PDA

View Full Version : Need Advice: What Scripture Really Says About Homosexuality



jns182
Oct 7th 2008, 05:58 PM
How should I respond to this claim?


Scripture and Homosexuality




In an article in Christianity Today, “Why Is This Important?” Stanton L. Jones gives three reasons for not changing the Church’s stance on Homosexuality. I believe his reasons are not valid, and I will refute them. To quote Stanton:

“First, the church’s historically high view of the authority of scripture is threatened by efforts at revising the church’s position homosexuality.”

His second reason is that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity. The third and most critical reason, however, is this:

“We can only change our position on homosexuality by changing our fundamental stance on biblical authority, by changing our core view of sexuality, and by changing the meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives.”

The first of Jones’s objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the challenged by a revision of the church’s position on homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church’s position on women, Jews, and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account that fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality.

In his study Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell concluded his chapter on the New Testament texts having do with homosexuality with these words:

“The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.”

Jeffery S. Siker, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

“Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity”

Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

“Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church…It is a mistake to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position in these matters.”

As early as in 1964, German theologian Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote, “There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically.” He went on to observe, however that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing to do with biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls “doctrinaire prejudices.”

“Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, “homosexuality is sinful,” is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.”

Jones’s second reason, “that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity,” fails to take account that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms.

Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a “problem” is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.

What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say, but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and icon instead of the intended “living word of God.” Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self-serving reading of scripture might just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.

The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but instead “invincible ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible; it is the Christians who read it.

The gospel, like the life of Jesus, was meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The danger of Christian absolutism can be plainly demonstrated by the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Scripture’s position on monogamous, Christian, homosexual relationships is just not there. The heart of the opposition to homosexuals is clouded with fear, not love. The same fear as the heart of homophobia was at the heart of racism, and as with racism, religion – particularly the Protestant evangelical kind that had nourished me – was the moral fig leaf that covered naked prejudice. More rather than less attention must be given to how we read scriptures, what we bring to the text, what we find in the text, and what we take from the text.

Slug1
Oct 8th 2008, 12:02 PM
Well for me, I go with what God feels toward this sin. As I read Romans 1, God uses many descriptive words and phrases to describe the sins discussed in this scripture, one of which is homosexuality (man lying with man). I'll post a few and this is from the NKJV: Wrath of God, ungodliness, unrighteousness, suppressing truth, did not glorify Him, nor were thankful, futile in their thoughts, foolish hearts, darkened, became fools, corruptible man, uncleaness, lust of their hearts, dishonored their bodies, exchanged the truth of God for a lie, worshipped and served the creature, vile passions, exchanged the natural use for what is against nature, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts, shameful, receiving in themselves the penalty of their error, debased mind, not fitting...

So when I pull these words and phases from the Word of God... these are what God says about this sin as well as many others listed (Romans 1:18-32). We are to have a heart for God so if we go against this... IOW's defend a homosexual lifestyle or approve of this sin then such a person does not have a heart for God. In verses 21-23 would describe such persons and the choice word here is "fool". Also, as we see in verse 32 that such people that approve are held equal with those who practice these sins and thus... are deserving of death as well. Which is why I say that such people don't have a heart for God but for themselves instead, and they "suppress the truth", are "futile in their thoughts", and "became fools".

One thing I always point out... the number one way to approve of sin is to ignore sin cause if you don't disapprove of sin or when you recognize sin then as a Christian with a heart of God you will help a sinner see the error of their way, NEVER ignore it, or NEVER approve of it cause then you would be a person covered in that v32 and be just as guilty.

graceforme
Oct 9th 2008, 11:39 AM
I can't imagine why anyone would think we should our stance on this issue, and I, for one, have no plans to do so. God has defined homosexuality extremely well in His Word. Why do people think they challenge what God says? Dangerous territory, and those who have a healthy fear of God's wrath would never attempt to do so.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 02:29 PM
God has made it quite clear in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, regardless of whether it's in a monogamous relationship or a one night stand. To attempt to suggest otherwise would no less foolish than trying to use a Philips screwdriver on a flathead screw. It's contrary to what the designer had in mind. God designed us for heterosexual relationships, end of discussion.

mcgyver
Oct 9th 2008, 03:00 PM
The first of Jones’s objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the challenged by a revision of the church’s position on homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church’s position on women, Jews, and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account that fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality.

