RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

Back_Again -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/23/2005 10:34:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
When you said it was just another life-style, there was the implication that it wasn't wrong. If you didn't mean that, then I misunderstood you.


Of course I don't think it is natural. The way you worded it just sounded like you were repulsed at how some people live their lives and that sent me on edge. But yes, you did misunderstand me but thank you for noticing it.

quote:

I volunteer in a christian telephone ministry and I don't think I've ever attempted to "gray out" anything that the Bible clearly condemns. There are areas that are gray, areas which in which the Bible is not clear. During the last week, I have had communication with two people struggling with the issue of homosexuality. I didn't threaten them and I did explain that God loves them in spite of the difficulties with which they struggle. They never once told me that I sounded hateful or mean-spirited.

I don't attend political rallies and never have. I have never signed a petition against homosexuality. I have bisexual living next door to me. We've never once had a cross word that I remember. The only thing lately that I've done to offend her is to mow her lawn when she didn't want me to.

I have probably no less than 2-3 gay couples living on my block.

But, the central issue of the gospel is that Christ died and rose again to pay for our sins. Mine and yours and everyone else's. Sometimes, to get the message of the gospel across, it is important to address that all of us are under judgment without Christ. He will not let people off because he loves them. He will let them off if they accept Christ.

And, living for God does involve repentance from known sin. The Bible is very clear on that too. I cannot candy-coat that.


I am totally against quoting things in length but I like what you wrote here. Thank you for setting yourself up and letting everyone your stance on the situation. Now it puts a better light, and adds credibility (in my books) to what you have to say. Again, thanks.



Back_Again -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/23/2005 10:45:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: threeandme

Hi all! I am new to the forum.


Welcome and good luck.

quote:

I don't think that just because a Christian (or several for that matter) are outspoken about homosexuality but are silent about, say, gossiping, means that they are somehow being hypocritical.


When I say "Christians" I mean as a whole. The reason why I get so irritable about this issue is because I don't think that it is our place to pipe up about people's lifestyles unless it is harming someone. It's fine not to agree with it and it is fine to try and educate people on the matter, but to lead a politcial campaign against it, in my opinion, is flat out wrong. To quote a cliche "WWJD"? I seriously doubt Christ would be heading up some poltical platform against people who live within the homosexual community.

quote:

Gay activists (and I want to make a distinction here between your "average" gay person and a gay activist), want to convince us of their "rights" while at the same time deny Christians our right--namely the right to speak out about the truths of our faith. Despite the talk of "tolerance," these activists are NOT tolerant of God's truth as presented by Christians and now even dare to invade God's church with their lies! What would you have Christians do?


I couldn't agree more but please take note of something; the church has enemies all around. We aren't to go to war with them on this issue. Our fight is coming soon enough but now is not the time. If you give these right winged extremists the attention they crave then they only get louder. Not only that but they have a few good reasons to launch a vendetta. Many of our fellow "brethern" have made a bad name for us. West Borough baptist church can be thanked for most of the heat we take on the issue.

quote:

You wondered why Christians should even care. Well, I care because I live on this planet. At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, you mark my words. If "gay marriage" becomes legal in the US there will be NO going back. Without God's word as the standard to fall back on, we've got nothing. Polygamy, "marriage" between children and adults, "marriage" between close relatives, whatever, it will all be fair game.


You should read the article I wrote. It deals with this exact issue. I took a LOT of heat at college for it but I was glad becuase I struck a nerve with people.



Back_Again -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/23/2005 10:48:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth

Hmmm...didn't someone say to resist the devil and he will flee from you?


Huh? What does this have to do with the price of beans in Bulgaria?

quote:

Your post by the way was extremely sarcastic "Perhaps some people have missed something." You don't have to get snotty just because you disagree with my opinion.[:'(]


To be blunt, you need to read what the writer is trying to say, not interpretting it the way you want. My comment was made from sarcasim and it wasn't snotty. Sorry you read it that way.



Back_Again -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/23/2005 10:52:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth

Sin is too "natural." We are born with a sin nature.



