homosexuality

[kenod]

What I won't argue is that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality: it clearly does. I think that we should decide to reject that condemnation as archaic and unworkable. I think that we should have the courage to say "no, on this point the Bible is wrong", rather than trying to find a way to sanitize it.
Chris

You are free to take that approach if it appeals to you. For me, and many other Christians, to reject the Word of God in favour of a current social development, is unthinkable. We have to find a way to be faithful to our deeply held beliefs, but at the same time find a way to reach out to people of same sex orientation.

btw, the NT clearly prohibits polygamy also.

 

[taijasi]

We have to find a way to be faithful to our deeply held beliefs

Perhaps it will serve as a bright shining example of how wonderful it is to be heterosexual and sin-free, if, when introducing oneself, one says something like, "Hi, I'm joe christian, I am married to a person of the opposite gender, and you can come to my church, but keep in mind the Bible prohibits what you're doing in the bedroom. Hope you feel welcome!"

I'm sorry, was there a point? Since when did the "Word of God" that says - Love thy neighbor - cease to be as important as, Judge thy neighbor based on his or her sexual orientation?

Please wiggle. And tell me how this is not like a song that Roger Waters wrote called `In the Flesh.'

Disconcerted,

taijasi

 

[Quahom1]

A great many things in the Bible are now-a-days taken with an enormous, salt-lick sized chunk of salt. We don't seem to have a problem drawing some lines between what is and isn't simply archaic. And it's not always a liberalizing process: Nothing in the Bible prohibits polygamy, for example. Polygamy is a very old-fashioned family value, but it no longer fits with our social structure. I would argue, similarly, that marginalizing homosexuals is archaic and no longer fits our social structure.

What I won't argue is that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality: it clearly does. I think that we should decide to reject that condemnation as archaic and unworkable. I think that we should have the courage to say "no, on this point the Bible is wrong", rather than trying to find a way to sanitize it.

Chris

I believe, I just did, and apparently you infer as much as well.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

It's ok, we agree on that.

What I'm trying to explore is how we can provide ministry beyond saying "you are a sinner- go to hell".

You don't say "you're a sinner, go to hell". But you don't go help where it isn't wanted either. That is an exercise in futility, in any walk of life.

 

[kenod]

You don't say "you're a sinner, go to hell". But you don't go help where it isn't wanted either. That is an exercise in futility, in any walk of life.

Hey Q, I've had more strange experiences than just marrying a nun, you know ... not all of it came out of books either

 

[Quahom1]

Hey Q, I've had more strange experiences than just marrying a nun, you know ... not all of it came out of books either

Must be from all that walking "out back" (now where is that steak house again)...

 

[kenod]

Perhaps it will serve as a bright shining example of how wonderful it is to be heterosexual and sin-free, if, when introducing oneself, one says something like, "Hi, I'm joe christian, I am married to a person of the opposite gender, and you can come to my church, but keep in mind the Bible prohibits what you're doing in the bedroom. Hope you feel welcome!"

Gee, taijasi, are you trying to tell me you think that approach wouldn't work ... shucks, I think it's a real winner

I'm sorry, was there a point? Since when did the "Word of God" that says - Love thy neighbor - cease to be as important as, Judge thy neighbor based on his or her sexual orientation?

I doubt that Tiger Woods got to where he is at by just obeying some of the rules of the game. Mind you, when he's teaching little TW to play, he probably doesn't expect him to follow all the rules ... good Fathers are like that!

Please wiggle. And tell me how this is not like a song that Roger Waters wrote called `In the Flesh.'

Sorry, if it was written after 1965 I wouldn't know it ... I'm a senior citizen!

 

[wil]

We talk about picking and choosing....does everyone here who thinks homosexuality is a sin, and thinks that homosexuals can't be good christians use the same litmus test on the rest of the 600+ commandments?

 

[kenod]

We talk about picking and choosing....does everyone here who thinks homosexuality is a sin, and thinks that homosexuals can't be good christians use the same litmus test on the rest of the 600+ commandments?

