 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Position towards Homosexuals | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/4/2005 10:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | Meph: Would this mean that it would be allowable to have a person of homosexual orientation in leadership (even pastoring) as long as they committed to performing NO homosexual acts?
The reason that I'm asking is simply this: If orientation (and the corresponding desire) truly isn't the issue, then there should be NO problem ordaining homosexuals...as long as they either PRACTICE celibacy or modest heterosexual behavior (like dating the opposite sex).
Spen: I can have thoughts of adultery, and even homosexuality without "being" an adulterer or homosexual. It seems that the identity of "homosexual" can be assumed in 2 ways. It can be applied because one acted as a homosexual, i.e. commited the sin itself. It could also be applied to a person who claimed the identity for themselves, even though for various reasons (perhaps external threats of punishment) they never actually committed the sin.
If either of the above were knowingly placed into leadership in a church, I believe that this would be wrong and ordaining a homosexual.
If, on the other hand, one were knowingly placed into a position of leadership that, while at times having homosexual desires, refused to commit the sin of homosexuality and refused to accept an internal identity of "homosexual" but successfully fought against these desires and took them captive under the lordship of Jesus, this would be different. I think that this would be acceptable.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | So...
if I were knowingly placed into a position of leadership that, while many times having hateful thoughts about White people, refused to ACT upon my thoughts in the way of racial discrimination or preference... and refused to accept an internal identity of "racist" but successfully fought against these desires and took them captive under the lordship of Jesus, I would be acceptable for church leadership.
Stretching the idea... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/4/2005 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | | One could argue that Saint Paul/Saul was a murderer. I think he recognized his sin, repented and discontinued such behavior and became a great minister. Once admitting their wrongs, why would anyone think a homosexual should be treated any different? Like in the movie it’s a beautiful mind, you would just need to learn to ignore such thoughts. Just like a heterosexual man has to learn to control his own lustful mind. Let us remember, all sin starts in the mind. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/4/2005 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
So...
if I were knowingly placed into a position of leadership that, while many times having hateful thoughts about White people, refused to ACT upon my thoughts in the way of racial discrimination or preference... and refused to accept an internal identity of "racist" but successfully fought against these desires and took them captive under the lordship of Jesus, I would be acceptable for church leadership.
Stretching the idea...
What is the sound of an empty church? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
quote:
Well, if you weren't actively seeking to receive a RENEWED mind that no longer hates white people, then your sincerity and spiritual integrity (which is scripturally required for one to be a leader in the church) would be quite questionable.
So I should be trying to actively seeking a renewed mind that is MORE CONFORMED to God's standard of what should be, right?
This is my point. I don't see how there can be such bifurcation between thoughts and actions. There is no biblical basis for such things. If anything, it is the HEART...the INNER person...that God is most concerned with, and IT'S continual striving towards God's ideal. Our actions, I gathered, are supposed to come from our inner selves and line up integrously WITH that inner self. We would say this with any thought or disposition that was against our "knowledge of God. If Christianity is ANYTHING, I thought, it was the antithesis of being a BEHAVIORIST religion that was primarily concerned with external conformity to certain codes of conduct!
Now, if we are saying this for, say racist, adulterous, or malicious thoughts...how do things become different if we are talking about homosexual "orientation"? If the God-ordained sexual attraction and relationship is SUPPOSED to be men for women (and vice versa), how could one say that an inward disposition towards same sex relations would NOT be something that one would "take captive" to Christ?
Remember, we are not talking about being "tempted" by a stray sexual thought. We are talking about an abiding "orientation" that we are saying is NOT sin.
This is not being consistent.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | I seriously doubt that all these ministries to "help" homosexuals into a different lifestyle merely focus on external behavior without attempting to ALTER the drives and desires of the "orientation"...basically saying...
"Hey, you can have relationship and sexual desire for the same sex all you want...just don't DO anything."
Nah. I don't think they do that.
But here's something...
If a homosexual had a NON-SEXUAL, but deeply intimate love relationship with a person of the same sex, would THAT be ok? Essentially a love relationship where the love was not consummated in sexual expression. Wouldn't THAT be acceptable...for homosexual church leaders?
[Don't think this trite. These are valid questions that people (INCLUDING SOME HOMOSEXUALS) of the church!] | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Question:
Would we take the same line of thinking (ie. Have the instinctual desires or inclinations, just don't act on them in any way) for a person who...
--was a pedophiliac who wanted to work in the youth ministry?
--was a compulsive thief who wanted to work as the church treasurer?