No sin isn't natural. What is common and has been bred into all cultures is the idea of rebellion against authority, questioning truth and liberal tolerance.



henny -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 4:51:06 AM)

In regards to homosexuality being the only sin to have a political movement attatched to it -I don't necessarily see this as a very black and white issue/good or bad thing. Yes it is bad that the movement has resulted in something like gay marriage becoming legal, just as it has resulted in a large section of the population who do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, but at the same time if it wasn't for the gay rights movement I think homosexuals would still be largely ignored and demonized by the church -as they had been for centuries.

If it wasn't for the gay rights movement I don't think we would all be talking about "loving the sinner, but hating the sin" or discussing how we can "lovingly" approach homosexuals to turn them away from their sin. If we were all born 100 or 200 years ago, and discovered some one was gay -I doubt many of us would have approached them in a "loving" manner. On the contrary, it would go something along the lines of reporting them to the authorities, sending them to jail or a mental institute, publicly humiliating them, and basically ruining any chance for happiness or a normal life they would ever have -even if they repented eventually. If we had lived in times before that, it might have involved killing them (which still happens on occasion here, and even more frequently around the world). Sure we'd like to think that we wouldn't do any of this -but I think people are very much products of their cultures -so while I would like to think that had I been born then I wouldn't have done such things, I can't really assure myself of that mostly because such things were widely accepted then.

So while I think it is kind of absurd that there is a political movement involving who you have sex with, and while I don't see sexual orientation as anything like race -I also guess I can't really fault them all the much for adopting the language of the civil rights movement as I don't think anyone could deny that prior to the gay rights movement the punishment/treatment of people thought to be gay by both society and many times the church had been a little more than cruel. And I CERTAINLY don't think that organizations would have existed like exodus international had the gay rights movement not forced the church to look at (in a compassionate manner) what it had ignored or unfairly punished/demonized for much of its history.

So I think it's a mixed bag -yeah sin is more accepted, but at the same time I suspect that there are alot less kids who get beat up or ostracized for being seen as gay today than there wer 50 years ago, and I suspect there are alot more people struggling with the sin today who can talk about it openly without fear of lossing their job or going to jail -and I can't really see that as ALL bad.



WizzyPigabeth -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 6:20:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Back_Again

quote:

ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth

Sin is too "natural." We are born with a sin nature.



No sin isn't natural. What is common and has been bred into all cultures is the idea of rebellion against authority, questioning truth and liberal tolerance.



I disagree with you and Graham_cracker in this and have started another thread in the Theo folder to discuss it further:

http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_318631/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#318631



Mark_NZ -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 7:59:14 AM)

As I mentioned in an earlier thread (now closed), a gay Christian friend and I have been having some heated discussions on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. The discussions have been lively (to say the least), but now we're beginning to near that point where we can't reach agreement on Scriptural matters and the only answer seems to be 'we'll just have to agree to disagree."

I should mention in passing that my friend considers it a matter of great sadness to him that a 'gay vs. Christian' battle seems to have developed in society, which causes distress and heartache for those who see themselves as both gay and Christian. I mentioned to him that on the various Christian forums I post on (including this one), I have seen some very offensive posts by people whom I can only guess must be anti-Christian gay activists, which were designed solely to offend and infuriate the Christians reading them. He was quite disgusted by this, and pointed out that there are many gay Christians who would love to post messages on forums like this but they don't feel welcome. So instead, all we are we get are the hate-filled, insulting messages from gays who seek to insult us, but who have no real interest in God's word.

Anyway, to get to the point - there are many gay Christians out there who want to live a life in Christ. (I should emphasize here that I'm speaking ONLY of those who are in long-term, *monogamous*, loving, same-sex relationships... NOT those who are promiscuous.)

As our Scriptural debates began to hit a brick wall, he pointed me to these websites:

(links edited for tos 16)

... which basically encapsulate the main points of his arguments that homosexuality is not a sin - at least, not for those homosexuals who are in long-term, monogamous relationships which 'play by the same rules' (morally speaking) as marriages. He and I are both in complete agreement that ANY form of sexual activity outside of a long-term, monogamous relationship is displeasing to God and is a sin.

