I used to take a very hard-line approach and say that homosexual acts were sinful, and that homosexual feelings were 'confused'. But after having listened in to a number of these debates I am firmly undecided!

What I know now is that Jesus died for all, not just the people that we like.

how about condemning the real atrocities like marital rape or pedophilia, not, by the way, a homosexual problem as is commonly assumed, as any daughter who has been molested by a heterosexual relative will attest to.

like anything else, there's no easy way to categorize...you have to take each person individually, and hope they extend the same courtesy to you.

quote:

---

BUT, where does he fit into Christ's church? Either he hides who he is and lives a closet life while in church or he just does not go to church.

---

This is the bit I never understand. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it "Who I am". I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone I'm heterosexual The thing is be the whole person that you are and don't fixate on that one part of you which is your sexuality.

I do believe homosexual activity is sinful, but I see a hundred other things that I do everyday as sinful too it's no more or less sinful than anything else and no less forgivable by Gods grace.

There is simply no point in shouting about homosexuality being sinful, as if we scare homosexuals away from the church then essentially it is US who have consigned them to hell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
The thing is be the whole person that you are and don't fixate on that one part of you which is your sexuality.

---

That is fine when things are going great. But when things are less than great then it can become the thing that defines you. The same is true for disabilities, skin colour etc.

Saying "don't fixate on one part of your life" just does not help! If that is the area that is causing grief then it needs to be addresssed. People need to find a way of living with themselves, otherwise it can cause massive problems for themselves and others.

bb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone

---

Maybe you're married(or will be one day) - strikes me as a pretty blatant way of telling people what one is. (Although, of course, not all married people are straight: it's a good cover!)

Until she discovered the reason why she wasn't interested in men.

Well, she had been a hard-line anti-homosexual sort of Christian so this really devastated her. She tried hard not to be a lesbian, but that didn't work. So she tried hard not to be a Christian, and that didn't work either.

Eventually she gave up, and told God to sort it out. Which he did.

1) Fags are intrinsically evil and are all paedophiles anyway [I am a bigot]

2) Homosexuality is inconsistent with six passages in scripture [I am the Lambeth Conference]

3) Homosexuality is not part of God's ordained plan for loving relationships, which require the complementarity of male and female [I am a natural law nut]

4) Homosexuals in themselves are sinful [I am judgemental]

5) Homosexual feelings/people are not sinful, but homosexual acts are [I am a dualist]

6) Gays should not be ordained [I have no idea how many already are]

7) I think 2) really, but it isn't that big a deal [some of my best friends are gay]

8) It's all a gray area [I am David Hope]

9) The evidence for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is questionable [I have actually looked at context]

10) The argument for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is incorrect [I have a gloss and I know how to use it]

11) Male-female complementarity is not the only complementarity for relationships [I think natural law arguments are idiotic anyway]

12) Homosexuals are made that way [I have a clue]

13) Homosexuality is a choice [I've never talked to a gay person]

14) Homosexual people and homosexuality are as good or bad as hets and hettyness, and homosexuality as well as hettyness is to be celebrated as a gift from God [I am incarnationalist, hurrah]

15) Lets go shag whoever we want [I am a rebellious teenager]

===

Why is 4 judgemental?

18) The failure of the Church fully to engage with questions of homosexuality is really the failure the engage with issues of sexuality fullstop. Gays make useful scapegoats. [I've seen how uncomfortable people get debating this stuff].

PaulTH is leading the pack at the moment, for classifying homosexuality as an 'incontrollable proclivity' akin to hypersexuality.

And I have to have a flouncy, queeny fight with Joan (by PM of course, so's not to titillate nasty hetty voyeuristic tendencies) because. Just because.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibling Coot:

PaulTH is leading the pack at the moment, for classifying homosexuality as an 'incontrollable proclivity' akin to hypersexuality.

---

Oh my, I missed that. Must be losing my touch

Mind you, that is a nice example of 18). I'm guessing the idea of "incontrollable [surely uncontrollable?] proclivity" comes from seeing all these homos banging on about wanting to be able to bang one another, and hets thinking "ooh, that's in such bad taste to talk about it". There is a failure to realise that if hets too were suddenly told it was sinful to have sex then it would sure as hell become important for them. A lot of the time gay people challenge straight ones because we are living proof of how important sexuality is for everyone - it's just that hets can get away with not thinking about it if they a) tie it up in 'acceptable' marriage, and b) cast gays into outer darkness.

quote:

---

And I have to have a flouncy, queeny fight with Joan (by PM of course, so's not to titillate nasty hetty voyeuristic tendencies) because. Just because.

---

It's a sort of role-reversal thing like Violette le Duc dressing up in a male body stocking to come on to Jean Genet.

Sieg

Where's that nice, young 'St. Whatisname' gentleman? We could parade around on the thread in a sort of online Mardi Gras.

quote:

---

Originally posted by calvin's granny:
Serious point: could Joan the Dwarf tell m e how context is supposed to show me that homosexuality may not be inconsistent with Biblical teaching ?

---

The Israelites were, at this point, a band of refugees wandering around the desert looking for a place to live. They were open to attack, and needed as many fighting men as possible. This meant they needed as many children as possible: men to fight, and women to bear children. So all men were to be encouraged to impregnate women.

This idea has merit, especially as it explains, for example, the existence of the cautionary tale of Onan, condemned for practising the withdrawal method. And given that soldiers tended to die relatively frequently, it would explain why polygamy was allowed, but not polyandry (one woman, many husbands), as well as the logic behind the Levirite marriage (if a man died childless, his brother was duty-bound to marry that man's widow).

quote:

---

This idea has merit, especially as it explains, for example, the existence of the cautionary tale of Onan, condemned for practising the withdrawal method.

---

To be fair, I don't think this story had any big social context. More simply Onan was dishonest to God. I think that's the sin that was committed surely?

Incidently, I have a friend who is bisexual..she has a boyfriend, but also simultaneously a sexual relationship with her best female friend. She insists both are essential and feel natural to her, and she could never possibly make up her mind which to choose if she had to choose between them.

What do people (particularly the "inclusives") think about this?

I should point out both the boyfriend her her female friend are aware of the situation, not only that, but my impression is the whole thing functions as a three-way relationship in fact. So there is not a question of "dishonesty" being at work here.

Sorry, Calvin's granny, the on-line Mardi Gras kind of obscured your qu.

There's much theological writing out there on the subject, so I'm only going to be able to summarize the arguments, rather than actually argue properly (that would take an even looooooonger post!). Further reading at the end.

The 'bible bullets' commonly used against gays are:

1) Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman - that is detestable"

On a personal note, I have no problem with this. Lying with women is fine by me
More seriously, this is part of the Jewish Holiness Code. We are not Jews, we're Christians. As Paul says repeatedly, we don't follow Jewish Law (cf allowing in uncircumsised Gentiles as Christians in NT churches, Peter's dream about eating non-Kosher food "That which I have made clean you shall not call unclean", etc.).

2) Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestible."

Ditto as for 1). Also, look at verse 18:it prohibits sleeping with a woman during her period on the same terms. There's also prohibitions against wearing mixed fibre clothing. Anyone got a polycotton shirt on?

3)Genesis 18-19: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The sin isn't one of sodomy, it's about abuse of hospitality and gang-rape. If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning? Also, you have to talk very hard to try and get a prohibition against homosexuality out of a judgement against homosexual AND heterosexual gang rapes.

4) Deuteronomy 23:17: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute"
5) 1 Kings 14:24: "There were even male shrine-prostitutes in the landl the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites"
6) 1 Kings 15:12: "He expelled the male shrine-prostitutes from the land"

These all talk about prostitution rather than committed relationships, so say nothing about homosexuality per se.

7) Romans 1:26-17: "Even their women exhanged natural ralations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men"

Finally, something that talks about lesbians!
Paul in Romans is talking mainly to the Jews, and is showing how Christianity is a natural extension of Judaeism, and the law of love the successor to the law of Moses. He starts off by trying to puncture the Jews sense that they are justified by their works by showing that they don't follow even their own laws. Basically, he says: look at these nasty heathen who did all these things that Mosaic Law prohibits (that's the bit where the quote comes from), aren't they bad, oh by the way you're like that. He's using the Jews' ideas against themselves (remember, Paul was VERY well-trained theologically): it would need quite a lot of argument to show from this that he thought homosexuality was wrong.
Other points made are: Paul's talking about hets who do homo practices, ie go against their own natures. And he might be talking about the homosexual practices that went on in Pagan temples.

8) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homsexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There is a translation problem here. The relevant bits are: male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. The Greek is 'malakoi arsenokoitai'. 'Malakoi' means 'soft', but no-one knows what 'arsenokoitai' means - the meaning has been lost. 'Arsen' means 'male', and 'koites' means 'bed' or 'sexual intercourse', but there is no recorded use of 'arsenokoitai' before Paul, so we don't know to what it was referring - temple prostitutes, call-boys, child male prostitutes or what? Taking it to mean simply 'male homosexual' (again, there's nothing about lesbianism here) is a very large assumption. Here, the two words have been translated separately: malakoi as male prositiute, arsenokoitai as homosexual offender, but no-one really knows how to translate it.

9) 1 Timothy 1:9: "We know that law is made not for the righteous but for law-breakers and rebels... for adulterers and perverts,... and whatever else is contrary to sound the sound doctrine"

Again, this is the NIV translation. Again we have 'arsenokoita', translated in this passage as 'perverts'. See above.

10) Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion"

See 3). Also, Jude does not specify the perversion - it may be referring to the legend that the women of Sodom had sex with angels. Basically, Sodom became a byword for lust and perversion: how you can get from that to a prohibition on loving and monogomous homosexual relations where there is no compulsion or exploitation is beyond me.

AFAIK this is all the bible says that could possibly be interpreted as refering to homosexuality. Do let me know if I've missed anything.

FURTHER READING:
What the bible says about homosexuality

Difference is not a sin

Chapter 2 of 'Issues in Human Sexuality' by the House of Bishops, 1991.

Finally, here's a few other bible quotes to ponder:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16

"God, who knows the heart, showed that He accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us." --Acts 15:8

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28

"The voice spoke to him a second time, ' Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" -- Acts 10: 15

"By your fruits will you know them" --- [can't remember]

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." -- Romans 7:4

"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery'...[etc]... and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbour as yourself."

Matt, you seem to have a very naive view of liberalism. You're expecting a liberal to say "oh well, if she feels it's OK for her then that's all that matters", aren't you, and wave their limp wrists? That sort of a response is as much a cop-out as an evo response of "no, it's all wrong outside of marriage full stop" - they're the two extremes, whereas truth, as always, lies in the difficult middle ground.

How do we tell what's right? The best answer I've found (I can't off the top of my head remember where) is that we have to look at what forms of life lead to an increase in holiness and Christian living and love. In terms of relationships, do they bring people closer to God and an understanding of his love? Are they a blessing to the world around them?

I have stayed out of these discussions before, being, I guess, a number 8!!

Review now underway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
If the men of Sodom were really raging raping pooftahs, would they have accepted Lot's daughter instead of his male guest and raped her until morning?

---

I think you are thinking of Judges 19, where an incident similar to Sodom occurs. In Sodom no daughters were raped - the men were struck with blindness. Both the Sodom and Gibeah stories seem to be meant to depict the absolute nadir of civilization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

attempting to reconcile it with the Bible is a fool's errand. It requires too many logical leaps and unorthodox assumptions to hang together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Unfortunately you have not backed this statement up... I'm now waiting for your refutation of these arguments...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry. I tought they were obvious. This topic is just a little too scary for me. The anger is palpable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
why would Lot have offered his daughters in the first place if he knew the men only wanted other men?

---

just to throw in a classical perspective here...

the distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals was not one the Greeks found (i cannot speak for the Hebrews, but i thought an ancient viewpoint might throw some light on the matter). it was perfectly natural for middle-aged Greek men (with wives) to take young boys (just entering adulthood) for lovers in order to teach them. (unfortunately, we have very little evidence either way for women - sapho's poetry, but that's about it). as far as i am aware, the greeks did not believe that a person had a defined single sexuality. indeed, it seems to be a (relatively) modern construct.

the distinction the greeks made, in fact, was between (apologies for bad taste) penetrator and penetrated. the penetrated was always the "inferior" party.

if this kind of view was shared by the Hebrews, then there would be no problem with Lot offering his daughters instead - these men were perhaps not so much after sex with a particular sex, but rather just sex with whoever they could lay their hands on.

Sodom story has always interested me 'cos

1) God had decided to destroy the city before the inhabitants got round to wanting to 'know' Lot's guests

2) As angels do not have genitalia it's a dead end anyway

Right. Angry bit.

And just to whip back up the thread to the strange post

quote:

---

This is the bit I never understand. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it "Who I am". I don't feel any inclination to "come out" and tell everyone I'm heterosexual

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Back it up, and we can have a good, fruitful, non-angry discussion!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
angels do not have genitalia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Rumwald:
It's heterosexuals, usually bigotted ones and sometimes well-meaning 'liberal' ones, who perpetuate the whole 'defining by sexuality' business. The responsibility for that waste of time is all with the breeders. I'm sure the gays of this world would be quite happy not to be defined by sexual orientation if only you lot would let them be. OK? To some, if sexual orientation is not hidden away safely in the closet it's being shouted from the rooftops. Perspective please!

---

Emphasis added.

So are you painting all heterosexuals with the same brush or not? If you are, please don't. It's a violation of the Ship's third commandment.