Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > God Loves Gay People!

Forum Quick Jump

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 11/27/2001 10:06 AM (GMT -6)

The Bible is full of expressions of God’s universal and impartial love (Acts 10:34, cf. Deut. 10:17–19; 2 Chron. 19:7; Job 34:19; Isa. 55:4–5; Mark 12:14; John 3:16; Rom. 2:10–11; Eph. 6:9; 1 Pet. 1:17). The clearest expression of this love is Jesus’ death for our sins: “We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). “For while we were still weak…Christ died for the ungodly…while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6, 8).

Although some Christians believe that Jesus only died to save some people from some sins, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus died as “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, cf. Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10; 2 Pet. 3:9). God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5) “through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction” (Rom. 3:22).

Heterosexists and homophobics may impose limits on God’s love, but the Gospel does not. It is good news for everyone.

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
The glory of God is the human being fully alive § Irenaeus

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/27/2001 10:48 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you Pia! I think you're brilliant! By the way, the title of this thread would make a great title for the other thread, since this is Matt's point, anyway. And it is so loving. And the medium is the message, in this case the medium being: "title of thread".

Pure genius. Almost Christlike in its simplicity. Countercultural and subversive like Jesus so often was.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 11/27/2001 10:58 AM (GMT -6)

I just have to stir things up. You know me.

Fine. God loves homosexuals. Does God RESPECT homosexuality as a "less-than-ideal" manner of human relationship...or does God detest it as sin? If the latter, does God hate homosexuality just like he hates divorce? (Mal 2:16; Mat 19:7-8)

Uh oh.

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 11/27/2001 11:25 AM (GMT -6)

GOD!!!
sure does love gay (happy) people he loves sad people, he loves angry people, he loves biased people, he loves easily offended people and so on so forth etc.
Surfing the net for "homosexual" sites (I am not "homosexual" though

). I came across these links. This one attempts to say that paul the apostle was "homosexual". The other link implys that saints in the past were gay. Is there any plausibility to these? If so i'll bet that pias post is correct, God does love homosexuals.
I'm out
Peace!

Edited by - faithfullservent on 11/27/2001 6:03:52 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/27/2001 11:55 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi, And I gave you such a nice welcome home... what, are you trying to KILL me? I think TechnoThanatos got you after all!!!

faithfullservent, Well, this'll probably get me in a big bucket of doo doo, but I have ALWAYS thought Paul was gay. The first time that I read Paul, which wasn't until my later twenties, I thought gay gay gay gay-- it just sort of screamed out on every page, for the same reasons that the link gives. I had no idea anyone else in the world shared my opinion until you posted your link!

And I think David had a little extra something going on with Jonathon, too, whom he "kissed like no woman."

And Pia, you thought you were going to be in trouble because of your feelings about liturgy. Compared to this, you probably feel pretty secure right now! I always like to lend a helping hand...

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 11/27/2001 12:20 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi: Fine. God loves homosexuals. Does God RESPECT homosexuality as a "less-than-ideal" manner of human relationship...or does God detest it as sin? If the latter, does God hate homosexuality just like he hates divorce? (Mal 2:16; Mat 19:7-8)

pia replies: Welcome back.

God surely hates our sin. But let’s not underestimate the depth of our depravity. The Bible says that even our righteous deeds are “like a filthy cloth” (Isa. 64:6). This is why the Gospel is such good news—for everyone. pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
The glory of God is the human being fully alive § Irenaeus

Edited by - pia†desideria on 11/27/2001 7:07:44 PM

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 11/27/2001 12:24 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia, thanks for the high praise! I’m going to stop posting anything else so I don’t spoil it. You can’t go wrong with the gospel. pia

p.s. I had to shorten the title of the thread, but I wanted it to read, “God Loves Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered People!”

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
The glory of God is the human being fully alive § Irenaeus

Triskal
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198

Posted 11/27/2001 1:17 PM (GMT -6)

Hahha I see we've taken my original thread and gave it a uforian, politically correct title. Though i'm glad we've reached an agreement, I don't believe this title accurately portrays what I was hoping we would discuss. I don't think anyone here questions whether or not God loves homosexuals. The point of my thread was to question the particular group that labels itself "God Hates Fags". No matter, thank you pia for solving the problem.

In His Grip,
Matt

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 11/27/2001 3:03 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: Why would I kill you? I LOVE you so much! I'm just having some fun. It has been awhile, you know.

Pia: Thanks for the welcome!

My issue is not with the universality of sin (and the corresponding universality of the need for grace) My issue was particularly how God views the homosexual relationship. Does God view it as merely an 'alternative", less-than-ideal, BUT VIABLE type of intimate loving human relationship...or does God consider it sin? See my point?

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/27/2001 3:51 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi said: My issue was particularly how God views the homosexual relationship. Does God view it as merely an 'alternative", less-than-ideal, BUT VIABLE type of intimate loving human relationship...or does God consider it sin? See my point?

Semeia: Why is it an either/or? God considers adultery a sin; Jesus made it clear that remarriage after divorce is adultery (therefore an ongoing living in sin); and yet he also makes it clear that remarriage is accepted as a less-than-ideal, BUT VIABLE type of intimate loving human relationship. There is no either/or. There is no call for remarried people to get divorced to stop living in sin.

