Lgbt, etc.

[Scrawly]

Treat yourself to an enchanting discussion with Dr. Gagnon and Dr. Kirk:

Another lovely voice on these matters is Rosaria Champagne Butterfield

Enjoy and be blessed.

[Cow Poke]

It's quite lengthy -- introductions are nearly 10 minutes alone --- would you please summarize why you think this is important, and maybe give the salient points?

[Bill the Cat]

Kirk got me quite angry at his huge leaps and elephant hurls. Gagnon did a great job of answering and defending at the same time, and made me aware of a few things I had not considered.

[Cow Poke]

Interesting comments...
(My responses)

Comment: We should be fully affirming and embracing GLBTXQ because the early Church embraced Gentiles.
(There's a difference between somebody being a Gentile and somebody choosing to live a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Bible)

Comment: The early Church received Gentiles without them becoming Jewish, so we should accept GLBTXQ for the same reason.
(Gentiles were received by the early Church upon acceptance of Christ and some minimum requirements (the Jerusalem Counsel), including "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality..." They were not just accepted 'regardless'.)

Comment: Regarding the vision of Peter with the unclean animals lowered down, he states that the unclean animals "were not ALWAYS "clean"", but that God MADE them clean, and implies that homosexuality was wrong in the OT, but now it's not.
(He seems to indicate that the laws in Leviticus only existed to distinguish the Jews from the Gentiles, and no longer apply, including sexual identity.)

Comment: Sexuality is larger than what we do with our penises and what we do with our vaginas... our "marginalizing" of GLBTXQ is us saying "you are still unclean", when God has made them clean...
(wow)

Comment: The importance of Sabbath - a capital crime, you get killed for breaking Sabbath - is part of Isaiah's vision for the "future eschatological future of God" - anybody willing to keep Sabbath will be embraced as the People of God - Paul says to the Galatians "I'm afraid for you if you keep Sabbath days.... " - Paul is concerned that "keeping Sabbath" makes Paul worry that they're not actually trusting the Gospel anymore... the definition of sin has changed because God has accepted Gentiles into the Kingdom of God - Galatians- Paul says to Peter "we're Jews by nature, not Gentile sinners"... Paul says "I am a sinner by rebuilding what I once destroyed - if I made the Gentiles to do all this Jewish law keeping stuff, that's how I prove I'm a sinner"....

I've had enough for now.

[Sparko]

Interesting comments...
(My responses)

Comment: We should be fully affirming and embracing GLBTXQ because the early Church embraced Gentiles.
(There's a difference between somebody being a Gentile and somebody choosing to live a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Bible)

We fully accept GLBTXQXYZ123 into the church... as long as they repent of their sins. Just like any other sinner. For example, if someone was an adulterer and wanted to become a Christian. He can do so but he can't remain an unrepentant Adulterer. We even understand that the homosexual might slip up now and then, just like any other sinner.

[Zymologist]

I'm listening to it--haven't gotten very yet (about halfway through Kirk's first statement). So far, I think what's struck me the most is his argument that the definition of sin changes as God accepts new people into the fold. That seems to be an extremely bold thing to say. I'm curious to see how Gagnon will respond.

Edit: and he admits that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual activity, but then essentially argues that it's not sin any more, but that we are still bound by certain sexual ethics--such as monogamy--based upon what, exactly?

[JonathanL]

We fully accept GLBTXQXYZ123 into the church... as long as they repent of their sins. Just like any other sinner. For example, if someone was an adulterer and wanted to become a Christian. He can do so but he can't remain an unrepentant Adulterer. We even understand that the homosexual might slip up now and then, just like any other sinner.

Understand, yes. But even then it's far easier to understand, for example, if the homosexual person went and looked at pornography depicting homosexual acts, as opposed to actually going out and and having sex with someone of the same gender. The former is far easier to do in a brief moment of weakness given the vast access of, and variation of pornography out there on the net, but if you actually decide to go out and engage in illicit sexual relationships (of any kind) imho you've pretty much decided that living in sin is more important than being a Christian/having a relationship with God. I.e when a homosexual person (or any person for that matter) claiming to be a Christian looks at pornography it might be a slip up, but when they start engaging in actual sexual relations outside of the limits set out in the Bible they are making a deliberate choice for sin, and against God.

[Littlejoe]

Understand, yes. But even then it's far easier to understand, for example, if the homosexual person went and looked at pornography depicting homosexual acts, as opposed to actually going out and and having sex with someone of the same gender. The former is far easier to do in a brief moment of weakness given the vast access of, and variation of pornography out there on the net, but if you actually decide to go out and engage in illicit sexual relationships (of any kind) imho you've pretty much decided that living in sin is more important than being a Christian/having a relationship with God. I.e when a homosexual person (or any person for that matter) claiming to be a Christian looks at pornography it might be a slip up, but when they start engaging in actual sexual relations outside of the limits set out in the Bible they are making a deliberate choice for sin, and against God.

Not disagreeing necessarily with you here...but isn't EVERY sin a deliberate decision for sin and against God? Are you saying though that a sinless life is necessary to remain a Christian?

[JonathanL]

Not disagreeing necessarily with you here...but isn't EVERY sin a deliberate decision for sin and against God? Are you saying though that a sinless life is necessary to remain a Christian?

No, I don't think I am. But as long as we live on this earth we continually wage war against our own sinful flesh, and sometimes we naturally fail at this and give in to temptation. Both watching pornography and engaging in promiscuous activity are serious sins, but imo the latter is far more serious, because it requires far more of you to actually commit the later sin, and it is far easier to avoid. In other words, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of "The more effort it takes for you to commit the sin, the more it is a deliberate choice, rather than a temporary setback/slip up in your Christian walk".

[Scrawly]

Thanks to all who watched the debate. I too agree that Dr. Gagnon did a great job. Dr. Kirk and others of his ilk seem to ultimately be arguing for some sort of "Christ consciousness" in favor over what they believe to be outmoded categories of biblical Christianity.

Don't forget to avail yourself to the work of Dr. Butterfield as well, for those interested.

[Cow Poke]

Not disagreeing necessarily with you here...but isn't EVERY sin a deliberate decision for sin and against God? Are you saying though that a sinless life is necessary to remain a Christian?

I think the big difference here is that homosexuality that involves "choosing a partner" shows a continual ongoing pattern of disobedience to God - almost like a premeditation - whereas many other sins can be a temptation in the moment - still sin - but more easily repented and forgiven.

[KingsGambit]

I think the big difference here is that homosexuality that involves "choosing a partner" shows a continual ongoing pattern of disobedience to God - almost like a premeditation - whereas many other sins can be a temptation in the moment - still sin - but more easily repented and forgiven.

And I think we can even differentiate between somebody who slips up and has a "one night stand" (like David did with Bathsheba) and somebody who won't even move out of their partner's house.

[Sparko]

Understand, yes. But even then it's far easier to understand, for example, if the homosexual person went and looked at pornography depicting homosexual acts, as opposed to actually going out and and having sex with someone of the same gender. The former is far easier to do in a brief moment of weakness given the vast access of, and variation of pornography out there on the net, but if you actually decide to go out and engage in illicit sexual relationships (of any kind) imho you've pretty much decided that living in sin is more important than being a Christian/having a relationship with God. I.e when a homosexual person (or any person for that matter) claiming to be a Christian looks at pornography it might be a slip up, but when they start engaging in actual sexual relations outside of the limits set out in the Bible they are making a deliberate choice for sin, and against God.

How many Christian heterosexuals who are not married are also sexually sinning occasionally? and then regret it because they know it was wrong?

[Cow Poke]

And I think we can even differentiate between somebody who slips up and has a "one night stand" (like David did with Bathsheba) and somebody who won't even move out of their partner's house.

I almost typed that. So, yeah.

[Cow Poke]

How many Christian heterosexuals who are not married are also sexually sinning occasionally? and then regret it because they know it was wrong?

So, when they "shack up", it is, IMOHBAO, that same sense of 'provision for evil'.