Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[Chadrho]

I couldn't help but notice your post history seems to be all from this year

It is. I don't know what happened. I signed up, took a nap, and started posting. ;)

FWIW, I've spoken up many times in these discussions about the blame that Christians bear for being so perverse within their own illusory heterosexual cocoons.

Well, fine. I guess I'm preaching to the choir, which isn't the worst mistake I made today. Lol. But it was good practice, I reckon.

Since I've got you on the line: I wish Christians had taken a whole different approach to this issue. But everything happened so fast and the cultural change was so radically new. So, I get that we have made mistakes along the way. The position that became the norm was self-oriented, imo. Trust me, I have prayerfully considered my own position, as I assume others have, and it has changed over the years. For me, if my righteousness is in Christ, then I am free to love liberally. If I make an error in loving too liberally, I am fine with that. I would rather err on the side of love than abrogate love in the pursuit of my own rightness.

 

[BarneyFife]

Where do you draw the line?

It's a hypothetical line that doesn't serve any purpose when imposed on anyone but one's own self.

Would any of us men get married if we weren't lusting after our wives to be?

I'm disappointed that you think lust is always sinful, SS.

(And here come the surface readers. Tell my wife I love her.)

Would we procreate at all if God hadn't wired in the attraction?

See, there?

But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

How readest thou?

.

 

[BarneyFife]

It is. I don't know what happened. I signed up, took a nap, and started posting. ;)




Well, fine. I guess I'm preaching to the choir, which isn't the worst mistake I made today. Lol. But it was good practice, I reckon.

Since I've got you on the line: I wish Christians had taken a whole different approach to this issue. But everything happened so fast and the cultural change was so radically new. So, I get that we have made mistakes along the way. The position that became the norm was self-oriented, imo. Trust me, I have prayerfully considered my own position, as I assume others have, and it has changed over the years. For me, if my righteousness is in Christ, then I am free to love liberally. If I make an error in loving too liberally, I am fine with that. I would rather err on the side of love than abrogate love in the pursuit of my own rightness.

.​

 

[BarneyFife]

For me, if my righteousness is in Christ, then I am free to love liberally. If I make an error in loving too liberally, I am fine with that. I would rather err on the side of love than abrogate love in the pursuit of my own rightness.

This makes a whole lot of folks very nervous, but it's really the only way to go.

After all, isn't it really the essence of this?: (<--- How do you do that properly?)

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

I do believe the Bible prescribes being more aggressive in certain situations, which is a subject all unto itself.

.

 

[Chadrho]

This makes a whole lot of folks very nervous, but it's really the only way to go.

After all, isn't it really the essence of this?: (<--- How do you do that properly?)

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

I do believe the Bible prescribes being more aggressive in certain situations, which is a subject all unto itself.

.

Okay, so you gently say, "Homosexuality is a sin." Then what? Do you tell them to stop sinning like you have done? Do you say, "If you continue in homosexual relationships, I will use the power of government to stop you." Will you bar them from worshipping with you or leading you in worship? If so, why? Why do the glutton and power-hungry get to pray for the people but not the homosexual? You see where this is going, right? This is exactly why it looks like bigotry.

We should have welcomed them just as we welcomed ourselves. Love your neighbor, et al. But we didn't. We tried to margnalize them, and the world had enough sense to say, "No!" That's embarrassing. Everyone knows Jesus is all about love, and everyone knows we missed the mark, except us. Strange.

 

[TinMan]

By carrying a hate sign?

.

Try putting the hate away and just talk to people

 

[TinMan]

That people are convinced of these claims that perversion is an expression of divinely-devised love (like blue eyes?) there can be no doubt.

points you back to your claim: "We're not dealing with actual participants in the sin itself here"
and here you are doing just that

No, I think we'll see that what's actually happening is that your twisted magnifications of what I'm actually saying are in rare form.



The term "ill effects" as I have used it here actually has nothing whatsoever to do with sickness.

Diseased or perverted as you seem to prefer, and a blight on society. 'oh won't someone think of the children'. you message is clear, they are sick harmful people and it's only a matter of time before science figures that out.

