People like this always seem to forget that God also has a “BIBLICAL RIGHTEOUS ANGER” against…
Liars.
Greed.
Idolatry.
Neglect of the weak and poor.
Hate (against fellow man).
Theft.
Sexually Immoral (not just homosexuality).
and the list goes on. I always want to just point to them and say “Hey! According to you, God hates you as well!” Oh well, I’m sure there were people like this in Jesus’ time as well and always will be. Not much we can do but pray and continue to show grace and mercy to them and those that they hurt.

Its kind of funny when you compare the incidence of heterosexual sin versus homosexual sin in this country, and what gets people “on fire for God and his principles”.

I just don’t have enough confidence in myself to say that my anger is a BIBLICAL RIGHTEOUS anger (certainly not an all-caps anger, at that)…

The interesting thing is that people always seem to have a Biblically Righteous anger towards sins that they aren’t tempted by. It’s a pretty convenient thing, really.

So it’s wrong to take a stand against any particular sin? Staying on topic, what do posters here think of a church that endorses the homosexual lifestyle? Since that’s the topic at hand, let’s deal with it first. We’ll get to lying and the others later. But for now, I’m curious about the topic at hand and ONLY the topic at hand.

“Sadly one of our own churches in the Des Moines, Iowa area has done so. This is huge and I will make the largest possible scene I can against it.”

Keep in mind that’s in Iowa. The fact that they do tend to be a bit more conservative over there, plus the fact that the population is not overly huge, contributes to the fact that this person is outraged over ONE church in particular.

Here in California, if there was only ONE church that supported homosexual marriage, that would be something to praise the Lord about.

Anyway, it’s what the person is angry about that is the issue. They said “I have a passionate anger (a BIBLICAL RIGHTEOUS anger mind you) against these creeps and perverts . . .”

Biblical?

Another question–is “righteous anger” really biblical? Is that really what God is looking for in us?

“As a saddened resident of Iowa . . .” Not as a “saddened Christian,” mind you, but a “saddened resident of Iowa.” The title “Christian” isn’t even mentioned.

There’s a lot of questions here that don’t even have anything to do with the homosexuality issue. This person’s choice in words gives a lot of clues to what they really find important . . .

Aaron: Fair enough.

Please reference one instance where Jesus defended homosexuality. He didn’t.

Please refernce one instance where Jesus attacked homosexuality. He didn’t.

But I can name you several instances where Jesus used the ackowledged sin (adultery, Sodom, etc.) of some to illustrate the self righteousness of the church leaders/members of His day.

Hmm…

I always feel like you have to give a caveat to post about homsexuality..But besides my past and friends it is a sin,and believe me it would be a lot easier for me with my friends, if it wasn’t..

Aron but there is a effort to makes certain sin’s acceptable, and others in your list not,which is a concern …

Rick you mention Christ attutude towards gay people,considering he lived in a time with the most extreme punishment for homosexuality Christ seemed rather mute on the subject,which leaves me wondering if all sexual sin is covered by John 8:2-11

Rick,

“Please refernce one instance where Jesus attacked homosexuality. He didn’t.”

That is one of the worst statements you have ever made. It is just bad, really bad slippery slope to be walking.

Consider:

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Yes, yes, he is talking about adultery and divorce…but, to suggest that Jesus said ‘nothing’ about this topic is just plain naive. Inherent in these paragraphs is a sufficient statement against homosexuality. Besides, Jesus did say something about this subject. It’s just that it was written by Paul the apostle in Romans and Corinthians and also by Moses in Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Genesis. Jesus’ words are not just the ‘red’ ones and to distance Jesus from the rest of the NT is a terrifically bad idea. I think you know that well enough.

There is also sufficient reason to think that sexual sins deserve a little more of our attention since the apostle also said that sexual sin is ‘in the body.’ It’s not as simply as saying sin is sin and sex is sex and homosexuality is no worse than telling a lie or nipping a chocolate from Kmart. It’s not that simple.

jerry

Self-righteous………and maybe he needs to come out of the closet himself.

Those who complain the loudest often have the most to hide.

Homosexuals are a easy target.

The anger of Jesus was directed at the religious crowd, the Pharisee’s and not the world at large. This writer has misplaced anger…….let judgment begin with self, and then the house of God. I suspect that will last a lifetime.

Jerry – maybe John’s statement about Jesus saying many more things that are not written included His view on homosexuality. My point, of course, is that redemption seemed to be His focal point, not identifying certain sins. In the end, we all sin all the time every single day. And if homosexuality is to be culled out from among the sins of men and treated and PREACHED about more strongly, then greed should be the message to the American church every Sunday since that is only second to heterosexual lust.

The gospel is our message to the world.

Rick: I’ve been out of pocket all day and just now saw your comment(s). Are you telling me that you have absolutely NO type of savings? Na dah, zero, zilch, none?

Rick,

We are not too far apart.

Bruce,

Got it.

Keith,

Exactly.

jerry

Keith – I have no savings, however I do own real estate which is the same thing. My point was my sin is as bad as anyone else’s, it just doesn’t get the press that some others get.

PS – Are you saying Jesus didn’t mean literally what He said because we all don’t take it literally so it cannot be exactly what He said? I am convinced we don’t take much of the Bible literally and therefore seriously.

I am going to go back to homosexuality being a sexual sin. The issue is a church sponsoring this sin. This can certainly raise passions in people. There are many other sins which some people don’t give a rip about while some sins set certain individuals off. Most of the “contra” commenters on this are being very passionate in their condemnation of this man which they consider as righteous indignation at their perceptions of this man’s prejudice and his methodologies. So it seems righteous indignation is OK if it’s **your** indignation, your cause. The whole purpose of this blog is someone’s righteous indignation over their perceived sins of the ODM blogosphere. Again, if it’s our indignation it’s “righteous” well, just because it’s mine.

Most of us are lumps. Lazy, self absorbed lumps just sliding through life where ever the downward slope takes us. It takes passionate people to solidify us lumps . Passionate people are therefore lightening rods for both praise and condemnation because us lumps don’t like having to develope a backbone for any thing. But **nothing** would ever be accomplished for good if there were not a few passionate people. Someone has said to the effect all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. Of course in our day evil is called good and good evil so there you have it and when a “Christian” church sanctifies gay marriage then obviously God has abadoned the institution and turned us over to our own lusts. It’s only going to get worse.

Amen, John

More than that, Christians are commanded to stand firm (1 Timothy) in our faith. We are told that we should not be tossed about by the winds of doctrine, that those who are tossed about are unstable (James)

Now, we may disagree with methodology, but we must agree that this young person has a valid argument! We should support his cause, if not his methods! Homosexuality is SIN. Homosexual marriage is SIN! It is against what marriage was created for; to be a visible symbol of Christ and His bride, the church (Ephesians 5). And, if civil authorities must support it, fine. But the church must stand against it!

“That is the most phenomenally convoluted rationalization I have seen since I visited this blog last…”

I’ll take that as a compliment.

Corey: Apparantly it’s okay to look with disgust and anger upon other people’s sins.

Yes. But not the people. So, conversely, its ok to look at disgust and anger against prejudiced people. But I ask you, which is the worse sin: prejudice or homosexuality? See we **all** do it. Also, it’s only when we look with disgust and anger upon our own sin that we ourselves change.

This man obviously has a zeal which can be a good thing. However, even our zeal must be managed in a godly fashion. Like the Jews in Paul’s day their zeal was to be commended but it was directed erronously. Someone needs to take this man aside and point out he is leaving out the human element and that these “creeps” and “perverts” are made in the image of God and that God loves them and gave His life for them. However, I agree with him in that Church sanctioned gay marriage requires a firm if not passionate response. It is a serious issue.

“Now THAT’s evangelism!”

It’s called “You’re a piece of crap who God hates” evangelism. The “If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Me” evangelism has passed with the apostles, it no longer works.

John,

You share with us the need for passionate people (and I “generally” buy that)

In my world those very same passionate people would say since you are divorced and remarried you are living in adultery. Those same passionate people rail against those who are divorced. They have righteous anger over the sin of divorce. They can go to the Scriptures to prove their position. In my world you would have been considered unsaved until you left your unlawful second marriage and returned to you lawful first marriage.

Not to put the focus on your divorce but just trying to show how those “passionate” and “righteously angry” people work with an issue besides homosexuality. I saw a lot of people hurt and devastated when the “divorce” problem was addressed by preachers, evangelists, you know those passionate, righteously angry people.

Someone said homosexuality is a sin. Whatever our position on this is, it is incorrect to say homosexuality is a sin. It is the sexual act that is the sin. What makes a person a homosexual? (once again thinking as the homosexuality is a sin camp)? His sexual activity.

Just because he has homosexual feelings or thoughts goes not make him a sinner. If it does, then we surely must apply that to all humans and we as heterosexuals are a pretty much a bunch of adulterers and fornicators.

To me the homosexual issue is an non-issue. The Evangelical Church comes off as a bunch of homophobes. If your Church believes that homosexuality is a sin fine. Stand by your position and I do hope you are just as zealous at rooting out adulterers and fornicators….and thieves and Republicans

Homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

As far as marriage is concerned……..if states want to sanction homosexual marriage, fine. How does it affect our society in any way? The Church can still marry whom she wishes. She is not required to marry homosexuals.

We have far greater issues with heterosexual marriage than we do homosexual marriage. Why all the furor and anger? Because at a base level many people view homosexuals as vile, evil, perverted people (as in the original post) This betrays a bigger problem that we have……..loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Also, in Proverbs anger is never spoken of well. It is always foolishness.

Joe: I dare anyone to find the word Anger in the passage where Jesus turns out the money changers. Double dog dare ya!

Zeal; properly heat, that is, (figuratively) “zeal” (in a favorable sense, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealousy, as of a husband [figuratively of God], or an enemy, malice): – emulation, envy (-ing), fervent mind, indignation, jealousy, zeal.

Joh 2:17 His disciples remembered that it was written1125, “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.”

Just say’n.

I mourn for this nation and for what the church is becoming, illustrated by people who, by their own wisdom and sensibilities believe that allowing open rebellion to God’s Word in the church somehow will placate those who hate God and turn them towards God.

I weep for my own sin, my own self-righteousness. I need to be poor in Spirit, I need to weep and mourn over my own sin. God forgive me, I can become self righteous.

This is not the case here; I believe we need to take a stand against all sin, not just the ones that we can point to that we do not commit (OPS’s…other people’s sins) We need to stand against lying, greed, drunkeness, gluttony, adultery, pornography, and yes, homosexuality within the walls of the church. We have the right and the responsibility to judge those who call themselves brethren.

That being said, these things go on in a lost and dying world. We do not have the right to judge these things, for they are in the world. What we must do however is to warn people of the eternal consequences of sin as we are in the world and not of it.

To me the homosexual issue is an non-issue. The Evangelical Church comes off as a bunch of homophobes. If your Church believes that homosexuality is a sin fine. Stand by your position and I do hope you are just as zealous at rooting out adulterers and fornicators….and thieves and Republicans

Homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

Bruce,
Your entire response was excellent. I quoted above the parts that really stood out to me. Well said.

peace.
Chad

“It’s not righteousness to get Christ, it’s righteousness because of Christ”

I could not agree more, chris. We get the righteousness from Christ, it is because of Him that we can be righteous. It is because of Him that we can repent, trust, and turn towards God. That does not alleviate the question of standing for righteousness as a church body. Justification of sin makes us not a church, it makes us a moral body of people that allow our love for people to outshine our love for God and His righteousness. Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. We must love God first, live holy because He is Holy, and allow the grace and love we get from Him to flow horizontally to people all around us.

Homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

You who write this and agree with this call yourselves Pastors?? We are to be watchmen on the wall. These poor sinners will burn in hell due to their unrighteous acts, which include homosexual behavior. You must warn them! If they are in your church it becomes your issue, especially if they claim to walk with God. You must warn them, because the Bible clearly teaches (not the Duke divinity profs mind you, the Bible) that homosexual behavior is sin. And I agree, Bruce, that all sin must be rooted out…all sin. There must not be homosexual marriage any more than there must be marriage between two people presently living in heterosexual sin (like living together).

Also, homosexuals who live in this nation should be accorded civil rights, like everybody else. That does not include marriage, because marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

Bruce: Homosexuality incest in general and homosexual incestuous marriage are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals those who enjoy sex with their children and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

Homosexuality adultry in general and homosexual bigamist marriages are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals bigamists and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

Homosexuality beastiality in general and homosexual men marrying sheep are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals those who enjoy sex with sheep and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

Homosexuality pornography in general and homosexual men watching expicit sexual videos are “nothing” issues. There has always been homosexuals pornography and there always will be. Pornographers should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

The Church should just mind its own business and trade in its salt for sugar. It should have no voice or opinion in the public square. Its constituents themselves are sub-citizens and should absolutely no say in what is and what is not acceptable societial behavior. Only those outside the church should be free to engage the culture. It does not matter that Scripture says un-repentant homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. That is totally beside the point. Feelings and freedom to pursue one’s own desires are more imporant than eternal destinies.

There will always be sin so the Church should just shut up about it already. Sheesh.

Homosexuality adultry in general and homosexual bigamist marriages are “nothing” issues. There have always been homosexuals bigamists and there always will be. They should have the same civil and constitutional rights as anyone else.

John – I have to agree with you – there is a difference between love and acceptance.

I’ve been a rather consistent advocate for the need of the church to alter its recent history of hatred vs. homosexuals without, at the same time, caving into the homosexual agenda.

See here, here, here and here, for starters.

I do not think it’s a “nothing” issue, but rather one of cultural decay (as decay, it is). One can be against gay marriage and not hate gays…

Chad.

That it is still an abomination to God regardless of the level of commitment?

The only problem John, all your sheeshing aside, is that the issue is homosexuality.

If you want to debate those other issues I am game (like one man’s incest is another man’s lawful relationship) but I suspect it is better if we stick to THE issue of homosexuality.

I am not for ANY form of regulation regarding sexual activity between consenting adults. This does not mean the Bible does not address those issue it just means the government needs to stay out of people’s bedrooms (or anywhere else sexual activity takes place.)

Be careful about wielding the Old Testament as a standard for regulating sexual activity. That might come back and bite you. After all polygamy and prostitution are clearly permitted in the Old Testament.

The Church is certainly within its authority to speak its voice on moral authority. When the Church becomes selective in the sins it condemns (homosexuality) and does it’s condemning in an angry, vengeful way (as the original post shows) then it has lost its right to speak with any authority.

As long as the Church continues to be a haven for ministers who abuse, rape, molest, and destroy why should the world give one moments notice to her self-righteous moral pronouncements?

So, yes the Church should shut up and get on with living out the gospel. Modeling sexual fidelity. Modeling moral living. Modeling righteousness.Let’s show the world a Christianity worth having. Right now what the world sees is self-righteous, judgmental people that demand 10% of their income.

I guess I should say sheesh here.

Bruce

John and John,
I’m ‘just curious when you’ll call for laws against sins other than homosexuality. For example, anger, or disobedience to parents. Perhaps we can have public stonings of disobedient children, or beatings for people who aren’t in church the minimum amount of time per week.

Or perhaps the church should stop worrying all that much about what those outside the church are doing. And as long as we’re worrying about what those inside of the church are doing lets start with Pastorboy advocating a theology of anger that’s found absolutely no where in scripture. Talk about leading the sheep astray.

I read one of those articles by Richard Hayes.

The difference is that in everyone of the sins listed by John one or more parties are being abused, hurt, objectified or idolized. That is where the sin lies.

But every one of them, even done in the context of a ‘loving’ commitment is still an offense to a Holy God.

Or perhaps the church should stop worrying all that much about what those outside the church are doing. And as long as we’re worrying about what those inside of the church are doing lets start with Pastorboy advocating a theology of anger that’s found absolutely no where in scripture. Talk about leading the sheep astray.

Gosh, I can’t believe I’m going to do this, but I’m defending PB (a little). I don’t think we’re talking about those outside the church primarily. The thing about an issue like homosexual marriage is that it’s those outside the church trying to force churches to do something.

Now it gets down to a larger issue because marriage is the one thing where society seems pretty comfortable with the mixture of church and state. The way I see it, what defines a marriage to the state and what defines one to a church shouldn’t necessarily be the same thing, but right now they are.

Perhaps the one positive of this that it will force the American church to really rethink the way it is organized institutionally.

I read one of those articles by Richard Hayes.

lol. sure you have. And that is why you continue to attribute to Duke Div something that is categorically false.

I think the jury is still out on whether a committed homosexual relationship should be called “sin.” I used to think it was no question – it is sin. However, the more I study it and the more I desire to be faithful to the gospel the more I think I may just not know enough.

My question would be how is sex outside of marriage justified anywhere in Scripture? I reiterate my point from above. I just don’t see where marriage is defined as anything but a man and a woman. I understand the thinking that this is unfair, but I really don’t see a way around it.

That being said, I’m not necessarily against homosexual couples having access to health benefits through some sort of civil union as long a straight unmarried couple could have the same thing. I think the rights of homosexuals should be protected just like everyone else. I just don’t see a Biblical case for gay marriage, though.

Phil,
I agree sex has its place in the sanctity of marriage. But what does it mean to be married? Is someone just as “married” who goes to a courthouse or a drive through in Las Vegas as a couple who get married in a church? In both instances it is now “allowed” that the couples have sex as far as we of the Church are concerned.

It seems to me we haven’t really thought these issues out very well.

The difference is that in everyone of the sins listed by John one or more parties are being abused, hurt, objectified or idolized. That is where the sin lies.

This is not necessarily the case in bigamy or incest (among adults). [Additionally, bestiality may not fit your test, but it is relevant, as it is condemned in many of the same passages which condemn homosexuality.]

The whole “committed”, “consensual” thing is irrelevant, because sexual activity between members of the same sex is defined as sinful – in both the OT and NT. Granted, you may attempt to rationalize it away, as some have, but it is rather clear.

As we seem to do with so many issues, the basis of most sexual laws goes back to Genesis 1, with the concept of a) one man and one woman; and b) the first command – to be fruitful and increase in number.

Homosexual relationships, no matter how “committed” or “consensual” fit neither intents. They also don’t square with Noaic Law, Mosaic Law or the teaching of Paul.

Marriage, as an institution, as well, is defined as something between one man and one woman. Keeping that definition, to the exclusion of homosexuals, is not an erosion of civil rights. The primary reason for setting aside marriage as an institution is because of the dependence on society upon the family unit for its future structural integrity – something homosexual “marriage” does not do.

Perhaps we can argue that the church ought to just exert no influence on the world, apart from person-to-person interaction, and allow the world to go to hell, culturally. That way, Christianity will truly stand in stark contrast to the culture around it – making it rather obvious which churches have succumbed to the culture, and which ones have decided to honor the teaching of Christ, rather than just pay him lip service when he doesn’t fit with the winds of cultural ‘tolerance’. Granted, the non-Fundamentalist churches which decide to stand on Biblical principal by refusing to perform or accept homosexual marriages within their communities will be marginalized as “hateful”, but in the end, I’d rather have society hate me than God. Not because I’m a jerk, but because – in the end- when I was forced to make a choice between calling “sin” an “alternative option” or calling it what God calls it, I chose God instead of man.

I truly despise sounding like an ODM, but there’s a huge difference between having compassion on a sinner and nullifying his sin by human fiat.

PB -
Did you really say that pastors should not marry couples that are “living in sin”? (Comment 50) Doesn’t that seem counterproductive? Why would you prevent them from making their situation right before God?

Chad says,

The difference is that in everyone of the sins listed by John one or more parties are being abused, hurt, objectified or idolized. That is where the sin lies.

Scripture says, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Those who commit any sexual sin whether it be adultery, bestiality, incest, homosexual relationship with or without commitment are sinning against their own body.

I don’t see where God ever defines sexual sin as only being sexual sin if it abuses or hurts or idolizes someone. But even using your definition of sin, those who commit any type of sexual sin are abusing, hurting, and idolizing their own selves as well as the other person – BECAUSE they are sinning against God.

By the way there are folks who regularly commit adultery where I used to work, recognized Christians, who cannot understand how it could be a sin. They do it, pay compensation, and do it again. What’s the big deal, they wonder.

There are couples who participate in group sex who switch partners or who use pornography to enhance their sex lives who could very easily claim that they are not abusing or hurting anyone. Likewise, an adult and consenting child could come to the same decision. Even those commiting incest could happily do so.

I think the jury is still out on whether a committed homosexual relationship should be called “sin.” I used to think it was no question – it is sin. However, the more I study it and the more I desire to be faithful to the gospel the more I think I may just not know enough.

Just what is the gospel to you and how does your desire to be faithful to the gospel lead you to question whether committed homosexuals are living in sin?

By the way does your way of thinking generally reflect what you’re learning at Duke Divinity? If you’re going to keep trying to convince people of how biblical Duke Divinity is maybe you should start putting a disclaimer with a number of your opinions: “I did not learn this at Duke.”

Amy,
I agree you could make a correlation, but I would suggest that the second half of your comment is reading into the text. It may be correct, it may not be. Jesus was turning out money changers. That doesn’t mean he was inherently angry. The word is not used in the text, yet the text is often used as some sort of conversation ender for why some person has this “righteous” anger, when the passage in no way indicates purely on its own merit that it has anything to do with this monster called righteous anger.
I too have no problem with Jesus being angry or God being angry I’m just asking for some honest exegesis of the text.
If this is something that we are supposed to be emulating I would hope there would be more than one somewhat nebulous passage.
I know, it’s rather unemergent of me.

Jerry:

Chris L,
I’m glad people read what you say after I have already said nearly the same thing with fewer words.

It’s an engineer thing, Jerry. Got a couple of ‘em in the family………JUST kidding Chris!!. You say often what’s on my mind and do a much better job than I!

Bo,

It must be this way. How else will we justify our angry preaching and judgments?

How will we justify what we call “hard preaching?” How will we justify our blog posts that are filled with angry words that judge the goats and skin the sheep?

That we all are prone to anger should be agreed by all. The issue is the attempt here to give a religious respectability to a fallen human condition.

We are to be people of love and peace. Anger is not a fruit of the Spirit it is a fruit of the Flesh.

Some will say “Be angry and sin not” So far I have never had one of those times. Maybe I am not as spiritually mature as some of the giants of the faith here…….but when I am angry…..it is sin every time.

Gosh, I can’t believe I’m going to do this, but I’m defending PB (a little). I don’t think we’re talking about those outside the church primarily. The thing about an issue like homosexual marriage is that it’s those outside the church trying to force churches to do something.

Now it gets down to a larger issue because marriage is the one thing where society seems pretty comfortable with the mixture of church and state. The way I see it, what defines a marriage to the state and what defines one to a church shouldn’t necessarily be the same thing, but right now they are.

Um, actually, not really…

Some in the church have their panties all in a wad because they think that somehow, on some planet, in some universe, that gay couples are going to want to get married in their Baptist churches in the suburbs, but I hate to break it to them — there are more than enough willing clergy and churches.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. It’s a complete strawman.

The New Testament is written primarily to believers and the church as a whole. Our message to the world is the gospel. It is unbiblical and on some level self righteous to preach morality to the unregenerate world.

Many gay people are productive members of society, and some are good parents to their children regardless of their unbiblical situation. The church in the past has counted them as lepers and dismissed them wholesale without being careful to acknowledge the other segments of their lives.

Everything they do is not “gay”. Some are managers of companies, entrepreneurs, financial advisors, and many other productive positions. Here is a gay man who owns and takes very good care of his house, he helps with community soup kitchens, he pays his bills, has teachable and appreciated children in the local school, and in general is an upstanding member of society. That does not legitimize his gay relationship, but it does point out that his personhood is more than just being gay.

Here is a heterosexual man. He owns his house and neglects its upkeep, he is hounded by bill collectors, doesn’t get along with his neighbors, lets his children run wild, and is generally not a good citizen.

You see? We must be willing to appreciate people without compromising what we believe. So often we have been guilty of a scorched earth approach to people with whom we have differences, and with that approach we have lost the cerdibility as well as the dialogue with people. There must be a better way to show Christ’s love without preaching morality before we preach the love of God through Jesus Christ, that is of course if we ourselves are walking in that same love.

So often we have been guilty of a scorched earth approach to people with whom we have differences, and with that approach we have lost the cerdibility as well as the dialogue with people.

I’m always curious who the mysterious “we” are? Maybe it’s high time we named names! The “we” I frequent with don’t fit that mold you describe, Rick.

I get weary when people on both sides of the fence are always saying what “we” should be doing. When the real issues is what “you” should be doing…..the old saying, when you point at someone you have three fingers pointing back!

Scotty –

FYI, I often use “we” to include myself in a group that I am criticizing/critiquing, because often I find some of the same attitudes that I criticize within my own heart, even if I never speak them…

Um, actually, not really…

Some in the church have their panties all in a wad because they think that somehow, on some planet, in some universe, that gay couples are going to want to get married in their Baptist churches in the suburbs, but I hate to break it to them — there are more than enough willing clergy and churches.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. It’s a complete strawman

If this were really the case, it would be one thing, but the way I see it, it’s not. The thing is that marriage is a religious tradition that has become a societal norm, not the other way around. So any attempt to re-define what marriage will impact both sides of it.

We are seeing turmoil on both fronts right now, because the fact of the matter is that their are groups who are trying to force their definition on others. The battle within the Anglican church is a good example.

So the way I see it as a Christian is that marriage isn’t primarily a civil contract – it’s a holy vow made to God. So if the states tries to re-define that vow it has implications.

It does pain me that I have to come down on the side of people I disagree with on some other pretty big issues on this one, but I just don’t a Scriptural defense to do otherwise.

That being said, I don’t think the gay marriage issue is necessarily a top-five issue for things the Church needs to deal with right now. I think that Christians have over-reacted in many ways, and because of that the argument has gotten so steeped in rhetoric, that it’s hard for many people to see the forest for the trees.

That being said, I don’t think the gay marriage issue is necessarily a top-five issue for things the Church needs to deal with right now.

I couldn’t agree more, Phil.

To those who are speechless that I or anyone could say the jury is still out on this issue let me say why I have come to this conclusion.

There are good arguments on both side, scripturally speaking. For instance, Bruce brings up a good point that just taking the OT references alone puts us in a pickle unless we also want to uphold polygamy as a viable option for Christians.
But even more than that, there is something to be said about the term “homosexual” being used in Paul’s letters in the midst of the other sins listed there. I said before that the sins John H listed were abusive and demeaning to others and to self. They were idolatrous in nature. One of the arguments that I think carries some weight is that in Paul’s day homosexuality had nothing to do with a loving, committed relationship between two people. It was about dominance. It was about demeaning another man in the most vile way one could, above and beyond just taking their country and home. In that culture it would be self-evident why homosexuality is a sin.

This is a serious inquiry: Have any of you who speak so loudly against homosexuals and the sin they are immersed in ever known a Christian homosexual? Have you ever gotten to hear their story and talk with them about their faith and where they are coming from and the struggles they deal with? If you have, how did that affect you? Or did it not?

peace,
Chad

PB -
Did you really say that pastors should not marry couples that are “living in sin”? (Comment 50) Doesn’t that seem counterproductive? Why would you prevent them from making their situation right before God?

I would not marry them as well… not until they a) found separate housing situations, and b) acknowledged the significance of their sin.

It’s not as issue of just legitimizing the sex, it’s an issue of attitude toward sin.

Neil

Regarding the church(es): All you need to do in Ohio to solemnize marriages is file the form… so there will always be religious and secular folks out there willing to “marry” gays. There are also a lot of religious and secular people out there willing to allow all sorts of sin.

What “they” do does not bother me.

Telling me that I should accept sin because those committing it are committed to each other is a different story.

This is a serious inquiry: Have any of you who speak so loudly against homosexuals and the sin they are immersed in ever known a Christian homosexual? Have you ever gotten to hear their story and talk with them about their faith and where they are coming from and the struggles they deal with? If you have, how did that affect you? Or did it not?

Nope. I have never known a Christian homosexual. I have known many homosexuals, and many that claim to be Christian, but I have never known a Christian homosexual. There is no such thing.

If your definition of a Christian homosexual is one who goes to church on a regular basis, holds to a set of creeds, lives a moral lifestyle…yep I know plenty of these. They are my neighbors and some are my friends.

If your definition of a Christian is one who has been born from above, who has repented and trusted Christ, and, as a result, has been completely transformed from the inside out, a new creature..One who has repented of all known sin, who walks by the Spirit not by the flesh, and who may have temptations in the area of homosexuality, but has submitted it to the Lordship of Christ….then no I have never met a Homosexual Christian. Only a former homosexual who has been born-again by the power of the Holy Spirit by the grace of God.

I personally am a former adulterer, thief, liar, pornographer, hater of God, disrespector of parents, coveter…I could go on. But I have repented, I do repent, and I turn to Christ and place my whole trust in Him.

because it’s not, and it blurs a line further (between church and state) that is already blurry enough.

I think we have to be careful not to confuse the Bible with the Constitution. I don’t think the state should be in any way able to decide who does and who doesn’t get married. The decision should rest on the local pastor/leader and his faith community. If they want to live together and say they are married, so what? That isn’t the biggest issue in their life, what they do with Jesus is.
In the same vein, the government should not be able to tell me that I have to marry them or I am guilty of hate crimes. That’s silly.

In the same vein, the government should not be able to tell me that I have to marry them or I am guilty of hate crimes. That’s silly.

And that is why “civil union” or some other terminology needs to be used, rather than coopting “marriage”, which is a religious term that is only recognized for a man and a woman…

Bruce: When the Church becomes selective in the sins it condemns (homosexuality) and does it’s condemning in an angry, vengeful way (as the original post shows) then it has lost its right to speak with any authority.

Bruce, the Church can NEVER speak on its own authority.

I have never known a Christian homosexual. There is no such thing. – Pastorboy

This is the kind of absurd statement that not only does no good, it just muddies the water.

You have seen the humanity of homosexuals and allowed it to affect your theology, which isn’t nearly so terrible as what most Christians have done which is to blot out the humanity of homosexuals and have it form their theology.

Bo,
As always, your response is measured and reasoned. I can’t say I disagree with anything in your response and I thank you for your charitablness.

You do raise an interesting notion. You wonder if perhaps homosexuals are called to a life of abstinance. Perhaps that is the case, but what does that mean? Does this mean that you and others who take that line are admitting that homosexuals are born this way? Are we willing to say that God created them this way? If that is the case, why should they be denied a loving, mutual relationship that I as a heterosexual get to enjoy and experience in this life? Why do I get to live out the relationship of the Trinity in marriage and the one born homosexual by God’s design is not?

just some random thoughts.
peace.

Chris L-
You may be right about that.
Whether or not Paul is singling out boy prostitution I don’t think should be dismissed so easily as you have done, but that is OK.

The alcoholic syndrome you speak of as it relates to people struggling over this may have less to do with God’s grand design and more to do with the stigma the church has made of them. Imagine living your entire life convinced that God has created you in this way and yet being told by the spokespeople for this God that you are abnormal, sinful and detestable to God. I can’t even begin to imagine the psychosis that would result from such a life.

However we feel about this issue we should keep that at the forefront of our minds and hearts.

Chad I know several homosexuals who did the same thing about their the homosexual lifestyle.

They lost their family, they couldn’t live without it, eventually they wound up with aids and dying by inches.

Much the same way anyone who allows the world to be their God, ends up. Lost.

I think that the comparison is a pretty good one. Any time we follow the ways of the world and don’t look to God and the Bible for our guidance, we are lost.

When I read the Bible and I look at God’s overall plan for sex and marriage, it doesn’t wash with homosexuality. He wants sex between married couples and marriage is very clearly for men and women.

I would say homosexuality is like any temptation of the flesh, some are tempted more strongly by different temptations. Some are tempted by lying, some by sex, some by a love of money, but we are all called to put those temptations aside and begin a new life in Christ.

-Blessings,

And that is why “civil union” or some other terminology needs to be used, rather than coopting “marriage”, which is a religious term that is only recognized for a man and a woman…

Because Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and agnostics and Rastafarians and the people who came a thousand years before the Garden of Eden never got married, no, it’s a purely Christian term because we say it is.

Boring.

How does it feel coming down on the separate-but-equal issue of our day?

How Chad’s statements apply to folks in committed homosexual relationships:

It estranges them from the relationships they do have.

Yep. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends.

It becomes their god.

If they claim to be Christians not living in sin, then they have definitely put their sin over God. So it has become their god.

They cannot live without it.

That’s what I’m hearing from the homosexual “Christian” community. If a person is “born” a certain way, than they surely can’t live without it.

They will do anything, from lying, cheating, stealing to get a drink.

Let’s see, lying about what the Bible says. That should count. I imagine some of them have stolen their partners from someone else, just like heterosexual folks do.

And I imagine that kids who are in homosexual relationships are lying to their parents about what they are doing just like kids who are in heterosexual relationships. No doubt more so however.

If untreated and undeteced they will end up in a ditch, like a prodigal son in a pig sty, with nothing – no wife, no kids, no job, no money, no home – nothing.

Definitely no kids unless they adopt or use methods outside of their own abilities to create children.

It destroys them them.

Unrepented of sin is a destroyer of one’s soul. Sexual sin is also a sin against one’s own body.

and the image of God within

(I didn’t know that those who believed in “the image of God within” thought it could be destroyed?)

And Chad I’ve not only heard the stories, I’ve lived with someone else’s story, in a dorm room, for a whole school year. What I’ve heard and lived with only makes clear scripture even clearer to me. Homosexual behavior is a sin. To discourage homosexuals who are claiming to be Christians to treat it as anything less goes against God’s Word and will do great harm to a person’s soul.

Hey amy, thanks for playing.

And amy, let me say again: thanks for playing.

peace.

Its also fair to note that Christ himself was denied marriage by the nature of his ministry.

Granted.
So are you willing to ordain the abstinent homosexual?
That question isn’t only for you, Bo.

Bo,
You do know that that places you and I in the minority

Good for you, by the way.

peace.

Anyone unwilling to ordain an abstinent homosexual is someone who is lying to themselves about their own wretched conditions.

I agree. It will be interesting to see how others feel about that and their reasoning. Your position is, IMO, consistent and logical. In the end, if a gun was to my head I would agree with you accross the board on this. But I do enjoy discussing this and am grateful that God is bigger than any of our pet sins.

So he made some of the pots to go unused?

No, He made some pots to be used differently…

Paul actually says that an abstinent, single life can be used to a much greater extent for the kingdom than one with a spouse and children (because of the familial responsibilities that would otherwise not be present)…

Well that’s Paul’s opinion.

It always strikes me as funny that people give as much credence to Paul’s opinions as they do, since his entire “authority” is based on his own account of things.

And yet Christians scoff at the Joseph Smith story…

Because that’s how God created humans, as heterosexual beings.

Neil,
That is fine for you to say but in the same post I asked this:

Does this mean that you and others who take that line are admitting that homosexuals are born this way?

And you answered saying this:

I cannot admit something I do not know.

Can you help me see how you are not saying two different things?

If we can say with all certainty that God does not create homosexuals than I agree with you that the question and this conversation is moot.

Chris L,
Amy got a “thanks for playing” because she has proven to be an impossible dialogue partner in the past. I refuse to get into one more “well you go to Duke and I read something by someone that doesn’t even teach at Duke that I didn’t like and therefore you must be the devil” sort of argument.

I agree with the sentiment of your post entirely, Chris. The rub of it is the big question none of us can answer definitively – are homosexuals created as homosexuals by God? If they are, why should they not be allowed to express their humanity (their God GIVEN humanity) the same way I do? Does it really come down to just the act of sex?

and seeing how about half of the New Testament books were written by him, and seeing how most of the instruction on praxis comes from his writing…

Jesus didn’t make that decision. The church that sprung up in his name did. That’s very circular reasoning you’re using.

I’m not sure ’scoff’ is the right term. “Laugh out loud at a con-artist who was gunned down in a jailbreak” is probably closer…

Yet it really is about the same.

I would say homosexuality is like any temptation of the flesh, some are tempted more strongly by different temptations. Some are tempted by lying, some by sex, some by a love of money, but we are all called to put those temptations aside and begin a new life in Christ.

Yes, an entirely different biological sexuality is just like telling lies and being all Scrooge with money…

Think through this with me…

Several of us all agree that it would be perfectly fine to ordain a non-practicing or abstinent homosexual. By this I take it we affirm that there is nothing inherently evil or wrong with one’s nature or volition or will being that of a homosexual, yes? That is to say, the sin is not being a homosexual.

So the sin is in acting upon the inclinations and desires that we have already determined are not inherently evil or sinful, correct?

However, we who are by design heterosexual are permitted to act out in our heterosexual nature or being so long as we do so in a covenantal relationship. For us, the acting is perfectly normal and acceptable, so long as it is in the context of relationship.

Is this is a fair portrayal of the landscape as you all see it?

If we can say with all certainty that God does not create homosexuals than I agree with you that the question and this conversation is moot.

I think you’re doing what most fundies do with this subject – conflating the temptation with the person. Just because someone is more tempted toward a specific sin does not mean that they are to be identified by that sin.

If someone is always tempted to steal, but yet never does, do you call him a thief?

Regardless, we read:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

This is the model we are given from before the fall, and it is the only model that is acceptable within the framework given to us.

Nobody is tempted beyond what he/she can bear. So, regardless of whether your proclivity is toward theft, murder, lying, drunkenness, adultery – or homosexuality – you do not have to fall to that temptation, nor are you less of a person if you abstain from it. To say differently is to exchange the truth of God for a lie, which Paul addresses (and actually is at the heart of the matter):

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

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

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Paul does not single out homosexuality by itself here. He includes it with a whole litany of sins – many of which are consistently on display in corners of Christianity (some corners that this blog consistently sheds light upon, I would add).

Again, the only reason I am singling it out in this conversation is because y’all have chosen to focus on it. Would I ordain a practicing homosexual? Would I ordain someone who was an unrepentant, compulsive liar? The answer to those two questions ought to be the same…

Yes, an entirely different biological sexuality is just like telling lies and being all Scrooge with money… – Break the Terror

Interestingly, the church has a whole has elevated this to some kind of more heinous sin while ignoring others… and we are arguing for a level playing field.

Now you come along and once again raise sexual temptations to a higher degree… as if these desires, due to their origin are somehow different.

Maybe they are, but the point remains that you cannot justify sin based in it being a desire.

It is a moot question… God has created all of us, are we to say any of our sinful desires are just based on that?

Neil,
I still don’t get why it is a moot question. I can say with conviction that God did not create me to be lustful, to be a liar, to be a thief, to be a murderer, to be a sinner – period. So if God created a person as a homosexual than that would require us to think this through a bit harder than we have in the past.

The homosexual lifestyle, the acting upon sexual desires, is where sin comes in.

By nature, man is not monogamous. Yet, in accordance with God’s will, we are to live in monogamous relationships irregardless of our desires.

The homosexual lifestyle is destructive to those who practice it because it is not only against nature (more specifically, an abomination), but it is against the clearly stated word of God. Just as a constant and heedless pursuing of sin can take us out of relationship with God, so too a homosexual lifestyle (or thieving, or lying, or whatever).

Not sure what is so difficult here: the word of God is explicit. The practice of homosexuality can in no way be reconciled with abiding in Christ.

To flesh the above out a bit more – part of our definition for sin (or at least should be) is a deviation from God’s created intentions for us. Yes, sin is “missing the mark” but it involves much more than that – it would include living in such a way that is contrary to the way God created me to live. And how am I to live? In relationship with my Maker and with others. So, if God created me as a homosexual than that is a very different thing than saying God created me to be a sinner.
Does that make sense?

What if you were “born to be a rapist” as one man now claims? If one can’t support that homosexual behavior is wrong from scripture, neither can one support that rape is wrong.

I’ll break my rule of engaging Amy for just a moment to point out how ridiculous this question is.

A rapist is a predator, Amy. A homosexual is not. It’s really quite simple.

if God created a person as a homosexual than that would require us to think this through a bit harder than we have in the past. – Chad

Again, I’m not convinced yet that “God created a person” is appropriate language, but that aside – I agree. We should think this through a bit harder. Which is why I criticized Pastorboy for shallow thinking. Which is why I, and others, have made the distinction between the desire and the behavior. These are things that may churches have not thought through carefully enough.

Neil

Gotta run for the evening, friends. Thanks for the discussion – it has been fruitful.

grace and peace.

To flesh the above out a bit more – part of our definition for sin (or at least should be) is a deviation from God’s created intentions for us. Yes, sin is “missing the mark” but it involves much more than that – it would include living in such a way that is contrary to the way God created me to live. And how am I to live? In relationship with my Maker and with others. So, if God created me as a homosexual than that is a very different thing than saying God created me to be a sinner.
Does that make sense?

Only if you can demonstrate that God is somehow involved in the creation of each individual (and I’m not sure the Psalmist had this in mind). Then demonstrate that he creates individuals as homosexuals. Then demonstrate that his intention is for them to live committed lives as such. The convince me that he did all this and the church has missed it for 2,000 years – not to mention Israel before that…

“Does this mean that you and others who take that line are admitting that homosexuals are born this way?”

Of course some are born with same sex attractions, just like some are born with male and female genitalia. The words “God made us that way” is misleading since it ignores the vestiges of sin and the curse. I believe a person can be deceived into believing he is free to practice that lifestyle and still be a believer. Just like some Christians are deceived into believing they are free to have greed and seek money, and still be saved.

My thrust has always been to assess the gay community with compassion and humility, and not requiring from them what we do not require from anyone else. When a sinner gets saved in our church, not only do we not require his complete freedom from sin or even having a Biblical view of each of his sins, many churches TEACH SIN AS TRUTH! (ex: health and wealth)

We have placed the homosexual in a unique category and hold him to a significantly greater threshold and inspection than we do almost anyone else.

Of course some are born with same sex attractions

Why “of course?” Generally speaking sexual feelings don’t come up until around 9 or 10 or later, I think. How has anyone scientifically proved that people are born with same sex attractions?

You know, when Christians argue so vehemently that homosexuality is not biologically influenced it gives the impression that its a lead pipe lock that homosexuality is justified if it is biologically influenced.

Do dual genitals come out at about 9 or ten?

Just what percentage of homosexuals who say they were born that way were babies with dual genitals?

I don’t think that the fact that some babies are born with “dual genitals” proves that “homosexuals are born that way.”

The point is missed by you. If babies can be born with male and female gentitals, why cannot they be born with same sex attractions? Some male children exhibit a a noticable difference in their social interaction from a very early age, even in traditional evangelical families.

It is impossible for someone who has never had that struggle to completely understand, it is much easier to minimize or even deny the reality of that struggle by suggesting it was created by the will of that person.

Maybe they are, but the point remains that you cannot justify sin based in it being a desire.

And therein lies the rub, and therein also lies the reason why gay people are so repelled by fundamentalist religion (except those who have been tortured by it and/or have fallen into drugs and cheap sex or whatever, and then blame it on their sexuality rather than their poor choices, and run into the arms of a so-called “ex-gay” organization — every pretend “ex-gay” story is like this: “I was trying to fill mah emptiness with sex and drugs and blah blah blah, and then I realized that I could never fill the hole in my soul, but I’m going to go ahead and blame it on my sexuality rather than the fact that I abused drugs and slept with 8,000 people. Whine.”).

The fact is that it IS more than a “desire.” It doesn’t have to be introduced, like a lifelong craving for chocolate or alcohol.

It’s kind of silly, and splitting hairs really, to watch fundamentalists talk about separating the “sinner vs. the sin” and conflating the two into one, because it’s kind of irrelevant from a gay person’s perspective. Gay people understand, like many straight people who are honest, that sexuality is something that simply is. You are attracted to whom you are attracted to. The idea that it’s some sort of “temptation” from the Boogey-man is…when someone asserts that (based on no knowledge of their own), I know immediately that I’m not dealing with a serious person.

You are taking what God calls “shameful lusts, indecent acts, against what is natural” and talk about it as if it is some natural and good part of God’s creation, something that is either not a sin or not destructive like other sins.

And that’s the most threatening thing of all — and why fundamentalists hate Teh Science so much. It’s being shown to be completely natural, and anyone who knows gay people (well…not as some sort of offensive self-serving “mission project”) knows that “teh gay lifestyle,” i.e., being gay, is not inherently unhealthy at all. That’s why peoples’ minds are changing so rapidly on this issue. It’s very difficult to continue to buy into the dogma when reality tells you differently.

Did you know that those who are born again have power in them that is “like the the working of his (God’s) mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.” (Eph 1: 19-21)

Then why, as the original post shows, are Christians no more moral as a lot than the rest of society? A lot of unused power, methinks.

The practice of homosexuality can in no way be reconciled with abiding in Christ.

Millions of gay Christians and their families and friends disagree, and, indeed, exist.

To flesh the above out a bit more – part of our definition for sin (or at least should be) is a deviation from God’s created intentions for us. Yes, sin is “missing the mark” but it involves much more than that – it would include living in such a way that is contrary to the way God created me to live. And how am I to live? In relationship with my Maker and with others. So, if God created me as a homosexual than that is a very different thing than saying God created me to be a sinner.
Does that make sense?

Ta-da. You’re such a thinker, Chad. I appreciate that about you.

I would not call such a person a “homosexual”, since they do not act upon the urge (the same way I don’t call you a thief if your predominant temptation is to steal, yet you do not).

Yet that person is still, indeed, a homosexual, regardless of what you choose to call them.

You know, if we’re going to get into the whole genetics thing, then I would point out that there is much better support for genetic predisposition to pedophilia and sociopathy/psychopathy than for the genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

And that’s how you misrepresent all scientific research in one quick sentence, folks.

I asked if you could explain from scripture why raping is a sin but homosexual behavior is not. Was the above your answer?

Except that all the homosexual behavior referenced in the Bible has a predatory/promiscuous slant to it, from Sodom to Leviticus (the “lie with a man “as with a woman” part is key to understanding that verse — it had to do with the fact that women were considered “less than” in that — primitive — society, so for a man to make himself “as a woman” was the ultimate in degradation) to Paul. Every. Single. Bit.

How has anyone scientifically proved that people are born with same sex attractions?

You’re splitting hairs. Using the phrase “born that way” is merely a shorthand way of explaining that homosexual desires, like heterosexual desires, develop naturally and at the same time. Puberty for most. And yes, lots of studies have been done which suggest various predetermined biological components to sexuality.

Some male children exhibit a a noticable difference in their social interaction from a very early age, even in traditional evangelical families.

In fact, God seems, sometimes, to give an inordinate amount of gay children to Evangelical families.

Because God. Is. Hilarious.

Pastorboy,
At some point you’re going to have to admit this theology of perfection you hold for Christians is just nonsense. You’re delusional, and unaware of your own wretched state. But given the type of behavior you justify we knew that already, now we just know the source of it.

Bo Diaz

If I believed in perfection, friend, I would be in HUGE trouble.

Gay people understand, like many straight people who are honest, that sexuality is something that simply is. You are attracted to whom you are attracted to.

I have no argument with this… neither does it justify acting out such attractions. You may deny the distinction between the sin and the sinner, you may deny the distinction between the desire and the action.

But such denials do not make the distinctions vanish

Why can a believer believe, practice, and encourage others to live a lifestyle of greed and avarice, and yet someone who practices homosexuality cannot be saved? That is a double standard, as well as a departure from salvation through grace.

If there is a works precondition for salvation, it is not of grace.

“Former homosexual” is a temporary thing

I know enough of them to call BS, Evan. Sorry to let you down, but wishful thinking does not translate to reality.

Do some return to their former lifestyle? Sure. Do some Christians return to their former lifestyles? Yes, as well.

But that’s all a sideshow.

1) The Bible is pretty clear on the subject of homosexual practice (which, believe it or not, was around just as openly in the Greek and Roman empires – if not more so – as it is today) insofar as it is a sin.

2) Christians have pretty much sucked in this generation at treating it in the same manner as other sins.

3) Christians need to stop sucking at this, and treat it on a level playing field.

4) The road to “stop sucking” isn’t creating an uneven playing field in the opposite direction and/or declaring clear sin as something more ‘nuanced’…

5) If homosexual practice is a sin (which it rather clearly is, unless you want to toss out half of the Bible, at which point you ought to question your point in being a Christian in the first place) and you are a Christian who is tempted in this matter, then it is incumbent upon you to choose a path that is in line with repentance…

One place where this discussion has centered is on whether or not homosexual practice is a sin. I’ve not seen any citations from scripture that contradict what appears to be clear and consistent – from Genesis to Revelation. Whether there is an genetic link to the proclivity toward a specific sin (be it homosexual practice, alcohol, rape, psychosis, overeating, etc.) is not a ‘free pass’ to rationalize it away.

By all means we should be compassionate. By all means we should be loving. But it is neither ‘compassionate’ or ‘loving’ to “define deviancy down” by declaring that
we would ‘not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them…’

The solution to sin isn’t changing the definition. The proper solution to sin is grace, and the proper response to grace is repentance….

But such denials do not make the distinctions vanish

Except that I’m still gay, regardless of whether I’m with someone…

So there is no distinction.

This is why the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach repels the gay community.

I know enough of them to call BS, Evan. Sorry to let you down, but wishful thinking does not translate to reality.

Do some return to their former lifestyle? Sure. Do some Christians return to their former lifestyles? Yes, as well.

But that’s all a sideshow.

Um, but Chris — see, I’ve dealt with this before. Most “ex-gays” are only that way temporarily. I live in the city that headquarters the biggest “ex-gay” dog and pony show going, Love in Action, and most of them will attest that 90% or more of the people who go through the program eventually re-embrace their sexuality.

I’m sorry, but the spokesgays from Love Won Out and whatnot are laughable showponies.

You’ll see.

The solution to sin isn’t changing the definition. The proper solution to sin is grace, and the proper response to grace is repentance….

Then why is it that this is the one “sin” where the Christian church looks consistently retarded?

Why is this the one “sin” that well-meaning people legitimately disagree on?

Except that I’m still gay, regardless of whether I’m with someone…

So there is no distinction.

This is why the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach repels the gay community.

Which is why we make the distinction between the desire and the action… saying the former is not a sin while the latter is.

In other words is this conversation fruitful?

I found the conversation with Chad fruitful…

In comment 186 Rick hits the nail on the head.

For all our talk of grace……..we really don’t believe it. There are some sins, according to some of the commenter’s, that disqualify a person from God’s grace.

The whole “lifestyle” issue has been raised in relation to salvation. Saved people don’t live in _________lifestyle. Well how many sins does a lifestyle make? one? two? 50? Do I get to start over in a day? A week? A month? A year?

So it seems that salvation is not really by grace it is by keeping a certain moral code (which is decided by thousands of Protestant popes)

We are so pompous and pious at times. How easy it is to rail on the sins of others. Yet, we can be angry every day, probably more often angry than a homosexual has sex, and yet no one would say the angry man is unsaved?

How about fat people who are gluttons every day of their life? Notice how many preachers are fat? Are they unsaved because they habitually eat more than they should?

Either it of grace or it is not. If is then we need to Let God do his work, in his time, in his way….and trust me He won’t let anyone into Heaven that shouldn’t be there.

If salvation is really by works or adherence to a moral code……..then we should be judging away.

Someone is sure to say “the Bible says”….The Bible says what? Seems a lot of disagreement on that? (look at the comments) Who is the final authority? As Protestants we have no final authority. We are a law unto ourselves. We decide what God says….and we invoke God’s blessing on our interpretation.

For some of you the homosexual issue is cut and dried. Fine. Go with God For some of us it is not as clear and I am willing to give place to and at least listen to their side of the issue and take a fresh look at history and Scripture. It is possible that we could be wrong……..not that we have ever been wrong on anything else.

Now to John,

Way back in an old comment……..you said the Church never speaks on her own authority? Do you really believe that?

How do we determine that it is God speaking? Because you say your interpretation is true? Or your denominations? Who gets to be the “final answer?”

If you say God or the Holy Spirit then how do we know it is God or the Holy Spirit?

Yes, there is objective truth (heading off someone ready to brand me as some emergent heretic) but we often speak thinking we are declaring objective truth when in fact we are spouting our own opinion.

My point here is that there is a lot of judging who is and who isn’t a Christian based on differing views of “truth.” We have no pope, we have no council, we have no final authority.

So, I am going to be very careful when judging someone fit for the Lake of Fire. Far better for me to appoint a committee of one and judge Bruce and end the judgment there.

Bruce,
In #202 you nailed it. Grace is scandalous. Just look at how outraged Paul Washer is over it. The man can’t stand the fact that dirty dirty sinners are allowed in the church.

Oh, and no, I don’t “have to” tithe. Giving is something that comes from the heart, not from a book of rules.

My church happens to deserve and put to good use every penny I or anyone else gives them.

The church I grew up in has a budget of $8,000,000 a year (insane for a congregation of 1,600), and they don’t deserve a dime of it.

Phil,

I think it is a fair comment to say *some* of the resistance to Obama is attributable to racism. The internet rumors are clearly the kinds that just wouldn’t fly with a white guy.

And about Obama not knowing what he’s talking about. I must say I haven’t heard that one before. David Brooks, who I think is terrific but my liberal friends despise, has commented that Obama is clearly one of the most well-read, thoughtful, and intelligent presidential candidates we have had in a while.

There are people like Evan who have been inside the evangelical camp and now are now armed with all the many hypocricies that thrives within the church. The issue of homosexuality being a sin is clear, but the issue of showcasing it as special and remarkably offensive against the backdrop of our “normal” and “acceptable” sins is embarrassing.

We ran toward God’s grace to be saved, then we picked up God’s law and like a club of righteousness we place DEMANDS upon certain people that we don’t even place on ourselves. I fully believe grace is a matter of the heart, and since all of us practice sin every day, the defining issue is do we intend to disobey God because we do not know Him.

If the standard to get eternal life is doctrinal purity, including practicing some things that we should not, then we of all men are most miserable and doomed to hell. The path of grace is not easy, but it must be prfoundly humbling. Like the original quote, if you think you are following Christ better than others you are not.

Chad – Is the pastor of the Duke Divinity School named Mike Krzyzewski?

This is merely the latest incarnation of an old story. Humanity progresses in some way that fosters a greater understanding of who we are as people, and a certain segment (of religious people, usually) stands in the way. It’s the nature of the beast.

One of the most clever deceptions in our time is how the gay agenda has morphed people who think the lifestyle is morally detestable into a form of racism. They claim to have taken up the torch of the civil rights movements and speak as though discriminating against homosexuals is the same as racial discrimination. FALSE.

This is not a “progression” of humanity – it is degradation.

I am black (mixed actually, just like Obama) and see this as very concerning.

Rick: Why can a believer believe, practice, and encourage others to live a lifestyle of greed and avarice, and yet someone who practices homosexuality cannot be saved?

Who is saying this is the case. Both are destructive, as well as departures from God’s ways. Why are we asking a question that is explicitly outlined in Paul’s epistles?

So it seems that salvation is not really by grace it is by keeping a certain moral code

It is not a “certain moral code” we are discussing, but Biblical principles. It is imperative that the gospel, the sacrifice Christ made for us, impacts us in a way that we actually become disciples. If works are so unimportant, why does Jesus say FIRST THING to each of the 7 churches of Asia Minor: “I know your works”?

What of the parable of the Talents?

What about the several references where it says “I will reward every man according to his works.” (in other words, has the gospel actually made a difference? If not, then have you really received the gospel?)

Though, in their day, they had their scriptural justifications and interpretations and, surprise, it was the conservative elements of the faith that supported slavery and organized societal racism. – Break the Terror

As well, it was the Evangelicals of the 19th Century who championed abolitionists movements. It may have been Conservatives with faith that supported slavery, but Conservatives of the faith fought it.

And about Obama not knowing what he’s talking about. I must say I haven’t heard that one before. David Brooks, who I think is terrific but my liberal friends despise, has commented that Obama is clearly one of the most well-read, thoughtful, and intelligent presidential candidates we have had in a while… MG

I agree, and that’s what scares me about him. He’s an admitted Socialists who has advocated using the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution… and if he smart about it… YIKES!

If works are so unimportant, why does Jesus say FIRST THING to each of the 7 churches of Asia Minor: “I know your works”? – Paul C.

These letters were directed to churches. This is reinforced by the threat of removing their lampstand – which represented that particular church. Therefore, any questions, threats, comments, or compliments are directed at the churches and should not be used to build a theology of rewards/recompenses to individuals.

Paul – my point is consistency. If we say a gay person cannot be saved until he recognizes the sinfulness of his lifestyle, then we must also say none of the health and wealth adherants are saved, and neither are those who associate with them. Nobody who believes you must be baptized is saved, or who espouse communion as a means of grace.

No one who practices gluttony, or anger, or lust, or the love of money, or PRIDE, or any other sin that they have incorporated into their lifestyle can be saved. Only God knows who are His, but if it hinges upon knowing and rejecting all sins, well, heaven will be empty. Grace doesn’t just open the front door, He is the Master of the entire house to all who enter by Him.

The law kills, but grace brings life through Jesus Christ. Even the man in Corinth was saved while still practicing sin, are we saying if he hadn’t repented he would have then been lost? That is exactly what some Pharisees are saying, that if a person is really saved he will repent.

But what they fail to realize, their lives are FILLED with unrepentent sin that hides behind their self righteousness. In the end, heaven will be filled with redeemed sinners who made it their entirely on grace and IN SPITE of their post salvation lives of compromise. EVERYONE.

What would be the other side of this question? Would you say that there is life apart from God? I am trying to understand the implications of saying God is not the creator of individual lives….

I would say there is no life outside apart from God in the macro sense… but I’m not sure on the micro/individual sense. What is God’s role in the conception process is another way of putting it? If we say this of the homosexual, what of those “created with” physical and/or mental deformities?

The law kills, but grace brings life through Jesus Christ.

Adherence to ceremonial law (outlined in Colossians and other epistles) does end up destroying, I agree. But adhering to Christ’s laws bring life.

I honestly would ask you to reconcile this for me – scripture below. If you reduce this to Paul’s “opinion” (as Evan) does, then I have nothing else to say. If, on the other hand, we are built upon the foundation of the apostles, prophets and Christ, then throw out contradicting reasoning:

Eph 5:5 (AMP): For be sure of this: that no person practicing sexual vice or impurity in thought or in life, or one who is covetous [who has lustful desire for the property of others and is greedy for gain]–for he [in effect] is an idolater–has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

I fully believe in grace. Grace is what has reached down and began this work of salvation in my life. That grace must be extended to others, but it ceases to become grace when sin and sinful lifestyle is tolerated as OK.

All throughout the NT we are admonished to put aside the old lifestyle, not justify it. We are to mortify the deeds of the flesh, as Paul puts it. Do we all slip and fall? Sure, everyday.

Can we backslide so far that we can lose out with God? Yes.

The verse in Ephesians refers to the unregenerate, but it in no way insinuates that people who covet cannot be saved. We all have done that. How many episodes of covetousness does it take to make a covetous person?

Our saved lives reflect the change that comes with regeneration, but they are not a perfect revelation of salvation by grace, just like a good Mormon’s life is not a perfect reflection of his salvation.

We will never understand grace…we just cannot.

But it is also not withint the letters to the seven churches either.

Sure it is (Rec 22:12). The entire book of Revelation was to the 7 churches of Asia. Chapters 1-3 were introducing the book.

Or, use Romans 2:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Works are absolutely important.

I think it is a fair comment to say *some* of the resistance to Obama is attributable to racism. The internet rumors are clearly the kinds that just wouldn’t fly with a white guy.

And, I don’t deny that, but to try and pin all resistance on some sort of latent racism doesn’t fly either.

And about Obama not knowing what he’s talking about. I must say I haven’t heard that one before. David Brooks, who I think is terrific but my liberal friends despise, has commented that Obama is clearly one of the most well-read, thoughtful, and intelligent presidential candidates we have had in a while.

I do suspect he is rather bright in many respects. He’s obviously a great orator, but I still don’t get the idea that he’s a brilliant tactician or thinker. For the most part what I hear when I hear him speak is the same old rhetoric based on class warfare and populist promising that the left’s been using for years.

The fact that he keeps on touting the line, “95% of Americans will get a tax break” is an obvious falsehood. Somewhere between 35%-40% of American pay no income taxes right now. So either he doesn’t understand the tax system or he’s lying. Neither of those are the mark of a brilliance.

God created everything, so in that context it is generally appropriate. But to suggest that God designs and creates an infant with an excruciatingly painful condition that allows him to suffer intensely for 4 months and finally die is absurd.

If God created an infant like that, then why do those who prideful tout their view of God’s sovereignty do everything they can medically to save him? They would be working against the will of God, unless God’s will was financial strain, emotional agony, marital stress, and a devestating episode that will remain for a lifetime.

God heals those wounds, but I cannot believe God orchestrates such scenarios. It is a mystery.

Could this because of the aggression with which the agenda is pushed?

Well, yes, probably. The issue is that the proper Christian response to aggression isn’t more aggression. So what has happened is that aggression has been escalating and now it’s at such a level that it will probably take a literal act of God for many Christians to see the error of their ways.

Phil – he probably means 95% of tax paying Americans. Your point is hair splitting.

The Book of Revelation cannot be used as doctrinal without Pauline foundation. The images and metaphors are often distorted tocontour to various doctrinal views.

What would “scientific proof” look like as it pertains to a person’s attractions?

Rick: The images and metaphors are often distorted tocontour to various doctrinal views.

You can get away with this when talking about many elements in Revelation, but it is not the case with Chapters 2 & 3 which are pretty straightforward. To dismiss it outright as parabolic would be a far stretch.

Bo: Entire generations of Christians have lived and died without recognizing the sin of their society as sin, in your theology they should have “backslided out of God”.

Not sure I understand this statement at all. Please clarify.

Bo, using scripture, please demonstrate how my view appears Catholic in any way. Explain how I have used the scriptures I mentioned in some sort of distorted way to justify my position.

Go easy with all this “Socialist” talk – I live in Toronto (Canada).

I would say there is no life outside apart from God in the macro sense… but I’m not sure on the micro/individual sense. What is God’s role in the conception process is another way of putting it? If we say this of the homosexual, what of those “created with” physical and/or mental deformities?

Neil,
This is an insightful question. I need to chew on it for a bit.

thanks.

The problem with “works” salvation, and that is what is being advocated by a few people here, is that no one can tell me what the works standard is? No one can give me the exact list of works I need to do? Do I only follow the NT list, the OT list or both? Do I have to follow the “Church standards” at the Baptist Church I attend or the “holiness code” at the Holiness Church I attend? How many works and how often?

Bo is quite correct to point out that there is this thinking that at the point of salvation all past sins are accounted and atoned for but………it is up to me after that. Work Work. Work.

Every sin past, present, and future has been atoned for. If my lack of doing a work is a sin it has been atoned for. Either Jesus paid the sin debt or he didn’t.

No one would deny that works are important. I strive and fail every day to be a good man,father, grandfather, husband, and citizen. I am sure I sin daily in thought, word, and deed.

And that is why I need the salvation that a gracious God gives. He doesn’t say “here ya go Bruce…..and then say work like hell to keep from going there. What a cruel God….. To give us grace, knowing there is no other hope for us, and then to expect us to work our way to heaven. Of course that is not the God of the Bible………it is the God of religion. (and sadly the God of many Evangelicals)

SO please tell me how do I KNOW when I am doing enough works to satisfy the God foreman?

Every sin past, present, and future has been atoned for. If my lack of doing a work is a sin it has been atoned for. Either Jesus paid the sin debt or he didn’t.
I’ve been meditating on Matthew 11:28-30 for the past several days:

Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”

And until you grasp that Christ did it all, past present and future and none of it depends on you to insure your future salvation this verse is at best an ethereal future promise that won’t matter till we stop breathing, or at worst is a sick joke.

Thank God for the work of Christ.

Bo – unfortunately, I think you are misstating my thoughts completely.

I disagree with the “once-saved-always-saved” camp that does not have any basis in scripture. Do you believe that once a person receives Christ, they cannot be lost?

I don’t need to use scripture to show how your view is very much Catholic in its view of sin.

That’s your problem, I think.

The scriptures – gospel, epistles included – are clear that there is human responsibility in salvation.

Bo – kindly explain how you see the parable of the talents (Matt 25). All received grace didn’t they?

Or please explain the meaning of Christ cursing the barren fig tree?

Please explain Romans 2:6.

Also, in case you believe a person can’t backslide once they’ve received Christ, what about:

2 Peter 2: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Please explain Revelation 2-3: “I know your works” (and then look at the warnings for continuing in sin).

Please explain Rev 22:12

And these are just a very few scriptures reflecting the importance placed on us. Indeed, the yoke is easy, because we are yoked to Christ, but there is still a yoke.

Amy,

There is only one kind of grace, God’s grace. Free, unmerited and gained by accepting it.

I have no problem with the “teaching us” part of grace. My problem comes when “men” determine what the lessons are and then tell me unless I get 100% of the questions right that I am going to hell.

I am not sure that many Evangelicals realize how tangled up they are in a works mentality when it comes to the grace of God.

Amy what is this “grace” that works within you? How can you/we know that it God working? The ODM’s slaughter the body of Christ with their words and they claim to do so according to the grace within them. Presidents lead countries into war that result in thousands being killed, yet some Presidents do so according to the grace within them. (God’s will, God’s Direction,God’s leading, etc, etc)

Our focus on works should be on the works of our own life and not the lives of others.

Bruce

Bruce: As as the tax breaks………Obama is simply using the language everyone else uses. Bush did it when he gave everyone a tax rebate……..(wink wink dirty little secret but NOT to anyone who didn’t pay income tax).

Not so.

As I am totally and permently disabed in the eyes of the Veterans Adminstration I get my income from the compensation I receive from the VA. That entitles me to Social Securtiy disabilty. That is my only income and neither is taxable. So, I pay NO imcome taxes and yet, I got the tax rebate…

Nor do I pay property taxes.

I happen to believe (since you assumed I believed in no god but myself, rather than asking) that God gave us our minds and our perspectives for a reason and that God’s final communication with humanity was not in the pages a book written and cobbled together by a specific people with a specific agenda, but rather that revelation is an ongoing thing.

Again, Evan, you recognize no higher authority than yourself. You do whatever is right in your own eyes.

P.S. The tithing was a joke.

“To practice any sin willingly and continuously, to redefine it, to give it special treatment by saying that it is “natural” and something that even God can not help a person overcome, to even tolerate those who teach such things . . . is to deny what grace really is . . . is to deny the power of God, and is to potentially create an idol we call god who is not God at all.”

And yes, God’s grace can cover that as well. To define God’s grace is to limit it, and to suggest that my works prove God’s grace is also to frame it in works.

“Grace is not just something that God pours out on us so that he can overlook our sins while he hands out tickets to heaven.”

In a very real and profound sense, that is EXACTLY what He did through Christ our Lord. You have an extremely inflated view of your post salvation life, it is in daily and dire need of the very grace that brought you into Christ.

Do you believe that once a person receives Christ, they cannot be lost?

Yes. This was what I was taught and I’ve come to accept it. Once a person “says” they have accepted Christ I have to take them at their word. I believe God has the ability to keep one in the fold so to speak.

When one, once they have claimed they received Christ, falls into the condition we may perceive as lost, before I would consider them being a lost “Christian” I would first question if their salvation was genuine.

I firmly believe one can’t lose something they never had. And I think many can fall into that category. That being said I would question if indeed it was really a Christian that was lost.

My mistake, Bruce, I thought you were speaking about the last round of “stimulus” checks. I too was left out on the first round, sorry for the mistake…..

Phil: Well, you do have a valid point there, Bruce. Both parties are too socialist for my liking. Both are full of people who seem to think they know how to spend our money better than we do.

I would agree to that line of thought too. It does not do anybody any good to label Obama a socialist, all it does it shut what could otherwise be a discussion.

He IS a liberal Democrat, and there’s nothing wrong with that, anymore than it is to be a liberal Republican. Yes, there are some.

Am I allowed to disagree with that line of thought, yes. I don’t agree with the liberal ideology and that’s OK becuase it’s OK for a liberal to desagree with conservatism.

There’s enough rhetoric to go around on BOTH sides of the issues.

There just as much BS being put out on Obama/Biden as there is McCain/Palin. And I’m fed up with the half truths from BOTH sides.

I will never understand why believers would balk at a socialist slant and embrace a capitalist one. Capitalism suggests hard work and personal ingenuity, while socialism suggest being sensitive to the needs of everyone.

Since salvation is not by works, and since God makes such a big deal about caring for the poor, which model best illustrates the heart of God?

OK, #271 is my comment, not my wife’s. I was under her Firefox account. Sorry about that.
To follow up, I would ask what is the difference between calling Obama a Socialist and McCain a capitalist? I mean a spade’s a spade, right?
or is it a shovel? What’s the difference?

Joe,

You are correct about labels. The problem with the current use of the socialist label is that it is loaded with a lot of other baggage.

My wife and I were talking about this last night…….All communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists.

The McCarthy underbelly in the McCain/Palin/Right Wing use of socialist is that Obama is a communist. (a word that is still feared in this country) I vividly remember crawling under my school desk as a 6 year old boy during a school drill concerning protecting ourselves if the communists attacked us. (with nuclear weapons no less, not sure how getting under my desk would help ) This happened 45 years ago……..and I still vividly remember it. So McCain and Palin are appealing to a deeply rooted fear in many of my generation and older.

Conversation is important. I need conversation with people of all shapes, sizes and ideology. If I don’t have these conversations, and I only surround myself with those I agree with (a key tenet of fundamentalism) then I quickly assume I am absolutely right. End of story.

The McCarthy underbelly in the McCain/Palin/Right Wing use of socialist

You just made my case, Bruce, another label that doesn’t serve anybody well…….

Perhaps, because I have no memory of crawling under my desk for anything other than attempting to convince Becky Fairchild to kiss me,

That begs the question…..did you succeed?

Just to be clear, socialism refers to state-owned means of production. Higher taxes or more government regulatory mechanisms are not “socialist.” Obama is not, therefore, a socialist.

Obama as a socialist line is just a lie being propogated by the right wing of the Republican party. The fact that so many people buy it is nothing short of frightening.

You have an extremely inflated view of your post salvation life, it is in daily and dire need of the very grace that brought you into Christ.

Where did I imply that I don’t have a daily and dire need of the very grace that brought me to Christ?

But it’s not a grace that says, “Rename the sin if you can’t refrain from it.” That’s the “grace” of a powerless god.

It’s a grace that says I, God, have the power to help you overcome sin. To see it as sin. To help you desire what I want instead of what you want.

To recognize that GOD, not I, has power to enable me to see my sin as sin and to detest it and turn from it is simply to recognize God for who He is.

McCain has Keating

He was cleared of any impropriety……just to throw a statement out like that is to imply there was some wrong doing. Albeit he was criticized for poor judgment(his relationship with Keating). This is just the thing I have a problem with, half truths. It’s a poor comparison, Bruce.

Before you think it, I am NO big fan of McCain.

We’ll have another “Keating” type hearing if anybody has the nerve to pursue those in the congress and senate who had a hand in how Fannie and Freddie were manipulated.

The reason I refuse to support Obama has nothing to do with race, but talk like this is trying turn it into a racial issue. I just happen to think the guy is a big windbag who has no idea what he’s talking about most of the time, and I would think the same way about a white guy who said the same thing.

Well, Phil, I wasn’t saying that all people who oppose Obama do so because they fear the idea of a black president. Some do, though, when they get right down to the heart of that. A lot of the myths that have arisen on the right about Obama have served as convenient covers for peoples’ true racism.

He’s an admitted Socialists who has advocated using the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution… and if he smart about it… YIKES!

Wow, that’s a radical interpretation of the text.

Find me THAT quote on Conservapedia, and I’ll laugh at you for using Conservapedia.

Wow – miss most of a day, miss a lot.

Randomness:

I think it is a fair comment to say *some* of the resistance to Obama is attributable to racism. The internet rumors are clearly the kinds that just wouldn’t fly with a white guy.

Though polling suggests that there’s actually more ‘reverse racism’ going on – voting for him specifically because he is black. I would agree with Geraldine Ferraro’s assessment that if BO were white, he wouldn’t have made it out of the early primaries (i.e. a reverse-racial prejudice). I would be willing to bet money that, 4 years from now, should Obama win next week, that we’ll be updating Malcolm Gladwell’s “Warren Harding Error”* to call it the “Barack Obama Error”.

*In his book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell has suggested that Harding’s political success was based on his appearance, essentially that he “looked like a president”. Gladwell argues that the first impression of Harding outweighed his intellectual and other deficiencies, and refers to the combination as the ‘Warren Harding Error’ in how people make decisions.
_______________________

The issue of homosexuality being a sin is clear, but the issue of showcasing it as special and remarkably offensive against the backdrop of our “normal” and “acceptable” sins is embarrassing.

Rick sums up all of yesterday’s discussion in a single sentence.
_______________________

Is it appropriate to talk of God creating anyone… since any such reference will lead to God creating sin/evil… whether on the scale of a Hitler or not.

If you subscribe to the Hebrew view of sin/evil as chaos (or a “lack of God”), then it is not genetics which determine outcomes, but the choices made by the person (which may be partially shaped by genetics and environment, but may also be overcome) and whether or not they accept God’s grace.
__________________

The fact that he keeps on touting the line, “95% of Americans will get a tax break” is an obvious falsehood. Somewhere between 35%-40% of American pay no income taxes right now. So either he doesn’t understand the tax system or he’s lying. Neither of those are the mark of a brilliance.

You’ve forgot option #3 of taking money from those who do pay taxes and giving it to those who pay not taxes. Spreading the wealth around.

So, techincally, only 40-55% get a tax break, while the 35-40% who pay no taxes get free money for doing nothing.
____________________

So I’m not saying that the church needs to bless homosexual sex, but I don’t think it should deal differently with it than with other sins. It’s just that it’s become an easy target.

I would also note that, while some parts of the church have “led the charge” against homosexuality, a good majority are more reactive (i.e. accepting of individuals who struggle with the temptation, but refusing to declassify it as sin when pressed for an answer by seekers and/or folks outside the church) and then get highlighted as being ‘homophobic’ or the like…

In short, I don’t know of a whole lot of churches in this part of the country that go out of their way to bring up the subject.
______________

What is disturbing about the tendency to treat the “left” side more favorably is that the “left” side is at times clearly unscriptural.

Unfortunately, the “left” side tends to be much better at actual dialog and searching for understanding, whereas the “right” side too often relies more heavily on wild hypotheticals and misapplication of scripture.

If you’ll notice, I keep asking for Scriptural support to acceptance of homosexual practice, and the crickets keep chirping, while all sorts of humanistic rationalizations keep getting tossed into the mix.

I don’t see that we’ve backed away from supporting our contentions from scripture, whether or not the antagonist is from the “right” or the “left”.

Additionally, I would suspect a rather strong bias (at least within myself) that the “right” ought to know darn well better, so patience with highly legalistic stakes in the ground is often thin, resulting in my ignoring the offending parties (since there’s not really even a reasonable facade of listening/discussion) rather than engaging in discussions which are the theological equivalent of “how many decks are there on the Starship Enterprise?”. Or, following the method Jesus used, attacking legalism with a healthy dose of mockery (see ‘camels and gnats’) and impatient rebuke.

To be short – permissiveness tend to allow hope for a cure, but legalism tends to be terminal.

To illustrate, via real (and simulated) response:

Chad- This is an insightful question. I need to chew on it for a bit.

vs.

Amy- What about [insert wildly irrelevant hypothetical that makes her target look like Hitler's bedmate]? What about that?

Perhaps if some folks from the “right” (and there are/have been some here – like Keith and John H) were as respectful as Chad, we’d not be having this conversation. (Noting that I put up with about as much crap from Evan as I do with you, amy, which is to say, none. You’re often different sides of the same coin when it comes to dialogue here. I would note though, that you’ve been much more reasonable in many of your comments in this thread – like #124 and #251)
___________________

Keep spreading the lies about Obama being a Socialist.

No lies. “Spreading the wealth around” without any means testing (i.e. across-the-board tax cuts paid to folks who owe no taxes vs. targeted welfare/workfare) is, by definition, socialist. Let’s take Obama’s own words from his first memoir re: his admiration of Marx and ideas of social justice.

Every serious long-term analysis of his healthcare plan shows one of two scenarios – a) a two-tiered system in which everyone with private health insurance has access and everyone with government insurance sits in line for 6 months; or b) a single-payer system whose only positive benefit is that Canadians will no longer desire to cross the border in search of adequate healthcare. In a nutshell, socialist.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, why be upset when someone calls it a duck? He is a socialist, and (feeling almost as awful as I did writing #139) I have to (mostly) agree with James Dobson’s view of a future under Obama. The only consolation is that our help comes from the Lord, not the government, so even if he and his Dem/terrorist pals screw up the country royally, it will just make bring a Christian a more personally difficult proposition (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the church).

In your world only Liberals want to rewrite the Constitution

Actually, no. In the world of conservatism, the Constitution should be honored in its intent, and changes to law and social policy should be enacted through the legislature, not the courts.

The fact is 95% of American will pay the same or less tax under Obama. Only those in the top 5% will pay more.

Which isn’t really true, either, since short-term sheltering of profits isn’t all that difficult for those in the top 5% (who primarily profit from taking earnings on wise investment). What will happen, instead, is a good deal of price-inflation as small businesses and corporations pass on the higher taxes to their consumers. So, in the end, it is the 95% being screwed via a Rube Goldberg mechanism while businesses close down or ship jobs to countries with fair tax structures.

I wonder how many of us cashed and spent the Bush Economic stimulus check?(both times) Seemed pretty socialist to me.

It’s not socialist to return money to people that overpaid it in the first place.

It’s also not socialist – to use means-tested distribution (like paying medical/psychological disability, workfare, college loans, etc.).

Taxation by nature is a redistribution of wealth. It is the taking of money from one person and giving it to another.

To a degree – which is why I support a FAIR tax system which scraps all other forms of taxation. It does not disproportionately affect the poor, and neither does it allow for tax loopholes or back-door taxation. As a side benefit, it creates an incentive for legal immigration and a disincentive for illegal immigration, and it collects taxes from earners whose income is earned “under the table” (i.e. drugs, prostitution, unreported cash payment, etc.).

Based on what Powell said America has always been socialist.

Not based on a reasonable definition of “socialism”, which is currently “best” embodied in a number of EU countries.
_________________

Wonders why “socialism” is even a bad word.

Don’t have time to go into all of the nuances, but:
1) Creating a disincentive to work for honest gain.
2) Creation of the government as provider, rather than God through personal provision.
3) Legalized theft from the industrious for the benefit of the shiftless.
4) Seen by social scientists as the ideal means of removing the illogical need for religion

just for starters…
______________________

I pay real estate tax, another socialist tax program. We homeschool….15 years. I don’t benefit from the schools at all……..but I pay anyway. My income is taken and redistributed to others. I know someone is going to say “schools are for the common good” Great, so is helping the poor with income redistribution.

This is why I support school vouchers (which would also reimburse for home schooling), which is continually blocked by the dems, because they’re in the pocket of the teachers’ unions, who don’t like the idea of pay for performance, qualification standards, competition, etc.
___________________

The family unit is socialist, the father earns the money and spreads/provides the wealth for the others. The gospel message is one of socialism, Christ has all the redemption and spreads it around to those who ask, who by the way, are unworthy to receive it.

The difference, Rick, is that the family unit, the church and the gospel are all voluntary when it comes to benevolence.

I will never understand why believers would balk at a socialist slant and embrace a capitalist one. Capitalism suggests hard work and personal ingenuity, while socialism suggest being sensitive to the needs of everyone.

Since salvation is not by works, and since God makes such a big deal about caring for the poor, which model best illustrates the heart of God?

Socialism, as practiced by the government, is not a voluntary enterprise.

Capitalism does not seek to replace God as the benefactor of the people, whereas that is the philosophical purpose of socialism.

We, the church, should be “socialist” in that we should voluntarily provide all of the aid needed by the poor, the sick, the widow and the orphan.

We don’t need the government to be the god of the people….

Just to be clear, socialism refers to state-owned means of production. Higher taxes or more government regulatory mechanisms are not “socialist.” Obama is not, therefore, a socialist.

The level of regulation he’s proposed to this point, along with the basic proposition that the company’s profits are “owed” to the government would suggest that he does believe in state management of means of production.

When he talks about ‘creating jobs’, the ones he’s the most specific about are all government programs, spending tax money. The last time I checked, the government was the largest employer in most states, and is the largest US employer…

As to rewriting the Constitution………you are kidding right? One of the planks of Conservatism is to CONTROL the Supreme Court. Both sides want to control the Supreme Court. In your world only Liberals want to rewrite the Constitution….

Both parties wish to stack the Court – that’s how the game is played. But what Obama said is

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

What Obama is lamenting here is that the Warren led Supreme Court did not “break with the Constitution”

This is significantly different than trying to pack the Court – it is asking the Court to break restrainst placed their by the founding fathers.

Right, because federal income taxes are the ONLY KIND of taxes.

Life in the conservative mind is so interesting…

Well, I already covered this up above, but FICA is the only thing in the discussion, really. If we want to start talking about things like Social Security and Medicare withholding, that’s something else, but no one is talking about that. Technically, SS isn’t supposed to be a tax – it’s supposed to be pay in and pay out program.

By the way, Obama has already promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire, so pretty much rates will go up across the board. So even if he does manage to cut below his magical $250K, it will probably not amount to a real cut to many people at all. I believe the baseline rates Obama is using are the pre-Bush tax cut rates.

Colin Powell was correct: Taxation by nature is a redistribution of wealth. It is the taking of money from one person and giving it to another.

Exactly – and Obama wants to do this on a scale unheard of here-to-for… sure he say only the top 5%, but that a class envy ploy. He’ll also raise taxes on businesses making more than $250k… which, of course will just be passed on to the rest of us… so we suffer as well.

If the Gov’t wants more money – lower taxes, it brings in increased revenue every time. The only reasons I can see for raising taxes are 1) punative, 2) control over people’s lives.

Neil

If you are against government intervention into our lives then you must have hated the Bush presidency since he expanded its scope, power, and financing.

yeah, I’ve not been a big fan of “compassionate conservatism” = expanded government…

I would agree with Geraldine Ferraro’s assessment that if BO were white, he wouldn’t have made it out of the early primaries (i.e. a reverse-racial prejudice).

Never start a sentence with “I would agree with Geraldine Ferraro’s…”

She’s such a wingnut.

4- sex is a good gift of god. It’s sinfulness is not bound up in homosexuality or heterosexuality but in the qualities of that relationship and the boundaries of covenantal fidelity.

I agree it is a gift… but the sinfulness being bound up in the quality of the relationship is just not biblical… it sounds good, but it’s not biblical.

Nowhere does the Bible make any distinction between types of homosexual sex – let alone that based on quality if relationship. No where does the Bible even offer a hint of covenental relationship of marriage between those of the same sex .

The only difference is that Capitalism allows greed to run unabated by more people for longer than other economic systems.

It also allows more freedom for individuals and churches to intervene in providing for those in need and reduces people’s dependence on the government to provide…

Never start a sentence with “I would agree with Geraldine Ferraro’s…”

Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn (which was my point in quoting her…)

It also allows more freedom for individuals and churches to intervene in providing for those in need and reduces people’s dependence on the government to provide…

it also reduces the power of Gov’t – which is what raising taxes is really all about. When the Gov’t controls how much of your stuff you can keep, they control your behavior.

Is it not curious that the issue of money, specifically mine, engenders much heat while the abortion issue has become almost benign?

Nowhere does the Bible make any distinction between types of homosexual sex –

If I am not mistaken this applies to heterosexual sex as well, does it not?

Just thinking out loud here….
Are we suggesting that certain sexual actions are ontologically sinful or evil?

Neil, you say:

but the sinfulness being bound up in the quality of the relationship is just not biblical

I’m not so sure. I would argue that everything is about relationship and the quality of that relationship – whether that be a relationship between self and God or self and others. And central to the goodness vs. sinfulness of that relationship is the quality or inequality it embodies – i.e. is this an abusive, idolatrous relationship or is it one in which God is the mediator and provider?

4- sex is a good gift of god. It’s sinfulness is not bound up in homosexuality or heterosexuality but in the qualities of that relationship and the boundaries of covenantal fidelity.

Whattttt? Where in the world do you get this stuff? Absolutely amazing!

The people currently engaged in the vogue prejudice of the time never see the parallels between their actions and those of the bigots that came before.

Very eloquent, but herein you serve my point. Homosexuality and being black (which I happen to be) are not the same. This is the most ridiculous parallel I’ve ever heard, yet it’s been successfully pushed that people actually believe it.

I agree that it should not be an isolated sin (as if it is the most outrageous in the list), but it does appear to be a sin that people are very successful in justifying. Case in point in some of the comments here (especially Chad’s above, unless I somehow read it wrong, and if so I apologize).

Whattttt? Where in the world do you get this stuff? Absolutely amazing!

Paul C – I am sure I picked it up from some papist

Paul – I do not hold it against you that you are black, I hold it against you that you live in Canada!

Nowhere does the Bible make any distinction between types of homosexual sex –

If I am not mistaken this applies to heterosexual sex as well, does it not?

I’d say it does; there is rape, incest, adultery, premarital – all are differnt types of heterosexual sex (though they can be preform homosexuallly as well) spoken of, and called sin, in the Bible

Just thinking out loud here….
Are we suggesting that certain sexual actions are ontologically sinful or evil?

Now you’ve open the “Why does God call this a sin” can-o-worms. The only answer I have would be that God clearly called homosexual sex sin.

Well a little clarification. Our capitalistic system encourages competition which the success of that competition is measured by the bottom line. Which encourages greed as lived out by the WorldComs, Tycos, WaMu, Enrons, National City, etc.. Because as long as the bottom line looks good. No questions asked.

But capitalism is just the mechanism that allow people to freely buy and freely sell. Blaming capitalism for it’s abuse is like blaming the car when a drunk driver hits a pedestrian.

Paul – I do not hold it against you that you are black, I hold it against you that you live in Canada!

Thanks Rick – sometimes we hold it against ourselves as well. It’s always fun being a minority within a minority…

Gotta run for the evening, friends.

grace and peace.

I’m not so sure. I would argue that everything is about relationship and the quality of that relationship – whether that be a relationship between self and God or self and others. And central to the goodness vs. sinfulness of that relationship is the quality or inequality it embodies – i.e. is this an abusive, idolatrous relationship or is it one in which God is the mediator and provider?

On a certain level I agree, in that an abusive marriage, for example, can be sinful… that said, it just doesn’t play when it comes to homosexuality and sin – no where does the Bible give any hint that any homosexual act is acceptable… for any reason… in any type or quality of relationship.

Chad, if what I read I interpreted correctly then you are basically saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuality relationships as long as they exist within the bounds of marriage. Correct me if I’m wrong – that’s what I understood here.

Chad – this is what I understood you to be saying as well.

Man, miss a couple of hours @.info and one sure can get behind…

dang!!

3) Legalized theft from the industrious for the benefit of the shiftless.
4) Seen by social scientists as the ideal means of removing the illogical need for religion

Ouch. It’s really sad, considering the fact that what many of the commenters here do for a living is sit around analyzing the Bible and yammering about it, then calling it honest work, to hear old white men grumbling about the “shiftless.”

Capitalism isn’t the noblest endeavor since the Garden of Eden. Much of our current economic condition is based on the worst of what Capitalism entails/allows; greed. As does socialist and communistic systems. The only difference is that Capitalism allows greed to run unabated by more people for longer than other economic systems.

If you think giving my money (taxes) to people (banks) who misused my money (savings) to save me from having money (earnings) problems is not socialist then I don’t know what is.

Heh, exactly. The problem with this country is that people of a certain age are indeed still overcome with Communist fear that was bred into them, and the people who tend to cry “soshulizm!” tend to be linear and dualistic thinkers who can’t conceive of the American liberal concept that it’s not a “one or the other” game, but that rather both purely capitalistic and purely socialist systems have their inherent flaws, and that the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Nowhere does the Bible make any distinction between types of homosexual sex – let alone that based on quality if relationship.

No distinction because it only addresses one kind…dominating/abusive.

Simple answers for simple questions.

It also allows more freedom for individuals and churches to intervene in providing for those in need and reduces people’s dependence on the government to provide…

Yeah, but too many churches use their resources smuggling bibles into China and supporting missionaries abroad (”I have a twinkie, but you have to give me your soul first”), and they cannot be counted on for ANYTHING useful in the world.

Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn (which was my point in quoting her…)

OH NO YOU SAID THE ACORN WORD AND ACORN IS THE DIRTY WORD THAT NONE OF THE WINGNUTS HAD EVER HEARD OF BEFORE JOHN MCCAIN STARTED HUFFING ABOUT IT BUT NOW IT IS THE BOOGIEMAN OH NONONONONONO!

Hey, Sarah Palin has a pretty whacked out Pentecostal Pastor….is that a better analogy?

And also that utter freak witch hunter who started his career by driving a woman out of their village in Africa, and then he laid hands on Sarah Palin and made her governor of Alaska. Every member of Sarah Palin’s religious circle makes Jeremiah Wright look utterly mainstream.

Whattttt? Where in the world do you get this stuff? Absolutely amazing!

Not from that hilarious Jesus is Savior website, which is why you haven’t heard it.

Very eloquent, but herein you serve my point. Homosexuality and being black (which I happen to be) are not the same.

The late Coretta Scott King would disagree, and so would her late husband. I’m sorry, but I have a major sore spot for minorities who are bigoted against other minorities. It’s a stain on the black community.

This is the most ridiculous parallel I’ve ever heard, yet it’s been successfully pushed that people actually believe it.

Because you’re a bigot, just like the people who oppressed half your ancestors. And you don’t like science. And you think that Jesus is Savior 1996 Geocities website is a credible source of information.

Thanks Rick – sometimes we hold it against ourselves as well. It’s always fun being a minority within a minority…

Imagine being a gay black man. But you can’t, because you don’t seem to be a “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” sort.

Yeah, but too many churches use their resources smuggling bibles into China and supporting missionaries abroad (”I have a twinkie, but you have to give me your soul first”), and they cannot be counted on for ANYTHING useful in the world.

I think I may owe Amy an apology.

Let’s what useless things churches have down:
-founded universities
-founded hospitals
-oppossed sati
-tended to lepers
-tended to orphans
-trained women
-fed the hungry
-oppossed slavery

Yeah, I owe Amy an apology…

Ouch. It’s really sad, considering the fact that what many of the commenters here do for a living is sit around analyzing the Bible and yammering about it, then calling it honest work, to hear old white men grumbling about the “shiftless.”

I don’t know who you’re talking about really, but from the best of my knowledge, there are only a few of the regular commenters who are full-time pastors, if that’s what you mean by “analyzing the Bible and yammering about it”. I mean if that’s your idea of what a pastor does, well, that’s just plain ignorant.

Most of us have full-time jobs in other fields, though. But of course everyone who disagrees with your enlightened worldview is just blabbering.

It’s also pretty funny to hear Chris L. referred to as an “old white man”…

It is so sad to see the love of Jesus Christ, supremely exemplified on that inconceivable cross, transformed into a disdain and attack on the very sinners for which Jesus died. I still am looking for a word that does such self righteousness justice, a word that can describe the hubris by which a sinner, rescued by grace, turns and spits upon the very crowd he was just culled out from by that love motivated grace.

Could there be any greater misrepresentation of the gospel? The practice of homosexuality seems to bother some believers more than the state of their souls. I was just a vanilla sinner involved in normal heterosexual promiscuity, so I enjoyed the loving outreach of evangelism from the mainstream church. Had I been gay I would have received the vitriol expressed by the author of the original quote.

It is easy to condemn. It is easy to compromise. It is difficult to exhibit God’s love to everyone, regardless of their sin while still believing what the Scriptures teach. That is the tension by which we must journey, accused of compromise by some and accused of law by others. In the end, we must err on the side of grace.

Equating race with a sexual practice then calling those who disagree bigots is simply amazing…

Yes, well, you don’t understand, so please don’t hurt yourself trying.

Yes, well, you don’t understand, so please don’t hurt yourself trying.

I understand Evan, all who disagree with you have some kind of issue – either a bigot, or a homophobe, or just too stupid and unevolved to attain to your level…

I understand Evan, all who disagree with you have some kind of issue – either a bigot, or a homophobe, or just too stupid and unevolved to attain to your level…

When the person with whom you’re arguing holds an untenable, unsupported opinion, such as the one you and Paul are promoting, it’s difficult to find “common ground.”

People would respect fundamentalists (and yes, you are) more if they backed up their beliefs with more reality and less “this is what I think the Bible says.”

Evan,

I will give you credit for hanging around for abuse and dishing some out too. You are my favorite gay guy…..cuz I don’t really know any other Here in the rural Midwest gays still stay in the closet most of the time.

I am sure this discussion feels like an attack on your sexuality. I would feel that way too if the subject was heterosexuality rather than homosexuality.

This got me to wondering……..how our idea of “moral” sex changes with time. Certain sexual practices, even within the heterosexual relationship, were considered sin at one time. The whole notion of the “missionary position” suggests such a history. Forget the homosexual issue for a moment, and think of how you and I, as heterosexuals ,would respond if our sexual practices were attacked and considered unchristian? You had oral WHAT? You sinner.

In fact, it was not that many years ago that sex for any other reason than procreation was considered a sin. Even now some Catholics and Southern Baptists (according to recent news) believe any form of birth control is sin. Talk about taking the FUN out of sex. (Hey I did my procreate part-6 kids)

I remember ministers, usually youth ministers, telling us boys that masturbation was a sin against God. Maybe some in this discussion still think it is, hopefully most people do not.

All I am saying is that Evan has been a pretty good sport considering the subject and the heat it generated, AND that our sexual mores have changed over the years. All those old time preachers said “thus saith the Lord” and they were wrong. As we discuss sexuality let’s be aware that we might/could be wrong on an issue. I realize some of you think the homosexual issue is a slam dunk Thus saith the Lord. Perhaps………but I am not convinced. I have questions. If that makes me a liberal, an unbeliever, fine. After your pronouncement…..I still have questions

I continue to read on the subject and talk with any homosexual I come in contact with (like my gay cousin from New York) I want to understand.

Maybe I will eventually come away saying “this is sin” but I am not ready to make that pronouncement.

Yea, Bruce, I like Evan also. Not because he’s gay, just because he has evolved here and altered his approach to accommodate ancient people like me. I appreciate that about you, Evan, and many of the observations you have about the church are accurate and I take them to heart. In the last year God has changed my heart in many ways, not the least of which is toward the gay community.

Of course the politics thing? I live in a bubble, refraining from participating but enjoying the carnival nonetheless!

BTT,

“Ouch. It’s really sad, considering the fact that what many of the commenters here do for a living is sit around analyzing the Bible and yammering about it, then calling it honest work, to hear old white men grumbling about the “shiftless.”

In response:

“Yes, well, you don’t understand, so please don’t hurt yourself trying.”

Evan: And you think that Jesus is Savior 1996 Geocities website is a credible source of information.

Please explain – not sure where this coming from at all.

Imagine being a gay black man. But you can’t, because you don’t seem to be a “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” sort.

Again – sexual orientation does NOT in any way qualify you for being a minority. This is the problem: you see being gay as equal as being black (or any other minority).

It is interesting that simply identifying sin for what it is can get you into such hot water. By identifying sin as sin, it does not make you guilty in any way of denying grace to the sinner, decrying their sin as more evil than other sins or considering them a lost cause.

However, it is important that we don’t take a Dale Carnegie approach or attempt to re-write what is plain.

The main defense I’ve heard here about not decrying homosexuality, both by Evan and Chad specifically can be summed up here?

“Don’t reference the Bible at all.”

There is room for mercy and grace, but what about acknowledgement about right and wrong?

I would be interested to hear anyone’s comments on this insightful article by Walter Wink on the topic of homosexuality and Scripture:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

I find this to be a compelling argument.

You’ll get used to it Chad, you’ll notice Paul did exactly that to me as well even when I provided a specific scripture and made reference to an entire class of scriptures.

Bruce,

In those days there was only one right side, only one truth.

Politically speaking, you’re still in that mode, Bruce. I’m not willing to take that stance.

Both sides have many good things as both sides also have negatives. I’m willing to concede that. But. I’ve seen you, when someone shows concern over some of Obama’s stances, attempt to cut them off at the knees. Not by addressing their concerns but, generally with an attack at that persons views and then into the GBA mode in your comments #276, #283 and #317, when especially in this thread, I don’t remember folks from the other side of the issue making the GBA points against Obama.

Chris L. made some great points when he made his concerns known but, then you spoke of McCarthism, Keating, Hagee, etc.etc, talk about not wanting to address the issues!

I will give you this Scotty……..you have kept something I wrote. And I know you love me…….do you love me enough to attempt to really understand where I am coming from?

I would say that I’ve proved that, if I had not would I have showed the concern I have? My dialog proves that point.

Or do you think you have me sized up just right based on what I write here or on my blog?

Words mean things. Speaking for myself, what I say or write is what I am.

The real war I fight now is one to stay alive another day. I fight for a better world for my kids and grandkids. I fight for issues of peace and justice.

As do I, so does my NOT agreeing with your political and religious views mean that I’m NOT wanting the same things that you do?

Every once in awhile I slip into the old war mode and for that I will always apologize. That is the man I once was…….I don’t like him and I prefer he stays dead.
Thankful for God’s grace.

I think if your honest with yourself, it’s more that once in a while……

Sarcasm aside, you all should know better than reducing someone who is seriously wrestling with this issue to someone who doesn’t take the Bible seriously. It is precisely BECAUSE I take the Bible seriously (all of it, not just the parts I like) that I am even willing to engage in such conversations.

I would be interested to hear how anyone can just pick and choose a Bible verse to support an ethic of sexuality after reading the Wink article I reference above. If anything, we should all admit we are hypocrits.

I actually like Walter Wink a lot, and I found that article quite good. The thing that I see is that he admits his case isn’t airtight, and he even still seems to think that Paul is pretty clear in prohibiting homosexual practice. I don’t agree with his assessment of, “There is no Biblical sex ethic.” That seems to be just ignoring much of what Paul writes. What is fornication then? What is adultery?

The other thing is he keeps on comparing this to slavery, but nowhere in the NT is slavery explicitly condoned. In fact it’s pretty easy to make a case that Paul considered it a wrong. He accepted it as a fact of life, but he didn’t say that it was a God-ordained institution.

I guess the thing that bothers me most is that Wink’s whole train of thought in that piece is based on higher criticism, which automatically assumes we know more than the Biblical authors. That seems like a rather dangerous place to be.

I agree with Phil, Wink’s entire article can be summed up in these three sentences of his:

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.

The comparison to slavery is apples and oranges, as are most of his points of higher criticism. I would point you toward William Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. It’s safe to say that Webb is not a fundy, or an AMD-approved author by any stretch of the imagination, as this is the book in which he defines the trajectory hermeneutic. In it, he rather systematically shows the differences between the chronological approach to these three subjects within scripture, determining that a) slavery was never condoned, but rather guidelines for operating within its social construct were given; b) the treatment of women was on a trajectory, from Old through New, of consistently moving toward positions of more value and respect; c) the treatment of homosexual sin is consistent within Scripture, and is a cross-cultural prohibition with no trajectory suggested within scripture.

That there is a serious problem in the way many Christians and churches treat those who are committing homosexual sin is not disputed. This is a problem.

Capitulation to culture over Scripture by defining sin away is not a viable, Christian response.

A pretty strong case could be made that it was God ordained. And it was made for 350 years in most of the world.

True. All of history until Wilberforce more or less attests to the dominant “Christian” thought and biblical interpretation – people who sincerely believed they were in God’s will and doing the right, biblical thing. those who oppossed slavery were made out to be god-haters and people who did not take the Bible seriously (sound familiar?)

Chris -
lol@ the E.

I guess the thing that bothers me most is that Wink’s whole train of thought in that piece is based on higher criticism, which automatically assumes we know more than the Biblical authors.

But don’t we all do that Phil? In some aspects? About some things?

Yes, of course, in some things we do. I would think specifically in the area of the creationism/evolution debate or medicine, but I would think those are really quite different issues. The Bible never out and out gives us the inner workings of the processes used in creation or what causes disease, so it’s not like we are coming up with thing that are directly contradicting the Biblical authors.

Phil,
You bring up an interesting point about marriage being defined between one man and one woman. That is taken from Genesis, as you know. Why is that no one in Israel and even beyond Jesus’ day thought that polygamy or concubines was violating that “norm”?

Chad,

I’m glad you are wrestling. I’m glad you are searching and my comment was to Paul, not you.

But for as much as you claim to take Scripture seriously, and I believe you do, I don’t know how you can just brush off those passages of Scripture where homosexual practice is soundly condemned. It’s almost like you can take anything else at face value, except that. That I don’t understand.

Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. Paul clearly acknowledges that we should be involved in the lives of the ’sexually immoral.’ But he also says ‘not those in the church’ but rather those in the world. In other words, there should be no sexual immorality in the church: hetero, homo, bestial. This is not a matter of distinctions of homosexual acts; it is what it is. And in the church, whether predatory or passive, homosexuality is unacceptable.

That said, this is not to say people will not struggle, will not fall, will not lapse into a spree of frequenting homosexual night clubs. In this case, homosexuality is no different from an alcoholic who still struggles. But the apostles point is that even though we still sin, we are not defined by what we once ‘were’. And I think here the word ‘were’ is very carefully chosen. People will still struggle. I personally struggle with lust, but I’m not defined by that, I recognize it as sin, I fight against it (sometimes winning, sometimes losing), and someday I will be fully redeemed from lust. And that is where the grace of God comes in and restores us and renews us.

No one here is saying Christians won’t struggle and sin. We are not fully redeemed just yet. My problem is not with the person who struggles and relies on grace. My problem is with those churches and leaders who have gone out of their way to ‘declassify’ it as sin, to make it an acceptable way of living in the church, and to speak of it as something ordained and blessed by a holy God and thus OK for Christians. My problem is with those who have said a person can continue to practice what the Scripture calls sin and still claim, unrepentently, to be a child of Abraham.

Whatever else may be said: It is not OK for Christians to practice homosexuality. Homosexuality, like alcoholism, drug addiction, covetousness, idolatry, racism, sexism, warism, etc., is a manner of living that we must be redeemed from. We are warned against sexual sin precisely because it is against the body or in the body. Sexual sin is a sign of God’s judgment.

That’s all I think I wish to say on this subject. Again, I appreciate your struggle and I hope you find peace in Christ in the midst of it. My goal as always is for us to expand the grace of God, not diminish it. But grace cannot be expanded at the expense of holiness. All we have to go by is Scripture. Nothing else matters when it comes to defining how the church is to be and live and practice faith.

yrrej

It never seems that polygamy was pointed to as good in the OT. Even from the get-go it caused problems with the whole Abraham-Sarah-Hagar debacle.

Well, not to be a PITA but there is this…

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

Well, not to be a PITA but there is this…

Oh, Joe, just admit it, you enjoy being a PITA…

I don’t know, I guess I would chalk that up to the fact that God sometimes capitulates His will to human wills. The fact that Israel had a king at all was really a capitulation, wasn’t it?

This brings up the sticky question about God giving us stuff that might not end up being for our good. I think in the Biblical narrative, it’s clear that’s the case sometimes.

Wink, like every other writer, comes to this article with a plan to deconstruct what the Bible outlines in fairly simple terms.

He’s not simply presenting an objective view, but has a pretty transparent motive.

He begins (and reference throughout) with trying to draw a parallel between slavery in the past and homosexuality today, trying to demonstrate we are somehow in the same struggle today and hopefully will one day look back and see the error of our ways.

Personally, I loved this line:

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior.

As if he completely dismantles “these texts” to render them irrelevant, then targets three. But to dismantle these 3, he then says:

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed.

And then, poor little Apostle Paul – so blind, foolish and infantile in the realm of “psychosexual understanding”. If only he had been enlightened, he would have seen things exactly as Dr. Wink outlines them.

In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!

Of course, this makes perfect sense… I think that even Evan would blush with this type of reasoning.

He then cleverly attempts to pretty much dismantle the relevance of scripture completely, rendering everything under the “Spirit.” And why not? If it’s under the authority of the “Spirit” then every man can do what is right in his own eyes and is above rebuke. After all, he’s only following where the “Spirit” is leading him personally.

But for as much as you claim to take Scripture seriously, and I believe you do, I don’t know how you can just brush off those passages of Scripture where homosexual practice is soundly condemned. It’s almost like you can take anything else at face value, except that. That I don’t understand.

Jerry,
I don’t know. Perhaps the same way that I allow women to actually speak in church even though that practice is soundly condemned in scripture.

I don’t think we are called to take everything at face value but weigh it against the whole counsel of scipture and most importantly the gospel of Christ (which is something I believe is not merely contained within a book).

Phil,
The issue though, I think, is that we do not need God to expressly condemn polygamy. We know, based on what we know of God and relationships and love that polygamy does violence to those involved, emotionally or psychologically. Murder, while not expressly condemned prior to Cain’s transgression is certainly something that is obviously wrong given that life is sacred, humans are made in the image of God, and the only command really given up to this point is to be fruitful and multiply (obviously, murdering someone would be subtraction, not multiplication).

My point in all of this is to say that we, contrary to Paul C’s above post railing against our reliance on the Holy Spirit, do in fact rely on the Spirit to lead us into truth and illuminate for us what we find in scripture – whether that be in regards to sexual mores like polygamy and prostitution, to slavery and to what we allow women to function as in churches.

Murder, while not expressly condemned prior to Cain’s transgression is certainly something that is obviously wrong given that life is sacred, humans are made in the image of God, and the only command really given up to this point is to be fruitful and multiply (obviously, murdering someone would be subtraction, not multiplication).

Though it’s OK to condone it by voting for someone who expressly supports 1.2 million murders per year…

Though it’s OK to condone it by voting for someone who expressly supports 1.2 million murders per year…

Yes, Chris – all democrats are god-hating murderers.

Scotty,

#402 Hateful words warning But his name is not Bruce

Chris L,

Though it is Ok to condone it voting for someone who expressly supports killing innocent men.women, and children in war.

In your worldview the former promotes murder and the latter just promotes regrettable, collateral damage.

Abortion aside……..IMO Obama is the clear “life” candidate. On every other life issue Obama shines compared to McCain.

Since the President has little to do with settling the abortion issue (the Supreme Court/states will decide it)it is a non issue to me. It’s like a county commissioner candidate in a nearby county running as a pro-life candidate. Please………that’s political pandering. County commissioners have no part to play in the abortion issue. Now, if someone believes, as some pro-lifers do, that being pro-choice shows deficient moral character and makes the person unfit for office, then that is a whole other matter.

BTW Chad – have you ever considered running for political office? You’d work wonders.

Thank you! So I can count on your vote?

So I can count on your vote?

Well, if I did vote, I might consider you – if I could ever actually nail down your position that is.

This sounds very pragmatic of you. Are you suggesting that morality is subject to the tides of culture and the socio-economic conditions of the land?

No – you asked for a potential explanation of why God did something a certain way. I wasn’t making a doctrinal statement, but rather giving a potential explanation.

That’s the key difference about the way we seem to be approaching a number of issues, Chad… I’m willing to offer some opinions on why God did things certain ways, accepting the overarching answers He has provided, but I’m not willing to base my theology on my own opinion of how I would have done it…

Evan,

I apologize for the use of sarcasm and anger. Your attacks against the usefulness of the church angered me. Yet, my response was inappropriate.

Neil

but I’m not willing to base my theology on my own opinion of how I would have done it…

And what gives you the impression that I am doing this or even suggesting it would be appropriate?

I still find it interesting that you would offer a culturally relevant explanation to why God might allow for something at one time that we clearly view as immoral and against “nature” today.

Who appoints the Supreme Court?

congress.

And what gives you the impression that I am doing this or even suggesting it would be appropriate?

The entire line of reasoning that, somehow, “consensual, committed, loving” trumps “you shall not…”

I still find it interesting that you would offer a culturally relevant explanation to why God might allow for something at one time that we clearly view as immoral and against “nature” today.

Actually, I am familiar with a number of missions in Africa where polygamist families have been brought to Christ, where they are convicted that it was something they should not have done, but to cast all but one wife adrift would spell certain death for her and her children in a culture stripped of adult males. They no longer take on new wives, but they deal with the consequences of the mistakes made in their pre-Christian lives, recognizing them as such.

So, given a choice between one evil (>1 wife/husband) and another (certain death for all but one wife), I am guessing that God allowed it for a period of time (i.e. the time of the patriarchs) before the later prophets did away with it. In other words, I do see a trajectory.

In the case of homosexuality, the only trajectory that exists is the one that our “enlightened” (quotes intentional) culture has tried to shoehorn in in order to seem “compassionate”.

In reality, though, compassion disconnected from God’s word is nothing of the sort…

Who appoints the Supreme Court?

The president only nominates. The Senate confirms (or appoints officially).

From Article II, Section II of the Constitution:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, started a war all by himself. And could have done so with our without Congress. (See, War Powers Act.)

Nevermind those pesky U.N. resolutions that Saddam was ignoring. Contrary to your continued repeating of it, Bush did not start the war all by himself, even though, as you say, he could have. Congress gave him approval, and in fact they have continued to fund the war in Iraq despite all their pandering.

I’m not saying that the war was completely right or even handled correctly, but to just blame Bush is just buying into propaganda.

Regardless, it is the president who chooses the person appointed to the SC…

To be fair, he choose the person to be nominated for the SC. If more than 1/3 of the Senate determine that such a person is unfit to be on the SC (and if they use Roe v. Wade as their sole litmus test, than I suppose Obama will have to nominate over and over and over again before they appoint one.

The entire line of reasoning that, somehow, “consensual, committed, loving” trumps “you shall not…”

You have heard it said, repay evil for evil, and eye for an I. But I tell you, love your enemies, and do good to those who persecute you.

- Jesus.

I guess I do believe love trumps all.

As for God expressly forbidding homosexuality for all times and places I guess i look at that and use the same God-given reason you have used to try and understand, why, perhaps, God would have allowed polygamy and slavery to exist for so long and try to see how those commands, like commands against allowing women to even speak in church or wear certain cloths, might be culturally conditioned.

I don’t want an idealogue on the bench, do you?

No, that’s why I think we need more judges like Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on the bench…

Again – sexual orientation does NOT in any way qualify you for being a minority. This is the problem: you see being gay as equal as being black (or any other minority).

But it IS very parallel…all the real mental health organizations and medical societies agree that sexuality is a fixed trait, though they are not (yet) able to fully explain it, and that it is not chosen…sort of like being of a minority race. And I made the Jesus-is-savior remark, because, unless I’m mistaken, you used that website as a reference in another thread. If it wasn’t you, then never mind.

Chad, the article you references (#370) is, indeed, compelling. There’s lots of other scholarship where that comes from, but I think part of it requires a person to look at the Bible from a, um, deeper perspective, one that actually takes into account the culture within which it was written, rather than understanding the Bible as a dictated text from God. Some can do that, some cannot. I would suggest that the first approach actually holds the text in higher esteem, because it seeks to actually understand what was going on.

You have heard it said, repay evil for evil, and eye for an I. But I tell you, love your enemies, and do good to those who persecute you.

I would note that Jesus’ definition of love includes obedience (based upon the Shema). That is why I put “love” in quotes when quoting you, because apparently holding scripture as something other than a tertiary matter has become irrelevant to discussing a relationship founded upon an expressly sinful act.

It is not loving to bring another person into sin with you.

It is not loving to claim Christ in one breath and to dismiss what he believed and taught with the next breath as culturally irrelevant.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death…

Do they teach logical construction at Duke?

Case A: You have an act which is expressly forbidden by an authority. Today’s culture disagrees with forbidding it.

Case B: You have an act which is (in some degree) tolerated by an authority, neither expressly forbidden nor expressly accepted. Today’s culture believes it should be forbidden.

You are arguing that somehow Case A is analogous to Case B, which it clearly is not. Your basic argument is “God was wrong in Case B (to stop short of outright bannination), therefore God might be wrong in Case A”.

It just doesn’t work that way.
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death…

Chad, the article you references (#370) is, indeed, compelling. There’s lots of other scholarship where that comes from, but I think part of it requires a person to look at the Bible from a, um, deeper perspective,