Someone help me, please...

[shawn]

But, for me to reconsider old assumptions and teachings I would need a case to be made from scripture.  I would invite you to educate us on what you have come to believe.

Well, that is the inherant fallacy.   You would expect me to provide scripture that says homosexuality is ok therefore protecting your preconcieved notions in your own mind. 

I will in brief point out the problems and what I believe the scriptures are talking about.


In leviticus many of the laws were about cleanliness and hygene.  Homosexuals males do not like it whan I say that they shouldn't have anal sex.  Anal sex is dirty and nasty based upon human hygene, not morality.    Anal sex does not define who a homosexual is.   You can easily be a homosexual and never engage in anal sex.

There is no old testament reference detailing lesbianism in any form.

As far as the new testament verses used to say it is wrong.

Those verses are about spirtual health and behavior towards one another.   Lust is a word that has been associated primarily with sexuality, but lust can be about many things.    And as far as natural affections.

Many assume that if your heterozexual then you can burn with lust and that you cannot exchange natural affections, but that is a lie.   The orpahanges are full proving that heterosexuals have exchanged LOVE for self gratification.

Homosexuality has been painted as inheratly flawed,  religious teachings want you to believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving monogomous relationships  as if looking around the world heterosexuality has proven to be a better example of love or something.

It is up to you if you are going to "reconsider" what you have been told.

I was hoping we could discuss these things without condescension.  From my experience, those who take smug or otherwise volitile attitudes towards others are inherently insecure with their own belief system.

For me to ask for scriptural support of your views shouldn't be met with resistance.  It should be expected, anticipated and with a cheerful heart.  Why?  Because, a person who's beliefs are scripturally sound are eager to share what they have discovered, or what has been revealed to them.

That was an incomplete response only leaving me with more questions.  If your view is "I could care less what you believe" then why bring it up?  If you do indeed care about educating those of us who might be interested in what you have to say, then it's not too much to ask for you to expound...and to do so with love.  Many times if the messanger is wearing a chip on his shoulder, his message gets lost in delivery.   :2c:

Your hope is nothing of the kind,  if that was your hope you would not try to make is sound like I am insecure, instead you only engage in the same kinds of things you complain about.

You really only support what I have said, you wish to protect your precioncieved notions.

When I say I don't care what you believe,  I say that from the stand point that I am not taking upon myself the responsibility of engaging in debate or discussion with the mindset that I must convince you.

It is up to you to reconsider what you have been told,  finding reason not to is no suprise to me.

Paul, you are wrong about me, and you judge me unfairly.  That is certainly your perrogative.  You wouldn't know this but one of our local Mennonite EMS workers "came out".  I just heard about it today.  He is one of my favorite EMS guys, truly wonderful man.  So, I came on here reading, and seen this.  I was like Lord I'm listening.  That was my mindset but you assumed something else. 

And yes, I stick by what I said, those who get defensive about their belief systems tend to be insecure about said belief systems.  That may be the case with you and it may not.  But, what I do know is I am often interested in what you have to say, but the way you deliver your message can be off putting.  There is no need to talk down to other believers.

[shawn]

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

When Jesus was approached by the rich man and asked how he might inherit eternal life, how did Jesus respond?

I think there is much confusion about this intertwined relationship of living under grace and living righteously.  Sin is a symptom.  Grace does not justify an "anything goes attitude".  When we have lust, anger, greed etc these are symptoms of a lack of maturity in Christ.  We certainly can't earn our way into the Kingdom of God, but sin can certainly hinder our growth and effectiveness.

[shawn]

Even if homosexuality is not a sin, it is not necessarily healthy either - just throwing that out there, especially if homosexuality is more or less a symptom of a dysfunctional stimulus (like heterosexual lusts, porn addiction for example, are often a symptom of a complicated dysfunctional issue, of which sin becomes a central theme).

Lust in general, for man or for woman, same-sex or otherwise is sinful because it is harmful.  "Homosexuality = Sin" is a complicated issue because it involves a great many factors, of which "Sin" is a part (though not the whole thing). 

