Homosexuality

[aspen]

BMS,
My logic is sound, if two several things are wrong then it is sound to have a consistent approach to them all.

In what universe? Your desperate need for consistency is your main problem! Striving for consistency at the expenses of reason and practicality. It relies on idealism, magical thinking and even invokes a threat of the 'slippery slope'.

I already answered your questions about abortion and pedophilia. Neither have anything in common with homosexuality except that they are all condemned by God. I understand that condemnation by God is the only answer you need - 'God said it, I believe it!', but for people who do not believe in God it takes more convincing. Condemnation against pork is all a Muslim needs to outlaw pork - I think our country would have a serious problem outlawing pork based on Allah's feelings about it - even though pork is not a healthy food.

Now the question to you concerned why you would vote for these examples, it wasn’t about how society sees it. Once again you haven’t addressed the question. And I don’t even agree with your tangential answer. I am saying ‘God’s purposes’ and you are saying ‘God’s laws’; for a believer any law that is in line with God’s purposes/laws is God’s, not society’s. Society didn’t create the universe from a void.

My use of the word 'society' describes people who live in a shared secular culture. All societies have to have certain rules to exist - murder, theft, rape, and violence can not be tolerated within a society without punishment. Safety is the most basic need of people - regardless of what god they worship. India has all kinds of wicked and evil gods that they worship - some of them encourage people to eat waste and human beings, but the country still has to provide basic human safety for it's citizens.

I am not talking about believers - I am talking about nonbelievers. I could careless if believers want to attribute basic rules of safety to God - secular people do not recognize the source as God. Yet, they still have to have the safety laws in place to exist and thrive as a society.

The benchmark for believers is whether God approves or disproves. Your view is society’s and not God’s. Our view is God’s.
That’s what the world and society says, but they are both against God’s purposes. As dragonfly has affirmed.

Yep. Nonbelievers are not required to follow God's laws - and even if you want to dig around in the OT and pull out some verses about Israel wiping out foreign cultures because of their sin - it still does not apply to our pluralistic society in America today.

Well that is part of the gospel message of course, which surely you aren’t disputing, but under the umbrella of democracy we are asking for society to accept the best choices which are God’s purposes.

This response is a good one. If you really believe that God's purposes are the best choices for society then I can understand why you would want them to become law. What I reject is the idea that creating laws based on Christian doctrine will eventually convert secular society. I also reject the idea that God's purposes are best for future citizens of Hell, but that is another issue.

My last point brings us back to the issue of homosexuality. I do not believe enforcing penalties for homosexuality is best for homosexuals.

Again that’s not what dragonfly said, that’s you twisting what dragonfly said. Dragonfly said. Repentance is part of the gospel so it is part of believing. Lies seduce, the gospel convicts.

I am not twisting anything - I am carrying what he said to a logical conclusion. Legislating God's purposes is not going to help people believe in God or become Christian - it is more likely to make them mad about having their behavior restricted by a law they see as being an attempt to control them by people they do not share common values with.

We are not saying the gospel is legislative at all, but rather a personal revelation of the truth and love of God.

Ok. So why are you trying to reduce it to legislation? Prop 8 in California is legislation.

It is you who is implying its legislative as though you are happy with the gospel as long as repentance doesn’t put people off it.

Repentance is conversion. Turning from selfishness to selflessness. You cannot have the gospel without turning to God. The Pharisees tried to impose a legal form of worshiping God - all it did was force people to practice the mechanics of worship without faith. Forced morality without belief in God is empty and meaningless.

The answer to that is if people find repentance too big an obstacle then they won’t get the gospel. For most who Christ is and what He has done is the thing that makes people resigned to worship God as a new creation in Him and repent, even if after a struggle.

You are assuming that secular people want to worship God - they just do not know it until they repent of their sinful behavior. This is a false assumption. Why do you believe that Christians know what is best for nonbelievers?

And this one of the main problems with the homosexual issue. When the inclusivechurch issued a statement that the gospel couldnt be good news for homosexuals if it prohibits homosexual relations, it meant they dont believe the gospel. The deception of course was that people still assumed they had the gospel and treated their view as another Christian interpretaion.

Not at all. The inclusive church, as you call them, simply recognizes that homosexuality is forbidden by God for Christians - not nonbelievers.

aspen2,
The LGBT community and supporters might not agree with you there. For example I believe leading LGBT campaigner Peter Tatchell said in 2007 in the Guardian Newspaper

“The positive nature of some child-adult relations is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

So you see as soon as one starts thinking in terms of lgbt one is already confused, No, it is not healthy for society because God disapproves of it

Why would homosexuals agree with me about my beliefs regarding homosexuality? You guys are the one's labeling me a LGBT activist - homosexuals would view my beliefs as just as draconian as yours. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. All I am saying is that sinners have a right to sin.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,
Your logic is not consistent. One minute you wont support something that is contrary to God’s purposes and the next you will.

