HEY!!! Looky here! We have somehow managed to return to one of my original concerns, and the one that I haven’t (with a LOT of help) clarified in my own mind.
See, I don’t think it MATTERS if homosexuality is a sin, His4ever, when you are dealing with, conversing with, or referring to a person who is NOT a brother or sister in Christ. We are (I believe) QUITE clearly instructed NOT TO JUDGE any one who ISN’T a brother or sister in Christ, and a simple statement of “All sin, all come short of the glory of God. You ever told a lie? You ever felt extreme anger, prejudice or disdain toward another person? Ever felt prideful, better-than-thou about anyone or gossiped? Okay, then you are a sinner, and I believe you need God’s grace” should suffice. For GOD’S purposes, anyway.
And setting yourself up AS a judge of whatever that person’s sin is (in your understanding of the Scripture) ARE, is IMHO CLEARLY a sin…judging.
The ONLY time we are instructed to sit in “judgement” on anyone ELSE is when they are not living their Christian life in accordance with the Scripture.
So then we get into the OTHER part of my convoluted OP, which is…how do we handle it when our interpretation of the Scripture differs from another persons. I used, I believe, the question of baptism. And I think it is a GOOD one, since it might be able to discuss the ISSUE without the heat that is generated by the issue of homosexuality.
So, there you have it. Some Christians believe that if you are not baptized, you are not going to heaven. Some people believe (as I do) that baptism is an outward expression of an inward faith…and that while it is best to MAKE that expression, God doesn’t not REQUIRE it in order to be a Christian.
I think at this point that I will let you know that when I came to this board, almost three years ago, I hadn’t really thought about the issue of homosexuality. I had been told that the Bible says it is a sin, and I hadn’t questioned it. Mostly because I have several friends, some of them CLOSE friends, who are homosexual, and I had no problem with their sexuality…I didn’t feel it was any of my business, and that if it WAS a sin, God would deal with it in His own time and in His own way. Not my place, not my responsibilty, NOT my concern. Now, if I had been gay, I would have had to examine this further, but since I WASN’T, I figured (granted, without thinking about it much) that I would just keep muddling through my OWN Christian life, addressing sins I knew I had…and if I ever got perfect, THEN I would investigate whether or not OTHER “sins” were…well, SINS.
Several threads aroused my curiosity, and I started reading threads, following links both “pro and con” so to speak…reading the Scriptures about this issue…and I came up with the conclusion that homosexuality MAY or MAY NOT be a sin. I am not a theologian, I am not a Biblical scholar, so…I might be missing something…but primarily…I DON’T KNOW!!! (But I "don’t know with a strong leaing toward feeling that since it isn’t clearly stated in the Bible that it IS, it isn’t anything I need to concern myself about any more. Besides which, since it isn’t an issue I am dealing with for ME, it isn’t my place to worry about ANYWAY.)
In other words, since I couldn’t see any CLEAR indication in the Bible, I wasn’t going to take anyone ELSE’S word that homosexuality is a sin. Do I WANT it to NOT be a sin? You BET I do. If the Bible clearly said it WAS a sin, would I ignore it? NO WAY!!!
Having SAID that, even if I HAD been convinced that the people who believe homosexuality is a sin were right, I STILL WOULDN’T FEEL THAT IT WAS MY PLACE TO JUDGE ANYONE…unless he or she was my brother or sister in Christ.
What your mother did was not good for that child. I know because I was that child.
My parents are both really conservative Christians who raised me through many years of Christian schooling. I remember reading the bible and seeing nothing against same-sex love. When I was a small girl, there was another girl with whom I was very close and would occasionally kiss on occasion.
It wasn’t until I was nearly in high school that I learned that there was a name for people like me and that we were all going to hell. I looked in the stories where they said it applied and I didn’t see it, but everyone, even my parents, said that homosexuals were wrong, sinful people.
I know my parents love and care for me. But, they can not accept a basic part of who I am. They will never be able to accept that part of me.
Part of me is closed off to them forever as part of that boy is closed off to your mom. There is so much of him that he needs someone to talk to about things and he no longer has her.