Wil, I have already said I believe that a person who identifies as a homosexual can be a Christian. The attitude the church takes to same sex behaviour is a different question.

For most Christians the commandments of the OT are still in force if they are repeated in the NT. Romans 1:24-27 is probably the most quoted reference concerning same sex behaviour as it includes both men and women.

 

[Quahom1]

Wil, I have already said I believe that a person who identifies as a homosexual can be a Christian. The attitude the church takes to same sex behaviour is a different question.

For most Christians the commandments of the OT are still in force if they are repeated in the NT. Romans 1:24-27 is probably the most quoted reference concerning same sex behaviour as it includes both men and women.

Precisely. It isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of Biblical law. There is no way around it, and it doesn't matter what man thinks or doesn't think is right or wrong. It doesn't mean people can lord it over others either, since we all commit a beavy of sins, pretty much every day. And no one sin is greater or lesser than another, as far as sin goes.

There aren't grades of sin.

You know what ticks people off though? Being proud of one's sin, regardless of what it is. "Yeah, tax man lost some of that." Or, "She's fine, got me some of that." or, "Did you hear the latest about what that family is doing? Really, I never..."

And as we all can see, no one likes to be judged by others who are as imperfect as we are...right Wil?

v/r

Q

 

[wil]

And as we all can see, no one likes to be judged by others who are as imperfect as we are...right Wil?

Namaste Q, and yes...

so that leaves it to G-d to decide the sins of the homosexuals AND their behaviours....not us....tis ours to concern ourselves with our sinful lives...tis what you are saying...right Q?

 

[Dondi]

Seems to me that it is fairly natural...that many species including humans have been in this behaviour for quite a while....hence the reason the writers of the bible and other religious texts have attempted to control it by indicating that it was against code, and the head inspector deemed it so.

It has been demonstrated in research findings that homosexuality is really a matter of genetic predisposition rather than a lifestyle choice or behavior pattern that one "falls" into. The bottom line is that people are what they are, and whether or not the Bible is compatible with the way that the world really is, people in the real world must get along to go along.

Sexuality is determined well before birth and is not the result of social influences, scientists will claim this week. The authors of a new book published on Thursday say that sexual orientation is decided by a mixture of genetic factors and hormonal activity in the womb " and that homosexuality cannot be 'cured'.

I'm inclined to think that maybe this is true. That homosexuality may be in the genes.

But what we are overlooking here is the premise that because it has gone on for millenia that it is "normal". What is "normal"?

If we are to believe in the story of Adam and Eve, then when man was created, he was created perfect in God's image. And if created perfectly, that would imply that the gene pool was pure. This includes both Man and beast. Man enjoyed perfect union with God and with all creation.

It was the Fall of Man through sin that corrupted that gene pool and thus set off the a domino effect that altered the physical genetic make-up of Man. Included in this was the corruptness of perfect love between a man and a women. So it is no surprise to me that the "homosexual gene", if verified, formed latently within the DNA of mankind.

Is homosexuality then natural? No. For we are all cursed with the Fall and thus what seems natural to us is really a corrupt nature.

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste Q, and yes...

so that leaves it to G-d to decide the sins of the homosexuals AND their behaviours....not us....tis ours to concern ourselves with our sinful lives...tis what you are saying...right Q?

Pretty much the case. However, it does not mean that one must accept a behavior by others within their own area of life. That would be ludicrous to even consider.



edit: Consider, have you ever eaten "Haggis"? Have you ever smelled it while it was cooking? Let's just say that is an "acquired taste". However, If I were to tell you, that you have to open your windows while I cook my Haggis outside, and then you have to watch me eat it...you might get a bit upset (to put it mildly).

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

You are free to take that approach if it appeals to you. For me, and many other Christians, to reject the Word of God in favour of a current social development, is unthinkable. We have to find a way to be faithful to our deeply held beliefs, but at the same time find a way to reach out to people of same sex orientation.

btw, the NT clearly prohibits polygamy also.