I do want to express that I do not appreciate homosexuality any more than I appreciate mishandled heterosexuality at any rate, but I am not about to judge a person to Hell based on their orientation, I would only express that there "must surely be a better means".  I struggle with Lust (of the heterosexual sort, and terribly so) and surely it is my greatest foe.  But I understand that sins of lust are not something that the religious-caste so easily write of as "an easy peasy superficial issue" the roots that cause lust are deep, complicated, and involve much more than just a wandering eye and a want for pleasure...In my experience my own lusts have brought nothing but horrid pain.  And so the things tainted with lust, find themselves tainted with pain - which renders it (loosely speaking) unhealthy.

Hard to explain I suppose, I just wanted to express the idea that even if Homosexuality is not a "Damnable Sin" as the religious-caste express it being, that does not necessarily mean it is healthy, in much the same way that pre-marital sex might not be a damnable sin (though it is said to be one by that same religious-caste) that does not necessarily mean that pre-marital sex is healthy either.  :2c:

Good post. 

[Miriam]

Actually most UR people who take the stance against homosexuality do not realize that how they go about it actually support the idea that all men are not saved,  the same technics of inference and assumption apply.

That is certainly possible.  The thought of homosexuality not being sin would be a very foreign concept to me.  It's not even something I have really pondered.  I have always accepted it as fact.

This is the position I found myself in until relatively recently, just as I had accepted ET as part of the "salvation package" without even thinking about it.  I came to realise that if I was considering a change to my beliefs at least partly because of a challenge to what the words for "hell" and "eternity" etc actually mean, I had to consider that other words might have been mistranslated also. I am grateful to all who are contributing to this discussion; much food for thought.  :thanks:

[Paul Hazelwood]

But, for me to reconsider old assumptions and teachings I would need a case to be made from scripture.  I would invite you to educate us on what you have come to believe.

Well, that is the inherant fallacy.   You would expect me to provide scripture that says homosexuality is ok therefore protecting your preconcieved notions in your own mind. 

I will in brief point out the problems and what I believe the scriptures are talking about.


In leviticus many of the laws were about cleanliness and hygene.  Homosexuals males do not like it whan I say that they shouldn't have anal sex.  Anal sex is dirty and nasty based upon human hygene, not morality.    Anal sex does not define who a homosexual is.   You can easily be a homosexual and never engage in anal sex.

There is no old testament reference detailing lesbianism in any form.

As far as the new testament verses used to say it is wrong.

Those verses are about spirtual health and behavior towards one another.   Lust is a word that has been associated primarily with sexuality, but lust can be about many things.    And as far as natural affections.

Many assume that if your heterozexual then you can burn with lust and that you cannot exchange natural affections, but that is a lie.   The orpahanges are full proving that heterosexuals have exchanged LOVE for self gratification.

Homosexuality has been painted as inheratly flawed,  religious teachings want you to believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving monogomous relationships  as if looking around the world heterosexuality has proven to be a better example of love or something.

It is up to you if you are going to "reconsider" what you have been told.

I was hoping we could discuss these things without condescension.  From my experience, those who take smug or otherwise volitile attitudes towards others are inherently insecure with their own belief system.

For me to ask for scriptural support of your views shouldn't be met with resistance.  It should be expected, anticipated and with a cheerful heart.  Why?  Because, a person who's beliefs are scripturally sound are eager to share what they have discovered, or what has been revealed to them.

That was an incomplete response only leaving me with more questions.  If your view is "I could care less what you believe" then why bring it up?  If you do indeed care about educating those of us who might be interested in what you have to say, then it's not too much to ask for you to expound...and to do so with love.  Many times if the messanger is wearing a chip on his shoulder, his message gets lost in delivery.   :2c:

Your hope is nothing of the kind,  if that was your hope you would not try to make is sound like I am insecure, instead you only engage in the same kinds of things you complain about.

You really only support what I have said, you wish to protect your precioncieved notions.

When I say I don't care what you believe,  I say that from the stand point that I am not taking upon myself the responsibility of engaging in debate or discussion with the mindset that I must convince you.

It is up to you to reconsider what you have been told,  finding reason not to is no suprise to me.

Paul, you are wrong about me, and you judge me unfairly.  That is certainly your perrogative.  You wouldn't know this but one of our local Mennonite EMS workers "came out".  I just heard about it today.  He is one of my favorite EMS guys, truly wonderful man.  So, I came on here reading, and seen this.  I was like Lord I'm listening.  That was my mindset but you assumed something else. 