He can’t tell her about his loves, about those who break his heart, he can’t invite her to his wedding or adopt children.
There is no way for a religious person who really believes that homosexuality is a sin and the person who has sex with a same-sex partner is doomed forever to ever really truly love all who the homosexual person is because a part of them will always be against a part of who that person is.
If a thread gets hijacked enough, it inadvertently returns to the OP, through sheer accident!
Well, I gave my definition of “sin” over on the Sex and Sin thread as “falling short of the ideal standard of conduct that Jesus taught” – towards God, one’s fellow man, and oneself. The point is not so much “sins” – specific acts that violate God’s laws – as it is “sin” (in the singular) – the state of falling short of God’s grace. As such, it’s a continual state one is in, from which one repents through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and resolves to do better.
One of the controverted points that has plagued this moribund-and-sadistically-beaten-horse of a dialogue has been that the gay people, understandably, use the term “gay” to describe their natural orientation of whom they desire, fall in love with, hopefully take as life partner and live their lives in company with, while Biblicists generally use it to isolate and describe their sex life – and adjudge the entire lifestyle (there’s that nasty word again) that they live by the single fact of their sex acts and what they see God as having said against those acts.
In isolation, there is very little question that what God condemned is a man using another man’s body for sexual intercourse in a similar manner (physiology preventing the exact act) as he might use a woman’s body for such sex. One assumes that this prohibition would extend to a woman using another woman’s body in a similar fashion, though that is not spelled out.
So let’s look at the 18th chapter of Leviticus, and see what God’s big problem with this might be:
So evidently the Egyptians and/or the Canaanites were fond of incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and, oh yeah, sodomy. It’s one verse nearly at the end of a list of sex with various female relatives that is forbidden – and it looks like it’s a cultural thing. The Children of Israel are to abstain from all this stuff because the Egyptians and the Canaanites indulged in it, and they are to keep themselves separate from being acculturated to Canaanite or Egyptian ways.
And the other prohibitions seem like unto this – Paul is against a wide variety of things that were commonplace behaviors in the cosmopolitan First Century Greco-Roman Mediterranean civilization.
It does not appear to have dawned on any of the human authors of these Bible books that there might be people who were exclusively (or nearly so) attracted to others of their own sex, and whose romantic and marital aspirations would be directed toward those others, and not towards a woman (or in the case of a woman, towards a man).
Now, if one sees “divine inspiration” in some quasi-verbatim sense as regards these passages, God surely recognized that fact, and prohibited those behaviors despite that recognition. But if the books were “inspired” in the sense that God moved their writers and attempted to get His message through in them – and the fact that most of what people agree are “good ethical teachings” in Jesus are quoted from Torah suggests that He may well have been doing that – then the fact that they attributed their cultural regulations and taboos to the Source of All Law, who just happens to be the real God Himself, means that this encoding of such cultural norms has little or no bearing on how a gay man or woman today is supposed to live out his or her life – other than the fact that they need to love God with all their being, love their neighbor as themselves, etc.
However, there’s another controverted issue coming into play here. Specifically, that according to Paul (who handles the N.T. condemnation of homosexual behaviors, and apparently extends it to the orientation as well), we are free from the Law. God’s grace is extended to all who turn to Him in love and accept His Son as Lord and Savior – and the Holy Spirit is then sent to indwell these converts and strengthen them in all goodness.
Huh.
So all this arguing about “the sin of homosexuality” is really akin to a debate over whether or not the Articles of Confederation prohibit a TV station from slanting the news – it’s absolutely moot, since the Articles of Confederation no longer govern anything.
And neither does the Law.
To be sure, Jews are given the privilege of living out their lives in attempted obedience to the Law, but IIRC not one word in this debate has dealt with whether or not a gay Jew may or may not engage in sex acts or have sexual desire towards another person fo the same sex. And quite frankly, from my perspective, that’s their problem, not one we need to deal with here.
And, as Scotti said, what’s key to Christian moral behavior is to deal with one’s own morality – to act as God commanded oneself, inevitably falling short but keeping on trying with the Holy Spirit strengthening and guiding our growth in Christ – and to refrain from sitting in judgment over another.
To be sure, as Christians, those of us who are do have the responsibility of encouraging and chastizing our brothers and sisters in Christ in their ongoing struggle to do just that. That’s my sole justification for my repeated calling of His4Ever on the carpet as being seemingly judgmental – that she is in fact my beloved sister in Christ, whose witness is misguided and whose seeming judgmentalism is turning those who are not Christian already away from him (and at least one who was, as well). But this must be done in love – with one’s brotherhood and caring overtly showing – or it too descends to judgmentalism and is not what Paul directs.
As regards baptism, Scotti, I must beg to disagree – if one turns to Christ and accepts Him as Savior and Lord, then one is committed to doing what the Lord commands. And a part of that is “repent and be baptized” – so if physically possible, it’s a necessity, not because there’s some baptismal hoop one must jump through to be saved, but because a follower of Christ does what Christ commands, and that’s one thing he does command.
As I said to you once on the phone about abortion, if I ever become a pregnant woman, I’ll let you know how I feel about it. I think we would be well advised to let the gay people deal with how their gayness interacts with the love of God and fellow man, without insisting that proscriptions against lust and Canaanite sexual practices must be laws that apply to them. And if they should ask our advice, to put love up front and legalism last.
Homebrew honey, you have enough debate already on your plate…no need to add MORE. JMHO
However, since you asked, and since I already SAID I don’t think you have to be baptized to be with God after death, then I think the thief (clearly NOT baptized) is in heaven as we speak.
Not that I know anything in particular except what I believe (strongly) , and that the longer I dwell here in GD the more I know that the less I say the better I sleep. [sub]Should’a stayed in MPSIMS where I belong, is MY opinion![/sub]
And, Homebrew, if that comment was pointed in my direction, let me quote myself from above:
Bolding is of course added. So far as I know, there were no provisions in Roman capital punishment statutes allowing breaks for crucified criminals for baptisms, so let’s invoke the “if physically possible” clause. And besides, the point is that it’s a response to grace, not a prerequisite for it.
Like you keep saying, it’s love. And love’s response to love.
Originally posted by His4ever
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1 Cor 6:9
Originally posted by Homebrew
**And not a one of those address homosexuality as we understand it in modern terms. At most they condemn homosexual sex. But they most assuredly do not address homosexual attraction.
Try again.**
**At most they condemn homosexual sex **– so you are saying that two people of the same sex who engage in sexual relations will be condemned right?
But they most assuredly do not address homosexual attraction – so as long as they are attracted to each other without the sexual relations they will not be condemned right?
So what you are saying is that as long as two homosexual people are attracted to each other without having engaged in sexual relations there is no condemnation, but if these two homosexual people have sexual relations then there is condemnation?
Originally posted by Sdrawkcab
Yeah, such a big deal that Jesus forgot to say a single thing about it in his entire recorded life.
Jesus was born under the Old Law the Old Law was still in effect while Jesus was living. The Old Law could not pass until it had been fulfilled, through Jesus’ death . Until the death of Jesus he followed the Old Law but also made a better law, that could not come into effect until his death.
Quote
Matthew 5:17-18
5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
Hebrews 9:15-22
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, 20saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
quote:
I guess to me and my friends (that my mother has been there for), does make her a “mommy dearest”
Originally posted by Sdrawkcab
You have no idea what that reference means, do you?
No we do not know what this means, and if it means anything derogatory towards me, when I have said nothing derogatory about you only explains that you are showing exactly how much intelligence you really have and have backed it up with this comment Horsepuckey. I’m from the South. The South is most evil, backward, illiterate and uneducated region of our country. Which explains why you
would use something derogatory.
It’s litter with tumorous Baptist churches and evil people who wish the Ku Klux Klan had never fallen out of style…
I can’t comment of Baptist churches for I do not attend a Baptist Church, as far as the Ku Klux Klan is concerned with me I wish they had never existed. I wouldn’t wish being raised in the South on the worst gay person in the world – no one deserves that terror
That is your opinion, most of the gay people here are Doctors they are not living in terror and are well accepted. Maybe you were raised farther in the South than where we are…
Originally posted by Homebrew If the story is accurate, was the the thief on the cross baptised? Yet, what did Jesus say to him?
Luke 23:39-40
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Jesus had the power to forgive the thief on the cross, he didn’t need to be baptized.
Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Jesus had the power to save the thief, just as he had the power to save the woman in Luke 7:48 and countless others.
Originally posted by Ava
quote Part of me is closed off to them forever as part of that boy is closed off to your mom. There is so much of him that he needs someone to talk to about things and he no longer has her.
He can’t tell her about his loves, and just why can’t he?? He has already, and I have even told him at times he could do better…
** about those who break his heart, **we have already discussed that also
** he can’t invite her to his wedding, and why not?? Is there a law stating I can’t go to his wedding?? Or even throw him a bridal shower???
** or adopt children. I agree that one would need work
There is no way for a religious person who really believes that homosexuality is a sin and the person who has sex with a same-sex partner is doomed forever to ever really truly love all who the homosexual perso
n is because a part of them will always be against a part of who that person is.
A true friend is someone that knows everything about you but still accepts you.
So, I am thinking about this Leviticus stuff. First of all, as someone pointed out, if we follow the OT, a LOT of things are prohibited. I believe that most of these things were for other reasons than SIN…at the time, eating pork could quite possibly have killed you. And etcetera.
But this passage…it would be Leviticus 18:7 that I am thinking about. I’ll tax your patience by quoting it again.
Now, in a practical sense, this is ridiculous unless you intend to entirely live your life with NO regard to your parents. Which would go so far against the Scriptures that I don’t expect ANYONE will disagree that it would.
When my mother became ill, I “uncovered her nakedness” a zillion times. If I HADN’T, she would have been left to a stranger…a caregiver or nurse or whatever…during the time I cared for her during her illness. Which turned out to be terminal, and which was nasty for her. I will spare you the details. So, if I had followed this particular “commandment,” my mother would have been denied the loving touch of a daughter when WHAT SHE NEEDED WAS THE LOVING MINISTRATIONS OF HER DAUGHTER. Who was doing what needed to be done…because I LOVED HER!
I’ll do the same for my father, should it become necessary. I HAVE done this for my father in a limited way.
I did it for my brother when HE was dying of cancer. I’d do it for my remaining sister and brother in a heartbeat.
Nothing anyone could ever say to me is going to convince me that I didn’t do exactly the right thing in caring for my mother, including the things I had to do to care for her that included “uncovering her nakedness.” Now, you may be a Biblical scholar, and you may know the original language, and you may tell me that the original language means something entirely different than what it seem to say. And I will give it serious consideration. BUT…if you cannot tell me anything concrete that tells me that that passage means that I shouldn’t have wiped my mother’s bottom, put cream on the yeast infection she got from the intravenous antibiotic she had been given in the hospital…and so forth…(sorry, I know I said I was going to spare you the details…these were the tip of the TMI iceberg)…IF you cannot DO that, then I am going to have to assume that when God gave me a heart and a brain AND the BIBLE he was expecting me to USE THEM ALL!!!
Then Christ came and now we live under grace, and I can’t see why things have changed…save the fact that we now have the Holy Spirit within us if we are in Christ, and if our brain and heart aren’t enough to make things clear then HE WILL!!!
Sorry, I know this is a rant. I just get so FRUSTRATED!!!
jjrt…I am not sure exactly what you want clarified here. You appear to feel that you KNOW what it takes to be “in Christ” (from your earlier posts) and so I can only assume that you feel that I am not in Christ, and that you are assuming so because I am not convinced that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am not “really” a Christian.
This offends me, but I forgive you, as Christ instructed me to. Please forgive ME if I am wrong. It doesn’t really matter to me in the long run, as I know where I am with God.
Okay, fair enough. Here is what I believe. We are all sinners and the eventual consequence of sin (without the grace of God’s redemption) is eternal separation from God. This is what the Bible teaches (insofar as I can interpret and if I can depend on the translations…which I assume I can) and it is what I believe.