I've looked at the content on these websites and spent many hours studying and considering it.

The arguments presented are not frivolous - they are powerfully grounded in Scripture and historical context. You may disagree with them, but you can't simply dismiss them.

To be honest, they are convincing enough that I personally don't have the Scriptural expertise to contest them... hopefully some of you on this forum do, and can help me out.

If any of you have any counter-arguments, or can point out any theological errors in the arguments presented on those web pages, I'd love to hear them, as I'm running low on counter-arguments.

At the end of the day, I want to get it right. I want to know what the scriptures in their original, untranslated form REALLY said on this issue. I'm certainly not pro-gay or advocating anything positive about homosexual relationships (I feel I should point that out lest I get a message from the moderators) - nor am I saying anything negative about them. I'm open-minded on the issue, and I'm just seeking the Truth.



Momof2anddog -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 8:50:06 AM)

I just wanted to ask if anyone has read the book, "The Good Book - Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart" by Peter J. Gomes. Very interesting stuff there from this graduate of the Harvard Divinity School. I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to read more about this subject. Rev. Gomes devotes an entire chapter to this subject.

http://www.memorialchurch.harvard.edu/index.shtml



WizzyPigabeth -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 9:12:12 AM)

quote:

He and I are both in complete agreement that ANY form of sexual activity outside of a long-term, monogamous relationship is displeasing to God and is a sin.


How does the bible refer to such a relationship? Isn't it marriage?



Pyre -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 2:32:41 PM)

quote:

Yes it is bad that the movement has resulted in something like gay marriage becoming legal,


I have to disagree, what we all forget is that we have some rules for our country called the constitution, and we need to follow those rules, one of which is equal protection under the law. Now protecting some under the law differently by allowing them to get married, but not allowing others is a violation of the constitution, either all or none need to be able to get married. The thing is, you can complain about how bad homosexuality is, that's your right as well, and that should also be protected, but the constitution is not religion, and is not based on religion, so it should not determine rights based on the religious views of some. (Sorry... I feel that the constitution is being trampled from all sides, and needs to be followed)

quote:

I don't think we would all be talking about "loving the sinner, but hating the sin"


I dont know... that's what i was taught, and what i did long before the gay rights issue came to the forefront.



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 3:15:34 PM)

Oh my, where to begin?

Pyre, I just cannot agree with you that gay marriage is an “equal protection under the law” issue. I just can’t. Homosexuals have the same rights as any other competent, of-age adult—to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that a homosexual chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex is not the government’s fault, is it? Also, the “right” to marry has never been absolute, and it shouldn’t be. Again, what about the polygamist’s “rights”? Under your theory, why shouldn’t the polygamist be allowed to marry as many women/men as he/she can find willing?

But, I’m going to be completely honest with you. If, in God’s sovereign will, gay marriage were to become the law of the land, as a citizen of the land, I’d comply as I was obligated. If that meant offering benefits to my gay employees and their spouses, then so be it. What really bugs me is how disingenuous their argument is. Gay activists just keep on insisting that they are not trying to change the definition of the word “marriage” and that this is a civil rights issue. Come on! Check the dictionary and look up the word “marriage.” You’ll find that the definition is the union of one man and one woman NOT “the union of two people who really love each other” or some such. Either words have meaning, or they don’t. I submit that they do, and marriage does not mean what gay activists want it to mean. Therefore, they want to change the meaning of marriage, as it has been known since the dawn of time, to suit their own agenda, yet they won’t even admit it. How unfair! And, why won’t they admit it? I believe they won’t because then it will become evident that they desire preferential treatment, not equal treatment.

Oh, and Mark_NZ, sorry but I have very little advice for you. If your friend has not been convicted by the various scriptures (and they’ve been posted on these forums a zillion times) that condemn homosexuality, not to mention fornication, then I fear that seeking God’s truth is not your friend’s real desire. It might be helpful to check out some of the websites of former gay Christians and read their testimonies. (Of course, now I can’t think of one, but they do exist, and one in particular I was visiting not too long was very insightful. If you’re interested, I’ll look it up and get back to you). In any case, I will pray for you and your friend.



