 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/23/2003 1:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | Mat 7:1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Despite the way non-Christians (who have memorized it faithfully) quote this passage, and even by many Christians, Jesus is not giving a call to a universal acceptance of any lifestyle or teaching. Note what Jesus says in verses 15 and16 of this very chapter; Jesus there calls us to know people by their fruits, and some sort of assessment is necessary for that. The Christian is called to unconditionally love; but he is not called to unconditional approval - we really can love people who do things we do not approve of.
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/23/2003 1:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Al2Si2H4O9,
I lived in Grand Rapids for several years and took a course at Calvin Community College, interesting.
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/23/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Apologies for not being able to keep up with this discussion...I've been way to busy with the new job, but praise God I have a job!
A few responses from several pages ago...
Doc said: quote:
Doc: I hear and appreciate your heart Empiress. But at the same time, it seems your logic would lead you to never engage in a public discussion of the issue. It’s almost like you feel like your condoning those you argue against by arguing against them. Similarly, it seems like your logic would lead you to try to protect young gay people from ever hearing a dissenting critical voice. But this can’t be done, and I doubt its healthy to try. So, I’d encourage you to not refrain from participating in discussions on this or any other board. Indeed, if there are young gay people tuning into the coversation, you’re not being there is hardly going to help them.
When I say: "I have even questioned whether I can participate on a board on which people speak against homosexuals and homosexuality because I fear the effects such words may have on a young girl or boy currently struggling with their sexual identities" I do not mean it as a statement of logic, I mean it as a demonstration of my honest emotional struggle. I do not have the time or the emotional strength to sit and argue all the details of this issue out with everyone on this board and so my underepresented participation and/or my affiliation with this board may appear to some as an unstated consent to what is being said. For me, this board is something of an online community and I don't like feeling that I am a part of any community that would automatically alienate and exclude my beloved friends who are homosexual. That is my struggle; it is not about logic.
I have tremendous awe and respect for Iconoclast and Semeia for all the time and energy they have given this subject. It simply amazes me and I give thanks for their willingness to defend those in need of defense; I wish I could offer more support to them in this debate than I am able. And Doc, I always admire your courage to wrestle with issues!
Shell said: quote:
Knowing how much compassion and love I feel for this person in my life after coming from a point of ignorance and judgement, I can rest in knowing that Jesus loves this person even more. He adores this person, and would sit down and dine with him and listen to his struggles, laugh with him, hold him...I see nothing other than this in how my Lord Jesus would relate to this person I love so much. So why should we do any less???
Thank you so much for your words Shell. I don't believe we can do anything less...at least what you describe is what I've felt called by God to do too. I am a convert to this way of thinking like you.
A_Theist said:
quote:
If someone fails to see Christians as battling against the sin and not the sinner, that is their own problem. If you had a friend who was dealing with lust, would you stop them from going to a church where the sermon dealt with lust all in the name of Love?
Your argument does not follow in my mind because --being-- a homosexual is not equivalent in any way to "struggling with lust." One is an attribute inherent to a person's genetic and/or psychological make-up and the other has to do with sinful behavior. I was born a female heterosexual with white skin. I did not choose any of these attributes, I was born with them. If any of my friends, heterosexual or homosexual struggle with lust, I will walk with them and seek to help them defeat that sin in their lives, but having an attribute such as one's skin color, gender, or sexual orientation is not something I (or anyone) need to help people "get over." To do so is destructive and inhuman.
While we can seek to strive within ourselves and with our loved ones to walk in love as Christ loved us and express our love within appropriate boundaries, telling people that an inherent quality is "against nature" is terrible. For two adults to love one another and want to express that love physically in a covenantal relationship before God is natural and beautiful.
-----------
By the way, for those using the argument that "homosexuality is against nature," it may be helpful to note that homosexual behavior is present throughout nature among creatures of nearly every species. In fact, homosexual behavior is more common among animal species than humans.
And statistically homosexuals make up 3.5% to 10.1% of the HUMAN population across cultures and time. It is a "natural" and even "normal" part of existence.
See article for more details:
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Your argument does not follow in my mind because --being-- a homosexual is not equivalent in any way to "struggling with lust." One is an attribute inherent to a person's genetic and/or psychological make-up and the other has to do with sinful behavior.
No, both are sins.