Agree? Disagree? Wanna fight?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 11/28/2001 11:20 AM (GMT -6)

I agree with Meph. Semeia, you are definetly leaning P.C. Have you ever seen Philadelphia? Mississippi Burning? Platoon? Lots 'o profanity and vulgarity, violence. Especially the last two. Loved the movies. Wouldn't have been true portrayals of the issues involved, which would have been vulgar in itself.

I remember back in the '80's when people wanted to censor Huckleberry Finn for using the word "niggar." Good grief. Consider the date of the book and the time that it depicting. Meph's saying the same thing. Context.

We had a similar discussion before and even though I agree with Meph on this particular issue (the title) I'm not totally decided on the "meat" which he speaks about. Let's post it again, for the meat shall we Modes?
www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

Brandon

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/28/2001 12:27 PM (GMT -6)

Does God hate homosexuals? Not any more than he hates the rest of us sinners... EVERYONE (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:10). But to say God doesn't detest homosexuality is to do some mighty fine scripture twisting. Homosexuality is a sinful practice stemming out from our perverted sinful nature. How do we fix it? The same way we fix any sin: submitting to Christ.

One homosexual once told me that he couldn't believe in a God that condemned homosexuality. I told him that if he earnestly believed in Jesus Christ (as he claimed), then to pray about it. If he truly submitted his life to Christ, then God would tell him what to do. If he ignored God and continued to stubbornly embrace homosexuality, then homosexuality was his God.

Witness to homosexuals just like you would witness to any other sinners: don't focus on the sin, focus on the relationship with Christ. The "bad fruit" will be made right after Christ has taken over in that sinners life.

And yes, Pia and Semeia, God is love, but he is also just, and for him to not punish and detest evil (sin, including homosexuality) would go against God's nature.

To God be all the glory, in salvation or in damnation.

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 11/28/2001 6:03 PM (GMT -6)

Jewgrass (sounds like "bluegrass"). I, like many other Christians want to separate that which is culturally located from that which is "the eternal word of God." And this, basically is where the crux of the problem lies as far as I can see. Always has been a tension.

For example, Wink, quoting Lev 18:22 and 20:13 says:

quote:
The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture **shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment**, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females.

Yes, the Bible does take a negative veiw of homosexuality, however, we must also remember not to throw on to the text our modern day assumptions, such as "sexual orientation."

Further on, Wink says:

quote:
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity. In those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

He then goes on to ask, by what criteria we come to accept certain mores but reject others. Sounds sorta like the dispensational debate.

quote:
Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. **What is our principle of selection here?**

Lastly, Wink says:

quote:
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.

The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes
with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. **Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married.** The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.

This last underlined statement is true enough. For example, the wedding ceremony has changed over the centuries.

In most western countries a couple are said to be married when they obtain a legal document from a licensed minister in a church, or from a judge in a civil ceremony. We therefore assume that the marriage could be verified from the proper register. These days it will be recorded somewhere in the proper computer files. Governments expect a married woman to be able to prove her right to her husband's property, or a pension, or a passport in her husband's name. **But this legal understanding of what constitutes a marriage would have seemed strange in Old
Testament times. The main reason is that until very recently in most cultures the marriage contract or financial arrangement has been called the betrothal. The betrothal set out the terms of any dowry that should be paid and the legal rights of each party. It was often settled verbally or in a written form between the parents long before the marriage, as still occurs in India and the Middle East.

But the contract only came into force when the couple were married, and that was defined as the time when the couple began living together. We still retain the vestige of this idea in the legal argument that a couple are not properly married until the marriage is consummated.

In the ancient world the actual wedding day could be marked by feasting and celebration, but the marriage could also take place without fuss merely by the act of sexual intercourse. Abraham's servant for example was sent to find a wife for Isaac. The betrothal contract was made four or five hundred miles away, and Rebekah was brought back for the marriage which apparently required no ceremony or celebration. "Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent. He took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her." [Genesis 24:67] It is interesting that there is not one example in the Bible of a priest or rabbi or minister or judge officiating at a marriage. This concept of betrothal can be seen clearly in the way Matthew's Gospel explains the marriage of Jesus' mother from Joseph's point of view. Mary is described as betrothed, presumably in an arranged marriage some time before. When Joseph discovered she was more than three months pregnant, and assumed she had been unfaithful, he was tempted to cancel the betrothal contract instead of marrying his future wife. He is then told "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife." When he did as he was commanded "he took her as his wife."

Taking Mary to be his wife meant that Joseph and Mary began living together. Neighbours and family would have said "They are now married," though the writer adds that Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son, and he named him Jesus." [Matthew 1:18-19, 24-25] In this case the betrothal contract, which would give Jesus the legal right to the throne of David, was still in force. And we assume this was registered by the census officer in Bethlehem. But there is no mention of a wedding ceremony or marriage feast. It would have been too embarrassing.

We can trace the gradual change in marriage customs in our western culture. Under the feudal system of Europe serfs had no property so they had no need of a marriage contract. In some cases there might have been a special meal and celebration, but mostly they just agreed to live together. Only the rich and noble would expect a church service.