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 3:17:05 PM)

quote:

You should read the article I wrote. It deals with this exact issue. I took a LOT of heat at college for it but I was glad becuase I struck a nerve with people.


Back_Again, I'd like to read that article. Where can I get a copy?



Pyre -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 3:26:50 PM)

quote:

The fact that a homosexual chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex is not the government’s fault, is it


No, but the fact that they punish people based on a choice *is* the governments problem.

quote:

Also, the “right” to marry has never been absolute, and it shouldn’t be


It's never been about the "right" to marry, only about the right to be treated equally.

quote:

Under your theory, why shouldn’t the polygamist be allowed to marry as many women/men as he/she can find willing?


Absolutely, of course you could just ban all government sanctioned marriage and stop the problem, but as long as there is gov sanctioned marriage... then sure, open it up for polygamists too. (I suppose thats not what you expected me to say)

quote:

How unfair! And, why won’t they admit it? I believe they won’t because then it will become evident that they desire preferential treatment, not equal treatment.


I dont see how having the *same* rights as others is preferential treatment.

quote:

Either words have meaning, or they don’t. I submit that they do, and marriage does not mean what gay activists want it to mean.


Well yes and no, marriage technically is between a man and a woman (therefore all you private organizations can marry only men and women if you want, thats no problem) however as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a term for a union that results in different benefits/disadvantages, including tax codes, and protections from divorce without other contracts. That union which the government chooses to call marriage is what needs to be upheld by the government for all people. If you want to change the term to "getting your license to have a union with another person" instead of "getting your marriage license" then you can and it wont be gay "marriage" but then again the government wont consider you "married" either if your not gay. It is just about the rights that the government gives and the marriage term is there because thats what they choose to call it.



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 4:36:40 PM)

Pyre,

OK.

I'm a woman, and I want to marry another woman. I can't.
You're a man, and you want to marry another man. You can't.

We both have "equal" rights or, should I say, are equally restricted. The fact that you may WANT to marry another man, and I DON'T WANT to marry another woman is irrelevant to the government, and why shouldn't it be?

Also, you speak as though the government created marriage and is under some obligation to "administer," if you will, this benefit fairly. But, the government DIDN'T create marriage. God created marriage. The government simply gives benefit to married couples because those benefits are in the best interests of society as a whole. (You'll probably disagree with me about that!:))

Finally, I don't want to change the term marriage at all. I think the current definition has worked for centuries, and I see no reason to change it. What I'd like is for those who would have the definition changed be honest about their real intentions. In other words, let the gay activists be clear concerning their real agenda (and frankly, what I've read makes my hair stand on end). Then we'll see how many citizens jump on the "civil rights" bandwagon of "gay marriage."

But hey, if these activists are honest, and I am wrong and your average American citizen is still OK with gay marriage, then I'll gladly admit my error. Honestly.



Back_Again -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 5:37:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: threeandme
, what about the polygamist’s “rights”? Under your theory, why shouldn’t the polygamist be allowed to marry as many women/men as he/she can find willing?


The Bible never actually says that multiple wives is wrong, it is just warned against because problems arise in the marriages. Things like sharing [:D]



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 5:45:05 PM)

Well, it's true that some men in the bible had more than one wife. But, in the beginning, what did God say?

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24



Mark_NZ -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 5:48:22 PM)

quote:

But hey, if these activists are honest, and I am wrong and your average American citizen is still OK with gay marriage, then I'll gladly admit my error. Honestly.


Actually, I don't know that I'd use the 'majority opinion test' to try to shed light on complex moral issues. Last century, the vast majority of Americans (at least in the south) approved of slavery, and most church teachings at the time supported that position. White South Africans - particularly Afrikaners - made similar arguments (based on their interpretation of scripture) to create and support apartheid.

Over time, the 'majority' opinion gradually became the 'minority' opinion, and slavery and apartheid passed into history.

While I'm not taking issue with your general position on the matter, I think we need to have a better argument that "most Americans would agree with me", as there are many instances in history where the 'majority view' conflicted with what we now accept is the morally and scripturally correct position.



