this one hears a hammer party going on in his head.

oh no you di’int.

find Bangles “Eternal Flame” so that i may continue my solo interpretive dance party, yet share it far and wide.

yayayayayayayayay!

i actually do a cover version of this song…

and sometimes i do it in karaoke, because i am THAT cool.

Brutus – I believe you speak of Bob Gray. I also was an independent baptist in the Jack Hyles mold. Of course a person can be a Christian and be a homosexual. Can a person be addicted to pornography and be a Christian? The issue is that people like MacLaren and Campolo question the sinfulness of it.

That is a departure. The church has been smug and self righteous and even uncaring, that must change. This is a sad story of a gay murder. You don’t see students murdering other students because they bring pornography to school.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847511

evangelical preacher gets up in the pulpit and rails against homosexuality. probably not a homosexual in the crowd. kinda like preaching on faithful church attendance to those who are faithfully attending church.

except that there are gay people in the crowd. there are gay people in even the most hateful of churches…granted, these are gay people who can’t bear to admit their true desires even to themselves alone in a dark room…so what happens is that these gay people are barraged with a constant diatribe about how who they are and feelings they cannot control are so evil in God’s eyes that they sink further and further into self-hatred. the outer manifestation of this is usually intense homophobia. these are the men and women who protest the loudest, who rail the loudest against that which they cannot kill off inside themselves. out of these come ones who occasionally snap and string Matthew Shepard up to die slowly in the middle of nowhere because he made a pass at them, or murder a classmate because he asked them to be his valentine. also out of these come the ones who finally reach a breaking point of another kind, come to terms with themselves, leave the church completely, but end up harboring a lifelong resentment towards God, Christians, religious people in general…

can someone hire a translator?

andy,

and that’s the reson for the time out. let’s look at the issue. let’s look at the texts. let’s look at the context. let’s look at the historical background.

then……..

whatever conclusion we come to…………preach the truth, in love. stop being gay-haters and gay-bashers.

many people are anti-homosexual because it is foreign to their thinking. a straight guy doesn’t understand it at all……….. if we are going to codemn millions of people to hell the nwe at leat owe it to them to know why we are doing to. our gay-hating father’s training is not enough.

what for me? I have had a drink

haha, i’m doing to do that later, too!

and then i’m going to have another one.

Here is a product of my former gay hating ways.

http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080329/OBITUARIES/803290339/1023

i ran this gay man right out of church. met him at the door and told him his type wasn’t welcome in our church. that was nineteen years ago.

i wonder what kind of friend i could have been had i not been raised to hate homosexuals. had i not been indoctrinated by by religion that the only people more despised than the devil were gays. had i not taught our church to hate.

andy,

all i can say is………you are wrong about “me.” can’t vouch for the rest of the saints and sinners.

Evan i’m on red wine hello from England!!

‘allo! red wine is a beast. i was about to say it’s always 6 somewhere, but i guess it’s a little after 10 there.

i do love England…

am i still a sinner

yeah, but not b/c he’s gay.

me too, and it’s not b/c i’m gay either.

I confess i’m haunted by the idea that saying homosexuality is sinful will be compared in the future as saying slavery was ok

you’re probably right. the comparison is already being made.

i’ve said it on here before, but i’ll repeat it. when science and observable reality (1500 species observed so far where homosexuality is part of the normal order of things…) conflict with an interpretation of scripture, A. it’s not an attack on religion, and B. it’s time to rethink the interpretation that scripture, and C. my dog is barking at Bjork, and i don’t know why.

(Bjork likely barked at her in a past life…)

regretfully, no.

i’m just a little bit strange.

wait, i’m selling myself short.

i’m not normal at all.

Rather, it requires recalibrating the way we treat ALL sin, differentiating between a specific temptation and the acting out upon that temptation.

there’s a logical problem with that reasoning, and it’s this: i’ll try to make this as concise as i can…

take all other things an orthodox would put in the category of “sexual sin.”

temptation to heterosexual lust – oversexualizing a person, etc…baseline is the inherent sexuality which brings about that lust.

temptation to heterosexual adultery – cheating on your spouse with someone else…baseline is the inherent sexuality which would cause someone to be tempted in that way.

temptation to heterosexual promiscuity – screwing around…baseline is the inherent sexuality that would make a person want to screw around.

homosexuality – baseline is…homosexuality. gay people don’t have the inherent heterosexual feelings, and though there is a spectrum of sexuality, the great majority have NEVER had heterosexual feelings. it’s not a “temptation” per se. it’s not like the entire population has the same baseline, yet a percentage just also happens to be “tempted” toward those of the same sex. to call it so is to misstate things completely. it merely is what it is, and any “ex-gay” who tells you otherwise is just lying to themselves (again).

Don’t get me wrong though… I’m right there with ya when it comes to the church treating homosexuality as if it were worse than other sins. I’d even go so far as joining the moratorium on our obsession. What Dan Kimball wrote on the subject really resonated with me. I’ll see if I can find it, but he basically came to the conclusion that it was sin, but also argued that the church has not dealt very well with it… didn’t the ODM’s take him to task for that?

no, b/c the insect example is pretty much just that. the insect example.

the homosexuality thing goes pretty much trans-phyla, trans-genus, trans-species. it’s just one of those things that seems to be.

Point is – if we’re going to take our cues from nature we cannot pick and choose. The fact that it “seems to be” has no bearing on the biblical argument.

…and seriously, when a desire exists before one even knows what to CALL that desire, how does one equate it with other earthly “temptations.”

I’m not talking temptation, since I do not believe temptation to be a sin.

As for a desire exist[ing] before one even knows what to CALL that desire – any parents can speak of the sinful pull that a two-year old harbors long before the child knows that there is even a thing called “right” and a thing called “wrong.”

Desire does make it right.

Neil

PS – still looking for that Kimball quote

The entire question centers on do those feelings come from God or are they an effect caused by the inherrant sin within us. Some sins come forth as more prominent while others remain dormant. Just the fact they exist does not equate divine approval as is sometimes insinuated by the man who is sexually drawn to 2 yr. olds.

I believe we are all born with the full compliment of sins within the framework of the sin nature. Although God desires restraint even in a secular society, we as believers must remain humble, loving, and fully engaged in the ministry of reconciliation. It is self serving to isolate some sins and treat them as special whipping boys which increases our self righteousness while at the same time seems ineffective at reaching the captives.

Divine love sacrifices detachment and acts on the behalf of that which it loves, even if it means an uncomfortable indentification with the ones who need redemption. That would be, of course, the Incarnation which should be our example.

Sin is a deep and sometimes complex issue that is taken much too lightly sometimes, after all, look what it took to gain forgiveness – which is also taken much too lightly as well.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Ig – everyone has lied, let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar. But now are we washed by the blood of the Lamb. You guys, inq., Ig, Tim, Pastor, and all of us who have been born again are brothers in Jesus Christ. We mat have differences and we might argue, but in eternity we will worship together!!

oh i left out lying. i didn’t want to make us all guilty and headed for the lake of fire.

To me, one cannot be a child of God and any of those things in that list… they can be a child of God and struggle with those sins… but God is true to His faithfulness and will save His children… or sin has not been forgiven…

But since it has, if I cling to being a thief and a lawyer…errr I mean liar, as my identity… or cling to a false God… and so on, then I am not walking as one who trusts God alone.

