 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > God HATES what the actions that make people GAY. | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/3/2002 1:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | What I am wondering is if we equate monogomous homosexual relationships with gluttony then it seems to be that we can call both sin -- am I correct?
If the two are both sin then the next question is what is the underlying beliefs and stongholds that lead to this activity? Is it something deep rooted or is it purely self-gratification?
The way I see it, a person who is sinning beyond their ability to stop their behavior (ie. eating disorders) is similar to the many stories of Jesus healing in the bible. By the saving, loving, and healing grace of Jesus Christ a person can be set free from their sin. So if we agree that both gluttony and homosexuality are sin then perhaps the bottom line is that we need to determine the root of this sin and address it accordingly.
If the sin behavior is deep rooted then it is not the behavior that needs to be looked at but "what it is" that is causing the sinful behavior. And this must be done out of love. On the other hand, if the sin is purely out of self-gratification then this is where the bible comes down hard and calls it what it is -- SIN (purposefully going against God.)
It's the heart that is judged by God not the behavior per se.
In Christ love,
trosie
"Sometimes when your heart breaks God is the only one who can put it together again." Author Unknown
Edited by - trosie on 01/03/2002 06:17:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/3/2002 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | excommunicated: Simone Weil, a Jewish born mystic who converted to Catholicism refused to be baptised until just before her death. Why? Because if you are baptised you are on the inside, and she knew all to well that the role of the baptised has allways been to lock people out.…
pia: I’m not in love with Simone, but I am a fan. She has been called the female Søren. What could be cooler? I hadn’t heard the story of her refusing to be baptised until just before death. This is not unprecidented, however, usually when Catholics refuse baptism it is out of concern for their own sin, not disgust at the sin of others. In spite of my admiration for Simone, the rationale you describe for her refusal of baptism seemed self-righteous to me.
Compare her unwillingness to be associated with the church—even to the point of refusing the sacrament, not cool at all for Catholics—to the conviction of Catholic martyr, Thomas More. As a former Chancellor of the Realm, More understood his own complicity in the order of this world. Rather than seeing himself as better than his brothers and sisters in the church and casting judgment on them for casting him out, he envisioned a time when he and his executioner should "be jocund together at the heavenly banquet." Or St. Stephen, who saw right through the stones of judgment and found the face of Christ instead. When Jesus hung on the cross, he looked out over the pharisees and government officials and the angry masses and said, "Father, forgive…"
excommunicated: Pia, you seem to have a narrow view of exclusion! Does what you say, that there are only these two reasons why people are exculded, square with the actual experance of those who have been excluded? You seem to limit all exclusion to a kind of self exculsion. Has this historically been the case? You're telling me that the experance of who knows how many people with the church has everything to do with themselves and nothing to do with those people who picket with "God hates gays" slogans? That the "God hates gays" types are being manipulated by gay people who WANT to be excluded? Might not the church bear any responsibilty in this matter? (Dare I suggest it?) are you trying to skirt your own responsiblity for turning people away?
pia: Fair enough, friend. I overstated my case. You are correct that those who turn people away bear weighty (e.g. millstone around the neck) responsibility.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“They behave strangely but they also look really weird” § Michael Vecchione, scientific expert for National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Museum of Natural History in Washington | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/3/2002 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah, Late last night I was going to post a long response to your last post, but when I was about to do that I noticed that you had made some significant changes to what you had written. I don't want to respond to things that are no longer there, so I have tried to piece together what still applies to what seems to be the remaining areas of confusion. I also have added some things. This will not flow as nicely, but I don't have the energy to start over from square one. I hope it makes sense. I read your other post about agreeing to disagree, and I post this in the spirit of answering the things you didn't delete, without expectation of resolution, but simply to clarify any misperceptions about what I am saying.
The crux seems to be concerning my categorizing of sin. Here is what I wrote:
Then clearly I am saying it wrong. I thought I had been more clear about how I was categorizing sin.
Category of all sin:
Any sin leads to death. All sin is the same in this way. We are all 100% guilty of it and it never goes away. We never get rid of all sin in this life. Lust is the same as adultery. Saying “thou fool” is the same as murder. This is NOT hyperbole. This is a fact spoken clearly and powerfully by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount with very significant implications.
We are commanded very clearly by both Jesus and Paul to never judge another. That any judgement we make of another is hypocrisy.
We are commanded to focus on our own sin (Log) and NOT our brother’s (Speck).