My use of the word 'society' describes people who live in a shared secular culture.

My use of the word God describes the creator of the universe. When you can respond to things from God’s pov I will address your ideas about society

I am not talking about believers - I am talking about non-believers.

I am pointing out to you that God created them all and wishes all come to repentance.
So non-believers divide people into believers and non-believers, and believers recognise all as God’s creation designed to worship Him. But the point is believers have as much right to put their pov as non-believers as to what is the best way to live. If they haven’t then despite that making non-believers as little bigoted and intolerant, we are going to do it anyway.

Yep. Nonbelievers are not required to follow God's laws –

Only according to non-believers. According to believers God has created them to follow Him.

This response is a good one. If you really believe that God's purposes are the best choices for society

So you don’t or you wouldnt be playing devil’s advocate.

My last point brings us back to the issue of homosexuality. I do not believe enforcing penalties for homosexuality is best for homosexuals.

Nor would enforcing penalties for any wrongdoing be best for any wrongdoer. So why do you single out homosexuality for different treatment when God doesnt?

Legislating God's purposes is not going to help people believe in God or become Christian –

So why legislate against paedophilia but not against homosexual practice?

Ok. So why are you trying to reduce it to legislation?

Because that is how democratic society works. So it is democratic society that reduces it down to legislation. If it is going to do that dont you think it should legislate for the best for society?

You are assuming that secular people want to worship God –

Well secular people might say that, but God didnt create secular people. When people hear the gospel they either accept it or reject it.

Why do you believe that Christians know what is best for nonbelievers?

I believe God knows what is best for all His creation. Why do you keep dividing people up as you see them? And btw, yes many Christians were once non-believers and know very well what is best for them.

Not at all. The inclusive church, as you call them, simply recognizes that homosexuality is forbidden by God for Christians - not nonbelievers.

Well no they dont recognise homosexuality is forbidden by God, their whole raison d'etre is denying it. Besides the Inclusive church didnt refer to 'non-believers' so I suggest you don’t either. Or you are doubly misrepresenting them.
For believers homosexuality is forbidden by God for all His creation.

Why would homosexuals agree with me about my beliefs regarding homosexuality?

My point is they don’t all agree with you according to what they say compared with what you say as demonstrated.
Why is something for you and them to work out.

All I am saying is that sinners have a right to sin.

They have a right to choose God or sin, but nowhere in scripture does God say they have a right to sin. Thats you giving sin rights that God doesnt. But the point is the believer seeks the same heart and attitude as God so the believer wouldnt say that, the believer says God wishes that none perish and all come to repentance.

 

[Tiza]

And homosexuality is also listed here. The particular word is often translated as fornication, but it includes a long list of sexual crimes.

Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from porneia, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This is the meaning of "porneia" in the Greek of Thayer's, #4202.

porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols


Also, if you go to the OT in Lev. 18, and then compare various places in the OT line upon line on this subject, you'll see that the judgment for practicing homosexuality was death. Of course, a person can repent of this grevious sin as many people have today. The gays won't bring it up specifically that people have changed, truly changed, and maybe some believe the lie that a person is born that way. That's not so. Something happened in a person's early life to which gave them a confused identity of who they are, and they were not led out of it. I won't go into the reasons here.

And note the word porneia in the list also includes idols.

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,
Is there a point we can agree on then. You distinguish between the homosexual issue for believers and non-believers.

I am not talking about believers - I am talking about non-believers.

So would you agree then that those who celebrate, defend or promote homosexual relations and call themselves Christians and believers, are not actually believers or Christians.

 

[aspen]

aspen2,
Is there a point we can agree on then. You distinguish between the homosexual issue for believers and non-believers.


So would you agree then that those who celebrate, defend or promote homosexual relations and call themselves Christians and believers, are not actually believers or Christians.

Only if they are defending the rights of homosexuals within the church.

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,

Only if they are defending the rights of homosexuals within the church.

Can you explain where the word of God says homosexuals are in the church and what the rights are?
Then could you answer the question please. As you say the lgbt factions simply recognize that homosexuality is forbidden by God for Christians - not nonbelievers, then anyone in the church defending or supporting homosexuality by your definition is an unbeliever and thus not a Christian. Yet you seem unwiling to affirm that.

 

[aspen]

aspen2,
Can you explain where the word of God says homosexuals are in the church and what the rights are?