If one’s main identity is “I am gay” then I would venture they do not know God… but if they know God then they need to know they are a New creation and God can change us in His time and by His priorities… as ours often get in the way.

blessings,
iggy

I think you just won the debate.

igs = )

Evan,

Sorry to say, but you are making a god of your own creation, and worshipping him. You are breaking commandment 1 and 2. He is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible sent His son Jesus Christ to be crucified for your sin, and to make you a new creation. His only requirement? that by faith (which He gives) you would believe what He says (about you, about your chosen sin) and about His Son, Jesus.

I am sorry, but you and many others are deceived, and choose to call on their false gods in order to justify whatever it is they want to do.

So I am very sad for you, but I pray you will find Christ in Spirit and in TRUTH.

God Bless!

Evan – thanks for sharing part of your story. I can never pretend to walk in the footsteps of someone like you. I would come to barbecues, go to dinner, swim parties, and what I’m trying to say is overall not treat you like a leper. You are intelligent, have a sense of humor, and a musician to boot, and so am I except the intelligent part – that I pretend!

I like having you here (some like that better than me being here) and I would encourage you to entertain the idea that the purpose for your presence is both to give and receive. I am what I guess could be called a fundamentalist with a herat who doesn’t claim a complete panoramic understanding of how it all works but I retain some areas of which are uncompromising and defendable.

I do not engage you as a “scalp” but as a person made in the image of God. I cannot with certainty ascertain your spiritual standing because deception lives in some form in all of us. What I am saying is that it is possible to be saved and be wrong or portray wrong views on Biblical issues. I have never bee a “gay basher” and that and racism grieves me teeribly.

I have learned this over the years, that only the Holy Spirit can change a person’s heart and with that in mind I never have to get frustrated although I sometimes still do. We should expect nothing short of honesty from you and will continue to accept you as a ligitimate perspective and more importantly as a ligitimate person.

Your fundamentalist friend – Rick
Come to Florida sometime – swimming, Disney, and Harley Davidson riding!!

of course it is only “others” who make gods in their own image so they can “justify” what they do.

we like to “think” we let the scripture speak concerning “sin” but most often we define “sin” by our own terms. we view these issues through the lens of our cultural and religious experience.

so let’s see……….is adultery sin? is sex with more than one woman, who is not your wife a sin? is the ten commandments the absolute law of god? is it an unalterable, unchangeable law?

most people on this blog will answer yes.

then we have a problem. because we have a bible that endorses polygamy and concubines. we have a bible that endorses incest. (cain and abel had to have sex with someone) so what does the bible really mean when it talks about not committing adultery?

my point in the above exercise to suggest that sexuality is not a neat tidy issue. far too often our view on sexuality is culturally driven and many times reflects a puritanical view.

the issue of porn gets brought up all the time. bad. bad. bad. yet, we watch ‘porn lite” all the time on TV. in fact…………..some suggest that scantily clad women are more seductive than totally naked women. the scantily clad allows for allusion…………not much allusion when someone is totally naked.

quite frankly many evangelicals are doubleminded about sexuality. pastors get up and pontificate about premarital sex……….all the while forgetting their own escapades. they lie and distort. they try and scare kids out of sex. ( kinda like telling kids that drinking and smoking dope is not fun or enjoyable……liar liar pants on fire

yes, the bible has something to say about sexuality. yes, it absolutely has something to say about sexuality. but, there is a big difference between this and what many pastors, posing as ex experts, spout from the pulpit.

I would encourage you to entertain the idea that the purpose for your presence is both to give and receive

oh, i have! i have.

fellowship is fellowship, even on the interwebs.

sharing is sharing.

bashing sp genius i am

Hey Evan – so if I say to you in a colloquialism “Don’t be gay” I’m actually preaching??:)

someone said: I truly do pray that Evan and others like him allow God’s grace to transform them

i thought god is in charge of saving people, changing people?

i like the “and others like him”. you know those kind of people

jesus hung out with them kind of folks.

love the graceless grace posts. oh i know, it is said in love. praise jesus.

“both to give and receive”was that a pun, sorry red white two nites running i’m doomed

I guess I prefer real grace to the cheap imitation grace you are peddling-

Iggy, he prefers the kind of grace that makes people not want to talk to him anymore. which i’m sure is exactly the way Jesus would have played it…

I truly do pray that Evan and others like him allow God’s grace to transform them.

es mui arrogant.

jesus hung out with them kind of folks.

seemed to prefer us…

after a long day of yelling at Pharisees for being so obnoxious, he liked to kick back with the fun people.

Evan whats ur story bud? You remind me of me, but obviously ur a better writer ..I went to church a superrrr fundamental church from 15 ish to 21 (42 now)freaked me out to be honest..

hehe, i’m a long story with lots of twists, turns, ’s’ curves…

i dunno. i was raised in the Christian tradition, but the fundamentalism kind of happened to us after we left a church that was splitting in half over, surprise, gays. (gays! playing the organ and directing the choir! oh noooooooo!)

sadly, at the time i was on the wrong side of the issue, due to the fact that i so feared who i already knew i was, so i was all too happy to join up with those yelling “Crucify him!”

ended up at a church recommended to us by “friends” (the ones leading the effort to fire the music minister…funny how those “friends” aren’t in any of our lives now. i have honestly never met people more two-faced than these).

that’s where the fundamentalism started to seep in, with me for a while (i was even on staff there), but at some point my brain started to kick in and i started dealing with myself as well.

that’s just a small piece of my story, but it’s what started the trajectory of finding true spirituality, rather than parroting what i’d been taught.

omg…

i meant “es muy arrogant.”

i’m too full of steak and shrimp and cake to think right now…

This is my view… was sin dealt with on the Cross or not? Was it all sin? And as Hebrews states, 9: 24-28

24. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28. so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Our sins are dealt with… all we must understand is we are reconciled unto God and sin no longer separates us. The only thing that separates us is that we deny Christ thus forfeit out forgiveness and salvation.

Another passage that will make this more clear is Romans 5.

There are so many things that come clear once you understand sin was dealt with on the Cross and we stand forgiven. Romans 5 and Romans 9 become treasure troves of Grace when one understands forgiveness is total.

Many cannot get over the hump that we can be condemn though forgiven but that is where our free will comes into play. Salvation is free to all men, but only the humble receive grace for God resists the proud. If one is prideful they forfeit salvation, for pride blinds us from Grace.

There is so much bad theology that mixes Law and Grace… for example Pastorboys theology that does just this when he stated:” Its called hermeneutics Iggy- yes the law was abolished, except what was reestablished in the NT by Jesus and his Apostles. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, reestablish the Leviticus 18 law concerning homosexuality being an abomination ( so is lying by the way)”

You see Romans one is not about condemning homosexuals… but it must be read as Paul completes the though in Romans 2…

“1. You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4. Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? 5. But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.”

So yes hermeneutics is really important… if you miss Paul is stating all are sinners, and do not understand in all that is stated in Chapter one also pertains to oneself, then you missed the point of chapter one completely.

As far as 1 Cor 6, PB claims that Leviticus 18 was reinstated, which is a crock, for no where once in Leviticus does it state, “Everything is permissible for me”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”–but I will not be mastered by anything.” which is Grace and Love being the driving force now, not ones own obedience which is demanded under the Law… again PB proved my point that he mixes the Law and Grace and nullifies both of their glory.

I could go one, but the idea of forgiveness if understood pulls one deeper into Grace and Mercy and understanding how much God loves us.

even when we were still enemies.