(I have a long essay on this topic on page 3 of the Women, Homosexuality and Slavery thread, which examines in specific detail Jesus' words in this part of the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the discussion about remarriage and judgment, etc., takes place on page 2 and 3 of that thread--which is very long! On page 9 Whaaasssuppp posts a couple of longer articles, one of which describes the history of the church's changing attitude toward divorce and remarriage, and comparing it to the church's attitude toward homosexuality. There are many essays on the pages in-between dealing with some of the same things discussed here, including an expanded explanation of the "stopping action" and "hiding action" response to sin, which originated with Kierkegaard.)
Category of those sins that are best dealt with by a “stopping action”:
This is any sin that is “dominating” another person. It is any sin where there is an attacker and a victim. Examples of this are: alcoholism, anorexia, addiction, rape, murder, stealing and so on. Paul lists a bunch of these in Corinthians after a clear case of incest going on in the church that required a stopping action.
Category of those sins that are best dealt with by a “hiding action”:
This is the typical kind of sin that we all deal with from day to day. It includes such things as gluttony, gossip, a careless thought, saying thou fool to someone on the freeway. It includes someone who was divorced for reasons other than “porneia” or spousal unchastity and who then remarries and therefore according to Jesus is living in adultery against their first spouse.
What I am simply asserting in this whole discussion is that monogamous homosexuality falls into this category. It is best dealt with – the most “life-affirming” path is to treat this with a “hiding action”.
I would guess you might mismatch on this whole concept. For some evidence let me ask you this question: Why did God allow divorce when Jesus clearly tells us that that was not the original intent and that in fact all divorce (except for “porneia” and spousal unchastity) is adultery? Why did God put his “stamp of approval” on divorce (all the man had to do was give a writ) when he also makes it clear that it is clearly sin? Jesus says He did it because of “the hardness of our hearts.” In other words because we are so screwed up on this issue that at this point the most life-affirming path forward is to put in place a sanctioned “hiding action”.
And don’t we do this all the time with each other? Isn’t this what you mean when you say that you would “love them from the guts.” Don’t you mean that you would choose to ignore their imperfections and treat them as though they were OK. Which of course they really are. Isn’t this what Jesus did? For example, the samaritan woman at the well who had had many husbands and who now was living with a man. Jesus treated her totally respectfully and lovingly. He observed her situation without an ounce of judgement.
One issue that has been repeatedly brought up is the idea that even if someone is "born" gay, they are not compelled to act on it. That is a true statement. But isn't it also a true statement to say that a person who is divorced isn't compelled to remarry? Jesus makes it crystal clear that remarriage in most cases is adultery. Adultery is about sex outside of a sanctioned marriage--Jesus is therefore saying that remarriage is not a "sanctioned" marriage in the sense that sex within remarriage is "adulterous".
Here is what Jesus actually says in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5.31: Jesus says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 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."
That is the situation. Jesus is clear: remarriage is an adulterous relationship. People who commit adultery on an ongoing basis are living in sin. So why don't we say the same thing to divorced people that we say to gays: nothing compels you to remarry. You can choose to NOT SIN by choosing to remain chaste?
Because isn't it true, that a person could avoid the sin of remarriage by staying chaste?
By the way, until recently this IS what the church said to divorced people, as the Smedes article that Whasssuppp posted illustrates beautifully. Most churches told a remarried person that they must divorce their current spouse and remain chaste to receive the eucharist!
But today we take a more compassionate view. Jesus didn't outlaw divorce and remarriage, he simply pointed out that it was sinful. God in his compassion allows us a way forward, even if it is one that by definition means "living in sin". When we read the Sermon on the Mount closely, it becomes clear that we are all living in sin in a way that is inescapable, and that is why we must never judge others for their sin, and why we must rely on God for his infinite grace.
So why do we not compel divorced people to remain chaste, when to remarry means committing adultery on an ongoing basis? (Again, if you want to argue this point, you have to somehow show that Jesus does not mean what we think he means. No one has presented a convincing alternative view of this scripture, on any of these threads.)
We allow divorced people to remarry, even though by Jesus' definition they are living in enduring sin. We allow remarried people to take on sanctioned roles within the church. We do not compel divorce people to remain chaste to avoid living in sin.
And yet most Christians continue to say that gay people must remain chaste in order to avoid living in sin.
Why is that? Jesus felt that the sin of divorce and remarriage was important enough to bring up in the Sermon on the Mount, one of the core events of his entire ministry, and yet he is completely silent on the issue of homosexuality. So how is it that we come up with a higher standard for homosexuals than we do for remarried people?
If the problem is simply that homosexuals in a committed monogamous marriage are not "technically" married, I would point to the fact that marriage laws and practices have changed dramatically over the centuries, and what we consider marriage today, based on a contract and ceremony, etc., is very different from how it used to be. Now the father of the bride does not have to hand over a few of his best donkeys as an "exchange" symbolizing marriage. There is no transfer of money or goods from the bride's family to the groom's family (unless you want to count the outrageous cost of a fancy wedding that the bride's family usually pays for). Even today, in most states if two people live together for seven years they are considered married. In at least one state same-sex couples are allowed to marry, and their marriages are considered legal by the state.
But in a sense this is a moot point, because even though the state recognizes remarriage as legal, and even though the churches recognize remarried people as legitimate members and sometimes leaders of the church, the truth is that Jesus Christ, even while allowing divorce and remarriage, nevertheless insists that they are adulterous states to be in. No amount of state-sanctioning or bible-sanctioning removes the adulterous condition.
So no matter what method gays come up with for symbolizing marriage, and whether or not these methods become legally recognized in a widespread way across the country, it is unlikely that the "sinfulness" of monogamous homosexual sex will ever be completely dismissed.
In that way it is directly comparable to divorce and remarriage.
Since Jesus had compassion for divorced and remarried people, by allowing them to divorce and remarry even though it meant committing the ongoing sin of adultery, why as Christians do we have so much difficulty having the same compassion for gay people?
If "living in sin" is something that we as Christians must NEVER do, why does Jesus allow people to divorce and remarry--even as he makes clear the ENDURING nature of the sin?
If "living in sin" is something that we as Christians must NEVER do, why do we not compel divorced people to remain single and chaste for the rest of there lives?
If "living in sin" is something that we as Christians must NEVER do, why do we not ask divorced people to ALWAYS BE TRYING to stay single and chaste?
If "living in sin" is something that we as Christians must NEVER do, in what way do we require divorced and remarried people to be "struggling against their sin"? The only possible way for a remarried person to "struggle against" the sin of adultery that they commit every time they have sex with their spouse would be for them to either remain chaste within their marriage or get a second divorce. Why, as Christians, do we not compel them to "struggle against" their sin in this way?
Why as Christians do we make a very big deal about "living in sin" when it comes to gay people, and yet we seem to not even notice it when it involves divorced and remarried people? (Or overweight people, or impatient people, or any of dozens if not hundreds of human qualities that "miss the mark", and yet which, for the most part, we give people continual grace for, and frequently have no expectation that they will ever be able to change, or that they are even trying to change, and we simply love them and accept them anyway, in their state of enduring sin.)
What is also interesting to me is that although we hold gay people to a higher standard than divorced people, they actually have LESS responsibility for the condition that put them in the position of needing to choose between "living in sin" or "remaining chaste" in the first place. We want gay people to remain chaste to avoid sinning, while we do not require that divorced people remain chaste, and in fact allow them to live in sin through remarriage, even though divorced people and gay people come to this decision point with very different levels of responsibility for their condition. It would not be going out on a limb to say that many divorced people bear some responsibility for being divorced. Of course this varies tremendously, but we can at least say that their future divorce is not something that is determined early in their life. Sexual identity, on the other hand, is something that IS determined very early in life. So the way that they got to this decision point is quite different, and yet we have greater compassion and leniency for the people who bear a greater responsibility for getting to this point to begin with. Why is that? (I apologize for not finding a simpler way to state that.)
To argue against this entire line of reasoning, one would have to somehow show that Jesus in fact did not mean what he said about divorce and remarriage in the Sermon on the Mount.
Alternatively, one would have to show that the compassion that is shown to divorced and remarried people is misguided, and in fact they SHOULD remain chaste, which was the position of the church historically.
What would not be a particularly valid argument would be to say that because monogamous committed gays are not "technically" married their situation should not be considered "equivalent" to that of remarried people. Because even though remarried people are "technically--i.e.legally" married, Jesus makes it clear that the relationship is adulterous and sinful nonetheless. So it is clear from Jesus' words that the legality of the marriage is not necessarily a sign of its lack of sinfulness. It is sinful IN SPITE of its legality. What is in question here is how should it be dealt with once its sinfulness is acknowledged?
Throughout this post whereever I have referred to homosexual union or homosexual sex I am speaking of practicing monogamous homosexual relationships between two people who are "married" in heart and in principle, even where the state does not legally recognize that marriage.
I would say that my view most simply lets people be people. My ideal is that I would never judge another’s sin nor would I put my “stamp of approval” on their sin. My ideal is that I would always take the most loving action possible to help the other become more fully alive. And I say this because this is my understanding of what Jesus did.
