Homosexuals and salvation

[IACOBVS]

I just love the way so many straight people here think they know so much about LGBTQ issues. Really, you have no clue what you're talking about, and you make yourselves look like fools the way you carry on with your supposed wisdom. I've never come across a more offensive thread on this website.

 

[tango]

I just love the way so many straight people here think they know so much about LGBTQ issues. Really, you have no clue what you're talking about, and you make yourselves look like fools the way you carry on with your supposed wisdom. I've never come across a more offensive thread on this website.

So why not put a different perspective, instead of throwing insults? It would be a much more useful contribution.

As for whether a thread is offensive, if people are discussing their understandings of what Scripture says it matters little if some consider Scripture to be offensive. If you want to explain why you believe Scripture means something else, or why the passages under discussion no longer apply, have at it. To just say something is offensive adds nothing to the discussion at all.

 

[IACOBVS]

So why not put a different perspective, instead of throwing insults? It would be a much more useful contribution.

As for whether a thread is offensive, if people are discussing their understandings of what Scripture says it matters little if some consider Scripture to be offensive. If you want to explain why you believe Scripture means something else, or why the passages under discussion no longer apply, have at it. To just say something is offensive adds nothing to the discussion at all.

Why would I subject myself to even more venom? No thanks. I want nothing to do with such hateful, pseudo-Christians.

 

[Andrew]

Why would I subject myself to even more venom? No thanks. I want nothing to do with such hateful, pseudo-Christians.

Pseudo? [emoji53]
No one here is a homophobe from what I get out of this thread, I was arguing that I find it quite impossible for someone born gay to absolutely turn away from it.
Also I'm trying to gather thoughts on this matter seeing that churches won't address and seeing that todays generations are open to sharing their identity, it seems that those individuals are becoming more and more bitter towards Christianity because they find it so difficult to not find them homophobic.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Why would I subject myself to even more venom? No thanks. I want nothing to do with such hateful, pseudo-Christians.

So you throw insults around liberally while accusing others of being hateful? Where is the hate in reading Scripture and seeking a correct interpretation?

The simple truth is that if Scripture says something is sinful and you are doing that something, you are sinning. Whatever the nature of the something, it really is as simple as that. If you want to explain why you believe Scripture does not forbid homosexuality I for one would be interested in reading a coherently put counterargument. If the best you can do is throw around accusations of hate, even when hate isn't being expressed, and accuse people of being pseudo-Christians without even attempting to explain why you think they are wrong, it suggests you don't actually have a Scriptural case to make.

 

[MennoSota]

God has a prescribed means of approved sexual intimacy between one man and one woman in which the two become one in a sacred bond. Any extra sexual behavior, whether hetero or homo sexual behavior is condemned by God.
Perhaps the best way to express this is in the very specific commands God gave Israel for the creation and burning of a very particular incense. The priests were to follow the command. In Leviticus 10 we see God's response to such disobedience.
No matter how much we humans may demand that God should approve our worship, if the worship is not what God prescribes we must not offer it to God.

Leviticus 10:1-2
[1]Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over them. In this way, they disobeyed the lord by burning before him the wrong kind of fire, different than he had commanded.
[2]So fire blazed forth from the lord’s presence and burned them up, and they died there before the lord.

Sex is a holy and sacred form of worship before the Creator. It is not meant as a selfish act designed for carnal pleasure. To engage in sex in that form is tantamount to Nadab and Abihu offering a strange incense before God Almighty.
We must come to understand how sacred sexual behavior is and as Christians recognize it as such.
Therefore any other forms of sexual behavior must be condemned within the behavior of Christians. What rebels to God wish to do is of no concern to the body of Christ. But when a rebel is redeemed by God, those rebellious actions must be crucified and abandoned. God's grace is and must be sufficient to overcome our temptations. If we fail in our obedience we must confess our sins. God will be faithful to forgive us our sins.

 

[MennoSota]

Why would I subject myself to even more venom? No thanks. I want nothing to do with such hateful, pseudo-Christians.

You have pridefully declared that people who don't believe like you believe are therefore pseudo-Christians.
The truth is that anyone whom God has not adopted as his child is not a Chriatian. All who are adopted as God's children are Christians (Ephesians 1). There is no such thing as a pseudo-Christian.
If God has adopted us as his children, he therefore expects us to behave according to his commands. This is why God disciplines his children (Hebrews 12). God will make his children in his image by sanctifying us and disciplining us.

 

[NewCreation435]

Since the homosexual orientation lies within the normal range of what it means to be human, why not simply hold the homosexual to exactly the same moral and ethical standards that we hold heterosexuals to? I regard the legalization of homosexual marriage as a most important step in that direction. I believe that this is the spirit of God continuing to work in our world.

I would not regard homosexual orientation as in the normal range at all. The Bible clearly calls it a perversion. As believers we are called to call sin a sin. The world calls that being closed minded, but it is not. it is calling it what it is. It is not more of a sin that a man and a woman having an affair or people having sex out of marriage which the Bible also condemns.

 

[Josiah]

I would not regard homosexual orientation as in the normal range at all. The Bible clearly calls it a perversion. As believers we are called to call sin a sin. The world calls that being closed minded, but it is not. it is calling it what it is. It is not more of a sin that a man and a woman having an affair or people having sex out of marriage which the Bible also condemns.

Well...... I'd agree that the Bible calls homosexual ACTS to be sin - but then MUCH falls into the category of sexual sin. And I agree with you; I see no reason to isolate homosexual acts and rebuke them more than (or other than) visiting "those" websites or self-pleasuring or pre-marital stuff.

But the ORIENTATION, in my view, is a part of the universal sinfulness of ALL people. ALL of us have an orientation to sin (not just homosexuals).... ALL of us have a sinful NATURE. Yes, is the nature of ALL people "sinful?" Of course. Are ALL people by nature sinful, with an orientation to sin? Of course. I'm not sure I could make a case that some are more "sin" than others, that some have MORE of such a nature than others..... we simply are ALL "sick".

I think the Bible tends to place the emphasis on what we DO, how that nature PLAYS OUT in our lives.... the "symptoms" of our sin. As Luther said, "You can't keep a bird from flying over your head but you can keep it from making a nest in your hair." I may WANT to do something sinful with some attractive female other than my wife.... but I don't HAVE to, I'm called not to ACT on it. Is the sin still there? Yup. Is the NATURE the same? Of course. Is there still sin of thought (if not action)? Yup. Should I include that in my confession to God? Absolutely. But we're only talking about the final symptom - the acting it out - not the sin itself. And of course, even that isn't a good as we like to think.... with SAINT Paul, I think we all need to admit that the good we want to do we do not, and the evil we don't want to do we do.... that we are CHIEF of sinners. It was true of SAINT Paul and it's true of us. I think we'd ALL benefit from spending some HONEST time in front of the mirror... we'd probably benefit more than in stead looking around to see if we can find others who seem to have worse symptoms than we do in some very specific, particular matter.



Just my half cent.



- Josiah

 

[tango]

Well...... I'd agree that the Bible calls homosexual ACTS to be sin - but then MUCH falls into the category of sexual sin. And I agree with you; I see no reason to isolate homosexual acts and rebuke them more than (or other than) visiting "those" websites or self-pleasuring or pre-marital stuff.

But the ORIENTATION, in my view, is a part of the universal sinfulness of ALL people. ALL of us have an orientation to sin (not just homosexuals).... ALL of us have a sinful NATURE. Yes, is the nature of ALL people "sinful?" Of course. Are ALL people by nature sinful, with an orientation to sin? Of course. I'm not sure I could make a case that some are more "sin" than others, that some have MORE of such a nature than others..... we simply are ALL "sick".

I think the Bible tends to place the emphasis on what we DO, how that nature PLAYS OUT in our lives.... the "symptoms" of our sin. As Luther said, "You can't keep a bird from flying over your head but you can keep it from making a nest in your hair." I may WANT to do something sinful with some attractive female other than my wife.... but I don't HAVE to, I'm called not to ACT on it. Is the sin still there? Yup. Is the NATURE the same? Of course. Is there still sin of thought (if not action)? Yup. Should I include that in my confession to God? Absolutely. But we're only talking about the final symptom - the acting it out - not the sin itself. And of course, even that isn't a good as we like to think.... with SAINT Paul, I think we all need to admit that the good we want to do we do not, and the evil we don't want to do we do.... that we are CHIEF of sinners. It was true of SAINT Paul and it's true of us. I think we'd ALL benefit from spending some HONEST time in front of the mirror... we'd probably benefit more than in stead looking around to see if we can find others who seem to have worse symptoms than we do in some very specific, particular matter.



Just my half cent.



- Josiah

It's the difference between being tempted and succumbing to temptation. Being tempted isn't a sin - even Jesus was tempted. What matters is how we deal with the temptation and, as you say, falling into one kind of sin is really little different to falling into a different kind of sin.

 

[psalms 91]

It's the difference between being tempted and succumbing to temptation. Being tempted isn't a sin - even Jesus was tempted. What matters is how we deal with the temptation and, as you say, falling into one kind of sin is really little different to falling into a different kind of sin.

Agreed, the difference is that this particular sin seems to be trying to shove it down our throats and say it is ok, it isnt and any that beleive that have fallen for a lie

 

[Josiah]

So why not put a different perspective, instead of throwing insults? It would be a much more useful contribution.

As for whether a thread is offensive, if people are discussing their understandings of what Scripture says it matters little if some consider Scripture to be offensive. If you want to explain why you believe Scripture means something else, or why the passages under discussion no longer apply, have at it. To just say something is offensive adds nothing to the discussion at all.

I agree......


IMO, this thread is not about LGBTQ "issues". But I'd welcome a thread about any such. If our friend thinks that some misunderstand "LGBTQ issues", he has the same ability to start threads as any here. And just like every other poster here, he may find that people here might disagree with his perspective. It's how it goes. And if it posts thread(s) in THIS forum, it must be discussed within the framework of Christianity and its Scriptures.

I've not read this thread as "offensive" to anyone, although certainly to sinfulness. Compared to similar discussions at a dozen or more other similar websites, this has been the most respectful. CH tends to be like that.

Note that this thread is specifically in the "CHRISTIAN Theology" forum, and thus to be discussed within the framework of Christianity and Christian Scriptures. I don't think that should offend or surprise anyone since it is stated that is the context for all in this forum. People may DISAGREE with that perspective, of course.... they may DISAGREE with how the Christian perspective is being understood and applied..... but it should not surprise or offend that that's what Christians tend to do. I think they should. I wish they'd do it more.

When I PERSONALLY feel "offended" by some notice of sin, I take that as MY soul being cut..... bringing me to repentance; I may not LIKE it but it's a good thing. When the Law is properly proclaimed, it's SUPPOSE to offend, to hurt, to cut... and we're SUPPOSE to conclude "He's talking about ME!" That's the only way the Law can work in our lives..... When I think, "THAT sure doesn't apply to ME..... but boy, does it ever apply to GEORGE!!!" Then my sinful nature has prevented the Law from doing it's good and divine task.



Back to the issue ....



- Josiah

 

[tango]

Agreed, the difference is that this particular sin seems to be trying to shove it down our throats and say it is ok, it isnt and any that beleive that have fallen for a lie

In fairness I think a lot of the gay community just want to be left alone. Most of the gay people I know just want to get on with their lives and not endlessly shove their preferences in my face.

Admittedly we don't see Adultery Pride marches, nor are there groups demanding equality for those with issues of wrath and hatred but from a purely secular perspective there are no restrictions on wrath and hatred. From a purely secular perspective it's easy to see why the gay community wants to be recognised, even if the way they go about it is very offputting to many.

As I said (I think further up in this thread) the trouble with the politics of identity is that it always looks for differences, when what they allegedly want is equality and therefore to overlook differences. When the thing that makes us different is promoted to a place where it practically defines us all that can result is disunity. When the thing that makes us different is left in its proper place the result can be unity.

I think of a guy I loosely know who owns a coffee shop not far from me. He and I share an interest in coffee - he obviously has an interest in quality coffee and I have an interest in it too. I visit his coffee shop reasonably regularly because he sells good coffee and his shop is a nice place to be. He and I also share an interest in fine art photography. Often when I'm in his shop with my wife we talk at great length about coffee and about photography, and often touch on other aspects of day-to-day life as well. Did I mention he is gay? Probably not, because we talk about the things we have in common. I know he is gay, he knows I am straight, we are both defined by so much more than our sexual preferences so there's no need to endlessly visit and revisit the gay issue. Yet the push towards identity politics would focus on the fact he is Not Like Me because he is gay and I am not, thereby focussing on what divides us rather than on what unites us.

 

[psalms 91]

In fairness I think a lot of the gay community just want to be left alone. Most of the gay people I know just want to get on with their lives and not endlessly shove their preferences in my face.

Admittedly we don't see Adultery Pride marches, nor are there groups demanding equality for those with issues of wrath and hatred but from a purely secular perspective there are no restrictions on wrath and hatred. From a purely secular perspective it's easy to see why the gay community wants to be recognised, even if the way they go about it is very offputting to many.

As I said (I think further up in this thread) the trouble with the politics of identity is that it always looks for differences, when what they allegedly want is equality and therefore to overlook differences. When the thing that makes us different is promoted to a place where it practically defines us all that can result is disunity. When the thing that makes us different is left in its proper place the result can be unity.

I think of a guy I loosely know who owns a coffee shop not far from me. He and I share an interest in coffee - he obviously has an interest in quality coffee and I have an interest in it too. I visit his coffee shop reasonably regularly because he sells good coffee and his shop is a nice place to be. He and I also share an interest in fine art photography. Often when I'm in his shop with my wife we talk at great length about coffee and about photography, and often touch on other aspects of day-to-day life as well. Did I mention he is gay? Probably not, because we talk about the things we have in common. I know he is gay, he knows I am straight, we are both defined by so much more than our sexual preferences so there's no need to endlessly visit and revisit the gay issue. Yet the push towards identity politics would focus on the fact he is Not Like Me because he is gay and I am not, thereby focussing on what divides us rather than on what unites us.

I am fine with that as long as I am not legislated into accepting it or forced to do something in support of it. I am silent unless it comes up so if they want left alone I suggest that they do not ram it sdown my throat and I will be happy to leave them alone

 

[hedrick]

I am fine with that as long as I am not legislated into accepting it or forced to do something in support of it. I am silent unless it comes up so if they want left alone I suggest that they do not ram it sdown my throat and I will be happy to leave them alone

I think increasingly people are going to be expected to treat gays the same as others. At least in the US, no one is going to require you to accept that it's OK, but they are going to require businesses to treat them equally as customers, and in schools kids will be taught to treat gays and children of gays well.

I don't think Christians should object to this. After all, God gives rain to the just and unjust, and Paul tells us that we can't avoid dealing with sinners unless we go out of the world entirely.

That's assuming that they're sinners. Increasingly Christians are saying that that's not the case. But you are certainly free to be part of churches that accept traditional applications of Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

The man-made concept of sexual orientation is never discussed in scripture. Temptation is discussed and the variety of temptations knows no end. As Christians we are called to turn our gaze upon Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. The Bible tells us our way of escape, but often we want the idolatrous sin rather than God. This is why we are told to confess our sins before God so that God will faithfully forgive us. (1 John 1:9)

There are lots of current ethical concepts not referenced in Scripture. The biggest omission is informed consent. Sure, rape is considered a crime, but the whole complex of questions, both medical and sexual, is based on a basic concept that isn't Scriptural. Scripture also doesn't provide explicit enough guidance to have helped deal with abuse within families. Again, there are certainly statements that men should love their wives, but little in the way of specific guidance that would have led the Church to take effective action.

As far as I can see, Scripture's role is not to supply a new foundation for ethics, but rather to transform people's hearts by dying and rising with Christ.

 

[NewCreation435]

Well...... I'd agree that the Bible calls homosexual ACTS to be sin - but then MUCH falls into the category of sexual sin. And I agree with you; I see no reason to isolate homosexual acts and rebuke them more than (or other than) visiting "those" websites or self-pleasuring or pre-marital stuff.

But the ORIENTATION, in my view, is a part of the universal sinfulness of ALL people. ALL of us have an orientation to sin (not just homosexuals).... ALL of us have a sinful NATURE. Yes, is the nature of ALL people "sinful?" Of course. Are ALL people by nature sinful, with an orientation to sin? Of course. I'm not sure I could make a case that some are more "sin" than others, that some have MORE of such a nature than others..... we simply are ALL "sick".

I think the Bible tends to place the emphasis on what we DO, how that nature PLAYS OUT in our lives.... the "symptoms" of our sin. As Luther said, "You can't keep a bird from flying over your head but you can keep it from making a nest in your hair." I may WANT to do something sinful with some attractive female other than my wife.... but I don't HAVE to, I'm called not to ACT on it. Is the sin still there? Yup. Is the NATURE the same? Of course. Is there still sin of thought (if not action)? Yup. Should I include that in my confession to God? Absolutely. But we're only talking about the final symptom - the acting it out - not the sin itself. And of course, even that isn't a good as we like to think.... with SAINT Paul, I think we all need to admit that the good we want to do we do not, and the evil we don't want to do we do.... that we are CHIEF of sinners. It was true of SAINT Paul and it's true of us. I think we'd ALL benefit from spending some HONEST time in front of the mirror... we'd probably benefit more than in stead looking around to see if we can find others who seem to have worse symptoms than we do in some very specific, particular matter.



Just my half cent.



- Josiah

Well, we weren't talking about the depravity of man. We were talking about homosexual lifestyle in particular which is what i was commenting about. Hollywood and liberals in particular have tried to force christians and society in general to acknowledge the homosexual lifestyle as a choice rather than a depravity. Have you noticed how many gay and lesbian actors exist now that are very open about their lifestyle. If you call it sin they your condemned and called closed minded or angry. When in fact the Bible condemns it and doesn't call it a choice or a lifestyle. It is called sin plain and simple. But, that's not politically correct now.

 

[psalms 91]

I think increasingly people are going to be expected to treat gays the same as others. At least in the US, no one is going to require you to accept that it's OK, but they are going to require businesses to treat them equally as customers, and in schools kids will be taught to treat gays and children of gays well.

I don't think Christians should object to this. After all, God gives rain to the just and unjust, and Paul tells us that we can't avoid dealing with sinners unless we go out of the world entirely.

That's assuming that they're sinners. Increasingly Christians are saying that that's not the case. But you are certainly free to be part of churches that accept traditional applications of Scripture.

I have no problem with thatso long as my views are also accepted, IAs for teaching kids alifestyle that I think is peverse that I would have to say no to and I wil never accept that as for treating everyone with kindness yes I agree.

 

[Albion]

I think increasingly people are going to be expected to treat gays the same as others. At least in the US, no one is going to require you to accept that it's OK

Of course they are! We are long past the days when people were expected to live and let live so far as their personal opinions are concerned. Every sensitivity training session and every demand by the special identity organizations demands that the minority in question not only be allowed equal access and equality before the law, but that the characteristics of that minority be "affirmed" and, more than that, "celebrated" by everyone else. If not, they're accused of homophobia (a purely contrived insult term), bigotry, or worse...a hate crime.

and in schools kids will be taught to treat gays and children of gays well.

What a quaint perspective. Kids ARE now being taught--not "will be"--that these folks are as normal as anyone else--not that they should be treated well.

 

[tango]

I think increasingly people are going to be expected to treat gays the same as others. At least in the US, no one is going to require you to accept that it's OK, but they are going to require businesses to treat them equally as customers, and in schools kids will be taught to treat gays and children of gays well.

I don't think Christians should object to this. After all, God gives rain to the just and unjust, and Paul tells us that we can't avoid dealing with sinners unless we go out of the world entirely.

That's assuming that they're sinners. Increasingly Christians are saying that that's not the case. But you are certainly free to be part of churches that accept traditional applications of Scripture.

I wish people who say that homosexual acts are not sinful would present a more coherent appeal to Scripture to support the case. Most of what I've seen on the subject involves either people pulling verses from Leviticus about abominations (while conveniently ignoring other verses from Leviticus about dietary requirements, clothes of mixed fiber, women being ceremonially unclean around their period and so on) and often making no distinction at all between the desire and the acts, or variations of people wringing their hands and insisting they have the right to be happy or that "God made them this way" or similar.

If the best people come up with is something along the lines of "ah yes, but we've moved on from that" then why stop at homosexuality? What about adultery, fornication, pornography? Why even stop there - what about swinging, open marriages? What about some real social taboos - what about things like incest? Many people compare homosexuality to things like pedophilia, which is hugely unhelpful even if only because of the issue of informed consent - I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the gay community seek a consenting adult partner, just as the overwhelming majority of the straight community do. But if we're talking about adults who are mentally competent and able to give informed consent, what about an adult man and his consenting adult sister getting it together? It may trigger an awful lot of "ewwww, gross" reactions but if we start down the line of asking who we are to judge where does it stop?

Is it "hateful" or "bigoted" to regard sexual activity between adult consenting siblings to be inappropriate?