Question about the Homosexuality

[bridgeforsale]

Safe enough for gay people to be honest and open?!!
You mean like in the Bible verses - "thou that wearest the gay clothing"?

This is a joke right? Homosexuality is pretty much the same as adultery. Sex regardless of the will of God. It is not for us to judge those outside the church. You guys are going to sin anyway. You live for it.
But inside the church it is blatently putting oneself before Christ and that person should be put out of the church.

How goes it EB?? certainly homosexuals are living in a state of sin. The NT & OT repeats this adequately enough and very clearly that it is an aberration before God. Adultery is an excellent comparison.....however, to say a sinner should be thrown out of the church is IMO a different thing? Christ came for the sinner. However, I think your frustration is coming from the same place mine is. Homosexuals don't merely want entry to a church (which no one should ever be denied) but they want us to change scripture. It would be like saying to the drunkard it's okay to keep being a slothing drunk, that old stuff in the Bible was interpretted wrong (you know those real ambiguous passages in say John like.....neither a adulterer, or coveter, or drunkard, or thief will enter the Kingdom (I'm paraphrasing of course)). Or other passages in say Leviticus where God tells Moses that a man who lies with a man as a man lies with a woman shall be put to death. Or where I believe it was Paul discussing a homosexual known by those in his ministry, where he says he will suffer the penalty prescribed by the law (or words to that effect). I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand?

The church calls backsliders, and Christ offers redemption from the harshness of the law if one has sincere belief & commits to turning his or her life around. Sure, the homosexual who commits to Christ may sin again. Even homosexual thoughts (just as thoughts of heterosexual fornications) are sinful, and a sinner who comes to Christ may have sinful thoughts or perhaps perform sinful acts after their justification (as they work toward sanctification); and Christ offers redemption for these sins through confessing to Him. However, if one remains an avowed homosexual they may not ever minister in Christ's church, and the word teaches they will not be saved......period. There might be some Biblical passages that are challenging to interpret, but the ones pertaining to homosexuality aren't one of them. However, sure I guess Christ through His infinite mercy would probably be disappointed if His people started kicking anyone out of His church (that would be sort of acting like the Pharisees). Just some thoughts, but I'm definitely with you on this one EB (about 90% I guess)

[easyboy201]

[QUOTE=shadowmaster;1880138]

In many discussion regarding the homosexuality debate homophobia is viewed by some as the equivalent of racism. /QUOTE]

Shadowmaseter wonders: If homosexuality may either be a choice or a genetic predisposition, why not homophobia as well? Does it matter?

Easyboy wonders why Shadowmaster must always talk about himself in third person.

Well is homosexuality genetic predisposition? The Bible tells us that it is not. It is choice.
Then is homophobia choice? Yes it is. But is it the right choice or the wrong choice?
Depends on the motive. But homophobes may not be selective. You can't say ok to the liar and no to the homosexual. All sin is sin. Homophobes also must be loving, just like anyone, to be right.
You know the saying, love the sinner, hate the sin?

[easyboy201]

I found myself acting quite pharisaic the other day.. I critized someone else for their language, instead of bearing with it and acting with love. I know it seem like only a small thing, but those outside the church we cannot judge.
I felt like a real toss afterwards.
Likewise, homosexuals who are in Christ cannot defend their sin, if they are really saved. The must realize that their spirit isn't aligning with Gods.
This is what I mean by thrown out of the church. If they stubbornly revel in their sin, instead of wanting to change and being humble, then they are proud and should scripturally be cast out.

Christ is indeed merciful, for those that want his mercy.

Yet a homosexual who says "my way is better than God's way" is rejecting God's mercy and therefore has no part with the Body of Christ.
You dig??!

Thanks Wesley!

How goes it EB?? certainly homosexuals are living in a state of sin. The NT & OT repeats this adequately enough and very clearly that it is an aberration before God. Adultery is an excellent comparison.....however, to say a sinner should be thrown out of the church is IMO a different thing? Christ came for the sinner. However, I think your frustration is coming from the same place mine is. Homosexuals don't merely want entry to a church (which no one should ever be denied) but they want us to change scripture. It would be like saying to the drunkard it's okay to keep being a slothing drunk, that old stuff in the Bible was interpretted wrong (you know those real ambiguous passages in say John like.....neither a adulterer, or coveter, or drunkard, or thief will enter the Kingdom (I'm paraphrasing of course)). Or other passages in say Leviticus where God tells Moses that a man who lies with a man as a man lies with a woman shall be put to death. Or where I believe it was Paul discussing a homosexual known by those in his ministry, where he says he will suffer the penalty prescribed by the law (or words to that effect). I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand?

The church calls backsliders, and Christ offers redemption from the harshness of the law if one has sincere belief & commits to turning his or her life around. Sure, the homosexual who commits to Christ may sin again. Even homosexual thoughts (just as thoughts of heterosexual fornications) are sinful, and a sinner who comes to Christ may have sinful thoughts or perhaps perform sinful acts after their justification (as they work toward sanctification); and Christ offers redemption for these sins through confessing to Him. However, if one remains an avowed homosexual they may not ever minister in Christ's church, and the word teaches they will not be saved......period. There might be some Biblical passages that are challenging to interpret, but the ones pertaining to homosexuality aren't one of them. However, sure I guess Christ through His infinite mercy would probably be disappointed if His people started kicking anyone out of His church (that would be sort of acting like the Pharisees). Just some thoughts, but I'm definitely with you on this one EB (about 90% I guess)

[bridgeforsale]

I found myself acting quite pharisaic the other day.. I critized someone else for their language, instead of bearing with it and acting with love. I know it seem like only a small thing, but those outside the church we cannot judge.
I felt like a real toss afterwards.
Likewise, homosexuals who are in Christ cannot defend their sin, if they are really saved. The must realize that their spirit isn't aligning with Gods.
This is what I mean by thrown out of the church. If they stubbornly revel in their sin, instead of wanting to change and being humble, then they are proud and should scripturally be cast out.

Christ is indeed merciful, for those that want his mercy.

Yet a homosexual who says "my way is better than God's way" is rejecting God's mercy and therefore has no part with the Body of Christ.
You dig??!

Thanks Wesley!

indeed...now I'm diggin it; well stated EB

[Tlalynet]

Kleptomania is considered to be non voluntary, the thives are still charged. Its harsh but it answers the genetic question no matter if it is genetic or not.
OT Law was to keep evils away from the people, Law didnt consider circumstances. Morality, or the law of librety is better and for ultimate judgment but Law kind of has to be flat.
Its good to keep to what you can deal with like 'Is it right or wrong?' rather than trying to figure out someone elses heart, you cant, its just a decoy to avoid the issue anyway.
Thus its better to ask "is this specific action right or wrong?" than to say "Is this way of life right or wrong?" because, of course, theres more to the way of life than the action alone. So in the end we ask, is this sexual act right or wrong? Thats why it can be grouped with adultery as well as a number of other nasty things covered by the Duet like incest and bestiality.
Thats a very specific section of Dueteronomy actually, its a comprehensive list of what acts are wrong. Heres where I go haywire.
The Duet says that if a man lies with a man as he would with a woman its major bad, right, then it says if a woman lies with a woman like she would with a man its major bad... wait... No, it doesen't. Because of that ommision I want to complicate things.
Were lacking a prohibiton of Girl on Girl untill Romans, and that has some specifics. Im a computer programmer nutter so when I read AND I think AND, as if A AND B is Evil then BOTH A and B have to be there or the thing itself isnt evil.
Now, "Because of this God caused women to burn with desire for each other and neglect their natural use." is listed in the When Things Really Go Wrong section of Romans. Its just that the And is a pain, if you take that seriously then a married woman with another married woman... but ill double chekc that, what about abandoning the natual use, is that evil on its own, if it is then nuns have a BIG problem, so the And stands. Personally i can see some problems if women of different husbands where physical like that so i narrow it down to alloweing two women married to the same husband, er, librities.
Now thats a slippery slope that study got me, of course that could only work if poly wasnt against the bible per say and on and on ect.
I say it litely but it was a serious study for me, My wife let me know a year into our marridge that she had some tendancies that way, naturally she said shed keep them down. I (as I do for about anything) studied the issue to help by showing exactly why and where that was wrong, but I failed, I couldnt find the way. Given the circumstances we made an unusall choice for Christians. Expediancy prevailed.

[HerodionRomulus]

The Duet says that if a man lies with a man as he would with a woman its major bad, right, then it says if a woman lies with a woman like she would with a man its major bad... wait... No, it doesen't. .

A good point. The Leviticus passage is a law. A law is intended to be specific.
For instance, if a law says that liquor cannot be sold on Sunday, does that prohibit sales on Monday? No.
The same here. The law says men, so lesbians are allowed.
Or maybe Leviticus is not really addressing another issue and not same-sex orientation.

Many experts say that Lv 18:22 refers to temple prostitution, male prostitutes in cultic settings are quite common in the ANE.
Jacob Milgrom, a leading Jewish scholar and an expert on Leviticus, says that it is a prohibition against sex between men within certain degrees of relationship. To simplify, it's wrong for a man to sleep with his father in law but ok to sleep with a stranger. A full and highly technical explanation can be found in Milgrom's 3 volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series.

One final point: since there is legitimate dispute about the application and validity of the few passages which seem to relate to same-sex, perhaps the Church should not be so quick to make definitive declarations. Let's leave it up to the individual person and the relationship to Christ and let's stop trying to do the Holy Spirit's job of conviction of sins.

[themuzicman]

There is evidence for a biological basis, but as this is a relatively new area of research, there is yet no conclusive evidence, but the research does tend towards that view.
As to twins, almost half of all twins match in orientation. This shows that there is a biological component. If there was not, then twins would match at the standard 4% rate and not 50%. Ask a genetic statistician.

This is the same kind of evidence that one might us to suggest a genetic basis for Alcoholism. However, no one is claiming that one is an alcoholic from birth.

Let us not forget that sex acceptable to God is between a man and several women. David had 8 spouses, Abraham married his SISTER and had a concubine. Jacob had 4. Solomon had too many.

If morality is NOT relative, where are the fiery pulpits poundings against the INCEST of Abraham and Sarah? Didn't God order A&S to have sex? So God approves of INCEST?

A&S were half-siblings, which wasn't all that unusual in a nomadic culture. And there is no place where God approves or disapproves of A&S's marriage. It existed before God called Abram, and God also hates divorce. So, if God ordered them to divorce, you'd be back here demanding to know why preachers aren't railing against the divorce of A&S.

Thus, there was a pre-existing condition, which wasn't resolvable, and was left in tact.

Michael

[HerodionRomulus]

This is the same kind of evidence that one might us to suggest a genetic basis for Alcoholism. However, no one is claiming that one is an alcoholic from birth.



A&S were half-siblings, which wasn't all that unusual in a nomadic culture. And there is no place where God approves or disapproves of A&S's marriage. It existed before God called Abram, and God also hates divorce. So, if God ordered them to divorce, you'd be back here demanding to know why preachers aren't railing against the divorce of A&S.

Thus, there was a pre-existing condition, which wasn't resolvable, and was left in tact.

Michael

So morality "is" realtive?
Isn't God against sex outside of marriage: Hagar?

[themuzicman]

Hagar was given to Abraham to be his wife by Sarah.

Michael

[HerodionRomulus]

Hagar was given to Abraham to be his wife by Sarah.

Michael

Hmmm, so do you plan to ask your wife to hook you up with some hottie?

Really Michael, I expected a better reply than that from you.

Is morality relative? If not, then Sarah-as-pimp is just as wrong as Abraham fornicating with Hagar and incest is still wrong. Or are you actually going with the intelligent reply that their moral standards were based on their contemporary cultural norms.

[themuzicman]

Hmmm, so do you plan to ask your wife to hook you up with some hottie?

He didn't ask. She offerd.

Really Michael, I expected a better reply than that from you.

Is morality relative? If not, then Sarah-as-pimp is just as wrong as Abraham fornicating with Hagar and incest is still wrong. Or are you actually going with the intelligent reply that their moral standards were based on their contemporary cultural norms.

Pimp implies that Hagar was a prostitute. That's not the case.

There is some morality that is culturally relative, some that has progressed over time, such as marriage and slavery, and those mainly due to abuses of those institutions making the practice immoral.

However, there is some morality that is constant: Murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, lying, etc.

So, there is an absolute standard, and there are some standards that develop as society develops and practices become immoral, and there are some that are culturally driven.

SO what?

Michael

[Tlalynet]

Thanks to everyone who didnt just flame me for being a pro homo nutter who manipulates the bible for my own ends! Thats what im used to anyway, but it was a couple years of study that lead me to my conclutions, I set out to tell her why she shouldnt...
Anyway, the definition of absalute morality im stuck with is that what is moral is whatever is for the highest ultimate good of God and the Universe. Rev Finney put it that way anyway, and it seems to be how the whole law of librety thing Christ gave us works. What is good is a constant, the action taken for the good when within time will be ever changing. Thats why Christians have to be so knoledgeable to carry out their duty effectively.
Its the only model that I can find that doesent fail to the question 'If morality is absalute then why do laws change?'
The aim is the same, the means just change over time.

[Tlalynet]

"Hmmm, so do you plan to ask your wife to hook you up with some hottie? "
"He didn't ask. She offerd."

I don't think anyone else here knows how weird that feels...

[HerodionRomulus]

He didn't ask. She offerd.

Did that make it right? If so, lots of fellows here are going be hoping and praying their wives follow suit. LOL

Pimp implies that Hagar was a prostitute. That's not the case.

There is some morality that is culturally relative, some that has progressed over time, such as marriage and slavery, and those mainly due to abuses of those institutions making the practice immoral.

However, there is some morality that is constant: Murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, lying, etc.

So, there is an absolute standard, and there are some standards that develop as society develops and practices become immoral, and there are some that are culturally driven.

SO what?

Michael

Hmmm, sex outside of marriage. Then regardless of her offering it, it was wrong for Abraham to have Hagar or Judah with his daughter in law or....well the list could go on. But I would agree on the others as they violate the basic principle of "love another."

The so what is that homosexuality, at least the prohibition of it, is entirely a cultural phenomenon and has become more accepted in our society today, just as in the past it has been acceptable in some cultures as well as in the Church--specfically during the High Middle Ages when the church even had rites for gay unions. Being gay, being honest in life, having a partner, none of these violate our Prime Directive to be good to others.

[themuzicman]

Hmmm, sex outside of marriage. Then regardless of her offering it, it was wrong for Abraham to have Hagar or Judah with his daughter in law or....well the list could go on. But I would agree on the others as they violate the basic principle of "love another."

Hagar was Abraham's wife. Tamar, through the Levrite practice, was Judah's husband. Just because they don't do your marriage ceremony doesn't mean they aren't their wives.

The so what is that homosexuality, at least the prohibition of it, is entirely a cultural phenomenon and has become more accepted in our society today, just as in the past it has been acceptable in some cultures as well as in the Church--specfically during the High Middle Ages when the church even had rites for gay unions. Being gay, being honest in life, having a partner, none of these violate our Prime Directive to be good to others.

As long as you don't commit homosexual acts, you're fine.

Michael