I have tried to state my views here as clearly as possible, in a neutral voice. If anyone feels judged, or uncomfortable in any way because of the way I have expressed myself, I apologize for failing to achieve my goal. I hope and trust that you will accept that my intent was good. I apologize for repeating myself, and for not being as concise and clear as I could be. It was harder to cut and splice my original post than I had thought it would be.
Peace,
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 1/3/2002 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie, Good post. I don't have time to get into it right now, but this raises a very interesting discussion. None of us currently, as far as I know, have the power to reach out and heal someone like Jesus did. The reasons for people to be overweight, for example, are enormously complex, and seemingly difficult to address. There are very few programs for helping people lose weight that are successful over the long term. The diet product industry makes millions if not billions of dollars because of this fact. Even though we live in a culture in which being "thin" is a valued state, we keep getting heavier and heavier. And of course Christians are no thinner than the rest of the population. So what SHOULD our attitude be toward people who are overweight and seemingly unable to lose that weight? Is it really possible to tell who is overweight because of some genetic problem from one who just likes to eat a lot?
There is a condition in which people feel hungry all the time, no matter how much they eat. How can we tell if that is what is ailing a person? What if they are undiagnosed? And we all have very different metabolism, due to genetics, diet, exercise, etc. Some people can eat huge amounts of food and stay thin. Some people can only eat small amounts of food, and gain weight. When I was anorexic at age 14 I starved myself down to 80 pounds. I went days without eating. After a year of starvation I had so ruined my metabolism that I would gain weight if I ate more than 500 calories a day (and believe me, I had those calories measured). It took twelve years for my body to recover from this, and most of that time I was around 15 pounds overweight, even though I was eating a normal amount of food. Now I can eat probably a little more than the average person and not gain weight, and my diet includes rather large amounts of Pepperidge Farm Bordeaux cookies, and ice cream and pizza. And yet I know people who are overweight who appear to eat less than me, and because of my own experience I completely understand this.
The point I am trying to make is that most of what goes on concerning a person's weight is not even completely accessible to the person who is struggling, or to the doctors or professionals who are trying to help them. Anyone who says that anyone who wants to lose weight need merely eat less, has probably never had this concern themselves. In my own situation, the fact that I could diet myself down to 80 pounds for a year shows that I had tremendous will power. But that very will power damaged my body in such a way that in order to eat a non-starvation diet (one that included more than 500 calories) I had to be overweight! And it took twelve years for my body to regain a normal metabolism. Could anyone looking in at my life at the age of twenty be able to tell why I was overweight, and whether or not it was because I was "eating too much"?
Can anyone ever get inside another person's mind and heart and body and really know what's going on? This is another example where love only happens without judgment. The minute we try to determine someone else's sin we fall into a trap. Another person's sin IS a speck to us, it is almost impossible for us to see it clearly, ever. And making matters ever more difficult, we have that big old darn log in our own eye that's blocking our view.
What I very quickly come to (as I have continued this conversation with myself in spite of the fact that I don't have the time) is that for Christians to HAVE a view on this immediately confronts us with the problem of the Log and the Speck.
This definitely falls into the category of "hiding action" unless we think the person is going to die from anorexia or obesity and we have to intervene in love to save their life, NOT to label their sin.
Trosie, let's continue this later...
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/3/2002 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
Thanks for the attempt, it was a good one.
I like when you write 'from the hip' 
The whole homosexual thing is really a non-issue for me. What concerns me is loving accountablility for everyone in relationships (which I think we have talked about at length with Modes etc.)
I think character is built and friendships strengthened when someone walks WITH us as we move away from sin. (open rebuke is better than love that is hidden. Proverbs 27:5)
I don't know if this lands Semeia, or how to say it better (in the three minutes I have here) but I do want you to know that if I was a glutton, lazy, sleeping with men outside of marriage (even if I promise to live with him for seven years ;) ) mean spirited, not kind, not honest, apathetic, or even coveting in my thoughts, I would be blessed if someone told me.
I haven't read SK on this but do hope to soon.
Lastly, I am a divorced person, thirty-something, and I plan to remarry. My husband was abusive and unfaithful. His mom and dad...same thing, BOTH of their parents...same reason for divorce. It could go back further for all I know. Personally, I agree with Trosie, God judges the heart. I really do not believe I am committing adultry if I remarry. I DO believe if I choose to live with a man in a monogamous committed relationship and sleep with him, without marriage, I commit the sin of fornication.
Just my thoughts Semeia, no need to reply. WE ARE SO BUSY!!!
Blessings,
selah
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/4/2002 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said:I agree with Trosie, God judges the heart. I really do not believe I am committing adultry if I remarry.