Being sick doesn't make a person less human. That's absurd and very unkind. And it certainly doesn't make someone synonymous with whatever disease they may or may not have.

its also a very real phenomena. You are old enough to remember what it was like when AIDS first appeared. People were shunned, and turned away. From the pulpit we heard time and again how this was God's judgment and how those dying people deserved to be in the state they are in. How often have you seen people pull away from the developmentally disabled or the autistic or those with cerebral palsy? How often do you see people do the same when seeing a transexual?

I can't recall ever having said or believed anything like this. It's thoroughly disgusting to me.

When I read this rant, it reminds me of a scene I've witnessed many times. The place is the supermarket. A 3-year-old is standing up in a shopping cart screaming bloody murder because he can't have what he wants right now.

Tantrums aren't going to trigger me into behaving like the person you'd like me to appear to be. Sorry.

I'm going to point you back to your recent post when you said you would never engage in an ad hominem attack.

I'm talking about actions and you're simply re-stating it to sound like I'm literally declaring my own supposed hatred for the actors. It's right here for everyone to see. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, TM.

"these capitulations of desire for immediate gratification"

Why do you keep referring to these poor souls for whom Christ died in such awful terms?

and how often do you apply the perversion lable?

I'm not interested in stopping anything. I'm just a seed sower.

"the ill effects of these capitulations to desire for immediate gratification, they will be far too ingrained in society to get anyone to believe that reforms will have any chance of succeeding. We've already seen this happen with pre/extra-marital cohabitation, easy divorce, heterosexual perversion, etc."

and what will flower from this seed?

A change toward being more truthful in education, for starters?

That would be refreshing

 

[CadyandZoe]

For the sake of argument, I've assumed it is sin. My question was: What makes it particularly special as a sin? Pick whatever sin with which you struggle and tell me why it's any different than that one. Or, perhaps you are sinless now?

Paul argues that the presence of homosexuality in the world supports his contention that God has given humankind over to a depraved mind because those who practice homosexuality have a mind not worthy of being called a mind. Those who practice homosexuality unjustly suppress the truth of their own existence, denying the evidence they wear on their bodies (genitalia). One would not practice homosexuality if one loved the truth and listened to reason.

 

[St. SteVen]

But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

How readest thou?

"Home, James."

Interesting where sin occurs in the progression.

1) own desires -- Is it sin yet? Nope.
2) tempted -- Is it sin yet? Nope.
3) enticed -- Is it sin yet? Nope.
4) desire has conceived -- Is it sin yet? Nope.
5) gives birth to sin -- Is it sin yet? Yup.
But not death.
6) sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Not clear what death means in this progression.
Even though most of us are familiar with this scripture.

/

 

[Chadrho]

Paul argues that the presence of homosexuality in the world supports his contention that God has given humankind over to a depraved mind because those who practice homosexuality have a mind not worthy of being called a mind. Those who practice homosexuality unjustly suppress the truth of their own existence, denying the evidence they wear on their bodies (genitalia). One would not practice homosexuality if one loved the truth and listened to reason.

That text you're using to bludgeon homosexuals becomes self-condemnatory in its use as a bludgeon. Keep in mind, Paul is setting up the argument to show all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. Paul begins in Romans 1, speaking in the 3rd person about those who exchange the truth of God for a lie. He not only mentions those with depraved passions but gives a whole list of wicked expressions of the depraved mind, which you seem to be ignoring:

They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless

So Paul puts homosexuality on the same level as those who are rebellious toward parents, those who are foolish, those who lie, and those who gossip. Do you gossip? Do you covet? Have you ever been foolish? Do you have pride? If anything on that list applies to you, then you're in the same boat as the homosexual. And that's just what Paul is saying. Most who use this passage as a bludgeon fail to keep reading. After Paul speaks in the 3rd person about all those wicked people in ch. 1, he begins ch. 2, speaking in the 2nd person, directly to the reader:

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things

Don't you see that the very passage you use to condemn others becomes a condemnation of yourself? Thank goodness God is gracious to us. We should do the same and be gracious to others.

 

[St. SteVen]

Thank goodness God is gracious to us. We should do the same and be gracious to others.

AMEN

I keep telling my wife that this will be the next BIG hurdle the church needs to get over.
And I'm not sure that the churches that fly the rainbow flag have it right yet. ???
Maybe there is a more moderate response? Welcoming, but not enabling?
Perhaps it needs to include some major housekeeping of our own. ???