No, it doesn't. That guideline is for deacons, not the rank and file.

Which parts of the Bible are the word of God and which aren't? I haven't met too many people who believe they must construct a special theory of astronomy so that Joshua's sun standing still can work out to be literally true, but the Bible says clearly that the sun did stand still. On this point the Bible is clearly wrong. So let's not pretend that we can't or don't reject parts of the Bible as unworkable, Word or no.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

I'm inclined to think that maybe this is true. That homosexuality may be in the genes.

So is alcoholism. That doesn't mean we condone the behavior of one who is affected by it. Why, because it damages the relationships of those around it. Unless you are implying that such "pre-dispositions" are beneficial to man in general, and those affected by them in particular...? If so, I would truly like to see the evidence of such beneficial results.

 

[Quahom1]

No, it doesn't. That guideline is for deacons, not the rank and file.

Which parts of the Bible are the word of God and which aren't? I haven't met too many people who believe they must construct a special theory of astronomy so that Joshua's sun standing still can work out to be literally true, but the Bible says clearly that the sun did stand still. On this point the Bible is clearly wrong. So let's not pretend that we can't or don't reject parts of the Bible as unworkable, Word or no.

Chris

Point taken. However, in the beginning there was not Man and "women". There was man and "woman", which by all accounts leads us to surmise that it's best when it's "one on one". Otherwise there is man, and then there is his "haram". Not very equalizing between human beings in my view...

 

[kenod]

No, it doesn't. That guideline is for deacons, not the rank and file.

Then you must have a different understanding of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 than I do.

Which parts of the Bible are the word of God and which aren't? I haven't met too many people who believe they must construct a special theory of astronomy so that Joshua's sun standing still can work out to be literally true, but the Bible says clearly that the sun did stand still. On this point the Bible is clearly wrong. So let's not pretend that we can't or don't reject parts of the Bible as unworkable, Word or no.

You either believe the miracles in the Bible or you don't. Some only believe in "miracles" they can explain. If God is capable of creating this universe, as well as life itself, seems to me He can do what He likes. When scientists can explain the origin of the Big Bang, and why the universe doesn't fly apart (there isn't enough gravity to hold it together) then I might reconsider

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Point taken. However, in the beginning there was not Man and "women". There was man and "woman", which by all accounts leads us to surmise that it's best when it's "one on one". Otherwise there is man, and then there is his "haram". Not very equalizing between human beings in my view...

I'm inclined to think, based on my own experience of course, that one man and one woman make the best team. I don't see any reason religious organizations can't discriminate against anyone they choose. Businesses put up signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", there's no reason churches have to be any different.

What bugs me is that gay people get an easy out from the ties that bind the rest of us to society. I think they should have to get up in front God and everyone and take marriage vows that bind them and expose them to public scrutiny just like the rest of us. How is it that we let them get away with shirking their community responsibility? It's not fair I tell you.

Chris

 

[Karimarie]

When scientists can explain the origin of the Big Bang, and why the universe doesn't fly apart (there isn't enough gravity to hold it together) then I might reconsider

The universe is flying apart. The distance between solar systems and between galaxies continues to increase constantly.

As time increases to infinity, the distance between bodies of matter in space also increases to infinity. In a few million years, the distance between the milky way and other galaxies will be much greater than it is right now.

 

[kenod]

I'm inclined to think that maybe this is true. That homosexuality may be in the genes.

So is alcoholism. That doesn't mean we condone the behavior of one who is affected by it. .

It seems possible that there may be a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction in some people. This does not account for the differences between identical twins, although there is a high degree of concordance. Nor does it account for people who are bisexual, or for people who are homosexual for a part of their life and then swap. Psycho-social factors are clearly very important for a lot of those who experience same sex attraction. The nature-nurture debate is one that cannot be won.