A couple of things here: First, in the entire body of scripture...there is not one single reference to indicate that it is a sin to be a woman, a slave, or a Jew. There is however an abundance of scripture that declares homosexuality to be a perversion, a sin, and an abomination in the eyes of God. Someone need to read their bible here.


“The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.”

Hmmm....Romans 1:24-27

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,"



Jeffery S. Siker, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

“Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity”

Just plain wrong...Really ought to read Matt 18 and 1 Corinthians :rolleyes:


Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

“Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church…It is a mistake to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position in these matters.”

You've GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!! Mr. Furnish must be reading a different Paul, then.


As early as in 1964, German theologian Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote, “There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically.” He went on to observe, however that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing to do with biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls “doctrinaire prejudices.”

“Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, “homosexuality is sinful,” is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.”

As I said...reading from a different Bible....


Jones’s second reason, “that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity,” fails to take account that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms.

Whoa, hoss...Homosexuality is (scripturally) defined by the action...redefining terms doesn't change the truth.


Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a “problem” is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.

And the wolf is revealed for what he is....

markedward
Oct 9th 2008, 07:23 PM
Further:

People can say "Oh, so-and-so is a nice, loving person", but that does not change the fact that they are living in a sin. Being "nice" and "loving" is not an excuse for sinning.

Christ Himself said that "sexual immorality" is a sin, and it is from the heart. Christ also showed the Law to be the foundation for His teachings. If Christ said "sexual immorality" is sinful, and He continually pointed to the Law, where do you think we're supposed to go to define "sexual immorality"? The Law, of course, which is where the most explicitly defined Bible statements are at on the topic of homosexuality: "It is an abomination".

Is a homosexual condemned to hell once and for all for committing what God calls an "abomination"? No, of course not. They still have a chance to be saved, and God wants them to be saved. But once they are saved they must admit that it is a sin and they must turn their back on (i.e., repent of) their sin.

A Christian who tries to defend homosexuality has either not studied the Bible enough, or they have studied it and are blatantly defying Christ's teachings on sin.


To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.Two logical fallacies are presented here:

1. The writer says Paul spoke of sexual "excess". The word "excess", in this case, means "too much". Paul wrote of "excess" yes, but he also wrote, as pointed out already, of "distortion". "Leaving what is natural" is entirely different from "too much". In the analogy of tools, as was used earlier: Taking a nail and hammering it into the wall over and over is bound to ruin the nail (i.e., excess). But that is entirely different than taking a screw and hammering it into the wall even once (i.e., distortion). Paul did specifically speaking of "distorted" sex, being men having sex with men, and women having sex with women.

2. The writer compares sex to wine, and claims that saying homosexuality is sinful is like claiming wine itself is sinful. Meaning, he's saying that if Christians claim homosexuality is sinful, then Christians should also claim wine as a whole is sinful. This is not a proper comparison between sex and wine (if one could even be made). Too much sex in general is a better comparison to too much wine. Too much sex can mess with your head, and is sinful because you're placing too much of your life into sex. Too much wine can make you drunk, which is sinful. However, any amount of homosexuality is entirely sinful because homosexuality is a distortion of what sex is really supposed to be. So a proper comparison of this to wine would be like pouring wine in your eyes rather than drinking it, because it's a distortion of what wine is supposed to be.

Sexual purity = good
Smart drinking = good
Sexual excess = bad, because it's too much
Alcohol excess = bad, because it's too much
Homosexual sex = bad, because it's a distortion
Wine in your eyes = bad, because it's a distortion

(Well, "wine in your eyes" might not be bad, but it would sure be stupid. Overall, wine and sex can't even be compared properly because they aren't the same thing. But hopefully the reader catches what I'm trying to point out.)

Lamplighter
Oct 9th 2008, 10:10 PM
1 Corinthians 6:18-19 states that fornication is the worse kind of sin. Every other sin is outside of the body(including murder), but fornication is a sin against the temple of the Holy Ghost(your own body).

Revelation 21:8, states that fornicators will have their place in the Lake Of Fire.