Semeia: Yes. I totally agree. We are able to tell in our hearts when we are doing something that is toward life and love, even when we have incontrovertible scripture telling us it is sin, as we do in the case of divorce and remarriage. Jesus said it was adultery, and yet he allowed it. In your heart you know it is not the same as cheating on your spouse, and you know it is absolutely the best path forward for you: to find someone you can love, to start over. Jesus says that it is sin, and yet clearly there must be more than one kind of sin, because it cannot be the same thing to get remarried and love one person for the rest of your life as it is to betray and harm a spouse by cheating on them. Clearly these are not the same thing.
Would it surprise you to learn that the homosexuals I know feel absolutely certain in their heart that committing themselves in a loving relationship to one person is not wrong, and it is in fact the very best path forward for them, and that God loves them and doesn't wish for them to live solitary lives of chastity? They know in their heart that as upstanding, law-abiding, hard-working citizens and in some cases Christians, that they have nothing in common with the lust-filled out of control scenes of degradation portrayed in the Bible. This is no more confusing to them than it is to you that there is a difference between the remarriage kind of adultery and the cheating on your spouse kind of adultery.
And in fact, it's kind of easy to see the difference from the outside looking in, too. Because people who are cheating on their spouse tend to have moral problems that lead to their lives eventually falling apart, with broken families and lost trust and bad behavior all around, which gets pretty obvious. Whereas a remarried person who is not cheating on their spouse will not exhibit those same things, and their life will not be falling apart all around them by virtue of their being remarried.
In the same way, homosexuals who are in committed "marriages" have productive lives that look pretty much like every other average citizen. Their life doesn't fall apart because they are in this "marriage" relationship. But if they are into out-of-control promiscuity or sex addiction or prostitution, their lives will fall apart in a way that might even be obvious to others.
Homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships know in their hearts that not only does God love them, but he allows them to choose a loving relationship with one person, even though it is not the ideal or perhaps the way things were meant to be. In a perfect world there would never be divorce, either.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Triskal
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198
| Posted 1/4/2002 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
Semeia,
I agree with a lot of the points that you make on this board. But it seems to me that you treat homosexuality as if it were no different than any other sin. While the Bible does make it clear that all sin is equal, that does not mean that every sin will have an equal effect on a person and on society. What I mean by this is that every sin results in a different problem. Gluttony ruins a person's health. Sexual immorality and lust can lead to a degrading view of other people. And homosexuality can most certainly lead to false view of identity.
Now, those are only problems that can result on an individual level. What results on a level of society can be even more disastrous. Say, for example, society's growing acceptance of homosexuality as a perfectly harmless way to live. Homosexuals WANT people to accept them and their beliefs. Why wouldn't they? The more homosexuals there are, the more normal they will feel. So they go out and they try and win as many organizations over as they can. More and more people start to accept homosexuality as a perfectly normal and even respectable way to live.
Do you see the problem with this? You can't simply write it off as being just like gluttony in the way that people are just too busy to deal with it. How can you make the comparison between homosexuality and gluttony? Homosexuals WANT to be the way they are. Do you know anyone who actually enjoys being overweight and who started eating excessively for the very purpose of becoming overweight? Besides, being overweight does not make you a glutton. You're not taking into account the fact that numerous people are not overweight because of the AMOUNT of food they eat, rather the TYPE of food they eat.
My stance on homosexuality is one of being loving and accepting of who they are, yet strongly opposing the lifestyle they have chosen. The response I have gotten from homosexuals I have come in contact with has been very good. They respect the fact that I am accepting of them not for what they do, but for who they are, and they are very open to my reasons for opposing their lifestyle. While I don't go right up to their face and tell them they're a sinner and need to repent, I certainly do not remain silent. When confronted with their views, I stand my ground and speak the truth in love.
In His Grip,
Matt
"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28 | | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 1/4/2002 9:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Saying “thou fool” is the same as murder
Mattew 23:19[Ye] "fools and blind: for whether [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?"is the same as: Matthew 5:22 "But [1161] I [1473] say [3004] (5719) unto you [5213], That [3754] whosoever [3956] is angry [3710] (5746) with his [846] brother [80] without a cause [1500] shall be [2071] (5704) in danger [1777] of the judgment [2920]: and [1161] whosoever [3739] [302] shall say [2036] (5632) to his [846] brother [80], Raca [4469], shall be [2071] (5704) in danger [1777] of the council [4892]: but [1161] whosoever [3739] [302] shall say [2036] (5632), Thou fool [3474], shall be [2071] (5704) in danger [1777] of [1519] hell [1067] fire [4442]." Strong number 3474: 3474 moros {mo-ros'}
probably from the base of 3466; TDNT - 4:832,620; adj
AV - foolish 7, fool 5, foolishness 1; 13
1) foolish
2) impious, godless
What is the difference of Jesus saying this same word to people and telling them not to say it? This does not mean Jesus is guilty of hellfire, does it?
