"I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong"

[jlay]

Paul,

First, I asked you to clarify a few points in my last post. You neglected to do such. You are certainly not obligated to do so, but if we are going to have a fruitful discussion from here on out, I think it is essential.

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?

Paul, I don't think we have to engage in a graphic discussion to know what the Bible condemns. I didn't start this thread. The topic is homosexuality. Acting out on sexual desires with the same sex is sexually immoral.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (From Romans 1)

This explains that they committed what is shameful. That being to act out on their unnatural desires (lusts) for the same sex.

Also, it is not necessary to confuse the text of 1 cor. regarding judging an immoral brother. The reference to the future judgment of Angels is meant to confirm to the Corinthian church that judgment within the body of Christ is needed. This says to judge the immoral brother. Let's not try to confuse what the text is saying.

"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you" (1 Cor 5:1)
-This means there it is presently (at the time Paul wrote) in the Corinthian church.
"For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed." (1 Cor 5:3) -The case for judgment is clear, and it is NOT at some future time.

and we also need to remember that at times Paul spoke of the Lord and at times he spoke fro himself

""In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor 5:4)
-So Paul, you tell me. Based on the text, who is Paul speaking for here? Seems pretty clear to me.

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.

Where does the bible say judge the sin and not the sinner? Hint: it doesn't. Paul (speaking in the name of Christ) certainly doesn't say that. He says to judge the believer who has fallen into sin. (v.13)
Sin is not some outside entity that invades a person. Sin is product of the sinner. The scriptures not only give us guidelines on how to deal with beleivers on this issue, but how the believer themself can find restoration and return to fellowship. If someone lies to you or steals from you, who do you judge? You judge the liar and the thief.

Paul, we have already more than established that homosexual sin is not the unpardonable sin. Using hate tactics against homosexuals is reprehensible. There is no point rehashing that after I've just pointed it out in the previous post. It only comes across as either stubborn or a poor debate tactice. No one here is advocating such. I condemn it.

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.

Regarding the sin. The bible has already made the judgment. It is sin. We either conform our minds to this truth, or we conform to the world.
Regarding the sinner? Just like any other. Regarding discipline within the church, we are not to single out homosexual sin with special punishment. We are only to judge those who are within the church. We are to not associate with them. The judgment is to remove them from fellowship, until they would seek restoration.

Regarding the outside world. We are not to hurl insults, or single people out. But simply state what the scriptures say regarding such behavior, and obviously that God offers forgiveness for ANYONE.

The issue today, is that the homosexual agenda seeks to allow amnesty within the church for practicing homosexuals. Even to the point that they can obtain roles in the pastorate. That is to permit what is cearly impermissable in the scriptures. Now, you will get no argument from me that the church also is permitting other sins. Yes, we need to be consistent. But all too often this is used as an excuse to do nothing about the homosexual agenda. You see there isn't an adulterer's agenda. There isn't a group of porn addicts seeking to allow porn addicts amnesty in the church. Yes, there are people in the church with these issues. There are adulterers in the church. There are porn addicts in the church. But are they trying to force their lifestyle choices to be accepted as natural and approved? NO!!

[Canuckster1127]

A lot of the confusion comes in because of the different greek words for love.

Eros is a physical love and in that context there's no question that homosexual love, ie. the acting out physically (regardless of the form it takes) is sin.

Phileo is a brotherly love and there's no element of sin involved there. That would be much clearer to those who speak and think and the greek. English confuses the issue because we use the overworked word "love" and culturally too, we see eros where phileo is present and culturally we respond to it as such.

[PaulSacramento]

Jlay,
Thank you for expressing your POV.
It is greatly appreciated.

[neo-x]

by PaulSacramento » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:04 pm

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 !

Ah...i think we are talking about this, Rom Chap 1

"v 18-27: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

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 about 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 sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

There is no sin as a harmless sin, if it doesn't affect others, it effects the person committing it. I agree that it is a forgivable sin, but then so is murder, rape, arson and theft. one would be pretty decisive about his stance on such sins.

The above versus clearly states that Homosexuality is born out of evil no matter how innocent or pure it may seem and is a result of "sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies". Simple as that. And it does imply that before they took their stance they had at least the choice to do so and they went with what they want and like. And God left them. I would think just like he left Samson. Evil could take over our hearts if we do not conform to the standards of God's Word.

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?

Love/lust of same genders sexually is wrong and that is what we are discussing. There comes a certain point in your spiritual matureness where you have to take a stand on the Word of God(in the right context). if it says something is wrong, it is wrong.

I don't think we are condemning anyone to hell, it is after all forgivable. so we are not judging anyone for that matter. but the judgment will automatically come if one doesn't repent. and even if you do not judge your self, you would pretty much know the outcome. if someone dies committing adultery or theft or some sin, I am quite sure about his destination. even though i am not the judge myself, but the Word tells me clearly that such people shall not enter the kingdom of God. My point I am not the judge but I am aware, not always, but only when it is obvious.

[FearlessLlearsy]

I;m new to this forum, but i am SURE glad, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we help each other find truth, and act in accordance to the Word of God

[neo-x]

I;m new to this forum, but i am SURE glad, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we help each other find truth, and act in accordance to the Word of God

& Welcome

[DannyM]

Sorry I'm late. There are things which God has declared to be wrong. We should not turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to them simply because we are a little sensitive to those who are militant in their defence of such sin.
-
-

[kellylauren]

Wow. I am blown away by some of the responses. If you want to know whether or not homosexuality is a choice, ask a homosexual. I'm bisexual, and it's not a choice. Here's a simple thought experiment that can be done to prove that sexual orientation is not chosen: Pretend the bible says that heterosexuality is an abomination and that "mixing of the sexes" is against the purity of God's plan. As a result, heterosexual marriages are illegal in 45 of the 50 states and not recognized by the Federal Government. Camps are set up to "cure" heterosexuality. Could you denounce your heterosexual lifestyle and take up a life with a partner of the same sex... happily? Could you will yourself to change your orientation as a matter of well-reasoned, personal choice? I have yet to find a person who claims they could do it, heterosexual or homosexual.

And so what if it's a choice or not? I don't see what the relevance is in proving whether or not homosexuality is natural or chosen. Nature and morality have little to do with each other. Plenty of things that are "natural" we would consider immoral: There are species who eat their own young, and while this is a natural behavior there is nothing about it that we would consider moral. There are also plenty of things that are unnatural that we consider to be good, like airplanes, iPods and government. Proving whether something is natural or not should make no difference in the debate about whether or not it is moral.

[Echoside]

Wow. I am blown away by some of the responses. If you want to know whether or not homosexuality is a choice, ask a homosexual. I'm bisexual, and it's not a choice.

The homosexual act and the state of being homosexually inclined are two different things. This goes for every sin really, everyone has their own temptations whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, related to lying, cheating, whatever.

Here's a simple thought experiment that can be done to prove that sexual orientation is not chosen: Pretend the bible says that heterosexuality is an abomination and that "mixing of the sexes" is against the purity of God's plan. As a result, heterosexual marriages are illegal in 45 of the 50 states and not recognized by the Federal Government. Camps are set up to "cure" heterosexuality. Could you denounce your heterosexual lifestyle and take up a life with a partner of the same sex... happily? Could you will yourself to change your orientation as a matter of well-reasoned, personal choice? I have yet to find a person who claims they could do it, heterosexual or homosexual.

if from the start of existence God made heterosexuality a sin because of how he fashioned man, then I see no problem with your thought here. The fact is God didn't, so this kind of thinking can't really get us anywhere.

And so what if it's a choice or not? I don't see what the relevance is in proving whether or not homosexuality is natural or chosen. Nature and morality have little to do with each other. Plenty of things that are "natural" we would consider immoral: There are species who eat their own young, and while this is a natural behavior there is nothing about it that we would consider moral. There are also plenty of things that are unnatural that we consider to be good, like airplanes, iPods and government. Proving whether something is natural or not should make no difference in the debate about whether or not it is moral.

i understand what you are saying here, but there is a difference when the naturality of something flows from the ultimate source of good. The animals you are referencing are not immoral actually, most moral codes even atheist ones would agree, as they cannot be moral agents. Also I think the definition of "natural" when used in these types of discussions really needs to be clarified a bit more, something that is naturally good from god or our moral compass or whatever seems a bit more important than something as trivial a tree or some other "natural" occurence.

[jlay]

There are species who eat their own young, and while this is a natural behavior there is nothing about it that we would consider moral.

Natural behavior? I would hardly say it is natural. It may happen, but anyone can recognize that animals eating their young is not natural. Unless you are saying that anything that happens among conscious beings in nature is natural. That is akin to saying, "there are humans who practice cannibalism. While it is natural there is nothing we would consider immoral." As you can see, this logically fails in so many areas. Further, the whole analogy is flawed, because as much as we would like to beleive that animals are moral, they really are not, in regards to human morality.

Your experiment is even more ludicrous. Pretending isn't reality. Just as it would be absurd to have someone pretend that murder is society's preference, and to force themselves to live by it. I would never expect someone with homosexual tendencies to enter a heterosexual relationship. Your error is that you attempt to fram your argument on the issue that homosexuality is a not a choice but a natural orientation. However, no matter how much you'd like it to be, this isn't disagrement in orientation. Heterosexuality isn't right just because it is one's natural inclination. It that were the case, then to be consistent, all inclinations would have to be deemed natural and morally neutral. In fact there are all kinds of inclinations within heterosexuality, that we would deem immoral.

You simply can't follow that reasoning to its logical ends and have it hold up. Because to do so means you would need to consider every orientation/ tendency/ inclination acceptable in and of itself. Such as those who have the orientation to rape, child molest, etc. But I doubt you will do that. Because those inclinations are so blatantly deplorable. You don't consider bisexaul acts deplorable, therefore you are trying to rate things on how they offend you or please you. Hardly an objective standard. So, on what basis could you say that child molesting inclinations are wrong? I don't see how you can, without contradicting yourself in mulitple ways.

There are also plenty of things that are unnatural that we consider to be good, like airplanes, iPods and government.

Another very poor example of reasoning. These are all material objects. Such things are not moral. Poison isn't immoral anymore than lollipops are moral. It is what moral beings do with these objects.
I do agree that nature and morality in many cases have nothing to do with each other. For example, robbing a bank. What natural law is being challenged here? But that isn't always the case.

[kevdog19]

When I'm in a homosexual relationship it feels natural, to a purely heterosexual person it will appear unatural, well jee whiz, because it's not in your nature is why it appears unatural to you. Personaly I believe the folks who wrote the bible were first and foremost trying to express what they thought were god's thoughts on things, but they also had an agenda and that was to create babies that would eventually grow to be warriors or full grown woman to have more babies. For the Jews increasing their population was of utmost importance as they were greatly outnumbered by neighboring civilizations.

[CeT-To]

It's not about if it feels natural or not, anything one does if they do it consistently it can start to feel natural to them. Doesn't mean its right. In my opinion God shouldn't even say anything on this topic, our biological bodies say enough.