Everyone else – this post is no longer to be used for discussing homosexual issues.

You are cracking me up!

So you think Amy should “out” Ken for his “man-love” obssesion?

ROTFLOL….

Blessings,
iggy

Amy, why don’t you call Ken out on that?

Too bad there wasn’t a forum with standard topics where all the conversation could be directed once the comments had run their course and were diverging from the original post. That would be helpful.

Are you stating this only in the context of homosexuality or in marriage also… if so what you do with the biblical teaching that the marriage bed is undefiled?

It seems we have a set of standards for some and not for others. We accept a divorced couple who had an affair and destroyed two marriages with children and let them do many things in a church, yet if a committed gay couple find Christ and are struggling in their new identify, we expect them to “divorce” and turn straight over night. We seem to miss giving mercy and grace… and allowing the Holy Spirit to work in their lives.

I see that Brian Mclaren’s statement, (which he never condoned homosexuality nor said it was not a sin in fact I have heard his say otherwise) that we need to look at the whole of sexuality instead of compartmentalizing it into categories that we deem as some less sinful as others… fornication is just as destructive, but less frowned upon than homosexuality… divorce is more accepted than homosexuality and the bible clearly states God hates divorce.

It seems this double standard is of our own creation and if we were to actually practice what is taught in scripture and trust the Holy Spirit to do as promised people would be less confused.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Not that this has anything to do with this original topic. But it’s been hijacked.

And since we are doing litmus tests on whether someone is a Christian or not…

I just don’t see what you are seeing in Bell’s comment. I’m not trying to insult your intelligence. I believe many Christians have an automatic negative reaction when anyone says anything other tha condemnation toward homosexuality. I know because it how I used to be. My reaction was always that people were trying to justify sin. Indoubtedly, there are some that do, and there is percentage of homosexuals that are very militant and vocal about it. I don not think that they represent every person who struggles with homosexuality, though.

Through a bunch of different factors, I have really come to a place where I feel regret for some of past comments and reactions towards the issue. I guess part of it has just been the result of seeing and meeting some actual gay people. I don’t know what all is involved in how someone becomes gay, but I believe for some it will be a lifelong struggle. God may deliver some, but it seems for whatever reason, there are some people who must live with the temptation.

I’ve listened to probably at least 30 of Bell’s sermons (if not more), and I’ve never heard him say that he condones someone living in a homosexual lifestyle. I have heard him talk about how God wants to set people free from sinful behaviors on numerous occasions. I’ve never heard him even hint towards anything like supporting gay marriage or homosexuals adopting children, or any of the issues that seemed to be tied up into this whole argument.

And I did not miss Phil’s point: He said,
“I said the oral sex argument was a straw man because it is about someone commiting a sinful act that is clearly wrong. Homosexuality seems to be much more complicated because are not talking about just a sinful act, we are talking about something that a person’s whole identity is wrapped up in.”

Key phrases: oral sex…SINFUL ACT; homosexuality . . . not talking about just a SINFUL ACT

Phil and I were talking about sinful acts.

You said, “Having re-read Witherington’s article, Bell was talking specifically about “homosexuality” – which is the temptation (and the tendencies) – and not homosexual practice. ”

Prove it. Prove how Witherington’s article clearly demonstrates this. And prove to me how Bell made it extremely clear to his audience that he was talking about homosexual tendencies.

Look at how Witherington uses the phrase “sexual sin” over and over. Whatever he thought Bell was talking about, it is “sexual sin.” Here’s an example from Witherington: “The argument is this— “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”. This is not quite true. Jesus took all sorts of sexual sin very seriously.”

And notice, that towards the END of the article Witherington says, “Rob then raises the point that the Bible says nothing about sexual orientation.” At the END of the article, after his other points have been made.

I am not perfect, my brain is not perfect, my logic is not perfect, but you are using your sense that your logic is superior to mine to ignore FACTS.

Having re-read Witherington’s article, Bell was talking specifically about “homosexuality” – which is the temptation (and the tendencies) – and not homosexual practice. His language was very precise, if Witherington’s transcription is correct, though his follow-up seemed inelegant.

You’ve just done it again (and in doing so, missed Phil’s point). Homosexuality (the temptation related to the attraction toward the same sex) is NOT a sin – practicing homosexual acts IS. Please re-read my comment from July 25, 2007, 3:45 pm

We don’t call someone who is tempted to steal a thief. We don’t call a man who is tempted to have oral sex with a woman, but does not, a fornicator or an adulterer. However, we do call someone who is tempted with an attraction to the same sex a homosexual. So, when we call ‘homosexuality’ (the temptation) a sin, we are already treating it differently.

If Bell said “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality”, he was actually being very correct to this point – there is no singling out of one type of temptation over any other. Because we continue to label people with this temptation by their sin, and we – in our very language – confuse the temptation from the sin, it is important that we are more careful in the way we handle this topic.

People I know who struggle (or have struggled) with this temptation already feel somewhat rejected by God because of their temptation, even if they have never acted upon it. Our sexuality, more than most anything else, tends to define how we see ourselves. So, when we say “homosexuality is a sin”, we are telling that person – who needs God as much as we do – whether you act on your temptation or not, you are sinning in that attraction. This is why a number of churches, including Bell’s, handle homosexuality as a one-to-one or small group issue rather than as a dogmatic issue to give red meat to those who already know what the Bible says (and should know, but often don’t, what it doesn’t say).

Your example of oral sex is completely off for all of these reasons, and more. Might I make a friendly suggestion that in future conversations you avoid your “hypotheticals”, as they tend to distort the actual issues by creating straw men that consistently have to be dealt with before we can ever get to the topic at hand?