/

 

[CadyandZoe]

That text you're using to bludgeon homosexuals becomes self-condemnatory in its use as a bludgeon.

It isn't a bludgeon. And I did not mischaracterize Pau's argument. It is the truth. Unfortunately, those who don't want to face the truth consider the truth a bludgeon. If you think homosexuality is not wrong, then perhaps you are one of those who is unwilling to face the truth.

Guilt hurts. But it's supposed to hurt. It's the first step in getting better.

 

[Chadrho]

AMEN

I keep telling my wife that this will be the next BIG hurdle the church needs to get over.
And I'm not sure that the churches that fly the rainbow flag have it right yet. ???
Maybe there is a more moderate response? Welcoming, but not enabling?
Perhaps it needs to include some major housekeeping of our own. ???

/

I think a more moderate response would have been helpful. It would have also helped if Christians had made a distinction between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal institution. It doesn't matter how wonderful the religious ceremony or how many prayers are said, it's not legal until the officiant signs the line. But more than anything, it would be helpful if Christians would stop acting like homosexuality is a special species of evil.

I think Christians should have taken the tact of "We will show you the truth in our practice" and proven how much more wonderful and fitting their own heterosexual marriages are compared to those of homosexuals. Let homosexuals enter the contest of marriage, and let's see how they do. If one is clearly right and the other wrong, as Gamaliel said about Christians, the proof will be in the pudding. But instead of being confident and secure in their own way of life, showing the world what righteousness looks like, they decided to operate from a place of fear- we must stop this or marriage will no longer be sacred! It's not a pretty picture looking back. The sacredness of marriage was already in the tub, and not because gays wanted to join in.

 

[Chadrho]

If you think homosexuality is not wrong, then perhaps you are one of those who is unwilling to face the truth.

I honestly don't think it matters what I think about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. 1) God is judge and I'm confident God's judgments, when they finally come, will be just and good. 2) I have my own sins and passions to face, confess, and struggle against. For better or worse homosexual attraction is not one of them. But I do struggle with sin and pray for those whose sins are different than mine. We are in this together. There aren't any sinners over there, and us righteous folk over here. It's just us, one humanity created in the divine image, all of us in need of much patience and grace.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think Christians should have taken the tact of "We will show you the truth in our practice" and proven how much more wonderful and fitting their own heterosexual marriages are compared to those of homosexuals. Let homosexuals enter the contest of marriage, and let's see how they do.

And what do heterosexual marriages have to offer anyway? A 50%+ divorce rate?
Even heterosexuals are choosing NOT to marry.
That's pretty convincing that we have this all figured out. (not)
Maybe they'll want to take their chances going the other way.

/

 

[BarneyFife]

Try putting the hate away and just talk to people

You seem to be fantasizing about me attending a pride parade or something. I don't need to participate in celebrations of sin in order to meet and talk with sinners. I see them everywhere—even in the mirror.

points you back to your claim: "We're not dealing with actual participants in the sin itself here"
and here you are doing just that

Hypothetical participants

Besides, the only participants that apply in this arena are the advocates—not the actor-participants, right?

Diseased or perverted as you seem to prefer, and a blight on society. 'oh won't someone think of the children'. you message is clear, they are sick harmful people and it's only a matter of time before science figures that out.

It's only clear in your imagination. You've got the wrong guy. This is just more distorted shifting of emphasis of someone else's words onto the actors as opposed to the action.

I'm going to point you back to your recent post when you said you would never engage in an ad hominem attack.

Nice try, I guess. You actually didn't recognize that as sarcasm? I'm not above what might ultra-sensitively be called "ad hominem," at least, to a certain degree. And "you're acting like..." isn't exactly a classic case. Isn't ad hominem mainly about trying to avoid the responsibility of impeaching an argument by focusing on (usually fabricated) character flaws of the arguer? I was using a word picture to make an observation about a behavior you were exhibiting at the very time of the argument you were making. And invoking Nazi, KKK, or other historic demonic atrocities to legitimize shutting down warnings against sinful practices in 21st-century America isn't that hard to impeach.

its also a very real phenomena. You are old enough to remember what it was like when AIDS first appeared. People were shunned, and turned away. From the pulpit we heard time and again how this was God's judgment and how those dying people deserved to be in the state they are in. How often have you seen people pull away from the developmentally disabled or the autistic or those with cerebral palsy? How often do you see people do the same when seeing a transexual?

Now, see?

You can make an appeal without grotesque, culturally irrelevant imagery.

However, I still can't help what other people do or say.

"these capitulations of desire for immediate gratification"

Yeah—actions

and how often do you apply the perversion lable?

Seldom enough, I guess, that you feel like you need to echo it for me to bulk it up a little.

BTW, "perversion"—More actions—you know, as in sin, not sinner

"the ill effects of these capitulations to desire for immediate gratification, they will be far too ingrained in society to get anyone to believe that reforms will have any chance of succeeding. We've already seen this happen with pre/extra-marital cohabitation, easy divorce, heterosexual perversion, etc."

and what will flower from this seed?

Liberty to the captives?

That would be refreshing

I thought it was all settled, what with "people recognizing" and "rejecting" and all.

By the way, we're covering old, tired ground here, for the most part, and I'm getting ready to take a break from this particular exchange so get your licks in.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

I think a more moderate response would have been helpful. It would have also helped if Christians had made a distinction between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal institution. It doesn't matter how wonderful the religious ceremony or how many prayers are said, it's not legal until the officiant signs the line. But more than anything, it would be helpful if Christians would stop acting like homosexuality is a special species of evil.

I think Christians should have taken the tact of "We will show you the truth in our practice" and proven how much more wonderful and fitting their own heterosexual marriages are compared to those of homosexuals. Let homosexuals enter the contest of marriage, and let's see how they do. If one is clearly right and the other wrong, as Gamaliel said about Christians, the proof will be in the pudding. But instead of being confident and secure in their own way of life, showing the world what righteousness looks like, they decided to operate from a place of fear- we must stop this or marriage will no longer be sacred! It's not a pretty picture looking back. The sacredness of marriage was already in the tub, and not because gays wanted to join in.

I honestly don't think it matters what I think about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. 1) God is judge and I'm confident God's judgments, when they finally come, will be just and good. 2) I have my own sins and passions to face, confess, and struggle against. For better or worse homosexual attraction is not one of them. But I do struggle with sin and pray for those whose sins are different than mine. We are in this together. There aren't any sinners over there, and us righteous folk over here. It's just us, one humanity created in the divine image, all of us in need of much patience and grace.

Okay, you can't have more than one 1st place prize in the same thread. Quit showing off - lol.

.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I honestly don't think it matters what I think about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

That is baloney. If you truly believe what you say, then you entered this discussion under false pretenses. "I don't care" isn't an answer to the question at hand.

1) God is judge and I'm confident God's judgments, when they finally come, will be just and good.

Of course. The goodness and righteousness of God are undisputed, especially on a Christian Message board.

2) I have my own sins and passions to face, confess, and struggle against.

We all do.

But I do struggle with sin and pray for those whose sins are different than mine.

Why would you pray for a homosexual if you didn't think that homosexuality wasn't a sin. You are deflecting.

We are in this together.

What do you mean by "we"? Do we all sin? Yes. Do we all have our struggles? Yes. Are we all in this together? No.

If you support homosexuality, then you are not one of us. If you excuse homosexuality then you are not one of us. If you think that homosexuality is right and good, then you are not one of us. If you deny that homosexuality is wrong, a clear violation of the created order, and a primary example of a deranged mind, then you are not one of us. We are NOT all in this together.

 

[Chadrho]

If you support homosexuality, then you are not one of us. If you excuse homosexuality then you are not one of us. If you think that homosexuality is right and good, then you are not one of us. If you deny that homosexuality is wrong, a clear violation of the created order, and a primary example of a deranged mind, then you are not one of us. We are NOT all in this together

You can declare yourself the judge of who is in and who is out if you want. I will wait for the proper time. Until then, I see myself in solidarity with all sinners.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You can declare yourself the judge of who is in and who is out if you want. I will wait for the proper time. Until then, I see myself in solidarity with all sinners.

I see myself in solidarity with Jesus and his followers.