As the feudal system gave way to capitalism, a legal definition of marriage emerged based on recorded documents. Lawyers needed to know, if someone dies without a will, who inherits the property. Instead of the betrothal being made earlier by the parents, it was now the marriage that was viewed as setting up the contract. And since the priest was often the only literate person in the village he was charged with making sure that the marriage was properly witnessed and
recorded in the parish register. Eventually the betrothal lost its legal importance, and now an engagament is merely the romantic occasion when the proposal is made, accepted, and announced to friends. At first the ancient practice of betrothal followed by sexual union and living together coexisted with the new idea of having the marriage document witnessed and signed by a priest. Gradually the mediaeval church began suggesting that wedding vows can only be made before a priest in a church. Any other kind of sexual relationship was sinful. Eventually governments began providing facilities for marriages to be witnessed before a judge as an alternative to being performed by a priest or minister of a church.

The Roman Catholic church refused, and still refuses to recognize civil marriages. They insisted that Roman Catholics needed one of their priests to marry the couple properly. This was based on the theory that Caesar may record marriages on earth, but only the church can perform marriages that are recorded in heaven. After the French Revolution the government reciprocated by ruling that a church wedding has no legal significance. The result is that Roman Catholics had to be married legally
in a government office on Friday, and married by God on Saturday, which is the way mariages are still perfomed in several European countries.

Our laws against bigamy illustrate the concern of governments with legal contracts. In a modern capitalist system based on monogamy it seemed necessary that no one
should be legaly married to more than one person. When a married man or woman dies without a will, lawyers must be sure who is legally entitled to the bank accounts, stocks, and real estate. Bigamy is therefore a very serious crime. It adulterates the legal status of a marriage, and it is punished very severely. But obviously
there is no law against bigamy in a country where a man is allowed to marry more than one wife, as in Arabia.

Meanwhile there is the added confusion that hundreds of thousands of couples are **living together common law as if they were "properly married."** Until recently churches called this living in sin or fornicating. In the New Testament the Greek word porneia (from porne, a prostitute) was used for both prostitution and sleeping around. Such behaviour used to be called
fornication, a word which is still used by some preachers. We prefer to translate it in modern idiom as promiscuity, or sex without love, commitment, or psychological intimacy. No family table is established, and there is no intention to continue the relationship beyond the immediate sexual satisfaction that the occasion affords.

In our mind whereas adultery is unfaithfulness to a marriage commitment, porneia accepts no commitment. We have seen how it was viewed as a matter of indifference in Old Testament patriarchy, and it is not considered immoral even for married men in modern Arabia. We then wonder why porneia or sleeping around suddenly began to be viewed with such abhorrence by the early Christians?

The conclusion is that porneia was a way of using the body of another without any love for the person. It was therefore a denial of agape, or God's kind of love. Paul argues that since our bodies are to be instruments for Christ's loving, we should not use our body for such unloving purposes. "The body is not meant for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." It seems that for Paul porneia is a misuse of sex, which is designed by God for uniting a couple in a loving marriage. [1 Corinthians 6:13-15]

Paul then goes on to explain that union with a prostitute sets up a rudimentary marriage which is then immediately aborted. "Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her?" And he quotes the original definition of marriage from the second chapter of the Bible. "The two shall become one flesh"
[1 Corinthians 6:16-17] What is wrong with promiscuity or prostitution is not that the couple engage in sex without being properly married. In Paul's terminology they
are in a sense married and divorced within the hour.

The apostle adds that in contrast to porneia sex should result in the couple together forming a temple of the Holy Spirit, and the first fruit of the Holy Spirit is love. [1
Corinthians 6:19 compared with Galatians 5:22] The impression is that anyone who keeps using sex for merely physical gratification is going to find it very hard to engage in a marriage where sex is the outward and visible sign of a long term commitment to the love. By that definition, a common law marriage is not fornication. It is an agreement for a man and a woman to eat together and share a place
together as long as the partners want the relationship to continue.

Some of the common law couples do eventually get legally married, especially when children are expected. Meanwhile Christian parents agonize over whether their daughter, who has been living with a nice man for the past two years, should be encouraged to bring him home, and if so, do you put them in the same bedroom?

For most younger people such parental concerns seem incomprehensible relics of the Victorian era. **What is significant is that even in such informal common law unions there is a clearly understood concept of adultery.** Once a couple are living and eating together in the same home there is an implied understanding that they should be as faithful to each other as if they were legally married. A sexual relationship on the side is therefore viewed by the other partner as adulterous.

It is also evident that when such relationships end the break up feels like a divorce, especially for the partner who would have preferred the relationship to continue.
This suggests that in practice a common law relationship is a form of marriage. It can also have a strong element of mutuality which is central to our view of marriage.

The next question that arises from this is how do we distinguish a relativity in understanding the meaning of the ten commandments from a relativism where everything goes? When Einstein had introduced the radically new principle of relativity into modern physics it did not result in relativism. It did not make physics into a fuzzy science. In fact it permitted scientists to program the computer of an unmanned spacecraft to make a pin point landing on Mars. A new generation of young people raised on Star Trek knows that **relativity has its own categorical absolutes.** You don't nose your spaceship into a black hole. In moral matters we need away to manage relativity without falling into the black holes of relativism. Hence, application and absolute.

