"I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong"

[Canuckster1127]

I think that the genetic argument is overstated, in the sense that there's a "gay" gene. There's no evidence that I'm aware of, that suggests that there is a 1 to 1 corellation with any particular gene that predicts with clarity what a person's sexual behavior or orientation will be.

That said, I think there can be physical, psychological and environmental factors that contribute towards a person's sexual orientation.

Too, I don't believe that it's necessarily "wrong" for someone to have a orientation toward the same sex if they do not act out on that orientation, and has been noticed, if they have then it's as forgivable a sin as any other and isn't a stigma that should continue with them forever. Paul speaks of singleness in different contexts as a gift. It's not necessarily wrong either for two people of the same sex to love each other (in the purest sense of the word) and to live as roommates or partners in life where there is not a sin component present. That will raise flags for some and I understand the flags that can be raised. I believe that however, and I think there are scriptural examples of deep love for others of the same sex that doesn't cross over into sin.

Most of all, I believe we as Christians need to first emulate Christ above all things. Christ was consistently criticized by the political/religious leaders of his day (and they were the same people in that culture) for reaching out, accepting and spending too much time with the "wrong" sort of people. This included lepers, adulterers, tax collectors (traitors to the Jewish people collaborating with the Romans), drunks, and the list could go on. I do not believe for a moment that Jesus would be involved, let alone lead the type of social movements that go on in His name in some churches today and I believe he would be just as strongly criticized today as He was then because of it. When I hear or see the level of hate directed at the gay community in the name of Christ by not just extreme factions, such as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Church, (and yes that's an extreme, but only in terms of the openness and degree of their animosity and hatred) I do not see Jesus reflected at all. When I see and hear of more "mainstream" and "acceptable" elements who give lip service to loving the "sinner" while mounting public campaigns against the sin that blur that line, I look to see what they're doing beyond that lip service. Are they opening the doors to their churches and willing to personally reach out and interact or do they put a small line in their budget to a parachurch organization to whom they delegate this ministry which allows them to claim that they're loving others while not having to personally get their "hands dirty" actually building relationships and caring personally for persons who are different than themselves or somehow less lovable? This isn't just a "gay issue" but are they reaching out to those suffering from aids and caring for the families and children devistated by the loss of loved ones and parents and getting personally involved?

I've discussed this in other threads and to be clear, I don't discount the admonitions within the church body to holiness and loving discipline. I just really think our evangelical church culture doesnt' have a strong clue as to what that is supposed to look like. Much of our entire culture is based upon a level of actual fellowship and intimacy that is so shallow and modelled upon hierarchical organizations and institutions that look nothing like what I understand a local body of believers to be called to be in terms of their relationships and love for one another. It's one of the primary reasons why I've left, not the church, but the institutional mentality that drives them and am moving toward an organic/simple church practice in my own life.

Discipline and working things of this nature out looks very different, in my opinion, within a healthy body of believers where all are free to drop the masks and be honest before God and one another with who they are and what they are struggling with, without having to be concerned that love and support are going to be withdrawn or withheld from those they love and those who love them as anything but a last resort and even then with the goal of restoration and inclusion back into the community even if they're still wrestling with things, but the difference is a change in attitude or heart to where they want to align with what God wants and desires for them.

That goes to a lot deeper issues than this one and they're issues some of us have discussed at other times so I won't go further with them now.

In short, I don't discount the standards of God or attempt to declare wrong to be right. I believe however as NT believers we start with Grace and Love and I really am less concerned about structures and systems we try to establish to regulate these issues and am more concerned with seeing genuine community and love as Christ modelled and as He said would distinguish His body, lived out in a very practical and grass roots level.

[PaulSacramento]

The most compelling argument against the genetic link for homosexuality is that of identical twins where one is a heterosexual and the other homosexual. Genetics cannot explain this.

Not sure how scientific that is...but lets assume homosexuality is NOT genetic but a choice, how does one explain choosing to be homosexual? how does one explain choosing to put oneself through ALL that a homosexual can go through?
Homosexual acts in nature are more common than we care to think, but what animals do is by "genetic make up" to reproduce/fullfill sexual urge ( being in heat), that is not the case with human beings ( typically), correct?
So, if there is NOT a genetic "push" to be homosexual why would a 16 years old kid in HS put himself through that? getting beaten up and even seeing friends killed in some cases?

[Byblos]

The most compelling argument against the genetic link for homosexuality is that of identical twins where one is a heterosexual and the other homosexual. Genetics cannot explain this.

Not sure how scientific that is...but lets assume homosexuality is NOT genetic but a choice, how does one explain choosing to be homosexual? how does one explain choosing to put oneself through ALL that a homosexual can go through?
Homosexual acts in nature are more common than we care to think, but what animals do is by "genetic make up" to reproduce/fullfill sexual urge ( being in heat), that is not the case with human beings ( typically), correct?
So, if there is NOT a genetic "push" to be homosexual why would a 16 years old kid in HS put himself through that? getting beaten up and even seeing friends killed in some cases?

I cannot answer that nor do I think science has an answer for it either. Bart's post above is probably much more eloquent than anything I would be able to articulate on the subject.

[PaulSacramento]

I agree, what Bart said was everything that needed to be said

[jlay]

‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. 20 Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her. 21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled;
This text from Leviticus doesn't leave any room for speculation. And since Jesus is God in the flesh it seems odd that a beleiver would question whether Jesus would approve or dissaprove of something descibed in the Lord's own words as an abomination. And not just for Israel. v 24-25 confirms that this behavior defiles all nations. Wouldn't you be highly suspicious of me if I called into question whether Jesus' would dissaprove of Beastiality or human sacrifice since they aren't mentioned in the NT? Jesus was more than just "a Jew." He is Lord.
Further, Paul was chosen by Christ to instruct the gentile church. If you question the scriptural authority of Paul's position, then I'd certainly be interested in hearing your defense.

Yes, Jesus dined with sinners. The story of Zaccheus comes to my mind. Was Zaccheus comforted in his sin? No. Jesus presence was so powerful that Zaccheus was not only converted, but He sought to restore and repair the wrong he had done. I think all too often the account of Jesus dining with sinners is used to hint that Christ approved a sinner's lifestyle, and overlooks the impact Jesus had on people in sin. Jesus came to pull people from the pit, not make them comfortable in it.

Not sure how scientific that is...but lets assume homosexuality is NOT genetic but a choice, how does one explain choosing to be homosexual? how does one explain choosing to put oneself through ALL that a homosexual can go through?
Homosexual acts in nature are more common than we care to think, but what animals do is by "genetic make up" to reproduce/fullfill sexual urge ( being in heat), that is not the case with human beings ( typically), correct?
So, if there is NOT a genetic "push" to be homosexual why would a 16 years old kid in HS put himself through that? getting beaten up and even seeing friends killed in some cases?

For one, I don't see homosexuality as a 'choice.' All too often people try to box the argument up in one of these two things. Either, homsexuality is a choice, and wrong. Or, it is a natural disposition and OK. Neither fully addresses the complexities of the problem. I think both are wrong. I've had too many homosexual friends to believe that one simply chooses to like the same sex. I don't buy that. Nor do I buy that homosexual desires are just natural and that the person should follow them without regret, because that is 'how God made them.' I believe there are misconceptions on both sides.
Someone having a desire does not make it genetic. Genetics are brought up as an attempt to do what? Justify one's acting out on their desires. But I have already shown that people have all kinds of desires to do things we consider 'wrong' yet no one is defending these as 'genetic.' Speaking of identical twins. I graduated HS with such. One was homosexual, and the other straight. Actually continued on to college with both.
All sinners want to be justified. It is an innate desire of the sinner. The whole thing about homosexuality being seen in other animals is just another attempt to 'justify' something sinful as natural. This article addresses it.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=2010

[Canuckster1127]

So Jlay, what do you think the Church should be doing about the first part of the verses from Leviticus you quoted? The one about uncovering the nakedness of a women during her cermonial uncleaness? That's speaking of having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle. Even a wife.

Not trying to be facetious, but when I see a NT believer appealing to the OT law as a foundation for social practice it begs the question for me as to how you sort out which of those abominations are carried forward and which are not.

[jlay]

Bart,
That is not the point of my post. I am not appealing to Leviticus as the code for Christian living. The point was brought up by Paul,

Jesus and the gospels are silent on the matter

This called into question how Jesus, (you know, the first century, Jewish, law fulfilling, Son of God, Messiah) viewed the OT Law. I didn't say, here is the OT, now go live by it. I was pointing out how silly it is to try and seperate The Lord Jesus Christ from the OT Law. Or speculate that Jesus might contradict the OT law, of which He is the author. Bart, I would think that as long as I've posted here, you wouldn't attempt to assign a position to me that is one I obviously do not hold. I think I've been posting here long enough that my position on this is quite clear. The point here isn't trying to evoke Leviticus as a foundation for social practice, but to show Paul that there is no reason to call into question that Jesus would contradict what is written in the OT.

FWIW, Collectively, in the context, I don't see any reason why all those things listed would not still be considered defiling. Especially in light of the fact that the text mentions that all nations (gentiles not under the Law) are defiled from this behavior. In fact the only one in that section that is remotely questionable, is the one you chose. I certainly would consider it disgusting, and would 'naturally' think abstaining from this behavior the best course. If the OT says an action is an abomination, I would think we'd be wise to note that, even through our NT liberty. In this text, homosexual sin is singled out as the abomination. Not that this condones any of the other things listed, or that it makes homosexuality worse than human sacrifice.

[Canuckster1127]

Jlay,

My question was sincere. Jesus, as you know broke many elements of what was believed to be OT law in His ministry days and was roundly criticized for it and it was offered as proof by the OT experts of His day as evidence of His being a sinner. I point out that element of the verses you chose, specifically because you chose them. I think Jesus' relationship to the OT is that he fulfilled it and on that basis we're no longer under it. I understand the concern with anti-nomianism and I would hope you'd know me well enough to know I don't advocate that either.

I think the dynamics of a NT walk of Grace with Christ in a healthy growing relationship is that we do no longer need to look to the OT to define by means of a code the do's and don'ts. The assumption seems to be that we've moved from slaves and bond-servants to heirs and children. I certainly do think that's an important and essential dynamic in how we're to view the OT. I don't start with the OT. This side of the cross, I look to Christ and through Him I look to the OT as the old taskmaster. It's not that it's any less true or reflective of the standards of God so much as it is that my relationship to it is superceded by the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life.

I tend to do the same thing within the NT. I seek to understand and interpret Acts, the Epistles and Revelation first and foremost through the lens of Christ. That's a deliberate choice on my part. It's contrary in many ways to what other systems attempt to do.

I don't assume that you disagree with me on that although you're certainly free to clarify your own understandings if you want.

There's no need to read more into the question that what I asked. It seemed a reasonable question and your including that precursor verse begged the further question as to how it should be addressed, and you went on in a manner that suggests (no criticism implied) that yes, you do see that as defiling and so protests aside, you do see an element of suggestion, if not obligation, that such a standard could be maintained. That's what I was wondering. Noting "abomination" as a standard as to whether it carries forward is interesting. I don't see that. I'm of the mind that if you're going to appeal to the OT law it's pretty much an all or nothing prospect. I understand the rationale applied by some as to what is moral, vs. ceremonial vs. culturally contextual law. That to me has always seemed a little contrived as it requires a standard to be applied that doesn't come from the Scriptures themselves.

In any event, my purpose isn't to justify homosexual acts as somehow right or normal. My point is to note the rationales applied in many of these types of appeals carry with them many elements of inconsistencies. It's my opinion that there's an implicit element of legalism that carries into most church cultures and an unstated fear of too much grace or too much freedom for fear that people are going to somehow try to get away with something and that God was either unaware of that or we need to set up our own hedges around the law now in the NT like they did in the OT.

The idea of a church culture that seeks to examine others by externals without a strong relational base and a willingness to allow the Holy Spirit first and foremost to deal with people before bringing in elements of church discipline the more I seek to understand.

Before you respond to this as personal directed to you, I'm well aware that you're a strong advocate of grace alone and faith and don't take this personally. The course of the conversation and the elements present offer the opportunity to ask the question and analyze some of what might be at work. If anything, I'm reflecting back on my own history and seeing where in fact I might have been well-served to ask myself those questions earlier in my own christian walk.

The frame of mind and points of reference we employ for what we do and why we do things appear to be extraordinarily important. Approaching holiness from an assumed position of OT Law primarily seen as establishing the context of the NT rather than it being something that revealed in part but which was superceded by the NT and through which now we're to understand the OT has profound practical implications in terms of how we talk today.

[neo-x]

I have a cousin, he is gay and only I know that, the thing is he is just 18. and he was not gay until one of his school teacher molested him when he was just 10 yrs old. He came to me an year ago and cried and told me the whole story . The interesting thing is, he fell in love with a girl some months ago. so I do not think homosexuality is genetic in nature. There have been studies on serial killers and part of researchers believe that serial killers are born that way, that they do not know empathy or sympathy by birth. But again, i believe it is the desire to kill, the choice to do something which becomes an extreme obsession that someone impulsively acts on them.

All major sins start somewhere with little sins, one starts to fantasize, one starts to covet, then it leads to more fantasy and then to ultimate desire. I am not advocating homosexuality, I know it is wrong and God forbade it. But the question is how do you deal with it, we cant deal with it as the O.T says. And if in grace and love we deny it, we are called biased and discriminating to the message of love. If we allow it, we partake in the sin. The problem here is, for everyone to scrutinize its a win-win situation. we lose both ways. I know a lot of church people hate gays, want to banish them from their churches and communities. But that doesn't solve the problem at all, it worsens it and If we are to accept them, it is equally disastrous.

I know we cant cure sin, we can at least come up with a stand when a situation like this arises( which i feel the church lacks today). I didn't know what to say to my cousin when he told me he was Gay, i could have said, it is wrong. but then i would sound like everyone else, not wanting to hear. if i say it is right, i know it isn't and then i end up where I started.

Liberalism has become so wide in every aspect that the device "each to his own" is worsening things more than helping them. And it is very hard to practically draw the line between outright denial and acceptability. For example. I cant teach my 8 yr old to hate gays (don't want a fundamentalist coming out of him).And I cant tell him that he is to accept gays either. i can tell him "they are good people, just not good enough" or "they are good people but they do something bad." but to my eight yr old. this doesn't make much sense it all. he wants a yes or no.

I hope you guys see my point.

i think we are pretty much struggling with this problem. how do we keep our faith, keep a open love biblical church and then condemn people from entering also. if we accept them with limits, who is to define the limits and what should be a standard? Christianity is so splattered in terms of institutions and creed that we cant even have a single standard opinion. What should be a reasonable response?

[PaulSacramento]

I don;'t think it is a "to each his own" type of thing.
I don't agree with homosexuality, I don't think it is natural and find it a tad repulsive to be honest, but being a man I am certainly "OK" with to attractive lesbians or bi-sexual females going at it
I am only human of course, LOL !
On a serious note, and going back to the beginning, in my view, the judging of this particular sin is a tad above Us as lowly humans.
Now, I don't think that I said the judging of the BEHAVIOUR is above us and perhaps that is where the confusion in regards to what I believe may have started.
If indeed Homosexuality is a trait of birth, genetic if you will, then we don't really have the right to judge anyone born that way.
Again this is not about their behaviour.
If it is a choice then it is between them and God.
Homosexuality does NOT effect anyone in a negative or harmful way, what to gay people do as consenting adults is their business- providing no one gets hurt or no crimes are commited of course.
If a homosexual person commits a homosexual rape then it is a rape just like a hetrosexual one or if they molest, it is the same as a hetrosexual molestation, the crime is in what was done, not the sexual orientation of the person commiting the crime.
In regards to sin, yes the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, I believe in the OT it is even referred to as an abomination, but far to many things are "abominations" in leviticus and all the over 600 laws that the Jews decided to create.
We don't stone and kill as a penalty for homosexuality or adultery anymore, why?
because we have become more "evolved" in our understanding of what God wants as it was revealed to us via his Word, Christ.

I h ave a friend, he is a christian, He believes that Christ is the Son of God, Our lord and saviour, he follows the teachings of christ as best he can, like we all do, he volunteers at a hospice, soup kitchen, he is Nurse at sick kids, he is a loving and caring human, far more than most people I have met.
And He is Gay and certainly not be choice.
A few years ago he lost a friend of his to a gay hate crime and since them has been alone.
I will not judge him on being Gay, will you?
And if you will how will you do so and how will that "yardstick" some back to judge you?

By you I mean us of course.

[jlay]

This is a very touchy subject, because speaking on this, one can easly misconstrue what is being said.
I think there is a reason Paul spent so much ink expounding on the reality of grace, and the end of the Law. Grace is never freedom to sin, but freedom from it. We are saved from sin, and are being saved to walk in that grace that saved us. It is very interesting how all this plays out in the NT, and exactly what is done away with regarding the Law.

It isn't surprising to me that after Paul spends three chapters of Ephesians telling believers what they have in Christ through grace, that he then hands down instruction, restriction, practice and rules regarding the Christian lifestyle. Is this really an issue of whether homsexual sex is condemned?
I would contend that a beliver can examine the OT on this matter with proper exegesis and context and be taught clearly without the danger of attempting to return to the ceremonial Law. It would appear to me that you do not agree.

Jesus, as you know broke many elements of what was believed to be OT law in His ministry days and was roundly criticized for it and it was offered as proof by the OT experts of His day as evidence of His being a sinner.

I think that is quite a liberty you are taking there. The caveat there is 'what was believed.' We know that Jesus fulfilled the Law, practiced it, and commanded Israel to do the same. To even attempt to imply that Christ actually broke the law is troubling to me. Or to imply that because of grace, what is written in Lev 18, is less sinful. In fact Christ even took the law to a higher standard in the SOTM. He took it from mere outward practice, to heart motive, showing the utterly sinful nature of sin.

As Paul points out in Romans, the essence of the Law penetrates to all, and still stores up wrath, and condemns. The effects of the Law are still applied in regards to the utterly sinful nature of sin. Just as ALL the nations were defiled by practicing those things, even though they didn't have a written law. These things are defiling not because of ceremonial law, but because they are sinful. Sacrificing children is sinful. Is it that we are appealing to the OT to know that this is wrong? In one sense yes. Sin is sin. These verses confirm it. Are we saying people need to return to the sacrifices and ceremonial law to be free of this sin?

You certainly point out some valid points regarding the legalistic practices, where Grace is muted and even perverted. The flip side is the hyper grace element, where sin is made light of and excused. I think there are dangers in both.

Noting "abomination" as a standard as to whether it carries forward is interesting.

I think you are miscontruing what I am communicating here. Does murder carry forward? Did it become less wrong after Christ? Murder didn't start being wrong when the law was given at Sinai. And it doesn't become right after the death and resurrection of Christ. Homosexual sin didn't become an abomination when Lev. 18 was penned. And it didn't stop being an abomination. It is an abomination. When we reference back to the OT about murder, are we suddenly forcing the ceremonial law on people? Good grief no.

That to me has always seemed a little contrived as it requires a standard to be applied that doesn't come from the Scriptures themselves.

Really? I think you are treading a dangerous path there, becuse I think Paul goes to exhaustive lengths on the very matter. When Paul says that we are discharged from the Law, what is being taught here? I question your conclusions on the matter, as you do mine. The OT serves many functions. And it still serves a function today. (2 Tim 3:16) It certainly lays down specifics for Israel, most of which never applied to the world at large, and do not apply at all any longer. Paul addresses these. Such as the unclean foods, ceremonies, etc. But it also reveals God's moral truth, which is true, which is true, which is true. The ceremonial aspects of the Law are done away with. They are of no effect to justify. But does this mean that a man laying with a man is no longer an abomination? I'd challenge you to prove this.

Obviously Galatians expounds upon this best.

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ

In no way does this teach that what was sin is no longer sinful, or less sinful. There are ceremonial things regarding what is clean and unclean, which are absolved. Things such as circumcision have no value any longer. The sacrifices, etc. do not justify, but only faith in Christ. But that does not mean that sin was made not sinful. Heaven forbid. If so, then we wouldn't even need to trust Christ. There wouldn't be a sin debt to pay. And also, a believer wouldn't have the risk of breaking fellowship. The reality is that sin is still sin. And I don't see how referencing Lev. about the natural truth of an act is at all what you are implying. All scripture is God breathed and USEFUL. In away Bart it sounds as if you are questioning the usefulness of this.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

The frame of mind and points of reference we employ for what we do and why we do things appear to be extraordinarily important.

Today, this is an issue of what motivates us to abstain from sexual immorality. Unlike Israel we are not attempting to live up to an external standard. But we are seeking to have an internal standard live out of us. Sexual immorality is a sin. It pollutes the internal standard etched in our live by grace. Sin is destructive. The lost are lost in it. The saved should never attempt to lessen the utterly sinful nature of sin. We should abstain from it, and not defile our walk. Not because it makes us 'more' saved, but because it is sin, and we are intimately familiar with its destructive effects.

Does one become righteous by avoiding these defiling things? No. Does one receive the spirit by avoiding these defiling things? No.

[jlay]

Homosexuality does NOT effect anyone in a negative or harmful way, what to gay people do as consenting adults is their business- providing no one gets hurt or no crimes are commited of course.

The reality is that this is wrong in multiple ways. I am troubled that a believer would actually say this, or believe it.
1st- According to the scriptures it is harmful. Sin is destructive. It absolutely hurts. See the cross for main example. But it is also harmful for the indivdual. For the believer, sin can destroy our walk with the Lord. It can derail us from His path and plan. It harms our fellowship with Christ and with other believers. It destroys our witness. For the unbeliever, sin continues to pull them away from the truth of God where they can find salvation. Anyone who feels 'justified' in their sin is only that much further from knowing their need of a savior. When you make statements like this, you are helping the sinner to find comfort in their sin.

Examining it strictly from a physical perspective, homosexuality is an extremely dangerous lifestyle. Check out the statistics.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_fi ... estyle.pdf

We don't stone and kill as a penalty for homosexuality or adultery anymore, why?
because we have become more "evolved" in our understanding of what God wants as it was revealed to us via his Word, Christ.

Wow! I've never heard that. The reason we don't stone adulterers is evolution. That is so wacky I don't exactly know how to address it. Paul, do you actually understand that 'we' (gentiles) were never called to implement the ceremonial penalties of the OT law. And do you also know that the ceremonial aspects of the Law were abolished in Christ?

What do you mean by the 600 laws the Jews decided to create?

I h ave a friend, he is a christian, He believes that Christ is the Son of God, Our lord and saviour, he follows the teachings of christ as best he can, like we all do, he volunteers at a hospice, soup kitchen, he is Nurse at sick kids, he is a loving and caring human, far more than most people I have met.
And He is Gay and certainly not be choice.
A few years ago he lost a friend of his to a gay hate crime and since them has been alone.
I will not judge him on being Gay, will you?
And if you will how will you do so and how will that "yardstick" some back to judge you?

Ummm, Paul, you are judging him. You said, "he is a Christian.' You have made a judgment about him. That he is born again, and saved. From what you said, I have no reason to believe that he isn't, and that your judgment is valid. If he has trusted Christ then he is born again. Of course our judgment doesn't actually determine this. We can make that judgment because it is complies to the Word of God, the one whose judgment ultimately matters. Does him serving at the soup kitchen make him more saved? No. I assume you are making a judgment that him serving at a soup kitchen is a good thing. I can make the judgment that his homosexuality is a bad thing. Otherwise I would have to judge God's word to be wrong, and not the standard. And I certainly don't want that measured back to me.
His sin does NOT exclude him from trusting in Christ. No more than mine or yours excludes us. But that doesn't justify his continued choice to fufill those desires. His attraction to males may not be by choice. But, if he engages in homosexual sin, it is certainly by choice. A choice that he knows the bible condemns. He chooses to serve the homeless. A commendable choice.

Let me give you a scenario to point out the problem.

I have a friend, he is a christian, He believes that Christ is the Son of God, Our lord and saviour, he follows the teachings of christ as best he can, like we all do, he volunteers at a hospice, soup kitchen, he is Nurse at sick kids, he is a loving and caring human, far more than most people I have met.
And He is addicted to pornography, and certainly not be choice.
I will not judge him on being addicted to pornography, will you?
And if you will how will you do so and how will that "yardstick" some back to judge you?

[PaulSacramento]

Homosexuality does NOT effect anyone in a negative or harmful way, what to gay people do as consenting adults is their business- providing no one gets hurt or no crimes are commited of course.

The reality is that this is wrong in multiple ways. I am troubled that a believer would actually say this, or believe it.
1st- According to the scriptures it is harmful. Sin is destructive. It absolutely hurts. See the cross for main example. But it is also harmful for the indivdual. For the believer, sin can destroy our walk with the Lord. It can derail us from His path and plan. It harms our fellowship with Christ and with other believers. It destroys our witness. For the unbeliever, sin continues to pull them away from the truth of God where they can find salvation. Anyone who feels 'justified' in their sin is only that much further from knowing their need of a savior. When you make statements like this, you are helping the sinner to find comfort in their sin.

Examining it strictly from a physical perspective, homosexuality is an extremely dangerous lifestyle. Check out the statistics.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_fi ... estyle.pdf

We don't stone and kill as a penalty for homosexuality or adultery anymore, why?
because we have become more "evolved" in our understanding of what God wants as it was revealed to us via his Word, Christ.

Wow! I've never heard that. The reason we don't stone adulterers is evolution. That is so wacky I don't exactly know how to address it. Paul, do you actually understand that 'we' (gentiles) were never called to implement the ceremonial penalties of the OT law. And do you also know that the ceremonial aspects of the Law were abolished in Christ?

What do you mean by the 600 laws the Jews decided to create?

I h ave a friend, he is a christian, He believes that Christ is the Son of God, Our lord and saviour, he follows the teachings of christ as best he can, like we all do, he volunteers at a hospice, soup kitchen, he is Nurse at sick kids, he is a loving and caring human, far more than most people I have met.
And He is Gay and certainly not be choice.
A few years ago he lost a friend of his to a gay hate crime and since them has been alone.
I will not judge him on being Gay, will you?
And if you will how will you do so and how will that "yardstick" some back to judge you?

Ummm, Paul, you are judging him. You said, "he is a Christian.' You have made a judgment about him. That he is born again, and saved. From what you said, I have no reason to believe that he isn't, and that your judgment is valid. If he has trusted Christ then he is born again. Of course our judgment doesn't actually determine this. We can make that judgment because it is complies to the Word of God, the one whose judgment ultimately matters. Does him serving at the soup kitchen make him more saved? No. I assume you are making a judgment that him serving at a soup kitchen is a good thing. I can make the judgment that his homosexuality is a bad thing. Otherwise I would have to judge God's word to be wrong, and not the standard. And I certainly don't want that measured back to me.
His sin does NOT exclude him from trusting in Christ. No more than mine or yours excludes us. But that doesn't justify his continued choice to fufill those desires. His attraction to males may not be by choice. But, if he engages in homosexual sin, it is certainly by choice. A choice that he knows the bible condemns. He chooses to serve the homeless. A commendable choice.

Let me give you a scenario to point out the problem.

I have a friend, he is a christian, He believes that Christ is the Son of God, Our lord and saviour, he follows the teachings of christ as best he can, like we all do, he volunteers at a hospice, soup kitchen, he is Nurse at sick kids, he is a loving and caring human, far more than most people I have met.
And He is addicted to pornography, and certainly not be choice.
I will not judge him on being addicted to pornography, will you?
And if you will how will you do so and how will that "yardstick" some back to judge you?

I really think you need to take my whole post into context.
EX:
I did NOT say that the reason we don't stone adulteres is because of evolution, I said our understanding of God's will has evolved.
Not sure what your issues with evolution may be, but the term doesn't always refer to the theory of evolution.
Would you prefer "progressive revelation" of God's will?
You keep giving the impression that I am condoning homosexuality when all I am saying is that this type of sin is one best left to the Lord to pass judgment on.
While I can understand certainly understand someone judging a serial killer or rapist, I have a hard time passing that kind of judgment on a woman who is an loving and caring individual, just because she is inclined to physically love another woman.
Again, since we are speaking of the specific sin of homosexuality, what I am saying is that we are not qualified to judge a person base don this sin.
Of course you are free to argue and o course are free to disagree.
Just my 2cents.

[jlay]

Paul,

I understand. I should have put a smiley by my comments on the 'evolution' thing. No worries.

You keep giving the impression that I am condoning homosexuality when all I am saying is that this type of sin is one best left to the Lord to pass judgment on.

Paul, you said, "Homosexuality does NOT effect anyone in a negative or harmful way, what to gay people do as consenting adults is their business- providing no one gets hurt or no crimes are commited of course."
Did you read the link and my comments on this? Can you still hold to that position?
So Yes, IMO (while you obviously don't agree with it) you are condoning it. I'm not saying to you are promoting it. I'm not saying you are supporting it. This statement you made about homosexuality does in fact condone it. Because it speaks falsely about the negative effects and harmful results of homosexual behavior. You are ignoring some clear instructions both in the bible and in the statistics regarding its harmful effects. That is a problem. But it is much worse to present a statement as truth when it is most certainly not.
I am very confused how you don't see your statements as a form of condoning homosexual behavior. You've gone past saying we shouldn't condemn homosexual tendencies, (Which we actually have some agreement on.) to saying that engaging in homosexual sex is harmless.

While I can understand certainly understand someone judging a serial killer or rapist, I have a hard time passing that kind of judgment on a woman who is an loving and caring individual, just because she is inclined to physically love another woman.

Before I outright disagree with you here, help me out, because I don't think we are on the same page. When you say 'we,' just what do you mean? And, when you say 'judge,' what do you mean? I'm not being trite here. That is a serious question. Because your example demonstrates that we may have different ideas of what kind of judging is going on here. There is no modern government in effect today that was around in the 1st century. No where does the bible tell us to execute Christian ethics theocratically.

what I am saying is that we are not qualified to judge a person base don this sin

As Christians, not only are we qualified to make judgments, but we are told to judge and instructed how to judge. Again, I would challenge you to read 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, and let me know what you think.
It gives us the parameters to judge regarding sexual immorality. I would never argue that this judgment isn't limited. Just as has been brought up. Homosexual behavior is NOT the unpardonable sin. In no way am I saying we can judge without the parameters God has put in place. Yes, we are limited in our judgment.

Example: If a church said that your friend, described earlier as a genuine believer, has lost his salvation and is going to Hell because he sinned, well they would be judging improperly. We don't have that authority, thank the Lord. But that church could expel him from fellowship based on the fact that he is engaging in immoral behavior, and refusing to repent. They would have biblical support. Just as they would be just to do the same for a believer who refused to repent of adultery, pornography, etc. And let us not forget that there are genuine loving reasons for doing such. It isn't that the church is gathered, rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of punishing someone. No, it is with grief and sorrow that they enforce discipline upon the wayward brother.

For the church to neglect these things is simply unloving. Apathy is easier. I have more, but i hesitate to go forward until these above definitions are clarified.

[PaulSacramento]

First off, lets us remember that there is only ONE sin that is "unforgivable" and that is sinning against the holy spirit.
Homosexuality is NOT such a sin.
Though one can possibly argue that to profess to have the HS AND being a homosexual is just a blasphemy, that requires even MORE judgment than we have been discussing and I am NOT going down that road, LOL !
I do see your point on how it may seem I am condoning homosexuality by saying it is a "harmless sin".
The fact that Paul said that we will judge angels and so much more in his first letter to the Corinthians should be taken in the context that it was written ( in regards to some Corinthian brothers using outside people to make judgment on arguments) and we also need to remember that at times Paul spoke of the Lord and at times he spoke fro himself, as he makes clear when he says " the Lord says" or when he says " I say".
But all that aside, the fact is the homosexuality is indeed viewed as a sin but that is not the issue really, the issue I am making is how WE judge that sin and the sinner.
The old "judge the sin but love the sinner" is the correct way, but theory sometimes breaks down in practise as we see often and other times, like we see far to often, hate of the sin is transferred to the sinner, in the form of not only verbal abuse 'God hats [homosexuals], but even physical abuses that have lead to death.
So it does indeed seem to be all about the "immoral behaviour" so I ask, what immoral behaviour are we discussing here?
Anal sex? oral sex? or the reality of two people of the same gender having sex of any kind with each other?
I am sure that we are NOT calling the love that two people, any two people, have as being immoral, right?