Sold Out
Oct 11th 2008, 01:15 PM
(excerpt)


Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin has analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as
the union of a man and woman and survived. 4 In 1947 Carle Zimmerman wrote “Family and Civilization.” He recorded his keen observations as he compared the degeneration of various cultures with a parallel of family life in those cultures. Specific patterns of domestic behavior typified the downward spiral in each one Zimmerman studied. He gave eight specific indicators. Number eight is pushing for other sexual expressions outside of marriage. He says in every single case where permission was granted, the culture fell apart. JD Unwin did an exhaustive research on 88 civilizations that have existed in the history of the world. Each culture has reflected a similar life cycle beginning with the strict code of sexual conduct and ending with a demand for complete freedom to express individual passion. Unwin reports that every society which extended sexual permissiveness was soon to perish. 5 In his exhaustive examination of human history,Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744) Professor of Rhetoric at the
University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the “seedbed” of society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the
absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and suddenly say two men or two women can be married you have automatically robbed the children of a father and a mother and it has ugly consequences. Think of the consequences in sex education. Can you imagine sex education if this becomes law? Then almost any sexual choice would be equal to any other sexual choice and marriage would lose its sacredness. If we take ten years of that kind of education, we will have chaos in the country. It will destroy the moral fabric and the children will suffer the brunt of it. If you say that two men being married, two women being married is equal to a man and a woman being married you have no basis whatsoever to let it stop there. The ACLU has already gone on record in support of polygamy. 3 The most common thought today affecting the elite is a new word, “polyamory,” that means many loves. Marriage can be groups of people as long as they just love each other. Do enough of that in a culture and you destroy it. It will disintegrate because we will no longer have strong families. Stanley Kurtz, author of “Beyond Gay Marriage,” did us a favor because we don’t have to wonder what will happen if we go in that direction. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have already been doing this for ten years, and the consequences are obvious. Marriage loses its sacredness. Couples there no longer chose to be married. In those countries 80 percent of the first born children are born out of wedlock, 60 percent of the second born children are born out of wedlock. Couples question why they should be married; believing it is just like any other relationship and they are destroying the fabric, the strength of a culture. History is a great teacher and there is a consistent voice throughout history which matches what God says. In Galatians 6:7 it says “Don’t be deceived. God will not be mocked. Whatever you sow, that you will reap. You sow to the flesh you will reap corruption.


full article can be read at: http://www.cherrydale.org/clientimages/30992/pastorkingsbooklets/marriage-whygodsdefmatters.pdf

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 02:48 PM
Sold Out, that's an awfully tiny font you're using there - any chance of making it a little bigger? Thanks. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/wacko.gif

Sold Out
Oct 13th 2008, 02:40 PM
Yeah, I nearly pulled my hair out over it. I copied and pasted it and it didn't do right, even after my editing. Sorry! The full article can be read by clicking on the link.

BHS
Oct 13th 2008, 11:53 PM
I have no doubt that God will bring judgment upon any nation that continues to turn its back to ignore homosexuality in its midst. Homosexuality is totally against His creative order. For the church to change its position and accept it as another alternative lifestyle, IMO, will be the sign of an apostate church and the final nail in the coffin.

Scripture is very clear as to what God's view is -- how dare we pervert it to satisfy our own lusts.

lendtay
Oct 14th 2008, 12:27 AM
1 Corinthians 6:18-19 states that fornication is the worse kind of sin. Every other sin is outside of the body(including murder), but fornication is a sin against the temple of the Holy Ghost(your own body).

Revelation 21:8, states that fornicators will have their place in the Lake Of Fire.

I thought all sin was the same in God's eyes. Sin is sin.

faroutinmt
Oct 14th 2008, 01:19 AM
When a person loves sin, he will justify it any way he can.

markinro
Oct 20th 2008, 10:21 PM
How should I respond to this claim?


Scripture and Homosexuality


In an article in Christianity Today, “Why Is This Important?” Stanton L. Jones gives three reasons for not changing the Church’s stance on Homosexuality. I believe his reasons are not valid, and I will refute them. To quote Stanton:

“First, the church’s historically high view of the authority of scripture is threatened by efforts at revising the church’s position homosexuality.”

