Raindog, why can't a loving God accept homosexual relationships?

Polycarp said:

Greetings Polycarp.

My contextual understanding of the account in Acts was that the message of the Christ was now to be sent to the whole world, (the Gentiles) not simply the world of the Jews. The reference to the Law in Peter’s vision was appropriate as the Law was a mechanism designed to lead to the Messiah. And, I agree with your comment.

Well…I would have to agree in part…I personally do not see the world in this context though. I don’t see anyone as “righteous” although that is a word that can be used in different contexts. For example God referred to Job as “righteous”, (“blameless” in some translations). (Job 1:8) Malachi spoke of the difference between the righteous and wicked saying, “And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.”” (Mal 3:18) Jesus spoke of the righteous. (Matt 13:43, 5:45 and others) God himself is said to have his eyes on the righteous one,and makes a distinction towards those doing bad, saying "For [the] eyes of God are upon the righteous ones, and his ears are toward their supplication; but [the] face of God is against those doing bad things.” (1 Pet 3:12) ** (others Pr 15:28, 29:2, Acts 24:15)**

Yet, Paul said at Romans 3:10 “just as it is written: “There is not a righteous [man], not even one; …” Proverbs says “Who can say: “I have cleansed my heart; I have become pure from my sin”” (Pr 20:9) Ecclesiastes says “For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin.” (Ec 7:20)

The bible would indicate that we cannot, through our efforts, redeem ourselves and become “saved” (as one would perceive saved…). We cannot never become “good”. (Mark 10:18)

So, I would agree with you that God’s grace, love and mercy is what gives us any hope for redemption. It is certainly necessary as no matter how “righteous” one is to lead their life, they can never “earn” salvation. Nonetheless, the cites that indicate that we still have an obligation to try are legion. Our salvation is not an all or nothing proposition; that either we can do it ourselves or there’s no point in trying. So I would have to say “that our own efforts to avoid sin” do make a difference.

I agree. We must try to avoid sin. That requires not just action and effort on our part, but a willingness to rely on the holy spirit to give us the necessary strength.

I would have to disagree here. Once again, one has to have balance. The bible surely gives a lot more than ‘clues’ as to how to live a moral life. And, it’s usefullness as a guidebook for relationshios, marriage, raising kids, business affairs and others is as pertinent as it ever was. For those who consider it’s principles when making decisions, it can hardly be said that they are a group of legalistsic historicists.

While I agree with much of what you’ve said, I have to disagree with some as well. (Some of it strongly) And I would note that in the months I spent as a lurker I read many of your posts and I can see why you are held in high esteem here.

I have never condemned a homosexual, and I would stand in defense of someone who was attacking one. I would stand and defend one verbally and physically as well. Over the years I have had gay friends and workmates and have spent time in homosexaul environments. Still, it is the practice (behavior) that my reading of the bible indicates is unapproved. I do not believe that the homosexaul orientation is an overt act of sin. I do however believe that is incumbent upon the homosexual to refrain from homosexual behavior that God condemns. I know that opinion is anathema to most homosexuals, and hasn’t made me popular here. I do appreciate though that I have been treated, by and large, with respect and dignity. And I apologize for those I may have offended.

Those are curious words to me… I’m not sure what you mean by that. I hope you don’t feel that my views are influenced by what a lot of “good Christians” (I presume the religious or “conservative” religious establishment…) think. I don’t know any "good Christians, and if I did, I wouldn’t care much about their opinions as it related to the practice of my faith.
And despite not being good myself, I do try to live the model that Christ left us.

Diogenes the Cynic said in 2 successive posts:

Well…I think we’ve covered this ad nauseum. I think the bible supports that, A) God has demonstrated that he has condemned some “loving” relationships (pre-relationship) and gone on and whipped some butt when some people tested him out and did there own thing. (post-relationship) And that’s even when the basis of the defense was , “hey, we were in love!.”

And despite your command of Greek, I’m left unconvinced as to your assertion, “the Bible doesn’t say anything about homosexual relationships…”

(Screaming commences…)

And:

The cites that would indicate that a Christian has obligations in addition to “love” are too numerous to count. Love is the greatest command, but hardly the only one, as you’ve said. And “love” is not an invitation to a standardless spiritual environment where all the requiremtns set down by God are rendered invalid as long as love is present. That jus can’t be supported.

Any other “obligations” are really just the natural results of feeling love. As long as love is present, all obligations have been met. If an action proceeds from love, then it can’t be a sin.

And any God who wiould condemn a loving relationship is not a God of love.

All…

I must say that I’ve enjoyed the exchanges, although I’m not they accomplished much. But they have taken more time in the last few days than I really had to give. So, I neglected a few other items that I should have spent more time on.

In the coming days I may post again to this thread , but it would appear that it’s on the wane. But I may not have the time to devote to the thread as I have in the last week or so.

I’m curious, why does God condemn homosexual acts/behavior? You’ve compared them to adultry and drunkeness. The physical, emotional and mental damage of those behaviors are plain. However, homosexual behavior doesn’t damage anyone. If you can prove so, I’d love to hear about it. Otherwise, I find it illogical for an omnipotent, omniscent and omnibenevolent being to condemn a behavior that doesn’t hurt anyone.

Raindog,

What about shopping?

Isn’t it incumbent upon a true believing Christian to avoid shopping?

Why isn’t that of greater interest to Heterosexual American Christians?

Perhaps because shopping is a sin they like, rather than a sin that they don’t.

But to even pretend that it is a sin that ranks below, or above some other sin is self serving hypocrisy.

How can anyone claim to be following God’s law, and coveting his neighbor’s goods as a form of entertainment?

We can’t, you see. We are sinners. And preaching about sin is an abomination. Preach about Salvation! Preach about the love of God. None are righteous, no, not one! So let’s get over this lie that Christians are not sinners. They are all sinners, every single one of them. And to decide that you are called to enumerate the appropriate choices of which sin is a worse sin than anther one is . . . well, a sin.

Christ will decide what our sins are, when we meet, on Judgement Day. And when He does, each of us will weep in the deepest places of our hearts. Those places which we tried to hide from Him, so that we could sin our sins, and still deny the sins of others. What vile wickedness we humans cling to.

But those sins, like all others will be blow away like dust, and we will be lifted up, above our most petty desires, and make anew. It’s gonna rock!

Tris

Um, why in the world do you think that shopping is a sin? And can you cite any Biblical support for this claim?

Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 17.

Is this the passage?
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Isn’t this a commandment against jealousy?

Some consider it a prohibition against materialism.

To covet it to desire, or want.

The stuff at the store is not mine; it is my neighbor’s.

Coveting it is a sin.

Spending the day comparison coveting is pretty much reveling in sin.

The fact that my neighbor wants me to covet his things is irrelevant.

Tris

Not quite true. Here is what dictionary.com has to say on this matter:

Note the emphasis provided in these definitions. While it can mean a general longingness, it is also used to denote “blameworthy” or “immoderate” desire for such a thing. You’re insisting that it’s the former definition which applies, whereas a more appropriate alternate definition exists – one which more closely fits the context. Exodus 20 speaks about various grave offenses, and so it is only logical to assume that it is referring to the inappropriate longing for someone elses goods, which goes beyond mere desire.

Indeed, here is what netbible.com has to say about the original Hebrew phraseology used in that passage:

“Comparison coveting” (if such a term is meaningful) would indeed be a sin. Mere shopping is not. You are insisting on applying the more innocuous definition of the term “covet,” whereas it is the malicious definition that more properly applies. Indeed, both the context and the connotations of the original Hebrew term used demonstrate this to be so.

Frankly, I don’t know why from God’s POV, or the bible. God has his own sense of moraility and justice and it is he, and only he, that can determine what is ‘moral.’

The fact that there isn’t any cites (that I know of) that explains his reasoning for the prohibition, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any. It’s quite possible that there is a reason and he hasn’t shared it with us. Further, it is possible that it does hurt us as a species in a way that we don’t recognize. (Isa 55:8,9) As any parent knows, our children often can’t see the logic in rules we set out for them. At times, we engage them and explain our rationale. Sometimes they agree, once the reasons are explained. Other times, even after the explanation, they still disagree. If they choose to defy their parent, they do so at their own peril. Often there is bitter consequences for disobeying.

But, in the final analasys, a parent has no obligation to explain every decision. A parent has the right to say from time to time, “because I said so.” A loving parent will use this approach sparingly. And God has. Time and again he humbled himself and appealed to the Israelites to recognize the value in keeping his commandments.** (Isa 48:17)** (Micah chapter 6 is a great example)
And so God, like any loving parent explains himself when he feels that it is appropriate, and at other times he appeals to his children with reason, although he certainly has the authority to force the issue. But there are times when he’s established a requirement and apparently saw no need to explain himself. (See Dan 4:37)

No matter though, in every case we have an obligation to be humble and accept that God loves us, and his requirements are always for our benefit. (Even when we don’t see how, or like them)** (Micah 6:8, Jas 4:10, 1 Pet 5:5-7, Phil 2:5-8, Matt 18:3-4, Luke 14:7-11, Matt 23:12, John 13:5, Col 3:12, Dan 10:11-12, Pr 22:4)**

