Same Sex Relationships

[Ted]

alone :D

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. It is time to quit looking at the Bible as inerrant and literal. J. Song has written an excellent book, well received by the clergy in my church, concerning "The Sins of the Scriptures".

I left this fold years ago and thought that things might have changed but obviously they have not. This is not the Christianity that I have come to know and am committed to. To quote one theologian some folks are so heavenly bound they are of no earth use.

Yes, I am angry every bit as much as Jesus was in the temple with the money changers. I have relied most of my life on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and I have been led to where I am.

The form of extreme Christianity I see here is as dangerous as Muslim extremism.

Have a nice day. I shall not return. I really don't want or need this nonsense.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[Free]

The form of extreme Christianity I see here is as dangerous as Muslim extremism.

That is quite a strong statement to make. I sure hope you have the conviction, and the guts, to rationally back up such a claim.

I shall not return. I really don't want or need this nonsense.

Do you not want to rationally discuss the merits of any of Spong's works or beliefs? As I pointed out in the other topic, Spong is a heretic and I will give reasonable answers as to why this is. I would like to discuss why orthodoxy and orthopraxy are essentail to Christianity and how Spong has thrown that all out the window, and that in the name of Christ.

 

[cyberjosh]

In view of the above responses it would appear that picking and choosing is an acceptable practice. Interesting.

Picking and choosing what? You are accusing God of "picking and choosing" be cause what we keep and do away with under the new covenant in Jesus' blood is explicit.

Who are you trying to blame here? Blaming God puts you in a tough position.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Did I just see the name "Spong" on the screen? John Shelby Spong? Spong is a liberal Episcopalian idiot who doesn't even take the Scriptures literally! Why would you use him as a source, unless of course you had his same charcteristics and sentiments? Or maybe that was the point.

~Josh

 

[Steve]

Far too much time and effort are spent worrying about sexual relationships, as if it were THE only sin. It isn't. I really don't care what goes on in somebody else's bedroom.

 

[unred typo]

I doubt that many people care what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. It’s when they insist on parading it down Main Street and teaching it to our children that makes some of us get upset. There is a price to pay for such blatant displays and careless attitudes toward sin. If you don’t believe it, ask Lot or the guy dying of AIDS.

 

[handy]

Because Jesus Christ is without sin, and the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), how can those who practice or condone the abomination of sexual intimacy between a man with a man or a woman with a woman, be forgiven (born again) and conformed to the image of Jesus Christ to become heirs of the Kingdom of God (Revelation 21:7), unless they repent?

No one can be forgiven and and conformed to the image of Jesus Christ unless they repent. This doesn't just apply to homosexuals, but also to fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, thieves, the covetous, (an ouch for many Americans), drunkards, revilers, or swindlers. And, as Paul told the Corinthians, as such were some of you, but you were washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Now, I'm going to throw something out here for discussion, and please don't misunderstand me, because I'm not saying that someone can be in a committed and active same-sex relationship and not have a problem with God.

Having said that:

We know that there are many pastors who are divorced and remarried and many who are married to divorcees. While there are a few churches that would look at that as reason that a person should not serve as pastor, most in the American church today would not only say that there is no bar for a divorced/remarried person to be a pastor, but he would probably make a better pastor, because he understands the struggles families face in today's world. (A pov that I actually agree with.)

However, Jesus said that whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:9) And, adultery is one of those sins that are listed right along with homosexuality, making an adulterer no better nor no worse in the eyes of God than a homosexual, and both are able to be washed, sanctified and justified.

But, here's the problem: Even though a person can be embraced not only as a member, but even serve as a Pastor of a church doing something that Jesus Himself says is adultery, i.e. being divorced/remarried, someone who struggles with the sin of homosexuality, even when celibate, would never get the same position.

I'm not trying to make any kind of theological point here, nor am I judging anyone who is divorced and remarried. What I am trying to point out is the inconsistancy and even hypocrisy of many in the church who will revile a gay or lesbian (reviler was also one of those sins listed with homosexuality) all the while justifying the divorced/remarried as being ok.

So, how do we resolve this? By stating that the divorced/remarried person, while OK, maybe they did committ adultery are washed, sanctified and justified? Well, so is the homosexual according to 1 Corinthians 6:11. But, many will say that the homosexual can only be washed, sanctified and justified if they leave their partner and remain celibate. But, no one suggests that the divorced/remarried person needs to leave their spouse and remain celibate.

Again, I'm not promoting homosexuality, nor am I judging those who are divorced and remarried. I'm just saying that the church has will always have a dilemma on its hands as long as the one is embraced and the other is rejected, or at least held to a higher standard of behavior.

 

[Devekut]

Ted,
I wanted to clear somethings up for you. Just a few points.

1) A homosexual relationship is not love, it is a distortion of the image of God. Marriage reflects the glory of God. The man gives all of himself to the woman the woman receives th the man and gives herself back to the man. This Love is the only thing you can call Love(besides friendly love) it reflects the trinity , The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father and that love is so intense that it manifests itself as a thrid person the Holy Spirit. as husband and wife produce a child.

A homosexual relationship is not love.

Tell that to my roomate and his boyfriend. This is where the whole edifice of Christiany's response to homosexuality comes crashing down. It sounds quite coherent and consistent on paper. In reality what happens is you reduce the relationships of not an insignificant number of people to being "devoid of love" solely because that is the logical conclusion of your moral theology. You'll have to look for an out. You have to, somehow, speak loving homosexual relationships into oblivion because their presence is a living contradiction to your moral theology.

My roomate and his boyfriend happen to be a rather admirable example of any monogomous relationship. It is quite ignorant to say they do not actually love one another because of a theory of morality. Love is not a theory. It is more real between persons than on paper. Any statement about one person loving another has to begin with those persons.

To determine your sexual ethics from the Trinity is to begin on a confused premise. The Trinity is the archetype of love because it is a unity of persons who committ fully to one another. All models of human love must be drawn from this, not only sexual love. To limit the "life giving nature" of the Trinity to the biological sense as in marriage is to deter from the Trinitarian model in all other expressions of human relationships. All authentic loving relationships are life-giving, love being the summit and source of all human life.

I do not know if you have noticed, but we only refer to the Trinity in masculine phrasing. I find it perplexing that my fellow Christians will abhor the feminization of the Godhead (ie. calling God "She) and in the same breadth speak of the Trinity in terms of the functions father, mother and child when it suits them.

Physically speaking, the love of the Father and Son do not biologically create another person within the Trinity. You can not argue against homosexual relationships from metaphor, however poetic it might be. I can just as well argue that homosexual relationships are equally as spiritually life-giving as a heterosexual one.

 

[Heidi]

Leviticus also condemns the wearing of a fiber blend, the eating of shell fish and the eating of pork.. It also promotes stoning prostitutes and stoning disobedient children. This then raises the question as to what basis one would decide that wearing of a fiber blend etc. is alright. The same question holds true for the eating of shell fish, or the eating of pork. On what basis then does one not hold to stoning of prostitutes or disobedient children.

Looks like picking and choosing to me.

Shalom
Ted :D

The OT laws exist to tell us why we all deserve death because we all break God's laws. Christ's death took care of that for all who accept his atonement. But all who don't accept his atonement and try to justify any sin will die in their sins. So unless homosexuals acknowledge their actions as sin and accept Christ's atonement for them, they will pay for their sins in hell just like anyone else who rejects Christ's atonement. It's that simple.

 

[Devekut]

Heidi

The OT laws exist to tell us why we all deserve death because we all break God's laws. Christ's death took care of that for all who accept his atonement. But all who don't accept his atonement and try to justify any sin will die in their sins. So unless homosexuals acknowledge their actions as sin and accept Christ's atonement for them, they will pay for their sins in hell just like anyone else who rejects Christ's atonement. It's that simple.

Yes Heidi, I think we are all very aware of just how simple your world view is.

 

[Guest]

Heidi

The OT laws exist to tell us why we all deserve death because we all break God's laws. Christ's death took care of that for all who accept his atonement. But all who don't accept his atonement and try to justify any sin will die in their sins. So unless homosexuals acknowledge their actions as sin and accept Christ's atonement for them, they will pay for their sins in hell just like anyone else who rejects Christ's atonement. It's that simple.

Yes Heidi, I think we are all very aware of just how simple your world view is.

Why the personal attack?

Oddly enough, if we follow Scripture our world view should be simple. We (humans) get into complexicities when we try to allow for behaviours that God deems sinful.

 

[Devekut]

Why the personal attack?

Oddly enough, if we follow Scripture our world view should be simple. We (humans) get into complexicities when we try to allow for behaviours that God deems sinful.

I find it very sad that so many Christians so regularly reduce the actual lives of other people, in this case homosexuals, to their stark, simple and often intellectually and especially emotionally vacant theories of the human person.

When we talk about homosexual relationships we are talking about actual people in real relationships with real love, real emotions, real intimacy and real value to the people involved. I would like to see someone walk into your own personal relationships, whip out a piece of paper with a theory or even just a commandment on it, and decree that union of persons to be evil.

When we start talking about the morality of things like homosexuality, we are no longer talking about just theology. We are no longer debating abstracts, scripture, jurisdiction or authority. Though the debate will include all of those things. We are talking about human beings who, in many cases, have had enough trouble as it is.

God help us, it should not be simple.

 

[Guest]

Why the personal attack?

Oddly enough, if we follow Scripture our world view should be simple. We (humans) get into complexicities when we try to allow for behaviours that God deems sinful.

I find it very sad that so many Christians so regularly reduce the actual lives of other people, in this case homosexuals, to their stark, simple and often intellectually and especially emotionally vacant theories of the human person.

When we talk about homosexual relationships we are talking about actual people in real relationships with real love, real emotions, real intimacy and real value to the people involved. I would like to see someone walk into your own personal relationships, whip out a piece of paper with a theory or even just a commandment on it, and decree that union of persons to be evil.

When we start talking about the morality of things like homosexuality, we are no longer talking about just theology. We are no longer debating abstracts, scripture, jurisdiction or authority. Though the debate will include all of those things. We are talking about human beings who, in many cases, have had enough trouble as it is.

God help us, it should not be simple.

But it is somehow okay to criticize Heidi for her "simple worldview"?

Why call any sin sin then? The same can be true of the alcoholic, the drug dealer, the drug user, the liar, the cheater, the adultrer, the pedophile, the fornicator, the .... the list can go on....


When we talk about adulters we are talking about actual people in real relationships with real love, real emotions, real intimacy and real value to the people involved. I would like to see someone walk into your own personal relationships, whip out a piece of paper with a theory or even just a commandment on it, and decree that union of persons to be evil.

When we start talking about the morality of things like adultry, we are no longer talking about just theology. We are no longer debating abstracts, scripture, jurisdiction or authority. Though the debate will include all of those things. We are talking about human beings who, in many cases, have had enough trouble as it is.

God help us, it should not be simple

 

[Devekut]

Well thank you for demonstrating my point with clarity.

Why call any sin sin then? The same can be true of the alcoholic, the drug dealer, the drug user, the liar, the cheater, the adultrer, the pedophile, the fornicator, the .... the list can go on....

The fact that you compare homosexual relationships to these is, in my mind, a gross over-simplification of the issue. If you were not thinking so simplistically, you would see how this issue is different.

Alcoholism does not involve relationships between persons. It involves an objective and destructive dependency on a substance. The question of love, which is the source and summit of our life as typified in the Trinity, is not relevant to the issue of alchoholism or pedophilia where the child is too young to be making adult decisions about sexuality. It is not a question that we can raise in terms of the drug dealer who is so solely on the basis of his relationship with materials. The question of emotional, physical, spiritual intimiacy and value are simply not relevant to these things. For some reason you have this need to broadly paint everything with the same stroke.

Fornication and adultery are also objectively different in the sense that they involve dishonesty to one's spouse, a conscious violation of the promise between a couple, it can possibly involve only lust and has obvious consequence in terms of emotional pain for the people involved.

Two people committing adultery might be in love. But it is not that love that we are questioning when we condmen adultery. It is not the value of that relationship that we condem. If these two people were not breaking promises to their spouses and being deliberately deceitful then we would not be condemning the relationship. This is totally different for homosexuality where Christians condemn the entire nature of the relationship and not merely the manner or conditions under which it is expressed.

 

[Guest]

The nature of the relationship is sinful!

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

 

[Devekut]

Yes, I understand the position.

My point is that this statement is made as the logical conclusion of an on-paper moral theology. One would assume that, if the nature of the relationship was sinful, then homosexual relationships would be incapable of genuine love, spiritual growth and value.

What I am here to say is that many homosexuals persons are in relationship that are not experienceced as being sinful or disordered because those relationships are the source of what so many other Christians value as the fruits of healthy relationships.

There is a contradiction here in terms of what Christians say homosexual relationships are and what homosexual relationships are actually experienced to be.

On what basis can you tell a homosexual couple that their love is not actually present? Solely because that is what it says in Romans Chapter 1?

 

[Heidi]

Heidi

The OT laws exist to tell us why we all deserve death because we all break God's laws. Christ's death took care of that for all who accept his atonement. But all who don't accept his atonement and try to justify any sin will die in their sins. So unless homosexuals acknowledge their actions as sin and accept Christ's atonement for them, they will pay for their sins in hell just like anyone else who rejects Christ's atonement. It's that simple.

Yes Heidi, I think we are all very aware of just how simple your world view is.

Why the personal attack?

Oddly enough, if we follow Scripture our world view should be simple. We (humans) get into complexicities when we try to allow for behaviours that God deems sinful.

Amen.

 

[Heidi]

Well thank you for demonstrating my point with clarity.

Why call any sin sin then? The same can be true of the alcoholic, the drug dealer, the drug user, the liar, the cheater, the adultrer, the pedophile, the fornicator, the .... the list can go on....

The fact that you compare homosexual relationships to these is, in my mind, a gross over-simplification of the issue. If you were not thinking so simplistically, you would see how this issue is different.

Alcoholism does not involve relationships between persons. It involves an objective and destructive dependency on a substance. The question of love, which is the source and summit of our life as typified in the Trinity, is not relevant to the issue of alchoholism or pedophilia where the child is too young to be making adult decisions about sexuality. It is not a question that we can raise in terms of the drug dealer who is so solely on the basis of his relationship with materials. The question of emotional, physical, spiritual intimiacy and value are simply not relevant to these things. For some reason you have this need to broadly paint everything with the same stroke.

Fornication and adultery are also objectively different in the sense that they involve dishonesty to one's spouse, a conscious violation of the promise between a couple, it can possibly involve only lust and has obvious consequence in terms of emotional pain for the people involved.

Two people committing adultery might be in love. But it is not that love that we are questioning when we condmen adultery. It is not the value of that relationship that we condem. If these two people were not breaking promises to their spouses and being deliberately deceitful then we would not be condemning the relationship. This is totally different for homosexuality where Christians condemn the entire nature of the relationship and not merely the manner or conditions under which it is expressed.

The problem is that without God, people confuse lust with love. Lust has nothing to do with love because lust is self-serving. Lust gets people into all kinds of trouble in the name of "love." It causes adulterous relationships which breaks up families, it causes promiscuity which causes diseases and allows people to see others as sexual objects, it causes homosexuals to put children second hoping that children won't mind living with same sex parents, and many other ills. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with love.

Love is wanting what's best for another person apart from self-serving desires. So lust is not love.

 

[Devekut]

Again Heidi, this is your reduction of the homosexual relationship based on your theory of sexuality and not actual experience with homosexual couples.

Believe it or not, homosexuals know the difference between lust and love. Homosexual couples know when they are acting on love or lust. I would agree that the homosexual subculture, as well as the heterosexual mainstream culture, have a lust-based orientation. This is not the same as the couples that remain monogomous and live in a unitive sexual relationship based on physical, emotional, spiritual intimacy, self-giving and reciprocity.

Your "theory of people" dictates that you must see homosexual love as lust. You will probably continue to call it lust until you are blue in the face long after it is demonstrated that love is present between homosexual couples.

 

[Heidi]

Again Heidi, this is your reduction of the homosexual relationship based on your theory of sexuality and not actual experience with homosexual couples.

Believe it or not, homosexuals know the difference between lust and love. Homosexual couples know when they are acting on love or lust. I would agree that the homosexual subculture, as well as the heterosexual mainstream culture, have a lust-based orientation. This is not the same as the couples that remain monogomous and live in a unitive sexual relationship based on physical, emotional, spiritual intimacy, self-giving and reciprocity.

Your "theory of people" dictates that you must see homosexual love as lust. You will probably continue to call it lust until you are blue in the face long after it is demonstrated that love is present between homosexual couples.

Sorry, but it doesn't come from me, it comes from God's word. ;-) And if homosexuals aren't acting on lust, then why not live together in a non-sexual relationship like room mates do? Why not marry a person of the opposite sex and have children with him/her? :o The answer is simple; lust. Their sexual appetites are their highest priority and they don't care what God or anyone else thinks about it as long as they can act on their lust. There can hardly be anything more selfish than that. :roll: