Homosexuals and Christians....

Getting interesting....

Damn! Now THIS is why I posted this thing.... the argument, contrary to some opinions on this board, has become enormously interesting thanks to the rapier logic of nosborne48....

<Watching from the sidelines...>

 

There is a vast difference between democratic rights and theocratic rights. As Christians we live according to a code of morals and ethics as individuals. Our government is not a theocracy.

 

Thus erecting a wall of separation between Church and State?

 

Don't say "erecting."

 

I am not sure I understand the intent and context of your posts. Being a Christian, for me, means to accept the Word of God. The Word of God says homosexual behavior is wrong. I believe it is wrong.

However, living in a democratic country, ruled by law, every person is accorded full civil rights and equal protection under the law.

I support these precepts with full force and conviction. The majority of people in this country are Christians and in a democracy, the majority rules.

The separation of church and state does not mean the majority doesn't rule. It means the government cannot establish a state church, pure and simple.

I will have to say, however, that if the majority of people in this country were not Christians, attitudes towards homosexuality would not change much. Morality and ethics are not the intellectual property of Christians only.

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, there are more important issues in this country and in the world than someone's sexual orientation, which they have a legitimate right to in a free society.

Let's leave these people alone and mind our own business. "He among you without sin, cast the first stone."

Accordingly, I will not post any more on this issue.

Anyway, I need to begin my MATS sudies.

 

Okay. I certainly did not intend to pin your ears back.

Still, your position ends up with religion being an ENTIRELY private matter and not permitted to affect the actions of the State. Here's why:

Assume that a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim or Buddist; it doesn't matter) is elected to Congress. He must vote on a proposed bill outlawing acts of sodomy in the District of Columbia, say.

Now, if he follows his deep and sincere belief that the Bible is the Word of God and acts according to his own complete surrender to the Will of God, he will vote in favor of this bill regardless of whether the Courts are likely to declare it unconstitutional. Why? Because to vote according to the Constitution is to set Man's will up as superior to God's will. Worse, it would be to SUPPORT the erection of Man's law as superior to God's law and to be SEEN to do so.

Similarly, the Judge who hears the challange to the law but is a sincere, committed Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible must ALSO vote to uphold the law in the face of the constitution.

To argue that in a democracy these officials must act contrary to their sincere belief is actually to state that the will of the MAJORITY of the population is superior source of authority than the Word of God.

No matter how you slice it, the instant religion is allowed to influence legislation or adjudication, it comes into conflict with the fundamental tenant of democracy; that ALL authority comes from the PEOPLE. Therefore, there can be NO intercourse between the two. QED: The impenetrable wall of separation.

Another possible escape might be to say that God does not CARE how we govern ourselves. QED: God has no place in government.

Another possible escape might be to say that God allows us to compromise with the children of this world. That is another way of saying that, as a practical matter, the law of God and the law of Man are of EQUAL importance. That cannot be the case for the sincere believer.

This is NOT a trivial analysis. It is similar to the fight between proponants of "natural law" and those who favor "positivism".

There is, of course, a difference between the literalist believer who holds himself bound to God's Word in all things and the person who considers his faith and tradition as a GUIDE. There can be no fault found with the latter but it should be clear to him and everyone else that he is not the Biblical literalist he claims to be.

 

I can't help but question Carl Regenstein's extreme intolerance towards Christianity. If anyone cares to even notice, many of Carl's posts are anti-Christian. Sheesh! Carl, do we need to find you a hobby or something?

 

MY :

*spending more money at Goodwill for used shirts and ties I don't need while the begger sits shivering in the cold,

*failure this morning to pray before I turned on the computer,

*thinking too much about that cute blond with the frizzy hair on "Cold Case," wishing my wife looked like her, and wondering why some old guy like me STILL, STILL has such thoughts,

*worring that God is not strong enough to get our house sold so we can avoid financial stress bigtime when Jesus had no place to lay His head,

*not going over and over again the data for my complex four hour lecture about Christ in Sacramento next month ,

* losing my temper daily with my son who lives with us and has PTSD ,

*complaining to God cause my feet burn with diabetes when His Son was whipped and crucified for me but opened not His mouth,

*years ago condemning my now long dead grandfather to his face, grandpa raised me after mom and dad divorced, before he died for smoking (smoking killed him) instead of showing him the love of God by my life before he died,

*thinking pridefully that I know the Bible better than anyone,

*not appreciating this beautiful sunrise aglow with a score of shades of red and orange,

*stealing Craig's puppet when I was nine, and of yeah, lying to Grandpa that Craig's brothers held my arms when Craig punched me in the stomach, when in fact they didn't, Craig just was tougher than I,

*not going to Viet Nam when I was in Bible College, Robin, a fellow student did , and a bomb landed in his tent blowing off one arm and one leg,

*not accepting that pastorate when I finished the MA but instead turning my back on God for 20 years,



sorry...I need to stop now...just wanted to say that I've done so much wrong that I've little interest in trying to decide if Gays are doing wrong...

... I need now to sign off and sign on this AM with my God who understands all about me and who loves me in spite of it ... .

 

Not intolerance, but inquiry....

I do not think you should characterize my posts as "extreme intolerance". Is it intolerant to question? Is it intolerant to seek the truth? Is it intolerant to ask Christians to be more tolerant of others?

OK - if so, then I'm guilty. Otherwise, you are the one demonstrating a closed mind set, not moi.....

Have a blessed Sunday.... - Carl

 

C'mon, the Word of God says nothing of the sort. A particular reading and interpretation of the Bible tells YOU that this is so. There is no such thing as the Word of God, only believers who feel that a proxy for the word is the actual word itself. If YOU want to believe that your interpretation of the Bible is God talking to you, then that's fine - for you. You'll need to qualify that belief rigorously, however, and not foist it on the rest of us as if it's some incontrovertible truth - even if that's what you think it is.

A majority of the beings on this planet don't share your belief. Whatever the many views of those people, they are every bit as valid as yours. To understand that is to inch a little closer to that God you claim you know.

 

If this is the reasoning your minister friend gave you for condoning homosexuality, your friend needs to study the Bible more. The rules you list from Leviticus and Deuteronomy were based on Jewish law.

 

My friend's arguments are too complex to sum up. The above is basically my own understanding. However, if you don't believe it, can you address it? What other part of the Bible besides Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality? If the Leviticus passage isn't important, then why is cited so often by people condeming homosexuality?

 

Hi qvatlanta:

Here are two NT references--
1 Timothy 1:8-11, specifically verse 10
Romans 1:18-32, specifically verses 26 and 27.

Once again, I'm not getting into this rats' nest, but the statement that there is nothing in the New Testament critical of homosexual activity is mistaken.

What any of you choose to do with those texts (whose context I cited, since no verse stands alone) is up to you.

If you want to hear what I do with those texts, you'll have to listen to me at my church.

Regards,
Janko the Mad Priest

 

With trepidation, I wade in here.

I agree with Billy Graham in that even if it is a sin it is not 'the' sin. There are so many and why some folks seem to have focussed on this (and or divorce in some churches) as the only sin is ridiculous.

Also, one might read some of the homosexual theological apologists in order to hear some of the arguments pointing to the fact (from their point of view) the bible does not condemn it. Peter Gomes (The Good Book) makes an interesting argument (not the best but interesting). The verses that Uncle J. mentions are explained by these apologists from a context point of view as well as the meaning of the original languages. On top of that, they point out how interesting it is that we take homosexuality out of the Levitical passages and say it still applies while we ditch and divorce ourselves from the rest of the Levitical requirements as being stuck in a particular outdated cultural context and now replaced by grace and the new covenant. On top of that they argue that although one cannot necessarily argue from silence....Christ mentioned nothing about homosexuality.

Sleazy homosexual behavior disgusts me but so does sleazy heterosexual benhavior.

I saw on one news program a group of homsexuals who were completely normal looking and apparently acting people and that was their point. They are your neighbors, members of the PTA, etc. They wanted people to see them in that way rather than the flamboyant images in the media. It would be like assuming that Mardi Gras represents average heterosexual behavior.

What I do know, is that we serve a God of immense love and compassion. In the end I find it hard to believe that God will say to Peter Gomes, who may have been sold out for Christ, shared the good news of salvation with so many, and served God as faithfully as he knew how "You got everything right except the homosexual thing and although you sincerely believed that you were correct in your interpretation via the guidance of the Holy Spirit and logic...you were wrong...so depart from me and burn in hell". On the other hand if Hitler had accepted God at the very end before losing consciousness, he would get "Well done thou good and faithful servant...enter they reward" That makes no sense and really does not square with the God of the bible.


North

 

re:

Though I am not a biblical scholar, I had some hermeneutics courses in seminary, and I am convinced the passages mentioned above have nothing to do with a modern idea of a committed homosexual relationship. I believe they refer to either temple prostitution and/or pederasty.

Peace,
Daniel

 

Re: Not intolerance, but inquiry....

Fair enough, Carl. I would like to invite you to read this article that I found very interesting and relevant to the thread.

The Article

 

Re: Re: Not intolerance, but inquiry....

Thanks for the response. Interesting article, but I do NOT consider myself an "atheist" despite my challenging posts. I'm mainly focused on getting some difficult questions out on the table, and see where it leads when others weigh in with their wisdom and opinions. Of course, I have my own too - which I freely share!

Anyway, I appreciate the spirit in which you intended your post, and do not take offense at your challenging of my positions....

 

It seems to me the only justification I hear is homosexuals were born that way. As if a predisposition to something automatically provides legitimacy. I believe it is simply a back door argument for normalizing deviant behavior.

This argement can be used by anyone to justify acts of immorality or questionable behavior. Couldn't I cheat on my wife and simply claim I was born with a attraction to multiple women. A predisposition for multiple partner sex? Pedophiles claim they have a predisposition for sexual attraction to children, but no sane person would argue that it is "normal" behavior.

The discussion should about the behavior and its place in society.

And yes, I have many short comings, commit many sins , BUT I am not demanding that society and the government recognize my sins as normal and acceptable behavior.

I guess in the end each one must make up his own mind, but that is not going to stop me from continuing to speak out against behavior that I believe to be wrong.

 

I'm not fond of male homosexual sex either (although bi women are in a different category! Lump me in with Howard Stern on that one.... JOKE.... haha).

However, the problem here is that you see gayness in general as a "sin". I disagree. I do not think that God would have created sexuality in the first place if He considered it a sin - instead it is the greatest gift that He has given to us. The fact that some men are attracted to other men, and some women to other women does not automatically make this a "sin", even though I agree it is not what one would typically consider "normal" (in terms of percentages of people who are pre-disposed to homosexuality).

Also, doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that lending money for interest is also a "sin"? I know it is not one of the 10 commandments, but then neither is "Thou Shalt Not Be A Homosexual" (last time I checked anyway). Where do you draw the line??

 

Postec by Carl_Reginstein

You are partially correct. Leviticus says you cannot charge interest to a fellow Hebrew or your relatives, but Deut 23:20 says it is OK to charge interest to a foreigner.

The Levitical Law is full of prohibitions, it was instituted to seperate God's people. Jesus fulfilled the law and we are now seperated by the Holy Spirit (simplistic, but space limited).

I draw my position on homosexuality from the Pauline Epistles, Rom 1:27, for example. I was taught to look at all theology through six lenses (sermon on the mount, Gospels, Pauline, NT, OT, Bible as a whole) and look for consistency in the nature of God and His interactions with His creation. That is where I draw the line.

I find morality to be an issue that is consistent through all those lenses, and find prohibitions to homosexuality in the Pauline letters, the NT, the OT. I then add to that the fact that homosexuality is not "natural" within nature and historically was an "accepted" practice among generally ungodly cultures.

I then place it in the category of a sin and draw the line