It takes humility to accept a set of requirements that are difficult, or distasteful. It’s particularly hard when it is against our natural inclinations, and even worse when we disagree. (or cannot see any logical value in the prohibition)

As a society we speak of love often, and we should. It is the greatest commandment. Nonetheless, to follow in Christs’s steps takes an extraordinary amount of humility. But humans are (sinfully) selfish and humility is a quality that has to be cultivated. In western society (vis a vis many oriental cultures) humility is not spoken of, and is often seen as weakness. It may be extrememly difficult for a homosexual to reconcile the biblical prohibition on homosexuality. Still, many other people suffer as well, and the prohibition on sex between unmarried (hetero) persons is just as difficult to accept. (Especially since many people see this too as a “victimless” behavior)

This is not likely to be an acceptable answer in this forum. But IMHO, a measure of humility is essential to carry out one’s faith.

Raindog, there’s a lot you say that I don’t agree with (though quite a bit that I do, including your point about humility in that last post). But can I say that the approach you have taken in this thread is head and shoulders above virtually every other debate on this subject in the history of this board. For that, many thanks!

Just out of curiosity, I’d be interested in your take on a series of points made on several boards by a large number of people, and founded in the sort of Bible scholarship that takes into account the customs of the people to whom the particular book of the Bible was addressed, and those of the peoples surrounding them.

This would take the view that the Leviticus passages condemn Canaanite fertility rites, that Romans 1:22ff condemn either similar fertility rites or the First Century equivalent of “gay chic” as a part of a world-and-personal-pleasure-oriented lifestyle, not specifically a gay lifestyle, and that the I Corinthians passage condemns boy prostitution, which was a significant part of the burgeoning prostitution industry in the port city of Corinth. The Sodom story is already dealt with quite effectively by Ezekiel 16:49-50, which defines “the sin of Sodom” in terms that should make suburbanites rather than gays start to worry.

In other words, God is thoroughly ticked off at man using other men for selfish gratification or idolatrous purposes, just as he is men using women for said purposes, not specifically because it’s gay sex, but because it’s sinful attitudes and behaviors expressed through gay sex acts. In other words, there are heinous sins of idolatry and sexual exploitation which God condemns, but two gay people in love and wanting to enter into a Christian marriage with each other are no more committing those sins than the young straight couple marrying are guilty of the assorted condemnations of adultery, fornication, and whoredoms with which the same collection of passages are replete.

First of all most if not all “religions” are ignorant of their origins and make it up as they go through time.

The truth is man in general has no knowledge of even what a god is! This being the case one must rely on two things. History and true spiritual insight.

The CREATOR created the gods,(both male and female) to teach mankind and lead them to a greator future. The Creator has no gender but has the ability to create gender.

Well folks, the gods of earth, each given his or her realm to be in charge of on earth…literally screwed up big time!!! For this reason the Creator gave them hard time to repent. Does todays world look like they have repented? No…so they are REALLY REALLY SCREWED THIS TIME AND NO TURNING BACK!

You may think this is a little lengthy and not to the point but it is necessary.

By what is mankind judged??

Just about forever we are and have been judged by what is in our hearts. If one loves his fellow man or woman is this something evil that plagues the heart? No.

Is man ultimately just exactly as the Creator made us? Yes. Far too much study has long since proven that first, there have been homosexuals in all known history and every deviation of what may be called the norm. I am an intellect and am not gay…but I cannot deny truth. Typically, what is termed a gay, is more precisely a homosexual…but there are also gender dysphoria problems where a male or female knows themselves to be of the opposite gender. No matter what civilization in general rationalizes, all those people are simply trying to be as close to normal as they can be and live with their problems. They are in fact what the Creator made them to be.

Everything has a purpose in life. If one is full of respect and love for their fellow man than no harm is done and the Creator is pleased that we are tolerant. But if we are intollerant we will have no forgiveness.

Look at it this way because psychologists certainly do…first, there is no such thing as “normal!” It is simply an ignorant myth. Even the difference of race and racial habits should have taught man something. Apparently it has not. Men and women are different as well, which should give us a clue and it has not.

One MUST ask this question…am I somehow threatened by gays? I would say from my experience from marriage that I have probably been caused more personal grief with this relationship than by any other association. Maybe life would be better just by happily mating and abandon marriages. : )

So, it’s OK to covet, as long as I only covet a little bit.