Be blessed,
iggy

Redemption or forgiveness is offerred at the cross, it only is applied by faith. For be grace are you save through faith. Even the unpardoable sin was not paid for at Calvary, and Paul says that before our faith in Christ we were dead in sins, not forgiven.

That theology about everyone being forgiven is not New Testament. God will even judge sin in the house of God through losing rewards. When the death angel came through Egypt God wasn’t the one to put the blood on the doorposts so that all the Jews were already safe and forgiven, they had to do it personally.

It is true there is no law for the believer. Commandments from a father, yes, but no law from a judge.

PB – nobody thought that Evan was presenting a systematic theology, he was sharing his personal experience. I have found to listen to someone is quite beneficial because I get a perspective about which I was formerly unaware. Talking about homosexuals and homosexuality are important issues that have a Biblical core but with some nuances as it comes to reaching them and how we view them in the context of redemption.

A sinner comes to Christ in our church and he is a drunk. In the next two months he slips five or six times and we call that a struggle. But when a gay person comes to Christ and he slips even once we assume he isn’t saved. These are important issues with non-simplistic answers. We all agree what the Bible teaches about that lifestyle, however we must be ready to be vunerable and uncomfortable in our dealings with sinners from all “camps”. I continue to evolve through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in my own life.

Rick,

Even the unpardoable sin was not paid for at Calvary and Paul says that before our faith in Christ we were dead in sins, not forgiven.

If you look close at the passage about the unpardonable sin, you will see it is the rejection of who Jesus is… that is the only “sin” we are not “frogiven” as it is we who reject Jesus as JEsus stated.

Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ” ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

John 12:48
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

Again look at what Jesus states…

Matthew 12: 30″He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

How are we saved? When we are born of the Spirit…. Being born again… if we reject Jesus, then we reject the Spirit to live in us, and without the Spirit of Life… for

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

And,

Galatians 5:16
[ Life by the Spirit ] So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

If we “live by the Spirit” and we reject Jesus then we do not have the Spirit and do not have life so then die… rejecting our forgiveness.

Now, Paul states all men were dead in their sins as the wage sin is death, yet, Peter states that we “receive” forgiveness… forgiveness is already there but we need receive it. That is why I quoted Hebrews that stated Jesus being the High Priest after offering Himself “once for all” sat down…

Here is the verse again…

Hebrews 10: 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16″This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[b] 17Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[c] 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
Paul also stated we are reconciled at the Cross…

2 Cor 5: 16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The reason we are not to regard anyone from a worldy point of view is because they are forgiven and need to know that! We are given the message of reconciliation. For God reconciled us to Himself in Christ and does not count our sins against us anymore… from the time of the Cross we are now judged by the Words of Jesus who proclaim He was Messiah and God and by our words of belief, we are saved by His works.

Paul taught as I am saying, Peter did, John and all agreed with Jesus who also taught what I am stating.

iggy

There are so many things that come clear once you understand sin was dealt with on the Cross and we stand forgiven. Romans 5 and Romans 9 become treasure troves of Grace when one understands forgiveness is total.

Okay Ig, WHO IS FORGIVEN?

We all?

Who is we? Humans? All people? Or is there a transaction that takes place?

Please explain.

someone said “So PB your “love” sounds a lot like a clanging cymbal. Not because I say so but “words have meanings” and currently I perceive your words to be hateful.”

now there is some words that have meaning.

i would throw this piece of information into the conversation:

when Christians abandon their hate-mongering, the next step is people talking about how they should “love homosexuals,” etc., which is a good thing.

but at times the sentiments take on the air of “the same way we care for the sick, feed the hungry, etc…”

and that’s a problem. most gay people don’t need a “charity approach,” and while it doesn’t garner the disdain that the fundamentalists’ approach does, it’s not necessarily helpful either.

i would suggest that the goal should just be about spreading God’s message, and leaving the rest up to God.

yeah…my feeling is just that, if God is really as concerned as some people think He is about sexuality, then He will deal with it.

i’ve always found it funny that i get convicted of all kinds of things, but not who i am…

Pastorboy,

I have explained, yes all, every single person was forgiven at something called The Cross.

Romans 5: 8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Notice that it was “while we were still sinners” that “Christ died for us.”? What was the purpose of His death?

9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

Now notice in verse 9 Paul uses a word? It is “Since”.

Since we have now been justified… Meaning that God justified all at the Cross. He paid for it all on the Cross and there is no more debt. Yet, we still need to receive it. In that we receive it and are in Christ, how much MORE will we be saved from God’s wrath. I say Glory!

Romans 5:10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Again notice that Paul states, “For if when were were God’s enemies”? So, even before we knew God… we were already reconciled… when? Paul states it right here… “we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son.” Do you not believe in the Cross and all that was done… Then you should believe that we were reconciled to God by the Cross and death of Jesus… as Paul states. But there is more!

11. Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

The issue is not that some are forgiven, but that they have not received that reconciliation… they stand there already reconciled (forgiven) yet how much more will they receive after they accept that reconciliation is theirs! But there is more!

12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

As sin is the door to death, Jesus is the door to Life. The law was given to add to the Jews trespass… so they could see more clearly their own sin. Gentiles were not held to the extra yoke or burden of the Law, yet Gentiles still died becuase of sin as those who were before the Law of Moses.

Yet, Paul states, “But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.”

Which leads us to;

15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Note the contrast with Adam and Jesus… through the one man death came, but how much more though Jesus Life came?

If you read it closely enough you will see that we do not even have obedience, and we must walk in the obedience of Christ… we walk in HIS OBEDEINCE and not our own. We trust in His obedience and works and trust that by Grace through Faith we are saved.

If you cannot see how much Jesus did BEFORE you even met him then you are denying the finished works of the Cross… Jesus stated “It is finished.” because He fulfilled the Law and as Paul states. “14. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15. by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16. and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.” (Ephesians 2:14-16)

We must understand the the Law was fulfilled and abolished so that there is no longer the “us and them” of the “Jew and Gentile”… Jesus took the Law away so that we are now “one man” or the New man… or “New Creation”.

To state the law is still active (other than for its sole purpose to reveal our sin), is to state that Jesus never finished His work on the Cross. It is to deny that there is no longer a separation between Jew and Gentile and that there is no New Creation…

But that is just the surface…. = )

iggy

Evan – I can accept a person who says he still struggles with sin. For someone to say they are comfortable with any sin is precarious. In this Amy is correct.

Tim – The difference is that the ODMs would consider lying, slander, and the rest as sin, even if they are sometimes deceived about their own (as all of us). But what I believe Evan was saying is that God approves of the gay lifestyle. That is a big difference.

to those who are saying homosexuality=sin…………just curious if you have done any reading on the issue outside of your own position? i have, and i am continuing to do so, and i am finding my assumptions challenged.

is it possible that we have simply misinterpreted the scriptures? are we absolutely certain that the bible condemns monogamous homosexual relationships? not talking about promiscuity here……

i asked a number of questions 3000 comments back………no one took them up.

can a man be a practicing homosexual be a christian? isn’t that the bottom line? so let’s look at our hermeneutic and how we apply our standard to other sexual matters?

do we apply the same standard to teenagers involved in premarital sex?

how about christians who participate in adulterous affairs for years?

is having sex with more than one woman (wife) a sin? by whose standard? how do we square that with god’s approval of david’s multiple wives and concubines?

it seems some are saying………..the issue is “lifestyle.” if a person lives a certain way, a lifestyle, then that determines how we look at the sin. individual acts are understood and forgiven. so then, how many individual acts does a lifestyle make?

i am quite willing to accept the bible as god’s ,oral standard. what i am not convinced of is our interpretation of that moral standard.