So if I have to say that if what I believe is true, then Christ is the only way to reach God. Christ came to earth and lived His life as a man (although divine) in order to become the sacrifice for our sin. Those who accept this sacrifice and welcome Him into our hearts…to become one with us…are “in Christ” and the Holy Spirit moves on in. God no longer sees OUR sins, he sees us through Christ and therefore no longer sees OUR sins…he sees that Christ has already paid the price for our sin. We are then “in Christ” and the Holy Spirit dwells within us and is on hand to “speak sternly to us” should we be off base.
Scotticher
I am so sorry!!! I did not mean to offend you and I should have been
more expressive with my question to you.
I just wanted to know you explanation for being in Christ and the Holy Spirit. I’ve heard many different versions of how to get there and wanted to know your explanation for it. I had no intentions of it being connected with what you believed in homosexuality.
Maybe another GD subject.
Anyway please accept my apology for I did not mean to offend in any way.
I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have “assumed” anything, and the reason I DID had nothing to do with you. Please accept MY apology, and I hope I answered your question? (At least the way I believe it…)
First, a poem that I feel may have relevance (it’s sometimes used as a Christmas carol, which brought it to mind):
Second, and with a request to all participants not to regard the answer as an opportunity for a flamefest, I’d like to make two requests of jjrt:
Assume that your daughter’s gay friend has listened to what you have to say, and thought about it. (This may or may not have happened; but for purposes of this post let’s assume that he did.) Now he comes to you, realizing that you believe that the Bible calls his sexuality sinful and that you personally love him, and asks you for your practical advice. How should he deal with his sexuality? What does he need to do? How can he “get right with God” in your eyes?
What will (or did) you answer him?
After having given that answer, would you be so kind as to allow him to post (without anyone looking over his shoulder) his honest reactions to what you’ve had to say and how you’ve reacted towards him?
I don’t have particular expectations and am not “setting you up”
for argument – I am sincerely interested in knowing how you would answer those questions, and in how he feels about your attitude toward him, your views on his sexuality, and what you will have answered to my questions.
I feel the need to point out that act of having sex with one of the same gender as yourself is also addressed in the New Testament, not just the Old Testament.
Romans 1:26-27
1 Cor. 6:9-10
I realize Polycarp and most others think I’m judgmental and hateful, I don’t see myself this way. Shouldn’t we tell people what we believe to be the truth regardless of how unpopular it is? If we really care, we’ll tell the truth. You say that telling people that homosexuality (by this term I mean those who engage in same gender sexual relations) is a sin that that is driving people away from God. Well, doesn’t that say that they love their sin more than God?
I know you think my witness is misguided but I must go by what God’s word and the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart says and I won’t tell untruths to homosexuals to attract them into the fold. I’d have to answer to God for that. Your loving concerns are noted, Polycarp but I don’t consider it to be judgmental to speak what God has said about something. Unfortunately I doubt we’re all ever going to agree on what God has said.
Most assuredly not. I was first trying to help you see the distinction between a homosexual orientation, which is what your daughter’s friend confessed to you, and homoseuxal sex. They are not one and the same. Polycarp and others have shown you how these scriptures may not deal with homosexual sex in toto but rather deal with certain types such as male temple prosititutes.
Not quite. Jesus and the disciples violated the Law on several occasions. Jesus associated with unclean people such as lepers and prostitutes. The disciples picked corn on the Sabbath (Matthew 12). Yet when confronted by Pharisees, Jesus always said mercy comes before sacrifice, echoing the words of God in Isaiah. After telling the Isrealites that their sacrifices are nothing to him, God says
I believe you are sincere in wanting to do what’s best for your daughter’s friend. Therefore, I implore you to read some of the books and references on the issue. Start with this link. Especially pay attention to those that don’t agree with your current position. If you only read those that agree with you, your aren’t really challenging yourself.
I believe God loves all of us, please don’t try to put limits on His Love, for I believe that is the greatest sin of all.
