Maybe, just maybe, by getting society desensitized to what is dubiously and questionably a sin, we can concentrate on the log in our collective eyes. Like those who seek to make peace - for they shall be called the children of God, like those who mourn, for they shall be comforted, those who are poor in spirit...

There is far more about poverty in the gospels than about sexuality. There is more about preaching God's love for all his children, than there is about sexuality.

Which is more important - loving all God's children, or condemning them on dubious grounds, because we can't face up to our own iniquities.

quote:

---

...and at the risk of sounding sexist,Gill's and Nicole's responses have made this heterosexual insanely jealous of Siegfried(!)

---

quote:

---

Brothers I can find. But can anyone else find proof that we are supposed to see the church as 'family' - from the Bible, I mean, not the ironic,

---

the church is never described as a family in the sense of mother father 2.3 children ect but it is described as a household (eph 2:19) which was the bunch of people who lived in the same house a kind of extended family (mother, father, cousin uncle slave servant children ect). In some translations the word family is used instead of household because it is closer to our experience. Still I think Family is a naff word to use about the church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Still I think Family is a naff word to use about the church.

---

Okay so now I finally understand the meaning of the word "naff"!

As for the bible, we consider it a history of the Jewish people, at least the old testament. Bible thumpers seldom mention the fact that there are many "books" that were left out of the bible. By comparing the old testament of the jewish religion, with the catholic, and both with the protestant, one finds differences. We consider it an insult to the Divine to credit It as "His Word". If It is that bad off in clarifying what It wants done, we are better off without It!

Fundamentalists to us are people who having lost their way in the secular world, needing something to lean upon, cast their lot with something that can only be described as insane. The "wonders" spoken of in the bible are myths and metaphors designed to make a point. Most Christians miss the point.

A while back, you posted the following:
"Homosexual sexuality is not hetero but towards same sex. It is a
disfunction (i.e. sin). We should regard it just like other addictions."

In spite of the unsupported and probably unsupportable premises, the tolal illogic and the labyrinthine circularity of your argument, I'll hypothetically accept your conslusion. Assuming that homosexual love is "just like other addictions", it is absolutely none of of our business (aside from prayer) as Christians, unless the addict seeks help!
I think the most un-Christian thing to do is to cast pejoratives at him or her.

Additionally, I'm shocked beyond words that anyone would equate disfunction with sin.

Indeed! To use Stowaway's argument, such self-righteous meddlesomeness serves no useful purpose; ergo it is disfunctional (i.e. a sin), and its practitioners are addicts.

However, one thing that disturbs me is that some people think that disagreeing with a person or with what they do is judgemental, condemning, or unloving and that other peoples lives are there business and no-one elses. Whilst I accept that ones motivation for correcting or expressing disapproval can sometimes be wrong and driven by self-righteousness I also whole-heartedly defend the right for a person to disagree, especially when that person has been offended and seeks to be reconciled with the one who offended him.

If I am convinced that something is a sin (and I am not refering to any one sin in particular) and if I believe that the sin is damaging a person and keeping them apart from God, as it can to anyone - especially those in denial, then the loving thing to do is to discourage the sinful behaviour.

An often quoted passage of scripture is where Jesus says, with regard to an adulterous woman, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It is well-worth emphasisng that Jesus forgave the woman and protected her from the condemnation and judgement of others, but we often overlook the fact that he also said afterwards "Sin no more". This was not just a token of consolation to those self-righteous witnesses, it was a positive assertion in recogntion of the fact that what she did was sinful and needed to be avoided for her own good. Jesus may not have argued at great length over theoligical issues but that is not to say that he was indifferent. He loved people too much to be indifferent.

Is your own life so sinless, and is there so little obviously destructive sin, (like racism, violence, failure to love one's neighbor as oneself) abounding that is essential to deal with matters on which there is no consensus as to sinfulness among even orthodox Christians?

Even if the really destructive sins are eliminated, wouldn't sheer clarity and quantity of Scripture, dictate priority to a crusade for Sabbath observance for example? WHY is there this obsession among most fundamentalist Christians with something which seems, from a Gospel standpoint, to be so minor?

It even seems to be a litums test. You can be consumed by hatred, greed, vanity, envy, self-righteousness, ad nauseum, but as long as you do not love someone of the same sex, you are numbered with the redeemed.

quote:

---

How is it that I now see fundamentalists blithly engaging in all these activities, and the pulpits in these churches are completely silent as to these "sins"?

---

Because Christians do everything 20 years later than the rest of society, and fundamentalist Christians need about 40 years to catch up.

However, their "party line" often perplexes and troubles me. Many fundamentalists share my concerns, and feel forced to quietly ignore these teachings.

Let's come to them in loving tolerance
rather than in hellish judgement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Stowaway:

A while back, you posted the following:
"Homosexual sexuality is not hetero but towards same sex. It is a
disfunction (i.e. sin). We should regard it just like other addictions."

In spite of the unsupported and probably unsupportable premises, the tolal illogic and the labyrinthine circularity of your argument, I'll hypothetically accept your conslusion. Assuming that homosexual love is "just like other addictions", it is absolutely none of of our business (aside from prayer) as Christians, unless the addict seeks help!
I think the most un-Christian thing to do is to cast pejoratives at him or her.

Additionally, I'm shocked beyond words that anyone would equate disfunction with sin.

Greta

---

Greta,

Where did I say that we should intefere?

When did I cast perjoratives?

If you read my story you would be clear that I am living in the most fragile of glass houses on this and almost every other subject.

If you do a study on sin you will find that it is not simply a deliberate volitional crossing of a deliberate line. It includes such nebulous concepts as missing a target. Sanctification is a process of growing akin in modern terms to the changes achieved by therapy.

First, my thanks to Louise and Gill who were able to understand what I was saying (and what my true attitude is, I hope). Louise, I have had a similar experience of acceptance amongst gay people to the one you describe.

I put my neck on the line at a church
I attended in Manchester when I challenged the elders about a campaign to stop the building of a gay centre. I was disgusted by their attitude and left shortly afterwards (for a variety of reasons). I have to this day openly practising gay christian friends. I have experienced God bringing sexual wholeness to me, but I recognise that he did it in his own time when I was ready to hear it.

nicolemrw,

About alcoholism. I guess that in saying that alcoholism is a disease you are thinking of three aspects.

• A genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism
• A dependency that is best treated by drugs
• A disfunction that requires counselling help

If that is the case (and please tell me if it is) then I do not disagree. I just believe that God is involved in the healing and that he is able to bring truth to the individual that helps them to transform. I use the word "sin" in the wide sense used by the bible and not in a moralistic sense. If we are slaves to something should I call it sin? Maybe I need to modify my language to avoid misunderstanding, or maybe we need to recover the full spectrum of the concept of sin.

As far as homosexuality is concerned you certainly do not seem to think that my experience is valid, or that of others I could mention. I assume that you feel that you feel that you are strenuously defending the victims in this debate. In doing so, you attack.

I have no problem with people choosing (or not choosing, because they had no choice if you will) to be gay. I only wish to serve those who have genuine doubts and guilt about sexuality and to point to the fact that there is help in God which does not have to be the standard answers of our society.

If I thought there were no answers I would keep silent and take the PC line. If there is no power of God for sexual wholeness the PC line would be the only christian one to take.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
[qb]The issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is quite relevant to me, even though I am quite heterosexual.

How is your orientation relevant?

I'm not so concerned with what consenting adults do in private, unless they choose to discuss their spiritual life with me, but I am VERY concerned with those who militantly set out to alter the culture so that their sinful lifestyle will be readily accepted.

To refer here to a lifestyle is both dismissive and insulting. It is my life. To refer to it as a lifestyle implies one choses to be homosexual. Rather than being on a par with heterosexuality, it instead drops it to the level of other lifestyle choices such as vegetarianism, smoking, or (and this will be expanded on later) Christianity.
And damn right but we demand acceptance. We demand to be treated equally. We shouldn't be at risk of losing our jobs because our preferred partner is of the same gender. We shouldn't be barred from military service if that is our choice of career. We shouldn't be prevented from making medical decisions should our partners be unable to make those decisions themselves. We shouldn't be barred from seeing our partners as they are dying, because only heterosexual spouses and biological relatives are admitted. We shoulnd't have to risk being tied to a fence and beaten and abused and left to die in the cold, dark night--just because we aren't straight.

The only way for them to do that is to desensitze the culture to sin in general, which in turn weakens the culture as a whole.

I just double checked. You're from the US also. So you should also be aware that the US is Constitutionally a secular nation. And in actuality, although Christians are still the majority, there are an awful lot of folks here these days who aren't Christian. And whose views on sin are very different from yours. And yet here you are imposing your personal religious values on the culture as a whole. In fact, you are imposing your very own lifestyle (ie Christianity) on the rest of the culture.
And, btw, how about some evidence for these two assertions please? You're making claims--back them up.

In Christian circles, there is also the issue of biblical authority. If Christians as a whole approve of something which the Bible so clearly denounces, then where do we stop rejecting biblical standards, and what truth do we have to stand upon?

5 verses, I believe it is. Only 5. Less if we discard Leviticus--which we do for the rest of modern Christian life. And the remainder are contained in Paul's letters to particular groups about particular situations they were dealing with. And bear in mind, we no longer accept Paul's views on slavery. Nor, for the most part, do most Christians accept his views on the role of women in the church or family life.

I'd planned on staying out of this particular discussion. But when I see this kind of crap posted, I can't help but respond.
This is exactly the mindset that cries "No special rights" whenever an attempt is made to require equal treatment for all... gay or straight. If being spit on, beaten up, fired, etc are special rights too, I'll gladly share them with you.

Sieg[/QB]

---

[Sigh] I was afraid this would happen.

I mentioned my orientation because the post to which I was responding implied that the question of whether homosexuality was wrong applied only to homosexuals.

As far as the term "lifestyle' implying that homosexuals choose their homosexuality, I firmly believe that they do. Don't give me that old "gay gene' garbage. For one thing, the researcher who published that was a gay-rights activist, and no one has ever been able to reproduce his research. (I'll look that up if you insist.) For another, even if their is some physical reason that some people have homosexual inclinations, the presence of those desires does not justify acting upon them. Apply the same logic to a non-sexual situation: I have always struggled with a bad temper, therefore I am a naturally violent person. I did not choose to be violent; it's just the way I am. Therefore, if I fly off the handle and pound someone, I am just expressing the way God made me. If the logic is valid and the conclusion is wrong, then one or more premises must be faulty. In this case, the faulty premise is that we cannot help but act on our impulses, no matter what Scripture says about the moral implications.

As for America being established as a purely secular nation, consider the following:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.

If you want more quotes that show that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were interested in religious freedom rather than secularism, there are some at www.thekingsnetwork.com/heritage

At any rate, I would never dream of trying to "impose" my morality on others. For one thing, it's impossible. For another, it's immoral to try to force another to believe in a certain way. At most, I try to persuade.

I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights. If they are spit on, assaulted, fired for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, or otherwised deprived of their lawful rights, then those responsible should be prosecuted. Personally, I do accept you as a fellow human being, created in God's image, worth the dying for (as demonstrated by Christ on the cross), and deserving of love and respect. Just don't insist that that acceptance of you as a person requires approval of actions which the Bible clearly condemns.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brodavid:

At any rate, I would never dream of trying to "impose" my morality on others. For one thing, it's impossible. For another, it's immoral to try to force another to believe in a certain way.

---

I don't understand how you can say that you would never dream of imposing your morality on others, and then turn around and proclaim that the Bible (and therefore God) clearly eschews homosexuality (and therefore homosexuals.)

"I'm not a bigot, I LOVE Egyptians. I would NEVER judge them. But the Bible clearly shows that they are evil and should be destroyed."

You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery."

Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity.

Greta

quote:

---

Apply the same logic to a non-sexual situation: I have always struggled with a bad temper, therefore I am a naturally violent person. I did not choose to be violent; it's just the way I am.

---

And homosexual people did not choose to be homosexual.

quote:

---

Therefore, if I fly off the handle and pound someone, I am just expressing the way God made me.

---

Are you confusing orientation and practice? Of course people do not choose their orientation, but they can choose whether to follow that orientation or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
I don't understand how you can say that you would never dream of imposing your morality on others, and then turn around and proclaim that the Bible (and therefore God) clearly eschews homosexuality (and therefore homosexuals.)

"I'm not a bigot, I LOVE Egyptians. I would NEVER judge them. But the Bible clearly shows that they are evil and should be destroyed."

It's disingenuous. It's making the Bible do the dirty-work of your own bigotry.

---

impose: a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies

Again, I never would dream of imposing (as defined above) my values on others. I attempt to persuade, and I appeal to the authority of Scripture in my efforts to persuade. Unless you are implying that it is inappropriate to refer to the Bible on a Christian web site...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
BoDavid,

You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery."

Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity.

Greta
----

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Are you confusing orientation and practice? Of course people do not choose their orientation, but they can choose whether to follow that orientation or not.

The question under debate is whether they should.

---

I'm confused about the actual Biblical prohibition. Does the Big Book say that homosexuality is sinful, or that sodomy is sinful? I know I could go look it up but maybe someone knows?

This conversation often gets sidetracked onto "homosexual acts". Is it a "homosexual act" to fall in love with another person of one's own gender? Or are we really just talking about the real-deal, up the you-know-where dirty deed?

Prior to pubication of the R.S.V. in 1946, no English translation of the Bible contained the word 'homosexual'. Parenthetically, this may be one of the reasons fundamentalists were outraged at the R.S.V., and it may be instructive to note that they (and some other Christians) have even to this day debated the "accuracy" of various translations (yet another debate that's clear as mud). Ironically, the version that even today is considered to be closest to the original is the one authorized by a king who is widely believed by historians to have been homosexual.

The word 'homosexual' did not exist in Hebrew, Greek, Latin. Syrian, or Aramaic and did to appear in English until the late 19th century.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
BoDavid,
You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery."

Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity.

Greta
----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroDavid,

In your last post you stated:
"In fact, you point out one reason why we must be careful about being dogmatic, even when we appeal to Scripture. The Bible can be, and has been, interpretted in light of preconceived ideas (bigotry, see my exchange with Reason) instead of allowing it to say what its writers, and the God who inspired them, intended."

Amen and amen. That's all I want. I would commend to you, me, and all of us the following portion of Scripture:

"Judge not that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye measured it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by brodavid:
There is the chance that I have misinterpretted Scripture on this topic. I don't think so, but it is possible. If you (meaning anyone on the Ship) believe that this is the case, you are welcome to point out to me my misinterpretations, or ask me to for my take on passages you think relevant.[/QB]

---

i'm going to recomend a book, brodavid, because yes, i think you have misinterpreted, and because the correct interpretation is a bit beyond me.

what the bible really says about homosexuality by daniel a helminiak

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Ooh. Lascivious wonderings.

I'm confused about the actual Biblical prohibition. Does the Big Book say that homosexuality is sinful, or that sodomy is sinful? I know I could go look it up but maybe someone knows?

---

This question was too good HT. You made me do your dirty work for you. Or some of it anyway.

My NKJV Interlinear NT says of the two words in 1 Cor 6:9

quote:

---

malakos
Adjective meaning soft...Here it is used substantively to mean effeminate ones, the passive partners in homosexual intercourse.

arsenokoites (not as self explanitary as it looks - stowaway)

Only used here and in 1 Tim 1:10

From the adjective arsen - male and koite - bed, coitus thus meaning a male homosexual. Specifically it refers to the male homosexual partner who takes the active role

---

So yes, from that it appears to be the act that is focussed on. Both the giving and receiving.

Two more things to say.

Someone referred to the New Testament as teaching in keeping with 1st Century morals, but this is not true. The greeks would have had no problems with male homosexuality (though female homosexuality was unacceptable, which might be why it wasn't mentioned).

Also comparisons were made with womens status and slavery. These don't stand up. Paul really does discuss slavery and sets up the foundations for it's elimination (another thread anyone?) and he makes some radical statements about women's status. There is another thread that discussed womens ministry that casts serious doubt on Paul as misogynist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway:
They introduced as a fully whole sexual identity, another category - celibacy.

---

A mistake, in my opinion.

The words of Matthew 19.4-6 raise the marriage of a man and a woman to the level of being "joined by God." The following teaching about being a eunuch is not so clear, at least to me.

A very relevant Scripture. It is not our place to judge one another, and I hope no one has interpretted my remaks in this (or any other) thread as expressing my judgement. Instead, I have tried to express my understanding of God's judgement, as revealed in Scripture.

Nicole:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But, Stowaway, I am impressed by your scholarship. I also agree with your point. Thanks.

---

Portmanteau words (words made up of more than one word) do not mean the sum of the two words of which they are made. An example is the Greek word for "to have compassion" used in the NT. It consists of the words "to give" and "bowels". Literally, "to give one's bowels". Hence, the KGV "bowels of compassion"; but it doesn't mean, as they used to say, that the ancient Greeks thought that the seat of compassion is in the intestines!

Similarly with phrases like "rent boy", which doesn't mean a young male offspring who collects rents!

It is likely, therefore, that arsenokoites refers to something more specific. Some have suggested that it refers to the clients of rent boys (who could be the malakoi's refered to in the same verse.)

The fact that Paul used a word that isn't seen anywhere else in Greek literature - when there are plenty of other terms to use - also could indicate that he is using a locally specific word. Even possibly a slang word. Again, this would more than likely be a specific rather a general usage.

I have the attitude that all of us are sinful and need to ask forgiveness more-or-less constantly. I recall how impressed I was as a young child that I could witness 400+ adults--nicely dressed, mainly professional people, the pillars of society--get on their knees and confess to being "poor miserable sinners" who "justly deserved [God's] temporal and eternal punishment." These adults included my own parents and my second grade teacher (whom I greatly admired and respected).

Well, if these really nice-seeming people were so sinful that they had to confess it weekly--and there are only really 10 sins (Ten Commandments--ten sins)--then they must be doing the same sinful things over and over. But somehow, God will forgive them and love them anyway, because that's how people are and that's how God is.