Homosexuality

[Wormwood]

The difference is, mj, that I am not relying on my personal standards of holiness and obedience to law to save me. I call on the grace of Christ, unlike the Pharisees. What we are discussing is whether or not homosexual behaviors are sinful and whether or not the church should speak against believers approving and participating in such acts or not. This isnt a "holier than thou" discussion (as you keep implying). It is a "is this behavior becoming of a Christian" discussion.

Imagine, mj, if this discussion was regarding murder and I said to you. "Well, Mr. mjhealth, you think murder is wrong? Well you are nothing but a hypocritical, holier than thou, nasty, dirty, self-righteous Pharisee. Quit condemning other people you hypocrite!" Would your response be, "Well now that you mention it, I wont say murder or killing babies is wrong. After all, I dont want to come across as legalistic or self-righteous!" No, you would say, this isnt about how we are saved! Of course all believers are saved by grace. I just dont think a person can call themselves a Christ-following disciple if they are going about murdering people for fun. Murder is wicked behavior and no one who says they belong to Christ and walk in the darkness of murder and hatred has the love of Christ within them.

In the same way, if homosexuality truly is a behavior that God believes is deeply wicked and corrupt, are we supposed to approve of it and applaud it simply because we are saved by grace and not by law? Is grace a license to sin without conscience or rebuke? Does the cross of Christ promote evil? Surely you know better than this. I am surprised I have to spell this out. So, if you believe homosexuality is a God-honoring behavior that no Christian should speak against, please provide rationale for your view. As it is, I think the Scriptures clearly portray it as being evil and a corrupt behavior that has its root in a failure to recognize and honor God. It is listed among other sins such as enslaving, murder, lying and the like.

So, my position is that of course homosexual people can find grace and salvation through the grace of God in Christ...just as I have. I am no better and am in no less need of a Savior as they are. However, I disagree that someone can call themselves a disciple and live a lifestyle of perpetual evil and corrupt behavior that grieves the heart of God. Again, grace is not a means for perpetuating wickedness. Rather, it grants us the power to overcome it.

 

[mjrhealth]

The difference is, mj, that I am not relying on my personal standards of holiness and obedience to law to save m

No. I rely upon Christ, and you?

Does the cross of Christ promote evil?

No it promotes death, dying to ones self so one can have life.

What we are discussing is whether or not homosexual behaviors are sinful and whether or not the church should speak against believers approving and participating in such acts or no

Is it not written??

Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Should not mens churches be getting there act together before telling everyone else they are sinners.

In the same way, if homosexuality truly is a behavior that God believes is deeply wicked and corrupt, are we supposed to approve of it

God does not aprove of any sin so why do you single them out??

Well you are nothing but a hypocritical, holier than thou, nasty, dirty, self-righteous Pharisee.

That depends upon whether you are the one being accused or the one doing the accusing.

Remember Jesus at the well, said to teh women " you have 5 husbands and teh one you are with is not your husband", No look a siiner?!!

Would you have known that much about her,? gurantee you would not, that is why Jesus says,

Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

I can gurantee you would know nothing about those whom you are "accusing" and since even Jesus says

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

So what right do you have to judge them? NONE.

Remeber what Jesus said to teh woman supposedly having comitted adultry.

Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

Are you going to be found amongst the accusers are you going to be found amongst those that condemn??

Tell you what, why dont you do what jesus did, and go and eat and drink with them, even buy them a coffe and be there firend as He is. and than when they realsi you are a christian and the yask you. Why dont you condemn us as the other christians do",? you may have an answer, are you wiloing to be called a homsexual and a sinner because you are found amongst them as Christ was, even I many months ago on another post about this subject,

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Because than you would understand grace.

Your post about Revelation, you cant get it from studying, you cant get it from reading books, going to church, bible college videos dvds movies people , Jesus Himself said.

Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

But you miis out on two points.

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

and a second

Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
Jas 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

So much knowledge dosenst count for much ask Paul.. Look at the change that came upon Him when he got His revelation.