His second reason is that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity. The third and most critical reason, however, is this:

“We can only change our position on homosexuality by changing our fundamental stance on biblical authority, by changing our core view of sexuality, and by changing the meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives.”

The first of Jones’s objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the challenged by a revision of the church’s position on homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church’s position on women, Jews, and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account that fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality.

In his study Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell concluded his chapter on the New Testament texts having do with homosexuality with these words:

“The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.”

Jeffery S. Siker, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

“Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity”

Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

“Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church…It is a mistake to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position in these matters.”

As early as in 1964, German theologian Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote, “There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically.” He went on to observe, however that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing to do with biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls “doctrinaire prejudices.”

“Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, “homosexuality is sinful,” is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.”

Jones’s second reason, “that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity,” fails to take account that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms.

Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a “problem” is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.

What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say, but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and icon instead of the intended “living word of God.” Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self-serving reading of scripture might just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.

The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but instead “invincible ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible; it is the Christians who read it.

The gospel, like the life of Jesus, was meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The danger of Christian absolutism can be plainly demonstrated by the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Scripture’s position on monogamous, Christian, homosexual relationships is just not there. The heart of the opposition to homosexuals is clouded with fear, not love. The same fear as the heart of homophobia was at the heart of racism, and as with racism, religion – particularly the Protestant evangelical kind that had nourished me – was the moral fig leaf that covered naked prejudice. More rather than less attention must be given to how we read scriptures, what we bring to the text, what we find in the text, and what we take from the text.

2 TIM 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

markinro
Oct 20th 2008, 10:22 PM
2 TIM 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

When you find the verse which says homosexuality is not an abomination/sin, let me know.

Uziela
Oct 21st 2008, 05:36 AM
Of course the Word of God is blatantly clear on the fact that homosexuality is not only a sin but an "abomination." But there is a big push to normalize this sin in order to justify it for those who love it. Most of the talking points I've heard are just transparent excuses but the one I am most concerned with is the one I hear Christians repeating and that is that, "All sin is equal." This claim is used to support the argument that homosexuality is no wore than slipping up and saying "damn" or occassionally feeling jealous because your friend has a nicer car than you do. In this way, the claimants make the proposal that a homosexual under grace can live the homosexual lifestyle and be just as acceptable to God as the Christian who live a holy life but occassionally slips and commits a minor sin. Its a convenient theory but I still haven't seen any real biblical proof. And I HAVE seen a LOT of indications in the Bible that some sins are definitely worse than others. Some sins God particularly hates and calls them "abomination" "vile" etc.. Not only in statements to the fact but also in the actions of God who might smack the hand of people for doing minor sins but when sexual perversion, especially homosexuality is involved, He does things like rain sulferous fire from heaven and flood the entire world, killing off every human being existing except one small family.

Another interesting point is the studies that have been done in the Scandanavian countries where homosexual marriage is legal. Even when marriage is legal a very small percentage of homosexuals actually get married - around 96% stay single. The other study showed that of that percentage that did get married they stayed married an average of a year and a half and had an avere of 8 outside partners throughout that time.

That certainly leads one to the conclusion that none of this is even about gay marriage. Its about normalizing sin. And that's ALL its about. Its about making things easier for people who love sin and degradation and its about Satan working to corrupt the entire society. And what is at stake is not denying people the right to love who they love - balderdash. Whats at stake is the survival of our entire civilization because if you believe the Bible at all, you have to realize that God will NOT BE MOCKED and when we turn over our nation to Satan, Yahweh, in his uncompromising holiness and righteous judgement WILL respond. Ala Sodom, Flood, Plagues of Egypt, Babylonian captivity, etc..

This issue (and that of abortion, among others) is a LOT bigger than it looks.

