Discussion:
Evangelical Christians and Homosexuality
(too old to reply)
**Rowland Croucher**
2009-08-26 01:42:37 UTC
Permalink
A few brief notes on BEYOND STEREOTYPES: CHRISTIANS & HOMOSEXUALITY (The=20
Evangelical Alliance Working Group on Human Sexuality), Australian=20
Evangelical Alliance, 2009, 108 pages.

My thesis: Evangelicals who believe in =91the supreme authority of the=20
Scriptures=92 have come a long way in terms of freedom for slaves,=20
equality for women, and grace for the divorced, and are now on a similar=20
journey as they relate to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT)=20
people=85

Interviewer (to Evangelical Church Leader): Remember when, just a couple=20
of generations ago, we used to fight about Christians not dancing, not=20
drinking alcohol, not remarrying after divorce, not working on=20
Sabbath/Sunday, not giving leadership roles to women etc.? What=92s the=20
current situation?

Evangelical Church Leader: Wow, yes, times have changed haven=92t they?=20
Significant paradigm shifts have occurred in all these areas =96 and=20
others. Now we allow divorced people to be leaders, even pastors; now=20
many Christians drink alcohol =96 hopefully in moderation; these days we=20
can cope with whatever people do on Sundays (they can even enjoy=20
themselves!); and yes, we have women in leadership at every level in our=20
denomination. (And once we could make an excellent case from the Bible=20
against these positions).

I: OK let=92s talk about sex. In your evangelical tradition, what=92s=20
prohibited?

ECL: That=92s simple, really: no sex before marriage, no adultery after=20
marriage, no sex between people of the same gender.

I: So fornication, adultery, homosexual sex are out. Which is worse of=20
these three areas of sinfulness?

ECL: They=92re all equally sinful.

I: Are they? Has your denomination had a task-force on homosexuality?

ECL: Yes, every denomination has.

I: On adultery?

ECL: No, we leave discipline in that area to local churches, unless=20
pastors are involved, and they=92re disciplined according to best-practic=
e=20
protocols=85

I: Fornication?

ECL: Our pastors preach against it, and do pre-marriage counseling in=20
this area, and that=92s about it.

I: Do you know the incidence of church members (especially young people)=20
who marry in your churches who=92ve had sexual intercourse before their=20
wedding-day?

ECL: No, but I guess it would be a majority=85

I: Not only is it a majority, but according to surveys among pastors who=20
really know their people, it=92s somewhere between 70-90% in mainline=20
evangelical churches in Western countries. Now, if all three areas of=20
=91sexual sinfulness=92 are to attract attention/discipline, wouldn=92t y=
ou=20
think that area would too?

ECL: Sure, when you put it like that.

I: But it doesn=92t eh? Why is that?

ECL: I frankly don=92t know.

I: I=92ll tell you. The rationale is not theological but personal =96=20
they=92re our children! The problem is not what we believe, but what the=20
Chinese call =91face=92!

I for one call that gross hypocrisy: no wonder thoughtful people despise=20
churches for such =91selective indignation=92. [1]

In my work as a counselor-of-clergy (and others) over the past 25 years,=20
theological and pastoral issues surrounding the complexities of this=20
subject have come up hundreds of times. It=92s currently the # 1=20
issue-of-contention in churches around the world. Here are just two very=20
common cries-from-the-heart I hear regularly:

=95 =91Rowland, I want to be faithful to the Scriptures, but when I couns=
el=20
homosexuals pastorally my =93proof-texting=94 approach isn=92t working. W=
hen=20
asked what my position is I=92ve used the old mantra about =91hating the =
sin=20
and loving the sinner=92 but the response is always =91But then why don=92=
t I=20
*feel* loved by people who say that?=92

=95 Or: =91I=92m nineteen, and have been sent to you by my pastor and par=
ents.=20
My father is an elder in the church I=92ve attended all my life. Last=20
month I finally =91came out=92 and told my family I=92m gay. I think I=92=
ve=20
always been that way, I didn=92t choose to be erotically attracted to=20
other guys, but women just don=92t turn me on at all. I=92m a committed=20
Christian and want to be faithful to God=92s Word, but this whole thing i=
s=20
tearing me apart. I=92ve recently heard of two young people like me who=92=
ve=20
committed suicide because they couldn=92t cope with the negative response=
s=20
they got when they came out=85 What am I to do?=92

=91Sometimes I feel like the most liberal person among conservatives; and=
=20
sometimes like the most conservative among liberals. How am I to fit=20
together my religious past with my spiritual present?=92 (Philip Yancey [=
2])

I can relate to that. Theologically, I=92m evangelical in roughly the sam=
e=20
way Bishop N T Wright is: =91I believe in the authority of Scripture. I=20
believe in the appropriate sub-authority of tradition =96 respecting the=20
wisdom of the church as it has wrestled with issues. But I also believe=20
passionately in the importance of reason=85 =91 [3] .