Mark_NZ -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 6:17:32 PM)

While the 'should gay marriage be allowed?' debate is interesting and worth having, we should note that it is a separate question to whether God blesses long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships which are based on mutual love and a knowledge of Christ.

It seems to be common ground between gay Christians and heterosexual Christians that the Lord is displeased by any sexual relations outside of a monogamous relationship. Therefore there seems to be three possibilities here:

1 - God disapproves of all same-sex relationships, even those based on monogamy, mutual love and a knowledge of Christ.

2 - God approves of same-sex relationships based on monogamy, mutual love and a knowledge of Christ, and He wants the institution of marriage to be extended to same-sex couples.

3 - God approves of same-sex relationships based on monogamy, mutual love and a knowledge of Christ, however He has created marriage as a specific covenant between a man and a woman, and it is not necessary or desirable that same-sex couples should seek to get formally 'married.' God will bless their relationship equally with a heterosexual marriage provided they adhere to the same moral requirements, however they should not seek to actually get married.

The general question, then, is which of these three positions most accurately reflects the Lord's desire for His gay children, and how He wants gay Christians to live their lives - with a partner, or without.



joyfullagirl -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 8:00:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: karen_wizzabeth

We had this question come up a bit last night at Bible Study. Our pastor said "What if two homosexuals walk through the door on Sunday. What will we do?"

I said "We'll welcome them and rejoice that they are coming to hear the Word of God."

We also will not tell them they better change right then and there and become straight, or they'll go to hell. What they may hear is that Jesus died to forgive their Sin - that Sin that is present in all of us and that we can be forgiven for our sins, past present and future.

Conviction comes to a sincere heart from the Holy Spirit as the new creation inside begins to grow. Sanctification is not an instant thing. They will not hear that their lifestyle is okay, but they're not going to be told they're going to hell because of being homosexual - people go to hell for dying in their SIN NATURE in an unforgiven state.

I firmly believe the power of the Holy Spirit will work on a sincere heart. Do we tell them their lifestyle is sinful? Of course - but we also must realize that conviction and change comes from the Holy Spirit. Our job is to exhort (build up and instruct), to love, and to bear the fruits of the spirit.

Which one of the fruits of the spirit does condemnation fall under? Is it our job to condemn, or our job to exhort? There is a difference.

That said - I do believe that some people are born with personality traits prone to certain personality bents. BUT we are not to be slaves to these desires when they tempt us to sin. I'm half Irish, and I have a terrible temper. It's NATURAL for me to explode when angry. But it's not RIGHT.

It's NATURAL for us to want to have sex - PERIOD, whether we're homosexually oriented or heterosexual - but it's SIN to have it outside of the boundaries that God has set up.

It's NATURAL for us to want to do any number of sins, because we have a SIN NATURE. Just because it's THERE doesn't mean we are justified in acting on it.

We all have our weaknesses that need to be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit. For some it's gossip, for some it's envy, for some it's illicit sexual desire - be it for open sexual relationships outside of marriage, or orgies, for uncontrolled sex, for sex with children and animals, or for members of our own sex....we all need to take these sinful thought captive and allow the Holy Spirit to transform our minds thru the reading of the word and the instruction of our elders in the faith.

We need to be discerning. Obviously Fred Phelps is not a wise choice in an elder. He does not display the fruits of the Spirit very well. But just because some have gone over the edge to the point of being sinful and arrogant themselves doesn't mean WE have to go the other way and say "It's okay, it's just a part of who you are...."

There's nothing wrong with saying "I love you, welcome to our family, and let's pray that the Holy Spirit fills and empowers you in such a way that you'll find victory over your sins - Christ called us to be Holy and we need His help to achieve that...."

There's a middle line between condoning and condemnation - it's called realizing that we're all fallen, we all screw up, and no one sin is worse than the other. Jesus would say "You who are without sin cast the first stone." Rather let's work to building each other up and encouraging a strong desire for a living relationship with our Redeemer.




I'm sure that it would suprise a lot of people in the Christian world that there are probably a lot of gay people sitting in their church already. And it would also shock many to know that there are a lot of ministers that are gay. They are all just hiding it. I know this from experience.....believe me there are a lot of closet homosexuals.......a lot more then you can ever imagine, sitting in the pews and at work and even in our homes. Even so we are to love the sinner but not the sin.



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 8:04:43 PM)

quote:

While the 'should gay marriage be allowed?' debate is interesting and worth having, we should note that it is a separate question to whether God blesses long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships which are based on mutual love and a knowledge of Christ.


Oh, my bad. I thought that question had already been answered.

No, God will not bless such unions. Scripture is clear that God condemns both homosexuality AND fornication. God created sex for marriage, period. (Oh, pleaseeee don't ask me to define "marriage.")

Also, I question whether such relationships can be based on a mutual love of God. I'm not saying it to be nasty or superior, but if homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, then how can someone who insists on engaging in this behavior, and making someone else a party to it, have love for Christ? I know we’re all sinners, but something is not right here.

The more I think about it, you really could benefit from those websites I mentioned earlier. These are testimonies from Christian men and women who were "living the life" and later became convicted of their sin. I learned a thing or two from their testimonies, and I am not homosexual.

Finally, what would Christ have his practicing homosexual children do? REPENT. Turn to him. Trust in him. I can't imagine how hard that would be to do, but I know that with Christ ALL things are possible.



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 8:09:07 PM)

quote:

Absolutely, of course you could just ban all government sanctioned marriage and stop the problem, but as long as there is gov sanctioned marriage... then sure, open it up for polygamists too. (I suppose thats not what you expected me to say)


On the contrary, that's what I was HOPING you'd say. I completely disagree with you but can admire your consistency.



threeandme -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 8:13:48 PM)

Mark_NZ:

Here's a link to the particular website I mentioned.

http://stephenbennett.blogspot.com/



henny -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 10:26:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyre
I dont know... that's what i was taught, and what i did long before the gay rights issue came to the forefront.


Then I assume that you are like 60 years old? Given that the gay rights movement (as it is today) got started in the '60s, you would have had to be born in the '40s to be old enough to really do anything at all concerning homosexuals before it got under way.


But if you were and have always treated gays with love then I commend you.



WizzyPigabeth -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/24/2005 10:30:09 PM)

You're saying gay rights has been in the forefont since the 1960's??? Right up there with Vietnam, Watergate, and the like, huh?



Mark_NZ -> RE: Homosexuality - One Stop Thread (7/25/2005 1:27:11 AM)

quote:

Also, I question whether such relationships can be based on a mutual love of God. I'm not saying it to be nasty or superior, but if homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, then how can someone who insists on engaging in this behavior, and making someone else a party to it, have love for Christ?


Well, that's just it - gay Christians don't believe that homosexuality within a monogamous, loving relationship is a sin at all, let alone an abomination.

OUR interpretation of the scriptures (and certainly most modern English translations) suggests that it is, although of course few of us are actually fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, so we can't say with absolute certainly. If we could, there would be no debate on this issue, this Forum thread would not exist, and the church would not be struggling with it to the extent that it is.

THEIR interpretation of exactly the same (underlying) scripture argues that there is no express or implied condemnation of monogamous same-sex relationships - only specific homosexual acts in specific circumstances, typically involving some form of violence, idolatry, promiscuity and/or exploitation.

The moderators have made it clear that they do not want to see 'pro-homosexual' arguments discussed on this forum, presumably even in the context of informed scriptural debate, therefore it is not possible to look at WHY gay Christians believe that their monogamous relationships are not a sin. All we can say is, based on their interpretation of the scripture, that's what they believe.

It is interesting to note, though, that in another active thread in this Morality forum, a Christian lady's interpretation of the scripture tells her that drinking coffee is a sin against God, and she is most offended that other Christians would sin in her presence by drinking coffee. I can't remember what the final verdict was (did the coffee machine stay or go?), but I'm watching the thread with great interest.

It does prove, though, that scripture is open to interpretation and disagreement, so we should be careful about suggesting that matters of morality and ethics are black and white when the great divisions in the church (up to the highest levels) would suggest otherwise.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI