I think the only thing I can say is that we all have to make our own decisions and choose our own valid paths.

You chose one which is valid and life-affirming for you. Others will find their own individual answers as to how to go forward - how to walk their paths.

You choose the beautiful and appropriate word 'brokeness'. I do not agree with you that homosexuality is a sin - but I agree with you that sin is brokeness.

I don't know about people who come from homes and families which have never been 'broken'. I can only speak from my own experience of having come from a family where alcohol abuse and violence caused so much damage.

When I went to university I met for the first time openly gay and lesbian people. As someone who had been abused myself, I identified at once with the way they were persecuted.

Because I was open to hearing the experiences of others, I quickly developed good friendships with people of different sexual orientations to my own. I found many non-judgemental and loving gay and lesbian friends (as well as all my straight ones) whose willingness to listen to and accept me was a great gift. And that let me see that there was no real difference between my friends and me, except that we fancied different people (or in the case of the blokes - fancied the same people!).

Now I can get very passionate and very strident about what see as prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Partly because I identify with my friends who I love. Partly because understanding what it's like to be victimised myself I won't tolerate that being done to others, and mostly because I know people of different sexual orientations close up and I don't see how my heterosexuality is one whit better or worse than their sexualities.

Most of my gay and bisexual friends come from much happier family backgrounds than me (and I had a parent configuration just like the one you mentioned). Yet they're not heterosexual and I am. I don't think family background is the key decider.

You see, I think it is possible to come from similar places and find different answers. You found your answer - for someone else it could be entirely different even though they might experience some similar things to you.

At the time I first encountered other sexualities I wasn't a Christian. So biblical views of same-sex relationships didn't influence me. In fact part of what kept me away from Christianity was that the form of Christianity I encountered in my hall of residence (there was quite a CU clique there) was SO judgemental.

If you're not one of us - if you don't believe what we say - you're an inferior person - was the way it came across. I got harangued by one very nasty evangelical Christian simply because I didn't believe in God - having come through the circumstances I had come through, i had totally lost my faith, but he thought haranguing me about why I didn't have all the answers he trotted out with total certainty was the way to go!

By comparison the gay and lesbian people I met tended to be more open and loving and accepting. People I could really open up to (and nobody came on to me - maybe my Lesbian pals just never fancied me! If they had I would just have said no - sorry - don't fancy you! Can we just be friends?)

It was several years later on in my life that I had a most extraordinary experience of feeling loved which worked out into my faith in God. I was so far estranged from Christianity because I saw it as a such a judgemental and harmful and useless faith that it took me a long time to work that through - and that came through the realisation that much of what I heard in churches testified to that same incredible love which I'd just experienced and that worship was what fed that love.

It is against that love that I test out interpretations of the Bible. I don't believe that Jesus loves my gay and lesbian and Bi mates any less than he loves me - whether they're having sex or not or whether I'm having sex or not. I don't think that's what it's about.

I know enough about pre-modern societies to know that the way they thought about sexuality was influenced by their beliefs about passive and active partners and about social and sexual hierarchy and then later by interpretations of the Bible which were heavily influenced by and soured by a hatred and fear of sexuality.

Therefore I would no more apply 1st century ideas of sexuality to my life or those of others than I would 1st century medicine. But the message of the primacy of love which I find in Jesus's summation of his priorities and in his teaching is something which I believe is eternal. This is something I experience and through my contact with it I try to bring it to others.

There, Stowaway, that's my different story. Make of it what you will.

God bless (and much respect to you),

Sexuality and its (relative) sinfulness seems to come up quite a lot on the boards. What mystifies me is why anyone cares. Presumably the sinfulness of (homo)sexuality is only of relevent interest to the (homo)sexual person? If one is not participating in, or thinking about participating in homosexual acts, why would one care about its sinfulness except to judge participants? (I am not excluding the possibility that there may be a very good reason I haven't thought of).

Am I being far too hard to observe that it seems like rank prurience (to me) to speculate on the sinfulness of the (espeically sexual) behaviour of others?

All the more so because I don't see threads devoted to the sinfulness of, oh, say blasphemy, or hating one's neighbour, or the witholding of charity.

Can anybody help me to see why this question is interesting enough to crop up so often?

I think that, if/when you become aware that there IS sin (as part, maybe, of the process of becoming a Christian), few sins rival 'sexual' ones for leaving you feeling 'unclean', because you've engaged your whole self in the said act(s).

In terms of relative sinfullness I'm much more worried by things like the assumptions behind international trade that contribute to maintaining the abject poverty and economic slavery of a large proportion of the worlds population than what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

Like Louise, I have quite a lot of gay and lesbian friends, some of whom are active members of my Quaker meeting. I can't say that they're any different to anyone else in the rest of their lives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
As a result of promiscuous sexual behaviour, AIDS is an enormous cause of death in precisely those poorer countries you are concerned about.

---

And, it should go without saying but I want to be clear, there is a big difference between such situations where circumstances (to an extent) force people into less than perfect sexual activity and the situations most of us face in the developed world. (Although the desperate search for meaning and love of some people in deprived urban areas comes close). Whether economically well off people in the developed world freely choose to practice homosexual acts inthe privacy of their own homes is a totally different situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

And, it should go without saying but I want to be clear, there is a big difference between such situations where circumstances (to an extent) force people into less than perfect sexual activity and the situations most of us face in the developed world. (Although the desperate search for meaning and love of some people in deprived urban areas comes close). Whether economically well off people in the developed world freely choose to practice homosexual acts inthe privacy of their own homes is a totally different situation.

---

That sounds to me very much like one rule for the rich and one for the poor, Alan. This is why many priests in Africa are much more conservative about sexual morals than the generality of western clergy.

Surely we must ask ourselves whether we, as christians, can, in conscience, preach two different messages to the developed and the developing world.

What I was trying to say, obviously not that clearly, is that since a lot of "sexual immorality" in developing nations is a result of greater injustices due to factors including international trade we shouldn't be so hard on the sexual immorality until the greater injustice has been dealt with.

And then I added that the differences in circumstances between developed & developing countries is such that the moral rules suitable to one may not automatically apply to the other.

Any clearer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

What I was trying to say, obviously not that clearly, is that since a lot of "sexual immorality" in developing nations is a result of greater injustices due to factors including international trade we shouldn't be so hard on the sexual immorality until the greater injustice has been dealt with.

---

I can see the arguement in this and agree that we should look to our own treatment of the developing world before condemning them for "immorality". Although how we do this after a history of colonialism which has left them, understandably, wary of "western" influences and interference is a very difficult dilemma.

quote:

---

And then I added that the differences in circumstances between developed & developing countries is such that the moral rules suitable to one may not automatically apply to the other.

---

My example of the prostitute in my last post could equally apply in inner city areas in the developed world. And our need to repent and deal with the internal economics of our own countries to deal with this inequality is also something we need to look at.

All of which takes hard work, and may be all but impossible. And I'm as bad as most people in actually doing anything other than spout fine sounding ideas.

Essentially we are coming from the same place Alan. The difference between our approach to the developed and developing nations should be one of emphasis and not of the underlying teaching. Meanwhile we must do all we can to bring the developing world to the level of prosperity that most of us enjoy in the developed world.

quote:

---

you decided NOT to be a homosexual. i submit that if you were capable of making a choice in the matter than you prove my point. every homosexual that i have known has said that they had NO choice in the matter at all, that they KNEW they were homosexual at a very early age

---

That sounds unfair to those people who are not sure of their sexual orienation. What about bi-sexual people? I suspect that there are degrees of sexual orientation from 100% hetro at one end and 100% homo at the other, with most people spread somewhere along the line.

An older, never-married woman went to a revival meeting. The guest preacher was very tough on sinners, and she called out "Amen!" and "Preach it, brother!" many times as he condemned sexual sins, drunkenness, gambling, and immodest clothing. Then he began to talk about the evils of chewing tobacco.

quote:

---

This, however, I firmly disagree with. One Church, one faith, one Lord and one set of teaching.

---

So what do we say to the extra wives in polygamous societies, for example?

I'm sorry but I CANNOT see the world in such black and white terms. Yes, I agree, there is far too much emphasis on sexual issues BUT mightn't that be that a lot of us have woken up in the last decade to love and tolerance?

I've been celibate for about 5 or 6 years now - can't remember! - but isn't that sinful if you're married??

on another tack i sometimes wonder if god were a "sin bean counter" how what people do ( or dont do ) with their gentails stacks up against ......... well wasting hundreds of pounds on computer equipment, ISP membership, phone bills and then theres all the time just sat here trying to find something funny to say ( and failing), when really ishould be well clothing the cold, visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:

So what do we say to the extra wives in polygamous societies, for example?

---

But are we not being hypocritical if we support the prosecution of an American for bigamy (polygamy in the recent case) but say that it is all right for an African since it is part of his culture. Yes, we must support the extra wives and ensure that they are not rejected by society, but we can't have two codes since to do so would be to tacitly agree with J.S. Spong that the Africans are somehow more "primitive" than the West (read: of less worth)

[fixed code]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I have a question and I'm hoping someone can help me out.

Presumably the sinfulness of (homo)sexuality is only of relevent interest to the (homo)sexual person? If one is not participating in, or thinking about participating in homosexual acts, why would one care about its sinfulness except to judge participants?

---

The issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is quite relevant to me, even though I am quite heterosexual. 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. 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.

Yes, we must support the extra wives and ensure that they are not rejected by society, but we can't have two codes...
So how do we support them then???

quote:

---

Originally posted by brodavid:

---

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.

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.