The Bible does not recognize homosexuals in the church - why would you think that I would say it does? Of course, this does not stop people from claiming to be homosexual and Christian and from demanding to be recognized by the church, right? Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals have no right to change church doctrine or demand to be recognized in the church.

Then could you answer the question please.

Why are you still acting so demanding - I do not owe you anything, remember? You rarely answer my questions and I do not harp on you about it. Apparently you believe you are the only one who is allowed to steer our conversation - nice fantasy.

As you say the lgbt factions simply recognize that homosexuality is forbidden by God for Christians - not nonbelievers,

I never said that. I said, I believe that only Christians can be held accountable for refusing to deny their homosexual urges. Why are you misquoting me and continuing to represent me a spokesperson for LGBT?

then anyone in the church defending or supporting homosexuality by your definition is an unbeliever and thus not a Christian.

Wow - if mental gymnastics were only allowed in the Olympics......

Yet you seem unwiling to affirm that.

Why would I affirm your crazy interpretation of my post? Instead of simply recognizing what I actually said in my simple statement (I do not support homosexuals within the church from attempting to change doctrine or fighting to be formally recognized as homosexuals by the church), you decide to contort it into (all people who defend all homosexuality are unbelievers). Insanity.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,
Sorry but I am asking you to clarify your statement because I doubt you actually mean it when examined on it. You are the one saying God’s laws only apply to believers. So anyone in the church defending or supporting homosexuality obviously isn’t a believer because as you admit God’s laws prohibit it.
None of your replies affirm that with a yes or a no.
Can you affirm it with a yes or no. I suspect not.

NB

what I actually said in my simple statement (I do not support homosexuals within the church from attempting to change doctrine or fighting to be formally recognized as homosexuals by the church), you decide to contort it into (all people who defend all homosexuality are unbelievers). Insanity.

No that is not what you have writtten in any of your posts. It might have been what you meant, but it is not what you wrote.


　

 

[aspen]

Aspen2,
Sorry but I am asking you to clarify your statement because I doubt you actually mean it when examined on it. You are the one saying God’s laws only apply to believers. So anyone in the church defending or supporting homosexuality obviously isn’t a believer because as you admit God’s laws prohibit it.
None of your replies affirm that with a yes or a no.
Can you affirm it with a yes or no. I suspect not.

No.

NB No that is not what you have writtten in any of your posts. It might have been what you meant, but it is not what you wrote. [/color]

It is the message I have been communicating throughout our entire conversation on the topic of homosexuality.


　

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,
So anyone in the church defending or supporting homosexuality obviously isn’t a believer because as you admit God’s laws prohibit it.

No.

So no, they are not a believer. People supporting or defending homosexuality in the church are not actually believers. It seems we agree. Good progress hey?

It is the message I have been communicating throughout our entire conversation on the topic of homosexuality.

But it is not what you claimed you wrote.

 

[aspen]

BMS,

Your last post is the very reason Jesus did not answer the Pharisees with yes or no answers - they, like you, were only interested in entrapment.

My position is clear - Christians are called to a different standard than nonbelievers. You cannot claim that Christians acquire a new mindset AND that nonbelievers are supposed to act like they have, without submitting to Jesus. There is nothing complicated about this idea.

There is also no need to muddy the water or twist what I am saying into a black and black issue - where my yes and my no lead to a mis-characterization of what I am clearly stating.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Apsen2,
No it isn’t, the Pharisees didnt agree with what Jesus taught, I am asking you to affirm what Jesus taught through the apostles and NT writers, namely 1 Cor 5.

My position is clear –

Your position is completely unclear which is why the questions to you to clarify.

Christians are called to a different standard than nonbelievers.

That isnt addressing the question, the question is who are you calling non-believers and believers?
Why the follow up? Are you implying what was clarified is not the case as I have suspected all along?
In principle, someone who calls themselves a believer/Christian but doesn’t believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is by definition a non-believer/not a Christian, and incorrectly calls themselves a believer/Christian. Right?
Cos you are the one who keeps referring to what believers and non-believers are subject to, lets first be sure who you are calling believers and non-believers in this respect.

 

[aspen]

Apsen2,
No it isn’t, the Pharisees didnt agree with what Jesus taught, I am asking you to affirm what Jesus taught through the apostles and NT writers, namely 1 Cor 5.
Your position is completely unclear which is why the questions to you to clarify.
That isnt addressing the question, the question is who are you calling non-believers and believers?
Why the follow up? Are you implying what was clarified is not the case as I have suspected all along?
In principle, someone who calls themselves a believer/Christian but doesn’t believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is by definition a non-believer/not a Christian, and incorrectly calls themselves a believer/Christian. Right?
Cos you are the one who keeps referring to what believers and non-believers are subject to, lets first be sure who you are calling believers and non-believers in this respect.

None of these questions are relevant, nor do they clarify anything. Once again you are trying to muddy the water. How does determining whether a person is a believer or not have anything to do with the creations of laws attempting to control the behaviors of homosexuals outside the church?

Determining who is a Christian or who is a homosexual or any other crazy combination you would like to include in your questioning - people claiming to be Christian and homosexual who like to stand on their heads in the pews during the service, perhaps? Does not change the fact that we are not called or equipped as Christians to read another person's heart.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2, ​

None of these questions are relevant, nor do they clarify anything.

Let me be the judge of that as they are my questions, you attempt to answer them. As you have failed to specifically address the questions thus far, it is not even clear whether you understood them, let alone be able to evaluate them.

How does determining whether a person is a believer or not have anything to do with the creations of laws attempting to control the behaviors of homosexuals outside the church?

Not the question put to you. The question put to you is as you are saying prohibition of homosexuality applies to believers only, then accordingly those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition are non-believers. I thought this was something we could agree on seeing as you have implied it and scripture supports it.
You see I suspect you are happy not to subject non-believers to the prohibition, which allows the sin to continue unchallenged, but you are not prepared to expel as non-believers those who should it they are believers be subject to the prohibition, thus also allowing the sin to continue unchallenged.

Determining who is a Christian or who is a homosexual or any other crazy combination you would like to include in your questioning –

I dont have to, God has done it already despite you denial. Its in 1 Cor 6:9 for example. So dont attempt to deny God’s word by accusing brethren.
　

 

[aspen]

How does your question apply to me? I am not in church leadership. Church members are accountable to church leadership. If my Priest decides to disciple a church member - including a homosexual member - I support it.

I though that was obvious when I said that homosexuality is unacceptable in the church.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,
I know you have said "that homosexuality is unacceptable in the church. " I am not asking that.
If you are going to continue to avoid the answer I shall continue to pose the question.
The question put to you is as you are saying prohibition of homosexuality applies to believers only, then accordingly those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition are non-believers.
Is your response

1. By definition those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition, are non-believers
2. By definition those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition, are believers.

Given the two, all who are believers will choose 1. Do you choose 1

 

[dragonfly]

Edit: I began writing before the previous post was up; please bear that in mind. Thanks.



Hi there brethren,

I can feel the tension rising here, and would like to offer a reinterpretation of the impasse as it appears to a third party.

As I see it, this discussion revolves round whether or not God, whose Son shed His blood for the whole human race right back to Adam, has a right to expect that men and women (mankind) would be thankful for His sacrifice, which will - if they agree to be benefitted by it through faith in Jesus Christ - save them from the wrath to come.

There was an era before Christ, when the remedy for sin was not fully availble, in that the Messiah had not yet come to shed His blood on earth, and therefore, the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out. The Holy Spirit is the means of help, by which believers may successfully mortify the flesh and live and walk in the Spirit.

In Romans 1, Paul declares that all men 'know God' (His phrase is in the past tense though - 'when they knew God'), and by looking around at creation, are unequivocally appraised of His Godhead and divine power. This is fundamental truth.

Paul argues that those who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness' - those who choose not to submit to its claims upon their lives, their thinking and behaviour - are idolaters, and God will eventually give them over to the effects of their sins. He ends the chapter with this statement:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

As I am reading the preceding discussion, I'm feeling that brightmorningstar would like you, aspen, to declare publicly that you recognise the practical and spiritual implications of homosexual practice outlined in verses preceding the last in Romans 1, and that you take no pleasure in the things they do, as this would align you with the biblical stance.

It is impossible to argue from the Old Testament that it was okay to be homosexual as long as you were not an Israelite, because clearly, this is not God's opinion. His character, in which image we are formed, applies to the whole human race. Therefore, the call of His word is upon all people, especially since the cross.

But, I acknowledge, that since the cross there is a different separation operating on earth. Now it is not between Israelite/Jew (who had to keep the law flawlessly in order to be saved, or they were destroyed from among the people) and Gentile, but, between believer and non-believer. Nevertheless, the call of God remains upon all - perhaps more so since the cross, and since the admission of Gentiles to the faith of Jesus Christ.

Brightmorningstar is insisting that a Christian must hold God's opinion on all matters, and therefore, although there is liberty to associate with homosexual practitioners for the purpose of winning them to their Saviour, there can be no condoning of their behaviour (as you seem to do) on the grounds that they are non-believers; because God has made plain that He is to be worshipped and that, before any created thing (person or object) by all people.

By saying that you accept the prohibition on Christians, but not on non-Christians, you seem to have sympathy for the error, which, from the last verse in Romans 1 quoted above, I hope you can see is also unacceptable to God.

By taking this further - that their behaviour should not be legistlated against because they are idolaters - you do sound as if you support their right to practise an abomination before God - who sees every thought (and act). You don't seem to see that the worship of the spirits which engage men/women in these behaviours, is detrimental to those around them also. Sin gives many a foothold to Satan in the lives of those who are inevitably affected by the spiritual influences it brings. Not only the Old Testament talks about the spirits in the land, but Peter mentions their effects:

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds; ) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

We know how easy it is to rebel against authority and to resent the impositions of government(s) when their claim prevents us from doing something we would enjoy, but there are always profound implications for others.

I could quote more verses to remind us that God puts governments in place, whether by 'noble' men, or 'base' men, and He expects believers to pick the bones out of whatever difficulties we experience under their management, telling us to pray all the while, for them to be guided by sound judgment and the grace of God in their tasks.

Perhaps what brightmorningstar is getting at is, when governments choose to legislate in line with God's heart and mind, His will and His word, Christians should be heard announcing a loud 'Amen', rather than arguing for sin.


I hope this clarifies the Biblical position on this issue, and it's helpful. Thanks for reading.

May we continue to speak the truth in love to one another, and grow in His grace and His wisdom.

 

[aspen]

Aspen2,
I know you have said "that homosexuality is unacceptable in the church. " I am not asking that.
If you are going to continue to avoid the answer I shall continue to pose the question.
The question put to you is as you are saying prohibition of homosexuality applies to believers only, then accordingly those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition are non-believers.
Is your response

1. By definition those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition, are non-believers
2. By definition those who claim to believe but don’t accept the prohibition, are believers.

Given the two, all who are believers will choose 1. Do you choose 1

My premise: People who believe that homosexuality (including homosexuals in the church) is acceptable behavior before God are either confused about what God believes about homosexual behavior, in denial, or purposefully being deceptive; or any combination, thereof.

Therefore - it would seem to some that 1 is correct - that believers (the very word depends on it!) must believe all the tenets of Christianity to be counted as believers.

However the problem in your logic is

1. Salvation is found in our belief in what Christ did for us on the Cross - not in what He taught. Shocking, but true! As great as His teachings are and will ever be - our belief in His teaching is secondary (our sanctification) to our grace-given belief in His action on the Cross. To believe otherwise, makes us nothing more that Hindus or Buddhists, following a guru (Lewis' famous, faulty 'Liar' label for Jesus)

2. We are not considered redeemed until we are kneeling before Christ - therefore, belief in the beliefs of other believers/nonbelievers (I am learning your language BMS!) has no baring on our salvation EVEN if our belief in Christs teachings, rather than simple belief in His death (ultimate act of love for us) was not the only requirement.

Therefore your conclusion that all believers must choose the first option, by definition, is faulty. And you would be correct to assume that I, a believer, would not choose the first option; HOWEVER, I do not believe, that a potential believer's belief in the first option, necessarily excludes them from being a true believer, either - so rest easy tonight

 

[Kidron]

Christ meets us where we are at. If homosexuals love God and obey His commandments - who knows what God will do? The fact is, there are much worse things a homosexual can engage in than a monogamous same-sex relationship.

One of the most awe-inspiring thing about God is that His point / teaching always goes over our heads - the Pharisees missed it (to rigid and too right), the disciples didn't get it - Peter didn't even get when he provided the right answer "You are the Messiah". God is always cutting through our dualistic minds just like He did with the Pharisees - they hit Him with right and wrong - He cut through it with Love.

So who knows? Who are we to judge? We are all guilty - and guilty for repeated - lifestyle sin. It is not about who thinks they are righteous, anyway. It is about mercy, and love.

This hypie love message is dedicated to my good buddy Foreigner......

Well GREAT.
Aspen has arrived.
An out of the closet cheerleader cheerleading openly on a Christian forum for Gay Sex Acts.
Way to go Aspen. !!!
You are "the man"...
Thank you for promoting their right to commit sodomy.
Thank you for trying to romanticize homosexual sex acts.



K

 

[aspen]

Well GREAT.
Aspen has arrived.
An out of the closet cheerleader cheerleading openly on a Christian forum for Gay Sex Acts.
Way to go Aspen. !!!
You are "the man"...
Thank you for promoting their right to commit sodomy.
Thank you for trying to romanticize homosexual sex acts.



K

What was that? That sound... like.....like...snarling hatred? Jesus is that you? Oh wait.....