Homosexuals and Christians....

re:

I certainly do not intend to be demeaning to any particular person on this board, but I question using the Bible as a rock-solid guide for behavior. Having taken the Bible into serious consideration in parts and as a whole, I see nothing but a schizophrenic picture of a God at times immeasurably loving, and at times purely evil. The reason for this is not that God is so, but that the Bible was written by MEN who have a partial understanding of who God is. I realize most of the Christian posters on this board accept some kind of position of innerancy, and because of this, try to piece together the parts of Scripture that are contradictory (not seemingly so). It just seems a bit unwise to me to enforce a morality code based on the biases men who wrote between 2000 and 3500 years ago.

Peace,
Daniel

 

Carl,

You are right when you say that God would not have created sex if it was a sin.

However, God did put restrictions on how and when people could and should have sex, and one of them is that when two men or two women having sex with each other (Homosexuality) is sinful!

Also, when a man and a woman have sex outside of marriage, that is also sinful!

But, when one man and one woman marry each other, then the sex they have with each other is blessed by God, for this is when the Husband and wife truly become one flesh!

God put sex in the ramifications of marriage with one woman and one man, not because He is a prude, but because knew the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife would be kept safe and sacred! This is one of the reasons why married couples say and honor thier vowes, or they should!!

Rich Hartel
A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

re:

A committed homosexual relationship cannot be kept "safe and sacred"? Hmm... mine is.

Peace,
Daniel

 

Re: re:

Sorry, but not in the eyes of God! "Leviticus 18:22"

May the Prince of Peace be with you!!

Rich Hartel
A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

re:

Do you and your wife follow Lev. 18:19? If you're not married, do you think verse 19 is applicable to married couples? And why isn't lesbianism addressed? Could it have something to do with the fact that the ancient Hebrews thought life only existed in the man's sperm, so to "waste" that in a homosexual relationship would be tantamount to abortion?

Peace,
Daniel

 

But it's behavior that you don't witness and has no effect on your life at all. What people do in their bedrooms (or wherever) doesn't affect any of us, hetero or homosexual. It's private. It's none of your (or my) business. That's why people should just butt out.

If someone does something in a sexual manner that actually affects you, there are plenty of enforceable laws on the books to deal with that. Sexual preference (or proclivity, or genetic disposition, or whatever) doesn't have anything to do with it.

Besides, doesn't God sort all of this out? Does he need anyone's help?

 

Re: Re: re:

Perhaps Leviticus is wrong. And since accepting its correctness is a matter of faith, perhaps you shouldn't impose it on others, just as you would not want their faiths (or beliefs, etc.) foisted upon you.

 

Hard to tell which side you're on.

 

Question

"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 [/B][/QUOTE]

Please forgive my ignorance, however, the above quote sparked my interest. Years ago, I had a debate with my wife's uncle. He described himself as a Born Again Christian.

Anyway, the subject of homosexuality came up. I told him I did not think it was his job as a mere mortal to "judge" a homosexual. To make a long story short, he used the above argument almost word for word. Where does the above quote come from? I completely disagree with this quote and I fully disagreed with him when he brought it up.

Sadly, a few years ago he fatally shot himself in the heart after it was discovered he had a penchant for molesting children.

Please advise,

Thank you, Abner

 

Posted by Rich Hartel

Rich,
I think you and I are on the same side of the argument, but using the Levitical Law to prove your position just doesn't hold water. As pointed in this thread and numerous others, the Levitical also also prohibits tatoos, cutting the hair on the side of head, wearing two different kinds of materials, planting two kinds of crops in the same field, etc., etc..

While the Law had its purpose to "call out" God's people, we are no longer subject to the Levitical Law (different dispensation). However, if you choose to live under the dispensation of law (as many of the Jewish faith do), then you MUST be subject to ALL of the law.

The argument against Homosexuality MUST be established outside the Law. That is not impossible, but significantly more difficult because Jesus did not directly address it (nor did he abortion or any other number of topics), so we must look to the Pauline Epistles and establish a moral code that is consistent with the nature of God.

Unless one chooses to live (and be eternally judged by) the dispensation of Law, Leviticus should not be used to establish prohibitions.


Posted by paynedaniel

Sure it can, I don't argue that point. BUT so can a hetrosexual relationship outside of marriage, but that does not make it right in God's eyes.