Remeber what Christ said to Him

Act_9:4 ......... Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

As again it says.

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

God bless

 

[junobet]

Well, I appreciate the discussion as well. Although I am sure none of the comments will change your position, I do hope, if nothing else, it causes you to reflect on how we approach the Bible. I truly believe the Bible is revelation. We do not understand God by our instincts, by cultural commentaries, or by popular vote. God has revealed himself and his desires through the Scriptures and they are affirmed by the Spirit. If our aim is truly to desire to please only God no matter what the world or culture tells us, then I think we ought to ensure that our approach to the Scriptures is one in which we try to strip away all bias and respond to what we believe to be the inspired author's original intent. I'd much rather stand before the Lord as one who took the Scriptures too seriously than someone who didnt take them seriously enough.

“And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—” (Hebrews 11:32, ESV)

Isnt it interesting that Jephthah would be noted as a person of great faith? Certainly, his actions were far from God's desires, but God seems to commend his faith. In my opinion, God is more eager that we believe and trust him, even if it is to a fault. God seems more eager to work with those who trust zealously strive to honor his word, even if they are somewhat ignorant, than those who arent all too interested in honoring the Word above all else. I think Id rather have God say, "Well, that was just a cultural expression, I didnt mean for you to have to follow that command as well" than say, "So why did you feel it was okay to dismiss my command?"

I'll take a look at the article as well as start a new thread. However, I can just say that, to my knowledge, there is no historical evidence in early church history of women acting as elders of the local church. So, I dont know that I agree with the idea that the earliest church has women elders (I never said they couldnt function in other roles or even have positions of prominence) and that practice was done away with by a later council. I have read a fair amount on the subject and this would be news to me. Early church history seems very clear on the matter. Usually the questions revolve around the specific functions of certain women listed by Paul in the NT. But again, I do believe women can have significant roles and roles of prominence in the church, but it seems clear that the Scriptures (and early church history) know nothing of women acting as elders and the primary teachers of the local congregation.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/22929-gender-roles-the-home-and-the-local-church/

As for the atheist, I am far more interested in being honest with them in accordance with God's revelation of himself and his expectations. Since the NT seems quite clear that faith in Christ is a necessary prerequisite to having eternal life, then I think it would be dishonest for me to give them the promise of heaven. I would encourage you to read the book of Revelation again. I dont think "faith" that comes from seeing Christ come in glory is the kind of faith and trust Jesus is looking for.

[SIZE=medium]I’m afraid you still misunderstand my position: I don’t discard what Paul says as merely cultural, Taking his cultural background into account I think he must have meant something different than what you think he meant. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]As for the Bible: Being very much a fully blooded Lutheran I’m all for Sola Scriptura, but I fear a lot of Protestants have failed to see what it actually means and run the danger to add the Bible (and what they think it says) as a fourth person to the Trinity. Listening to the Biblical testimonies we touch base with the roots of our faith and we need to listen to it intently whilst praying for spiritual guidance, so as not to impose our own presuppositions and traditions on to the text. And let’s face it: we all are prone to the latter. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I respect you seeing the Bible as the cornerstone of your conscience, however please consider that if the Bible was the prerequisite for our salvation, all Biblical figures would be pretty much doomed because they did not have the Bible yet. ;-) The Bible wasn’t there for all eternity, Christ, the Logos of whom it gives witness, is.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]As for atheists and universal salvation. Apparently it’s a position that’s been widely held among early Christians and while Western Christianity has been rediscovering it for the past century as far as I know it’s always been held in Eastern Orthodoxy. And it’s not as if this is an unbiblical position that strays from the soteriological premise that we are justified by grace accepted in faith alone. The Bible tells us over and over again that “[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]at the name of Jesus every knee will bow--in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil 2.:10: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-10.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]) [/SIZE][SIZE=medium], and that Christ preached to the dead (1 Peter 3:19-20), so I trust that eventually all will see Him and have faith, be it in this life or the next. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=medium]Thanks for starting a new thread on the gender issue. I’ll get to it in a minute and hope to get around to answer a bit before I need to head off for work, the rest after I get home.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Be blessed[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]​[/SIZE]

 

[tommie]

mjrhealth, I have to say I have just skimmed this post as this has been discussed before...Go back and read posts that responded to you and to your similar questions at: Homosexuality: Is it the way a person is born? in Christian Apologetics Forum from October to February. The answers are there.