And yes, I stick by what I said, those who get defensive about their belief systems tend to be insecure about said belief systems.  That may be the case with you and it may not.  But, what I do know is I am often interested in what you have to say, but the way you deliver your message can be off putting.  There is no need to talk down to other believers.

What appears to me is all I have to respond to, whether I should or not is a matter that I sometimes have to deal with.  However if your really open hearted then you would not be trying to use how I deliver anything as a reason not to consider. 

So what I believe about what you said about the EMS guy is irrelevant.  If you believe "God" has spoken to you in that regaurd, then pursue that and leave me out of your excuse list.

[shawn]

For me the story about the EMS worker was very relevant.  The reason?  I claim to be open, just today I made that claim.  I am willing to reconsider my old ideas.  The way God speaks to me, might not be the way he speaks to you.  Maybe it's because I'm hard headed but God often brings several things within a similar theme before my eyes...and says lets deal with this.  It might have to do with what you are speaking about, or merely my attitudes towards new ideas or posters/believers/nonbelievers I deem difficult.  Either way, if you have something other than a personal attack to speak about, I am listening.  If not, then that is certainly your perrogative.

As for what you delivered, I didn't really read anything of substance.  If you were open I would have liked to ask more questions and to see how they relate to Romans 1.  But, I don't believe you can debate (at least at today) in a healthy fashion so I think it's best we leave it be.  If you ever want to pick this up in PM I will be very open to what you have to say.

[thinktank]

Romans 1

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Nothing in the greek is explicit to sexuality in those verses,  these are additions in translations and only shows the predisposed belief and not scriptural clarity on the matter of homosexuality.   Homosexualaity is an assumption that many people think is safe because they believe there is a rational unbiblical reason for homosexuality to be wrong.

You just can't prove homosexuality to be wrong with scripture, cannot be done without inference and assumption.

Sorry but there is an argument against homosexuality. Allow me to explain.

When a man has sexual relations with a woman, they in effect become one. That which was seperated becomes whole, for this reason man and woman leave their mother and father and then join in marriage.

When a man has sexual relations with a man, or woman with woman they are in effect violating this agreement and change the rules that God gave. In effect because they are having sexual relations outside of marriage, they are commiting adultery.

I think its ok though for a man to kiss another man as the apostle Paul said to greet one another with a holy kiss.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Even if homosexuality is not a sin, it is not necessarily healthy either

There are many heterosexual relationships that are based upon emotionally unstable people.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Romans 1

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Nothing in the greek is explicit to sexuality in those verses,  these are additions in translations and only shows the predisposed belief and not scriptural clarity on the matter of homosexuality.   Homosexualaity is an assumption that many people think is safe because they believe there is a rational unbiblical reason for homosexuality to be wrong.

You just can't prove homosexuality to be wrong with scripture, cannot be done without inference and assumption.

Sorry but there is an argument against homosexuality. Allow me to explain.

When a man has sexual relations with a woman, they in effect become one. That which was seperated becomes whole, for this reason man and woman leave their mother and father and then join in marriage.

When a man has sexual relations with a man, or woman with woman they are in effect violating this agreement and change the rules that God gave. In effect because they are having sexual relations outside of marriage, they are commiting adultery.

I think its ok though for a man to kiss another man as the apostle Paul said to greet one another with a holy kiss.

Explain hermaphrodites.  Real ones, not the ones who have has sex changes.


What makes one female or male.   What can make a father or a mother, biology or love?

[thinktank]

Are hermaphrodites created, designed to be that way by God? Or is it a condition caused by a fallen world?

[Nathan]

Sorry Paul, but that's not an excuse.  We've all been born in to sin, but that doesn't make sin acceptable . . . just because one is prone to a certain lifestyle, regardless of their physical make-up, that shouldn't be the jutification that it must be okay because they wre like that for a long time or from birth or whathaveyou.

[Beloved Servant]

Explain hermaphrodites.  Real ones, not the ones who have has sex changes.

Good question.

Should a hermaphrodite marry a man or a woman?

[Nathan]

If I'm not mistaken, they can't reproduce can they?  Are they not sterile?

[Paul Hazelwood]

Are hermaphrodites created, designed to be that way by God? Or is it a condition caused by a fallen world?

They are human beings who had no control over their physical attributes and gender specific scriptures apply to them as well.   The person emotionally will be who they are if they are allowed that freedom.

So, what gender must a hermaphrodite be,  even if you use that argument, are you then going to make tyhem an outcast while excusing yourself from the condition of sin?

Well of course you might because you need homosexuality to be wrong.

[Beloved Servant]

Nathan, regardless of fertility, should the church allow them to marry?

[thinktank]

Yes Paul you have gone from saying that homosexulity is not a sin, and switched arguments, to I assume, saying that they cannot help being born that way. However if you are saying that homosexuality is a natural design by God and/now also you argue hermaphrodite, then you can show me some scriptures?.

[Paul Hazelwood]

If I'm not mistaken, they can't reproduce can they?  Are they not sterile?

You are mistaken, some can,  perhaps not in every case,  however many non hermaphodite females are sterile from birth.


Many Christian females who are sterile also are burdened with the prospect of not fulfilling Gods words to reproduce, unfortunatly this is from religious nonsense that use those verses thoughtlessly.

\

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yes Paul you have gone from saying that homosexulity is not a sin, and switched arguments, to I assume, saying that they cannot help being born that way. However if you are saying that homosexuality is a natural design by God and/now also you argue hermaphrodite, then you can show me some scriptures?.

I do not need to show any verses any more than I need to show them concerning a midget.


Your argument has the problem, not mine.

[shawn]

Sorry Paul, but that's not an excuse.  We've all been born in to sin, but that doesn't make sin acceptable . . . just because one is prone to a certain lifestyle, regardless of their physical make-up, that shouldn't be the jutification that it must be okay because they wre like that for a long time or from birth or whathaveyou.

I was born with a predisposition towards addictive behaviors.  This is part of my genetic make up.  It's been passed down in my family for generations.  Does that mean I can live as a drunkard?  Fortunately for me, God's word is clear...no I can't.  Drunkeness lead me to the doorway of death.  Fortunately, we do serve God who can change a person's most intimate workings.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Sorry Paul, but that's not an excuse.  We've all been born in to sin, but that doesn't make sin acceptable . . . just because one is prone to a certain lifestyle, regardless of their physical make-up, that shouldn't be the jutification that it must be okay because they wre like that for a long time or from birth or whathaveyou.

If I said something you agree with but you didn't like how I said it, will you then agree with someone that uses how I said something as a reason not to believe something?

You can disagree with me, but if what I have said is true, how I say it is irrelevant.   

A lot of people who do not want to go to believe in God use that argument.    This has no bearing upon whether what they reject is true or untrue.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Sorry Paul, but that's not an excuse.  We've all been born in to sin, but that doesn't make sin acceptable . . . just because one is prone to a certain lifestyle, regardless of their physical make-up, that shouldn't be the jutification that it must be okay because they wre like that for a long time or from birth or whathaveyou.

I was born with a predisposition towards addictive behaviors.  This is part of my genetic make up.  It's been passed down in my family for generations.  Does that mean I can live as a drunkard?  Fortunately for me, God's word is clear...no I can't.  Drunkeness lead me to the doorway of death.  Fortunately, we do serve God who can change a person's most intimate workings.

Drunkeness has no association with homosexuality.

[thinktank]

Are hermaphrodites created, designed to be that way by God? Or is it a condition caused by a fallen world?

They are human beings who had no control over their physical attributes and gender specific scriptures apply to them as well.   The person emotionally will be who they are if they are allowed that freedom.

So, what gender must a hermaphrodite be,  even if you use that argument, are you then going to make tyhem an outcast while excusing yourself from the condition of sin?


So now you say that they are sinners, please make your mind up? I don't play games.
TT


Well of course you might because you need homosexuality to be wrong.

No your the one who needs it to be right, my view is that it is no different to any other sin and with Gods grace can be overcome. My worry is that good men are drawn into it and do harm to themselves, thinking they are gay when they could be happy with a woman or to be celibate. Homosexuality is a complex issue, to say to all gay men that they should just accept it I find defeatist, as I found that many men hate being gay and want to stop the addiction, if the church helps drug addicts, should not gay men be given help also.
TT

[shawn]

Sorry Paul, but that's not an excuse.  We've all been born in to sin, but that doesn't make sin acceptable . . . just because one is prone to a certain lifestyle, regardless of their physical make-up, that shouldn't be the jutification that it must be okay because they wre like that for a long time or from birth or whathaveyou.

I was born with a predisposition towards addictive behaviors.  This is part of my genetic make up.  It's been passed down in my family for generations.  Does that mean I can live as a drunkard?  Fortunately for me, God's word is clear...no I can't.  Drunkeness lead me to the doorway of death.  Fortunately, we do serve God who can change a person's most intimate workings.

Drunkeness has no association with homosexuality.

They both have a genetic predisposition towards attractions, and personality types.  I was saying, to be born one way doesn't validate feeding it.  Each of us have our own burdens that need lifted.  Some of them, we were born with.  So, is genetics, being born with an excuse?  I would suggest not.  For me, I don't really buy into the philosophical arguments surrounding homosexuality.  I do listen to the scriptures on this subject and in the english they are quite clear.  With that said, I have never looked into the scriptures on these subjects in the original texts.  That was the information I was hoping to obtain.  If words have been mistranslated, or historical context has been overlooked I am eager to explore such issues. 

[jabcat]

I was born with a predisposition towards addictive behaviors.  This is part of my genetic make up.  It's been passed down in my family for generations.  Does that mean I can live as a drunkard?  Fortunately for me, God's word is clear...no I can't.  Drunkeness lead me to the doorway of death.  Fortunately, we do serve God who can change a person's most intimate workings.

I agree, there's a spiritual, scriptural "balance".  I have many ugly things I'm predisposed to, that I can trace back their thread in my life.  They need to be put to death and will be as I look to Him, not coddle myself.  There's sin to recognize from conviction and the scriptures and seek deliverance from (that's NOT judging or attempting to live by the law), while not being works-based, judgmental, and blind to much other than tradition/orthodoxy.  I believe we can swing so wildly from one side to the other, that we can pass up the truth in the middle. 

The same scriptures (expressly Apostle Paul) that say don't judge, love, we're saved by grace;  also say don't sin more so that grace may abound ("God forbid"!), points out many specific sins - lust, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, hate, envyings, strife... and admonishes us to not live according to these works of the flesh.

If we go to an "I'm OK, You're OK" mentality, then IMO, we're dismissing much of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives individually and in the life of the body, and we may as well toss out huge chunks of the New Testament as being irrelevant, deny that it's sharper than a two-edged sword "cutting asunder", and just go with a feel-good message that tickles our ears. 

That's my understanding.  Grace and carrying the cross to the death of our carnal "flesh" are intimately woven together, not disparate one of the other.   :HeartThrob:

[shawn]

I was born with a predisposition towards addictive behaviors.  This is part of my genetic make up.  It's been passed down in my family for generations.  Does that mean I can live as a drunkard?  Fortunately for me, God's word is clear...no I can't.  Drunkeness lead me to the doorway of death.  Fortunately, we do serve God who can change a person's most intimate workings.

I agree, there's a spiritual, scriptural "balance".  I have many ugly things I'm predisposed to, that I can trace back their thread in my life.  They need to be put to death and will be as I look to Him, not coddle myself.  There's sin to recognize from conviction and the scriptures and seek deliverance from (that's NOT judging or attempting to live by the law), while not being works-based, judgmental, and blind to about everything other than tradition/orthodoxy.  I believe we can swing so wildly from one side to the other, that we can pass up the truth in the middle. 

The same scriptures (expressly Apostle Paul) that say don't judge, love, we're saved by grace;  also say don't sin more so that grace may abound ("God forbid"!), points out many specific sins - lust, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, hate, envyings, etc., etc., and admonishes us to not live according to these works of the flesh.

If we go to an "I'm OK, You're OK" mentality, then IMO, we're dismissing much of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives individually and in the life of the body, and we may as well toss out half the New Testament as being irrelevant, deny that it's sharper than a two-edged sword "cutting asunder", and just go with a feel-good message that tickles our ears. 

That's my understanding.  Grace and carrying the cross to the death of our carnal "flesh" are intimately woven together, not disparate one of the other.   :HeartThrob:

Good post.  Today that is how I understand it.  We have been told not to even have a hint of sexual impurity.  Wow.  Not even a hint?  What about a little peek?  I know women have these same battles, but I speak from a man's perspective...that is a hard thing to swallow.  It seems almost unattainable.

We are called to lives of purity, righteousness all under this umbrella of grace and God's sovereignty.  What a mystery.  I agree it's so easy to become legalistic, or fall under the mentality that everyone and everything is ok.