And if I want to do something that might be forbidden in the Law of Moses, all I need is a little work with dictionaries, and bibles and some interpreting. Of course, no interpreting when we are discussing those things that the mainstream protestant churches happen to agree on. So, cotton/poly leisure suits are not an abomination before God, and I can eat milk gravy all I want, as long as I do my research diligently.

Like I said earlier, we mostly concern ourselves with sins that we don’t particularly want to commit, and condemn those sins publicly, and kinda keep it quiet about our own favorite sins. Homosexuality has lots of critics, but organized gambling in churches is certainly not sinful, after all, churches are doing it. No hypocrisy there.

We are not put on the earth to avoid sin, but to give love. Do good. Not to gain reward; not even to please God. Choose to do good because it is better than doing evil. And doing good takes a bit more effort than such self pleasing things as celibacy, honesty, or sanctity. Doing good means giving to our brothers because our brother needs us. Filling the measure, and shaking, and tamping it down, filling again, to overflowing. That is doing good. The only sin we need to attend to is our own. The sins of our brothers are the burden for which they must seek the Lord’s help. And which sins those are is really none of our business.

I repeat my major point. None are righteous, no, not one. Telling other people that they are sinful, is not the job of human judges. Human judges only judge the law of men. God has given us grace, not because we are good enough, but because He is good enough. To preach against sin is to preach self glorification. Preach Salvation. Preach of the love God has for Man. Preach of our Savior, and His love.

And love sinners. It is the ultimate answer to “What would Jesus do?” And while you are busy running your life by WWJD, when matters of authority come up, remember, YANJ. “You are not Jesus.”

Tris

So, raindog, you’ve cited several passages discussing heaven from both old and new testaments. You’ve responded to people who posted before me and after me. I admit to being a touch disappointed. You see, on page 2 of this thread I cited a passage in Matthew 15 where I not only cited a passage where Jesus discusses how the law applies to mankind under his new covenant, I put the passage itself into the text so you and others would be able to see exactly what words I was looking at.

Do you have a response? Are you still working on your response to that passage? You’ve spoken a great deal of Christians’ obligation to follow the law yet, once again, I’ll cite Christ’s response to those who slavishly follow the letter of the law. It’s from that bit of Matthew 15 I cited this weekend. Jesus said, "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

For me, to deny others a blessing and a sacrament I would like for myself because of ambiguously worded passages about homosexual act would make me a hypocrite. It seems to me Christ saved his worst criticism not for homosexuals, adulterers, or others who commited sexual immorality, but for those same hypocrites. If I must be a sinner, I would much rather be the sort of sinner Christ took compassion on than the sort of sinner he denounced.

Respectfully,
CJ

No. It’s okay to covet if this word is used in the more general, morally neutral sense. It is NOT okay to covet in the sense of an inappropriate longing for what another person owns.

You have no case here. The Bible does NOT condemn shopping, either directly or indirectly.

Nonsense. Words frequently have multiple meanings, and a responsible reader will attempt to determine the most appropriate meaning using both context and logic. This holds true for both religious and secular writings. For example, the word “love” has a multitude of meanings. if I were to say “I love my country,” then the context of this word would clearly indicate patriotic fervor, rather than romantic affection. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest would insist that this means that I somehow hold my country with romantic regard.

In contrast, you insisted on using the more general sense of the word “covet,” when both logic and its immediate context showed that this word was meant in its negative sense. It would be intellectually dishonest to continue insisting that Yahweh meant to use the former definition, when it is the latter definition that is more logical and more sensible in this context.

Esprix
<3
Triskadecamus

Re The Mosaic Laws

I agree that most of these have some purely secular reason. However, knowing that reason does not automatically render the law null and void.

Further, following the laws is well recognised way for a Jew to show that they love G-d, as well as honoring their mother and their father ('You’ve started keeping kosher?! Oy, such simchas! Your zeide, may he rest in peace, would be so proud! I’m all faklempt in my gonnechtegezoit!). It’s a silent and unobtrusive type of witnessing. No shouting or handing out pamphlets, just the occasional ‘Remember guys, we need at least one pizza with no meat.’.

I’ve long taken a passage from Job as meaning not ‘Hey! I’m the Lord here! I don’t haveta explain to you why I do the things I do!’ but ‘Look, bubbele, I’m eternal and all-knowing. You can’t understand why I do what I do. I could change you so that you could understand. But, I’d have to change you so much you wouldn’t be human anymore. You just gotta trust that I love you and I have a plan.’

Re Ecclesiastes

Of course it says there is not one righteous man. It’s more pessimistic than Eyore on downers. It’s also preceded and followed by tales of righteous men and righteous women.