We see that Jesus himself introduced a relativity in sabbath keeping. The Pharisees complained he was dumping the commandment. Similarly Paul had to answer critics who thought he had muddied the sharp lines between right and wrong.

We cannot argue, as some do, that there are necessary exceptions to each of the ten commandments, so we can never take them as absolutes only as general guidelines. So when we are perplexed as to whether something is right or wrong, we ask ourselves what is the most loving thing to do in this situation?

This might seem attractive, but it seems an unworkable method for teaching children what is right and wrong. How would one raise children without any absolutes such as "It's wrong to steal" or "We never tell lies about others to get them into trouble." If we have to warn them that there are exceptions in each case, how do they figure out what to do? If they have to ask "what is the most loving thing in this situation," how do they know what is the most loving thing? And when they do something irresponsible how do we engage with them in a moral discussion?

We recognise that the ten commandments, including the seventh commandment about adultery, have no content as given. They are categories of moral judgment which are found among all people everywhere. The easiest way to proceed, whether in the training of
children, or in discussion among adults is to begin by agreeing that we will take each commandment as an absolute. In relation to our neighbour it is never right to murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness against another, or to be envious or covet what others have to enjoy.

When there is a discussion of what is right and wrong in any situation we first settle on the category. In a case of killing we first agree that murder is never right in any
circumstances. Then we look at the situation. In the case of a shoot out, and a police officer used her gun, we then discuss whether this should be called a case of murder, or manslaughter, or necessary killing. How would one evaluate the situation if we had to ask if the police officer was doing the most loving thing in that situation?

Our distinction between situation ethics and what we call the absolute ethics of the ten commandments at first sight seems niggly, but it has huge implications for helping children to learn morality and helping adults to engage in reasonable moral discussion. In raising children it is far easier for them to learn morality by beginning with "you never steal." Then at the family table we can work on which situations are taking without becoming stealing. "Dad, you took the neighbour's ladder to fix the roof." And the answer can be "We have agreed that he can use my roller, and I can use his ladder without asking." As children approach their teens they will value discussions about the seventh commandment, and it is good to hear their parents say "Mom and I accept the fact that adultery is always wrong." There are borderline possibilities though when it is important for a husband to discuss with his wife, and let her decide for example whether or not she would be happy if he took a business partner to lunch. Then when the time comes she would appreciate a telephone call mentioning her name and the time and place of the engagement. An hour talking at the office could be acceptable, but an hour sitting talking on her bed in her apartment would be adulterous even if no physical intimacy took place. To say "I thought it was the most loving thing I could do for her in her distress" (if she was in a distressful situation) is extremely difficult to evaluate, and it is certainly a recipe for disaster.

If we agree about the absolute part of each of the ten commandments, we begin with an agreed basis for creative moral discussion about their particular application in the complex problems of our lives.

Brandon

Edited by - BBBCanada on 11/28/2001 11:09:23 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 11/28/2001 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Brandon, That was an excellent essay! Thank you for laying out some of Wink's arguments. I found his book to be quite enlightening, especially the chapter he contributed.

I really appreciate the overview of the history of marriage customs. I particularly liked this point:

quote:
. **What is significant is that even in such informal common law unions there is a clearly understood concept of adultery.** Once a couple are living and eating together in the same home there is an implied understanding that they should be as faithful to each other as if they were legally married. A sexual relationship on the side is therefore viewed by the other partner as adulterous.

I completely agree with your whole take on the issue of porneia; in fact, that is I think the sanest discussion about it I have ever read.

I also very much liked the analogy with relativity. I agree with your approach.

If I wasn't so tired this response would be even more specific, but I hope you get the gist: I loved what you had to say. Thank you.

On the matter of the title of the thread, could you let me know what you think after reading Iconoclast's post on the other threads concerning this issue? He clarified some things for me--highlighting the real and powerful issues I have with it without getting bogged down in the PC question, which has been a distraction. I would appreciate your view, since perhaps we are closer on the actual subject matter of the thread.

By the way, you never posted anything on the recent thread "Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery" (which has now dropped to page two of this forum.) Did you follow that at all? Given your contribution here, I would be interested in your take on some of the essays Iconoclast and I wrote for that thread. Did you see it? I would really like to know what you think.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 11/28/2001 7:32 PM (GMT -6)

Amen pia! I totally agree. Christ died for all (2 Cor 5:14-15) including the lost homosexuals out there. I'd just add that love and hate are not mutually exclusive. God hates us as well because we are evil and He is working in us to conform us into the image of His Son who did no evil (Rom 8:29; Phil 2:13; 3:21). God hates evil and loves good and commands that we be like Him (Is 5:20; Ps 97:10; Prov 8:13).

Jewgrass said

quote:
One homosexual once told me that he couldn't believe in a God that condemned homosexuality. I told him that if he earnestly believed in Jesus Christ (as he claimed), then to pray about it. If he truly submitted his life to Christ, then God would tell him what to do. If he ignored God and continued to stubbornly embrace homosexuality, then homosexuality was his God.

Exactly. Sex is exalted to a perverted status by gays. Sex is practically everything. It is what defines who they are. It is the central behavior of their movement. Lust is what drives them (as evidenced by the many partners they have/share), not love as they allege. Sex is not the supreme demonstration of love, but they make it to be, and in doing so it eventually becomes their god.

Semeia said

quote:
Well, this'll probably get me in a big bucket of doo doo, but I have ALWAYS thought Paul was gay. The first time that I read Paul, which wasn't until my later twenties, I thought gay gay gay gay-- it just sort of screamed out on every page, for the same reasons that the link gives. I had no idea anyone else in the world shared my opinion until you posted your link!

Paul gay!? I suppose he didn't write Romans 1 then right? That must have been someone else who wanted to make gay sex look bad. I guess he also didn't write the following words in 1 Cor 9:5.

quote:
1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as [do] also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

That doesn't sound like the words of a gay man to me

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 11/28/2001 8:08 PM (GMT -6)

Jewgrass said:

quote:
Does God hate homosexuals? Not any more than he hates the rest of us sinners... EVERYONE (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:10). But to say God doesn't detest homosexuality is to do some mighty fine scripture twisting. Homosexuality is a sinful practice stemming out from our perverted sinful nature. How do we fix it? The same way we fix any sin: submitting to Christ.

I think God hates all sin. He hates sin because it hurts us. He hates it whenever we get less than the ideal that he wants to give to us. He hates it when we are born blind. He hates it when we are abused. He hates it when our marriages fail. He loves us and mercifully helps us to continue on even when we are broken. And we are all broken. We are all broken in ways we cannot fix. And oddly enough - even though submitting to Christ allows God to fix us ultimately - God doesn't fix us completely now. Evidence: Paul's "thorn in the flesh" that God would not take away.

thanks,
Iconoclast

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/29/2001 6:14 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast said:

quote:

I think God hates all sin. He hates sin because it hurts us. He hates it whenever we get less than the ideal that he wants to give to us. He hates it when we are born blind. He hates it when we are abused. He hates it when our marriages fail. He loves us and mercifully helps us to continue on even when we are broken. And we are all broken. We are all broken in ways we cannot fix. And oddly enough - even though submitting to Christ allows God to fix us ultimately - God doesn't fix us completely now. Evidence: Paul's "thorn in the flesh" that God would not take away.

Two points:

1) God does hate all sin, but not because it hurts us. Sin takes the glory away from God. If we delight in anything other than God, we are sinning. It's all about the glory, not so much about whether we are hurting or not. Jesus went through much suffering, and God delights in Jesus immensely more than us (otherwise, God would be an idolator). God told Satan, "All that Job has is in your power" (Job 1:12). When we completely delight in God, as we should all strive for, the pains of this world are nothing. God does not detest sin because of the "pain" it causes broken vessels, he detests sin because it goes against his will and takes the glory away from him.

2) It is not clear whether Paul's thorn in the flesh was some type of sin or some kind of physical pain. Regardless, it is ridiculous to say, "welp, I'm gay and I love God. I realize the Bible preaches against homosexuality, but I guess I won't be perfect until my body is glorified in heaven, so I'm going to continue to love God and continue to delight in my homosexuality." This is the take many people have on the subject. Here in Austin, the University Baptist Church openly accepts homosexuality. Many of the deacons are homosexuals. This is a scripture-ignoring, sin-embrassing, anti-biblical church.

"So dear brothers and sister, you have no obligation whatsoever to do what your sinful nature urges you to do. For if you keep on following it, you will perish. But if through the power of the Holy Spirit you turn from it and its evil deeds, you will live." Romans 8:12-13

Did Paul consider homosexuality a sin? Lets looks elsewhere in the same letter:

"That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themeselves the penalty they so richly deserved." Romans 1:26-27

Theres no way to Biblically argue that God does not detest homosexuality without completely disregarding the holiness of scripture and bending it to fit the perverted needs of one's filthy sinful nature.

With that said, I would like to add that we should focus not on the sin, but on loving the sinner. We are sinners too, whether we are afflicted by a drive for homosexuality or sex with multiple partners or alcoholism, etc. I would like to restate my earlier comment: "Witness to homosexuals just like you would witness to any other sinners: don't focus on the sin, focus on the relationship with Christ. The 'bad fruit' will be made right after Christ has taken over in that sinner's life."

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Edited by - jewgrass on 11/29/2001 10:52:15 PM

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 11/30/2001 12:43 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Jewgrass: God does not detest sin because of the "pain" it causes broken vessels, he detests sin because it goes against his will and takes the glory away from him.

I agree that sin goes against God's will and takes the glory away from him BUTI also believe God detests sin because it cuts us off from Him thus making us easy targets for the attacks and deceptions of the enemy. When Jesus healed people in the gospels, he did so out of his love and compassion for them. After he healed the lame man in John 5 he then told him to go and sin no more so that further sickness would not come to him. When we sin we step into enemy territory.

I agree with Iconoclast that God hates sin because it hurts us. AMEN!
trosie

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 11/30/2001 9:37 AM (GMT -6)

Chance:

quote:
Jewgrass said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One homosexual once told me that he couldn't believe in a God that condemned homosexuality. I told him that if he earnestly believed in Jesus Christ (as he claimed), then to pray about it. If he truly submitted his life to Christ, then God would tell him what to do. If he ignored God and continued to stubbornly embrace homosexuality, then homosexuality was his God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Sex is exalted to a perverted status by gays. Sex is practically everything. It is what defines who they are. It is the central behavior of their movement. Lust is what drives them (as evidenced by the many partners they have/share), not love as they allege. Sex is not the supreme demonstration of love, but they make it to be, and in doing so it eventually becomes their god.

Some comments:
1. So sex is exalted to a perverted status by gays, huh? Do you think heterosexuals are somehow excluded from this criticism? To isolate out gay people and label their sex lives as perverted, while saying nothing about heterosexuals, is arbitrary and unhelpful. Sex is exploited and perverted by ALL different kinds of people, not only, or even mainly, homosexuals. Heterosexual pornography is a much bigger business than homosexual pornography.

2. You go on to say that sex, for homosexuals, "defines who they are," it is "practically everything," and it is the "central behavior of their movement." They are "driven by lust," as evidenced by their "many partners." Again, explain to me how this is ANY different from the heterosexual "movement." There are heterosexuals who meet all of the "criteria" you mentioned above. And, more importantly, there are scores of GLBT people who DON'T. Your caricature is blatantly WRONG for many homosexual people. Perhaps you don't know this, but many homosexual couples are in committed relationships that function like marriages. Many decide to have children.

Look, all I'm trying to say is this--be very, very careful in making untrue blanket statements like the ones you made. What you said may be true for a segment of homosexual people, but it is also NOT true for many homosexuals, and it is, like I said, a criticsm that most definitely applies to many heterosexual people as well.

Also, I think we've kind of been dancing around the issue of whether one's sexuality is something one chooses. Jewgrass and others seem to see homosexuality as something that God will "take away" from someone if their lives are fully submitted to Christ. This is consistent with some of the "therapy" advocated by Focus on the Family. Others, like Semeia and Icono, take a different stance. Semeia had a great post about this back on the women, homosexuality, and slavery thread about what it would truly mean if we could "choose" our sexuality. I'm going to try and find it and post it again. I still think there's more to be said about all that...

************************

If we are going to change the world at all we must first be a little crazy.
-Wislawa

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 11/30/2001 9:55 AM (GMT -6)

I found what I was looking for. Semeia said this earlier on the women, homosexuality, and slavery thread:

Christians think they are being loving when they make statements like this. (my interruption--the statement she's referring to is one about loving homosexuals but hating their sin) Their intent is to be loving. Their impact on homosexuals, however, is quite the opposite. The reason that the impact is different from the intent is because homosexuals do not view their sexuality as separable from themselves. Nor do heterosexuals, for that matter. If you ask straight people if they "chose" to be straight--in other words, do straight people have thoughts of gay sex mixed in with thoughts of straight sex, and they have to "choose" straight sex, they would say no, of course not. Sexuality begins and ends in the brain, and has a complex biology that involves hormones, the nervous system, and the entire body. If you have any doubt that this is the case, do this simple mental exercise: imagine for one minute that it is gay sex that is condoned, and straight sex that is considered perverse. (And the ratios are reversed, straight sex is the minority.) Imagine that the world is repulsed by your being straight. Imagine that you are told that your feelings are against God’s plan and design. Even with all of that, could you “choose” to be gay, if you tried hard enough? Alternatively, could you choose to never have sex again? Is it possible you would be angry when people told you you were not part of God’s design?

I just thought this was worth posting again, in light of some things that have been said. Thanks.

**********************

If we are going to change the world at all we must first be a little crazy.
-Wislawa

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/30/2001 10:54 AM (GMT -6)

Wislawa said:

quote:

1. So sex is exalted to a perverted status by gays, huh? Do you think heterosexuals are somehow excluded from this criticism? To isolate out gay people and label their sex lives as perverted, while saying nothing about heterosexuals, is arbitrary and unhelpful. Sex is exploited and perverted by ALL different kinds of people, not only, or even mainly, homosexuals...You go on to say that sex, for homosexuals, "defines who they are," it is "practically everything," and it is the "central behavior of their movement." They are "driven by lust," as evidenced by their "many partners."...There are heterosexuals who meet all of the "criteria" you mentioned above. And, more importantly, there are scores of GLBT people who DON'T. Your caricature is blatantly WRONG for many homosexual people...What you said may be true for a segment of homosexual people, but it is also NOT true for many homosexuals, and it is, like I said, a criticsm that most definitely applies to many heterosexual people as well.

My response:

I agree. Although I do believe you will find more instances of multiple partners, etc. in homosexual relationships, that is not the whole story. For one to judge the entire group would be like one believing all Germans to be fanatical anti-Semitic genocidal maniacs based on WW2, and this simply isnt the case. This can be summed up in just three words: BLANKET STATEMENTS SUCK.

Wislawa said:

quote:
Jewgrass and others seem to see homosexuality as something that God will "take away" from someone if their lives are fully submitted to Christ.

My response:

I strongly believe this. This doesn't mean its an easy instantaneous thing, but the fact is, we are in an abyss of sin, and unless the Lord pulls us out, we are never able to escape. The process of pulling us out of the pit (sanctification) can sometimes be long and hard, but in the end, all who grasp on to Christ will be glorified.

Semeia said (in another thread):

quote:

Christians think they are being loving when they make statements like this. [loving homosexuals but hating their sin] Their intent is to be loving. Their impact on homosexuals, however, is quite the opposite.

My response:

With the risk, or certainity, of sounding like a politically incorrect, Bible-bashing, closed-minded redneck from Texarkana (even though I am a redneck from Texarkana), tell me if these are anti-Christian statements:

A) Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are homosexuals, will not have a share in heaven.

B) Men, who instead of having normal heterosexual relationships lust for each other will suffer within themselves the penalty they deserve.

Are these anti-Christian? Well, both of these are slightly reworded statements of Paul, A being from 1 Corinthians 6:10 and B being from Romans 1:27.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING BASHING VERSES LIKE THESE INTO THE EARS OF LOST HOMOSEXUALS! Neither was Paul. As I have said in other posts, we should not try to show someone the light of Christ by correcting their bad fruit.

Semeia said:

quote:
...imagine for one minute that it is gay sex that is condoned, and straight sex that is considered perverse. (And the ratios are reversed, straight sex is the minority.) Imagine that the world is repulsed by your being straight. Imagine that you are told that your feelings are against God’s plan and design. Even with all of that, could you “choose” to be gay, if you tried hard enough? Alternatively, could you choose to never have sex again? Is it possible you would be angry when people told you you were not part of God’s design?

My response:

First of all, who cares what the world thinks? If the world was a homosexual world (which would have an ever-decreasingly small population), what difference would that make on my sexuality? The world is a sinful world, but I am not of this world.

Is it possible to turn heterosexual after being homosexual? 1 Corinthians 1:10 lists a bunch of sins, homosexuality included. The very next verse states, "there was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away." Through Christ anything is possible, and changing our sinful nature is exactly what Christ does through sanctification.

True, we do have a sinful nature, and I believe some are born with a "natural inclination" to have sex with the same sex. But God desires to change this!

"Once you were dead, doomed forever because of your many sins. You used to live just like the rest of the world, full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God. All of us used to live that way, following the passions and desires of our evil nature. We were born with an evil nature, and we were under God's anger just like everyone else." Ephesians 2:1-3

Being born with a sinful nature is not excuse for refusing God's grace in sanctification.

As far as Christians looking down upon homosexuality more than other sins, its true... but we're all guilty of it in one form or another. For instance, who do you look down upon? A baby greedy for candy or a mass murderer who tortured, raped, and killed multitudes of victims? Its all sin. Is one worse than the other? Personally, I don't give a rip because all of it seperates us from God. What should we do as Christians? Lovingly embrace homosexuals as if they are perfect in God's eyes? ABSOLUTLEY NOT! Denounce homosexuals and kick them while they're down? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Witness to them just like any other sinner? YES!

To God be the glory in salvation and in damnation.

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Edited by - jewgrass on 11/30/2001 3:55:55 PM

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 11/30/2001 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

One further point:

To say that homosexuals are incapable of changing their sexuality has some curious connotations. You are saying, that despite God's grace, that person would be a slave to sin, and homosexuality would be an irresistable desire. I would imagine that you would disagree, however, that God's grace is irresistable, but we can choose whether or not to accept salvation.

I am by no means a Calvinist, but I believe that if one is going to say they are trapped in their homosexuality, one must take the next logical step and say that in the same way, God's grace is irresistable. Otherwise, one's logic is flawed and subject of bending, contorting, and twisting in order to fit the sinful needs of one's perverted presuppositional philosophies.

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 11/30/2001 4:29 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Jewgrass: First of all, who cares what the world thinks? If the world was a homosexual world (which would have an ever-decreasingly small population), what difference would that make on my sexuality? The world is a sinful world, but I am not of this world.

We are NOT of this world but we certainly ARE a part of it.

I have a NEED to express something that has been bothering me regarding this topic. First, I want to make clear that I DON'T feel I have the right to judge ANYONE because I have enough to work on in my own life, BUT I also feel concerned that we get so wrapped up in NOT JUDGING that we become tolerant and lax of sin.

The act of homosexuality IS sin just as lust, adultery, pornography are. None of these are any more or less sin than any other. We CAN'T put a rating scale on which sin is greatest to least. However, the bible does make it clear that all these things ARE sin.

I truly don't want to step on toes, but I get this feeling that some think that a lifestyle of homosexuality is NOT sin? Maybe that's not the message being presented and I am way off???

The bottom line is that God loves ALL people, and we ALL fall short daily even hourly of living a righteous life. The main point is that sin is sin and we all struggle with it.

Please go easy on me if you disagree

trosie

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 11/30/2001 5:51 PM (GMT -6)

Jewgrass said:

quote:

Wassuuppp said:
quote:

Jewgrass and others seem to see homosexuality as something that God will "take away" from someone if their lives are fully submitted to Christ.

My Response:
I strongly believe this. This doesn't mean its an easy instantaneous thing, but the fact is, we are in an abyss of sin, and unless the Lord pulls us out, we are never able to escape. The process of pulling us out of the pit (sanctification) can sometimes be long and hard, but in the end, all who grasp on to Christ will be glorified.

Iconoclast: This is where we fundamentally disagree. What is your evidence that God will take away a person’s homosexual orientation? I assume that you would agree that none of us will become sin-free in this world.

Jewgrass said: Being born with a sinful nature is not excuse for refusing God's grace in sanctification.

Iconoclast: I couldn’t agree more. It is in fact the very reason we need it.

trosie: I truly don't want to step on toes, but I get this feeling that some think that a lifestyle of homosexuality is NOT sin? Maybe that's not the message being presented and I am way off???

The bottom line is that God loves ALL people, and we ALL fall short daily even hourly of living a righteous life. The main point is that sin is sin and we all struggle with it.

Iconoclast:

I totally agree trosie – right on! I would just further comment on the double-standard (read hypocrisy) that is prevalent on this topic (I am not hearing you say this trosie – I am just making an additional point). The double-standard is that we all pretty much agree that a divorced and remarried person is “living in sin” yet we also all pretty much agree that it would be even more wrong to divorce and try and stay single and celibate. God himself allowed divorce even though it is sin – not his ideal – this could not have been expressed more clearly. My question is – given this clear and concise judgement by God – allowing divorce and remarriage because of the hardness of our hearts – how can we say that a homosexual person who clearly will never have their homosexual orientation change – should stay single and celibate? God allows and affirms less than the ideal when that is the only path open – who are we to judge differently – who are we to judge at all?

Jewgrass said:

To say that homosexuals are incapable of changing their sexuality has some curious connotations. You are saying, that despite God's grace, that person would be a slave to sin, and homosexuality would be an irresistable desire. I would imagine that you would disagree, however, that God's grace is irresistable, but we can choose whether or not to accept salvation.

I am by no means a Calvinist, but I believe that if one is going to say they are trapped in their homosexuality, one must take the next logical step and say that in the same way, God's grace is irresistable. Otherwise, one's logic is flawed and subject of bending, contorting, and twisting in order to fit the sinful needs of one's perverted presuppositional philosophies.

Iconoclast:

I am indeed saying that a homosexual is incapable of changing their sexual orientation. This is not in my opinion something that is confusing. There is strong scientific evidence for this. It is simply a fact. I am very confused by the rest of what you are saying. Quite simply I see no issue with the statement that God’s grace covers a homosexual even as they continue to “live in sin” – just like the rest of us. Are you suggesting something different?

Jewgrass said:

Theres no way to Biblically argue that God does not detest homosexuality without completely disregarding the holiness of scripture and bending it to fit the perverted needs of one's filthy sinful nature.

Iconoclast:

I disagree. If you are truly interested in the actual evidence on this one you will need to read Walter Winks book “Homosexuality and Christian Faith”. It will blow you away if you want to be open on this topic. Myself – I was only willing to be open just a few short years ago. I was amazed at how wrong conventional Christian thinking was on this topic when I actually researched the evidence. 50 years from now Christianity will come to accept that yes the earth really does go around the sun. And we were so sure it went the other way?!?!

thanks,
Iconoclast

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 12/1/2001 3:27 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast said:

quote:
What is your evidence that God will take away a person’s homosexual orientation? I assume that you would agree that none of us will become sin-free in this world.

My response: Will God take away a person's sexual orientation? Sure! Since homosexuality should be classified as sin (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7) everytime we read of God "saving people" from sin, homosexuality should be included.

quote:

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipes, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers- none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God. There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ andthe Spirit of our God have done for you." --1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Are some people more prone to homosexuality? I believe so, and I think this is because of their sinful nature. What does the Bible say about this sinful nature?

quote:

"Once you were dead, doomed forever because of your many sins. You used to live just like the rest of the world, full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God. All of us used to live that way, following the passions and desires of our evil nature. We were born with an evil nature, and we were under God's anger just like everyone else." --Ephesians 2:1-3

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 10:13, Paul said that God would not allow any temptation to sin to be unbearable. If this verse is true, then we have a choice about our sexuality after we become Christians.

I also found this web-page: http://exgaylinks.homestead.com/

It has links to ex-gay testimonies.

Iconoclast said:

quote:

The double-standard is that we all pretty much agree that a divorced and remarried person is “living in sin” yet we also all pretty much agree that it would be even more wrong to divorce and try and stay single and celibate.

My response:

Even though I started the "Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery" thread, I didn't keep up with it. I believe this topic of divorce was discussed, but I need to go back and read what ya'll had to say. Iconoclast makes a good point, and I will have to think about it.

Iconoclast said:

quote:

I am very confused by the rest of what you are saying. Quite simply I see no issue with the statement that God’s grace covers a homosexual even as they continue to “live in sin” – just like the rest of us. Are you suggesting something different?

My response:

I was trying showing what I believe to be "selective reasoning". By concluding that one's sexual orientation is unescapable, you are saying that this is an irresistable desire. However, I believe most people on this board would run from the idea that grace is irresistable, meaning when God calls people to be saved, they have no choice in the matter: if they are called, they will become Christians. If you say that homosexuality is a irresistable need, then it would be logically consistent to say grace is irresistable.

This inconsistant logic of affirming "irresistable sexual orientation" while denying irresistable grace reminds me of people who are strongly pro-choice while at the same time are against capital punishment. I DO NOT want to start any arguments about these subjects, but I believe that by believing these two conflicting views, that person is subject to selective reasoning, meaning they bend the world's issues to fit their sinful presuppositions.

(I may be in way over my head, but this irresistable sin/grace idea makes sense to me.)

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Edited by - jewgrass on 12/01/2001 11:06:06 AM

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual