Literalism, homosexuality, beards and fabrics

[there buster]

Yes, Robert, I read the whole chapter.

You buried my question, but did not answer it.

How does that text square with your definition?

And do you intend to say that "being" gay is a sin?

Don't bother to dump a bunch of scripture. Answer.

[Dr. Shane]

just tagging on...

I don't know how much closer I could have gotten to the homosexual lifestyle other than becoming one myself. My first year in college I had a homosexual roommate one quarter and a different homosexual roommate another quarter. I lived with them and socialized with them. I was focused on my studies for the most part but as I later looked back at it I saw just how unhappy these people were and so I started an outreach ministry to them.

Arguing for someone's right to be a homosexual is like arguing for someone's right to eat shattered glass or drink urine. God withholds nothing good from us and we can trust that includes homosexuality.

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

I'm no apologist for homosexual behavior, but do you really intend to indicate their state of "being" is a sin?

---

Is this a trick question? If you turn that into a sentence, it would read: This person is gay. I am not calling it a sin. I am simply stating a fact. This person is gay as opposed to the other person who is straight.

Quote:

---

And what do you do with statements like, "Whatever is not of faith is sin"? (see Rom 14:23).

---

All people are born sinners. Faith is a gift of God. When a person comes across the gospel, then the Holy Spirit works upon his heart. If the person responds, the the Spirit gives him enough faith to get started in the Christian life. No one is kept out of heaven for being born a sinner. It is his choice to reject the promptings of the Spirit that keeps him\her out of heaven.

Your friend,

Dave M

[there buster]

Quote:

---

If you turn that into a sentence, it would read: This person is gay. I am not calling it a sin.

---

From your list of ways of breaking the 7th commandment:

Quote:

---

4. Being gay

---

So "being gay" breaks the commandment (as per your list), but it isn't sin? Or it shouldn't be on the list of ways of breaking the commandment?

Or was your reply a trick answer?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

And do you intend to say that "being" gay is a sin?

Don't bother to dump a bunch of scripture. Answer.

---

No, being happy isn't a sin.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

God withholds nothing good from us and we can trust that includes homosexuality

---

There's no fulfillment is homosexuality.... Marriage between a male and female was and is God's plan. Besides, the homosexual sexual lifestyle is very conducive to disease....I believe that's why Paul stated, "men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error [disease]."

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And do you intend to say that "being" gay is a sin?

---

No, being happy isn't a sin.

---

You know, I taught junior high for many years. At 13, kids think such word games are terribly clever. Most of them grow up.

I don't have time to waste on those who don't. Bye!

[NormF]

Lest anyone needlessly squirm, this is not a retort or some such aimed at any one individual, in particular, and especially, not at Bravus ...

I'm not following the logical(?) sequence of the thread here, but simply picking up on a point Bravus made. It might have some bearing on how threads like this wind up (or unravel, as the case may be).

Bravus stated, as if it were common knowledge and simple logic, "... in Christian theology terms, all sins are as bad as each other." and went on to contrast that with what he termed the "human" context.

As I read it though, Jesus was known to speak of what He called "the weightier things of the law." Check the context: He was speaking of certain parts of the law relative to other parts of it.

If there are heavy parts of the law, must there not therefore be, ipso facto, light parts of the law? And if then the law can be divided so, that implies gradation -- categories, according their weight, or significance. Remember, this is in heaven's eyes we're talking about.

So then, can we start with a premise that says all sins (i.e., transgressions of "the" law) are equally bad, and safely and properly use that as a basis for deriving conclusions? I for one find that very questionable. Follow the logic and note where the diverging paths take you just in general. Or specifically here, compare the various points that have been made in this thread to see whether they fit under the heading of "Weighted" or "Unweighted". Do you see any patterns emerging? ... any contrasts becoming clearer? What do you associate with one versus the other?

Now, the ball is out there, what do you think ... how say you?

Regards,

Norm

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bye!

---

[Bravus]

Great point, Norm. My own quick take on it is that 'weightier' in this context means something similar to what I meant by 'human'. By saying 'all sins are equally bad', I was talking about in salvation terms - in needing a saviour, lying is as bad as murder. Any sin at all means we've failed to live up to the demands of the law and are hopeless without a saviour, so in that sense no sin is worse than any other. But of course, I'd rather be lied to than murdered!

Jesus was specifically talking about people who paid tithe even on the herbs they used on their meals - a pretty lightweight matter - but then ignored (social) justice and mercy. He was saying that the latter matters are weightier in their human consequences.

I think it's all consistent, although I do regret saying '*real* human terms' in my earlier post, since it might suggest that I think salvation terms are in some way not 'real', when of course they are.

Recognising the difference between the contexts of salvation and of The Good Life on earth for ourselves and those around us is a simple but crucial distinction that is missed again and again in circular arguments about the role of the law.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Jesus was specifically talking about people who paid tithe even on the herbs they used on their meals - a pretty lightweight matter - but then ignored (social) justice and mercy. He was saying that the latter matters are weightier in their human consequences.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Something simular goes on even today with orthodox Jews. They are more involved with the order of proper prayers to be said over the food they are eating rather than just being thankful they have food to eat.

Could someone help me with a few verses from the NT on forbidding men sleeping with men? I found several in the OT but am stumped in the NT. Thanks

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Re: "I really, honestly don't think it's a choice - some people, for whatever reason, are born that way."

I do not believe that true homosexuality is a choice. But, I believe that the cause of homosexuality is multifactoral, and therefore, for some, it may not be an issue of birth, although for others it is.

---

[:"blue"]I have an inborn attraction for EVERY beautiful woman I meet, but what I do with that attraction is a CHOICE. [/]

Gerry

[there buster]

Rom 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Bravus]

Interestingly (/me prepares to be schooled again by Ed!) this text *might* refer to people being 'bisexual' as a kinky thrill rather than 'naturally'. The 'invert' (person whose desire is toward their own sex) versus 'pervert' (person whose desire is toward the opposite sex but tries out same-sex activities for a thrill) distinction is sometimes used in this case. The text can be read as applying to the latter rather than to the former. (I'm not making a case for it to be read that way, but I'm aware it has been.)

And Gerry, your (and my) case is parallel only part of the way: we are required to be celibate until the right woman comes along, and then faithful to her, which means we can be fulfilled sexual beings for the great majority of our lives. An invert is told that they must be celibate for life. That's a much tougher burden to bear: maybe it must be borne, but we shouldn't under-estimate it and lightly compare it to our quite different situation.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

me prepares to be schooled again by Ed!

---

Quote:

---

I'm not making a case for it to be read that way, but I'm aware it has been.

---

Sounds like I'm not really needed. That is the favorite "reading" of gay advocates.

Whether it works or not depends upon the word "natural" meaning "either hetro- or homo- sexual," and being so understood by Paul and his audience.

What do you think, Bravus?

And where does that leave the poor "bi's?" Or the "transgendered?" If one can be born with "natural" (referring to the reading you mentioned) erotic attraction to the opposite sex, or to the same sex, why not to both?

Again, what do you think, Bravus?

[Dr. Shane]

Ok, Brother Bravus, you want to make two classes of homosexuals. The first class is somehow "naturally" attracted to the same sex and the second class is just perverted.

Let's compare that to alcoholics. I believe there are two classes of "heavy drinkers". There are those that are alcoholics because they were born with a predispostion to be that way (like me). For this group it is "natural" to drink until they get drunk. Than there is the "hard drinker" who has no predisposition and can completely control his/her drinking and quit when he or she wants to.

Does it make a difference? Is it wrong for the hard drinker to get drunk but OK for the alcoholic? In my opinion, both are wrong. Both are violating the body temple.

Same with homosexuality. It makes no difference if they are born with a predisposition to become gay or if they are just perverted. (Well in treating them it makes a difference) However both violate the law of God.

Now if you want to look at how sin affects one's life, homosexuality makes most that practice it miserableb - much like alcoholism does. As sins go, I would rather be a glutton than a homosexual or alcoholic.

[Amelia]

Thank you Mr. D, is this the only one?

[there buster]

Well, no. But this isn't a topic I spend a lot of time on, so it was the first one off the top of my head.

Here are two other passages:

1 Cor 6:9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law£ is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The word translated "homosexual offenders" in 1 Cor and "perverts" in 1 Tim is the same Greek word: arsenokoitēs = "those that defile themselves with men" (Strongs).

There are interesting attempts to make arsenokoitēs mean something else, but once again, the question is, "How did Paul and his audience understand these terms?"

Considering the context, the two lists of prohibited activity, it seems pretty clear to me.

[Bravus]

...although Foucault would say the category of 'homosexual' was really only constructed in the 19th century... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

(OK, yes, I'm just playing at this point - please don't expend energy taking this seriously)

[there buster]

I've never seen this discussed at length, but it seems to me your (Bravus) question regarding requiring celibacy of those "born gay" (I use quotes because it is disputed, and I do not know the answer), is actually treated in Matthew 19:1-13.

If only fornication is a cause for divorce, the Pharisees say, then it's better not to marry. Here's the end of the discusion (Matt 19:10-13).

10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

It looks to me like Jesus gives only the option of celibacy.

As Jesus asked at another time: “How do you read it?”

(Luke 10:26)

Does He require celibacy?

And does the phrase "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way" have any bearing on the larger question of homosexuality?

[NormF]

Looks like at least we two are on the same page, Bravus.

I admire your equalibrium and balance here in these overheated, troubled waters. I see a lot of wave-making and splashing about going on around us, but I wonder about the headway being made. Much if not most of this seems to be like Townhall's tune: vent.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I have an inborn attraction for EVERY beautiful woman I meet, but what I do with that attraction is a CHOICE."

I do not argue with that. All of us have choices, and in many areas of life. In counselling, one of my goals is often to show people the choices that they have, as well as the consequences of those choices.

[tealeaves]

Hey, why did everyone hop on the homosexual boat? I want to go back to the blended fabrics topic.

I have had more than enough conversations about homosexuality, however, I know quite a few people who don't wear 100% cotton, and I think this is an issue that needs to be cleared up right now!

[Bravus]

The (faabulous) homosexual boat?

[]http://www.bayouvista.com/boatpa02/boat3.jpg[/]

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

So "being gay" breaks the commandment (as per your list), but it isn't sin? Or it shouldn't be on the list of ways of breaking the commandment?

---

Yes, it is a sin. But so is being fat. So is being drunk. So is gossiping. So is being jealous. etc. My point was that since all of us are born sinners, including you and me, how can we single out gay people for a special session of throwing stones? You must be saved in the same way a gay person is saved. By finding your way to the cross and seeing Jesus dying for your sinfulness.

As for anything other than faith being a sin, isn't faith a gift from Christ? Isn't trusting the Savior a result of spending time with Him? Isn't it true that no one will send time with Him until he had found himself at the foot of the cross?

The only thing any of us can do toward our own salvation is to allow the Holy Spirit to draw us to the cross. When once there, we must remain there. WE are told that it would be wise to spend a thoughful hour each day meditating on the final events of Christ's life.

Since faith is a gift, we only waste our time working on either getting it and increasing it. When the demon possessed son's father was accused by Christ of not having enough faith, he did not try to go and develop more. He asked Christ, "Increase my faith."

Whatever the question concerning man's salvation, the cross is the answer.

Your friend,

Dave M