The Complex Interaction
Of Genes And Environment:
A Model For Homosexuality
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
To me your argument on genetic determinism doesn't follow because of this article. If you want to use that argument still, I would encourage you to read the above article in order for you to remain intellectually honest to yourself.
And still, none of the homosexual adherents have still explained to me why homosexual deliverance ministries work if this is supposedly genetic as being born caucasian in a caucasian family.
Thanks,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Romans 1:18-27
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Rom. 1:26-27)
If there were no other passage than this which condemns homosexuality, those engaged in this lifestyle would still be, in Paul's own words, "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Paul's intent in Romans 1–3 is to show that all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike, and turned from God. It is not an accident that the apostle begins his argument with a reference to the Creator and His creation (1:16-20). His Jewish/Christian audience would immediately have connected this with Genesis 1–2, which, as we have seen, tells us not only about God's created order, but also about the complementary design of male and female within that order.
In his catalogue of sins (Rom. 1:18-32) Paul lists homosexuality and lesbianism first after idolatry not because they are the most serious sins, but because they are warning signs that a violation of reason and nature has occurred. Men have inverted God's order by worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and as a signal of this error, like the blinking red light on the dashboard of a car which is functioning improperly, God has given them up to "dishonorable desires" in the inversion of their sexual roles.[29]
Two main arguments are raised against the historic understanding of this passage. The first is that Paul was not referring to true homosexuality here because he stated that they exchanged "the natural function for that which is unnatural." It is argued that for those with a true homosexual orientation, that is their "natural" sexual expression. Hence he could only mean heterosexuals who were leaving their heterosexual relations for what was against their natures.[30]
This argument involves an amazing anachronism. That is, those saying this are attempting to place a very recent twentieth century understanding of homosexuality back into the first century mindset of Paul. People in the first century did not think in terms of "sexual orientation." It is inconceivable for Paul to have even attempted to make a psychological differentiation such as this. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."[31]
The second attempt to refute Paul's clear condemnation of homosexuality argues that his words "unnatural" or "against nature" do not refer to a certain created order, but rather use "nature" in the sense of "current convention" or "current custom."[32] While "nature" is sometimes used in this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:14), the context of Paul's argument in Romans 1 clearly is that of creation and the natural order established by the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:20, 25). Thus Paul is asserting that homosexuality is a gross violation of God's natural design for His creation. In addition, it should be noted that the phrase "against nature" was used in connection with homosexual intercourse by both Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul.[33]
"That Which is Unnatural"
Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture
Joseph P. Gudel
Thank you,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | I may be digressing from the subject, but who hasn't? LOL 
This was taken from the same site that Empiress linked to above:
Chapter Six - The Rebuttal Evidence
In this section, Strobel takes on the Jesus Seminar, a group of highly controversial scholars who dispute critically much of the content of the canonic gospels. They have released a controversial book entitled "The Five Gospels" which includes the four canonic gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas, discussed above. In it, they mark out what they insist Jesus definitely didn't say, what he probably didn't say, what he didn't say but was like what he would have, and what he did say. The result, as Strobel explains it, is that the Jesus Seminar book shows Jesus as not saying 82% of what is attributed to him, most of the remaining 18% as being doubtful, and only 2% as being confidently authentic. Well, of course, our "atheistic journalist" will have none of this, so he's going to another group of committed apologists to get it refuted.
The Fifth Interview: Gregory A. Boyd, Ph.D.
Gregory A. Boyd, Ph.D. holds a doctorate from the Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a professor of theology at Bethel College and is also a pastor at Woodland Hills Church.
Page 113 - Writings from the Radical Fringe
Boyd dismisses the Jesus Seminar by saying that one must accept their "seven pillars of scholarly wisdom" in order to accept their work. He simply discredits them by implying that since they don't think like himself or in traditional ways, they must be wrong. This presumes, of course, that he's right, and the inability to work from the presumption that he may not be, is, of course, the mark of a closed mind.
Page 117 - Critiquing the Criteria
Boyd's critique begins in a quote making an astonishing statement: "Historians usually operate with the burden of proof on the historian to prove falsity or unreliability, since people are generally not compulsive liars. Without that assumption, we would know very little about ancient history." This statement flies directly in the face of the scientific method. In true science, the scientist proceeds from the evidence to the conclusion - and the evidence may include, but certainly is not limited to, the testimony of the ancients. Also, when a contention is clearly controversial, you can't simply accept it because someone said it. If we did, we'd all be expected to believe in UFO's, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. So to prove a contention as controversial as, say, the resurrection, you can't simply rely on the testimony of those who say they were there and then try to disprove it. You must start by collecting all the available evidence, and then see what conclusion that evidence points to. This is not limited to the testimony of the commentators. It must include all available evidence, whether we agree with the conclusion it points to or not. In doing so, the Jesus Seminar is simply applying the scientific method to the evidence for Jesus. And the conclusions they come to are derived honestly, not by grinding endless doctrinal axes. That's why they're controversial.
Where Boyd does score some valid points is in the critique of the "seven pillars." While some of the critique is valid, though, the critique is limited in fairness. He presumes, for example, that since much of ancient history is based on single sources, and that he considers the gospels reliable, that we can therefore rely on their accounts. Well, we have lots of reasons for questioning the reliability of the gospels, but that doesn't enter into his equation. Hence, he discounts the "second pillar," that of requiring more than one source to corroborate the sayings of Jesus.
Page 118 - Jesus the Wonder Worker
Boyd implies the absurd claim that Jesus' miracles must have been real because they were radical. Unlike the other miracle workers of Jewish history, he says that "the radical nature of his miracles distinguished him." This implies that because he supposedly multiplied fish, raised sons and daughters from the dead, cured blindness, deafness, and leprosy, that he was different. What he fails to acknowledge is that many other "miracle workers" both of that time and now are able to carry off convincing illusions of a similarly "radical" nature. He also says that because he did it in the name of a deity, that also made him unique. Didn't he read Exodus, and read about Pharaoh's sorcerers matching Moses' deeds in the name of Egyptian religion? They were equally "radical." Such a statement is meaningless.
Page 119 - Jesus and the Amazing Appolonius
Here Boyd tries to show how the biography of Appolonius of Tyana, written by Philostratus, which also contains stories of a miracle worker, was clearly not as reliable as the gospels. He makes this claim in several ways - Philostratus was more removed in time form the life of Appolonius than were the gospel writers, and therefore couldn't have had such good access to the events he was writing about. He was writing during the Christian era and could have borrowed from Christian sources.
The problem here is that the gospel writers were also living in a "magical" era. There were lots of magicians, illusionists, miracle workers and religious reformers working the crowds in the time of Christ. He's hardly unique. Josephus describes lots of them in his Antiquities. The gospel writers could have borrowed just as easily as Philostratus could have. As has been pointed out, many of the major points of Jesus' life had antecedents in other myths and religions that were popular in the Mediterranean basin at the time.
Page 120 - Jesus and the Mystery Religions
In this section, Boyd takes on just this problem of the magical era in which the gospel writers lived. But he deals with it in a most astonishing way - by simply dismissing that the gospel writers could have borrowed from the mystery religions and the conjurers and healers of the time. He says "...if you're going to argue for borrowing, it should be from the direction of Christianity to the mystery religions, not vice versa"! So why couldn't it have been vice versa? He simply doesn't say! He simply presumes the priority of Christianity! He dismisses the legends and myths of the mystery religions as "once upon a time stuff" and says that Christianity was very contemporary. And of course, completely ignores the problem of the virgin birth and resurrection of Caesar as being also contemporary, and the myth of the death and resurrection of Osiris as also contemporary.
He tries to dismiss the borrowing of baptism from other religions by comparing it to the ritual slaughter of the bull by the Mithrans, who stood under the bull to be bathed in its blood and guts as it was slaughtered. He says this couldn't be the source of the baptism ritual. And of course, he's right. But what he doesn't tell you is that the Essenes practiced baptism for at least a century and a half before the Common Era, and John the Baptist is believed to have been an Essene by some scholars. In addition, the Essenes were right there - they weren't in far off Rome.
Page 122 - Secret Gospels and Talking Crosses
Much of this section is fair, if polemical, until he gets to the Gospel of Thomas. Then he proceeds with a hatchet job. "Most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to the mid-second century, in which it fits well into the cultural milieu. Let me give you an example: Jesus is quoted as saying, 'Every woman who will make herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.' That contradicts the attitude that we [who are "we"? McRay? His doctrinal allies? -sb] knew [how does he know? -sb] Jesus had toward women, but it fits well with the Gnostic mindset.
"However, the Jesus Seminar has arbitrarily latched onto certain passages of the Gospel of Thomas and has argued that these passages represent an early strand of tradition about Jesus, even earlier than the canonical gospels.
"Because none of these passages include Jesus making exalted claims for himself or doing supernatural feats, they argue that the earliest view of Jesus was that he was only a great teacher. But the whole line of reasoning is circular. The only reason for thinking these passages in Thomas are early in the first place is because they contain a view of Jesus that these scholars have already believed was the original Jesus. In truth, there is no good reason for preferring the second century Gospel of Thomas over the first century gospels of the New Testament."
The problem with this is that there actually is reason to believe that the earliest Jesus was not considered a miracle worker or divine. As I have pointed out in my essay on the origins of Christianity, there is the whole problem of the writings of the Jesus Movements, which Boyd is conveniently forgetting about. In those writings, nowhere is Jesus depicted as anything other than a mortal, ordinary social reformer. So there is in fact a good reason to consider as likely more authentic a body of literature that depicts him so.
Page 124 - History Versus Faith
Here Boyd is making a case for faith based on a mere presumption of history. He takes up the case of the Nicean Creed, saying without any support whatever that "theological faith is based on historical truth." Couldn't a Buddhist make a similar claim? Or a Confuscianist? What makes Christianity unique in that regard? As for the Nicean Creed, he conveniently forgets the history that brought it about - a Roman emperor, Constantine, getting tired of listening to his bishops squabbling about history and doctrine, and ordering them to Nicea to hash out a consistent doctrine and history. History and doctrine by committee. Sounds like a great way to arrive at the divine revealed truth!
Page 125 - Combining History and Faith
This section has Boyd "on the very edge of his chair" making a case for believing in what you love to believe in because you love to believe in it! If that isn't a surefire recipe for bias and prejudicial error, I don't know what it is! Love of belief has absolutely nothing to do with what's real out there, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fool's paradise.
By now it is assumed that the reader is thoroughly convinced that the gospels are real, reliable and accurate. So this section is really the payload of this book, attempting to convert the reader to the author's point of view.
The Case Against 'The Case for Christ'
A study in Christian apologetics
A review and analysis of The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, by Scott Bidstrup
I thought Doc, if he is chiming in, would enjoy to hear that.
Blessings,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/23/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And still, none of the homosexual adherents have still explained to me why homosexual deliverance ministries work if this is supposedly genetic as being born caucasian in a caucasian family.
A theist, actually I did respond to this earlier and deleted it(sorry Semeia ) I should have left it in the mix I guess. First of all I believe in deliverance minstry as a whole and have been involved in deliverances.
I have spoken with homosexuals who have been involved in such ministries, and who have known others that have gone through it. The common thread I keep hearing over and over is that they end up just constantly "trying hard" to run from who they really are. They try to stuff their emotions, try to be a success story. They give their testimonies, yet at the core of their being, when they are truthful and honest with themselves, they are still gay. Even many of the "success" stories admit they never overcome being "gay" they just choose to remain celibate.
One of the highly touted success stories was Dobson's point guy for a deliverance ministry to gays(he claimed to be delivered from homosexuality). All the while he is running this ministry, and is married to a "former" lesbian, he is ducking into gay bars, and being caught in compromising positions.
I will say it again and again, when you are deeply involved with and love someone who is gay it is so obvious that it isn't something that is chosen. Who would choose to be isolated, hated among the majority of society? Who would grow up in a Christian home, surrounded by Christians at church that are constantly speaking of gays in terms of disgust choose to be homosexual. It's really a crazy thought. Who would choose this "lifestyle" after and having prayed since they were five years old to have different feelings, yet no matter how hard they try, no matter how badly they want children of their own, no matter how badly they want to be "acceptable" before God, THEY CANNOT CHANGE WHO THEY ARE. I have yet to see, or hear about prayer truly changing the fabric of their being. I have a lot of faith and I have seen miracles, and I believe in God's delivering power, and I have seen sinners set free...and every ounce of my being believes and feels that this is different. i can feel their frustration. It seems exactly the same to me as if I were praying for God to take away my heterosexual feelings.
Edited by - shell on 02/23/2003 6:38:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Shell, but given the above articles I posted ("That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture Joseph P. Gudel and The Complex Interaction
Of Genes And Environment:
A Model For Homosexuality
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
)
, and my strong belief that homosexuality is sin, I don't believe these people are truly giving their burdens up to God and allowing him to transform them.
Sorry, but according to Paul in Romans 1, your friend is not obeying God.
That isn't my opinion, but the opinion of a man whose opinions are held widely by Christians and seems to have had a pretty good grasp on what God's will is. All sin is sin and is not to be taken as something that should be acceptable or permissable when it defies God's good and perfect will for our lives.
Peace,
Paul
P.S. It just saddens me that their is a day when Christians would find reasons to justify sin.
Shell, I am sure these people truly prayed, but I can't help but think they didn't resist temptation as well or allowed God to work in their lives and instead were just serving their flesh. Maybe I am wrong, but I haven't had any reason not to believe this to be the case. I've prayed to God that if I am in error, that he would show me the way. But from others on here that have valid arguments against it, I don't see God giving me a sign that I shouldn't be adamantly opposed to it--the sin and not the sinner. Maybe your God and mine are in disagreement?
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 5:11:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/23/2003 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist
All sin is sin and is not to be taken as something that should be acceptable or permissable when it defies God's good and perfect will for our lives.
Iconoclast
A_Theist, have you ever wondered why God permitted divorce and polygamy in the Old Testament? Is divorce sin? Is polygamy sin? Seems to me that Jesus unequivocally said they were. So why would God take something that is sin and explicitly let it be acceptable and permissable? Was God defying His own good and perfect will for our lives when He did this or was He not?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Was God defying His own good and perfect will for our lives when He did this or was He not?
Whatever God was doing, God changed God's mind. But, did God change God's mind in respect to homosexuaility? As far as I can tell God didn't. That is if you give Paul any authority on the matter. If you want to deny what Paul says, then I can't use that argument on you anymore, but I will also view your defence of sin dead as well. I guess our Gods, like I said to shell, are in disagreement.
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 7:50:58 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 7:52:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
A_Theist, have you ever wondered why God permitted divorce and polygamy in the Old Testament? Is divorce sin? Is polygamy sin? Seems to me that Jesus unequivocally said they were. So why would God take something that is sin and explicitly let it be acceptable and permissable?
To me, God is the final arbiter of sin. If God changes his mind and for the circumstances views it as something that ultimately will harm us, then I have no problem with God's authority on the matter. I view sin as that which is a consequence in itself and has its own implications besides that which draws us away from the Father's loving presence. If God tells me not to do something, then I believe I will try to stay away from it at all cost so that I will not stagnate my growth or hurt myself in the process. I will slip up from time-to-time, but thanks be to God for his infinite mercy and patience. Thanks be to God for his infinite Love and Wisdom on matters that my finite mind cannot grasp. Thanks be to God for Revelation on what it is that will keep me away and what it is that will draw me ever nearer to His presence. But thanks be to God that I can identify through the Spirit the things I need to change in my life.
Now, if it is the case that homosexuality is a sin and God isn't pleased with it, how is God to show one that they are in sin when they have the world encouraging them they are born this way and they have Christians telling them that it is OK? I appreciate your loving people, but I don't appreciate your loving sin. I would do this if anyone was defending sin, whatever sin that was...YES, even divorce. Which is frowned upon in my church just as much as homosexuality is.
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 8:08:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/23/2003 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist
Sorry Shell, but given the above articles I posted … and my strong belief that homosexuality is sin, I don't believe these people are truly giving their burdens up to God and allowing him to transform them.
Iconoclast
Here is some data on this question from Tony Campolo:
>>>>>>>
There are certain things that we have to say and that is this. First of all, as a sociologist, which is what I am by trade - I got into this analysis of homosexuality back when I was a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania from '65 to '75, as I talked to my colleagues and I listened and I interviewed over 300 people who were homosexuals, I found that there were certain universal truths. I only interviewed male homosexuals so I can only say I studied that one group. Out of the 300 male homosexuals that I interviewed, I never met a homosexual who chose to be one. That, I have to say right up front. Okay? You can argue over the causes of homosexuality. Let me also add, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. I mean I know that you get these religious publications that talk about this cause and that cause and the other cause. Every social scientist that I know who has analyzed this problem say, we don't know what the causes are. There are those who talk about genetics. There are those who talk about biophysical. There are those that talk about sociological, psychological factors. Nobody knows. And those who are experts say, for the most part, there are a variety of factors that interact with each other to create homosexuality and it may even be that no two people are homosexuals for the same reason. We don't know what causes it. We know this - that at least for the males who I can attest to that I interviewed, the imprintation of the consciousness, the establishment of the orientation occurred so early in the psychosocial development of the individual that the individual never remembers having made a choice. That's important because I often hear rhetoric that says if you just pray and repent and turn away from this that God will honor you and all will be well. And that's the second point.