Peace
Paul
Our natural greatness is seen as part of God's image, and that natural greatness has been conferred on us to enable us to achieve our supernatural destiny:to be related to God and to obey him freely.---Diogenes Allen | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/5/2002 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Selah said:I agree with Trosie, God judges the heart. I really do not believe I am committing adultry if I remarry.
Semeia: Yes. I totally agree. We are able to tell in our hearts when we are doing something that is toward life and love, even when we have incontrovertible scripture telling us it is sin...
selah:
The only thing that comes to mind Semeia is this:
Jeremiah 17:9 "The HEART is devious above all else; it is perverse - who can understand it?
God judges the heart because it is HE that can understand it.
Semeia:
Would it surprise you to learn that the homosexuals I know feel absolutely certain in their heart that committing themselves in a loving relationship to one person is not wrong, and it is in fact the very best path forward for them, and that God loves them and doesn't wish for them to live solitary lives of chastity? They know in their heart that as upstanding, law-abiding, hard-working citizens and in some cases Christians, that they have nothing in common with the lust-filled out of control scenes of degradation portrayed in the Bible.
selah:
Nope, it wouldn't surprise me.
Semeia:
This is no more confusing to them than it is to you that there is a difference between the remarriage kind of adultery and the cheating on your spouse kind of adultery.
selah:
Well, as you have said, Jesus DID speak about divorce (unfaithfulness, a spouse dying, leaving you etc) and other reasons
TO remarry.
Did Jesus EVER speak about a reason to be in a homosexual (or heterosexual) monogamous committed relationship OUTSIDE of marriage?
Semeia:
Homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships know in their hearts that not only does God love them, but he allows them to choose a loving relationship with one person, even though it is not the ideal or perhaps the way things were meant to be.
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 1/5/2002 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Any sex outside of a monogomous heterosexual marriage is fornication. 1 Cor. 6:19 is clear as to the difference between sexual union and other sins.
Romans 1 is clear that homosexuality is GOD'S JUDGEMENT on those that place no restrictions on their pride.
If you disagree with the Bible, then what is your standard based on?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/5/2002 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah said:quote:
Selah said:I agree with Trosie, God judges the heart. I really do not believe I am committing adultry if I remarry.
Semeia: Yes. I totally agree. We are able to tell in our hearts when we are doing something that is toward life and love, even when we have incontrovertible scripture telling us it is sin...
selah:
The only thing that comes to mind Semeia is this:
Jeremiah 17:9 "The HEART is devious above all else; it is perverse - who can understand it?
God judges the heart because it is HE that can understand it.
Semeia: If only God can judge the heart, then why should your statement: "I really do not believe I am committing adultery if I remarry." make any difference to anyone? For many hundreds of years divorced and remarried people were not even allowed to take communion. The scriptural reasons for this have not changed. No one got a direct line from God about how he judges it. What we have is Jesus' words calling it adultery. What changed is the compassion of people in the church. And the reason they became more compassionate is that they actually experienced more and more remarried people and were finally confronted with the reality that their judgment was simply a false condemnation – there was no love in it.
If God is the only one who can judge whether or not the heart is devious, then it seems to me we would have to go back to excluding remarried people from the church based on Jesus calling remarriage adultery. If we cannot judge for ourselves, then we are going to have to get REALLY strict about the scripture, the way the Pharisees were.
Selah said:quote:
Semeia:
This is no more confusing to them than it is to you that there is a difference between the remarriage kind of adultery and the cheating on your spouse kind of adultery.
selah:
Well, as you have said, Jesus DID speak about divorce (unfaithfulness, a spouse dying, leaving you etc) and other reasons
TO remarry.
Did Jesus EVER speak about a reason to be in a homosexual (or heterosexual) monogamous committed relationship OUTSIDE of marriage?
Semeia: Not that I am aware of. Jesus only spoke on the subject of marriage within the context of prohibitions and God’s original intent and within that context exceptions to the prohibition. The presupposition is of course that humans deeply need a committed “helpmeet” relationship with another as is made clear in Genesis 1. Jesus did have an encounter with the woman at the well who was in a monogamous committed relationship outside of marriage. And his attitude and actions toward her speak volumes: he totally respected and valued her, he observed her situation without an ounce of judgment, and he basically “commissioned” her by this behavior to preach to the entire city about the Messiah. And it worked! Non-judgmental, respectful, loving affirmation – made even more powerful because it was clear to the woman that Jesus knew the depth of who she was and what she had done and was continuing to do – and he still totally loved and affirmed and even saw fit to use her to help convert an entire city because of her testimony.
Jesus said nothing about the sinfulness of homosexuality whereas he made it crystal clear that in most cases divorce and remarriage result in the enduring sin of adultery.
If you say that Jesus didn't mention homosexuality because it was already covered in the Old Testament, I would answer that MOST of the things that were prohibited as "abominations" in the Old Testament are things that we accept today. Walter Wink goes through them in his essay, which I think Whaaasssuppp posted at the end of the Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery thread. Modes made this point powerfully in his sexual dispensations essay, but I can't remember where that was.
By the way, I never argue anywhere that homosexuality shouldn't be considered sinful. I don't argue that at all. But we have clear evidence of other "sins" such as adultery through remarriage, which we are able to have a compassionate response to. My argument is that if we can welcome divorced and remarried people into the church as full-fledged members, when Jesus calls their behavior adulterous, then we can do the same thing for homosexuals, whose homosexuality was determined at a very young age. We don't ask divorced people to remain chaste, even though remarriage means adultery; it seems hypocritical to ask gay people to remain chaste.
Jesus allows divorce and remarriage out of compassion, but he does not mince words about their sinfulness.
He says nothing at all about the sinfulness of homosexuality.
I hope it is obvious that I do not recommend going back to a harsh attitude about divorce. I'm surrounded by people I love who are divorced. My parents divorced when I was 14. There is NOTHING even REMOTELY BAD about divorced people. They look just like sin-ridden me. They look just like the homosexual family and friends of mine - sinful human beings just like me, trying to make their best way forward in the world.
I grew up Catholic, but when my parents divorced back in the 1970s we were all suddenly Lutheran. It took me years to realize that this change came about because of the judgment my father perceived from the church, that he was suddenly persona non grata in the congregation. I'm not sure if he was asked to abstain from communion or not, but I do know that he loved the church and would never have left if he had felt welcome. It makes me very angry to know that just at a time when my family needed the support of the congregation and the leadership of the church, they were rejected. This sort of thing is the opposite of Christianity to me. It is the opposite of what Jesus tells us to do.
It makes me equally angry that the church today does the same thing to homosexuals. There is no other group comparable to homosexuals that are discriminated against by the church in this way. Fifty years from now Christians are going to look back in disgust at the way we treated our homosexual brothers and sisters and sons and daughters, in the same way that we look back in disgust at the way divorced and remarried people have been treated. Homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships are no more lust-filled sinners than remarried people are. This is obvious to people who know “married” homosexuals well at all.
What the church has is a complete double standard. We allow people, including our leaders, to live lives of ongoing sin. None of the leaders of any church I have ever attended had LESS sin than the average person. None of the leaders of any church I have ever attended had LESS sin than the average homosexual in a "married" relationship. We SAY that we hold our leaders to a higher standard, but really we don't. Unless they are doing something that obviously hurts other people, like cheating on their spouse, or stealing from the church fund, we in no way hold them to a higher standard. This is obvious.
But we treat homosexuality different from any other "non-victim" sin. We do this out of prejudice and discomfort and lack of compassion. We do not do it out of strict adherence to scripture, because like in the case of divorce and remarriage, we do not adhere strictly to scripture in many areas.
People like to say, well then we might as well open up our leadership to prostitutes and murderers. First of all, I don't know a lot of prostitutes and murderers who are banging down the doors of our seminaries trying to get in, so it is a completely false issue. Secondly, anyone who has spent any time at all around homosexuals who are not promiscuous knows immediately that there is nothing out of the ordinary about them at all. They are not victimizing anyone. They are not filled with lust all the time. They are just regular people, and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that they are nothing at all like rapists and murderers and child-molesters. (I don't include prostitutes here, because I consider prostitutes more victims than perpetrators.)
No one has shown me how we can dismiss Jesus' words on the Sermon on the Mount, identifying remarriage as adulterous. Until they can, I see no way to defend the church's position on monogamous homosexual union as anything other than hypocrisy. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments. It's a serious issue. And yet Jesus still allows divorce and remarriage. And we have chosen to take a compassionate attitude toward divorced and remarried people, changing centuries of rejection by the church. Homosexual sin is a serious issue, although interestingly, there is nothing about it that is covered by the Ten Commandments, and Jesus himself never mentions it. If it is something that we need to have special rules about, and take a hard line on, it confuses me why Jesus couldn't find the time to mention it. But sin is sin, and we should not "condone" sin. However, since we still let angry or overweight or divorced people take sanctioned roles within our churches, it's hard for me to know what "condone" really means.
When I started looking into the scriptural evidence on this issue a few years ago, I was shocked at what I found. I expected, based on the attitudes and words of most Christians, that the Bible would be chock-full of scripture about this. I was shocked to discover that Jesus never said a word about it. I was shocked to discover that the other things that were considered "abominations" --like eating pork, etc., we completely accept today. I was shocked that people treat the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as if it is about homosexuality, when in fact it is about violence and rape and the depravity of an entire population. (To say that this is about homosexuality is to say that we are all somehow in danger of becoming homosexual--because remember, it was the entire population of these towns. I think most heterosexuals know quite instinctively that they could never suddenly start lusting after people of the same sex, and be "converted" to homosexuality. It is non-sensical.) I was shocked to discover that when Paul includes it in his list (and it is VERY questionable whether he is talking about homosexual prostitution or pedophilia, or some such thing) he is clearly talking about things that DOMINATE people, and it is very easy to see that homosexuals in committed marriages are not "dominated" by their homosexual sex any more than married heterosexuals are.
In short, I was shocked to discover how little scripture there was, and the hypocrisy involved in highlighting this scripture over others, while at the same time ignoring the way Jesus convicts us all in the Sermon on the Mount. Christians like to see homosexual sin as a "special kind of sin", but there is no scriptural evidence to support that. Jesus certainly didn't single it out.
Can anyone show me how this is not hypocritical?
Thanks,
Semeia
This is just so powerful I had to post it. It is the story of the woman at the well – a Samaritan woman who had been married five times, who was living in sin.
John 4:7-42
A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink.” (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?” Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”
Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back.” The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where the people must worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking to you.”
Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?” Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” They left the city and were on their way to him.
Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no one has brought him something to eat?” Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Four months ago, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored and you have entered into their labor.”
Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.”
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 01/05/2002 3:36:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/6/2002 4:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Semeia: If only God can judge the heart, then why should your statement: "I really do not believe I am committing adultery if I remarry." make any difference to anyone?
selah: Well, in my case Jesus made it clear. It isn't so much a matter of the heart. (" But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity...")
quote:
Semeia: ...And it worked! Non-judgmental, respectful, loving affirmation – made even more powerful because it was clear to the woman that Jesus knew the depth of who she was and what she had done and was continuing to do – and he still totally loved and affirmed and even saw fit to use her to help convert an entire city because of her testimony.
selah:Does this mean that even Jesus spoke the TRUTH IN LOVE?
quote:
Semeia:By the way, I never argue anywhere that homosexuality shouldn't be considered sinful. I don't argue that at all... My argument is that if we can welcome divorced and remarried people into the church as full-fledged members, when Jesus calls their behavior adulterous, then we can do the same thing for homosexuals
selah:I agree with the above, but you lost me right after that.
quote:
Semeia:I grew up Catholic, but when my parents divorced back in the 1970s we were all suddenly Lutheran. It took me years to realize that this change came about because of the judgment my father perceived from the church, that he was suddenly persona non grata in the congregation. I'm not sure if he was asked to abstain from communion or not, but I do know that he loved the church and would never have left if he had felt welcome. It makes me very angry to know that just at a time when my family needed the support of the congregation and the leadership of the church, they were rejected. This sort of thing is the opposite of Christianity to me. It is the opposite of what Jesus tells us to do.
selah:I hear ya!
quote:
Semeia:
People like to say, well then we might as well open up our leadership to prostitutes and murderers. First of all, I don't know a lot of prostitutes and murderers who are banging down the doors of our seminaries trying to get in, so it is a completely false issue.
selah:Semeia, they BECOME murderers/prostitutes AFTER seminary and AFTER they have the job as leader/pastor
quote:
Semeia: Secondly,anyone who has spent any time at all around homosexuals who are not promiscuous knows immediately that there is nothing out of the ordinary about them at all.
selah: generalization?
quote:
Semeia:Can anyone show me how this is not hypocritical?
selah:Not I. I'm out of time.
I would like to THANK YOU for your thought provoking correspondence though! This post was very gentle and full.
I have to end my addiction to this site soon, so, if you write back, I'll try to
tie it up.
Can't wait to meet you!
Blessings,
selah
ps, I've been studying 'water' 'thirst'
'fountain''well' 'river' 'stream' etc. themes in the Bible. And, I was looking at these verses yesterday to add to my profile signature!
"If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
"Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.”
"Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.”
"Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." Rev. 22:1 | | Back to Top | | |
| 37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 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 |
|
|