 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | I am reposting this link, since I think the size of the postings were making it hard for others to join and be caught up.
My apologies for leaving many posts out and my biases in what I post. Please do try to read a good deal of the posts prior to posting so we don't just repeat things over and over.
I am starting with the initial post and then my initial post and leaving some posts out.
Theodore:A very relevant quote from another forum:
"In response to the following:>> One of the most unpleasant things about the Gay rights debate is that the Gay community is generally insulting and condescending when confronted with opposing points of view. >>
Oh, good grief. Give me a break. In another section of this forum,
there's a fellow saying that he thinks that Leviticus 20:13 should be
written into law, so that gay people can be executed for the crime of
homosexual behavior. Recently, in another forum, an attack team of
fundamentalists posted over a thousand messages in a three day period.
In those messages, which they claimed represented God's will, they
called homosexuals sick, sinful, deviant, disgusting, distasteful,
degenerate, despicable, abominations. They compared gay people to
alcoholics, child molestors, kleptomaniacs, murderers, thieves,
adulterers, necrophiles, people who commit incest, and people who have
sex with animals. They pointed out that being gay was a choice, a
birth defect, a genetic disorder, a mental defect, mental illness,
emotional retardation, the result of sexual abuse, the result of drug
use, the result of a distant father, the result of a dominant mother,
the result of a liberal attack on the traditional family values, and
(I am not making this up) the result of the fluoridation of our
drinking water.
They blamed homosexuals for spreading AIDS, for moral
decay, for creating the satanist "new age" philosophy, for attempting
to assassinate the Pope, for trying to force a degenerate lifestyle
down the throats of Americans, for trying to recruit little children,
and for perverting the meaning of the bible.
They accused gay people of trying to rewrite the bible, of being
communist activists, of smelling bad (because they don't wash
their hands after fisting), and of sticking rodents up their rectums.
They blamed gay people for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
the fall of Rome, and the sinking of Atlantis. (No, I am not making
this up.)
They threatened gay people with eternal hellfire and damnation, they threatened America with God's wrath, including tornadoes, hurricanes, and a liberal congress.
There was a lot more. Gay people have to put up with this kind of crap from
so-called Christians every day of their lives. Gay people are expected
to be patient little saints who behave themselves all the time while
straight people demonstrate their moral and emotional superiority -- by
beating gay people to death at the rate of one every eleven days, by
making gay men and lesbians the single largest target of hate-motivated
assaults in the United States. And then, just to make sure that gay
people understand not to take it personally, these self-same
God-fearing Christians are quick to say: "Don't blame me. I'm just
telling you what God says. God hates the sin, he loves the sinner."
(That's nice. So the sins go to hell and the rest of us go to heaven?)
And when gay people say, "Hey, look, all I want is equal protection
under the law," these self-same good Christians tell us, "You already
have equal rights, you're asking for special rights." (Be specific,
please tell me what special rights I have?)
And when we finally, finally, finally after years and years and years of this kind of crap,actually take a moment to confront it -- we get told that we're the
bigoted ones, that we have no tolerance for an opposing point of view.
Excuse me? Just what IS your opposing point of view? That I sank
Atlantis? That I smell bad? That I stick rodents up my rectum? Is that
your opposing point of view? Would you say a Jew is intolerant because
he doesn't consider the Nazi philosophy "an opposing point of view?"
Would you say a black man is intolerant because he's tired of listening
to the Klan represent racism as "an opposing point of view?" Would you
tell a woman who has been raped that her rapist is entitled to "an
opposing point of view?" What you are arguing for is NOT an opposing
point of view. What you are arguing for is the right to have bigotry
treated with a respect that it should never be given in a rational
society.
Copyright December 22, 2000, by dg. All rights reserved,
except that free distribution via any medium is permitted as long as
author's credit is given and no profit is involved.
Why would any homosexual want to be a Christian?
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/14/2003 1:47:24 PM
Edited by - DLW on 06/10/2003 8:20:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:Hello, I am new to this thread, but yes the screen did start to swirl as I skimmed the past postings.
First:there is an interesting commentary on the Rick Santorum quote by Brooks and Shields on yesterday's News Hour.
second:I would like to share some personal experiences/thoughts I have accumulated over the years on this subject.
Background:My family is rather conservative religiously and socially, but I have never heard any of my parents ever make a homo-phobic remark or tell a gay-joke or anything. When I was between 5th and 6th grade, I did go to my first secular camp(a swedish language camp), where I attended my first dance. I(being short, maladroit, stuttering, bookish and what-not) freaked out and asked my male counselor to dance with me(probably thinking that was safe). I remember some female counselor hurriedly invited me to dance with her and things resolved themselves. But I think this incident must have been communicated to my parents, cause I had different relatives from different sides of the family asking me about whether I was attracted to various females in some of the following years. Clearly, they were concerned. As it worked out, I just was a late-bloomer. But, I endured enough verbal abuse from others in jr high and high-school that a good portion of it was geared at me being gay.
One of my first experiences, interacting with homo-sexuality was when I was in speech my sophomore year in high-school and competing in the creative performance category. There, a gay guy did a skit enacting what it would be like to be beaten up. I talked with him a bit afterward, and found out he used to have a girl-friend and what-not, and then unusually enough he got flocked by a large number of girls at the meet. But, needless to say, my views on homosexuality started off being rather pro-gay, or at least strongly against any gay-basher. Then, when I was between my senior and junior years in College, I was working in a church in South-west Detroit when I had two memorable experiences. At one point, an African-American man had got his way into the Church and sort of was resting on the steps inside near the basement. That and his shlong was sticking out rather prominently. I went to him and asked if I could help him out and he asked if I would suck his dick for him. I told him no I wouldn't do that but perhaps I could get some food for him if he would kindly go outside of the church. Then, in the intervening period, he almost shouted something like, "Please, Don't hurt me!" and begged my forgiveness for what he said in the Church. I gave him some food and never saw him again, but it was clear that he had been beaten before and that he had conflicting views regarding his sexuality. I also read up on a book that described in very clear medical detail the damage often caused to the male uterus by homosexual acts and was rather disgusted.
Then, my views on homosexuality slowly changed.
When I started my graduate school career at Michigan State University, I left Bethel and entered an environment where my fellow students could both joke about homosexuality(I remember very distinctly when they called a certain professor who was a bad lecturer a pedophile.) and call anyone who raised any moral objections regarding homosexuality as a homophobe. In this changed environ, I started rethinking what I believed about homosexuality.
I engaged my high-school biology teacher on the subject over the next two years in several lengthy emails, which I tried to model on Boyd's book "Letters from a Skeptic". My high-school biology teacher grew up in a liberal protestant church, and had been much attracted to Bahaism in College. His predominant position was since homosexuality is natural, it can't be wrong and the Bible was full of passages by Paul, where he clearly is only giving his opinion, or Leviticus, where a bunch of Levites were setting out useless rules to ensure their future careers, which could be disregarded by us.
I learned a lot about the biological facts surrounding the formation of the human sexuality from my biology teacher. I.e., human sexuality is typically determined while still in the womb. Roughly speaking, our gender is based on our hormonal balances while we are in the womb. We all start off by being hormonally female(with estrogen predominantly), but at some point males usually switch over to being hormonally male. However, due to stress and other factors, sometimes males do not switch over, and become constitutional homosexuals. It is also possible for females to switch over to becoming hormonally male, but it is more difficult. This is why only around 2% of males are constitutional homosexuals, while .5% of females are constitutional homosexuals.
Of course, there are in-betweens. As my biology teacher liked to point out, in a study, it was found that self-described homo-phobes tended to experience a stronger rush of blood to the penis than non-homophobic heterosexual males. I pointed out to him that, perhaps, the individuals strong views against homosexuals were due to their having to face homosexual feelings themselves much more than other males.
Which leads to the primary thing that came out of my interchange with my high-school biology teacher, the prevalence of a selective-perception regarding the nature of homosexuality. Is it analogous to left-handedness(which was historically discriminated against as deviant but is, in fact, correlated with a host of potentially desirable traits) or is it more akin to schizo-phrenia or being born with a tendency towards alcoholism(all personal characteristics that are not socially desirable, but clearly are not the fault of the individual). I argued that the evidence was such that a reasonable person could see it either way, but the fact that constitutional homosexuality occurred didn't mean that we should embrace it as just another form of sexuality.
I would give the example of myself. I was born with a hole in my heart, which slowed my physical movements and severely damaged my perception of myself as an athlete(a perception that sort of made itself true later in life after my heart had healed itself). Was my heart an alternative heart-formation or was there an ideal heart-formation that for various reasons didn't come about.
(note:the above medical discovery about the formation of human sexuality, I believe became apparent after WWII when in Germany a disproportionately large number of babies born were homosexuals. It seems that the stress of the war made more babies not switch over hormonally-speaking. One can verify that this is the cause and not genetics since in the case of identical twins, if one is a homo-sexual, there is only something like a 40% chance of the other being homo-sexual. It also has been found that if a fetus is diagnosed as having not switched over while still in the womb, it is possible to help it switch over. Now, there's a doozy for the pro-gay people to deal with, do you or do you not prevent a future gay-person from developing their "natural" orientation. )
The truth is that what is natural is always a matter of selective-perception. Often times, it is all about trying to derive an ought from an is. But as Hume argued, one cannot do that without an intermediary normative premise. And so, my argument with my High-School Biology teacher rested on the positive-normative distinction that I learned in Graduate School. Whereby I could accept the emerging fact of constitutional homosexuality, and its inherent difficulty of changing(although, this is possible if the person is highly motivated and with a supporting environ.), but that this did not mean that I should believe that this was a perfectly "normal" or "natural" state of affairs.
I also realized that Paul, in the Bible, clearly did not understand the process of how human sexuality develops as well as we do now. There was a need for both natural and revealed truths in dealing with Homosexuality. I also realized that much of us the interpretation of homosexuality in the past is probably flawed, since it imposes ontological view-points we now have on the Bible, when its writers did not view things like that(i.e., Homosexuality, as opposed to homosexual acts). As such, the problem of ecclesiastical order regarding how we treat homosexuals seems somewhat open for revisions(such as the acceptance of monogamous relationships for some constitutional homosexuals). But, that a proscription against homosexual acts would still prevail for non-constitutional homosexuals, or "bisexuals". I think this term has a fair amount of ambiguity to it. For example, if I can derive sexual pleasure from having a female perform oral sex on me, what would keep me from deriving a similar pleasure from a male; despite the fact I am not titillated by the sight of male flesh, like I am with female flesh? It seems that a good portion of how we perceive our sexuality, or gender, is based on how we are socialized. Yet, a socialization that views homosexual acts, as well as non-marital heterosexual acts as wrong is desirable. I remember sociology and psychology Phd people(from when I was a union-activist in Grad school) getting all worked up about the ways our genders are imposed on us and what-not. They clearly never learned the full-implications of the positive-normative distinction or were liberal fundamentalists regarding the normative views that they had adopted.
I have come to view, from my dialogues with my high-school teacher, that homosexuality is not that great of a threat to sexual morality(it clearly is easily dwarfed by the flagrant heterosexuality in our media today, which is a much more serious threat.), but that some of the arguments used by gay-rights activist do go against the Christian message. The first was biological determinism. As for this, I think there may be something with the argument that in the Y-gene there is something that propels the male species to desire to have sex with as many females as possible(from an evolutionary view-point, it is easy to see how such a gene could become popular.). But, the fact that that is the case for nearly all the guys I know, doesn't by any means mean that it should be the case.
The second argument used by gay-rights is libertarian, "It shouldn't be wrong to love someone!" I came across this one very strongly my last semester in grad school. I had been building up the opportunity to witness to non-Christians by volunteering a large amount of my free-time to help organize a union for graduate employees at my university(and we were successful and got better health-care(particularly for spouses and dependents and people with severe pre-existing conditions and a very good grievance procedure(something that is very important when you are in grad-school) and a guarantee of jobs and that wages wouldn't be fixed at nominal levels like they had been for the past five years).
Earlier that year, I had stood up and argued with Cornel West on the importance of the distinction between Homophobia and Hetero-sexism(with the latter being potentially based on one's faith-commitment and, thus, distinct from the former). Towards, the end of my time at MSU, at the union headquarters I got into a discussion with three of my female co-organizers(two of which were practicing bi-sexuals) regarding my viewpoints on homosexuality. It was the sort of discussion that could only take place because of my activism with them for the union, but as it was it was quite painful for me.
In the course of the discussion, my viewpoint was conflated with advocating the rightness of rape, I could never have sexual relations, I was unenlightened, I had to explain the need for exegesis in understanding the Bible, no it didn't say slavery was good, and, of course, "It shouldn't be wrong to love someone". To which, I replied that one can love someone without having sex with them. For my bisexual friends, it was a choice regarding their sexualities. I maintained my position by arguing that our difference ultimately stemmed from the fact that, while they insisted that there should be no normative distinction made between the different sexualities, I believed there should be a normative distinction because of my commitment to Christianity and that there was no "objective" means of determining who was right(It was a product of our different faith-commitments).
So, while I insisted that, while I was a heterosexist, I wasn't a homophobe and was just as opposed to homophobic behavior as they were; they insisted that if one was heterosexist one must also be homophobic. I.e., there was inherently something wrong about your beliefs. To this, I could have called them religious bigots or called them pagans(a title that would fit well for at least one of them). But, instead, I said, "I do not have any irrational fears of homosexuals. Why would I be a homophobe?"
All in all, they didn't like my position very much, since it was so much more "nice" than the standard homophobic position that the gay-rights activists like parading in front of the public and there goal was to establish their position as the "right" position.
Later that night, I talked to another Christian friend who is an English PhD and was sort of involved. He told me, rather passionately, that he thought such discussions were to be avoided since they would destroy the relationships being formed. He also dislikes division and so would be mute on his differences on such a subject.
But, I think a cultural conflict is in play over this issue and, as described above, have been trying hard to find my footing on this issue, while maintaining as much continuity as I can with the general Christian tradition. I often find that many anti-gay people are closed to new "facts" about homosexuality and the extent to which Church policy towards gays maybe open in some respects. I often find that pro-gay Christians adopt too close a stance to the gay-rights activists and gloss over the extent to which their arguments tend to include aspects that go very much against what Christianity has historically taught. But, I think it does matter how this issue is resolved, since it does involve many people defining who we are on the basis of our sexualities. And, as illustrated by Christ in the Widow seven times over story, our sexualities do not constitute who we are in Heaven and so they cannot be part of the core of our being here on Earth as well. As such, these viewpoints should be opposed by Christians.
So, from this sort of experience, is part of why I came to believe that the problem of order is of far more value in Christian praxis than the spiritual warfare theodicy.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | GBoyd:Thanks for sharing your journey on this tough issue DLW. I appreciate your attempt to strike a loving balanced perspective here. But its not clear to me from what you wrote what exactly you're recommending by way of Church policy -- if in fact you're recommending anything at all. Maybe you just wanted to serve up some reflections. (And, by the way, you're final word continues your unnecessary disjunct between the warfare worldview and praxis -- but THAT is for another thread).
Greg
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | While we must carefully attend to discussions of exegesis, hermenuetics, genetics, ecclesiastical policy etc... surrounding the homosexual issue, it seems to me the bottom line for the Christian is this:
1. We are called to demonstrate outrageous Christ-like sacrificial love to all people at all times in all circumstances, no ifs, ands, or buts.
2. Love involves trusting people, believing the best about them, hoping the best for them. ("believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" I Cor 13).
3. If a person tells one of us they are a disciple of Jesus, trying to follow God's will, we have no need, and no grounds, to judge them disingenuous. We are to trust them.
4. If they tell us they are also involved in a homosexual union, we may or may not feel it appropriate to point out that God's ideal is monogamous relationships, depending on our relationship with them and depending on our view on this matter.
5. If we tell them our view that all forms of homosexuality are sin and they disagree or for other reasons don't abide by our counsel, this does not excuse us from #1, #2 and #3. We are out of love for them and respect for them to continue to believe that they are working out their salvation sincerely and to the best of their ability.
In this sense, the issue of homosexuality is no different than any other sin we might deal with in our loving relationships with others.
The whole discussion, then, revolves around #4. But this is almost inconsequential next to #1-3 and #5 -- especially since few heterosexuals have prolonged intimate contact with homosexuals.
It is odd to me that so much heat is generated by the issue of homosexuality, when it is at its core really just a matter of how we might encourage change in someone we love. We are asking, What is the best way to counsel them?
Its especially odd when, as I said, few heterosexuals are ever actually involved in loving relationships with gays.
Its especially odd since, in the end, the person we counsel has to make their own decisions anyway, and our response to them should be the same whatever they decide.
Its especially odd when there are so many other sins, much more emphasized in the Bible, much more prevalent in society, and much more damaging to people, that we don't worry about at all.
Its especially odd when we consider how incredible unloving the Church has on the whole been toward gays. One might suppose we might want to err in the other direction for a while to heal this rift if we are prone to err at all.
It makes me wonder: what else is going on with the homosexual issue that is NOT going on with every other issue?
Just some thoughts
Doc
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for sharing your journey on this tough issue DLW. I appreciate your attempt to strike a loving balanced perspective here. But its not clear to me from what you wrote what exactly you're recommending by way of Church policy -- if in fact you're recommending anything at all. Maybe you just wanted to serve up some reflections. (And, by the way, you're final word continues your unnecessary disjunct between the warfare worldview and praxis -- but THAT is for another thread).
Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:I didn't make any reference to the spiritual forces that loom behind the gay-rights activists community or that has a bind on the homophobic evangelical community, but I did focus a lot on learning the facts and dwelling on the traditions within the Christian Community surrounding this issue. My point is simple, the Spiritual Warfare Theodicy doesn't provide a lot of practical guidance on praxis for Ecclesiastical decision-making.
No, I wasn't clear about what I thought was Ecclesiastical policy surrounding Homosexuality. I do accept that Constitutional Homosexuals sexuality will not be very likely to change. Although, apparently change is possible, though only for a relatively small portion of the cases, as I understand it. So I do accept the legitimacy of strictly monogamous life-long marriages for gay couples, so long as the norms Christians hold for heterosexual marriages are followed in all other aspects. Now, constitutional homosexuals are a rather small portion of the population. For "bisexuals", I would emphasize that the Church should only tolerate monogamous opposite-sex marriage relationships and support the need for therapy or accountability in this regard.
I think the Church has also has a prerogative to show love to homosexuals, but that it should maintain continuity with past Christian tradition in holding the heterosexual marriage relationship as still the ideal.
I also think it would be worthwhile to make testing for whether or not the hormonal change has taken place in fetuses and correcting for it when possible a more standard practice for pre-natal check-ups.
I also think that, in the political sphere, it is important to cut off the oxygen/free-press that the gay-rights community gets to propagate its messages, so many of which are against what Christianity teaches.
As such, I see nothing wrong with providing benefits to gay partners or legalizing gay marriages(so long as these are done so as to encourage much longer-term relationships among gay couples). However, my support of these things is partially pragmatic. I think that letting them stay in political play will give the gay-rights activists more political ammo with which they can propagate several view-points as the "right" views.
I don't think that there is a need for legislation against violence against gays, since there already is legislation against violence/beating against anyone. I have also heard that gay-against-gay violence is just as much a threat as homophobe-against-gay violence, which may be due to the unstable nature of many homosexual relationships.
So those are my policy views, I think there are other issues that still need to be dealt with(the ambiguity over the possible cure vs. holding the homosexuality as given), (does one allow for gay ministers?), (How does one teach our children about homosexuality from a Christian perspective?), (Since the Gay-Rights perspective has basically culturally-triumphed particularly in Academic settings, how does a Christian Academic maintain their integrity without inducing the antagonism/discrimination of their other colleagues? That's what it felt like for me in graduate school. I remember some of the leaders of the union were discussing how some organizer elsewhere was gay(and apparently trying to hire himself a boyfriend) and the leader asked me how I felt about that. I responded that it didn't concern me(i.e., I wasn't bothered about it or it was not my business.).).
So my basic point of view is to emphasize the reality of conflict on this issue and the need for us to work these things out, without treating the pro-gay or anti-gay sides as right or wrong...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | SBG:
AMEN GREG!!
In response to your question: "what else is going on with the homosexual issue that is NOT going on with every other issue?"
I am reminded of a statement someone made on a similar thread (forgive me, I don't remember who) But this person said "maybe the reason Christians attack gays so much is because it's the one sin they are certain they will never commit." I think there is a lot of truth to that statement.
Romans 12:3 says "Do not think of youself more highly than you ought." If we humbly work on the sins in our own lives, we can walk in love and let every body else do the same.
SBG
To understand and to be understood is bliss.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyd:It is odd to me that so much heat is generated by the issue of homosexuality, when it is at its core really just a matter of how we might encourage change in someone we love. We are asking, What is the best way to counsel them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would disagree. I think much of the heat surrounds the public policy and ecclesiastical policies about homosexuality. Gay rights activists have claimed that they are in the spirit of the Civil Rights movement and, as such, a whole host of norms regarding sexuality stemming from the historical impact of Christianity are being treated as ignorant, unenlightened view-points.
But, if you would watch the French-Canadian movie, "The Decline of the American Empire", at one point they subtly introduce the point at what point does the freedoms regarding sexuality end. After having a gay fellow remark that there is nothing more attractive than a young persons ass, they have another person say, "An ass is an ass is an ass..."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its especially odd when there are so many other sins, much more emphasized in the Bible, much more prevalent in society, and much more damaging to people, that we don't worry about at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in the OT, when homosexuality is listed as a sin, it usually is listed last. I made this point with Cornel West, but it still is listed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its especially odd when we consider how incredible unloving the Church has on the whole been toward gays. One might suppose we might want to err in the other direction for a while to heal this rift if we are prone to err at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of gays, that homosexuality had become inherent in who they were is a relatively recent notion. One could argue that there has been cultural lag among Christians in there coming to terms with this concept.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes me wonder: what else is going on with the homosexual issue that is NOT going on with every other issue?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is far more political and publicly contended and has been the basis for the promulgation of view-points that are most definitely not Christian.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | As stated elsewhere, Greg Boyd's position obscures the reality of the political, the ecclesiastical problem of order. Now Greg could be seen as just one voice among many in the process of us Christians working things out over how we should deal with homosexuals/homosexuality. But, because he is such an excellent pastor/theologian, his word may carry more influence than it should. Pastors are not meant to set out what the correct policy should be. They are merely specialists in the study of scriptures and church tradition and should set out the possibilities, so as to better inform the congregation in their decision-making. This is part of the "priesthood of the believers", which includes both a recognition of our ability to point to what is holy or what should be Church praxis, as well as an acknowledgement of our fallibility.
For example, I just listed my positions at this point in a previous posting, but I may be wrong/willing to change on some points. This is because of the ecclesiastical problem of order:the inherent tension/conflict regarding reconciling our ideals of freedom/love with the need to develop policies that check our abilities to abuse those freedoms.
I think there is an inherent tension regarding ecclesiastical governance, between wanting to show God's love for a homosexual, whether constitutional or bisexual, just as they are; with a need for providing encouragement that they do change their current behavior. This is what I meant earlier when I said there was openness, i.e. room for legitimate disagreement, in how we answer the problem of ecclesiastical order regarding homosexuality. It isn't completely based on scriptures, but also tradition and natural truths/facts that arise and should guide Church praxis.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Terry Baxter:
Greg,
The notion that 'homosexuality hardly differs from other sins in significant ways' seems to rely on an assumption or two that I wanted to ask you to clarify.
If we subsituted other sins (incest, rape, murder, theft) for homosexuality in your 5 point list, would you hold to it? (and yes, I know Iconoclast will be offended by the comparison of these 'sins')
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they tell us they are also involved in a [theft, murder], we may or may not feel it appropriate to point out that God's ideal is [not stealing, not killing], depending on our relationship with them and depending on our view on this matter.
5. If we tell them our view that all forms of [theft, murder] are sin and they disagree or for other reasons don't abide by our counsel, this does not excuse us from #1, #2 and #3. We are out of love for them and respect for them to continue to believe that they are working out their salvation sincerely and to the best of their ability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember on some thread (back in Bonhoeffer?) you had argued that a 'stop action' may be required if someone else is being harmed. Maybe that's at play here. Or maybe you'd turn the person over to the civil authorities to deal with the murder, but not question the person's salvation.
So I guess, this is what I'd like to know:
Would you hold to this (seemingly cavalier) attitude if the sin in question was murder? 'I trust the murderer is working out her salvation?'
If not, I'm wondering if the difference is because (1) murder is clearly wrong by biblical standards whereas homosexuality isn't, (2) both 'sins' are clear in the bible, but one is much less harmful to the persons involved and therefore doesn't call for a stop action, or (3) something else.
I just can't imagine you writing a line that says, "Its especially odd when we consider how incredible unloving the Church has on the whole been toward [those who commit incest, even when no child is involved]. One might suppose we might want to err in the other direction for a while to heal this rift if we are prone to err at all."
As you probably know, to some minds (even some in the US Congress), it isn't a radical stretch to compare incest (say) to homosexuality. I'm assuming you're operating under a very different paradigm that has gradations of sin, with homosexuality low on the list of offenses (because...?).
I operate under a similar assumption (some sins aren't worthy of removing a pastor from his post, for instance), but I don't think I'd put homosexuality as low on the list as you do. I'm not sure how biblical this is, but it seems to be a practical necessity since no one would be a church member if we were all removed for any sin.
If you've explained the underlying assumptions of your post elsewhere and I've missed it, I apologize.
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
Greg
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its especially odd when there are so many other sins, much more emphasized in the Bible, much more prevalent in society, and much more damaging to people, that we don't worry about at all.
Its especially odd when we consider how incredible unloving the Church has on the whole been toward gays. One might suppose we might want to err in the other direction for a while to heal this rift if we are prone to err at all.
It makes me wonder: what else is going on with the homosexual issue that is NOT going on with every other issue?
Just some thoughts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my thought/question. Please forgive me because I have been WAY too busy to keep up with everything being posted on this thread or on this board so if my question/comment has been addressed then just stir me in that direction.
I don't see anyone on this thread as being unloving. We ALL agree that God loves ALL people and that ALL sin is the same in God's eyes (we are ALL sinners saved by grace) so what is the point or more directly where would you hope this argument would be headed? Are we to embrace homosexuality as another alternate lifestyle and allow practicing homosexuals into leadership within the church? Is this the point? I am sincerely lost in what is at stake here but would like to understand. I honestly am not being sarcastic but only am seeking clarity. I can't figure why such invested interest.
Thanks,
trosie
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see anyone on this thread as being unloving. We ALL agree that God loves ALL people and that ALL sin is the same in God's eyes (we are ALL sinners saved by grace) so what is the point or more directly where would you hope this argument would be headed? Are we to embrace homosexuality as another alternate lifestyle and allow practicing homosexuals into leadership within the church? Is this the point? I am sincerely lost in what is at stake here but would like to understand. I honestly am not being sarcastic but only am seeking clarity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey gang, I was sincerely serious about my questions but since have given the matter even further thought and am starting to feel that perhaps Semeia, Iconoclast, Greg... are on the right track as far as allowing for fairness across the board. I have been wondering how it is that we can allow people to be in leadership and membership within churches if they struggle with certain sins but then discriminate against other sinners. How and WHO evaluates who is qualified to be in membership and leadership since we are ALL struggling with sin of one kind or other?
Please help a sister who is searching for TRUTH.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:04 AM (GMT -6) | | trosie
I have been wondering how it is that we can allow people to be in leadership and membership within churches if they struggle with certain sins but then discriminate against other sinners. How and WHO evaluates who is qualified to be in membership and leadership since we are ALL struggling with sin of one kind or other?
Iconoclast
Good question. Seems like we should first focus on membership. What do you think the meaning of membership to a church is? What in general do you think the requirements to be a member of a church ought to be? Also, is there a difference in your view of being a member of a specific church versus being a member of THE Church?
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its especially odd when we consider how incredible unloving the Church has on the whole been toward gays. One might suppose we might want to err in the other direction for a while to heal this rift if we are prone to err at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just one more thing, because I feel that the Holy Spirit is working on me in this area, I agree with Greg in erring in the other direction for the simple logic that it seems that human nature will tend to resist if pushed to conform. Haven't you ever noticed that when someone tries to tell you NOT to do something (and does so with great energy) you tend to almost go against the grain? Afterall, God created each person uniquely and respects them enough to allow each person to come to conclusions on their own and in their own time period. God has laid it on my heart that IF a person is in Him then He (NOT me) will convict each person in due time as He sees fit. I finally understand and embrace that what we are called to do above everything else is to love people right where they are at. We are called to pray for people if we see them struggling with sind UNLESS they ask us for help or advice. How simple.
This is just such a heavy conviction on my heart that I felt a need to share it here.
trosie
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw:
Greetings Trosie!
There are some sins common to us all and some that are not common to all but are rather the results of a rebellious spirit, a hardened heart, or perversity.
Romans ch. 1 beginning with verse 21 states: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him."
As a result of this, the Bible says their hearts were darkened. These people were believers who knew the Lord but they sinned in that they were not thankful nor did their actions or thoughts glorify him.
This was just the beginning of what I would call a progression of sin. In verse 22 they became fools. In verse 23, they began to make images in place of God. In verse 24 God "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."
It is clear that they did not start out sinning in this way but rather thanklessness led to foolishness and darkened hearts led to idolatry led to sexual ipurity. Then in verse 25 they "exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped created things..."
Their sin keeps getting worse as they now exchange two things- truth for lies. Now, they are believing lies and have given up the truth they once knew.
Next in verse 26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Their homosexuality was a result of their abandonment of truth and it was considered to be shameful, indecent, and perverse. Not all sins are considered shameful, indecent, and perverse and here lies a difference with sin. On the same hand, not all sins are degrading.
All of us in our lives will tell a lie. We will all battle with pride, selfishness, greed, laziness, and so forth. These are what I would call common sins. They are not perverse nor are they indecent although they certainly can lead to perversity or indecency if they are allowed and a person fails to confess and repent of them. Not all people, however, will commit sins such as homosexuality, incest, murder, adultery, and so forth.
These sins are the result of a progression of sin in the heart. Most people do not live a Spirit filled life and then one day commit murder.
Take David for example. He did not first commit murder. He first lusted. He acted upon that lust, thus committing adultery. That then led to murder. It then led to David basically hiding and covering up his sin for about a year until Nathan confronted him and David finally confessed his sin with great remorse. It was a progression of allowing sin into his life and acting upon that sin. We all struggle with lust, but if we exhange a lie for truth, our "common" sin can then lead to further sin and more heinous or perverse sin and with that, there are also much graver consequences. The consequences in David's life surely would have been lesser had he only lusted and not acted upon it.
Back to Romans. Verse 28 states that these people "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" and finally God "gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."
Verses 29-32 state, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
These verses alone cause me to examine my own heart and life!
However, many things stand out. These are not repentative people. They are not sorrowful over their sin which is evidenced in that they approve of others who are sinning in these ways and they continue to sin. These verses say they are full of every kind of sin. It's not that they are Christians struggling as we all do with our sinful natures but rather their lives are completely characterized with many, many sins that are ongoing in nature. I believe this would indicate that they are rebelling with hardened hearts. They WANT to do wrong and they do NOT WANT to obey God.
There is quite a difference between a person who sins and repents or feels remorse and guilt and a person who sins and then sins some more and then continues to heap sin upon sin thus leading to a hard heart and a desensitivity to sin.
You asked a good question about leadership and church membership and how we evaluate sin and who evaluates it. If a person falls into the category above of Romans ch. 1 where they are committing indecent and perverse sins, they are committing many blatant sins (they don't just disobey their parents but they also gossip and slander and envy and they do this on a continual basis as if God has no impact in their life), they approve of other's sins and justify their own, and they feel no guilt or remorse, then I would say they should not be in any church leadership postion or any other position where they influence others in the name of Christ.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | |
Trosie:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question. Seems like we should first focus on membership. What do you think the meaning of membership to a church is? What in general do you think the requirements to be a member of a church ought to be? Also, is there a difference in your view of being a member of a specific church versus being a member of THE Church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iconoclast, I am searching for the answer to this right now in my life. As I have been observing my neighbors and coworkers... I have noticed that MANY people believe that they are "in" that many others would classify as not being "in" So then, WHO really is "in"? Is it enough to just believe in Jesus or is more required? If more is required how could we human beings ever know who is "in" and who isn't since we ALL sin daily and we ALL struggle with our own set of sins?
What I had been referring to in regard to church membertship is that some people are NOT welcomed into join a particular church UNTIL they have cleaned up certain sins yet I am beginning to wonder WHO decides which sins to focus on....
Does this make sense?
trosie
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw, you make good points. Here's the one question I have for you: How do we know if a person has exchanged a truth for a lie deliberately or if they are lost? Why would we want to keep a person "out" or judge a person for being lost?
I know for a fact that some time in the future I will look back at my life and thank God for His patience with me right now. Based on prior experience I am sure that there are areas in my life where I am buying into lies that I will realize and then repent of. I think this is where the Holy Spirit works. Based on this how could we ever know for certain that a person truely doesn't "think" they are doing right?
Does this make sense?
trosie
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw:
Yes, Trosie, that makes much sense. We definitely must be very discerning as well as full of mercy, compassion, and love for people as God also has for us and I think this is what you are desiring to see others treated with and rightly so.
God created us to be in relationship. Almost everything we do affects someone, in both little and very large ways. Sin affects others. Sin brings disgrace to Christ's name when a person who calls himself a Christian is committing a blatant sin and showing no remorse or sorrow over it. The sin is thus, then condoned and this can spread to others. This person misrepresents Christ and brings shame to His name.
In most churches, a person who is a member has agreed to support the church and to also be accountable to that specific church. This person is allowed to vote on matters pertaining to the church (such as the election of elders or financial matters). This person can hold "offices" or positions of leadership or influence (deacons, elders, choir members, Sunday school teachers, small group leaders, and so on). A member is usually someone who has made a committment to this church with the understanding that the church is also committed to him. He has more influence than a non-member and the church leaders (pastors, deacons, elders) ought to somewhat examine a person's life before granting membership.
For example, if my children are in a Sunday school class alone with the teacher, I will want to know that this teacher is a Christian and is not going to be negatively influencing my child. If this teacher is not a member of the church, well, I would have some fear. But if this person is a member of the church and I know that the church grants membership to people who are Christians not involved in blatant, perverse, or ongoing sins and so forth, then I can trust my children to be not only taught, but to be alone, with this person.
A child care worker in the world (outside of the church) must have schooling, fingerprints, and background checks on him. Why should we as the church not also discern and examine a person who is going to be influencing children, or adults for that matter? We are constantly urged to be discerning and wise. It is a good thing! I don't want my teenager in a youth group in which the youth pastor is in an adulterous relationship. What might this say to my teen? Our sins reflect our heart and if there is ongoing or perverse or blatant sin that is on a continual basis, etc, then our hearts are not right and we should not be in a position of teaching or leading other Christians, not until we have completely repented.
I understand your concern about who "judges" and how and when, but as Christians, we have the Holy Spirit who helps us discern with wisdom and our pastors and church leaders should be godly people who are capable of doing such a thing. It is important that they do.
We are admonished in the Bible to be discerning. We have the Spirit who assists us and we have the examples of many godly men and women in the Bible. In Proverbs, the writers constantly sought after wisdom and we must also do so. We, as people, can be easily swayed, easily influenced, easily taken advantage of, and easily deceived and we need to be discerning and wise and look to see if a person's life is fruitful.
We don't necessarily judge a person for being lost. We desire them to come to a saving knowledge of Christ but we also must be careful in our relationship with them for they practice things and approve of things that Christ tells us not to practice or approve of.
The Church is the gathering of BELIEVERS, or the "Body" of Christ. A gathering of non Christians is not a church. It is the gathering of Christians that comprise the church. It is Christians who govern specific churches and who make decisions regarding those churches. A non Christian or a Christian in sin will not have the mind of Christ.
Many churches nowadays are geared more towards winning the lost than they are towards equipping the saints. The church ought to be the gathering of Christians who are being equipped to then go out to witness to others. We, as Christians nowadays, often bring our non Christian family and friends to church so that our pastor can witness to them rather than us witnessing to them. But the church is still primarily made up of believers and it is not so much a matterr of keeping a person "out" as much as it is making sure the church is not compromising in any way in its representation of Christ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
Seesaw, thankyou for the dialogue -- you are very helpful in my processing. I have a couple thoughts/questions regarding your last post.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sin brings disgrace to Christ's name when a person who calls himself a Christian is committing a blatant sin and showing no remorse or sorrow over it. The sin is thus, then condoned and this can spread to others. This person misrepresents Christ and brings shame to His name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was reading this I was thinking about the horrible things that happened in the "church" in the past to people in the name of Christ. As we know churches have not always been innocent in how they have treated people groups thus to me this is a blatant sin so I totally hear ya in this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't necessarily judge a person for being lost. We desire them to come to a saving knowledge of Christ but we also must be careful in our relationship with them for they practice things and approve of things that Christ tells us not to practice or approve of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been thinking back over my own life... Since this is way behind me I'd like to share something with you that makes me wonder if we are incorrect in how we treat particular sinners.
When I was in a teenager I attempted suicide and was hospitalized. I recall various well-meaning Christians coming to visit me and telling me to repent of my sin of depression. There were some who would come and pray over me to deliver me of the evil spirit that had hooked itself to me. Do you think that this helped me at all? I thank God that the Holy Spirit saw me through all of those comments because I was so vulnerable as a young Christian. The Holy Spirit gave me words of knowledge and encouraged me through verses from Psalms and Job. I would respond to the comments made about my sin by quoting from these two godly men who also had struggled with bouts of despair....
My point is that one could say that me buying into Satan's lies and me not using the "joy of the Lord" as my strength was missing the mark of what God desired for me YET how is this much different from those who struggle with other sins? For instance, I think some people need to be kicked in the pants to get them off of a self-pity pot but I think that most depressed people need to be loved and accepted right where they are at. I still know of some Christians that think that those who struggle with mental illness are hosting demonic spirits... I'm wondering if this is much different from those who struggle in other areas such as with homosexuality?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want my teenager in a youth group in which the youth pastor is in an adulterous relationship. What might this say to my teen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear what you're saying because I have children but my question is how do you discern what's inside the heart of a person? Some sins are obvious for us to see such as living in an adulterous relationship but how about some that we may not know about such as pornography. Porn happens to be a huge issue for many pastors who are preaching and teaching in the churches. Would you say that we are to discern the sins that are obvious to see?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many churches nowadays are geared more towards winning the lost than they are towards equipping the saints
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that balance is what is best. The church should be about both and can be about both when the Holy Spirit is flowing. I personally believe churches should be geared toward PRAYER, allowing the Spirit to move as He wills. It always surprises and amazes me when a sermon can be totally "bland" to me yet at the end many people end up accepting Christ. I get blown away. I believe this is the Spirit working and moving.
SeeSaw your dialogue is most helpful.
Blessings,
trosie
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt:
Trosie, I am so sorry to hear about your experience with that church and your depression. That makes me literally ill. I am amazed that anyone today would think that the illness of chronic depression is caused by an evil spirit!
My question- sorry if this has already been addressed but I also did not read the entire thread - is isn't there room to distinguish between church leaders and the church members and visitors? That is, church leadership should be held to a higher standard. I also see the prejudice in action when a divorced and remarried pastor is allowed to continue in leadership - when a celibate homosexual is not? Regardless, the church leaders are more accountable, and as far as visible morality, should be leading exemplary lives. I believe the church itself is for sinners and those that are well do not need a doctor.
For once I agree w/ Greg that why is homosexuality considered more of a sin than other sins? Someone mentioned, would we not confront murderers and thieves in the church? Well I think the comparison is hardly accurate, since both murderers and thieves have actively and intentionally harmed someone. Who has a gay couple who mind their own business harmed? How do you know what goes on in their bedroom? You can't assume that the upstanding married couple in your church isn't beset by adultery. My point is, everyone is a sinner- although some sins are more visible than others.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie:
Reasonable:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie, I am so sorry to hear about your experience with that church and your depression. That makes me literally ill. I am amazed that anyone today would think that the illness of chronic depression is caused by an evil spirit!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you ReasonableDoubt! What concerns me most is that this type of behavior and attitude happens to other people groups such as homosexuals and gluttons. I know of a few colleges that won't accept overweight people in. I have heard people refer to homosexuals as possessing "evil spirits". I don't much see how this is encouraging the body but I DO see how destructive this can be especially for vulnerable young people.
Thanks,
trosie
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Former Advocate of Pro-Gay Theology Speaks Out...
John Earp:
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/theo.html#scriptural
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
http://revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | SeeSaw:
In response to Greg's comments re: Romans 1-
According to Romans, God did not "give them over... to sexual impurity" until after
1) they didn't glorify God- even though they knew Him (vs.21);
2) they did not give thanks to Him (vs. 21);
3) their thinking became futile (vs. 22);
4) their hearts were "foolish" and "darkened" (vs. 22); and FINALLY, 5) they exchanged the glory of God for images (vs.23).
It does not appear that idolatry was necessarily the root sin but that there was a succession of sin here beginning with something seemingly "small"- ingratitude and not giving God glory. This led to their thinking being "futile". They weren't thinking right. They became foolish; their hearts darkened. It is after this that they then turn away from God to images. There also was a lack of guilt, confession, repentence. I assume that had they repented, God would not have given them over to their sin. They were not repenting though. They were fully enjoying their sin.
It isn't until vs. 26 that homosexuality is committed. In between the idolatry and the homosexuality there is
1) sexual immorality (vs. 24);
2) exchanging truth for lie (vs. 25);
3) worshiping and serving created things (vs. 25);
and lastly,
4) "the men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."
However, they are not just "inflamed with lust" but they go further than that. They "act" upon those lusts and commit "indecent acts with these men." It is in the following verse (vs. 28), where we read that they now have a "depraved mind" because they have done "what ought not to be done." They are then "filled with every kind of wickedness, evil" and so on. It seems that this list of sins ( in vs.29->) RESULTED from the previous sins; in other words, there is a progression of sin as their hearts get further and further away from God and more and more depraved.
They not only gossip or slander, but they are filled with these two sins AND others. They also approve of others who do such things. They also continue these things, and in their gossip, slander, greed, etc, they are "senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless." There is NO remorse, NO guilt pangs, NO attempts to even hide their sin. They have no shame which is revealing of the state of their hearts considering they knew God and had once obeyed him.
Gossip (slander, envy, and so on) can be more serious in one case than another depending on the intent of the heart. Gossip that is the result of a lack of self-control is the type I believe we all struggle with. It is the type that we later often feel bad for doing. On the other hand, gossip done out of hatred or revenge or maliciousness is quite different. One could say it is almost "premeditated." It is likely also more damaging. Gossip that is ruthless" and "heartless" (as these people were described as being in Rom. 1) is different than gossip that is a lack of self-control or a giving into the temptation to say something we shouldn't. Not that this type of gossip is acceptable, but God looks at the heart and the intents therein, and it appears that the hearts of these people in Rom. 1 were very darkened. Their sins were not simply a lack of self-control or a giving in to temptation (which we all do). I believe that therein lies the difference. Their sin was outright rebellion. It was accepted, condoned, and continued.
These people, incidentally, were clearly not created or "born" with this homosexuality. Clearly, they did not start out committing this sin but rather, it resulted from their previous sins, which separated them from God, and the "foolishness" and futility of their thinking.
I do not believe God gave up on them in any way but rather the verse says that He "gave them over." In other words, He allowed them to sin. He allowed them to experience this progression of sin that kept getting more depraved, more evil, until they reached the point that they were "filled" with "all" types of sin. Their lives were more characterized by sin than it was by holiness.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:
Seesaw:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't until vs. 26 that homosexuality is committed. In between the idolatry and the homosexuality there is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick note: the concept of homosexuality was not part of the world-view of the writers of the Bible. Hence, it would be better if we used the words "homosexual acts". So homosexual acts were committed is more appropriate.
As I explained before, homosexuality is analogous to being born with a hole in one's heart(as I was). It is not a sin that one commits but is an aspect of the general sinfulness of the world that one is born into...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:
There is an interesting article on the politics of homosexuality in ABC's the Note.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/TheNote.html
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon:
From the link DLW posted:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But gays are not the favorite whipping boy they once were. And for most Americans, with more exposure [to gays] comes an ease with the subject, and an acceptance,' Wells said."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what happened in the church with divorced and remarried people. As christians had more exposure to divorced and remarried people they came to realize they were not "living in sin" and they became accepting that they did not need to either remain celibate or go back to their original spouse.
Now, can you imagine reasonable people getting more exposure to child rapists and coming to "an ease with the subject, and an acceptance"? How about raging alcoholics? How about thieves? How about ax-murderers? How about slanderers?
This is just another piece of convergent evidence that Paul's sin list in 1 Corinthians is NOT talking about homosexuals.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:29 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 |
|
|