I submit this site, which Ken bashed, as “exhibit A and B.”

I’d recommend reading it over, under “the great debate”, both “sides”. Thought provoking.

Joe

God is attempting to do a work in me by His Spirit as to how God views homosexuals, not the sin, but the people. There are many homosexuals who are coming to Christ and as with heterosexuals they have all kinds of testimonies and shades of perspectives. I believe the Scriptures are very clear, the practice is a sin.

But what isn’t so clear is how we are to receive them into the church. There are hundreds of scenarios that are true in today’s church which were not true fifty years ago. I struggle with my own way of seeing them, especially when I was so sure ten years ago and now I honestly want Christ to live through me and not just cling to some script.

I realize that for someone like me to say that makes me vulnerable to attacks from those who assume I am compromising. I am through with worrying about that, not loving people is a compromise. I still believe there is a distinct disconnect in the Christian community as it concerns the combination of theology and liveology (my word).
I have in the last several years come to grips with the realization that we must have humility and patience with the gay community if we are ever to gain their love and trust.

I truly hate it when I do not have something neatly and comfortably figured out. It is painful and personally humiliated to step by step be internally dismantled by the Holy Spirit. This issue is not going to fade, it will continue to be a challenge to all of us unless of course we have lied to ourselves about having it all figured out. When I lie to myself I usually know it.

Brutus – yes a person can be a practicing homosexual and be a Christian. But he will not be right with God and when he has no conviction about it that represents a very dangerous spiritual condition. Can a person leave his wife and move in with a girlfriend and be a Christian? Yes, but again that is a very dangerous spiritual condition especially if that man has no inward conflict.

There is no interpretation problem when it comnes to the practice of homsexuality, and all the heterosexual hypocrites do not change that truth.

rick,

the interpretation issues are actually many. the current books on this issue make it clear it is not as simple as we think it is. that’s why i don’t give much credibility to anyone who hasn’t done some reading on this issue. (and i don’t mean reading a fred phelps book)

culture and history complicate the issue. we must ascertain, in context, what was meant at the time the scripture was written. this is not an easy matter. it is not enough to quote the church fathers. spurgeon, and the pope.

consider………..what if we have been wrong on this issue? just like we were wrong on slavery, women, alcohol drinking, sexual positions, and drums in church? ok some trivial issues there………but you get my drift.

we like to think all the issues are settled. but, they are not. the “gay issue” is our generation’s issue to struggle with. all i ask is that we give due diligence to the issue. read. study. pray. talk to some gay christians.

all agree that promiscuity is wrong. fornicating like an alley cat is wrong whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. rape is wrong. bestiality is wrong. anything that turns sex into a demeaning,degrading act is wrong (porn)

when the gay bashers show up here……….they are a constant reminder of how hateful the evangelical church has become (in some circles) and they will never be the ones to bring understanding and reconciliation on this issue. they are dividers. their goal is to make sure only the special, super elect, entirely sanctified make it in. all others need not apply.

To accept that you truly love God and are a “Christ-follower” would require me to look outside of Scripture.

There is no picture in Scripture of a Christ-follower or a person who fears and loves God who willfully and gleefully continues in sin.

i will respond to this by saying that, perhaps, you’ve proven my point unwittingly.

you might have to look out the window, and then look at Scripture again.

the very existence of numerous gay people who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

To accept that you truly love God and are a “Christ-follower” would require me to look outside of Scripture.

every time i re-read this i find something new to pick apart.

it’s stunning to me that Amy thinks that whether or not SHE accepts my testimony about my relationship with God is even relevant.

it’s the absolute height of arrogance, and she’s not alone in that.

to those who are saying homosexuality=sin…………just curious if you have done any reading on the issue outside of your own position?

Yes, actually, and the current meme floating around the internet is basically a poor attempt at re-definition. The Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) are more clear than some modern folks wish they would be.

Regardless of “monogamous” homosexuality or “promiscuous” (a modern distinction, since both were deemed to be promiscuous), both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are clear on the matter, though they spend just as much ink on condemning habitual lying and other sins as well – unlike many modern churches’ laser-focus on homosexuality above other sins.

There are a large number of hermeneutical studies of the scriptures in contention, and the nature of homosexual practice as a sin is clear. Whether it is more of a temptation for some than others, it is no different than alcoholism, kleptomania, pathological lying, serial adultery or other tendent proclivities. While those living with such tendencies often trivialize them, excuse them away or otherwise minimize their sinfulness, their opinions don’t change what God has defined.

Again, as I noted before in answering your same question, certainly the church has erred in its heavy-handed and hypocritical treatment of homosexual practice (and even the temptation, itself) as worse than other common sins within the walls of the church. However, this does not excuse an equal and opposite reaction to try to make this particular sin not a sin. In short, two wrongs do not make a right.

Evan,

Your arguments, while passionate, lack the same logic that Ingrid, Ken & company often lack, as well – though from an opposite point of view. For instance:

the very existence of numerous gay people who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

Let’s change this around:

the very existence of numerous adulterers who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

or

the very existence of numerous habitual liars who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

or

the very existence of numerous child molesters who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

or

the very existence of numerous alcoholics who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

or

the very existence of numerous sinners who are passionate Christians just might mean that maybe people with your opinion could possibly, oh my goodness, sit down for this, hold on to your hats, folks, get ready…be wrong.

and on, and on…

The church is full of sinners. Every single member of every single church. Every one of them. Just because the church is full of sinners doesn’t make their sin any less appalling to God. Whether it is lying, gossip, lust, sorcery, murder, adultery, homosexual practice or whatever and it still exists within the church, we are to try to be rid of the sin and to desire what is good and pure and holy. Just because it exists within the walls of the church is not an excuse to continue in it free of conscience…

Even the obvious reproductive design reveals God’s purpose as well as the family as explained in the New Testament. Father is head, wife is help meet, children should obey. We see no variance as it pertains to the family.

But how the church interacts with unsaved gays, gays that embrace Christ, discipling people with same sex attraction, and a thousand different scenarios that we used to have so comfortably figured out. God wants to break the church of our self righteousness which is a major challenge.

Your arguments, while passionate, lack the same logic that Ingrid, Ken & company often lack, as well – though from an opposite point of view. For instance:

except that you’re missing part of the logic…

okay.

you mentioned:

1. adulterers – there’s a clear victim.
2. habitual liars – the victims are those to whom they lie.
3. child molesters – screwing children bad. that’s a victim.
4. alcoholics – danger to the general population when they, like, drive, and/or sing karaoke.
5. sorcery – it is so unnerving when wizards sit next to me in church. also, elves…and clowns! lest we forget…
6. murder – person kills another person, who is now a victim.

and then…

7. gayness…two people who love each other and make a commitment to stand by each other, with varying success rates, just like with heteros. sure, gays can be slutty, and that seems to be something of which God is decidedly not a fan, but so can heteros…but where’s the victim? before you create one, there isn’t one.

y’see…there have been entire churches, entire denominations created to specifically be gay churches, gay denominations…not because anyone’s trying to “rewrite” anything, but because these people were already Christians, and the church pushed them out! so they said “well, fine, i guess i’ll see you in heaven, but we don’t have to deal with you people either while we’re on earth! start our own frickin’ church…”

i haven’t heard much about the alcoholics getting together and desiring and needing their own place to worship…

it’s very easy to regurgitate a response the way you did when we see through the lens of preconceived notions.

that’s why i mentioned looking out the window once in awhile.

you might see a committed gay couple walking their dogs and raising everybody’s property values due to the thousands they just spent on renovating the neighborhood’s ugliest of uglies…they might even…garden! and yes, like some married couples, they might have sex sometimes, or, like some married couples, there might be tumbleweeds rolling through their bedroom…

Sin is not just because it has victims, sin is disobedience to God. That is why Jesus said thoughts are sin as well.

Other victimless sins:

*Worshiping other gods
*Blasphemy
*Forsaking the Sabbath (OT)
*Working on the Sabbath (OT)
*Prayerlessness
*Thinking too highly of ourselves
*Etc.

i still don’t see the parallels, sorry.

and yet still…

What response have we to the fact that gay Christians exist all over the place, who are convicted of every sin imaginable, yet not their sexuality?

is it all some big ruse we’re pulling to mess with people?

i mean, what?

I don’t believe Jesus addressed child molestation, incest, bestiality, kidnapping, prostitution, and many, many other sins. Actuall Paul doesn’t either (some of them). But the Scriptures tell us thatsome things are wrong even by nature itself as the divining rod. As I have said, the reproductive design and the family structure itself renders homosexuality as against God’s will.

These are some of the uncomfortable discussions because on one hand we don’t want to misrepresent God and on the other hand we don’t want to cull out certain sins because, as Evan pointed out, Jesus didn’t do that.

i mean, there’s a common sense factor here – if something is a sin, it really should pass the smell test as a sin.

The “smell test” begins with that which defines what sin is…

Chris L, did you just include hatred under “victimless”?

If the hatred is not acted upon, there is no “victim”, per se…

If you make “what feels right” into the litmus test for sin, then you are no longer following the teaching of Christ, but rather the teaching of Hellenism and Hedonism – the two countervailing forces diametrically opposed by Jesus…

If you make “what feels right” into the litmus test for sin,

no, there’s a difference between “what feels right” and common sense and observable reality.

common sense says, as Bill Maher pointed out once, that all you have to do is look around and realize that some people are just stone-cold-GAY! we just are. but instead we rely on preconceived notions of what we’ve been taught the Bible says combined with a set of mean blinders to the possibility that the Bible holds secrets we are just now figuring out.

yes, he is “nuts” sometimes but so are the rest of us.

everything he says is true.

I share a background with a lot of the commenters here and I am struggling to find the right perspective on this issue. The arguments on both sides make a lot of sense. I do believe that as hard as it is to admit in some cases, sin does exist and some behaviors just fall into that category. I just wish there was an easy way to define homosexuality in a way that both honors the sciptures and honors those who live their lives in a committed and loving way with their partner. I know that sin in many cases ( but not all) is just improperly using the gifts and freedoms that God has given us. (i.e abusing sex, alcohol, money, food etc…) Is it possible that there is both a good and a bad way to be in a homosexual relationship? I mean scripturally that is. Logically the answer would be a resounding YES except for the scriptures that address the issue. I am no Bible scholar so I’m asking because I know there are several of you that are. I try to live my life in a way that honors and respects those around me no matter where they are at in their lives. My own stuggle with pornography has taught me that I will not be picking up any stones to throw. I just want to look at this in the same way that Jesus would.

Rick,

I don’t know if the adultery comparison is apt. Jonbean was making a fair point. Adultery as sin is primarily grounded in a betrayal of trust and the violation of a covenant. Homosexuality is grounded in teleological arguments. Homosexuality as sin is unnatural, not tied to reproduction, etc.

So with adultery, you’ve got a bad thing and it’s hard to make it worse. With homosexuality, you’ve got something that, absent Scriptures, we wouldn’t be so sure is morally wrong. But you can certainly engage in repetitive, destructive, and immoral relationships. Or you can have one partner over the course of a long lifetime.

The problem is that we cling to this idea that all sin is the same in God’s eyes. Completely untrue. While all sin share a similar , basic, consequence, namely separation from God and a need for forgiveness, Scripture doesn’t teach that God regards all sin in the same manner. See the unpardonable sin for an example.

So would God judge a man who spends a lifetime in a committed same-sex relationship differently from a man who has hundreds of partners over a course of a lifetime? Absolutely.

I didn’t say that faithfulness sanctified sin. You know that. I’m not justifying sin. So please don’t accuse me of that.

Your counter-example is that someone might be “faithful” to an adulterous affair? What does that even mean? And you think my views of faithfulness and commitment are distorted? I think it’s the other way around.

An example to put a finer point on it: We can readily distinguish, morally, the difference between lying because it makes you happy and you like being dishonest, and lying to save the feelings (or perhaps even lives) of others (AGAIN, I’m not condoning “white lies”, just saying that there are strong arguments for why, simply, it’s *different* than lying for the sake of lying).

What I’m saying is that any honest person can appreciate the difference between using same-sex relationships to degrade, humiliate, and use hundreds of strangers, and using a single same-sex relationship to spend a lifetime caring and loving another human being.

Can you not see that?

Brutus said,

“the interpretation issues are actually many. the current books on this issue make it clear it is not as simple as we think it is. that’s why i don’t give much credibility to anyone who hasn’t done some reading on this issue. (and i don’t mean reading a fred phelps book)”

I say? My point about politics fits here also:

“I see it here as I see it everywhere, one speaks up and thinks if only YOU would read what I read and watch what I watched, YOU would understand. Missing the point that maybe I have indeed viewed the same things that you have and have come away way with a different point of view. Funny how that works…….”

Brutus,
As far as looking into other viewpoints, I am aware of other theological viewpoints out there on this issue, not because I’ve sought to find them but because I’ve come across them.

And I sometimes listen to NPR. I’ve heard the “scientific studies” that would most likely receive an “F” if presented in 9th grade physical science as actually being scientific.

I don’t believe it’s required of the Christian to look for other viewpoints on what the Bible is clear about. I would not for example start doing word studies on whatever words are used for adultery in scripture for example just because there were starting to be adultery-promoting churches in my area.

I’m sure you can find whatever convincing-sounding arguments you want written by some person who seems educated and sounds like they know what they are talking about.

amy,

what you “assume” the bible is clear about, since you have not investigated any other options.

the bible is anything but clear. it is a 2-4 thousand year old book that has been used to justify some of the most horrific events in human history. presidents and dictators have used it to wage war. slave owners used it to justify slavery. a civil war was fought where both sides rad the bible and believe god was on their side.

look at the thousands of christian sects there are. add the catholics. sure is “clear” isn’t it. each sect, reading the bible for themselves, gaining a “clear” understanding of truth.

you may object and say “well the bible is clear on salvation.” really? we don’t even agree on this forum about “salvation.” is baptism required? is repentance required? calvinism? arminianism?

here is what is clear. those who think it is clear don’t clearly see that the bible is not as clear as they clearly think it is.

I’ve got a couple minutes here (sorry for the long breaks between responses, but my schedule varies and right now is one of the “heavy” times):

rick wants to evoke “nature” as one standard. rick comes from similar roots as I……..nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair……..remember those days? and by implication, nature teaches us that it is a shame for a woman to have short hair. of course, that never gets mentioned except in amish and holiness churches. the standard? nature.

Actually, no – Rick evoked natural law/logic in response to Evan trying to evoke the same. The key difference between the two, though, was that Rick’s was rooted in natural law through the lens of scripture (primarily Genesis and Jesus & Paul’s commentaries on it), whereas Evan’s was an evokation of natural law through the lens of Hellenism/Hedonism.

On the other hand, what you are referring to is not “natural” law, but cultural prohibition. In both cases you listed, dealing with hair length, Paul was writing to believers in a culture in which long hair (for men) and braided hair (for women) was representative of cult temple worship and temple prostitution. The proper hermeneutic in both of these cases is to tie Paul’s instruction to the scriptural principal(s) he is applying from the OT. In both cases, he is affirming the scriptural prohibitions against worship of other gods and the sciptural prohibitions against sexual immorality (which are defined in Leviticus 18, and later confirmed in Acts 15 for Gentile Christians). Paul does not create ‘rules’ out of whole cloth, but rather makes rulings based upon application of scriptural principal – taking into account those things (like dietary law and ceremonial/festival law) which are not required of Gentile Christians.

whereas Evan’s was an evokation of natural law through the lens of Hellenism/Hedonism.

yay! i had no idea i was such an expert on Hellenism/Hedonism. now i do!

here is what is clear. those who think it is clear don’t clearly see that the bible is not as clear as they clearly think it is.

haha. that reminds me of my favorite line from “Friends.”

“yes, but they don’t know we know they know we know!”

many evangelicals amuse me. they sit through a few CRI seminars, read a few books (only those that reinforce they accepted dogma), read their view into the scripture and now they are an authority on all things scientific.

yet ask many of them to explain the scientific method (without Google around) and you’re greeted with an eerie silence followed by the sounds of ocean waves.

we have a museum in kentucky to prove it.

hahahaha, i’ve been wanting to go to that thing sooooo bad, but i won’t go unless i have a free pass, because i won’t financially support the brainwashing of innocents.

does anyone think it is “easy” to take a pro-gay position among evangelicals?

I think we’re continuing to blur the line between the temptation and the sin. [Additionally, we (the church) all too often expect the non-Christian world to conform to Christian practice - but that's another conversation, entirely.]

Is same-sex attraction compatible with someone trying to follow the way of Christ? Yes – we all have areas of temptation, and to say that one temptation is incompatible with living the Christian way of life whereas other temptations are not is disingenuous at best and prideful at worst.

Is acting upon same-sex attraction without guilt (i.e. proclaiming it to be unsinful) compatible with following the way of Christ? Clearly, no. We can go into multiple hermeneutical principles, but every one (aside from ‘I don’t like that God would make it a sin, so it must not be’ hermeneutic) will eventually lead to the same conclusion.

The same thing can be said of a multitude of other types of sin, as well.

part of the problem comes in when we focus all our attention on what happens in peoples’ bedrooms. it’s like….mmkay, i don’t get it, but why should i care what my next door neighbors are doing, hm?

This gets to the issue of expecting non-Christians to act like Christians. However, where the line gets crossed is when you want to a) be a Christian, but b) carry an unholy lifestyle into Christianity. Apparently Paul thought it was OK to pay attention to what happens in peoples’ bedrooms if they a) claimed to be Christians, but b) didn’t desire to live in a manner of holiness. Specifically, he was dealing with a man who was sleeping with his father’s wife (which, contextually, implied that she was not his mother, and that his father was no longer alive).

So, regardless of the habitual and unrepentant sin, Paul makes it pretty clear for Christians:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

Where the church falls down is not in recognizing that practicing homosexual sex is sinful, but rather placing it on a higher plane than most other sins – particularly those more ‘acceptable’ within the walls of the church – gossip, slander, pride, arrogance, alcoholism, unforgiveness, the list goes on and on.

And I sometimes listen to NPR. I’ve heard the “scientific studies” that would most likely receive an “F” if presented in 9th grade physical science as actually being scientific.

I agree – I see these often from both Christian and non-Christian sources (speaking as one with a background in statistical research). It has nothing to do with religion vs. science, but rather just sloppy science. Particularly when there is an agenda pushing the research to find a specific conclusion (regardless of ideology).

the bible is anything but clear. it is a 2-4 thousand year old book that has been used to justify some of the most horrific events in human history. presidents and dictators have used it to wage war. slave owners used it to justify slavery. a civil war was fought where both sides rad the bible and believe god was on their side.

Again, we’re dealing with logical fallicy here: The Bible has been used to justify unbiblical things, so therefore when the Bible is used to justify things, it is likely they are unbiblical.

I will totally agree that there are things that the Bible is not crystal clear on (such as the exact method and mechanism of atonement), that some would wish to portray as adamantite. However, there are others (as in this case) where the Bible has a good degree of clarity that some with to portray is completely opaque.

Where the Bible is more clear is on the methods and modes of sin. Where it is less clear is on the methods and modes of the workings of God.

rick,

where do we conclude from scripture “A person born with same sex attraction”

are you not taking a scientific theory are reading back into scripture?

fact is, we are not sure how and when a person’s sexuality is determined. scientists disagree.

is it just all about genetics? or are their social, cultural, and environmental reasons that come into play?

at the end of the day………….if a gay person says “i am a follower of jesus” then i accept them as such.

i accept evan as he is. warts and all. he confuses me sometimes and i think he is wrong sometimes………but he is still part of the same family. he is the uncle no one talks about

i have a gay cousin who is a few year older than me. he left for new york when he was 18. he left so he could be himself. he was the cousin no one talked about. a few years ago we saw each other at a funeral for another cousin. i had not seen my gay cousin in over 30 years. we talked for over an hour. i found it interesting………..that, if you didn’t know he gay, you wouldn’t have known he was gay. my gay-o-meter didn’t go off. it was refreshing to talk to him as friend to friend. in our discussion religion came up. it was evident he bore the scars of being hated by those in the baptist church we grew up in. he was the resident faggot. nasty, vile things were said. it was evident, in talking to him, that these scars ran deep.

whatever side we come out on on this issue………..most will agree that the evangelical church has done a great wrong to the gay community. we have shown ourselves to be hateful homophobics. if we do nothing else………….we must fix this.

i reject the “born that way” argument. i think it is contrary to the nature of god, and quite repugnant, to suggest god would give a man desires for people of the same sex while at the same time condemning it as a sin.

Just because a person is born with a desire doesn’t mean it’s what God intended. I think there are desires in all human beings that are there as a consequence of the Fall.

I would also say that even the desire for sexual intimacy is given a pretty narrow outlet in Scripture. Anything outside the context of marriage is sinful. So it’s not only homosexuals who have to worry. According to stats, Christians have extra-marital sex at about the same rate as non-Christians.

Brutus,
Well, I’m about as far away from a Calvinist as you can get. My view of total depravity is a bit different than the Calvinist as well.

I was actually arguing against the typical deterministic view that says if someone is born with a problem is because of God’s plan, and it is for Him to bring glory to Himself in some way. I believe there is plenty of evidence that there is a lot of stuff on earth that it is not as God intended it to be. That’s not God’s fault though.

It’s hard to pinpoint where desires come from. It seems “all of the above” would be a right answer to the question of whether it’s genetics, environment, culture, history, etc. The fact that a desire is there doesn’t actually prove much of anything really.

For someone to say “I was born this way” seems like a cop-out to me, honestly. I could say I was born with a proclivity to stuff my face. It doesn’t mean I should just do it.

I think we’re continuing to blur the line between the temptation

it’s not a “temptation.” i don’t know how to say this any more clearly. it’s not like i’m toodling along with my day, and then all of a sudden, oh, no! i’m attracted to dudes again! regardless of whether i’m in a relationship or not, dating or not, Janet Reno’s dance party in my bedroom or tumbleweeds, i’m still gay. it’s just one part of who i am. this is why the “tempted” argument doesn’t really fly. i’ve decided, based on past experience, that i really don’t want to be in a relationship again until i meet “the one.” i’m not “tempted” at all to do something i don’t want to do. it doesn’t change the fact that i’m STILL GAY. as i said originally, i didn’t post all that personal stuff above in an effort to start a theological discussion of the ramifications or sinfulness of this or that, but i’m just trying to clear up some misconceptions.

Apparently Paul thought it was OK to pay attention to what happens in peoples’ bedrooms

it seems a lot of people interpret Jesus through Paul rather than interpreting the entire Bible through Jesus.

i think that’s backwards.

i reject the “born that way” argument. i think it is contrary to the nature of god, and quite repugnant, to suggest god would give a man desires for people of the same sex while at the same time condemning it as a sin.

most gays would tell you a different story on that one. obviously, certain development has to occur (puberty) before those hormones start firing away, but most gay men, at least (because female sexuality is very different from male sexuality), will tell you that they/we knew around the onset of puberty, or, for some, earlier. for me it was puberty. didn’t even know what “gay” was, really.

fact is, we are not sure how and when a person’s sexuality is determined. scientists disagree.

yeah, that’s kinda the point. we’re still learning. but somehow some Christians take the fact that we haven’t isolated a gay gene as proof that there is no biological cause – which shows an appalling lack of understanding of the scientific method. what science is finding are pieces of the puzzle, which they haven’t been able to put together yet. recent study suggests it may have to do with the way neurons fire in the brain, at least in part. but that’s what science does – it asks questions, finds the answers to those questions, it’s peer-reviewed…

he is the uncle no one talks about

haha. funny story. my dad actually has a cousin who lives in Louisiana, and she and this other woman are “such great friends” that they’ve lived together for 40 years or so, and even bought a farm and horses, and they raised a child, and their names even run together when people refer to them! but for years, nobody even brought up the fact that they were “together.” when i finally realized it, i was like “what? heh. hehehe. niiiice. got it.”

not want to debate this only writing this to show that if someone reject the theory of “original sin” they might view this issue differently.

yeah, i don’t believe in original sin, at least not in its literal open-and-shut storybook form.

i believe the Garden of Eden is an allegorical myth, but no, i do not believe that because a woman ate a bite of fruit that God dangled in front of her that thus we are all sinners based on that. also, in the story, the serpents claims proved to be true. so….people don’t notice that. as to dying, well, they didn’t do it right away, and we have *cough* scientific evidence that humans have been around since long before that, and they definitely died. so.

did anyone read the poem i posted above?

The fact that a desire is there doesn’t actually prove much of anything really.

For someone to say “I was born this way” seems like a cop-out to me, honestly. I could say I was born with a proclivity to stuff my face. It doesn’t mean I should just do it.

kind of a shallow way of looking at it, honestly. if all of us were wired the same way sexually, and homosexuality was just a spiritual “temptation” or some sort, then gay people would also be attracted to the opposite sex. but we’re not.

and don’t mention bisexuals – we have jokes about that in the gay community. i was “bisexual” for about 10 minutes in 1999. it’s the word that you can form in your mouth out loud before you allow yourself to speak the truth.

kind of a shallow way of looking at it, honestly. if all of us were wired the same way sexually, and homosexuality was just a spiritual “temptation” or some sort, then gay people would also be attracted to the opposite sex. but we’re not.

I understand that. I’m willing to make a differentiation between orientation and action. I don’t think that being sexually attracted to the same sex is a sin. Acting on it, is. I don’t think it’s just a “spiritual” temptation (whatever that means). I think it’s a temptation as real as anything else. I don’t know where you got the idea I said anything to the contrary.

Here’s what I think. We like to think of the ability to have sex with whom we want as some sort of God-given right. The authors of Scripture would not have seen it in that way. It was seen as a privilege of marriage, and to Paul it was actually better to be celibate. Now I guess we could say that it is unfair to homosexuals because there is no way for them to have sex in a same-sex marriage relationship, but to me, I don’t see a Bibilical alternative.

as an addendum, i do find it alarmingly arrogant the number of people with no personal experience being gay who feel comfortable expounding on things like the origin of homosexuality, even going so far as to call it a “cop out” to say we’ve always been the way we are, as if it were some kind of excuse we’re making.

I could make the same argument with serial killers, really. I’ve never been tempted to be a serial killer, and I don’t know what influences them to do it. But I’m pretty comfortable saying it’s wrong.

I’m not equating the two. I’m just saying that we all make these judgements all the time. We are forced to. It doesn’t mean we can’t sympathize with each other. We are all sinners.

I could make the same argument with serial killers, really. I’ve never been tempted to be a serial killer, and I don’t know what influences them to do it. But I’m pretty comfortable saying it’s wrong.

not making the comparison, but mentioning it anyway?

seriously. you can do better.

what i’m getting at is that some Christians will have these discussions where they say “well, i don’t think they’re born that way,” “well i do,” blah blah blah, and the “Christian” leaders on this issue seem to give off the idea that it doesn’t matter what gay people share about their own experiences, because we’re probably lying anyway, because we have an “agenda.”

yep. they’re right. we have a major agenda. equal rights and nothing more.

Evan,
There’s no real dialogue with you after a while, because you start arguing with a caricature of the person rather than the actual person. I’ve never said any of the stuff you list off. I’ve never said that your experience is meaningless, but it seems to me that as a Christian I make a decision to place my under the authority of Scripture. I can’t make you do that.

I do not want to deny homosexuals any rights. I don’t think Christians should be too worried about passing laws that are aimed at moralizing the issue. I actually think that efforts to ban homosexual marriage are mostly misguided.

So, I don’t know who you think you arguing with, but it doesn’t seem to be me.

and when i refer to “Christian” leaders, etc., i’m talking about the media-whores like James Dobson.

evan,

isn’t that the problem………….christianity is represented by the dobson/falwell/robertson types and the gay community tends to be represented by some pretty extreme people too?

years ago i went to an arts street fair in columbus. ohio (in the short north area) it was touted as a time when homosexuals could come “out of the closet.” gotta tell you……………..i saw some pretty debauched stuff. sickening. unfortunately, that’s the face of homosexuality that a lot of white, heterosexual evangelical christians see.

we MUST get beyond the sterotypes, straw men, and even the boogie man

years ago i went to an arts street fair in columbus. ohio (in the short north area) it was touted as a time when homosexuals could come “out of the closet.” gotta tell you……………..i saw some pretty debauched stuff. sickening. unfortunately, that’s the face of homosexuality that a lot of white, heterosexual evangelical christians see.

we MUST get beyond the sterotypes, straw men, and even the boogie man

well definitely yeah. but what’s funny is that those things, though they do exist, aren’t even 100% debauched. you just noticed the debauchery.

just like not everybody who goes to Mardi Gras sleeps with 46 people per day, but you see what goes on in the middle of the street and go….wow…

there is no fear that i am a “gay” just waiting to get out of the closet. no bi confusion here.

haha, the fact that you’re willing to learn and challenge assumptions on the issue is actually a “tell” that you’re actually comfortable with your sexuality.

it’s the ones who protest the loudest, who go so far as to devote their careers to anti-gay causes, or “ex-gay” ministries that make gay people go “yeah, right, okay, uh-huh, sure, keep telling yourself that.”

You know what I despise? Go ahead I’ll wait…

????

that we are talking about gays and sex while all the good baseball is on TV?

I depise despising.

oh chris quit being so, so , so spiritual

good thought.

“looks like they’ve found evidence of a large asteroid collision in Austria that may explain the natural events behind the Sodom & Gomorrah stories. ”

As an amateur atsronomer, I would say that would be highly unlikely if not impossible to have an asteroid collission in Austria confine it self to one city in Palestine.

Another natural phenomenon – The Big Bang

Two possible theories.

1. God created

2. It just happened

Uh…I’m goin’ with #1.

And of course, Evan, there is always the possibility that the asteroid was directed at the behest of the Almighty. Just as there seems to have been a suprenova explosion around the time of Christ’s birth which was orchestrated by the Father way before creation. Wow, what a Creator to whom even nature is his willing servant!

Or will we one day discover that God’s grace was so powerful that He was willing to receive sinners who embraced His Son without ever being completely transformed in every area of their lives. Maybe..like us?

that’s a profound statement.

regardless of the debate over “is it or isn’t it a sin?”

I Cor.6:9-11 – Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inheret the kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extorioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God.

My question is this. If no covetous go to heaven then I have my doubts about most pastors and their congegations. No revilers? No course jokes? No idolaters? And it appears that the man at this same church who committed fornication with his father’s wife which even the Gentiles did not do was actually saved.

Sure he repented, but he was a fornicator. So comparing Scripture with Scripture we see that any impure thought renders us all unsaved if indeed only sinless perfection activates grace. Remember, Paul in the verses I quoted above was speaking to the most carnal and sinful church in the New Testament and yet he said they were washed.

Paul himself admitted he struggled with sin and the flesh, and my question remains what sins must we give up to actually be saved? If a sinner recieves Christ and yet refuses to give up a sinful lifestyle can we trust God to chasten them? I do agree though that we cannot have no correction for public sins, but there must be space for growth. Sinners who get saved come into the church with sins.

Something to consider…

How many times did Jesus heal someone or free someone from bondage and tell them to “go, now that you’ve been freed, break off your sinful lifestyle”? Several.

Look at Zaccheus: Jesus went to his home and supped with him. The key in this story is that when Zaccheus decided to divorce his current lifestyle Jesus declared, “This day (now that you’ve decided to turn your life around tangibly) has salvation come to this house.” It seems it was only AFTER his declaration that salvation arrived.

though it might be helpful for some to know that I take Paul with a grain of salt, just as i take much of the OT with a grain of salt.

Evan Hurst,
I like you, I do. I appreciate your perspective, but it’s time to move ahead a little with your arguing skills. This isn’t the “Evan Hurst Forum.” If it were, you of course could set your own rules. It is a blog where people from varying positions come together and have a conversation. This comment is utterly immature

for the third time, this time to Paul C:

I didn’t ask.

We didn’t ask you either, but no one here has been rude to you. I’ve read your stuff and I’ve read your responses. Everyone, including Paul C, is allowed to share their opinion here. If you don’t want to hear dissenting opinions then keep yours to yourself. You made a statement and he responded, that’s how it works. Please refrain from this type of a response in the future. If you don’t like what Paul C has to say or Amy or anyone else you don’t have to respond, but if you do respond you need have some modicum of respect. Those who don’t have respect end up in moderation.
I appreciate the perspective you bring here, I appreciate the passion with which you argue your perspective. I’d like to see you comment well into the future and I believe you’re opinion will gain more understanding if you keep out the vitriolic rhetoric.

LOL, maybe it does. I’m not sure the smiley face makes that much of a difference. As has been referenced, there comes a point where some comments seem to move from debating the issues to comments of a more personal nature.

well, Joe…when i posted the original long response in this thread, i DID say “i’m not trying to start a debate on the question of whether or not it’s a sin, just trying to clear up some misconceptions,” which is why when people come in and say “well anyway, let me throw my scriptures at you anyway,” i’m totally completely turned off.

and yes, i know i’ve been drawn into the discussion here and again, but it’s generally been with people with whom i’ve already been sort of dialoguing.

that’s all.

and i did put a smiley face in there, which would hold up in any interwebs court of law.

“i’m not trying to start a debate on the question of whether or not it’s a sin, just trying to clear up some misconceptions,”

Isn’t it interesting though that folks who wrote comments suggesting that it might NOT be a sin, thus taking one side of the debate that you didn’t want to start, didn’t receive an “I didn’t ask” response.

Without the seriousness of sin the depth of grace cannot be understood. The man in Corinth was a professing believer while what I am speaking of are seekers or new believers who haven’t as yet gotten their doctrinal feet under them. And we treat heterosexuals much differently in the church.

We don’t require heterosexuals to abandon greed, lying, gossip, judging, prayerlessness, questionable movies, slander, lust, stealing, and almost any other sins. We allow them to grow and mature and more accurately we allow them to continue in those sins. Jesus said not to store up money on this earth and yet the average pew dweller has savings, a 401k, and maybe some investments that he plans on lavishing on himself when he retires. Oh yea, I forgot, that is not what Jesus meant when he said don’t store up momey, or what Paul meant when he said with food and clothing be content, and a host of other Scriptures which heterosexuals do not obey.

I do not say that the lifestyle of homosexuality is not a sin, it is, what I am attempting to put into context is how we as the church reach out to them and even have as much patience with them as we do ourselves. There were things that happened in the early church that seemed to warrant divine intervention. How many people have you seen that God struck dead because of lying to the Holy Spirit?

And of course it is uncomfortable and makes us uneasy when we show some grace without condoning sin because we cannot stand loose ends and the prying eyes of other camps that might criticize us. A man in New York City was a transvestite. The believers from the Brooklyn Tabernacle had been loving and witnessing to him for several years, and one night he received Christ.

He was welcomed into the church dressed as a woman and loved through many months. It took him the better part of a year before he received the strength and faith to start dressing as a man, and they loved him and the pastor kept counselling him throughout. He now is a husband and a father and sings in the choir. That is not be soft on sin, that is being hard on grace. That is the kind of situation I am suggesting for gays.

because I agree with them.
it doesn’t merit a discussion.

See, that’s the problem. It’s irrelevant. They can express their opinion and you can agree with them. The people you disagree with can express their opinion too. If someone posted a comment that you disagreed with foundationally and then when you expressed your disagreement they said, “Well, I didn’t ask” surely you’d be rather torked?

In other words, what you agree with is the only thing you want to hear. The “other side” shouldn’t speak up in your hearing?

maybe what’s missing here is the utter banality of having four verses out of an enormous book regurgitated at you for ten years.

Paul C. – yes, a legitimate and Biblical perspective which must be factored in as well. A discussion about repentance is also warranted.

When a person believes on Christ, he repents of his unbelief and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and becomes His disciple (follower). No one has to give up anything before trusting Christ except his unbelief. Now, the new convert must believe on some level that he must now seek Christ not only as his Savior but as His Lord.

The ramifications and manifestations of that new life vary in depth and chronology, but they must be there to substantiate the conversion experience. A new creation must come forth and the sanctification process must begin albeit at varied paces but it must begin. Some sins are disproprtionately stronger than others and this must also be kept in mind.

If after some time, which is not set in stone, the gay person still claims to be converted but insists his lifestyle is approved by God then “Houston, we have a problem”. Each case must be approached with a mixture of love and correction and bathed in constant prayer and from a platform of humility.