Posted by Abner

I don't know the source of the quote but it is only somewhat accurate. Homosexuality will NOT keep someone out of heaven, unrepentant sin will.

Your analogy would work if it read that a homosexual got everything right EXCEPT he rejected the atonement of Christ and Hitler accepted the atonement on his deathbed........

Jesus spoke directly about the fairness (or unfairness depending on your POV) in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32).

 

Rich,
You might be surprised but I do agree with you somewhat. What people do in their own bedrooms is their business and I could not care less (as long as it is legal). But remember, it was the homosexual agenda, not the Christians, that brought the issue out of the bedroom. It is the gay activist that chooses to define him/herself by their sexual orientation.

It was their agenda to legitimize and normalize their behavior by demanding public and government recognition that brought on the response. And I certainly have every right to be heard concerning that issue as long as it is being voted on by the folks elected to office.

In the same way, if I choose to live with two different women and keep that in the privacy of my own house, I will have to answer to God, but it is nobody else's business. However, if I choose to take the issue out of the bedroom, demand the right to marry both of them, and insist that tax payer funds be used to support the relationship, and insist on legislation that attempts to normalize the behavior, then every person who votes and pay taxes has the right to enter the debate. That is the choice I made.

 

I didn't know there were "sides." Homosexual or heterosexual? Hetero. Religious or non-religious? Non-religious. Nosy or non-nosy (in terms of people's private businesss)? Non-nosy.

I just don't care about others' sexual activities, whatever they are. What they do with each other in the bedroom is no more my business than is the color of drapes they choose. Why should anyone?

Geez, just leave people alone.

 

This is a "chicken and egg" argument that, in effect, blames the persecuted for being persecuted. It's not that simple. Anti-sodomy laws have been on the books for centuries, regulating even private sexual activity. So don't blame homosexuals, saying it's their fault for going public.

Their is no band of blue-eyed people demanding "rights" for their group. You know why? Because no one persecutes people for having blue eyes.

Homosexuals don't want special treatment. They want equal treatment. And they only want that because they've been offered dramatically unequal treatment for what is a private matter that hurts no one else.

Society has stepped in and protected certain groups because those groups have been, historically, discriminated against. It's called the civil rights movement. You could look it up.

Stop blaming the victim. I don't recall any homosexual ever having even the slightest impact on my life because of their sexuality. That's called "normal."

 

There appears to be.

I do.

 

Rich,
I just can't recall a time when groups of people were gathered up and prosecuted for sodomy. Not to mention the fact that the practice of or absence of the practice of sodomy does not by definition define the sexual orientation of a person (it is not limited to homosexuals).

I stand by my statement. Homosexuals choose to define themselves by their sexual orientation and have no one but themselves to blame for taking it public.

This is ridiculous. It is not what they do in privacy of their bedroom that is the problem, it is the demand on special recognition. You act as though homosexuals are the only group of people on the planet facing issues. If you think other groups don't have similar issues, your head is in the sand. I have a mormon brother who love to argue with you that both his civil and religious liberaties are being violated because he cannot marry multiple women.

They do want special treatment. They want homosexuality defined and rights extended that will not be applicable to any other alternate lifestyle. Even William Allen (in an interview he did with Justice Thoms) said this was part of the problem. He said "When you say sexual preference, what do you mean? Do you mean bestiality, pederasty? When you look at the language they use, you realize the problem they have trying to articulate and define their group is the very reason why it shouldn’t be considered a special category. They can’t even come up with language to define just what they would consider “normal” homosexual practice."

Civil Union legislation could be argued without the injection of sexual orientation. I just find it hard to accept that you honestly do not believe that there is an agenda here.

Give me a break. Exactly which civil liberaties have homosexuals been denied. Perhaps you should look up the definition of civil rights. It protects voting, employment, public access, school admission, federal assistance. Everyone of those rights have been extended to homosexuals and laws are in place to protect them. Marriage is NOT a civil right.

Just to reiterate. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, just keep it there -- I do.

 

Yeah. Let me clarify that my remark wasn't directed at you or any other individual posting on this board. I do not presume to know what anyone else does or thinks. I was just speaking to the concept and should not have used the 2nd-person ("you"). So here:

Everyone should leave everyone else's private business to them.

Sorry if I seemed to be jumping at you or anyone else in particular, or even if I was ascribing certain behaviors or opinions to you. I was not.

 

Not my quote

Posted by Abner
I don't know the source of the quote but it is only somewhat accurate. Homosexuality will NOT keep someone out of heaven, unrepentant sin will.

Your analogy would work if it read that a homosexual got everything right EXCEPT he rejected the atonement of Christ and Hitler accepted the atonement on his deathbed........

Jesus spoke directly about the fairness (or unfairness depending on your POV) in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32). [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi,
Thanks for partially answering my question, I did not write the above quote nor do I agree with it. I was merely wondering where it came from.

Thank you Sir,

Abner

 

Agreed. If everyone practiced that we wouldn't have a debate. (Both sides--not prying and not making it an issue.) For example, I think "gay pride" parades are stupid. But they exist for a reason: those people feel the need to strike back, that their legitimacy and equality has been impugned. And it has. We as a culture have a long history of violence and discrimination because of someone's sexual orientation. I served a career in the military and know about this first-hand. (As a commander, I had to deal with several such cases.) So please don't tell us, again, that it is their fault for speaking out. That turns the victim into the problem, which isn't fair.

 

God's law - they change.....

But, but, butttt... ing in here....

Didn't the Bible actually permit a man to have many wives in ancient times? What has changed? God's law, or man's? And if man can change how we look at God's law in this instance (i.e., to make polygamy illegal and immoral) then why can't man change God's law regarding homosexuality?

 

Re: re:

==

Friend Carl has as his topic the Christian and the homosexual. I write as a Christian, therefore, I make certain assumptions in my points.


Peace to you too Daniel.

One difficulty, IMO, with the Christian not basing his morality code on what you say is "the biases men wrote," if we include in those "men" the apostles, and IF we assume the authenticity, canonicity, and text of the New Testament to be basically reliable, is that the Christian is put then in , what is at least for me, the uncomfortable position of putting his own convictions above those apostles who claimed that their own inspiration (1) , not biases, was the source of their morality code. That would, I think, occasion the problem of the apostles being either much deceived or deceivers.

Of course, were that thought to be the case, that apostolic writings were mere products of deceived individuals or those bent on deceiving others, then why be a Christian at all? Why follow the religion of such misfits? ?

It rather seems to me that the apostles are adamant about their authority over the members of the Church. (2)

Still, it is not difficult for me to suppose that some NT, or "OT" (forgive me Nosborne) writings addressed particular historical contexts. (3) I would not call this "piecing together" that which is contradictory as it only is contradictory if it is written to the same historical situation!

For example, a member of my family by a court order cannot carry a fire arm , unless he goes back to Iraq or is in some other military duty. The prohibition applies in some contexts, but it does not in others.

Neither is it difficult for me to suppose that any particular NT text is capable of being interpreted in more than one way. Then it is, IMO, incumbant on those different views to come forth with hermeneutical evidence for their views.

So, if any NT text is claimed to condemn homosexuality (4) , then it would seem to me that the way for the Christian to approach that is to apply principles of interpretation (5) ,pretty much in common use, when interpreting any piece of literature--NOT say Oh "that's just the biases of men."

A Christian, and the cause of Christ, IMO is served better by a diligent examination of the texts which are used , rightly or wrongly, to condemn homosexuality than by a claim that these texts were written by biased individuals. I think that the former approach would tend to appear more scholarly whereas the latter approach might seem by some to be done in desperation.

......


(1) "What I write is the Lord's command" 1 Corinthians 14:37 "He will guide you into all truth" John 16:13 "I was taught by the revelation of Jesus Christ" Galatians 1:12. "We speak in the words the Holy Spirit teaches." 1 Corinthians 2:13.

(2) "These things command" 1 Tim 4:11. ""Obey our word by this epistle" 2 Thessalonians 3:11. "Be doers of the word" James 1:22."Be mindful of the words of the apostles" 2 Peter 3:2.

(3) "the need of knowing cultural and historical backgrounds... ." Ramm, "Protestant Biblical Interpretation:, 3rd ed, 151.

(4) "men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another... " Romans 1:27 "...nor homosexuals.." I Corinthians 6:9. These texts need to evaluated by both sides in terms of the meanings of the original words, the grammar, and the historical contexts.

(5) as: textual, grammatical, lexical,historical (etc.) analysis . Grassmick, "Principles nd Practice of Greek Exegesis."