--was a compulsive liar who wanted to work in the counseling ministry?
Remember, all we'd need is for these people to commit to NOT doing ANY actions associated with their current dispositions...and dedicating their actions to God.
Would we do this?
Something important. I am NOT saying that homosexual orientation is ANY WORSE OR BETTER than the things I'm mentioning. I'm just trying to show that we would not employ the inclination/behavior bifurcation consistently. To say that internal BELIEFS and INCLINATIONS are things that should be aligned with God's ideals (ala "renewal of the mind") is an implicit indication that UNACTUALIZED beliefs and inclinations that are not God's ideals are still SIN...right? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 2:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Honestly. It's hard to believe that anyone who reads the Bible even on a SURFACE level would think such heart intention/outward behaviour bifurcation would be acceptable in Christianity. It's amazing!
-------------
Mark 7:1-23 (NIV)
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[e] But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ ”
After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ ”
Mat 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Luke 6:43
“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
--------------
God cares about the integrity of the inner life with the outer life. It seems that Jesus believed that outer works were to be FRUIT of inner intention. Wherein is all this bifurcation nonsense? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
John:
quote:
Well, if you weren't actively seeking to receive a RENEWED mind that no longer hates white people, then your sincerity and spiritual integrity (which is scripturally required for one to be a leader in the church) would be quite questionable.
So I should be trying to actively seeking a renewed mind that is MORE CONFORMED to God's standard of what should be, right?
This is my point. I don't see how there can be such bifurcation between thoughts and actions. There is no biblical basis for such things. If anything, it is the HEART...the INNER person...that God is most concerned with, and IT'S continual striving towards God's ideal. Our actions, I gathered, are supposed to come from our inner selves and line up integrously WITH that inner self. We would say this with any thought or disposition that was against our "knowledge of God. If Christianity is ANYTHING, I thought, it was the antithesis of being a BEHAVIORIST religion that was primarily concerned with external conformity to certain codes of conduct!
So you don't have any tempting thoughts (which are by definition ungodly) at all, now that you're a Christian?
I completely AGREE that the heart is what it's all about, Meph. However, if I'm hearing you correctly, we aren't even supposed to have any temptations once we're a Christian. How is a person tempted, if not in their THOUGHT LIFE?
Paul said, "therefore do not let sin REIGN..." (in view of the Lordship of Christ over us, and the new creation we are because of it). In the same passage in Romans 6, Paul said we were to OBEY NOT the lusts of the flesh. He does NOT say, "don't have lusts of the flesh."
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
quote:
So you don't have any tempting thoughts (which are by definition ungodly) at all, now that you're a Christian?
Of course, I do, John. I still deal with some stuff quite a bit. But I am NOT saying that any one of those dispositions is an "orientation" that is NOT sin ...primarily because I don't actualize the disposition involved. That's what I'm hearing being said for homosexual orientation versus homosexual acts. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah...I think I see something...
I say...
Temptation is NOT the same things as "orientation"!
As I see it, having a homosexual "orientation" is DISTINCT from being tempted by thoughts of homosexuality. Having a homosexual "orientation" would mean fundamentally having an enduring relationship/sexual attraction for the same sex and, possibly, a LACK of attraction for the opposite sex. I've been tempted by thoughts of homosexuality...but I'm as heterosexual as all get out, in that I have (and have had) an enduring relationship/sexual attraction for the OPPOSITE sex. I don't have a homosexual orientation.
To say that homosexual orientation is ok, but homosexual ACTING is not...is to posit a disposition/behavior separation such that a person having ENDURING, YET UNACTUALIZED same sex attraction is not sin.
I don't see how this can be consistently stated...IF one believes that homosexuality is wrong and sin against God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | How is the notion of homosexual orientation behavioristic? I don't get it. Explain please. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
quote:
A person may (quite obviously) have incredibly powerful and overwhelming involuntary internal impulses and just as powerful external temptations to sin, but sin only occurs when the will/heart/intention CONSENTS to the temptation or impulse, or else we are left with the idea that JESUS was a sinner, for the Scriptures reveal plainly that He was tempted in all ways just like us, yet without sin.
Hmmm...let me guess.
Sin, to you, is a conscious, intentional, willed transgression of a known law of God. Something like that, right? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
John:
quote:
A person may (quite obviously) have incredibly powerful and overwhelming involuntary internal impulses and just as powerful external temptations to sin, but sin only occurs when the will/heart/intention CONSENTS to the temptation or impulse, or else we are left with the idea that JESUS was a sinner, for the Scriptures reveal plainly that He was tempted in all ways just like us, yet without sin.
Hmmm...let me guess.
Sin, to you, is a conscious, intentional, willed transgression of a known law of God. Something like that, right?
As I stated earlier in this thread, all of the Hebrew and Greek biblical words for sin denote voluntary action, so yes, that would be my general definition. A thorough word study of the biblical terms, "sin," "iniquity," "transgression," "trespass," "ungodliness," and so forth, will demonstrate this for anyone who desires to look into the question.
1 John 3 says "sin is transgression of law," and then the apostle commences to state that those who are born of God do NOT practice sin. This definition of sin is consistent throughout the Scriptures, with unintentional sins (Lev. 4 & 5) being the only exception to the general rule. But that's another post...
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | There are other psychological theories dealing with human development out there that build upon behaviorism's (B.F. Skinner) insights but go well beyond it's limited framework. Note Albert Bandura's social learning theory which I believe INCORPORATES cognitive processes meaningfully.
But let's go with something...
If you believe that, at least within SOME people, homosexual intentionality and desire is a powerful, internal, INVOLUNTARY impulse...and this impulse is NOT sin in and of itself...
would this imply that, in your mind, enduring homosexual longing is more a PHYSIOLOGICAL or PSYCHOSOCIAL phenomena than a INDIVIDUAL MORAL CHOICE?
Interesting. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
quote:
As I stated earlier in this thread, all of the Hebrew and Greek biblical words for sin denote voluntary action, so yes, that would be my general definition. A thorough word study of the biblical terms, "sin," "iniquity," "transgression," "trespass," "ungodliness," and so forth, will demonstrate this for anyone who desires to look into the question.
Thought so. It's a hyper-Wesleyan view of sin. I understand that view of sin...though I find it seriously deficient for a number of reasons.
One of the problems that I have with that view is that it tends to lend itself to rampant individualism and a complete inability to deal with sin as a systemic reality. With this view, ignorance TRULY IS bliss...for it is ultimately based not on the one's general life orientation...but on one's KNOWLEDGE of the "laws" and conformance to that knowledge. A true, but IMO incomplete view of sin's real insidious nature.
But as you said...that's for another post...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/4/2005 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Thought so. It's a hyper-Wesleyan view of sin. I understand that view of sin...though I find it seriously deficient for a number of reasons.
Actually, it's the biblical view of sin. By all means, prove the definition wrong from the Scriptures, Meph.
quote:
One of the problems that I have with that view is that it tends to lend itself to rampant individualism and a complete inability to deal with sin as a systemic reality. With this view, ignorance TRULY IS bliss...for it is ultimately based not on the one's general life orientation...but on one's KNOWLEDGE of the "laws" and conformance to that knowledge. A true, but IMO incomplete view of sin's real insidious nature.
Actually, in my view, willful ignorance of the truth is in itself a sin. But unless we are willing to say babies are the MOST sinful people on earth, ignorance in and of itself cannot be sin.
As far as individualism goes, I've known personally plenty of "we all sin hundreds of times a day" Baptists and what have you that were far more individualistic in their approach to discipleship (if it can truly be called that) than Wesleyans.
It is also not true that in my view "ignorance is bliss," for all people have enough innate knowledge of God to know they should serve Him (Rom. 1), and all people have a God-given conscience by which they know right from wrong (Rom. 2).
Further, it is not the case that in my view the overall direction of one's life does not matter, that it somehow all boils down to a legalistic sort of law-keeping way of living. As Wesley himself (and all other Holiness theologians following him) plainly stated, Christian perfection is nothing more and nothing less than "AGAPE" LOVE.
You may be unaware of this, but the historical fact is that the Wesleyan and Holiness movements in the 19th century were incredibly socially conscious, powerfully promoting the Temperance and Abolitionist movements, and starting such organizations as the Salvation Army, all owing to their belief in Christian perfection, in tandem with their belief in postmillenialism.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/4/2005 4:35 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Mephi wrote:
quote:
But let's go with something...
If you believe that, at least within SOME people, homosexual intentionality and desire is a powerful, internal, INVOLUNTARY impulse...and this impulse is NOT sin in and of itself...
would this imply that, in your mind, enduring homosexual longing is more a PHYSIOLOGICAL or PSYCHOSOCIAL phenomena than a INDIVIDUAL MORAL CHOICE?
Bingo.
. | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:00 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 |
|
|