 

[mjrhealth]

mjrhealth, I have to say I have just skimmed this post as this has been discussed before...Go back and read posts that responded to you and to your similar questions at: Homosexuality: Is it the way a person is born? in Christian Apologetics Forum from October to February. The answers are there.

Why, i already know the answer, besides I read that onew long time ago. Your point is??

 

[StanJ]

I haven't seen the OP deal with 1st Corinthians 6 9 or 1st Timothy 1:10 yet?
The Greek is very clear...ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity, a sodomite, pedarest.

 

[junobet]

I haven't seen the OP deal with 1st Corinthians 6 9 or 1st Timothy 1:10 yet?
The Greek is very clear...ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity, a sodomite, pedarest.

[SIZE=12pt]If you are interested enough to read past the OP, you’ll find that my line of argumentation covers all the three mentions of same sex behaviour in the NT. Of course you are free to disagree with me just as Wormwood does, but I see little point in having the same discussion all over again.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Be blessed[/SIZE]

 

[StanJ]

If you are interested enough to read past the OP, you’ll find that my line of argumentation covers all the three mentions of same sex behaviour in the NT. Of course you are free to disagree with me just as Wormwood does, but I see little point in having the same discussion all over again.[/size]
[/size]
Be blessed[/size]

Well I can't say this response is a surprise given your last response In the other thread on homosexuality. I did indeed take the time to proof read this thread and in fact you did not address the two scriptures I just quoted. I can also say that if you're still at odds with Wormwood in this regard then there's probably a very valid reason for it and as Wormwood and I mostly agree on these issues I would have to say you have indeed not supported your assertions so far. Of course it's up to you whether or not you want to defend your position, but as far as I'm concerned you have not supported it and/or corroborated it through scripture.

 

[Wormwood]

No it promotes death, dying to ones self so one can have life.

Yes and death to self means living for Christ...not to please the ungodly desires of the flesh as those who engage in sexual perversions.

Is it not written??
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Should not mens churches be getting there act together before telling everyone else they are sinners.

Is it not written???

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:1–2, ESV)

and again,

“When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 5:4–5, ESV)

and again,

“Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:6–8, ESV)

and again,

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”” (1 Corinthians 5:9–13, ESV)

So how, mj, are we supposed to identify sexual sin and heed to the commands of the Scriptures that call us not to associate with sexually immoral people who identify themselves as Christ-followers? How are we supposed to "cleanse out the old leaven" if by pointing out sexual sin we become hypocrites who are self-righteous? Was Paul speaking as a self-righteous hypocrite by telling them to purge the evil from their midst?

Remember Jesus at the well, said to teh women " you have 5 husbands and teh one you are with is not your husband", No look a siiner?!!

I dont know how I can speak any more clearly or why it is you cannot understand my writing. I never said we should point at those outside the church and condemn them as sinners over this or any issue. I said this issue was about whether or not CHRISTIANS can engage in homosexuality as a God-honoring act. All non-Christians are condemned whether they are homosexuals or heterosexuals due to their sin (whatever it may be). The question here is (and this is the last time I will repeat it): Is homosexuality an acceptable and appropriate act for the person who claims to be a Christ-follower?

My answer is "no." Clearly your view is that a man can regularly lay with other men and still claim to be one who died to himself and lives for Christ. I say you are clearly wrong. Scripture couldnt be any more plain. I'll go with what is written and you feel free to go with the prevailing tide of our culture.

 

[Wormwood]

PS, good to see you again StanJ. You go on vacation or something?

 

[StanJ]

PS, good to see you again StanJ. You go on vacation or something?

You too WW. More like something.

 

[Wormwood]

Haha, well, welcome back!

 

[StanJ]

Haha, well, welcome back!

Thanks.

 

[tommie]

mjrhealth, You are mean and you are on my ignore list. You have been mean to me before and I have tried to be kind to you, (you did catch me off guard once and I apologize) in my many replies to you and to the thread.... You continue to be rude. I will not read your posts anymore.

 

[mjrhealth]

mjrhealth, You are mean and you are on my ignore list

I can only assumr you are young, as for ignore lists, they are for children and childish, though there are some very elderly people on here do do teh same. But you could of just answered teh question. What is your point?

 

[mjrhealth]

The question here is (and this is the last time I will repeat it): Is homosexuality an acceptable and appropriate act for the person who claims to be a Christ-follower?

Well for one, Jesus was a friend of teh sinner, as He said,

Mat_9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

But your list did leave out,

Murders,Child abusers, rapists, thieves, liars, deceivers, Christians who will not forgive, Pastors who say they are from God and who are not, false teachers, false prophets.

I can only sssume from your statement its ok for them??

Why single out homosexulas, again you dont know where they come from.

As Jesus said to teh women

Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

There is a reason why Jesus told us not to judge others, its so we ourselves will not be brought under judgement. When you call anyman a sinner you are doing the same of yourself. And teh devil claims 2 lives.

 

[Wormwood]

However, that does not erase 1 Cor 7:7: ” I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” In Colossians 2 he’s speaking about the early Christians struggle about Jewish purity laws. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t into “stopping the indulgence of the flesh”, i.e. into controlling your passions and living in virtuously. And for him that very much involved controlling your sexual passions. Sex within marriage is just a concession to stop his flock from worse.

Well, again, I think you are reading a lot into Paul here. You seem to think you know his mind and his intent beyond what is actually written. Rather, he says that men and women should not deprive each other and he says marriage and sexuality are from the Lord. It seems clear to me his focus on celibacy has nothing to do with which is more virtuous but has much more to do with Paul's passion for Christ and focus on the ability to commit more time to the building of believers. As a married man, I certainly agree with Paul that I do not have the same amount of time to serve the church as I did when I was single. So certainly, for the benefit of the church and the kingdom, a single person can devote far more time and attention. I think you are reading too much into it if your assumption is Paul is suggesting those who are sexually active as married couples are less virtuous due to their intimacy.

Please don’t take offense, but you putting up that much defense against the notion that Paul may have regarded your own sexuality as somehow inferior to his asexuality, kind of tells me you don’t like the feeling of having your own sexuality deevaluated. Note that this is what you do to others.

I am not offended, but I think this statement is nonsense. The difference is that Paul, as an inspired author of Scripture, applauds marriage between a man and a woman as from God:

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1–3, ESV)

On the other hand he declares homosexuality to be a wicked behavior that comes from a lack of knowledge of God and declares that those who practice such things bring the wrath of God on the world. So, no, this has nothing to do with me "deevaluated" [devaluing] another person's sexuality. It has to do with what Scripture has to say on the subject. Clearly it does not approach the sexuality of a married couple in the same way as it does the sexuality of an adulterer or homosexual. I mean, really, this argument of yours could be used by a pedophile or someone who practices beastiality who wants to argue that you are devaluing their sexuality by prohibiting them from carrying out their lusts. I mean, who are YOU to determine if someone's sexuality should be devalued or not? Nonsense. Using Paul's comments on sexuality in 1 Cor 7 as a means to validate homosexuality is baffling.

Due to this consensus homosexuality is not listed as an illness on the ICD-10 any more. That you still find blokes who present it as a mental illness doesn’t surprise me. I give such articles the same credibility as ‘creationist science’. Come on Wormwood, you strike me as a man of intellectual integrity, do you really think Christians ought to bury their head in the sand like that?

I think you are missing my point. The point is that you were making it sound like there is some complete scientific agreement on the matter and I am saying that is far from the truth. The redefinition of homosexuality has nothing to do with "science" but everything to do with culture accepting the practice. Of course textbooks are going to approach the matter differently. But that is due to cultural evaluation of the practice and not some scientific silver bullet that says people have no choice but to sleep with people of the same sex due to some finding in their DNA (which is how you were trying to make it sound). The bottom line is, engaging in ANY sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) is a behavior. My inclination to be attracted to women does not mandate I try to fulfill any bodily lusts I might feel toward any woman I pass that I find attractive. It is not the same as eye color or skin color. It is a behavior. Simply because someone is predisposed to want to do something, drink, smoke, chew, have one-night-stands or whatever else does not mean that they are somehow excused by God for doing something he disapproves of. As I said from the beginning, this is a discussion about what the Bible says is right and wrong, not what culture has determined is acceptable. I find it sad that so many people have their interpretation of the Scriptures so dominated by cultural pressures and expectations. As I said before, NO Christian for almost 2000 years would have argued that God approves of homosexual activities. The Church NEVER accepted the practice throughout all of history. Now, suddenly, our culture embraces it and, lo and behold, we just happen to discover that Paul really didnt mean what he said based on some wild contextual scenarios we drum up. Hardly the way to be salt and light in the world.

??? Isn’t that more or less what I just said?

No, you were arguing that Paul's basis for understanding sexuality was based in stoicism. Hardly the case. I think Paul's argument is based on creation, sin and the teaching of the Scriptures that the Hebrews had followed on this matter for thousands of years. I dont think he was influenced by Greek Stoicism and asceticism.

However, if the procreation argument holds that much water for denying homosexuals the right to marry, why is it that I know of no Church that refuses to marry women who are well past their menopause?

You are missing the point. Procreation points out the natural order of things. The purpose of marriage is not merely children. Rather, the ability to conceive children and the sexual activity itself reveals God's design and desires in creation. Its no different than saying, "Why not have men engage with intimacy with apes or fish?" Well, regardless of whether or not a person might desire to do such a thing, the very act itself is clearly outside of God's design. Its more than the inability to have a baby with a fish that matters. The inability to have a baby and the nature of the physical bodies involved reveals that the whole nature of that kind of intimacy is foreign to God's purposes and design.

 

[lforrest]

Do you believe that Gen 6:1-4 is referring to angels procreating with humans?

If so what warning were they given? And why should humans expect a different standard?

I am concerned that failure to recognize the natural order is to side with the fallen angels, and gives validity to everything they and their offspring have done.

 

[junobet]

Do you believe that Gen 6:1-4 is referring to angels procreating with humans?

If so what warning were they given? And why should humans expect a different standard?

I am concerned that failure to recognize the natural order is to side with the fallen angels, and gives validity to everything they and their offspring have done.

[SIZE=medium]People like Erich von Däniken believe the Nephilim were really aliens. No offense meant, but to be honest I deem any connection to homosexuality as equally whacko. If I took a walk down to the OT-Studies departments of Münster’s University, I’d probably be told that the narratives of “Sons of God” are residues of the old Ugarit heroe-sagas that Israelite culture and religion evolved from. That would make sense to me.[/SIZE]
​

 

[lforrest]

People like Erich von Däniken believe the Nephilim were really aliens. No offense meant, but to be honest I deem any connection to homosexuality as equally whacko. If I took a walk down to the OT-Studies departments of Münster’s University, I’d probably be told that the narratives of “Sons of God” are residues of the old Ugarit heroe-sagas that Israelite culture and religion evolved from. That would make sense to me.
​

That is why I asked if you believe that instead of assuming you did.

Why even read the Bible if by relativism you can make it mean anything you want it to mean?