(An important little digression. A woman parishioner was married to a=20
diagnosed psychopath, who beat her and her children, sometimes to the=20
point of their being hospitalized. I talked with them both, and he=20
denied it all. Eventually, she said =91I can=92t stay: I can cope but I=20
don=92t want to bring up my children in this fearful violent home.=92 I=20
agreed with her, and eventually she divorced her husband. By the way, he=20
had a gun, and threatened to shoot me. Question: on what grounds did I=20
have the authority to encourage her? The Bible? Not on its own: there=92s=
=20
no =91exception clause=92 in terms of divorce for domestic violence, only=
=20
for adultery. Tradition? No: the church has been predominantly=20
patriarchal. Reason? Well, yes, but sanctified by grace. I did what I=20
believe Jesus would have done. The majority of Christians =96 even=20
conservative Christians these days =96 agree with that approach in this=20
sort of situation. Keep this analogy in mind as we discuss this other=20
great paradigm-shift).

Re homosexuality, Wright goes on to say: =91The more I=92ve been on the e=
dge=20
of the debates the more I=92m aware of the complexity of the issues=85=92=
=20
which is why, he says, he hasn=92t (yet) published anything substantive o=
n=20
the subject. [4] I=92m also not ready to write a major piece on this=20
topic, so my approach here will have a tentative flavour about it.

However, when I read the Australian Evangelical Alliance=92s Beyond=20
Stereotypes I realize that I=92m on the progressive end of the evangelica=
l=20
spectrum. I was for some years a member of the Council of the Victorian=20
Evangelical Alliance, and was invited in the 1980s to be Australian=20
national director for the EA. I know most of the people on this working=20
group - a couple are close/good friends. They have done a good job -=20
over three years - to produce this 108-page study-guide which, as far as=20
it goes, is thorough, readable and irenic.

=91Evangelical=92 clergy/pastors/scholars can *very roughly* be categoriz=
ed=20
four ways. Judgmental fundamentalists tell me =91I preach the Word. I=20
don=92t compromise. It=92s then up to individuals to respond or not: that=
=92s=20
their choice.=92 (Crazies in this group =96 like the Westboro Baptist Chu=
rch=20
people =96 hold up placards at gays=92 funerals proclaiming =91God hates=20
fags=92). Conservative Evangelicals: =91Scripture is clear: even though a=
=20
homosexual=92s orientation might not be *chosen*, their only life-choice=20
is to be celibate.=92 Progressive Evangelicals tend to identify with Tony=
=20
Campolo=92s well-known advice (paraphrased): =91Even if our approach is t=
o=20
affirm the authority of Scripture, we must do more than simply exhort=20
these people to be celibate.=92 More radical Evangelicals: =91The Bible h=
as=20
to be interpreted in its socio-cultural context. The same-sex liaisons=20
behind the biblical prohibitions related either to exploitative sex or=20
sexual rites in pagan religious contexts. A homosexual =91orientation=92 =
as=20
such wasn=92t known back then=85=92

More...http://victoriaconcordiacrescit.blogspot.com/

Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
l***@hotmail.com
2009-08-31 04:37:08 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 25, 8:42=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**
Post by **Rowland Croucher**
A few brief notes on BEYOND STEREOTYPES: CHRISTIANS & HOMOSEXUALITY (The=
=3D20
Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Evangelical Alliance Working Group on Human Sexuality), Australian=3D20
Evangelical Alliance, 2009, 108 pages.
My thesis: Evangelicals who believe in =3D91the supreme authority of the=
=3D20
Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Scriptures=3D92 have come a long way in terms of freedom for slaves,
But the Scriptures do not plainly state that slavery is a "thou shall
not."
The OT Law gave provisions for it along with the year of jubilee. So
this
is apples and oranges.
Post by **Rowland Croucher**
equality for women,
And what does Scripture teach concerning women? It does not deny
equal dignity however it does deny equality in the sense that Western
society now interprets it. The Scriptures place the office of
womanhood
beneath that of man as it placed the office of the Son of Man beneath
that of God the Father. The Scriptures do not deny equality before
God but it does deny equality in the present order. Eve was not first
created nor was she made the head. Eph. and Peter re-establish this
paradgim. Again, apples and oranges.
Post by **Rowland Croucher**
and grace for the divorced,
But not acceptance of divorce. How few people ponder the why's and
wherefore's of certain scriptural directives. Why is divorce an
abomination
to the Lord? Christ certainly didn't lower that standard. Marriage
is a
type, a reflection of the Godhead itself. Can you ever imagine one
member
of the Godhead deciding He's had enough and is going to strike out on
their own? The original design of one man, one woman has never been
rescinded. AND, that is the only paradigm taught in Scripture. All
others
are condemned. Period.
Post by **Rowland Croucher**
and are now on a similar journey as they relate to gay, lesbian, bisexual=
and transgender (
Society yes, Biblical Christianity and God, NO! The moral law has
never evolved. You presume that God is not omniscient nor worthy
of the title Sovereign Designer. The Decree of God includes EVERY
thing. When God says such and such is wrong, he doesn't later wink
at it. Basically, biblical law is a reflection of the moral nature of
God.
This is the Pauline link in Rom 1. Everyone is born with a conscience
link to God. Read VanTil's "Christian Theistic Ethics" to see a
biblical analysis of this fact. At the time of the fall, that link
was not
severed, it was damaged. Men now are themselves the final arbitrator
as to what is right and what is wrong even though they are still
created
with the original imprint. Paul's argument is that they KNOW what is
right but they chose not live in that reality. THey chose to their
own
reality. This "journey" of which you seek is real. It is the journey
away
from God as He judicially "gives them over". The effect is
homosexuality
and the like. It's not the cause. The punishment for sin is sin.

Because "they have their hearts darkened" to the true spiritual
reality,
they are judicially given over to depraved hearts. Lesbianism is the
second tell in the Pauline paradigm. The darkened mind is the last
for
once the mind is hardened in deceit, it is truly lost.

All that was argued for in this post did little else that substantiate
the biblical record that the fallen soul only goes from bad to worse.
Society which is merely the corporate soul follows the same line.
Scripture is clear that degradation is rule of order in the later
days,
both NT as well as OT. The Gospel does not raise the society of
man to the level of the Kingdom of God as spoken of in Scripture.
Only when God returns to put down such a society and establish
His own by the removal of the unrighteous does the Millennial
Kingdom rule of Christ come to be.

There is NO scriptural justification for revisionism in the moral
area of life.

--D76986AEC9C.1251688349/Main.local--
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
2009-09-01 02:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Some Christians, for various reasons, enjoy criticizing homosexual
humans. Some other Christians have tried to appeal to those critics
to remember the golden rule and change their ways. This approach has
produced no positive results. These critics of homosexuals enjoy
delivering their anti homosexual attacks, and they seem to think it is
the righteous thing to do. There is no cure for that anti homosexual
mind set. As the wise man has said, =93There is no cure for
stupidity.=94 It is just something that is going to be with us for a
while. Even funerals produced by old age will not solve the problem,
as some of the old anti homosexual people, go out of their way to
infect younger people with their hate.
l***@hotmail.com
2009-09-02 02:07:15 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 31, 9:11=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina
Post by George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
Some Christians, for various reasons, enjoy criticizing homosexual
humans. =A0Some other Christians have tried to appeal to those critics
to remember the golden rule and change their ways. =A0This approach has
produced no positive results. =A0These critics of homosexuals enjoy
delivering their anti homosexual attacks, and they seem to think it is
the righteous thing to do. =A0There is no cure for that anti homosexual
mind set. =A0As the wise man has said, =3D93There is no cure for
stupidity.=3D94 =A0It is just something that is going to be with us for a
while. =A0Even funerals produced by old age will not solve the problem,
as some of the old anti homosexual people, go out of their way to
infect younger people with their hate.
You couldn't be more wrong. You simply couldn't -on so many
levels. You come at this from a mindset which betrays your
understanding of reality. Christians who defend the unrevised
principles of Scripture only take enjoyment in proclaiming the
Truth. I don't know any who take pleasure in being the outsider,
and that is exactly where Biblical Christians stand today on this
issue as well as many others. You see this whole thing as an
upward spiraling evolution whereas the clear biblical account
declares it to be exactly the opposite. I once worked in an AIDs
wing of an Atlanta hospital long before it had acquired that title.
It was my grandmother who led me there on weekends. I took
NO pleasure in seeing the agony and death any more than I do
today. How often I cry out loud to my wife the misery of sin
and death. I'm older now and I attend way too many funerals,
funerals of those who only had a surfacy Christianity. They
thought they were saved but their lives did anything but evidence
an inward rebirth.

Again, Rom 1 is clear in its teaching. Even Gibbon's "Rise and
Decline of the Roman Empire, an atheist in the extreme, evidences
the same conclusion which Rom 1 teaches. That one of the
evidences of a dying society is homosexuality. Rom 1 teaches
that it is a judgment of God abandoning those who reject His
sovereignly revealed righteous will.

So you go ahead and keep hugging your illusion and I will
stay right here and keep advocating the Biblical position
no matter how many you call to your side (Rom 1:32).
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
2009-09-03 00:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 1, 9:07=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
...
You couldn't be more wrong. =A0You simply couldn't -on so many
levels. =A0You come at this from a mindset which betrays your
understanding of reality. =A0Christians who defend the unrevised
principles of Scripture only take enjoyment in proclaiming the
Truth. =A0I don't know any who take pleasure in being the outsider,
...
and death. =A0I'm older now and I attend way too many funerals,
funerals of those who only had a surfacy Christianity. =A0They
thought they were saved but their lives did anything but evidence
an inward rebirth.
Again, Rom 1 is clear in its teaching. =A0Even Gibbon's "Rise and
Decline of the Roman Empire, an atheist in the extreme, evidences
the same conclusion which Rom 1 teaches. =A0That one of the
evidences of a dying society is homosexuality. =A0Rom 1 teaches
...

I stand by what I wrote. there is no excuse for a Christian nor any
other person to treat their fellow man in the manner that some are
treating homosexuals. But, some are shameless and find every excuse
they can find to promote their message of hate.
a***@joe.net
2009-09-04 01:22:06 UTC
Permalink
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
Post by George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
...
I stand by what I wrote. there is no excuse for a Christian nor any
other person to treat their fellow man in the manner that some are
treating homosexuals. But, some are shameless and find every excuse
they can find to promote their message of hate.
I would agree, but at the same time, there is nothing loving about condoning
sin either. We must tell people the truth, and we must do so in love.


Joe
a***@joe.net
2009-09-03 00:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, Rom 1 is clear in its teaching. Even Gibbon's "Rise and
Decline of the Roman Empire, an atheist in the extreme, evidences
the same conclusion which Rom 1 teaches. That one of the
evidences of a dying society is homosexuality. Rom 1 teaches
that it is a judgment of God abandoning those who reject His
sovereignly revealed righteous will.
It seems to me that the lying, cheating, stealing, lovelessness, and
faithlessness of our culture, its worship of self and pleasure and Godless,
tyrannical "leaders" instead of God, all preceded the widespread acceptance
of homosexuality in our society by many decades. And we accepted divorce,
then adultery, then fornication, then abortion, long before this as well.
Since we as evangelical Christians are guilty of many of these sins, it
seems manifestly unfair to single out homosexuals as being the cause of
society's fall. Romans 1 does not do this - it lists many evidences of our
fallen state before God, not just this one. And it does not end there, but
continues on to the most detailed explanation in all of Scripture about how
God has created, at the cost of His own Son's shed blood, a solution for
this entire mess.

I tend to see those who struggle with sexual sin as being, at least in part,
victims of our society's moral collapse. It is now so "normal" in our
culture that many of them do not even see it as sinful. Part of the
evidence of our society's decline is that we do not see sin as God does,
even approximately. Thus we do not see our need for His mercy, or the terms
upon which He offers it. And little by little we abandon God's Law, which
should both guide our behavior, and even more importantly, teach us of the
need for a Savior.

Gay people are well aware of the condemnation they receive from Christians.
They do NOT hear the message of God's love and forgiveness through
repentance and faith in Christ. But on some level every human being longs
for this, for we were created for fellowship with God, and that is not
possible so long as we remain in sin. So, knowing they will not receive any
help from most "Christians," they tend to follow one or more of the made-up
delusions of our culture, such as the idea of an unholy God who tolerates
sin and accepts everyone in spite of it, or the idea that God does not
exist, or even the perverse idea (articulated here recently, by more than
one person) that the only real sin is the concept of sin itself.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So you go ahead and keep hugging your illusion and I will
stay right here and keep advocating the Biblical position
no matter how many you call to your side (Rom 1:32).
The Bible does not condone this or any other sin, but it DOES offer a way
back to God, and His mercy and forgiveness, to all those who will repent and
trust in Christ.

Again, we are very quick to preach God's judgment and condemnation, but
every GLBT person has heard this part of the message over and over and over
again, distorted and exaggerated far beyond the bounds of what the Bible
actually teaches. Meanwhile, very few have heard the GOOD NEWS that they
can be forgiven and accepted and loved by God, as the precious people they
are, and also by as many of God's other children as are willing to genuinely
follow Him, and, therefore, to put aside their prejudices and to strive to
see the world, and the people God created, the way He Himself does.

I fall far short of this, but it is my goal, which I hope to achieve with
His help.


Joe
news
2009-09-04 01:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@joe.net
Gay people are well aware of the condemnation they receive from Christians.
B - beg your pardon..but from SOME people who call themselves Christian.

I believe that the general "concept" of Christ has been perverted somewhat
in the newer Bibles (King James and newer)and that the new testament
obviously as we know does
not say anything about Jesus condemning homosexuality. Loving another
adult unrelated person of the same sex does nothing in the least bit
evil...there is not
even a practical thing to being against it as there will always be enough
heterosexuals to keep humanity going.

The act of anal sex also,if done
carefully and with lubrication does little to the anal sphincter and
besides that many straight couples do this and many gay men do not.
Condoms keep away disease as best we can in men and women.

There is no difference between being homosexual in a hetero dominant world
than in being left handed in a right dominant world. To go on about
physical expression we use to bond, procreate, love,and relax is to bring
God down to the physical level in such a petty way...totally missing
the pure concept of love and sharing and forming relationships and family
....it's sad that so many people who claim to be Christian have had this
hatred bred into them and supported by hate filled persons and
acquaintances. I personally think it is the old puritan traits of North
America...so afraid of sex as a joyous expression and not seen as a normal
part of life...like breathing.. that it makes people all contorted inside.
My we all find joy in life in love in the Creators gifts that we seek more
to build bridges than to burn them.

Bren
l***@hotmail.com
2009-09-04 01:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@joe.net
Again, Rom 1 is clear in its teaching. =A0Even Gibbon's "Rise and
Decline of the Roman Empire, an atheist in the extreme, evidences
the same conclusion which Rom 1 teaches. =A0That one of the
evidences of a dying society is homosexuality. =A0Rom 1 teaches
that it is a judgment of God abandoning those who reject His
sovereignly revealed righteous will.
It seems to me that the lying, cheating, stealing, lovelessness, and
faithlessness of our culture, its worship of self and pleasure and Godles=
s,
Post by a***@joe.net
tyrannical "leaders" instead of God, all preceded the widespread acceptan=
ce
Post by a***@joe.net
of homosexuality in our society by many decades. =A0And we accepted divor=
ce,
Post by a***@joe.net
then adultery, then fornication, then abortion, long before this as well.
Since we as evangelical Christians are guilty of many of these sins, it
seems manifestly unfair to single out homosexuals as being the cause of
society's fall.
Who's doing that? In my reply I mentioned that according to
scripture,
homosexuality was the judgment, not the cause. Because society had
rejected God, God then gave them over to their own desires,
homosexuality
being the second indicator mentioned in Rom 1.
Post by a***@joe.net
=A0Romans 1 does not do this - it lists many evidences of our
fallen state before God, not just this one. =A0
Then you don't understand the argument or the flow of letter. You
also need to recognize the context from which Paul is writing this. He
is in Corinth about to go to Jerusalem with a purse to help needy
Jewish Christians. The import of this is that hard feelings and thus
a division was growing between Jews and Christians. The purse was
to help mend that hurt and to show that the Gentiles were not
superior and neither were the Jews. Rom 11 adds to this.

But that said, Rom 1:18ff develops the argument that now that the
Gospel of God has been revealed, there is NO excuse, Gentile or
Jew for rejecting the mercies of God. Two different responses are
evidenced when rejected. One is the religious/external moral one
which is usually taught as being aimed at the Jews (2:1-3:5). The
other is immorality, as evidenced in 1:17-32, usually attributed to
the pagan Gentile nations. Homosexuality in the Jewish community
was unheard of and unrecorded. Even in the Gentile annals there
is no mention of lesbianism before the 2nd C. But the paradigm is
clear and it is easily evidenced even in our own day. That being that
that women are usually the last to give into a moral impropriety.
When they do, in the arena of homosexuality, it is a tell that a
severe judicial abandonment has already taken place. I've got
seven commentaries right here which all see this as the develop-
ment in the Pauline argument.
Post by a***@joe.net
And it does not end there, but
continues on to the most detailed explanation in all of Scripture about h=
ow
Post by a***@joe.net
God has created, at the cost of His own Son's shed blood, a solution for
this entire mess.
???????? Now you have wandered off. Stick to the argument and
the context of the discussion.
Post by a***@joe.net
I tend to see those who struggle with sexual sin as being, at least in pa=
rt,
Post by a***@joe.net
victims of our society's moral collapse. =A0It is now so "normal" in our
culture that many of them do not even see it as sinful.
Then they have entered into the third stage of abandonment, (1:28).
Post by a***@joe.net
=A0Part of the
evidence of our society's decline is that we do not see sin as God does,
even approximately.
No body does. This is the point of Isa 5-6. But the believer who
is understanding of their dependence upon God and the power of
His word, has his/her conscience renewed to the extent that they
do realize, that is live in the true reality, when their motives or
actions
are contrary to mind of God.

Ignorance is no excuse. Reread Romans. How many times in even
the first chapter does Paul condemn the unbelievers because "even
though they KNEW God" or "exchanged the glory" or "exchange the
truth" or especially in the Greek, "worshipped and served the creature
rather than the Creator." There is no excuse. Not even for true
born again Christians. The whole point of the argument is one of
reality. We deceive ourselves by deliberately manufacturing our
own reality. We know the true reality. We despise God when we
do this. The etymology of the word meaning to greatly under
value an object to the point of rendering contempt. When we chose
to live in our own reality instead of God's (which we know to be the
only and true reality) we are deliberately showing contempt for His
sovereign rule over us. We fool ourselves into thinking that, "Oh,
He's loving and merciful. He hasn't struck me dead before and
besides, so many others are doing worse things, He won't judge
me for it." Yet the God of the NT is the God of the OT. Rom 2:4
points out the fact that God hasn't changed. He will still judge us
even as He is illustrated judging sinners in the OT, it's just that
in this dispensation, His immediate judgment is of the more passive
nature where He allows the rebel to be swallowed up in his/her
rebellion.
Post by a***@joe.net
=A0Thus we do not see our need for His mercy, or the terms
upon which He offers it. =A0And little by little we abandon God's Law, wh=
ich
Post by a***@joe.net
should both guide our behavior, and even more importantly, teach us of th=
e
Post by a***@joe.net
need for a Savior.
Gay people are well aware of the condemnation they receive from Christian=
s.
No. Again, your whole perspective is presumptuous. You presume in
your all too wide brush stroke to equate steadfastly adhering to the
revealed
will of God as condemnation. You presume to know the motivation.
Undoubtedly some are hard hearted and do in fact judge. But so what?
You always have that outer fringe. And besides, Rom 2:14-15 express
what our own society does when it overwhelmingly votes against the
establishment of homosexual marriage. This should in and of itself
be a tell that it is an unacceptable behavior.
Post by a***@joe.net
They do NOT hear the message of God's love and forgiveness through
repentance and faith in Christ.
You seem to presume, wrongly, that men come because something
other than God drags them to repentance. You are humanistic in
your rational.
Post by a***@joe.net
=A0But on some level every human being longs
for this, for we were created for fellowship with God, and that is not
possible so long as we remain in sin. =A0So, knowing they will not receiv=
e any
Post by a***@joe.net
help from most "Christians,"
"Help?" Surely you jest? The problems lies in the fact that
first it must be accepted that such an inclination is a rebellion
against God Himself. This has been my overwhelming experience
when counseling homosexuals. I don't do it any more but I use
to. Very rarely is it admitted on a deep level as being an affront
to God. Rather, what is desired is a both/and situation. They
completely reject the either/or reality.

Also, in the individual assemblies that I have worked in, I don't
know of one that coldly rejected a confessed homosexual. All
sought to work with the individual but only with the understanding
of the either/or situation. It was no different that with the
alcoholic,
the husband who would not accept the responsibility of providing
for his family, even in one case, the pedophile whom we discovered
in our youth group. We immediately removed him from that
event but we did not ban him from the assembly as long as he was
willing to confess his sin and work with a counselor in the same
way an alcoholic does in his/her support group.
Post by a***@joe.net
they tend to follow one or more of the made-up
delusions of our culture, such as the idea of an unholy God who tolerates
sin and accepts everyone in spite of it, or the idea that God does not
exist, or even the perverse idea (articulated here recently, by more than
one person) that the only real sin is the concept of sin itself.
Those who come into this NG advocating or at least seeking to
justify the lifestyle should not expect to be pampered. The
unruly child must confess his wrong before any course correction
is to be expected. And Rom 1:32 expresses much of what I have
debated against in this NG over the last 20yrs. They want to
establish the both/and situation whereas scripture only permits
the either/or.
Post by a***@joe.net
So you go ahead and keep hugging your illusion and I will
stay right here and keep advocating the Biblical position
no matter how many you call to your side (Rom 1:32).
The Bible does not condone this or any other sin, but it DOES offer a way
back to God, and His mercy and forgiveness, to all those who will repent =
and
Post by a***@joe.net
trust in Christ.
And there is the rub.
Post by a***@joe.net
Again, we are very quick to preach God's judgment and condemnation,
No, we are quick, in the context of the intent of this NG, to point
out
that there is no revisionism, no watering down of the absolutes of
scripture.
Post by a***@joe.net
but
every GLBT person has heard this part of the message over and over and ov=
er
Post by a***@joe.net
again, distorted and exaggerated far beyond the bounds of what the Bible
actually teaches. =A0Meanwhile, very few have heard the GOOD NEWS that th=
ey
Post by a***@joe.net
can be forgiven and accepted and loved by God, as the precious people the=
y
Post by a***@joe.net
are, and also by as many of God's other children as are willing to genuin=
ely
Post by a***@joe.net
follow Him, and, therefore, to put aside their prejudices and to strive t=
o
Post by a***@joe.net
see the world, and the people God created, the way He Himself does.
I simply disagree.
shegeek72
2009-09-30 23:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@joe.net
I fall far short of this, but it is my goal, which I hope to
achieve with
Post by a***@joe.net
His help.
I hope that with his help you're able to see that GLBT people are not
'sinners.' They are part of God's beautiful rainbow of humanity and
deserve the same rights as you and freedom from intrusion into their
lives by misguided Christians.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org/
Jo Jo Gunn
2009-09-30 01:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
On Aug 31, 9:11=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina
Post by George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
Some Christians, for various reasons, enjoy criticizing homosexual
humans. =A0Some other Christians have tried to appeal to those critics
to remember the golden rule and change their ways. =A0This approach has
produced no positive results. =A0These critics of homosexuals enjoy
delivering their anti homosexual attacks, and they seem to think it is
the righteous thing to do. =A0There is no cure for that anti homosexual
mind set. =A0As the wise man has said, =3D93There is no cure for
stupidity.=3D94 =A0It is just something that is going to be with us for a
while. =A0Even funerals produced by old age will not solve the problem,
as some of the old anti homosexual people, go out of their way to
infect younger people with their hate.
You couldn't be more wrong. You simply couldn't -on so many
levels.
This is one of YOUR issues Loren. You can't seem to stand that good
Christian men (and women) come to a different conclusion than you.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You come at this from a mindset which betrays your
understanding of reality.
And then it comes down to criticizing others....
l***@hotmail.com
2009-09-30 23:44:50 UTC
Permalink
This is one of YOUR issues Loren. =A0You can't seem to stand that good
Christian men (and women) come to a different conclusion than you.
About what? About biblical exegesis? You seem to infer that
this is a relativistic ethic. Tolerance always breeds indifference.
Jesus was not intolerant of sin.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You come at this from a mindset which betrays your
understanding of reality.
And then it comes down to criticizing others....
When people come into a NG seeking to establish their own
bent on some doctrinal issue, they had better be able to
provide analysis substantiating their thesis. Bloviating is
not a methodology.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...