We also know that there are very, very few cases where people actually change their orientation. I interviewed significant numbers of homosexuals who, quote unquote, claim to be cures. And I asked them a simple question. Here's the question: Do you ever have sexual fantasies. Now, everybody in this group, except Dr. Horner, has sexual fantasies. Everybody here has sexual fantasies, you see. As a matter of fact, before this program is over, according to, to one study, the average male in this group will have three sexual fantasies. That's why I like speaking in chapel: Where else can you bring so much pleasure to so many people in such a short period of time. The truth is I asked the question of all my homosexuals that I interview and here it is: When you fantasize do you fantasize homosexually or heterosexually? I always get the same answer. We fantasize homosexually. Well, how can you say that you're no longer in a homosexual orientation? So I'm not convinced that you change as easily as some of the televangelists say you're going to change.
<<<<<<<
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/23/2003 3:19 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist
I would do this if anyone was defending sin, whatever sin that was...YES, even divorce. Which is frowned upon in my church just as much as homosexuality is.
Iconoclast
Does your church allow people who are divorced and remarried to be members in “full-standing?”
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | You know, Iconclast, I don't remember the bible ever telling us that change would be easy. But that is no excuse not to keep trying.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 8:26:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Does your church allow people who are divorced and remarried to be members in “full-standing?”
I don't know but I will look into it. The problem with your line of argumentation is that the divorced who commit sin are forgiven if they ask; it is not like it is held over their head for the rest of their life. I don't see how you can use this argument though, because if you are truly using these other sins against us, do you think homosexuality is a sin? If you do, do you agree that asking for forgiveness and not commiting the sin anymore is essential to forgiveness? If so, how does one remain a "homosexual" if truly repenting from the sin. In God's eyes, as far as I know, they are still sinning if they remain homosexuals; but if someone who divorces and by God's grace is allowed to remarry, then I pray that they remain married and not divorce.
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 8:45:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/23/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | D. L. Moody used to speak of an old black woman in the South following the Civil War. Being a former slave, she was confused about her status and asked: "Now is I free, or been I not? When I go to my old master he says I ain't free, and when I go to my own people they say I is, and I don't know whether I'm free or not. Some people told me that Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation, but master says he didn't; he didn't have any right to."
In the fourteenth century two brothers fought for the right to rule over a dukedom in what is now Belgium. The elder brother's name was Raynald, but he was commonly called "Crassus," a Latin nickname meaning "fat," for he was horribly obese. After a heated battle, Raynald's younger brother Edward led a successful revolt against him and assumed the title of Duke over his lands. But instead of killing Raynald, Edward devised a curious imprisonment. He had a room in the castle built around "Crassus," a room with only one door. The door was not locked, the windows were not barred, and Edward promised Raynald that he could regain his land and his title any time that he wanted to. All he would have to do is leave the room of his imprisonment. The obstacle to freedom was not in the doors or the windows, but with Raynald himself. Being grossly overweight, he could not fit through the door, even though it was of near-normal size. All Raynald needed to do was diet down to a smaller size, then walk out a free man, with all he had before his fall. However, his younger brother kept sending him an assortment of tasty foods, and Raynald's desire to be free never won out over his desire to eat. Some would accuse Duke Edward of being cruel to his older brother, but he would simply reply "My brother is not a prisoner. He may leave when he so wills." But Raynald stayed in that room for ten years, until Edward himself was killed in battle.
Made Safe for Grace http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1833
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/23/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim
Some would accuse Duke Edward of being cruel to his older brother, but he would simply reply "My brother is not a prisoner. He may leave when he so wills." But Raynald stayed in that room for ten years, until Edward himself was killed in battle.
Iconoclast
And that is exactly what “Christians” do to homosexuals with their unconscionable judgment of them. They keep them believing that they are unworthy of Christ’s love and thus a prisoner to the sin of their own judgment of themselves.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/23/2003 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist
The problem with your line of argumentation is that the divorced who commit sin are forgiven if they ask; it is not like it is held over their head for the rest of their life.
Iconoclast
Mat 5:31-32 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Jesus makes it clear here that the sin involved with divorce and remarriage is adultery. Adultery is having sex with another person’s spouse. Therefore the remarried couple is committing adultery every time they have sex according to Jesus.
Up until very recently the church said that this was on-going sin as long as the couple remained together – that the only way that this couple could be “fellowshipped” was for them to break up and either remain celibate or go back to their original spouse. This was the standard in the church I grew up in.
A_Theist
I don't see how you can use this argument though, because if you are truly using these other sins against us, do you think homosexuality is a sin?
Iconoclast
I think homosexuality is a sin in exactly the same way that a woman whose husband runs out on her is an adulteress. Through no fault of her own the husband makes her an adulteress who is consigned to living in sin the rest of her life (notice that Jesus presupposes that she will get remarried).
They are both sin (hamartia – missing the mark) in that they are both not God’s ideal. But neither is shame. Shame came about after we fell. Before we fell we were naked and felt no shame. After we fell we felt shame. But did God just chastise us and tell us to try harder not to feel shame? No. He clothed us! God permitted us to live in our sin – He accepted us in our sin – He Himself made garments for us.
And this is the good news. Jesus Christ died for us – He completely forgives us of our sin while we are still sinners. He allows us to live before Him washed and completely clean EVEN THOUGH WE STILL SIN. All things are lawful for us, but does that mean that we should sin more so that grace may abound? OF COURSE NOT. But does that then mean that we have to keep “trying harder” to not sin at all? NO, NO, NO. This is to fall right back into the trap we are already in! Paul himself prayed three times for God to take away his “thorn in the flesh” – and what was God’s answer – “My grace is sufficient for thee.” (2 Cor 12:8) God did NOT grant Paul his desire to be “sin-free”. Nor does He usually (or apparently almost ever) grant homosexuals (those that do desire) their desire to be heterosexual. What does it mean that when I get rid of one demon then seven more come back to find the house empty and swept clean for their inhabitance? It means that if we focus on making ourselves sin-free then we are just caught up in the old knowledge of good and evil game of judgment – trying to take heaven by the force of our righteousness. The ONLY way to OVERCOME (not be completely rid of) sin is by accepting Jesus into our life and actively obeying his command which is to love one another. Love overcomes a multitude of sins.
At the same time there are sins that can come to dominate us and thus replace Jesus as lord of our life – sins that undermine and steal our love for Jesus and our love for one another away. Paul gives a list of some of these sins in 1 Corinthians. It is not a complete list. He leaves out the sin of the Pharisees – judgment. What is clear from Paul’s list is that these are sins that are actively destroying our ability to love one another. When we refuse to love one another, we are refusing to have Jesus live in us. This is why those who become dominated by these sins cannot gain heaven – they are actively choosing against Jesus by refusing to love others.
Is a Christian gay monogamous couple self-evidently choosing against Jesus by refusing to love others? No. Are they somehow unable to grow in love and service to each other and to others? No. Are they somehow harming other people or being unloving to others in some way? No. Do they have all the same problems that any Christian heterosexual monogamous couple has? Yes.
A_Theist, if you have never spent time with a loving Christian gay couple then I would challenge you to do so. Only by seeing for yourself with all prejudice removed can you determine if what I am saying is true.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/23/2003 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist said:
The problem with your line of argumentation is that the divorced who commit sin are forgiven if they ask; it is not like it is held over their head for the rest of their life.
Semeia:
A_Theist, you seem very confused about the divorce and remarriage issue. Jesus says IF A MAN DIVORCES A WOMAN FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN UNCHASTITY, THAT HE CAUSES HER TO COMMIT ADULTERY. You continue to claim that the divorced person needs only to repent and move on. What you continue to refuse to acknowledge is that JESUS SAYS THE REMARRIAGE IS AN ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP. Which means that it is ONGOING SIN.
Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Jesus clearly identifies divorce and remarriage as ONGOING SIN.
Therefore, most remarried people are LIVING IN SIN.
And yet divorced and remarried people are not constantly confronted with this sin by most Christians; they are not asked to remain celibate; they are not asked to pray for deliverance so that they can miraculously get remarried to their first spouse (which in some cases the Old Testament forbids anyway); they are not barred from church leadership or ordination; and they do not become the subject matter of discussions about how terrible it is that some "so-called Christians" are accepting of their sin.
Are you aware that Paul recommended that everyone remain celibate, if at all possible? That according to him, that was the best path to take in life? How do you incorporate that into your life? Are you planning on remaining celibate? How many Christians do you know who follow this advice?
How about the sin of gluttony? Do you typically confront people who are overweight with their "apparent" ongoing sinfulness?
And lastly, if you believe that scripture is the last word on human behavior, and it should be followed in the strictest fashion, do you agree that people in Old Testament times should have in good conscience stoned to death disobedient children (gluttons and drunkards)? Should they have stoned to death adulterers? Because until Jesus came, that's what the bible said.
Or do you think it possible that your own heart might have told you that that was not the most loving thing to do? That in fact it would actually BE WRONG to do such a thing?
A_Theist said:
I would do this if anyone was defending sin, whatever sin that was...YES, even divorce. Which is frowned upon in my church just as much as homosexuality is.
Semeia:
So does your church advise divorced people to stay celibate for the rest of their lives? Since Jesus unequivocally said that remarriage after a non-sanctioned divorce is adultery, and adultery makes the top ten list of sins, do you confront divorced people with their sin and ask them to pray for the strength to remain celibate, or to pray to be reunited with their spouse?
If so, how's that working out for your church? Do they have divorced and remarried people who worship there? Do you know a lot of divorced people who are struggling to remain celibate for the rest of their lives, so that they can avoid committing the sin of adultery?
If not, why the double standard? Why allow divorced people to remarry and thus "live in sin" - and yet forbid homosexuals? Do you have any Biblical support for why these sins should be treated differently?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So does your church advise divorced people to stay celibate for the rest of their lives?
If you'd actually read my posts instead of picking and choosing, you would've seen that I don't know how my church treats these issues.
Peace,
Paul
More to come...
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 6:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If not, why the double standard? Why allow divorced people to remarry and thus "live in sin" - and yet forbid homosexuals?
And stay on the subject. The original question was, "how is it benifiting God when they say (notice I say 'say,' because I can never truly know if one is a Christian [Matthew 7: 15-23]) they are a Christian and claim to be bisexual?"
*better yet, don't stay on the subject; I am learning a lot here.*
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 11:21:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/23/2003 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | In 1 Cor. 7, right after telling the Corinthians that those who continue to practice sexual sin (any sex outside of heterosexual marriage) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10), Paul gives instructions for those who find their sexual passions uncontrollable:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
3The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5 So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. The only exception to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time, so they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterward they should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control. 6 This is only my suggestion. It’s not meant to be an absolute rule. 7 I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness.
8 Now I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust. (from the New Living Translation)
If Paul viewed men copulating with men as a divinely sanctioned means of fulfilling sexual passion, one is left wondering why in the world he didn't include it here. It would seem to have been a perfect place to include it, as homosexual activity was quite common in the Greek society of that day.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 02/23/2003 11:33:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/23/2003 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconclast said:
quote:
(notice that Jesus presupposes that she will get remarried).
Does that also presuppose she asked for forgiveness?
Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/23/2003 11:39:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/23/2003 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist said:
Does that also presuppose she asked for forgiveness?
Semeia:
Are you saying that the remarried woman only has to ask forgiveness once, or every time she has sex with her new husband?
Because if she only has to ask forgiveness once, and then continue on in her adulterous relationship with her new husband freely, then why wouldn't it be okay for a homosexual to ask forgiveness once, and then continue on in their relationship freely?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/23/2003 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | John said:
In 1 Cor. 7, right after telling the Corinthians that those who continue to practice sexual sin (any sex outside of heterosexual marriage) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10), Paul gives instructions for those who find their sexual passions uncontrollable:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
Semeia:
Two things:
1)Do you agree with Paul that one should be celibate unless they have uncontrollable lust? Is marriage simply a protective measure to stave off "sexual immorality" as Paul says it is?
and
2)If Paul says that those who practice sexual sin will not inherit the kingdom of God, and Jesus says that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery (which means practicing sexual sin), then would you say that divorced and remarried people will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
| 264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|