Veretax
Oct 21st 2008, 12:29 PM
Of course the Word of God is blatantly clear on the fact that homosexuality is not only a sin but an "abomination." But there is a big push to normalize this sin in order to justify it for those who love it. Most of the talking points I've heard are just transparent excuses but the one I am most concerned with is the one I hear Christians repeating and that is that, "All sin is equal." This claim is used to support the argument that homosexuality is no wore than slipping up and saying "damn" or occassionally feeling jealous because your friend has a nicer car than you do. In this way, the claimants make the proposal that a homosexual under grace can live the homosexual lifestyle and be just as acceptable to God as the Christian who live a holy life but occassionally slips and commits a minor sin. Its a convenient theory but I still haven't seen any real biblical proof. And I HAVE seen a LOT of indications in the Bible that some sins are definitely worse than others. Some sins God particularly hates and calls them "abomination" "vile" etc.. Not only in statements to the fact but also in the actions of God who might smack the hand of people for doing minor sins but when sexual perversion, especially homosexuality is involved, He does things like rain sulferous fire from heaven and flood the entire world, killing off every human being existing except one small family.

Another interesting point is the studies that have been done in the Scandanavian countries where homosexual marriage is legal. Even when marriage is legal a very small percentage of homosexuals actually get married - around 96% stay single. The other study showed that of that percentage that did get married they stayed married an average of a year and a half and had an avere of 8 outside partners throughout that time.

That certainly leads one to the conclusion that none of this is even about gay marriage. Its about normalizing sin. And that's ALL its about. Its about making things easier for people who love sin and degradation and its about Satan working to corrupt the entire society. And what is at stake is not denying people the right to love who they love - balderdash. Whats at stake is the survival of our entire civilization because if you believe the Bible at all, you have to realize that God will NOT BE MOCKED and when we turn over our nation to Satan, Yahweh, in his uncompromising holiness and righteous judgement WILL respond. Ala Sodom, Flood, Plagues of Egypt, Babylonian captivity, etc..

This issue (and that of abortion, among others) is a LOT bigger than it looks.


Perhaps you misunderstand some of us. When I say all sin is equal i mean it in two senses. First all sin is detestable By God. He hates all of it. Secondly, all sin is equal in that only one regardless of sin can keep us from heaven. Now to say that all sins will be judged the same at the White Throne Judgment I believe is a stretch. I do believe that God is Just and will reward proportionally based on sin for those who are not covered by the blood of the Lamb which is Christ. However, when speaking of sin, it is probably more important to make it clear that it doesn't matter which sin in your life God finds offense, without Christ it is all loss.

After that I leave the judgment of Sin up to God who knows the hearts of men rather than judging them personally myself. That does not make sinning of any kind right. I've found that the propensity of man, is for we ourselves to determine what we think is a worse sin than others. Let's remember what is written in proverbs:

Pro 6:16-19
"16 These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren."


Or in Rev 21 where it lists those who will be found and thrown in the Lake of Fire:


Rev 21:8
"8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”"


I'd love to know more about how the greek is on this verse, but its interesting that it is the fearful and cowardly who are mentioned first, and then the unbelieving. It would seem to indicate that there are some who are perhaps able to see that they need to believe, yet don't because of fear. That they are mentioned before those who just plain don't believe is interesting. The verse then begins to list a multitude of sins that will be judged. The Greek Interlinear Bible that someone linked lists the word for cowardly as meaning, Timid.



So while I agree the judgment for each sin is determined by God, and it may be more for certain sins, I prefer to focus on the cure to the disease rather than on how wicked a person is.

Marc B
Oct 21st 2008, 01:16 PM
The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality, the author of the article is using flimsy excuses about lack of mention in the NT. The OT has plenty to say about it.

[sarcasm on] I didn't know a sin could only be validated by how many times it appears in the NT Bible. Did any of you? I guess that means we're off the hook for keeping the commandments by that faulty reasoning. :rolleyes:

Firefighter
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:23 PM
I sincerely wish the church got up in arms over gossip, backbiting, pride, selfishness, lack of love, indifference, etc. as it does homosexuals...:rolleyes:

apothanein kerdos
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:32 PM
I sincerely wish the church got up in arms over gossip, backbiting, pride, selfishness, lack of love, indifference, etc. as it does homosexuals...:rolleyes:

The church is overreacting to the issue of homosexuality, however, homosexuality is a higher sin as it violates the body (God's image) directly, whereas the others are less destructive.

This does mean, however, that we need to be up in arms about fornication, adultery, divorce, and so on with the same ferocity that we approach homosexuality.

tt1106
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:33 PM
The real problem is the attempt to redefine this sin for the sake of the gratification. The argument swings the other direction because there is no getting around the repenting. Being saved requires us to forego and turn away from our sins. The most difficult of these are the ones we have the greatest predisposition for.
Attraction to same sex is survivable, but one must take every step necessary to avoid the temptation lest you fall.
Similar to the problem of an alcoholic who lives next door to the liquor store. Not a good idea.
Therein lies the rub, Homosexuals (living a sinful lifestyle) would rather be happy than righteous.
The Church should handle this the same way it does other sins....point out the truth and lovingly guide those people to the cross.

lendtay
Oct 24th 2008, 02:50 AM
The church is overreacting to the issue of homosexuality, however, homosexuality is a higher sin as it violates the body (God's image) directly, whereas the others are less destructive.

This does mean, however, that we need to be up in arms about fornication, adultery, divorce, and so on with the same ferocity that we approach homosexuality.

I agree with all this.

Firefighter
Oct 24th 2008, 02:57 AM
homosexuality is a higher sin as it violates the body (God's image) directly, whereas the others are less destructive.

You have piqued my interest, make your case...

apothanein kerdos
Oct 24th 2008, 03:41 AM
You have piqued my interest, make your case...

It is a higher sin because it is a sexual sin. Thus, fornication, adultery, and all other sexual sins (yes, looking at porn and thinking lustful thoughts would fall into this) are on equal ground with homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:18, however, seemingly places a bigger emphasis upon these types of sins.

There are two ways of looking at this issue and both are correct. One view says all sins are equal because all offend God and separate us and all are equally forgivable. This would be the horizontal view. The other view (vertical) teaches that other sins do cause greater consequences and have greater ramifications. For instance, if I gossip about someone and hurt her feelings, I have hurt the person. If I kill that person's husband, I have caused a greater harm. Now, both sins are an offense to God and both can be forgiven, but one sin has greater consequences because of the magnitude.

Likewise, sexual sins have greater ramifications than some other sins. This is why if we're going to get up in arms about homosexuality and protest it, we should do so for other sexual sins. Likewise, if we're going to say it isn't a sin, then we need to say other sexual sins aren't really sinful either.

Veretax
Oct 24th 2008, 11:37 AM
While I agree that God judges each sin differently, and some clearly will be judged harsher than others. When talking to people who are caught in this sin, saying they are the worst of sinners in Gods eyes will not be very profitable for trying to get the Gospel to them. The gospel is salvation from sin through the Grace of God through faith. Because of this, when I testify to such, I focus on the fact that all sin, even the most minor is enough to separate us from God. Note, I'm not saying I won't call homosexuality a sin, I do, but I list among a littany of others, lying, adultery, fornication, theft, etc.

Firefighter
Oct 24th 2008, 11:46 AM
But wouldn't ANY sin infinitely offend God since He is infinite in holiness?


For instance, if I gossip about someone and hurt her feelings, I have hurt the person. If I kill that person's husband, I have caused a greater harm.

1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

The temple here is speaking of the local church body.

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.

Murderers and meddlers on the same level? :hmm:

1Jn 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

No reguard for you brother is the same as murder? :hmm:



Now, both sins are an offense to God and both can be forgiven, but one sin has greater consequences because of the magnitude.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All sin has the same price.... death.

crawfish
Oct 24th 2008, 02:57 PM
Likewise, sexual sins have greater ramifications than some other sins. This is why if we're going to get up in arms about homosexuality and protest it, we should do so for other sexual sins. Likewise, if we're going to say it isn't a sin, then we need to say other sexual sins aren't really sinful either.

Do they?

I would say, for one, that greed has more far-reaching and damaging results to the Kingdom of God than any sexual sin. Sexual sin is typically inward-facing, self-destructive. Greed is outward, working to destroy others.

Homosexuality is a sin, I have no doubt, but the compulsions toward homosexuality are no more sinful than our compulsions for many other ungodly things. In the end, it's how we surrender ourselves to God; have we really accepted God's grace if we continue to live in a way that is contrary to His will?

Firefighter
Oct 24th 2008, 05:21 PM
Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

They seem to be on even ground here too...

thepenitent
Oct 26th 2008, 06:20 PM
I sincerely wish the church got up in arms over gossip, backbiting, pride, selfishness, lack of love, indifference, etc. as it does homosexuals...:rolleyes:

But....I don't see a lot of people making the argument that gossip, backbiting, pride, selfishness, etc. are perfectly OK with God and not sins. Most agree these are sins and that we need to repent from them. It is homosexuality that the liberal political/religious arena is trying to normalize and say is perfectly acceptable to God.

I think your point is a good one, however, to the extent that much of the Church ignores altogeather the whole issue of sin and the consequences for a lack of salvation.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 26th 2008, 07:18 PM
But wouldn't ANY sin infinitely offend God since He is infinite in holiness?



1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

The temple here is speaking of the local church body.

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.

Murderers and meddlers on the same level? :hmm:

1Jn 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

No reguard for you brother is the same as murder? :hmm:




Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All sin has the same price.... death.


Hooray for missing everything I said! :pp You're mastered the art of the ignoring what I said and bastardizing Scripture by taking it vastly out of its context. :)

thepenitent
Oct 26th 2008, 08:05 PM
Didn't Jesus tell Pilate that those who delivered him (Jesus) to Pilate had "the greater sin"? (John 19:11) There are degrees of sin.

Veretax
Oct 27th 2008, 11:14 AM
Didn't Jesus tell Pilate that those who delivered him (Jesus) to Pilate had "the greater sin"? (John 19:11) There are degrees of sin.


What difference does it make if homosexuality or any other sin is viewed in a worse manner by the Lord. Unless a Man be born again, and repent of whatever sin he has committed he shall by no means enter the Kingdom. Arguing over the severity of sin is just not fruitful. Jesus came not to call the righteous but Sinners to repentance. So should we be witnessing to those who have need of the Great Physician.

Firefighter
Oct 27th 2008, 12:25 PM
Hooray for missing everything I said! :pp You're mastered the art of the ignoring what I said and bastardizing Scripture by taking it vastly out of its context. :)

Hold on while I sit in awe of your intellectual prowess...

OK. Good rebuttal.

thepenitent
Oct 27th 2008, 03:38 PM
What difference does it make if homosexuality or any other sin is viewed in a worse manner by the Lord. Unless a Man be born again, and repent of whatever sin he has committed he shall by no means enter the Kingdom. Arguing over the severity of sin is just not fruitful. Jesus came not to call the righteous but Sinners to repentance. So should we be witnessing to those who have need of the Great Physician.

Agreed in toto. I was just responding to the mini-debate going on rather there are degrees of sin. Your points are well taken. The best response to homosexuals is to witness to them.

Veretax
Oct 27th 2008, 04:47 PM
Agreed in toto. I was just responding to the mini-debate going on rather there are degrees of sin. Your points are well taken. The best response to homosexuals is to witness to them.

I had this exact kind of opportunity two or three times in College. I lived in the Dorms, and a "Street Preacher" came, and he preached all kinds of condemnations, such that even I who was not downtown that day heard about it. These folks on my floor, knew that I was a Christian, so to test me they asked me what I thought. Of course I explained that I had not heard what the man said, but if they could tell me a bit about what he said I might be able to explain whether what he said was true or not.

It was clear that for them the only thing they took was that God hated them. They didn't see that there was Salvation from the situation they were in and of course as anyone would they curled up into a defensive posture, and sought an avenue of Attack.

What was my reply? First, I said, that's interesting, I asked if they'd give me a moment to go get my Bible and I'd show them where I thought he was getting those passages. I explained that if all you ever heard were those two passages, what use would it be? They shook their heads like they understood what I said, but I knew they didn't fully. I think said, the bible says if you have one offense to the law you've broken all of it. It doesn't matter which sin it is, one offense, one mistake, and that's it your a sinner.

I then shocked them by revealing something they probably never realized. That I was a sinner too, and was deserving of the Wages for that sin unto death, but as you can see where I'm going, i used that opportunity to thrust into the word of God and preach the gospel to them. I believe that's what we need to preach to people like that. Christ didn't say, Be ye all perfect and have faith, and then ye shall be saved. He called us to put our trust in him as the author and finisher of our faith.

So to issues like this, I believe, salvation is the key.