where a gay or lesbian person is acting as pastor. Let's say the pastor never preaches either for or against homosexuality. Further, let's say that the heterosexual member truly believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins and is their Lord and Savior. Is it really that big of an issue what the sexual orientation of their pastor is? How many Protestants are under the spiritual authority and leadership of a straight, seemingly happily married preacher who commits adultery, looks at pornography or is up to their eyeballs in debt because they have a spending addiction?

It's a huge issue. How can a pastor who is gay stand in front of a congregation and preach the word of God and not be laughed at? Everyone, except those who want to revise it, know scripture condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms. If a gay pastor stood up there and ranted and raved about it being a sin for hours and hours every last person in that congregation, be they gay, straight, or confused would laugh at him. Because he sins? No, more because he's a hypocrite.

We all fall, and we all screw up whether it is sexual sin, or anything else. That's what grace is about, but how you live your life is a form of preaching. If you live your life in constant intentional sin and then get up and tell people not to sin it just doesn't work. It has to do with Christ's teaching about pulling the log out of your own eye so you can see the plank in your brother's eye and help him pull it out.

Homosexuality is condemned by the church because it is sin. Is it a worse sin than any other out there? No it is not. And really that gets to the heart of the whole matter. Even one single breach of the law of God is a sin against God.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it - James 2:10

And that's what grace is about. Not the grace to never again break the law, but the grace of God to forgive us for breaking the law. But a homosexual pastor who insists on living a life contrary to what God tells us is holy and righteous is abusing grace. They are assuming God has given us a license to sin, but again scripture directly contradicts that position.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! - Romans 6:15

So don't sin because you have grace, but instead use grace for what it is intended; recognize your sin, repent (turn away from) and continue on the path of righteousness. If you sin continually keep repenting until you get it right. God's grace knows no limits if the intention of your heart is to obey him.

Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak - Mark 14:38

A gay pastor who insists (keyword) on living as a gay man in a gay relationship is NOT under grace because he is abusing it.

*** Disclaimer - I used the words gay man throughout, but it is interchangeable with gay woman. Just didn't feel like using both all the time.